Talk:Terrorism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

The list of "terrorist" organizations should be removed. Who belongs on that list is solely up to the reader. If one who would be defined as a terrorist by the list edited it, there would be massive changes resulting in potential revert wars. Wikipedia articles are supposed to list and explain facts. If there is a controversy, neither side is to be considered as a fact "right", "evil", "cruel," etc.

A strict definition of "terrorist organization" that will be used objectively, such as "any group that intentionally kills, attempts to kill, or threatens to kill, non-military targets as a means of gaining political influence, or a group that funds such an organization" could be applied to the lists. Of course, there would be a debate over the facts involving the actions of proposed terrorists and definitions of phrases like "political influence."

The lists in reality serve little to no purpose. Those who read about the actions of those organizations can make their own decision about which ones are terrorists and which are freedom fighters.

---

Before this gets into a case of reverts, can I endorse the version as it now stands that appends comments about minority views of who is a terrorist nation as prose after the list of widely accepted terrorist nations. If there is additional controversy, it would help to cite who widely considers (or once considered, as in the case of Libya) these nations to be terrorist. It is probabably more accurate to say "officially considered terrorist" in the context of identifying the office that made the declaration. SoCal 21:04, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

I agree with the trend of the edits by 165.228.127.160. The article is rather unwieldy. It should give the reader a better view of what terrorism is.

I haven't exactly figured how to word it, but I think an aspect of terrorist that most non-politically committed people would accept is that it works terror against civilians by the element of randomness and surprise. IOW, you know that if your nation is at war, and enemy planes are coming in that you are apt to be bombed, but in terrorist incidents, you are going about your business in a place you expect to be secure, and a bomb goes off, of a person reveals a weapon, and begins to kill unsuspecting civilians. Cecropia 07:05, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that I don't have the time (now), and maybe not the interest to get involved in nationalistic and politically charged disputes, but I dare say that I do not find Cecropia's view stated above to be of much use. For the victim, the assault may seem unexpected (although not neccessarily so), but terror wouldn't be of any use, if it weren't for the fear it is aimed at planting in its targets (which, of course, often is a much larger group than the actual victims). Randomness, yes, often that's the case, but surprise, no, not as a rule.
--Ruhrjung 07:40, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Talk? -SVtalk 09:05, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Considered by many"

"Considered by many to fit the definition" is a weasel term. Who is many? What makes them different from the undisputed terrorists other than that their political opponents think they're terrorists. Using "many" places virtually any world leader who has ever gone to war or been at the head of a state at war as a terrorist.

You'd have to include Tojo for Pearl Habor and the Rape of Nanking (among others), FDR and Churchill for the firebombing of Dresden, Both Mao and Chaing Kai-Chek in the Chinese Civil War, Lincoln for the burning of Atlanta, Stalin for the murder of Trotsky and lots of actions in WWII, and I'm not even getting started...

So can't we come up with a more responsive head than "considered by many"...?

"Considered by political opponents to fit the definition" is a weasel term. Who is are them? What are their opposing other than that their political opponents think they're terrorists. Using opponents places virtually any world leader (Jacques Chirac for instance ?) who opposed to something as a terrorist. Ericd 20:38, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Exactly my point. If the reason for including people in this "gray zone" list can't be described other than with weasel terms like "many" or "opponents" the validity of such a list at all is in question. Cecropia 22:37, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

BTW.... I include Tojo for Pearl Habor and the Rape of Nanking (among others), FDR and Churchill for the firebombing of Dresden, Both Mao and Chaing Kai-Chek in the Chinese Civil War, Lincoln for the burning of Atlanta, Stalin for the murder of Trotsky and lots of actions in WWII, and I'm not even getting started... Add Truman for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Yasser Arafat and Menahem Begin and you will be closer from the truth... And you know what I respect many of them they were humans confronted to situationsq I never had to face. Ericd 20:45, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

This article seems to be blurring any distinction between terrorism and other forms of violence. It's not just a Wikipedia problem, of course - I read a news story in which some protesters accused the military of "psychological terrorism" for playing patriotic music.

For the word to have any meaning at all, there needs to be a clear definition, and it needs to be better than what the article currently appears to be using: "organized violence for reasons that someone who has edited this article doesn't agree with."

Was the Holocaust terrorism? Was Hitler a terrorist? What about Pol Pot? Or Jack the Ripper? The section on state terrorism lists Soviet Russia. Does that mean that oppression the same thing as terrorism? Same goes for a couple of the other dictators listed. The problem is, if I started adding anybody I think fits the loose definition being used, and everyone else did the same, the article would collapse under its own weight. Sheesh, there isn't even a mention of eco-terrorism yet, and that's probably something that actually ought to be discussed.

Along these lines, I agree with Ericd's comments, and think that the "considered by some" list is meaningless and POV (meaningless since almost any world leader could qualify under the standards used, and POV because the only ones actually listed here are US and Israeli.) I could add a bunch of names to balance the POV, but the whole article is already large and confused.

I think a better solution is just to delete it. Otherwise it's just a list of people someone doesn't like. If somebody reverts, I'm not going to try to force it, but I really think this list should go. Isomorphic 22:25, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Agreed Cecropia 22:37, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree that "For the word to have any meaning at all, there needs to be a clear definition" This is the point. The word, without its political contexts, is meaningless. One does not generally mold the definition to fit a lopsided POV, unless you are operating under the pretexts of that POV. The definition, Iso, that you gave was mistated, rather the definition should be the one most clearly fits the facts. Facts might be relevant to an encyclopedia, although it seems, not where the US and its pet POV are concerned.

Next thing, someone would say that Kennedy's blowing up of a factory in Cuba forty years ago wasnt "terrorism," by some selective reasoning. Either it fits the definition, or we agree that the term is largely polemic and therefore meaningless. You cannot have your cake and eat it too, even if you think you somehow deserve that the rest of us preserve your collective delusions. -SVtalk 23:04, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that I was delusional. Thanks for enlightening me. Perhaps you should take a second look at the link you posted here to Wikipedia:Civility. Please see my comments below for further explanation of my position. Isomorphic 00:18, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Protected page

Thank you KingTurtle, for protecting the page, reminding some of our more reactionary clan to engage in civil discourse, rather than inane reverts. Its just a Wikipedia article, after all. :] With liberty and justice for us special ones, -SVtalk

Arafat not a terrorist? Weather Underground is a person?

