They are anarco communist. They are as much an enemy of ML and tanky as you are. And liberalism can mean a lot of things. Most of which aren't what you claim. What you're referring to would be socially liberal. Which would be better described as progressivism. And is strictly a terminology that only makes barely any sense in the context of US politics. The rest of the world uses liberal very differently.

For starters you oppose Liberalism, which is the belief in protected guaranteed individual rights and freedoms.

Absolutely and I will never ever apologize or back down from that. Freedom is taken, freedom is asserted, and it can never be given by gods or States. I support the consequences of effective human rights activism within liberal democracies, e.g. bodily autonomy, tolerance, civil liberties, but I reject the framework of God-given natural rights as liberal horseshit.

For second, you oppose democracy, which is rule by the people.

I did not say that I oppose democracy, I said that we might be able to do better than democracy. I oppose "liberal democracy", which is absolutely not rule by the people, it's not democracy in any form. (It's a "cake versus urinal cake" type of situation.) And again, "rule by the people" is not necessarily "all power to all the people" like anarchism advocates for. I.e., I do not believe that "democratically" reinstituting slavery by absolute majority would be liberatory.

Thirdly, you claim only Democracies have ever had "imperial" tendencies.

I didn't say that. I've never said that. I said that almost every imperialist nation is a liberal democracy, but by using the qualifier "almost", I implied there (were and) are imperial nations that weren't liberal democracies. E.g. (Rome, Imperial Japan), China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. (The latter three are better characterized as sub-imperial powers. This does not constitute a defense of these nations (or any other nation ever); it serves to precisely classify their current imperial abilities, not to discount their imperialist ambitions.)

The way you use these words is generally how Tankies speak

Social anarchists and state socialists (including "tankies" and campists) share a common language and history, namely socialism, and I will never ever ever apologize for using socialist and communist language or give the capitalists even the tiniest shred of compromise about how we speak about them. However, social anarchists and state socialists also have fundamental points of disagreement, namely the role of the State in the transition to communism, and the scope of the authorities and hierarchies we seek to abolish. I have made my personal points of agreement and disagreement with state socialists abundantly clear. Namely, it is along these lines of authority and autocracy where I openly disagree with the state socialists. But it is along these lines that I also disagree with the liberals, including social democrats and conservatives, for their systems are just as authoritarian and autocratic as the capitalists insist are unique to "communist" projects.

And I would like to remind you that anarchists and state socialists, Marxist-Leninists in particular, have literally fought and killed each other over this. But right now, if I get sent to the camps, the state socialists are gonna be right there with me for exactly the same reason, because the capitalists are our shared enemy in this historical moment. Whereas liberals like you are gonna cheer it on because you hate when anarchists actually assert their principles, i.e. anarchists magically become "tankies" in the eyes of liberals, despite how many times we've literally fought them historically.

In conclusion: anarchists will persist in our anarchism despite statists' protestations, whether they be liberal statists or socialist statists, and you will simply need to learn to differentiate between liberals, state socialists, and anarchists.