Talk:Terrorism/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 17

Merge Terrorist with freedom fighter?

Terrorism is the explicit act of trying to hurt or endanger someone with the purpose of fear and discord. MLK, Gandi, and Mandela, did not try to influence their advocates to intentionally hurt someone or try to hurt innocent civilians. They are freedom fighters, because they wanted equal rights for their people. Terrorism is as such: Osama Bin Laden, Cho Seung-Hui, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris,and Mario Buda are terrorists. There is a distinct difference.--Draconius14 (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

One thing that should perhaps be considered in the proposed merging of the Articles "Terrorist" and "freedom fighter" is that it could be construed as an inaccurate use of terms. As mentioned in the article "freedom fighter" many people who protest through peaceful means consider themselves to be freedom fighters in the literal sense of the word, and do not, in my personal opinion, attempt to change political matters through the causing of fear (For example, wouldn't Martin Luther King, Ghandi and Mandela be terorists in that case?) If terrorism is viewed as the causing of fear through violence, as the article on this wiki states, then this website would not be acting as an encyclopedia if these two articles were merged, because the information presented would not be accurate. This is also backed up by the following staement copied from the wikipedia terrorism article "(the) only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence" (Walter Laquer,1999). Darthvader1990 12:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree that "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" have enough non-overlapping usage on both ends to be treated by separate articles. Especially since this article is already so long. I'll remove the merge tag. -- Beland 00:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly enough Ghandi, Mandela, and MLK were not completely clear of terrorism. MLK came the closest. Although they themselves didn't engage in or advocate violence, they were effective because they made sure their opponents knew that they were what restrained violent terrorism. In fact several times Ghandi briefly allowed the released of the lower castes displeasure to prove his power. (Touch me at your own risk.) Mandela openly threatened the same. All of these guys are to be praised for harnessing and restraining the terrorist element while making their opponents see the reasonableness of a solution -- then most importantly seeing that the terrorist elements also saw the reasonableness of the solution. There have been others who tried this trick and simply lost control of the terrorist element or who didn't successfully present a reasonable solution to both sides (hmmm...lots of Palestinian leaders for instance).

Hmmm...anyone know someone who might be able to work with the US conservatives and Al-Quaeda? 69.23.124.142 (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

COMMENT: Please see above. Freedom Fighter has to do with a group's GOALS. Terrorism is a METHOD. It is completely irrational to combine terrorism and freedom fighter. A freedom fighter might fight for freedom in a wide variety of ways: publicity, public relations, propaganda, agitation among the population, massive strikes, direct attacks on the enemy government or military, sabotage of the government or military , theft of resources from the enemy government , denying resources to the enemy government, disrupting communications of the enemy government, perhaps even forgery, misinformation, espioage, or the like.

NONE OF THAT IS TERRORISM, because it does not involve intentionally targeting civilian victims.

One can easily be a freedom fighter without being a terrorist.

A group that attacks only military or government targets CAN NEVER BE a terrorist.

But you won't win unless your enemy government is also in the same bush league. Terrorism attempts to mobilize an apathetic populace usually by making the status quo seem unsafe or responsible for the problem or to aggrievate your enemy into making mistakes like holding the population responsible for not reporting terrorists next door ("hey that is a government problem not mine"). Its an excellent strategy for political groups without much starting money or numbers. Sort of like stampeding livestock to do the work for you. Not very ethical but it gets the job done until another terrorist group comes along (like in Kenya). 69.23.124.142 (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

A terrorist and a freedom fighter are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT things. A freedom fighter would be someone like the French resistance, a terrorist is someone like Al-Queida, Hezbollah, or Hamas. Just thought I'd clue you in on that.WacoJacko 04:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Very funny the French Resistance was terrorist even by your definition. Their primary targets were French civilians -- anyone they considered collaborators (i.e. did business with Nazis without gun visibly at their head). Resistance to Nazi was some info to allies but mainly passive resistance and minor non-violent sabotage (e.g. spoiling food, pissing in gas tanks, etc). The allies actually had to start shooting some of them to restore order as they passed through. The movie glorified shots of bombing Nazi trains or ammo dumps were very rare and happened mainly right as the allies approached and very early after invasion before they learned the Nazi response of shooting scores. Of course the Nazi's seldom responded to the death of collaborators so....69.23.124.142 (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This is your point of view, of course. The only thing I can see which distinguishes these two groups is exactly what has been used as justification to keep the articles separate - whether they attack military or civilian targets. We walk a dangerous tightrope above a pit of subjectivity: to the French resistance, they were faced with an absolute evil and could stop at nothing to kill as many of the enemy as possible. Likewise, the invading Nazi force also sought to destroy the enemy they thought evil. Al Qaeda supporters also feel wronged and so strive to achieve vengeance by killing their enemies. This is what the U.S. administration has been doing ever since it declared the so-called "War on Terror". No one is angelic. This is all my opinion. In a sense I vote we try and keep this as neutral as possible. --Growly 01:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The root of the word is terror. War always inflicts terror on civilian populations, therefore, all war is terrorist activity. If wars could be carried out in a 'safe zone' where only willing combatants participated, like a boxing ring, then wars would not be terrorism. The U.S. has carried out many wars of terror; the genocide of the native amricans, the civil war, Vietnam with its 'colateral damage,' the list goes on and on. Russia, China, Israel...and on and on. It seems as though the more powerful a nation becomes, the more terrorism it employs in its pursuit of its politic gains against other nations.

War may indeed terrorise civilian populations, but if that's not a deliberate aim of the fighting then it's not terrorism. In response to Growly's point, "destroying the enemy you think is evil" is terrorism if that "enemy" is doing nothing to attack you (physically). For example, if Al Qaeda blow me up right now then they will have killed me in an act of terrorism (unless they were aiming for an American bomber coming towards them but missed). If I pick up a gun and start running towards them with it firing and they shoot me then I have not died in a terrorist attack. You don't achieve vengeance by killing someone who has done you no harm. -90.27.185.170 21:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

From air-dropped pamphlets and radio propaganda to "shock and awe," terrorizing civilian populations (both domestic and foreign!) in one way or another is a universal tactic of modern warfare (including "cold war"). Get them by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow! —Jemmy_tc 14:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

One point on that last comment, if it were WW2 again and you were able to contribute to the war effort by killing Nazis rich from their crimes against the Jews, most would consider that to be necessary and fair. Now put yourself in the shoes of the Al Qaeda who believe every American is living rich off crimes against their country and you can see that innocence is not always clearly defined. One cannot vote for a government which acts in a particular way to benefit you, then separate yourself morally from that government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.36.179.66 (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Osama bin Ladin has said that the democratic nature of the USA government makes its citizens responsible for its policies. Then he goes and references Chomsky! (I.e., author of Manufacturing Consent.) The fact of the matter is that US citizens know as much about their government's foreign policy as the mass media tells them. Osama makes a fool of himself by addressing demands to US citizens—is he so delusional to think the US media will let him be heard? My guess is that most USA citizens would be happy to sacrifice Israel and Iraq, but they have been told that terrorists are concerned with USA's domestic, not foreign, policy. What does the fact that they actually believe this say about their capacity for responsibility? A chimpanzee could be trained to pull a lever marked "George W. Bush" and it would be as responsible. —Jemmy_tc 14:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Osama does not care about the rich American life style although he makes occasional propaganda use of the economic disparity, more often between ruling Saudis and the common citizen. What he wants is strict religious government. That is why he is willing to live in caves for 20-25 years.

Osama is successfully trying to destroy the American will to interfere with his future real Jihad to bring the Taliban to all Islamic nations. If he had merely been pissed at American moral corruption he would have attacked Hollywood porn producers and gotten the support of the religious conservatives like President Bush plus avoided an actual war in Afghanistan. He could have killed any number of oil executives too without official US military response (but he would have seen a hoard of oil financed mercenaries).

But from the deluded chimp argument you got me favoring Osama, kill the darn chimp if he is voting. Only moderately intelligent people should be allowed to reproduce -- no matter how happy PETA would be at 30 IQ humans.69.23.124.142 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You are all talking about how Osama hates rich people and makes propaganda out of economic disparity. Don't you people know that he is a billionaire? Talk about economic disparity.Draconius14 (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if participants would not include factually controversial items in order to prove their theoretical point. Including Hamas, Hizbollah or Al Qaeda as "terrorist organisations" is not helpful. Both Hamas and Hizbollah are mass movements which, in addition to engaging in acts many view as "terrorist", are mainly political organisations which also run social and humanitarian institutions. It is more helpful to focus on the nature of "terrorist acts" than on labelling an organisation as "terrorist". As for Al Qaeda, the dubious nature of this organisation, which is considered by eminent scholars as linked to Western intelligence agencies or even as a covert arm of such agencies, should prompt caution in including it in this discussion. Let us, therefore, concentrate on defining what "terrorism" is. It might even be helpful to distinguish between a "popular held" view of what terrorism is, and a "legal" definition of terrorism. The "popularly held" belief does not, for example, identify state policies, regardless of their lethal nature and criminal intent, as terrorist, while a textbook or statutory definition of terrorism might extend to such measures. We may therefore have to identify a number of definitional approaches to terrorism: A popular one, a sociological one and a legal one. --157.157.37.178 (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not useful to hold abstract discussions without examples as understanding may then be false. Your point may better be that terrorists are seldom all bad. Al-Quaeda was popular in Afghanistan because they did render aid to civilians when they could. Some of that was probably neighborly Islam and some was probably calculated propaganda just like US military charitable acts. Any terrorist organization has the potential and objective of becoming a political organization given that they can become a popular mass movement. Also the more successful a terrorist organization is in growing, the less pure terrorist acts they commit and the more open warfare as the military disparity shrinks. Plus as mass movement terrorist organization actually develop enough internal politics that compromise becomes a more familiar and acceptable action. So I guess your ultimate point would be that terrorist organizations and people can mature by stages until when they own the desired region they are no longer terrorists and should not be called such. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"Please see above. Freedom Fighter has to do with a group's GOALS. Terrorism is a METHOD. It is completely irrational to combine terrorism and freedom fighter." 69.23.124.142 (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you are confusing the two clear analytical distinctions that exist in the literature when discussing terrorism. Terrorism has two meanings, one tactical, the other ideological. You have highlighted well the disparity between comparing tactical terroristic activity with the justice (or perceived justness) of a so called freedom fighers' goal. However due to the ethical regulations invoked by Liberation Humanists such as Jean Paul Satres and Osama Bin Laden, terrorism's means, and the intended goals of liberation fought for by freedom fighers, are alligned philosophically. When claims of moral authority are made by the oppresed opposed to their oppresors, as in 1960's Algeria and modern day Afghanistan, terrorism manifests itself in its ideological form, as the desired ends (of freedom) are reconciled with the means of terrorism. Simply pit, it is in fact utterly rational to combine terrorism in its ideological form with freedom fighter's as agents of a liberation cause. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.73.126.229 (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Defining terrorism should be our first task

I believe that all contributors agree to morally reject terrorism. I also think that most contributors consider terrorism (however defined) as a crime, rather than a legitimate method of struggle.