Stevertigo reverted my edits by adding BACK arafat as a terrorist and deleting the weather underground from the list of INDIVIDUAL terrorists (it is on the organization list. If Begin and Shamir are on the terrorist list, who would leave Arafat out? Is this just spite or what? Cecropia 23:12, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well Arafat was a terrorist, C'mon...SVtalk 23:17, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is precisely because terrorism is so readily politicised by those with POV barrows to push that this article MUST be stripped down to its NPOV bones. Stevertigo's path will lead to constant revert wars. In fact, we are already seeing this. It is ludicrous and misleading to try to use the intro para as a forum for Arab apologetics or some other political agenda. As it happens, I am pro-Palistinian, but I still don't want the Arab-as-victim scenario in the first or second para. The article is getting better but it is still a hodge-podge of views and opinions, very much the proverbial camel designed by a committee. Still, let's keep at it. This is an important piece in Wikipedia. Marcusvox

Marcus, youre using GOPPOV and NPOV interchangably, please correct this behaviour. Its a political term, in almost any way you use it. This isnt rocket science - be fair. -SVtalk 23:24, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I removed the claim that Operation Condor was a CIA operation. It was a collaboration between South American governments. Even Counterpunch isn't claiming that it was a CIA operation, only that the CIA "may have even abetted" it . The fact that I have to remove a charge against the US that even Counterpunch won't make doesn't give me confidence in the current neutrality or accuracy of this article. Isomorphic 23:23, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is a shame that the page protection came on just in time to keep this para in place -

The term "terrorist" is label for one who is an active participant in a "terrorist act," be it through direct personal action, or through direct funding or logistical support in the goal of executing a terrorist act —at times the tacit definition is generalized to include "moral support" for a political agenda that can be associated with a "terrorist" group. In addition, these terms each may tend to be applied to non-violent groups which have a non-direct political association with a violent faction. Within particular political contexts, use of the term is typically avoided when discussing violence by actors who happen to function within a locally acceptible political context. In current practice, within American or Western culture, "terrorism" and "terrorist" can often be seen as acceptible racial or political euphemisms for "violence by Arabs" and even "Muslims" in general.

This is a typical left-wing perspective. It is strongly POV and not appropriate at this point in the article. In fact, it possibly has no place in the article at all. I thought NEUTRAL point of view was the goal. I will keep removing this para. Marcusvox

Typical left wing? O-boy. You must unlearn what you have learned, young Jedi. -SVtalk 23:55, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thought you might chaff at that. That's the Achilles heel on most armchair lefties living it up in the comfortable West and pontificating about some theoretical workers paradise. (I assume, safely, that you are not a Romanian, or a Cuban, or a North Korean.) Lefties in the West are invariably people who pride themselves on being different, hip, radical, not mainstream, seeing deeply into the nature of things. But sadly, you are just another typical leftie, average, boring and predictable. Shall I profile you? You are probably an academic or a writer or artist of some sort; you admire people like Noam Chomsky; you believe America is evil; you think Bill Clinton was a right-wing sell out; you privately fantasize about being Michael Moore (but thinner and better dressed); you go to S11 rallies, green rallies and all sorts of protests against something (anything!) You smoke pot and think it's cool (it was in the 1960s dude!) You are anti-war but you love the democratic freedoms underwitten by American strength-at-arms. And you write and edit WP with strong SPOV, of which you are blithely unaware. Apart from all that, you are probably a hell of nice person. Marcusvox

Just by the way, I have been wondering what GOPPOV means --- is this Grand Old Party POV, a cleverdick reference to the US Republican party??? I am not an American, nor am I British or European. So, Stevertigo, your crude attempt to pigeon-hole me as a US neo-con has failed ;-) I am an independent thinker, I study history, I accept nothing as received wisdom, I worship no ideology, I keep my eyes open, AND I believe that Ronald Reagan will be remembered as the most influential US President of the 20th century. (I love adding that last bit - it makes the neo-Trots see red, right before they turn purple and start dribbling spittle!!!) Marcusvox

• FDR was more influential ;) They even had to amend the constitution because of him ;) Kingturtle 23:49, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dont forget Thatcher - Thatcher was quite the lady when it came to little islands, and labor unions. -SVtalk 23:55, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Good point, yes it was because of FDR that terms were limited. But Ronald called the Russian bluff, knocked the straw out of their pants, and so hastened the decline of communism. It was a true Ophrah moment. Marcusvox

You have a very simplistic view of history, and its terms. Consider the meaning of communism as synonymous with terrorism. "The enemy," by some coincidence, always seems to have a name which somehow doesnt fit any definition. If you know history at all, maybe you can understand that the enemy "communism" was merely a misnomer for "totalitarianism" (which has too many syllables, so you can use it in stump speeches). That is the forgving view. The less POV view is that "communism" represented a contradicting, perhaps more totalitatarian view than capitalism did, (again, these are both just ideologies) and the debate was not so much over correctness, but of control. Now we live in an era when capitalism itself is exposed (Enron, Worldcom) for its totalitarianism ('how dare people argue over the definition of terrorism') and its inefficiency, which was the primary economic criticism of communism. -SVtalk 00:26, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You are both wandering far off topic. This is not a place for either of you to air your political views. The point is to improve this article. And an article on terrorism cannot proceed until there has been some agreement on what "terrorism" is. Isomorphic 00:33, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I concur, and yet I disagree. The political views are central to the task of finding and using a neutral definition, not just for this article, but elsewhere as well. I'd like to see "terrorism" reduced to what it is, which is a name, like "communism" was moreoften used as a name, almost entirely unrelated to its economic meaning. - SVtalk 00:44, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

For the record, one doesn't have to condone actions to say that they aren't "terrorism". My point above was only that the article needs to find something clearer than a viewpoint that any organized violence by anybody under any circumstances can be classed as terrorism. This article needs to define terrorism with respect to each of the following forms of violence that might overlap: guerilla warfare, war, low intensity conflict, covert action, organized crime, and revolution. Stvertigo appears to believe that no useful definition is possible, since he has claimed that either we have to include everything or admit that the term is largely polemic. Either one of those options leaves the term meaningless, and leaves this article to be nothing but a political playground. I believe that such a definition is possible, and I suggest that some thought be put into it. Isomorphic 00:18, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, you seek meaning where there is none. Perhaps better said, you seek literal meaning, where exists only political meaning in common rhetoric. -SVtalk 00:46, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

U.S. state department

Prior to 9/11, the U.S. state department defined terrorism as:

Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

Noncombatants are not only civilians, but military personnel who are unarmed or off duty at the time. This definition is worded carefully so that governments cannot be listed as terrorist organizations. Kingturtle 00:47, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Interesting. But does the pre-911 United States State Department have reign over the definition? We agree that even this less 911-influenced meaning was was "worded carefully" —for political reasons. -SVtalk 00:51, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Not at all, but we certainly should include this definition and a critique of it. Ours is not to omit, but to include with criticism. Kingturtle 00:53, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Actually, though, metnioning the state department definition only addresses terrorism as an expletive. Terrorism by a government is covered under "clandestine agents." "Agents" means "agent of a government." The argument about "state terrorism" is really only a "don't complain I do it, you do it, too." The sanction against a government for a terrorist act is called a "war crime," although according to the laws of war, war crimes can be committed both by governments and individuals. Cecropia 00:54, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. This is constructive discussion. The distinction between terrorism and war crimes does exist. It's only since 9/11 that it's become chic to call everything "terrorism." My point from the beginning is not that it's OK for governments to do it, but that we call it something different then. Isomorphic 01:03, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Bush administration has been very careful to overuse the term terrorism. Bush is more likely to get funding for what he wants when he invokes the word. This article should discuss Bush's overuse of the word, and why he does it.

