r/IntelligenceNews • u/Active-Analysis17 • 13d ago
Should groups like 764 be considered terrorist organizations?
I recently contributed to a CTV News investigation into a violent online group called 764. They are not officially listed as a terrorist entity, yet their actions show how serious harm to Canada and Canadians can happen without any formal designation.
764 operates across platforms like Discord and Telegram, targeting vulnerable youth and coercing them into acts of violence or self-harm. These incidents are then shared online to amplify their influence and intimidation.
This is part of what I see as the changing face of internet terrorism. There are no uniforms, borders, or training camps—just digital networks reaching directly into Canadian homes. It’s a form of radicalization and psychological manipulation that doesn’t look like traditional terrorism, but can be just as dangerous.
Questions for discussion:
Do you consider groups like 764 to be terrorist organizations? Why or why not?
Should they be designated and treated the same way as traditional terrorist groups?
Is this the next evolution of online terrorism, and are we prepared to address it?
Full CTV News story: https://www.ctvnews.ca/calgary/article/written-on-the-wall-with-blood-alberta-teen-targeted-by-violent-online-group-764/
2
u/ArmanJimmyJab 13d ago
Very interesting question. I’m glad these groups like 764 and O9A are getting more attention, as it’s hard to comprehend the damage these extremist groups do to their victims, especially young people. They are clearly an extremist group (and various agencies at the federal level have identified them as such), but to ask if they should be listed as a terrorist entity is complex because of their non-traditional nature of their extremist activities.
In my opinion, if the goal is to add on more significant sentences for prosecuting individuals, targeting finances that support networks, and expanding the tools that intelligence and law enforcement has to target these cells, then it makes sense to list them as an entity. However, there is another side of that coin, where listing these groups as terrorist entities can boost their notoriety and could increase its influence in online circles - potentially helping more groups of this kind to come up.
Very thought provoking question.
1
2
u/jebushu 13d ago
Not Canadian but the US is also having issues with these groups. I think you’ve got a good point that this doesn’t necessarily evoke the traditional view of terrorism, largely because most definitions require some political or cultural ideological motive. There is a specific collective mission of groups we usually refer to as terrorists.
I don’t know enough about 764 and similar groups to know whether they have a collective goal to achieve some societal change beyond clout for the user and the personal status increase from victimizing people. Does that qualify as a “social goal” under common terrorism definitions? I think we’re going to have to see some court cases play out to find out.
The questions you posed at the end I think are the important bits: do we need to consider a more flexible definition of terrorism, or is there another term or phrase that better describes these groups. Nihilistic Violent Extremist is one I’ve seen tossed around, which usually lumps these groups as domestic terrorists.
1
1
u/GREATAWAKENINGM 10d ago
I mean, terrorism is a very fluid term and highly depends on your country's definition of terrorism and how much your govt cares about it. Should more resources be pulled to tackle this? Absolutely. Doesn't it class as being terrorism? Idk...
1
u/Active-Analysis17 9d ago
Thanks for the comments. And I agree it's difficult to categorize this type of threat. But terrorists don't just use bombs and guns to inflict damage. And where do we stop, do online predators now become terrorists or are they criminals, if they organize and start recruiting, does this change the narrative? Does any organization that has an online presence and uses the internet to recruit, cause individuals to conduct self harm and terrorize others, deserve the moniker of "terrorist group?" it may simply depend on how big the group grows and unfortunately how many victims pile up.
1
u/GREATAWAKENINGM 7d ago
"But terrorists don't just use bombs and guns to inflict damage"- That depends on the group and again, the definition.
"And where do we stop, do online predators now become terrorists or are they criminals"- Depends on the definition and what you define as being a predator. You are being very vague with your questions which doesn't really make it easy to answer your question.
"if they organize and start recruiting, does this change the narrative"- Cults do this. Doesn't always equate to 'terrorism'. In fact, most of the time it doesn't.
You know, it would be easier to answer this if you define your desired context. If legally, then let me know the country and I'm sure I can answer it. If you have a different definition, then please share. The word terrorism is quite an annoying word because many associate it with terrorising. In which case, any criminal that 'terrorised' a victim would be a terrorist, which happens all the time and they aren't labelled as this. But then murderers and rapists aren't legally defined as such. Which is why I feel that the word terrorism is dumb!