In order to advance our work, I propose that we should all first focus on defining what terrorism means or even whether terrorism is at all a specific phenomenon. A view exists that terrorism is not at all a specific phenomenom, but is a compound phenomenon in which various immoral and/or criminal acts are (arbitrarily) linked to a subjective component (the political intent of the authors). This view may be then considered as one of the legitimate opinions on terrorism that can be acknowledged.

I propose as a start that we should attempt to identify what are the distinguishing characteristics of "terrorism" as distinct from other forms of violence or threats of violence. I invite you to provide a concise (one phrase) answer to each of the following questions:

1. What distinguishes terrorism killings from ordinary killings?

2. What distinguishes terrorism killings from carpet bombings?

3. Would the assassination of a civilian dictator constitute an act of terrorism? Please explain.

4. Are killings of civilians who installed themselves in an occupied territory and are defended by the occupying forces, legitimate or do they constitute terrorism?

5. Does an act of terrorism require that the authors intended to create widespread fear or intimidation?

6. Does an act of terrorism require that the authors had a political or ideological goal?

157.157.37.178 (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

---

1. What distinguishes terrorism killings from ordinary killings? As I read the definition, the sole difference is in the motive: terrorism killings are distinguished from other killings in that they are motivated by idelogical or political goals.

3. Would the assassination of a civilian dictator constitute an act of terrorism? Please explain. Yes, it would if the dictator is being removed for ideological reasons. In fact, any killing waged for political or ideological reasons (stated or otherwise) is, by definition, terrorism.

4. Are killings of civilians who installed themselves in an occupied territory and are defended by the occupying forces, legitimate or do they constitute terrorism? If the motive for the killing is to defend interests againts occupiers and not an ideological or political goal, then it is not terrorism. However, religious reasons would make it terrorism.

5. Does an act of terrorism require that the authors intended to create widespread fear or intimidation? Not necessarily. Strategic assasinations of lesser known agents may not (or be intended to) lead to widespread intimidation but can still constitute terrorism.

6. Does an act of terrorism require that the authors have a political or ideological goal? By definition, yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.61.47.185 (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

---

1. What distinguishes terrorism killings from ordinary killings? Terrorism *intentionally targets innocents* and tries to maximize human suffering and trauma. It is indiscriminate in nature.

2. What distinguishes terrorism killings from carpet bombings? Carpet bombing is a method. Terrorism is a strategy and a tactic. Terrorism employs many methods in its attacks. Terrorism is illegitimate in nature. It is employed to maximize human suffering and trauma for the purposes of ideology. While a terrorist may employ carpet bombing as a method, not all acts of carpet bombing are acts of terrorism.

3. Would the assassination of a civilian dictator constitute an act of terrorism? Please explain. No. Terrorism intentionally targets innocent bystanders and is not targeted toward a specific person. Whereas an assassination is targeted toward a specific person.

4. Are killings of civilians who installed themselves in an occupied territory and are defended by the occupying forces, legitimate or do they constitute terrorism? When civilians are *intentionally* targeted, this clearly constitutes terrorism.

5. Does an act of terrorism require that the authors intended to create widespread fear or intimidation? Yes. Terrorism is used to instill fear and intimidation. Without the goal of fear and intimidation, the act is merely a random act of violence. (for example, violence committed by a person with a mental illness)

6. Does an act of terrorism require that the authors have a political or ideological goal? Yes

---

1. What distinguishes terrorism killings from ordinary killings? We should be looking towards the actual definition of the word. It is not enough to say 'they (terrorists) are motivated by idelogical or political goals' - in which case it could be argued that the War in Iraq is an act of terror as it meets the criteria of ideological and political. A dictionary definition I have is ‘uses or favours violent and intimidating methods of coercing a government or community.’ There is no mention of targeting civilians. Furthermore since modern warfare targets civilians (by the very nature of the weapons used) any war could be construed as an act of terror. We cannot pick and choose examples because we , in many parts of the globe western intervention is seen as terrorism, whilst what others may call freedom fighting is construed as acts of terror. Wikipedia should not be used to take up an ideological viewpoint (i.e. ‘that’s terror but I don’t think that is’) but rather present all sides - there is no right or wrong. If there are certifiable references to an act as terrorism (newspapers etc) then it should be included.

2. What distinguishes terrorism killings from carpet bombings? By the definition above (1) there is no difference if the basis for the action is used to ‘coerce a government or community‘. We cannot pick and choose. An act of terror is an act of terror regardless of who is responsible and regardless of the resources available to them.

3. Would the assassination of a civilian dictator constitute an act of terrorism? Yes but only if it was to achieve a ideological or political purpose and created fear and intimidation. If for example Al Qaeda could assassinate a civilian dictator then it would widely be called an act of terror.

4. Are killings of civilians who installed themselves in an occupied territory and are defended by the occupying forces, legitimate or do they constitute terrorism? This depends on the act itself. Defending themselves is not an act of terror, however the act to obtain the land could be an act of terror. To this end actions for the creation of the state of Israel and the current Palestinian situation which you seem to refer to would both be construed as acts of terror (and by this I mean acts of terror on both sides).

5. Does an act of terrorism require that the authors intended to create widespread fear or intimidation? Yes.

6. Does an act of terrorism require that the authors have a political or ideological goal? Yes, otherwise it becomes an act of violence or massacre (Dunblane, Columbine etc).

The simple answer to all the above is we cannot exclude state action - the definition does not have an addendum ‘unless committed by the following…’. There is no ideological standpoint - we must point out the facts and that the definition itself is so broad that actions of individuals, groups and states throughout the world and history could be considered terrorism. What is being said here would contradict what has been written already on the History of terrorism. Therefore the rationale must be applied to all instances - even if you don’t agree. --86.24.116.244 (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

---

It is not up to Wikiedia editors to define terrorism, it is up to us to describe how reliable sources define terrorism. --PBS (talk) 11:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think one reason why Western democracies have such trouble fighting and preventing terrorism is that they've got the definition wrong. The standard sense of "terrorism" is along the lines of "the deliberate murder, maiming, and menacing of the innocent to create fear for political purposes". I have major problems with this definition. Who is innocent? What is a "political purpose"? What is a deliberate purpose? These questions are difficult to answer. This definition is better: terrorism is "violence against individual rights" in which a right is a power to act in the future which others acknowledge, and violence attacks that power. It's much simpler and is the basis for a prevention strategy. See my book "Common Sense II: How to Prevent the Three Types of Terrorism" (Booksurge publishing; Amazon). I think the failure of authorities to get the definition right plays a major role in lackluster prevention strategies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomwsulcer (talk • contribs) 00:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

---

(imho) This discussion is struggling to define something that can says 911 was terrorism and the killing of Iraqis is not. Why? The word "Terrorism" is used to justify violence that in itself could be called "terrorism". Stop chasing your tail. Stop at "Terrorism is a policy that causes terror" and let the chips fall as they may.

1. What distinguishes terrorism killings from ordinary killings? Nothing, unless there is no terror in "ordinary killings"

2. What distinguishes terrorism killings from carpet bombings? Nothing. I expect bombing, and the fear of unexploded bombs, both cause terror.

3. Would the assassination of a civilian dictator constitute an act of terrorism? Please explain. Did it cause fear or terror? If so then it is terrorism.

4. Are killings of civilians who installed themselves in an occupied territory and are defended by the occupying forces, legitimate or do they constitute terrorism? Yes they constitute terrorism, as I'm sure any killing will cause terror. Are acts of terrorism and "legitimate" mutually exclusive? Thinking that they are mutually exclusive is probably why you are having a hard time finding a definition for terrorism.

5. Does an act of terrorism require that the authors intended to create widespread fear or intimidation? No. If it causes fear it is terrorism regardless of intention or the number of people involved. Otherwise, How many victims, witnesses, and family members does it take to be "widespread"? What happens if the authors in intended 5 and got 70? or 3? How does one determine intentions?

6. Does an act of terrorism require that the authors have a political or ideological goal?If and action cause terror it is terrorism.

This whole discussion is foolish. You are trying to use the word "terrorism" to justify our violence and condemn theirs. It is a bad fit. Can we distinguish terrorism from our actions? No we can't. Why should we? "Terrorism" is only a word to vilify the enemy nothing more.

Also lets drop modifiers like "intended" as in "a policy intended to intimidate or cause terror." and in "intended to create fear (terror)". This modifier can be used to justify ones own point of view. Those that drop bombs can now say, we did not intend to kill civilians therefore we are not terrorists. I wonder if the civilians that survived are any less terrorized. If so, could Osama say he didn't intend on destroying Building 7 or killing so many 911 rescue workers? An act can cause terror regardless of its intention.

Lets also add the modern definitions as used by western msm, "Terrorism: an act carried out by the enemy" and "Terrorist: the enemy". Today, whether or not an act is terrorism only depends on which side of the gun you are on (and hence the struggle for a definition that justifies U.S.'s pov). Wiki should shed light on this hypocrisy, and in no way contribute to it.

"Terrorism: an act carried out by the enemy" and "Terrorist: the enemy". 1. What distinguishes terrorism killings from ordinary killings? If an enemy of our government kills, it is terrorism. If our government kills, it is not.

2. What distinguishes terrorism killings from carpet bombings? We dropped the bombs.

3. Would the assassination of a civilian dictator constitute an act of terrorism? Please explain. If he/she is an obstacle to our government's interests or the interests of corporations than it is an act of democracy and the spreading of freedom, otherwise it is terrorism.

4. Are killings of civilians who installed themselves in an occupied territory and are defended by the occupying forces, legitimate or do they constitute terrorism? If the US is "occupying" then it is not an occupation it is freedom spreading and therefore not legitimate otherwise see Movie:Red Dawn.