The use of the term, however, is not new. In fact, this is not the U.S.'s first war on terror. Kingturtle 01:06, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's not just Bush, it's everyone. You can smear your opponents by linking them with something that most people condemn (9/11). I would be happy to see a section on the overuse of the word (as long as it does not single out Bush alone,) and the reasons for it.

Also, what is this earlier war on terrorism you're referring to? I'm no sure if I know what you mean, but I'm interested. Isomorphic 01:13, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Reagan administration had a war on terrorism too. The opponents included Lebanon and Libya. Events included attacks on the American embassy and Marines in Beirut, bombing of U.S. embassy in Kuwait, the hijacking of TWA 847, the kidnappings of Americans in the Middle East (including William Buckley), the hijacking of the Achille Lauro, the bombing of La Belle Discotheque, and the bombing of Pan Am 103. Frontline did a terrific episode about it all. Kingturtle 02:33, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps a mention of this should go in the article for historical context? Isomorphic 02:38, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Some education from KT. Thanks again! -SV(talk) 03:16, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Definitive definition of terrorism

"What the other guy does." Cecropia 00:47, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Basically thats it. It doesnt sound encyclopedic, but its correct. And what's a correctable encyclopedia supposed to be if not correct.?

-SVtalk 00:51, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So let's put that definition up, and go out for a beer. Cecropia 00:55, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's the lazy way out. Anyone can agree that a husband beating his wife is not terrorism. And I don't think most people would call an invasion "terrorism", because that's war. So obviously there IS some meaning here. Also, I don't think that the fact that everybody has been abusing the term ridiculously since 9/11 is any reason for us to assume that it never had meaning. Isomorphic 00:59, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The problem is no so much one of definition. The article has a good opening para and later paras cover the distinctive nature of terrorism acceptably well. It is the introduction of POV material like this which is in contention:

"Within particular political contexts, use of the term is typically avoided when discussing violence by actors who happen to function within a locally acceptible political context. In current practice, within American or Western culture, "terrorism" and "terrorist" can often be seen as acceptible racial or political euphemisms for "violence by Arabs" and even "Muslims" in general."

This is erroneous, dubious and contentious. Marcusvox

I see - so, though you (typically) avoid the issues, you pretend that you and your views are meritous enough to erase material, and dictate to us what is "in contention." The issue in contention is the very use of the term terrorism, not just on this article, but throughout wikipedia, to conform to a logical definition that is agreeable to most. Who are most? Consider recent (international) polls which put Israel and the US at the top of a 'most danger to the world' list. Now you could say openly here now Marcusvox, that "world opinion" is misinformed or otherwise under the control of some "evil" influence, but as you know, you would then have to deal with the some 70 percent of the English wikipedians who belong to that World opinion. -SVtalk 01:23, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your comment about polls is completely irrelevant. Terrorism =/ evil. You can be morally wrong without being a terrorist, and some might even say that you can be a terrorist without being morally wrong. Apparently you feel that because you dislike the foreign policy of the United States, you must define terrorism in such a way as to include it. You realize, don't you, that it's perfectly possible to find an action reprehensible and not call it terrorism? Isomorphic 01:45, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree. But the tendency is to label Arab violence "fanatical" and "terrorist." In otherwords its OK to grumble a bit about US or Western violence, but leave the real science of labelism to "the enemy," whomever it be. How do you deal with how the tendency for bias contradicts logic? Does logic not have a place in how a term is defined or used? -SV

What is all this babbling about Stevertigo? I understand you very well. You are a typical leftist. There are no surprises in you. I could write two dozen statements here and just about predict your responses to each of them verbatim. You are a completely known quantity. I have heard the leftist/liberal rant for many decades. I (no doubt we all) know what outrages you, what appalls you, what motivates you. But you are just a windbag, full of theories you have never put into practice. I suspect you are an American - but one of the strange ones who does not seem to comprehend the greatness of their own nation. I'll bet you are not a Romanian, an East German, an Albanian, or a North Korean, or any of the other poor bastards who have suffered terrible deprivation because of the inherent stupidities of socialism. Go play with your crystals Stevertigo, and let the grown-ups get on with NPOVing this article. Marcusvox

I wont respond to your attacks, as you seem to be under an assumption:that I have a "typical leftist POV," and an illusion: that your comments don't betray you as a right-wing nutcase—convinced that you by God's grace alone have made it to the top of your imaginary gene pool. All that being 'firmly established, to continue to argue with a person like you would be to argue with a fool—and then people might not be able to tell the difference, which I certainly don't want to happen. :D -SVtalk 02:49, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ha ha! Is that blood on your collar? Looks like I smacked you fair in your big RED nose! But alas! Don't tell me that, like Peter, you would deny your Christ? I see. What would Noam think? Not only are you an armchair lefty, but you're a pretty tame one at that. I suspected as much. Again, no surprises with you. Marcusvox

Definition baseline

How about if we start with several dictionary definitions? IMO, if we could define this without mentioning specific countries and especially people any more than necessary, we might come up with something that the ingenuous user might find useful.

• "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." -- The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
• "The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode of government by terror or intimidation. --Jefferson." -- Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
• "the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments." -- Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

If anyone attacks these as culturally biased, I dispair of having any kind of article at all. Cecropia 01:47, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If we start with these, then to whom are they applied? Some here maintian the claim that the US or Israel (the prime copyright-holders of the "terrorism" ad campaign) can never commit terrorism, nor can thier past, presiding, or future military commanders possibly be considered terrorists-- contrary to the above definitions, which if, taken literally, would apply. Take the case of Cuba, or Nicaragua, or Vietnam, and the use of terrorism (impressive weaponry or not) to exacerbate and inflame the pre-existing conflicts. If we can agree to be even-handed and logical about who gets labeled a terrorist, and not use other terms like "warfare" and "soldier" and "combatant" simply to obfuscate the agreed-to definition, then we can talk about starting with a "definition."