You even get "lone" acts of terror (hinting to terrorism, not the act of causing someone to feel terror).
Typically, terrorism is defined legally by the actions or the identification/involvement with a group with a specific anti-governing stance of a state, not the number of victims. But victim counts could change the priority in dealing with an issue. Say for example, an insurrection. Many times, and through the changing of definitions and framing, this may (and likely) be considered terrorism. That's why you'll rarely hear the word rebellion anymore. Because it gives the impression of legitimacy. (soz... I get very interested in this)
If I could ask these questions to better answer your question,
What is the definition of terrorism you are seeking? (national legal definition, worldwide dictionary...).
How does this relate to intelligence? (which the first question will probably answer this one).
What is your perspective on this? (You ask a very broad and leading questions about a specific group, which shows me you want us to agree to treat this as terrorism so that it is treated more seriously like a threat to national security which it could well be for all we know).
2
u/Active-Analysis17 1d ago
Thanks for the insightful comments. The reason I am asking questions in vague manner to start a discussion. I am very aware that chat formats like Reddit, aren't limited to just one geographical area. Thus, by keeping the questions vague, it invites more readers to participate in the conversation.
The definition of terrorism in Finland is going to be different from the definition in Canada. Additionally, the way law enforcement and intelligence organizations deal with the issue will also be different.
By keeping the questions vague, it allows others to participate in the conversation from different perspectives, allowing everyone to benefit from the knowledge and experiences of others on the chat.
1
1
u/GREATAWAKENINGM 7d ago
Let's put it this way. Under Canadian law, I don't see this as being terrorism at first glance. It could evolve to that. But seems more like a sick grooming gang just trying to entice impressionable youth to carry out their perversions. Not to topple the Canadian govt or enforce an ideology so to speak. But, it could evolve to that. I do think groups like this should be prioritised dismantled and sorted out in a similar manner to terrorism, but more because it's messed up and not because they are legally defined as terrorists. But because they are something far more vile in the world!
1
u/Active-Analysis17 1d ago
I hear what you're saying and agree with it. But if a lone actor tries to entice young people into joining a terrorist or criminal organization does this change the definition. A man runs over a family in London, he says he did it because he holds right wing, white supremest attitudes, he is charged with terrorism. Some would argue, "it's not terrorism it's a hate crime." Now take this same scenario and apply it to what a person who affiliates themself with 764 does to encourage others to participate in violent acts against themselves or others. A similar argument is made.
1
u/GREATAWAKENINGM 1d ago
Most white supremacy organisations would probs fall under terrorism I would presume in the UK given the definition and the implication of this in the UK's terrorism act: "the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public". I'm not very well versed in legal matters, so I'm not particularly sure. But, it could fall under that. Idk if the UK's NCA (National Crime Agency) would be more involved in this or the UK intelligence services. Given their objective isn't against the UK state itself, it can certainly be well argued that it isn't. And if it is, it probs wouldn't be on their list of priorities but who knows. UK cyber side of intel I think does stuff on cyber crime, but I'm not really sure. If you want to find out, you could check their website.
1
u/JournalistAdjacent 10d ago
They're transnational criminal organization no doubt but not terrorists for the simple reason that, as you point out, there's no real political goal. The 'accelerationism' talk is the closest, but its too nebulous for authorities to really create a framework for investigation off of. The larger worry in online terror is actors inspiring/recruiting other actors to launch attacks against third parties-whether the attacks be physical violence or cyber exploitation. This group seems to act more like a cult where they "recruit" individuals who themselves are further corrupted and finding new members is only incidental to the practicing of their 'religion.'
1
u/SandyPine 8d ago
764 is definitely an extremist organization, perhaps not intending to spread fear. labelling as a terrorist entity only allows for some criminal charges and investigative techniques like suspending financing, which I don't think is relevant for 764. this will be just one more thing the overtasked Federal Policing units will need to deal with
1
u/Active-Analysis17 8d ago
This is also the criminality for even being a member of the group or sharing / disseminating information from them.
1
4
u/B0r3dGamer 13d ago
The question is not whether they should be. The question is does the Canadian Intelligence apparatus care.