5. Does an act of terrorism require that the authors intended to create widespread fear or intimidation? No. Anyway to label an enemy action as act of terrorism will do, e.g. if an enemy were to bring down the internet, this would be a terrorist act even though terror is minimal.

6. Does an act of terrorism require that the authors have a political or ideological goal? It helps, but any idea that motivated action against us is fine. For instance, if you don't like the way we are spreading freedom in your country or you don't like the privatizing your resources then you are an insurgent terrorist or a member of "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" —Preceding unsigned comment added by BonoboSpiderMonkey (talk • contribs) 17:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The lead January 2008

The first sentence currently says:

Terrorism, in the modern sense,[2] is violence, the threat of violence, or other harmful acts committed for political or ideological goals.

How does this differ from war which "is [also] violence, the threat of violence, or other harmful acts committed for political or ideological goals."? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right Philip. We should add "out of the context of war". Specially if it must be a "modern definition".--Igor21 (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is answering so I understand everybody agree. Can I add my phrase to the definition?--Igor21 (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Any definition should be sourced. Personally I think we should go back to:

Few words are as politically or emotionally charged as terrorism. One 1988 study by the US Army found that over 100 definitions of the word "terrorism" have been used. Acts of terrorism are not intended to merely victimize or eliminate those who are killed, injured or taken hostage but rather to intimidate and influence the societies to which they belong.^{[citation needed]}

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The article defines terrorism as always involving violence, but what about degrading infrastructure to cause dysentery? What about a Sarin gas attack (assuming death by Sarin gas is a relatively peaceful event)? Isn't it the killing, most especially of innocents, whether or not it's violent killing? Is an attack by a nerve gas which causes non-painful death ineligible to be defined as terrorism because it's not violent? 207.250.161.101 (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Paul Kilduff

Would mentioning that terrorism is carried out by non-state actors solve the problem? As a state being directly involved would be state terrorism (which i presume would be a diffrent topic). Would this give us enough leeway for a def? Johnny32 (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Fear

Fear is not necessarily the goal of terrorism nor does fear have to necessarily be created to achieve terrorist objectives. I propose "by creating fear" be removed from the first line or reworded to account for this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.238.82 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 13 February 2008

References

Click on show to view the contents of this section

Map

What exatly does the map on this page show? Does it show terror attacks since 2001, until 2001 or during 2001?

It is also slightly misleading as Western Europe (which has had a much longer history involving terrorism e.g. ETA, IRA, RAF) has a lower rating/casulty/attack than the United States, which is on a par with the Congo, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Could anyone shed any light on this? Johnny32 (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note there was a terror incident in Uzbekistan in 1999, please amend the map. --Abk81 (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

In film list

Terrorism has a list of films on the List of disaster films, however, I think the list would be more suitable here. - LA @ 03:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Retracted - LA @ 18:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

Imp of the Perverse is continually removing sourced material and reverting to an unsourced POV definition of terrorism. I suggest this edit be discussed here before a revert war begins. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 01:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

His changes are drastic and definitely need to be discussed here first. Dance With The Devil (talk) 05:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The "sourced material" referred to advances a definition of "terrorism" which is only one among very many, but which is here in the article accorded a uniquely privileged position. I have been attempting to modify this article in a way which would bring it closer to a neutral point of view. As the article stands at the moment it is doubly objectionable in that it advances a definition of "terrorism" - and a very obviously contentious one - but does so in the material mode, as if it were a factual description of a clearly (and non-controversially) identified phenomenon. "Terrorism, in the modern sense, is violence against civilians to achieve political or ideological objectives by creating fear." The words "in the modern sense" however imply that what is being talked about is the sense of a word. If this is so why is the word "terrorism" not in quotes, as it should be to indicate that what we are talking about here is the use of the word? Imp of the Perverse (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I really understand your objection to the Canadian definition. It's not fundamentally different from the longer definition in the next paragraph, but it is a handy single-sentence definition. If you're concerned about the contentious and pejorative use of the term, that is addressed in a later section. Your rewrite of the second paragraph is great, but I don't see what is accomplished by removing the short (and generally-accepted) definition. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 23:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Out of context

The phrase "few words are so politically and emotionally..." is from Hoffman. It is misleading to put it were it is since he do not subscribe at all the ideas of Phillip about terrorism being imposible to describe and define. The introduction to this article is a complete non-sense because nobody care how many descriptions of terrorism counted the US Army. Terrorism is something and must be defined whatever Phillip things about IRA support from USA. In the introduction the opinions about the matter of Hoffman, Schmidth and academic experts must be written since this idea of terrorism being imposible to describe is Phillip's original research.--Igor21 (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The words were in the article previously, and originate from the start of the start of the definitions of terrorism article. You are reading into them the idea that they say "terrorism [is] impossible to describe" because that is not what the three sentences say. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism is a coercive form of unconventional warfare

Warfare comes in two fundamental categories: conventional and unconventional. Terrorism is not used to reduce an opponent's military capability, so we know that terrorism could not be an example of conventional warfare. The opening sentence for this article correctly states that terrorism is a form of unconventional warfare, but it is not the subversive kind. Unconventional warfare is either coercive or subversive. If terrorism is unconventional warfare and it is not subversive, it must be coercive. From a purely logical standpoint as well as an informational standpoint, it is entirely correct to open this article with the statement: Terrorism is a coercive form of unconventional warfare. --Preston Wescott Sr. (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for such assertions? They sound rather like original research, or POV. The thing is, the term terrorism is contested, with authoritarian governments and their supporters characterising opposition groups as terrorism, even when these groups are widely considered to be liberation movements - (cf. SA/US/UK governmental views of the ANC during their armed struggle. Robhogg) (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition to copying word for word from other texts, it is completely appropriate and not original research for a tertiary source such as Wikipedia to summarize and link related concepts when we do not change their meanings. I believe that I have done exactly that. If you disagree with any step of my logical linking and summary, please state the link or summary with which you disagree. Are you taking the position that terrorism is conventional warfare? If not, the only alternative form of warfare is unconventional. Are you taking the position that terrorism is subversion? If not, the only alternative form of unconventional warfare is that of coercion. Our job to "sum up multiple primary and secondary sources" (WP:PSTS). Logical linking and summary are the tools we use to sum things up. Using these tools in conjunction with the brilliantly stated existing definitions of unconventional warfare and coercion, we can reach only one conclusion that is consistent with the rest of this resource, that terrorism is a coercive form of unconventional warfare. --Preston Wescott Sr. (talk) 02:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Although it can be considered as a form of unconventional warfare and psychological warfare, this is not a definition of the term. According to all most common definitions, this is a violence against civilians to achieve political or ideological objectives by creating fear.Biophys (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism is a tactic used against soldiers and civilians. I can give you plenty of examples of the former. Other than that, we're talking about the same thing. Violence to achieve political or ideological objectives is warfare. Psychological warfare is a subset of unconventional warfare. All terrorism is of an unconventional type. The broadest distinctions of unconventional warfare are coercive (seeks to force action against one's will) or subversive (seeks to "win the hearts and minds"). Terrorism certainly does not seek to win friends and influence people through subversion, which means we can at least narrow it down to the coercion subset of unconventional warfare. The definition can be further refined into even tighter subsets inside of coercive unconventional warfare, as you have noted, but we know for sure that it is at least a coercive form of unconventional warfare. Terrorism is always the form of warfare that is unconventional and coercive. It is not a catch-all term for use against anyone the current regime wants to prosecute (as much as the current regime may want to make it so). When we allow politicians to define our terms, our terms become nothing more than propaganda. I would rather use them to communicate. --Preston Wescott Sr. (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion has been included ("Terrorism is also a form of unconventional warfare and psychological warfare."). Yes, the term should be defined not by politicians, but by specialists like professional historians. So, I have restored a previous reference to a definition given by a University Professor. It is also important to have a more a less clear and common defeinition that a reader can understand. We should use something understandable for a common reader, common, and sourced to academics (your text above looks like OR).Biophys (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Attacks against civilian targets in the time of war are usually regarded sabotage rather than terrorism. Attacks against military forces in the time of war is simply warfare. Attacks against military bases in the time of peace or during a guerlla war may or may not be considered as terrorism - this is controversial. Attacks against civilians (people) in the time of peace (to incite fear and achieve political objectives) are always considered terrorism, no matter who does it.Biophys (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Add article to category

Category:Military tactics --24.57.151.98 (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

MALORY LADEN SUX NUTS ALL DAY!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.108.132.82 (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC) Domectic terrisiom is (What Bush considers) when a group of people of one ethnicity, or perhaps one CAUSE rise up to fight the opression of a corrupt dominant group or political party, reguardless of their service or cost. Normally these people would be reffered to as an arising political group, or or rebellion of a widely dissagreed with, or accused government, but never the less they are called TERRIORISTS because of President George W. Bush and his highly criticized Patriot Acts! Bush, be honest, is it the general welfare or self intrests? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.25.89 (talk) 08:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that recent terrorism basically hasn't worked? Fear is created, security is heightened, but the terrorist political or ideological objectives of change just have not been achieved. At all. Just saying. 86.29.43.229 (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This could be added if there is a good source that has made the point, for example an editorial (op-ed) in a major newspaper. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This article lists both types and perpetrators of Terrorism. Under type I noticed that Ultramarine deleted Official/Structural or State Terrorism, which is a distinct type. I will restore this. Yes, the State in this case is also the perpetrator, but its still a distinct type, that should be listed among the other types.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Listed under Perpetrators. Does not fit with types. State terrorism or state sponsored terrorism can be each of these types.Ultramarine (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Actually there is a source so I take back my objection.Ultramarine (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I modified this section to make it more logical. All important views are there. I hope that helps.Biophys (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I looked over some of the differenced in the latest edits on the state terrorism section, and I think there is a problem with your latest change. It cites Kofi's statement regarding Terrorism, and then you add, "therefore...." explaining that some argue that State actions during war constitute it. The problem is one of SYN: it implies that Kofi's statement is the basis for the conclusion. Actually this is not accurate, and its misleading as it deletes the fact that there is a distant definition under "state terrorism" that describes it as a common and widespread tactic of state's foreign policy. Those war time acts are examples of this in the context of war. But the literature talks about the use of the threats of weapons of mass destruction, i.e. first strike option, as also state terrorism within peacetime, holding the world at hostage, etc. I'll see if I can make some adjustments. The part that was deleted, though, did provide this essential definition, so that part should be restored. I refer to this:

"State terrorism has been used to refer to terrorist acts by governmental agents or forces by using state resources, such as the military, to directly perform acts of terrorism. Professor of Political Science, Michael Stohl cites the examples that include Germany’s bombing of London and the U.S. atomic destruction of Hiroshima during World War II. He argues that “the use of terror tactics is common in international relations and the state has been and remains a more likely employer of terrorism within the international system than insurgents. (Michael Stohl, “The Superpowers and International Terror” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Atlanta, March 27-April 1, 1984)."Giovanni33 (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

O'K, let's remove "therefore" and make some changes. But we have to keep this clear and logical. What does Stohl mean by telling about WWII? He means that war actions can be considered "terrorism acts" (Hiroshima, etc.). Let's make this clear. This is not an orthodox opinion of course, and probably a "minority opinion". The phrase "the use of terror tactics is common in international relations and the state has been and remains a more likely employer of terrorism within the international system" however makes his position difficult to understand. So, let's remove these words.Biophys (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that is part of the conceptual framework of state terrorism being expressed: a frequent and common aspect of foreign relations since World War Two. This is part of what characterizes this distinct definition within the literature discussing State Terrorism. I think that sentence is logical within its framework, and its important not to subsume this into another conception. There is a logical common thread, of course, as part of terrorism, i.e. use or threat of politically based violence targeting or using innocents as a means to the ends. I think that is what Kofi's statement expresses. However, lets give a proper voice to the view expressed by Prof. Stohl, and Prof. Lopez. I'm not sure if their view is a minority view or not, but I know its an increasingly significant view within the literature on state terrorism. Let me look up some things and then I'll see if I can make a modification later today. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This edit warring is waste of time. Do not you have something better to do? First, we must provide a definition of the term, and there is a definition. Second, let's not mix warfare by states and terrorism, whatever propagandists like professors Stohl and Lopes tell. Unless we agree on that, this article is hopeless.Biophys (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Only part I disagree with is calling these professors propagandists. They are respected academics writing in their field of expertise; the books cited are on the subject of state terrorism and their view is a significant one. I just think we should report on it under state terrorism, since WP is not censored. And not to is to be bereft of an understanding of this take on state terrorism. Yes, there is a definition, but there are more than one when it gets into more details (where the controversy is)-- but all share the basic elements. For example, their view of state terrorism being a common practice among some states since WW2, exhibited in foreign policy, and a part of international relations is an example. Warfare by states and terrorism are of course distinct but there is a cross over between the two. Terrorism is a tactic that can be adopted in the course of war (or any other conflict)--and one can terrorize without actually having to pull the trigger either. Their view is basically that terrorism is an extension of warfare by other means. They speak of the "terror of coercive dipolomacy"--the US reliance on the threat of nuclear weapons in "crisis management" interactions as well. They write, and I quote: "A no-first-use pronouncement would deprive the United States of a tactic that has been employed at least nineteen times in in the post-war period. This carries the explicit understanding of the implication of the threat of nuclear use." Its one of our jobs here not to allow our own personal beliefs or opinions to get in the way of reporting accurately what the experts who study and write on the topic say. Currently, we have all the major views expressed without bloating any section, and that is how it should be. Also, its logical that if we talk about there being a controversy that we discuss the different variations of the concept that exist and form part of the controversy.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I added a few more references for their view, and clarified some of the text.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Lead

What is up with the lead? Terrorism is a controversial term with no internationally agreed single definition.[2] Stopped reading there; I actually felt my brain shrink a little. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, OK. I'm about to take an x-acto knife to all the navel gazing in the lead, if there are no objections. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Please go ahead. If the article is going in a CD for schools it should be beyond start-class. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

So what is the internationally agreed definition for terrorism? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that a trick question? This is the English wikipedia, not the encyclopedia=of-internationally-agreed-upon things. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no agreement in the US either. Different US governmental organizations have different definitions. Wikipedia should reflect the worldwide view.Ultramarine (talk) 05:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That can be discussed ad nauseum in the definitions article. This is an article about terrorism, and as such, I believe my version of the lead gives a definition of the term that should have consensus. -- Kendrick7^talk 15:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the sentence "An International Round Table on Constructing Peace, Deconstructing Terror (2004) hosted by Strategic Foresight Group recommended that a distinction should be made between terrorism and acts of terror." It just doesn't seem to go anywhere from there, and it was disconnected from the rest of the paragraph as best I could tell. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be confusion here about definition. Terrorism is, as the article says is one definition, politically-motivated violence with the aim of creating fear (in the general population rather than just among the military). All the controversy is not about the concept but about how to apply the concept in concrete circumstances. This is a sociology article. We should refer first to textbooks in sociology, international relations, political science, geography etc. I don't believe the UN is actually talking about the definition of the concept but about criteria for its application. Itsmejudith 11:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

An army uses politically-motivated violence and it is legitimate war aim to use tactics that adversely affect the moral of the enemy. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is shame. There is a most common definition. It can be found in Encylopedia Britannica and other places. I tried to reinsert it here at some point:

Terrorism, is violence against civilians to achieve political or ideological objectives by creating fear.

This is it. It does not matter who committed a terrorism act. For example, Russian apartment bombings would be be qualified as a terrorism act regardless to the controversy who actually committed it (FSB or Chechen rebels). But I have to avoid editing this "terrorism" article because of an Arbcomm ruling. Sorry, it needs a lot of work.Biophys (talk) 02:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Professor Martin Rudner must be taken in context and that would include lots of exceptions. For example if civilians are rioting then can not the state deploy forces that use "ideologically or politically motivated violence directed against civilian targets" without it being classed as terrorism? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk)

Peace keeping and law enforcement are natural duties of the state. Is there a better word for "civilians" that clarifies we don't mean criminals? I don't think there's a succinct way to put this in the lead. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

We do mention "unlawful" by the 3rd sentence though, which is fairly soon. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Now you have entered a new area who defines what is criminal? Who defines what a civilian is? Have you read the archives? If not start with these two sections: Talk:Terrorism/Archive 12#non-combatants and talk:Terrorism/Archive 12#Opening sentence, because we have already been around this loop several times. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I've skimmed those, and, like another said, I'm not going to argue the beard either. Readers who wish to delve into deconstructionism, etc. will find the link to definitions of terrorism rather quickly. It's a given that the meaning of the term is dependent on any number of artificial social constructs; this is true of any number of our articles. Someday space aliens will come and be very confused by all this, but we're writing for an audience that lives in these social constructs on a daily basis. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a problem of WP:BIAS in Wikipedia articles. If it were simple then the American Government would not have had the problems it had with members of the IRA in America during the 1970-80s. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

A. I still do not see how you have addressed the issues I raised above and in the archives and B. what makes "is ideologically or politically motivated violence directed against civilian targets." the definitive definition out of the 100 available? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I read the Romance languages at about a 4 y.o. level, but the French, Spanish, and even Latin versions of the article all begin with a definition, although all slightly different, which all involve violence and civilians to some degree. So I don't think there's an American WP:BIAS going on here, nor to I think that's a good excuse not to follow our article style guidelines. I'd be happy to use your personal definition of the term, if it somehow involved violence and civilians like the transwikis do, but I'll restore the bad-lead tag until this is sorted out. -- Kendrick7^talk 15:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

still have not answered the question. I do not have a personal definition of terrorism. What I am doing is pointing out that the definition you have chosen is one of hundreds what makes it the one to use over all the others in the first line of the article? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's called an editorial decision. That's fine if you aren't capable of deciding for yourself what the term means, but I'm willing to bite the bullet here, in the interest of writing an encyclopedia and give a definition my best shot. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You have not answered any of the questions I posed above particularly the one, what makes "is ideologically or politically motivated violence directed against civilian targets." the definitive definition out of the 100 available? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 06:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to play a Loki's wager with you. If you believe the concept of terrorism is inherently undefinable, as your version of the lead suggests at the get-go, you should AfD the article per WP:NONSENSE. I'm restoring the tag, and will ask you again for your definition so we can move on. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with "is a controversial term with no internationally agreed single definition." There are however several International conventions on terrorism with somewhat different definitions ..." because of how it is described in Terrorism#Pejorative use. Was the ANC engaged in terrorism? Should we describe "Mandela as a former terrorist and Nobel Peace price winner?". The question of armed resistance to a hostile power (domestic or foreign) is not a new question under international law, it is one that has been a problem for at least 100 years and is tied into such things as the Martens Clause, Apartheid and Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. Article 1. Paragraph 4 (and the ICRC commentary). The problem that terrorism like military necessity is on a continuum where distinction, and proportionality have to be considered. While it is possible to point to clear cut cases that few disinterested observers would dispute as barbarism and crimes against humanity, there are many many cases that fall into a grey area that the victim group call terrorism, but a disinterested observer would not necessarily see as that, and that would not be a crime under international law. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with it is that this isn't the definitions of Terrorism article, wherein that would be a fine opening sentence. Per WP:BURO, simply because we offer up a rough definition here, doesn't give free rein to others editors to ignore WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV in applying the terms terrorism or terrorist in other articles. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What about a dab link up top straight to the "definitions of..." article? Something like For discussions over the meaning of the term, see definitions of terrorism? Perhaps then we could both be happy? -- Kendrick7^talk 17:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You still have not justified using one specific definition over the hundreds of others. Much better from an NOV to note that there is no single definition than to promote one over the others. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Well, I think you are being unreasonable. Certain parts were obviously head, and certain parts were obviously neck, but neither side could agree exactly where the one ended and the other began. As such, we are at an impasse, and I will hope other editors can weigh in sensibly on the problem. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