This has so far failed to happen, and right-wingers of all opposing sides typically get on Wikipedia to espouse their over-simplistic views - Wikipedia leaves itself open to this by not sticking to a solid definition --one that would require someone like Marcus to actually look up from his beerglass to understand. A beer does sound good, by the way. -SVtalk 03:01, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

SV, I think you're too hung up on labeling who is and isn't a terrorist. Do we care about whether a person looking for an encyclopedia entry comes away with some solid information, no matter what his or her view? If we can't start with a dictionary definition, then maybe there shouldn't be an article entitled "terrorism" at all. We can't even use the "Man fron Mars" standard, because such a being might read what we think is an impartial definition, throw out our earthly fascination with "just" and "unjust", "aggressor" and "defender", "civilian" and "military", "lawful" and "unlawful", and conclude that all war is terrorism, rendering the term meaningless. Cecropia 03:39, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Again, this sounds like you're representing a complaint that 'we can no longer use our favorite word' rather than an argument which shows that the word can have a neutral meaning. It cant —it's a polemic term, and every despot in history has used the term or something like it to characterise dissident violence as senseless mayhem, instead of natural social discontent, or a rebellion-por-libertad. The old rules —which count on cultures staying isolated by oceans and tongues, are no longer relevant. Fact. -SV(talk) 06:22, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There is nothing so elegant as simplicity. Perhaps you should have a beer, Stevertigo, it might loosen you up a little and perhaps you would become a little less pompous. But probably not. Marcusvox

It seems perfectly simple to me. A terrorist is someone who deliberately sets out to cause terror (hence terror-ism). Therefore a conventional war is not terrorism as it usually has the main aim of overthrowing a government, or conquering land, etc. This obviously would cause a large amount of terror among those involved, but this is not the main aim of the war. In contrast, an act of terrorism is a deliberate attempt to cause terror, often targeted at innocent people, usually at random. Unlike war, the act of terrorism in itself does not achieve the aims of the terrorists, killing a few innocent people does not itself have much effect on the country being targeted, much more people would be killed in a conventional war. However, it does cause terror as people are (quite rightly) horrified at the thought of even one innocent person being killed, and the randomness of the attacks also causes fear among the whole population who worry that they might be the next target. Terrorist attacks therefore only work indirectly by putting pressure on the government of the country being targeted to grant the terrorists what they want, with the threat that if they do not get what they want that they will carry on causing terrorism. --Cap 14:53, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What if a government, while prosecuting a war, decides to cause terror among the opposing country's populace for tactical reasons? Do you doubt that this tactic is sometimes used? It appears to me that it is used frequently. - Nat Krause 17:45, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You have a good point, I think that some people might describe the American tactic of "shock and awe" in the Iraq war as a form of terrorism.--Cap 14:41, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Suggested Revision

Ok, here is the revision of I have been trying to put forward. I have put it on an external web link at http://www.ballina.net/wik/terrorism.htm As you will see, it includes some of the stuff Stevertigo wanted. Perhaps we could use this as a starting point? Comments? --Marcusvox 09:01, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

• That link is not working. Kingturtle 09:03, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Sorry, link is now working.--Marcusvox 09:42, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Looks promising. Sadly, I have to get to sleep. I won't be able to read it closely for about 16 hours. Nice work, it looks like. Kingturtle 09:08, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• That's a good start. Thank you. Of course, I have a few comments:
  • Just as a technical matter, I believe the etymology of the word should be after the definition. People want to know what a word means before they deal with what it comes from.
  • I think something like the following wording should replace the second paragraph of "Definitions", in order to better distinguish between the change that has taken place in practical objectives as terrorism (I've bolded the added wording):

Although the exact meaning of the term is disputed, it is commonly held that the distinctive nature of terrorism lies in its deliberate and specific selection of civilians as targets, a choice designed to attract wide publicity and cause extreme levels of public shock, outrage and fear. Terrorists believe that such conditions will help bring about the political or religious changes they seek. Until after World War II a major objective of terror has been to demoralize their opponents and attempt to break their will to fight, making them more amenable to their demands. This is still a major goal, but with the rise of international media, some terror groups now hope to provoke a disproportionate reaction from the terrorized states in the hope that images of the retaliation will garner international support and/or recruit more fighters to their cause.

More to come... Cecropia 05:42, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think you need to study the Yugoslovian dictator's policies during world war II before you conclude the strategy of provoking a violent response to mobilize a population started after world war II. From what I see emerging, you don't have much of a handle on world military history, and are speculating based on events as they unfolded to you in your lifetime.

explain "disproportionate" - how do you know these people's hopes? are you guessing or is that what they said in an interview on television or what? How do you know they aren't just fed up with western hedonism and are throwing it back in the face of the west the same way you throw a rock at a dog to keep it at bay? It might or might not be what they are doing, but on what do you base your analysis? Is the opinion of the attacked party a reliable source for the motive of the attacker? Do you intend to phrase your speculation about the motives of people you have never met as fact or as speculation? - Bad faith

Whatever you say terrorism is it will be a lie if it tries to distinguish political violence from any other effort to terrorize humans. One thing we all know at the animal level is what is terror, and playing political word games doesnt undo the damage to the language when we start hedging on when it is okay to terrorize people and when it is not. -Bad faith

Yes, unsigned, the tendency is to diminish the moral issues by framing acts in large, unnavigable contexts. In any case, its good to see the newbie revert-war simmer down. The lord God almighy gave us all a brain—that we could use it to cut the truth from the lie. Let us find no shame in using it here. Matthew 10:34 -SV(talk) 06:07, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We're not off to a real good start here, Bad faith, if you immediately run to ad hominem without addressing my points in any real way. Perhaps you should just write the article since you know all and see all. Cecropia 06:12, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

nope, challenges that assert faulty scope and hasty generalization are not ad hominem. Perhaps some Wikipedia cold turkey would work and we can all feel the cortisol race through our blood as our endocrine systems fight for a satisfaction we expected but never enjoyed. Maybe we could write more next week, or next year. -BF

"newbie" now there is a dismissive euphemism. Is it when you are trying to minimize other's interests that technique works best? OH, now I get it! some terror groups now hope to provoke ... you don't really know which ones, but you're sure there must be some and why throw out a perfectly rational sounding analysis merely for the lack of a subject to analyze, right? Oh, and now I get it with SV - we got a little us-against-them thing going there. An idealized shared enemy to help us build comraderee. SV, Bad Faith and God against the newbies. We can sure be pals, huh? -BF

Well, no, not if you dont sign your posts, (four of these "~") but it does help, doesnt it, if you follow the thread first, before opening your mouth, eh? ;) We are actually a bit on a fine balance here BF, and though some in this discussion are new Wikipedians, they are not entirely unreasonable (a protected article helps) and you are obviously capable enough to help out if you try to minimise any unnecessary flippancy (what then would I do?). That said, you do seem to have a handle on the logic issues, and so does Cecropia (Markus has gone away to grow up a little...) - the issue now is the term's use in practice on the wikipedia. Cecropia and I represent the two polar ends of the reasonable spectrum - we have so far done a good job of finding some middle ground. It would help if we dont act rashly. Good night all.-SV(talk) 07:13, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sir Cecropia,

Terrorism need not be about publicity - again thats an intent - we can agree that the simplistic Bushist "pure evil" definition doesnt work, at least. You diverge from the above definitions by attempting to state what terrorists believe (BF hit on this as well) Its interesting, but it still represents a contradiction... Violence for political publicity is interesting, as as phenomenon related to media, but also is a wandering. The claim that WWII was somehow a turning point in the definition of violence is trying to make an analogy between a war (and all of its related issues) with an act, which has some moral issues attached. - Goodnight again. -SV(talk) 07:17, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm not trying to express what terrorists believe in terms of why they do it but to give the reader a sense of why would this be effective as a military tactic. You can view the "ism" in terrorist as a philosophy of war. Cecropia 16:03, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I like Marcus' proposed revision. It's clearer and more consise than what we have now, and it addresses the problems with defining terrorism without allowing these problems to dominate the entire article. I support accepting that version, as I think it's a better point to continue from than what we have now. As a side note, if we adopt this version, I think the "International Conventions on Terrorism" should split off into its own article. It's a bit long for the main article, and it's not a central topic. As a separate article, it could be further expanded to discuss not just the international agreements but other diplomatic issues related to terrorism. Isomorphic 15:13, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, though I do appreciate Marcus' efforts to be civil. It's contradicts the spirit of collaboration however, to offer us an outside link ( thus I have not seen his changes) The traditional method is to make a draft page like this: Terrorism/draft or if you want to have more control of the draft, to do so as a subpage of your user account. -SV(talk) 22:44, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt anyone here has a background in either the literature on terrorism, on the medical implications of terror or on state laws regarding terrrorism to make any changes or additions to this article. Just to head the ignorant off at the pass, I anticipate some authoritarian sounding editors will demand that review of psychopathological effects have no place in this discussion of a sociopathology. I am confident nobody who has contributed to this talk page would even know where to begin looking for that material.

I doubt anyone here knows about a Scientific American article that traced the lingering effects of violent political trauma, nor does anyone know how the scholars in that article classified war-related trauma in civilian populations. I doubt anyone here is aware some states have laws that prohibit "terroristic threats". It has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with an action intended to make a victim feel terror. In many cases, the governing standard is whether the victim felt terrorized. Assault laws styled to prohibit terroristic threats are most often applied in interpersonal disputes, especially in cases of family violence.

Otherwise, I believe flippancy is the safest approach when working with editors who feel qualified to write an encyclopedia based on what they saw on television and read in the newspaper. It allows a participant to identify those others who would react to the way a message is delivered instead of to the content of the message. Also, in an atmosphere of flippancy, people find it more neccessary to substantiate their claims, which they can anticipate will be met with scorn if they advance the political biases of prevailing Western culture.172.198.40.88 19:37, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Someone here hasnt yet read the meta:academic standards disease article... But since that "someone" here does purport to be qualified, maybe that "someone" could take the effort to login under a pseudoname, and edit the article themselves, or propose changes on a draft subpage. -SV(talk) 22:44, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Can someone do something about this line please. It seems to condone the offensive practice.

"In current practice, within American or Western culture, "terrorism" and "terrorist" can often be seen as acceptible racial or political euphemisms for "violence by Arabs" and even "Muslims" in general."

203.240.170.120 10:02, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

Some questions from 145.254.55.56 23:39, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC):

1. If "Terrorism is something you do but I don't", we could rewrite the article accordingly. What would you think of mentioning both sides' POV for each mentioned terrorist group? How does the group think of itself versus who refers to this group as terrorists and why? Thus anybody could make up his own mind. It would also be interesting to see how the outside perception changes over time. For example the Chechnyan "rebels", who are only now internationally refered to as terrorists. And one man's state terror is another man's strong leadership. :) This approach should help defuse the discussion. Basically: Who calls whom a terrorist, and why?
2. Rewrite section "State terrorism" (NPOV!)? I'd split it in at least two sections. International state-sponsored terrorism would include clandestine (and therefore difficult to prove) actions like School of Americas, ... Rule by terror would include any unlawful, fear-instilling actions of a government against its own population, eg Stalin's gulags, people "disappearing" in Latin-American dictatorships, Nazi-German SA and SS groups, the 18th century "terrorisme", ... International military actions could list examples like Hiroshima, Napalm, Dresden, etc. that are considered military by some, terrorist by others.
3. Should references to the 2002-2003 build-up of the Iraq war be included as examples of state terrorism? I'd rather list them as propaganda or in the section "Benefits of violence" (see below).
4. Remove list of "terrorist states"? Or give good reasons. For example: Iraq under Saddam Hussein: accused by the US and Israel of supporting Hamas and other anti-Isralian terrorist groups. USA under George W. Bush: accused by ... of ...
5. Explain "benefits of violence" from other POVs? The most obvious benefit is getting attention for a political agenda (like IRA, PLO, ETA in the 70s). Then there are of course the indirect benefits for right-wing governments seizing the opportunity to further their own causes: tighten "security" or start a war. IMHO conspirational claims about state-sponsored terrorism (eg Tonkin or Hamas) would benefit from a bit more supporting evidence -- or a more careful phrasing ;-)
6. Minor detail: Separate article for "International Conventions on Terrorism"?

The mention of You do it, I don't is a sort of introduction for "the reader who knows nothing" (Journalism 001) as to how charged the word is. Since this is the core article, I would rather move toward conciseness and less wording than complication and more wording. I'd prefer to have involved POV ideas in appropriate sub-articles.

More Terrorism That Must Be Included

OK, so if we're including the terroristic intimidation of Greasy Food Franchises, there are other forms of terrorists we can't leave out:

• Vaporterrorism--Bean eaters on crowded subway cars stuck between stations
• Audioterrorism--Neighbors who leave their dogs out all night
• Boboterrorism--what evil clowns do to children in stories like Stephen King's It
• Canoterrorism--what Beagles do to rabbits
• Transitterrorism--bus drivers who throw you off in dangerous neighborhoods because you don't have exact change
• Marketterrorism--shoppers who bring 30 items onto a 10-or-less line, then pay with foreign currency travelers cheques with forged signatures
• Wikiterrorism--reverting three hours of carefully researched edits two minutes before the editor is to got to bed Cecropia 04:21, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

ROFL. I agree, when it comes to the trashing of my own articles. - Very terroristic. ;) If theres any point to be made, its how silly the term is, considering the way it has so many built-in stipulations. I'm taking a crack at the opening now, adding some fat, hopefully it will be a little meatier, while still remaining within dietary norms. -SV(talk) 01:40, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Saw your rewrite of the intro. I like it. Orders and retains the key points without going off into babble that makes the phrase meaningless. Also think the (1) and (2) an excellent idea. Cecropia 03:17, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! But where are the new extra additions to your list? I was all geared up to get my chuckle on. :) -SV(talk) 03:27, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

page protection

Has some sort of balance developed so we can lift the protection? Are we ready? Kingturtle 18:04, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes and no. See Pair of ducks. -SV(talk) 01:40, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There needs to be a link somewhere on this article to Terrorism/Draft. <-- And there it is! -SV(talk) 03:08, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Chomsky

Chomsky's views on terrorism are not unifaceted. On page 76 of his book 9-11, Noam Chomsky defines terrorism:

Wanton killing of innocent civilians is terrorism, not a war against terrorism.

Chomsky clearly distinguishes between the targeting of civilians and the targeting of military personnel or installations. Thereby placing the definition of terrorism on an objective basis. At other times, Chomsky defines terrorism as being relative:

It is the weapon of those who are against 'us' whoever 'us' happens to be. And if you can find a historical exception to that, I'd be interested in seeing it.