We must provide the most common definition the term (one from Britannica or other encyclopedia), and then tell about other definitions. To distinguish terrorism and law enforcement, let's just tell that terrorism is committed beyond the law and a form of extrajudicial punishment (unlike law enforcement). One of you asked: "Should we describe Mandela as a former terrorist and Nobel Peace price winner?". Why not? He was described as terrorist in reliable sources, as far as I know.Biophys (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you judge what is the most common definition the term out of the 100s available? What makes the Martin Rudner definition the most common? We do not describe Mandela as a terrorist, we describe how XYZ described Mandela as a terrorist because the term is as Bruce Hoffman wrote "On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore." Massacre is another word that has similar connotations, for example see the fuss over Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre; and is equally hard to define. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please suggest here any other definition you like (as supported by sources). Providing no any definition of a term in simply unproductive.Biophys (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Why did you not address my questions "how do you judge what is the most common definition the term out of the 100s available? What makes the Martin Rudner definition the most common?" As to you last statement I think we will have to aggree to disagree as I think that it is much more constructive and within the WP:NPOV policy to state that there are lots of definitions and not to promote any one definition over others without an objective third party justification for doing so. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, already addressed your question: it's an editorial decision. What is terrorism? Is it a species of cabbage? A system of weights and measures? Or perhaps a planet orbiting a far away star? Our readers shouldn't have to read half a paragraph of vague ho-humming material before they get an answer to the question. We're writing an encyclopedia, not a suspense novel. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

For Wikipedia to define a most important or corrrect definition would be OR. Not allowed. Sources has been given showing that this lack is seen as a serious problem by the UN. It is not up to us to "solve" this ourselves.Ultramarine (talk) 10:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think WP:OR is exactly right; certainly this would be a sourced definition. It's our job as editors here to make decisions like this, even in the face of difficultly; even by not deciding we are still making a choice. Yes, there's no internationally agreed upon definition, but nothing in our guidelines demands such a standard -- we're a general encyclopedia and not a dictionary of international law. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There are three major content policies, (WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV), they should not be read in isolation. Please read WP:NPOV it is very specific on this issue "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that what i did looks just fine. It gives a more widely accepted definition, while still stating that the definition is controversial. I mean come on, about 80% of the people who come here will want a quick and easy definition, not two paragraphs of "no one can agree..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.37.67.113 (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the IPs attempted solution. The problem with your argument, Phillip, is that this isn't a question of "conflicting perspectives within a topic" -- it's a fundamental question of what the topic of the article is. I mean -- yeah, I know the topic is terrorism (what is terrorism? I don't know, Third base!) but if there were actually multiple irreconcilable definitions, then we'd be dealing with multiple topics and would have different articles for each (i.e. Terrorism (cabbage), Terrorism (planet), etc.) and make this a disambiguation page if there was no most common meaning. I don't believe that's really the case here, excepting that you seem to want Terrorism (definitions of) to be the main article and not a sub-article, and not the other way around. -- Kendrick7^talk 15:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I find the IP's attempted solution reasonable, as well. The topic at hand does have a meaning, and we should start out with that basic definition - state it succinctly - and then get into the differences that exist; yes, we should make it clear that it's controversial, and there lacks one agreed upon legal standard, but this has been way over done in my view. I've also seen some take this to even argue that there is no definition/meaning per se, which is obviously not correct. The word has a meaning that is clear and widely accepted; then there are various shades and aspects that cross over and there is political controversy about who gets the label (even if their activities fit).Giovanni33 (talk) 07:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source that reviews the different definitions and states what is common between them or are you suggesting that we synthesise one? The first problem you are going to come up against is that a general definition does on exclude actions that undermine enemy morale in a war -- for example the OED second definition for the word terrorism (the first OED definition is The Terror). Although from the quotes given on the word it is not excluded. So would you consider the USAAF bombing of Germany in WWII terrorism because Gobbles frequently described it as such? The problem is that the word terrorism is frequently used as a propaganda weapon in a partisan way in may low level and not so low level conflicts and any definition that does not recognise that is going to be biased. Governments frequently accuse their opponents of terrorism while their "retaliation" is legitimate self defence! --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm only suggesting we start out with a very broad one, which is not controversial at all. Look it up in any dictionary or use Britanica's definition. It's very simple and not in dispute. The dispute/controversy exists when it comes to application, who gets the label attached to their actions/policies. It's the same problem with Genocide. It's a pretty simple definition, but there is controversy and, for example, the US refuses to agree and sign on, because of the issue of application for its own actions/history. Leave the problems/controversy of application, i.e. terror bombing of London, Dresden, Atomic bombings, and other disputes as to application for the discussion later in the article. But all definitions/applications to real world events do embody the elements contained in the basic definition, and that basic definition of necessary and sufficient qualities should be stated clearly at the onset.Giovanni33 (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I tightened up the lead as an example of what I had in mind for you to look at and comment upon. I don't see the problem with doing it this way.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

"is ideologically or politically motivated violence directed against civilian targets." This description is also true of all most legitimate armed force in wars, (becuase the object of a war is to force the hostile civilian governments to agree to terms to end the violence), but the use of force is usually more direct when an enemy army is in occupation of part of a state's territory. So I am reverting the change. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That is not true. In "legitimate war' the targets are never supposed to be civilian populations, and the goal is one of strict military necessity. Whenever this is not followed, those war acts become acts of state terrorism or war crimes per the definitions.Giovanni33 (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The definition you have given does not say civilian populations, it says civilian targets. Civilian targets are often legitimate targets in war if they have a dual role, or was the Argentinian sinking of the Atlantic Conveyor an act of terrorism? Further naval blockade as used in both word wars are still legitimate war strategies and can be aimed at the civilian populations. The use of nuclear weapons (or the threat to use nuclear weapons) if the existence of a state is threatened is not prohibited under international law. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

PBS, you seems to be the one who is WP:SYNTHetizing -- looking up the meaning of the word in multiple dictionaries and deciding since they don't all agree exactly then there's no common definition. I'm perfectly satisfied with the definition given by Merriam-Webster's: "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion."[1] If your argument is that this should be moved to Terrorism (non-state) so as to contrast completely with Terrorism (state) and make this a disambig, I think that would be fine too. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Bad template message

If this message:

To comply with Wikipedia's lead section guidelines, the first sentence of this article should use the verb to be to answer the question "What is it?" (or "Who is he/she" for persons). Please discuss this issue on the talk page and read the layout guide to make sure the section will be inclusive of all essential details.

was added to the article page as free text. The editor who put it there could expect it to be removed because it is editorial information not article information and as such this information belongs on the talk page. Placing it in a template like "{{intro-tobe}}" does not make it any more legitimate. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a standard template of which I am not the author. If you have a problem with it, take it up at WP:TfD. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because someone else has put it together does not make it all right. Discussions like this should be on the talk page not the article space. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Page Deletion

Delete as gives info useful to terrorists 99.234.143.26 (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not in the business of withholding useful information from terrorists. 71.4.124.241 (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No terror sites give help, geting rid of this would just make normal people uneducated.(124.179.60.69 (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC))

Targeting of civilians

I don't think terrorism necessarily must involve targeting of civilians; that seems to me like uncalled-for bias that should be removed. U.S. Code defines it as:[2]

activities that— (A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.

Thus, it is possible for a military leader (e.g. a commander-in-chief) to be assassinated so as to intimidate the government; and it would count as terrorism, despite the fact that civilians were not targeted. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

But define terrorism because that is also known as kidnapping and a different type of ransom.Right? And the Commander-in-cheif is also a civilian he was never sworn into the millitary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellisnotafunplace (talk • contribs) 04:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Targeting of IT

A report last year by the National Counterterrorism Center in Washington concluded that from January 2004 to March 2007, the death toll from terrorist attacks in India was 3,674, second only to that in Iraq during the same period. Source: nytimes.com Hari Kumar contributed reporting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfarrow (talk • contribs) 03:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Causes section

Is the causes section really necessary? I mean, it really looks like something that comes out of a sixth grade history textbook - lacking depth, and it's completely uncited. The second half part of the section borders on ridiculous - that terrorism is like an economic system. Well, you can say that. Everything runs like an economic system. But that is completely useless information, except for its value in explaining terrorism to less-intellectually-gifted kids. Naurmacil (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Hoffman-1998-p31" :
  • Hoffman, Bruce "''Inside Terrorism''" Columbia University Press 1998 ISBN 0-231-11468-0. Page 32. See review in The [[New York Times]][http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/h/hoffman-terrorism.html Inside Terrorism]
  • Hoffman, Bruce "''Inside Terrorism''" Columbia University Press 1998 ISBN 0-231-11468-0. Page 32. See review in The [[New York Times]][http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/h/hoffman-terrorism.html Inside Terrorism] [http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:RPT6zpTtE08J:www.nytimes.com/books/first/h/hoffman-terrorism.html+%22everyone+agrees:+terrorism+is+a+pejorative+term%22&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=1&lr=lang_en Google cached copy]

DumZiBoT (talk) 06:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism a point of view?

Terrorism is every where in the world today. Even the United States (U.S.) usees terrorism but in a different form. So how can we identify what terrorism is? We can't identify what terrorism is because any form of violence used to frighten people intentanally or unintentually is terrorism. So that means terrorism is just another form of fear ment for the population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellisnotafunplace (talk • contribs) 22:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The millitary can be also called terrorists because they cause fear in the local population intentionaly or not. So terrorism is a vague and incorrect term no matter how you try to use it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellisnotafunplace (talk • contribs) 03:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

So if terrorists are every where what do we call the Al-Quida organization a millitant group? They call themselves liberators if my information is correct. So what do we call them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellisnotafunplace (talk • contribs) 04:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

So is terrorism just a point of view or an evil group type of thing? To truely understand what i mean you have to forget everything you know and pretend that you are the other person. Once you do that ask yourself "Why am I doing this? Is it to bring change? Is it to hurt the country that hurt you long ago? Why am I doing this?" If you truely thought about it I beleave that you would understand. See the world today has a problem with seeing it from the other persons point of view. We think what we would do not what they would do. So I ask you to try to start seeing things from anothers point of view. My last rant to the people who read this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.244.88 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 13 August 2008

There are so many different definitions of the word "terrorism" that it's hard to say much for sure. What the article seems to suggest (and thus the definition that we are operating under here) is that motives make all the difference. Since all forms of violence incite some level of fear in the civilian population, what ends up being the dividing line is whether that fear was caused intentionally or as an unavoidable side-effect. If the GOAL was to create fear, and as the article says - that this psychological impact was deliberately designed to approach its maximum potential, then it's terrorism. If causing fear was just a side effect that was minimized and, were it possible, would have been avoided, then it's not. Furthermore, it must have have the goal of creating political/social change, rather than just impacting a limitted group of people. This requirement eliminates instances of, say, an ex-husband breaking a window on his ex-wife's house (which otherwise would fit the "cause fear" and "violence" criteria). By the criteria listed in the article, the US has not, to my knowledge, committed any acts of terrorism Edit: in the recent past End of Edit. Civilian casualties and the fear instilled in the various civilian populations in countries we've been involved in have either been entirely co-incidental, or the result of individuals acting without authority, and we've attempted to minimize them when possible. This may not be the case, but it is to my knowledge, and you'd have to provide some kind of evidence to the contrary if you wanted to make any changes based on this reasoning. - hitheremynameisbob 129.171.233.77 (talk) 07:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Unlawfulness or illegitimacy