In addition, Noam Chomsky identifies terrorism with low intensity warfare.

The U.S. is officially committed to what is called “low–intensity warfare.” That’s the official doctrine. If you read the definition of low–intensity conflict in army manuals and compare it with official definitions of “terrorism” in army manuals, or the U.S. Code, you find they’re almost the same. Terrorism is the use of coercive means aimed at civilian populations in an effort to achieve political, religious, or other aims. That’s what the World Trade Center bombing was, a particularly horrifying terrorist crime.

- - - - - - -

The problem is that the analysis being presented does not distinguish between what Chomsky thinks terrorism is and what he says other people mean by the word. In the first quotation he is giving an opinion of his own (but it is not a definition since it doesn't say that nothing else could be terrorism also). In the second quotation he is commenting on what he sees as the establishment usage of the word "terrorism". He is not saying he agrees with it and in fact it is obvious that he does not. In the third quotation he is again emphasising the commentary made in the second quotation, and again he does not at all say that he agrees with either of the two usages of the word "terrorism" that he describes. In other words, there is nothing at all contradictory between these three quotations. I find them entirely consistent and entirely Chomskyesque. --Zero 07:23, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

It really isn't sufficient to simply identify Chomsky as a linguist, because implies that his is a neutral definition, when in fact he is using his position as a linguist to advance his political view. Cecropia 05:42, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Israel

I was just reading through the article when I noticed Israel is under "Examples of Religious Terrorist Groups" and "States widley classed as terrorist". Can anyone give some reasons this should stay in? It's ridiculous to classify Israel with the likes of North Korea, Iraq, Iran, and Al Queda.

Also, I find the phrase "Palestinian Territories" to be NPOV. There are no officially recognized "Palestinian Territories". There is only the West Bank and Gaza Strip. -Berrik

According to United Nations Documents, "Palestinian Territories" are the lands occupied since 1967. Search in un.org, and you will find thousends of documents using that term. I guess UN recognision of the term is enough. -- Isam

State terrorism

Why is this Baltasar Garzón allowed to define the term "state terrorism" for us? Interesting that his whole definition rests on opposing the judiciary, and he himself is a judge. Hmmm. So if you can get a court to approve what you're doing, that makes it okay?

Anyway, the whole "State terrorism" list is a mess. Obviously, the supporters of these various countries would not describe them as terrorist. Obviously, there are many, many people in the world that would describe Israel as terrorist. Obviously, there are many others who would object to that classification. I don't see what objective criterion we can bring to bear here. Recommend excising the whole list. - Nat Krause 04:31, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

the funny thing is that it seems that the list is coming straight from the Pentagon, it contrains 8 muslim countries out 11 listed countries. How is that for NPOV ? Other countries that have 10s of UN resolutions that they completly ignored, and that have organized terrorism part of thier military actions are not in the list. Oh well. This is expected in an English Wikipedia.. so much of NPOV -- Isam

What's sort of odd is that it seems like the term "state terrorism" does not mean the same thing as what I'd call "state-sponsored terrorism". And yet, the list seems to be mostly assuming we're talking about state-sponsored terrorism. Isomorphic 02:56, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)~

I read this article to see how terrorism could be defined to exclude acts like Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the bombing of German cities in WWII. The exclusion of "warfare" is discomforting since it excludes all Nazi reprisals, and Al Qa'ida is certainly at war with the US. The only suitable definition in the article is Noam Chomsky's, which is not satisfactory for general use. The State Department definition, however, works quite well:

Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

The topic of "state terrorism" obliterates the distinction, but "state-sponsored terrorism" does not. I think the distinction is necessary, and support altering the title of the "state terrorism" section. This still makes the USA of 100 years ago a "terrorist nation" for the brutal suppression of non-lethal strikes and the war against the Philippines, so the list of "terrorist" states should be eliminated to hedged with caveats. Fairandbalanced 21:49, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm still inclined to think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorism... This is uncomfortable isn'it ? Ericd 22:19, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were total war. Isomorphic 02:05, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Looking at the entry on total war it sounds like a euphemism for terrorism. If the other nation's "ability to engage in war" includes the morale of its population, or if the other nation's population becomes terrorized in the process, I don't see how you can distinguish that from terrorism. - Nat Krause 03:44, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Huh?? It's not a euphamism for terrorism; it's much broader than that. Total war means, quite simply, the use of any and all available means to win a war. That can include breaking the morale of the opposing population, but that is by no means the only target. Total war includes things like destruction of industry, attacks on shipping, and destruction of civil infrastructure. The purpose of total war isn't particularly to cause fear - it's to break the ability of the opponent to wage war. Isomorphic 04:50, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Okay, so it's a euphemism for terrorism as well as a number of other things. Al Qaeda probably thinks that they are in a total war with the United States. Does that mean that their attacks are not terrorism? - Nat Krause 04:59, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Warfare is not terrorism. Defining terrorism in such a way as to include a declared war renders the term so broad as to be almost meaningless. And yes, that also means I find the term "War on Terrorism" pointless. There are many forms of violence that aren't terrorism, although by the way people throw the word around in the last couple years, you wouldn't ever guess it. Isomorphic 05:32, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

a) if you look at the article, the first definition of terrorism given doesn't say anything to exclude war. In fact, it seems to describe aspects of total war perfectly. The second definition given is clearly describing a POV.

b) again, if al-Qaeda says it is at war with United States, are its attacks therefore not terrorism? - Nat Krause 05:51, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion, the term it self is POV, and enemies call each other with it, for example in the case of Israel and Palestine, the term Terrorism is used both ways, which makes it clear that such term is POV by it's nature, or maybe it is so loose that it can be called both ways. Giving examples of Terrorism will make us here impose one side over the other. In the same context, one can remember the US bombing of the Asprin Factory in Sudan, and city bombing in Vietnam War ? as I remember Vietnam was not a total war, what about using cluster bombs in cities ? like it was used in Vietnam, and Basra, was it a "total war" -- Isam

Yeah, I basically agree with you, Isam: the word terrorism can either be defined very broadly or it can be defined as a POV insult. The article does this already, listing both definitions. However, either definition makes it very problematic to come up with a list of terrorist groups. If Isomorphic has a better definition, that would be great, but I'm skeptical that there is one. - Nat Krause 08:30, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Most all of this has all been discussed before here, and you can look back over it if you're interested. Isomorphic 08:54, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Declamation of hostilities

I would like to declare my non-intention to get into an edit war with Loweeel on this page. I did revert his edits just now, but I don't plan on doing so repeatedly, or at least not frequently. I just don't see how the US State Department is an NPOV source in characterizing enemy guerilla movements. - Nat Krause 15:26, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nat, do you have an alternative source(s) for characterizing what constitutes a terrorist group? If so, I'm all for your posting them in addition (as opposed to removing the current designations). I'd also prefer not to get into an edit war. Lets see if we can figure out a solution that's acceptable to both of us on this. - Loweeel 14:02, 26 Apr 2004 (EDT)

Loweeel asked me through email to step in here. Please note that I'm not an official Mediator, and I'm not going to try very hard to act like one. So y'all may prefer to ask one of them instead.

But as long as my opinion is asked, here's what I think:

1. If an organisation says that it's not terrorist, then ipso facto it's not NPOV to call them terrorist.
2. Very few (if any) organisations will admit to being terrorist.
3. Corollary (to agree with Nat, I think): It's quite rare (if ever) that calling a group terrorist will be NPOV.
4. Corollary: This makes any NPOV list of terrorists quite short (if not empty), and thus nearly (if not completely) useless.
5. Additional problem (to agree with Loweeel, I think): Such a short NPOV list implies that conspicuous organisations not listed there are not terrorist.
6. You can fix the previous problem with a disclaimer along the lines of This list only includes organisations that are unanimously considered to be terrorist..
7. But: You can fix both problems with a dislcaimer along the lines of This is a list of organisations that are widely considered to be terrorist. Typically, supporters of an organisation will not agree with that characterisation; often, there are third parties that also disagree..
8. Now you have a complete, NPOV list!

Thoughts?

Loweeel also asked me to protect the article and to add an NPOV dispute notice. Since y'all seem to be agreeing to talk here, I see no need for protection any more. (And I'd be hard pressed to protect either version anyway, since protection against edit wars should be neutral regarding the disputed content.) An NPOV dispute notice would be fine by me, but I'd much prefer that Loweeel (or anybody else that wants it) add it directly. So I'm taking no action now, but I'm happy to discuss.

-- Toby Bartels 19:55, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Toby. This was/is my first time involved with one of these here, and I wasn't really sure about the proper procedure, especially my request for NPOV designation, and exactly what the requirements for it are and what it entailed. That being said, I'll follow up on your suggestions. - Loweeel 16:10, 26 Apr 2004 (EDT)

---

Legal status

The comment about terrorists being ineligible for protection under the laws of war is not merely an opinion of the Bush administration. Any questions of morality, and whether international law will need updating (as I expect will probably happen in the next decade or two) are separate from questions of legality under current international law. Legal combatants are defined in terms appropriate for the middle twentieth century when the conventions were made. They and are intended for symmetric conflicts in which both sides respect the laws. For example, here are the Third Geneva Convention criteria allowing someone to claim POW status, copied directly from [1] (bolding mine)

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

   (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

   (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

   (c) That of carrying arms openly;

   (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

The laws were written to protect civilians by making it clear who is part of a conflict and who is not. Terrorists generally violate this in two ways. First, notice how many references there are to various forms of clear identification: a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, ID cards for military support people, multiple references to carrying arms openly. Terrorists endanger civilians by not distinguishing themselves from the rest of the civilian population, thus forcing their opponents to view all civilians as potential threats. Second, they attack civilians who are not parties to the conflict, thus further forfeiting protection under the laws of war by not "resecting the laws and custums of war." What laws should apply to terrorists is a matter for debate, but they are clearly not covered under the laws of warfare. Isomorphic 18:58, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Your analysis is generally correct, Isomorphic, but I disagree with your referencing the conditions of the mid-20th century. First, the convention on defining privileged combatants was the beginning of the 20th century, and the principles is way older. And I removed the qualification in your paragraph: ", which were written in the early and middle twentieth century, and are generally intended for symmetric conflicts in which both sides respect the relevant conventions." This is just not correct. The laws of warfare were made for the purpose of forcing people to become regular combatants if they wanted privileged status (which includes more than POW rules) in the interest of minimizing the horrors of warfare for civilian and belligerent alike. Your implication suggests that, if the laws of war were written now, terrorists might be protected. -- Cecropia | Talk 23:08, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Ah. Agreed. I was trying to clarify that when the laws were written, terrorism wasn't the primary issue. As I understand it the chief concern in peoples' minds was reducing the horrors of conflicts like World War I and similar European conflicts. But you are correct that the end result was misleading. Isomorphic 16:30, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

---

I don't have much to say but as a user I utilize wikipedia for some information when writing reports but was chocked to see a “list” of terror organizations. It is up to reader to decide as one of the people in the discussion has already said. Wikipedia must remain neutral and objective. Without taking any sides here, there is the other side of the coin to consider because one could also say that the war on terror is actually terror or the Israely "operations" is also terrorim. We cannot simply list organizations that we think are terrorist organizations. We could put the official list that the US has issued and say that this is "The US list of terror organizations" but we cannot decide as a webpage who's who. So please consider revising!

--- Wassim, it's already noted that many on the left consider Israel to be an example of State terrorism. Also, going by the definitions of terrorism at the beginning of the article, it's MUCH harder to make a case that Israeli operations are terrorism, as opposed to the PLO.

Right at the top, the PLO CLEARLY fulfills the first criteria "1. Terrorism is a tactic of violence that targets civilians, with the objective of forcing an enemy to favorable terms, by creating fear, demoralization, or political discord in the attacked population." through the targeting of family homes, buses, schools, discos, nightclubs, and restaurants.

Israeli actions only ARGUABLY fulfill the 2nd criteria ""Terrorism" is also used as a pejorative characterisation of an enemy's attacks as conforming to an immoral philosophy of violence, in a manner outside of warfare, or prohibited in the laws of war.", as they do not fulfill the first.

Also, see the TARGET/OBJECTIVE/MOTIVE section. The only place that Israeli operations MIGHT be properly located is under "State Terrorism", but Israeli isn't "widely" classified as a Terrorist state, only by the Arab Media, anti-Zionists, and those on the Far left. Specific operations are criticized, but even the UN, certainly no friend of Israel, hasn't declared Israel to be a terrorist state.

- Loweeel 11:45, 9 Jun 2004 (EDT)

Disturbing the existing social order

This section has been bothering me for quite a while. The bulk of the paragraph is taken up by an analysis based on a some sort of mistaken definition for "paramilitary." (What the heck is the "fuzzy distinction between civilian and paramilitary?" Paramilitaries are civilian by definition.) What's left is basically a repeat of a POV already discussed in later sections (except that here it's baldly stated as fact.) I'm moving the section to talk in case anyone thinks there's anything worth salvaging. Isomorphic 00:30, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Generally, "terrorism" is a term relegated by influential nations (with the power to further echo their local terms) to hostile acts by dissident insurgents — whether these actors may qualify as paramilitary or civilian is again a point of flux and contention. A marginal consistency in the use of the label "terrorist" appears to focus on the fuzzy distinction between civilian and paramilitary. However, while a civilian who commits an act of terrorism is a terrorist, a paramilitary group can also similarly be considered, though the uses may violate certain definitions.

definitions....