Does the "or" in this paragraph title point to opposing meanings or synonyms? It could be clearer. The title should be Unlawfulness or illegality. Because legitimacy and legality are two very different things. Legality justifies actions on the body of rules which are written by the state. Legitimacy points more to the feeling that the rules and actions are just and fair. The distinction is important because government actions are almost by their very nature legal; based in law. Aixroot (talk) 07:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I never said it was legit did I. What I am saying is that terrorism is to broad of a word to be used. That is my main point. But I am sorry if i have caused you to be confused in any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellisnotafunplace (talk • contribs) 21:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite get this response. I haven't aimed for the meaning of the word Terrorism. I meant to point out that the concept of legitimacy has no direct link to lawfulness. A law which is issued by a state in accordance with its laws is by their very nature lawful. But this lawfulness has no impact on the legitimacy of this law. Common examples of lawful but illegitimate laws are the laws of Nazi-Germany and South African apartheid's laws. So I propose to make this distinction clear: How about the something like:

Unlawfulness or illegality – Some official (notably government) definitions of terrorism try to add a criterion of illegitimacy and / or unlawfulness to distinguish between actions authorized by a government and thereby "lawful" and those of other non-state actors. By mixing the legitimacy and lawfulness, actions that would otherwise qualify as terrorism would not be considered terrorism as they were government sanctioned. Aixroot (talk) 09:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be my falt then. I thought you where aiming for the meaning of the word terrorism.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.244.88 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 13 August 2008

The word terrorism was not used in the quote

"The word "terrorism" was first used in reference to the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution.

"If the basis of a popular government in peacetime is virtue, its basis in a time of revolution is virtue and terror -- virtue, without which terror would be barbaric; and terror, without which virtue would be impotent." [Robespierre, speech in Fr. National Convention, 1794]"

The word terrorism is not used in this quote. If the word was coined during the French Revolution, it would make more sense to cite a quote where the word was actually used. ScienceApe (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If there are no comments regarding this, I'll just remove the quote because I don't see the relevance in the article. ScienceApe (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

A system of terror

1. Government by intimidation as directed and carried out by the party in power in France during the Revolution of 1789-94; the system of the ‘Terror’ (1793-4): see TERROR n. 4.

1795 Hist. in Ann. Reg. 112/2 It would..renew the reign of terrorism. 1817 LADY MORGAN France VIII. (1818) II. 357 He was obliged to remain abroad during the whole reign of terrorism. 1861 GOLDW. SMITH Irish Hist. 85 Like..the terrorism of the Jacobins..it was a moral epidemic.

— OED Terrorism

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"Terror" are "terrorism" are just variations of the same word. The French revolutionaries added "-ism" to everything, but the word "terror" is from Latin and existed earlier. Robespierre's terror was a government policy for dealing with an emergency, so his meaning is not exactly the same as the modern meaning. Kauffner (talk) 14:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

security focused

"Parties on the right of the political spectrum are usually more security focused then parties on the left." Go tell it to the Chinese. Authoriterian parties are more security focused then parties with a liberal outlook. The current statement is limited to countries such as the English speaking nations that do not have a tradition of authoritarian left wing parties in government. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Weather Underground casualties

• http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0430jm.html
• http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/05/another-weather-underground-victim-speaks-out/

No casualties? I don't think so. TMLutas (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The violent intent of the Weather Underground is extremely well documented. See-- http://www.fbi.gov/page2/jan04/weather012904.htm See also the FBI FOIA pages at--http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/weather.htm One Weather Underground bombing in particular had casualties, but these were the Weathermen bombers themselves, who were preparing a anti-personnel bombs and themselves accidentally became the victims--Ron Jacobs, The Way the Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground, 1997, pg. 98 ff. -- http://books.google.com/books?id=SD2TvqDh8EkC&pg=PA98&dq=jacobs+Murtagh+bombing&client=firefox-a&sig=ACfU3U1rP-hg8PFqR4c2gUPFISHE2-RKCw Ajschorschiii (talk) 01:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism on Individuals with directed energy weapons

I'm just a normal everyday sort of person who witnessed some crimes by policemen in Irving, Texas. They run, operate and patrol for a drug gang, vehicle thieves and prostitution ring -- right across the street, on my street, on the street behind me. How could I miss it? The police seem to be hand in hand with the CRIPS. "Crip-4-Life" appeared on my truck.

I am now a TARGET for something way beyond harassment. It is personal terrorism and it is waged with Directed Energy Weapons. Someone is on me 24 hrs. This is why I wrote the following and I would like the author of "Terrorism" to rewrite it and include the information under a heading called Urban Terrorism or Gang Terrorism because it is a new kind of warfare against civilians using military gear (invented for use by military).

The attack starts with bugging your house with a radio. They know when you come and go. They come in your house every day. They break or destroy taping equipment, TV's, tape recorders, cameras, computers. Then they stay on your roof every night and shoot you with different types of DEWS. One is used to "work" different parts of your body with some kind of energy that is very uncomfortable. Another type of weapon is used to shoot you in the chest, possibly to cause you to have a heart attack. Another can be used to cause severe pain. They use some type of new light that is thick and stays in the air in a certain shape. Another can turn your electronics off so your security systems and recorders can't work. They have one thing that scans for cameras. All these things allow them to detect anything that might see them so they seem to be invisible.

I have written the following but cannot seem to get it to stay on the encyclopedia because I don't know all the "how to's" and rules and stuff. Could you rewrite this and especially look at the illustration on microwellenterror.de which shows how the microwaves are keyed in on the target.

If this happened to me, it is probably more common than anyone knows! This is TERRORISM WITH MILITARY WEAPONS ON CIVILIANS. I think that should qualify to be included in terrorism, personal terrorism, in urban areas by gangs and policemen.

Here's the article:

1. Microwave Terrorism: Assault, Murder in Irving, Texas Microwave Assault or "Microwave Murder" is a new kind of terrorism made possible by recent research and invention of directed energy weapons for military purposes and subsequent unconventional use of this technology on our streets in residential areas. Microwave assaults are targeted at individuals by directing harmful microwave radiation energy with the intent to cause bodily and psychological harm. Lynn A. Surgalla, former Vice-President of the United States Psychotronics Association places microwave assault in the same category as assault with a gun, knife or chemical poison.[1]

Configuration of Electromagnetic Equipment Necessary for Bathing Living Quarters: See an illustration at Microwave Terror Setting up a microwave attack requires skill and technical knowledge. Bathing a victim with microwaves includes high-tech equipment which may vary. One possible possible scenario follows: 1. a magnetron with antenna 2. a satellite dish converted to radiate microwaves 3. an high-power radio frequency source 4. an high-powered antenna The magnetron will usually be situated inside a dwelling with an antenna hidden outside the dwelling to radiate the microwaves. The converted satellite dish is mounted outside on the dwelling. The high-power radio frequency source (may be contained in a suitcase) is mounted in the back of a vehicle parked nearby. The high-powered antennae is mounted in another vehicle. The vehicles will be parked near the dwelling of the victim. This equipment must be in alignment to create a bombardment of microwaves on a bed or chair where the victim is laying down or sitting. The triangulation requires organized effort and is done to harrass, injure or kill someone.[2]

Aiming A Microwave Assault In order to find out where a victim spends most of their time or where they sleep, through-the-wall technology is used. At least three companies[cite] have recently developed the technology for military and law enforcement use which has found its way into the hands of criminals, along with many other types of weapons unfamiliar to lay persons.[cite] Sometimes a stalker will locate the victim from a vantage point upon the roof of the dwelling after having broken in and surveyed the layout of the living and sleeping quarters. There have been reports of harassment with taser and pulsed weapons which can be used to shoot the victim so that sleep is not possible. "Working" a person's body with directed energy weapons while they are sleeping is meant to cause discomfort, pain, and the development of various physical impairments and diseases with much suffering, with the final intention of causing death. [cite]

Possible Sources of High-Powered Radio Frequency System A German company called Diehl BGT Defence exhibited its high-power microwave (HPM) suite-case size weapon system, the DS-110 HPM at AUSA 2005 in Washington, D.C. The DS-100 works as an omnidirectional disruptor, but the system can be fitted with a reflector to create a directional radiation pattern (measures 500x410x200 mm, weighs 25 kg, peak output hundreds of megawatts, operating time 30 min or 3 hours in 'burst' mode. Curbing the Roadside Bomber, Rupert Pengelley, Dec. 12, 2005 Another German Company, Rheinmetall sells the 10 kg RH020K autonomous ultra-wideband briefcase jammer system (measures 450x350x200 mm, output in kilowatts, operating time 20 minutes) and the 28 kg RH002M system (measures 620x370x500 mm, output power in megawatts, operating time 10 minutes with internal battery, but this may be extended indefinitely with an external 120/22 V DC external supply. "The directed electromagnetic pulses transmitted by both systems simultaneously suppress any kind of radio-based communication (including commercial and military radios, RC units, mobile phones and pagers) within the beam. They also act to neutralise RC explosive devices by directly disrupting their fuzes." Curbing the Roadside Bomber, Rupert Pengelley, Dec. 12, 2005.Janes Information Group These systems may be used by police and military in the electronic suppression of a stronghold by interrupting electronic systems like phone, fax, radio, tv, pc, surveillance monitor and security systems prior to assault. Other parts of the assault after suppression of electronics would include use of a portable DS Source, a HRR jammer and an observer with a radio to convey visual information. This is one scenario for which the compact suit-case size high-power RF source for non-lethal applications were intended -- to free hostages from the strongholds of their captors. Suppression of a Stronghold

Misuse of Technology Unfortunately, this technology has fallen into the hands of diabolical murderers with gang ideology who are now using these microwave systems to harass and kill their fellow human beings. Victims are microwaved again and again, and are usually harassed with other weapons as well and followed step for step from the roof of their dwellings. Tasers, plasma and other new weapons can strike through the roof and ceiling to the helpless victims below. There are many witness statements on the internet at this time under "energy directed weapons," and "microwaves targeted at humans."[cite]