Why do we have definitions from Walter Laqueur and James M. Poland? If they aren't known enough to have wikipedia articles, what credentials do they have to be quoted here? Kingturtle 08:29, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

dubious sentence...i removed it. lets discuss it

"The subjective nature of interpretation can be seen if such terminology had been used by Britain in the late 1700s. People that used violence in pursuit of the political goal of independence for the American colonies would have been defined as terrorists."

Is this sentence vague for a reason? What specific actions are being referred to when "People that used violence" are mentioned? Please elaborate here. Kingturtle 19:39, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think (judging by how the Chomsky point in Definition of terrorism was "rewritten") that the tendency of people to rewrite valid points into jibberish is 1.a deliberate act to obfuscate and destroy a valuable point, in the hope that people might think there was nothing there to begin with, or 2.reflective of the incapacity of certain individuals to understand points that they dont agree with, despite the validity or logic or sense imbued in the point - the change reflects an attempt to understand by alteration to the familiar befuddledness of their adhered views. -Stevertigo 22:23, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The added 'definition number 3' (removed as unnecessary) used three very vague and needless terms to describe an action as "intended to intimidate" and to "break the will of a specific population" and "change the political paradigm." Put all three of these vague concepts together and we might have a GWB speech, but not a real article. But it was worth a shot, if you swing that way. At least it didnt have the words "evildoers" or "they hate freedom" in it. ;) -Stevertigo 22:23, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

breaking up the content of this article

This article was getting much too big. I revamped the Template box and moved much of the content into other articles. It should be easier for the reader to navigate and to find the content they want. Maybe someone can make the Template box prettier. Maybe the Template box needs more organization. I am fully open to changes. Cheers, Kingturtle 23:23, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Good work KT. On the template box, the general idea (as I understand it) is to use the more general box for top tier topics. So, subarticles within terrorism get the terrorism box, but terrorism itself belongs in the more general violence category. Not to mention that it's too wide, unwieldy, and full of things perhaps not necessary. I may work on it later. Cheers. Stevertigo 07:14, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, it can't stay the way it is now. KT moved a lot of the material into sub-articles, and you've just removed the links to those articles. Now all that content is just gone as far as anyone looking at this article is concerned. I suggest you work on it sooner rather than later, because otherwise I'm going to solve the problem by putting back the terrorism box. Isomorphic 12:20, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No links are missing. They have simply been moved to the terrorism-box on the side. Kingturtle 19:32, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

They aren't missing anymore. Stevertigo had replaced the 'terrorism' box with the 'violence' box. At that point, there were no links to the sub-articles, and that's what I was complaining about. But someone else re-added the terrorism box, so it's ok now. Isomorphic 00:21, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Patolinism

I have removed the added term "Patolinism" from the article. I can not find this term in searches on dictionary.com or google. Is it a real term or just vandalism? - Tεxτurε 16:31, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've never heard of it. I'd guess it's either silly vandalism or a neologism that no one uses. Isomorphic 01:10, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jacobins, Assassins, & NPOV

I added a line indicating that the French revolution stuff is the first time the word "terrorism" is actually used. That claim was deleted earlier for NPOV concerns; hopefully this is better than what was there before (which I did not write). I also question whether it's appropriate to include the Assassins here but not other similar groups throughout the ages. Why not the Thugs, who certainly fit more into what we consider today as "terrorism" than the Assassins? The latter were, after all, assassins, not terrorists. Hell, certain actions by the Christians during the Crusades are a better fit for this term than the Assassins.... Someone let me know what you think before I delete it :) --csloat 07:29, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, the thugs and the boxerss, sound like terrorism. The ninja?

However the Spanish actions during the Peninsula war are certainly guerrilla, but I am not sure they can be named "terrorism".

Etymology of terrorism

Sorry if my add at end was NPOV; we're new Wiki users and were writing a research paper on terrorism, and thus trying to find original first usage of the word, etymology, and other related matters.

Perhaps someone more well versed in Wiki can suggest how best to include origins. Actually I guess we should have stayed within the main body of the text rather than added a new section, as Sloat has mentioned in the above with regards to his idea of including the material in the body of the text at an appropriate place.

I wonder if any of the links that we found could still be retained in the Wiki, since they serve as factual evidence of the first use of the word "terrorism", i.e. I wonder if the links could stay, even if what we wrote about needs to go for NPOV (or because it's said already previously in the article).

Actually we tried to paraphrase the links material rather than include directly because that might otherwise be copyright violation, but maybe someone can suggest for us a way of properly icluding some of this material without being too NPOV.

Also, we'd welcome thoughts on if etymology of terrorism deserves its own section or heading, because it would be nice for others to expand on this from a research point of view, so we could also use it in our research papers, as we continue to study origins of terrorism, and how usage and the terminology has evolved as a function of time.

Also, how much of the etymonline entry could we legally quote without copyright violation, i.e. it's kind of long to slog through all the "t" words they have lumped together...

Also, there's part of the etymology that we left out because we'd thought it might have been inflammatory (we didn't want to mention modern tensions like Jewish and Palestine because they seem to get kind of heated); would welcome comments from more experienced Wiki users if this would be the case, and if so, how it could be done tactfully... (and if this long a quote could be allowed by copyright) or if it's of any value to include the origins of the modern usage of the word: "Terrorist in the modern sense dates to 1947, especially in reference to Jewish tactics against the British in Palestine -- earlier it was used of extremist revolutionaries in Russia (1866); and Jacobins during the French Revolution (1795) -- from Fr. terroriste." (Online Etymology Dictionary)

If I understand you right, I don't think there's any copyright problem with use of a quote like that as long as it is properly attributed. I don't see any reason it would be different than quoting in any other article or encyclopedia entry. Hell, if you can quote it here on the talk page there is no reason you couldn't quote it in the article. On your other questions, I never had any NPOV problem with the Jacobin stuff as you originally entered it, and I wasn't the one who removed it -- I just re-entered the stuff about the origin of the term you had in there because I thought it was important. Whoever deleted the stuff originally (or anyone else who agrees) might better explain why they thought it wasn't npov.... Anyway, I encourage you to post whatever you think is relevant here; if anybody does have npov problems with it they will let you know or delete it themselves anyways :) The whole point is collective accumulation of knowledge so you should feel free to add material you have expertise in. --csloat 02:05, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Examples of terrorism from the old testament

The sentence "The Old Testament contains many references to behavior that can be described as terrorism" under the history section should not be in the article.

Although wars are described in the Old Testament, saying that it contains many references to acts of terrorism is irresponsible if at least one example isn't provided.

The example of jewish zealots from the 1st century is not in the Old Testament.

(response) - I think it would be easy to find examples, depending on what is considered "terrorism"; have you actually read Deuteronomy? When God ordered the Israelites to fight their enemies He ordered, "thou shalt smite them; then thou shalt utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them." There is no talk of sparing civilians here; "the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take for a prey unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee." There's plenty of other stuff like this throughout the old testament. --csloat 19:36, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That isn't terrorism though. It's just really, really brutal warfare. See total war. Isomorphic 18:34, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)