Abuse of Power by Trusted Public Servants Microwave Assault may include law enforcement personnel or government employees, and may be racially or religiously-motivated torture-assault. Police, government and military personnel are the first tier of persons with knowledge and ready access to radiation weapons.[3] Microwave Assault Is Sometimes Only Part of a Larger Systematic Assault by Gangstalkers Microwave assault is sometimes only part of the entire assault which may begin with spraying toxic chemicals in the vents and windows of the target's home while they are sleeping for the purpose of debilitating the victim with lung and eye injuries.[cite here] It has been suggested that the chemicals may contain a substance like barium which makes the victim traceable or electromagnetic material which turns the victim into an antenna.[cite] Other subsequent events may include harassment by placing bugging devices (perhaps hard-wired) in the home and vehicle of the victim. There will be breakins even while the victim is asleep -- some harassers take personal items like keys and ID cards and place them outside the dwelling to let the victim know that someone has been in the dwelling and compromised their security and privacy. During an organized assault, some type of harrassing event occurs every day without end which indicates a gang-type idiology such as "Crip 4 Life".[cite]

Victim Needs Support Friends and family need to be aware that microwave assault is a real event which causes much pain and agony and can leave a person with debilitating injuries which remain unexplained in some cases, since microwaving can be done from a distance, silently and covertly. [cite] Just as this is a team effort on the part of the criminals, a team is required to help victims get the photographs or recordings to catch the criminals in the act. Law enforcement, scientists, politicians and terrorists find illegal ways to discredit microwave stories by claiming the victime is mentally ill. Dr. Munzert himself was unwillingly placed in a mental health facility and given unneeded drug therapy.[cite]

Microwave Assault Is Being Used Worldwide Microwave Assault is a violation of a human being's right to remain free from injury and death. Reports of being assaulted with microwaves are being reported from Germany, Russia, Australia and the U.S. Dr. Surgalla states, "I assure you that similar cases are being addressed all over the world...The International Human Rights Community]] is deeply interested in the outcome and concerned that justice be served in all cases of Directed Energy Weapons assault."

What Crime? Where is the Weapon? As assault with microwaves leaves no traditional crime scene evidence such as a bloody wound or a smoking gun. The lack of traditional evidence gives a terrorist or criminal the ability to evade detection as if they were invisible.[cite] However, the perpetrators are real people who assault their victims with high-tech equipment to bathe a victim's dwelling with microwaves because they know they can get away with the crime.[4] Sometimes even the victim has no idea they are being harmed because the crime is historically unheard of.[cite needed] Attacking people with radiation weapons is certainly unconventional and attacking people from the roof with pulsed weapons is unheard of in residental crime and urban ware.[cite]

Effects Are Varied and Substantial Victims are unable to protect themselves from assault because they do not have any experience or knowledge of how or why any human being would conceive of such a crime. Attacks are meant to be overwhelming. Economically, the medical bill and abandonment of dwellings are catastrophic. Psychologically, knowing that someone is taking your life and possessions away from you is equally devastating. Socially, victims become the odd character who can't stop talking about their dilemna but cannot prove what happened to them because they have no obvious wounds. Equal protection under the law is unavailable because law enforcement does not give the victims of microwave assault the same protection as other citizens who are physically assaulted. Police may refuse to make reports or do investigations, take evidence, take photographs because they are either part of the crime or they don't believe the story.[cite] There is a good possibility that those who have the technical ability to carry out a microwave assault are trained covert police.[cite]

The Relation of Gangs and Microwave Assault Gangs related to the drug trade, vehicle theft and prostitution are using microwaves to harass those who witness their crimes.[cite] Gangs invovled in organized crime are well-financed, well aided by criminal police officers, well informed about their victims (stealing ID's, keys, personal information and names of relatives, name of employer, insurance, bank accounts). They operate with military tactics,[cite] have regular organized meetings[cite] and cooperate to produce the triangulation of microwaves upon a sleeping target.[cite] Sometimes the harassment is a covert police officer trained in covert maneuvers.[cite] Once this type of gangstalking begins, it continues daily.[cite]

Microwave Radiation's Effects on the Human Body Dr. Munzert states that, "The effects of the HPM-beam on the victims include headache, irregular heartbeat, painful testis, burned skin, eye damage and cancer." When a victim goes to the doctor to seek medical attention, doctors may not believe the story either because they are not trained in treating injuries of a microwave attack.[cite] There may be numbness and/or tingling of the limbs, complete loss of use of limbs, depression, diarrhea, nerve and central nervous system damage. The results are devastating. Some have committed suicide after being tortured for long periods of time.[cite] "One theory is that the fields affect the pineal gland...It regulates the immune system...by secreting the hormone melatonin...EMF exposure inhibits the flow of calcium in cells. Calcium plays a role in regulating cell division; the growth of cancer depends on the cancer cells' ability to divide uncontrollably. Human tissues have their individual resonant frequencies just as the Earth does. Surgalla says...cells are mutating all the time...the immune system swiftly kills off the abnormal cells. 'But when an artificial frequency enters the body that matches a cell's resonance,' she says, 'it sends an artificial message to the cell that may cause it to do inappropriate things.' It might be, she says, that mutations may somehow get 'hidden' from the immune system and thus are able to grow into a full-fledged cancer.'" Thomas, Scott; Trouble in the Air Are We Awash in Cancer-Causing Electromagnetic Fields?, Aug 25, 1991, The Buffalo News Inc.

Defense A defense to this type of crime is what is needed most at this time. A Faraday Cage is the laboratory answer but no sure defense for individuals who are targets of microwave attacks exists at this time. Logically, most victims do not have the knowledge, skill or resources to turn their homes into Faraday Cages. Perhaps when this crime receives more serious attention from lawmakers, honest law enforcement, and home builders, a reasonable building solution may become available. More is being done to find a way to protect victims from attack while they are in their dwellings. Surely knowledge that the attacks are occurring The Public Needs Education, how they occur, why they occur and who is causing them to occur and who designed the weapons are all important.

Who Doesn't Want You to Know -- Terrorists and Criminals "It would be an error to think that non-lethal weapons are not available for law-breakers. Unless we are aware of the possibilities, and acknowledge them, there is no way we can begin to defend ourselves" (News from Infowar) Only criminals, terrorists and other persons who have a personal agenda which does not include an interest in human rights will be interested in not leaking this valuable definition of microwave assault.[cite]

Microwave Assault Is Being Used For Crowd Control Operation Crimson Mist[5]

________________________ 1. ^ "Psychotronic, Microwave, Laser and other forms of Electromagnetic Directed Energy...weapons are all potentially lethal, although sublethal injuries may also be inflicted as with the use of any other lethal weapon such as a gun, knife or chemical poison. Assault and Battery and/or torture/murder with any form of Directed Energy Weapon IS Assault and Battery and/or torture/murder with a lethal weapon. Despite claims to the contrary by criminal elements in our own government, there is no such thing as a nonlethal weapon (even those currently in vogue for “Slow Kill” torture-interrogation by war criminals worldwide." The Misuse of Microwave Weapons, Lynn A. Surgalla, Former Vice-President of the United States Psychotronics Association; (letter to the court in the case of Ms. Millicent Gabriellson); (May 2007) 2. ^ "A hightech-gang in Germany is using and testing HPM-weapons that supply continous or pulsed waves over long periods of time. They have magnetrons, microwave-generators, amplifiers and integrated systems. The (pulsed) waves of two or more transmitters interfere in the target zone and strengthen their effects. There are also parabolic antennas modified to transmitters. Besides this, intelligent (adaptive) antenna systems (numerous small transmitters) connected, instead of few large ones; for example hidden in parked cars/vans or buildings around the target/person(s) are used." Munzert 3. ^ "If the criminal assailants are found to be law enforcement personnel or government employees, then the crime is an even more serious offense with grave political implications. If the crime is found to be racially or religiously-motivated torture-assault, then the bias-crime laws also apply." Surgalla 4. ^ "High Power Microwave (HPM) systems have strong effects and can be used for military and police as well as terrorist and criminal activities. Through the illegal usage of innovative high-tech weapons, people are not 'shot', rather their living quarters are bathed in (high frequency) electromagnetic waves." The Misuse of Microwave Weapons by Criminals and Terrorists, Dr. Reinhard Munzert. Dr. Munzert has written 3 books, 100 articles and has lectured at the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg (Germany) and German Sports University in Cologne, (Germany) 5. ^ Secret CIA operation in Rwanda in 1994 which used microwave equipment mounted in a C-130 Hercules transport plane to microwave tribal groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gustawaldorf (talk • contribs) 08:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The tenor of this article

smacks of moral relativism. I suggest a re-write. Brian Pearson (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The "See also" section

The "See also" section is too long and seems to be becoming a catchall. Someone added William Ayers to it recently. I reverted that, but I think a lot of those links should probably be removed. —KCinDC (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Should Neo-Nazi's and the KKK be considered terrorists?

I think they should. They try to get their way by coecering and intimidating other people who are not White Christian.Draconius14 (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that depends on which neo-Nazi or Klan group you're referring to. Many neo-Nazi skinhead groups, for instance, might have more in common with gangs or outlaw motorcycle clubs than with most terrorist organizations. Are the Crips or the Hells Angels a terrorist group? Or are they better understood as a criminal gang?

On the other hand, the original Klan was a different sort of beast. --FOo (talk) 04:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Abrahms, "What Terrorists Really Want"

In this blog post, Bruce Schneier links to a paper by Stanford University's Max Abrahms, entitled "What Terrorists Really Want". Abrahms argues that the standard political-economic notion of terrorists as rational political actors is wrong.

The standard model, or "strategic model", holds that people join terrorist groups in order to accomplish stated political goals, to extract concessions from states by force, as a last resort in cases where they are unable to accomplish those goals through legitimate political means. Standard counterterrorism strategies are based on this model: chiefly, the notion that improving access to the political system (advancing democracy) will reduce terrorism, and that negotiating with terrorists is a bad idea because it will encourage more terrorism.

Abrahms argues that the strategic model is disproven by the following facts:

1. Terrorism is ineffective at accomplishing political goals. The political consequences of terrorism are almost always negative: engaging in terrorism turns others against your political goals. (Example: IRA attacks make the British public less favorable towards withdrawal from Northern Ireland.)
2. Terrorists do not in fact use terrorism as a last resort in the absence of other political options. There is generally more terrorism in nations with more open political systems, where peaceful political means to accomplish goals are more accessible. Closed, totalitarian regimes have very little terrorism.
3. Terrorist groups routinely disrupt the ability of legitimate political groups to accomplish political goals similar to their own, by carrying out attacks that cause negotiations to break down. (Example: the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, who have done more to disrupt the "two-state solution" they ostensibly favor.)
4. Terrorist groups do not have coherent political platforms. They have a hodgepodge of demands which change over time, even reversing completely from secular to religious or rightist to leftist. (Example: the PKK's shifts between jihadism, Marxism, and straight nationalism; al-Qaida's shift from grievances against Muslim nations to anti-Israel; or the Abu Nidal Organization's shift from being anti-Syria to pro-Syria.)
5. Terrorists often engage in anonymous attacks. You cannot accomplish a political goal by threatening someone if they don't know who is threatening them. (64% of terrorist attacks since 1968 have been anonymous.)
6. Terrorist groups often attack other terrorist groups of similar political or nationalist affiliation. (Example: Tamil Tigers' systematic elimination of other Tamil nationalist leaders; rival Algerian groups' focus on attacking each other rather than the French occupation.)
7. Terrorists do not stop when their ostensible goals are accomplished. (Example: Hezbollah's continuation after the ending of the Israeli occupation of Lebanon; the Red Army Faction's "frustration" at the ending of the Vietnam War.)

From these "seven habits of highly ineffective terrorists" (Schneier's description), Abrahms argues that the existence of terrorist groups is best explained not as political behavior, but as a matter of psychology (of individual members) and organizational behavior (of terrorist groups).

In the matter of psychology, Abrahms notes that terrorist group members are usually not drawn from politically-involved people, but rather from people who are dislocated, alienated, and discriminated against. When asked, members often say they joined a terrorist group because of personal social attachments to other group members, not out of political loyalty to a cause. Most members do not even have an understanding of their group's ostensible goals. Like urban gang members, they join to experience social solidarity.

As for organizational behavior, Abrahms holds that the above "seven habits" are explicable in terms of terrorist groups acting to prolong their own existence, rather than to accomplish stated aims -- in line with organizational behavior theory.

From the above arguments, Abrahms concludes that standard counterterrorism strategy, which acts to reduce terrorism by eliminating its political utility, is ill-founded because the point of terrorism is not political utility. He encourages intelligence organizations to focus on analyzing social networks, not political views, to uncover terrorists; to use infiltration and betrayal to disrupt terrorist social networks from within; and for societies to eliminate bigotry and promote religious moderation in order to decrease the alienation and isolation that leads people to become terrorists. --FOo (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

At long last some-one with brians talking about terrorism. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 23:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: It occurs to me now that somebody may want to study the development of this article in the future. I should think it's relevant (response time is obviously the first thing to look at when studying WP) that I didn't even glance at the talk page before adding Abrahms' definition. Think I found the blog entry via Schneier's homepage, because the archive page is still bookmarked on my old PC. In hindsight, that was probably a wise move anyway. Ottre 22:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Terrorism category definition

Additional input is requested at Template talk:Terrorism category definition. The discussion there concerns these 2 category templates:

• {{Terrorism category definition}}
• {{Terrorist category definition}} --Timeshifter (talk) 06:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

polyarchy.org is nonrs

I took out section based from polyarchy.org that said "it is believed" the causes of terrorism are overpopulation, no jobs etc. You can say "polyarchy.org believes" but not more and also polyarchy.org is not a RS i think, if people disagree ask about it at reliable source noticeboard. I think there are alot of scholarly articles on causes of terrorism and remedies, they are in RS, so there can be a section like this but not based on a fringe cite. Thx RetroS1mone talk 16:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

Anyone know the origin of this phrase? We have the claim at Gerald Seymour that the author invented the phrase in Harry's Game (1975). I feel it may be older than this and have marked the claim as requiring citation. Can anyone help? --John (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If you search Google books using the "Advanced Book Search" with a date of publication blank and 1960 (ie before 1961 with the "all the words" box filled with the string (but not in quotes),[3] it will return India Quarterly, by Indian Council of World Affairs, Published by Indian Council of World Affairs [etc.], 1945. p. 122. "The difficulty of defining terrorism has led to the cliche that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Which means that if it was a cliche in 1945 then had already been in use for some time. --PBS (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Shouldn't this page be semi-protected? Jonathan321 (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Mumbai Incident

Please add information on Mumbai 26-29 November Terrorist encounter in the recent acts. --Anuraag Vaidya 14:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Self labelling

Ray C. Rist, on pages 140,141, of The Democratic Imagination: Dialogues on the Work of Irving Louis Horowitz (Transaction Publishers, 1994 ISBN 1560001747, 9781560001744) describes some people who embrased the term terrorist, eg Geula Cohn a member of the Stern Gang wrote an autobiography called "Memoirs of a Young Terrorist" (published in 1966), and in case anyone thinks this might have been an ironic title, according to Rist in 1947 the British banned the use of the word terrorist to describe Irgun zvai Leumi because it implied that British forces had reason to be terrified of them. It would be useful to include some of the information that Rist provides in this article. --PBS (talk) 12:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Resolved

I just added a full stop and a {{clarifyme}} to it: is it supposed to be solely, "terrorism is the systematic use of terror", or was there another few words appended to it? Sceptre ^(talk) 15:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I had to take the {{Clarifyme}} flag off - it's sort of an awkward intro, but the tag just seemed silly. The subsequent sentence says there's no agreed definition, so what kind of clarification can you expect? The Webster definition in the reference does include "especially as a means of coersion". Maybe we should add that? ~ Booya ^Bazooka 06:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I wanted clarification solely because I was confused when I read the sentence: "is this the entire sentence, or have a few words been taken off?". That sounds fine, though. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That's what it used to be, so I've restored the "especially as a means of coercion" part again. It had been removed without comment on the 10th. --Onorem♠Dil 20:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool beans. Those templates aren't all bad, y'know. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion.[1] At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism.[2][3] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants.

Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war. The history of terrorist organizations suggests that they do not select terrorism for its political effectiveness.[4] Individual terrorists tend to be motivated more by a desire for social solidarity with other members of their organization than by political platforms or strategic objectives, which are often murky and undefined.[4] The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged,[5] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. One 1988 study by the US Army found that over 100 definitions of the word "terrorism" have been used.[6] A person who practises terrorism is a terrorist. The concept of terrorism is itself controversial because it is often used by states to delegitimize political opponents, and thus legitimize the state's own use of terror against those opponents.

Terrorism has been used by a broad array of political organizations in furthering their objectives; both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic, and religious groups, revolutionaries and ruling governments.[7] The presence of non-state actors in widespread armed conflict has created controversy regarding the application of the laws of war.

While acts of terrorism are criminal acts as per the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 and domestic jurisprudence of almost all countries in the world, terrorism refers to a phenomenon including the actual acts, the perpetrators of acts of terrorism and their motives. Contents —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.11.54.65 (talk) 08:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Redirect of VNSA

(pasting this comment, which was appended to an existing section above)
A terrorist organization is a VNSA (violent non-state actor), but not all VNSA's are terrorists. VNSA's include warlords, terrorists, youth gangs, insurgents, para-militaries, the mafia, etc. I wrote an article on VNSA's on wikipedia today, but someone redirected it to terrorism! User: Mirrormundo —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC).

Hi Mirrormundo. I redirected your page here and added the mention of VNSAs and the reference you inserted as well. I don't think you have enough material to create a completely standalone article, and the "Westphalia" thing you added was questionable at best. I understand your point about a VSA not necessarily being a terrorist organization, however, all non government-sponsored terrorist organizations can be considered VNSAs. I will revert my change and restore your article to its previous state if there is consensus here that it deserves a separate article. Cheers! §FreeRangeFrog 21:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggested inclusion of new categories "Anti-Colonialist" and "Resistance to Occupation"

Currently these ideological motivations are not included. I would suggest their inclusion. 93.96.148.42 (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Biased List of Terroist Groups

I have added this tag, because the section "list of terrorist groups" links to a list of current groups proscribed by 5 governments, qualified by the same tag. This obviously does not represent a global view on the subject. In addition a historical list should be included.93.96.148.42 (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If the lists are in your opinion biased then take the problem there. If on consideration you think that the section containing the lists is still problematic then put the tag on that section not on the whole article. --PBS (talk) 07:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

map, again

i'm not sure how long this has been the img used for this category, but i dont think it is easily understood or an accurate, logical portrayal of what it is supposed to represent.
on first sight, i wasn't sure what the colors stood for, attacks, deaths, organizations, what? so i clicked to see that it is called: terrorist incidents in 2008. i thought, "that seems a little arbitrary," but brushed it off easily. then i noticed the number breakdown. there seems to be an unnatural separation of the numbers (i.e.: 1, 2-9, 10+). i dont know if it is here because its the only thing we have, but i do see that appears on many, many pages. has this concern been raised before? untwirl(talk) 19:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Could this page be put on semi-protection, it seems that every other edit or so is vandalism? Pob1984 (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The place to request protection is WP:RFP A new name 2008 (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Motivations and Islamic Terrorism

To what extent Islamic terrorists are motivated by religious belief is disputed. For example. In one verse of the quran it is written that:

" Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts) of the enemies, of Allah and your enemies"

It is beleived that for this reason many muslims take part in terrorism. The word terror is mentioned in the quran along with war. Many argue that for this reason it is only allowed in war.

However it is also written that muslims should not intially agress or cause mischief on the planet.

Warning: hu:Terror is invalid, the good link ishu:Terrorizmus. Correct it, please. --Dezső László (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Islam's principles do not encourage or give permission to any muslim to commit disruptive and terrorist activities.

"If someone kills another person—unless it is in retaliation for someone else or for causing corruption in the earth—it is as if he had murdered all mankind. And if anyone gives life to another person, it is as if he had given life to all mankind". (Qur’an, 5:32)

The source of terrorism is in ignorance and bigotry and the solution to terrorism is education. To the circles who feel sympathy with terror, it should be made clear that terror is utterly against Islam and that it only serves to harm Islam, Muslims and humanity at large. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasimul (talk • contribs) 15:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Error in cross-reference

hu:Terror is INVALID, the valid cross-reference is: hu:Terrorizmus--Dezső László (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 17