Talk:Terrorism/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Suggestsions for reformulation

I find the current definition here lacking. The U.S. Department of Justice defines terrorism as “a violent act dangerous to human life, in violation of the law, to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”. The difference being that terrorism does not have to be a violent act to just the civilian population, but to ANY human life. I propose that what makes an act a "terrorist" act is the intent, and not just its end result. As a side note, many "terrorist" organizations would not even consider the employees or members of a government that they target to be civilians, but enemies, whether they be members of that governments military or not, and therefore would make no distinction between the two.

This article is WAY too long, and to widly tentacled. "History of Terrorism" and "Responses to terrorism" should be split off. Also, this article seems to have been written from an exclusivly American view. Furthermore the first paragraph seems full of morality statements; and in fact reads like propaganda. The latter part of the second paragraph is also unacceptable biased. One should be aware that some 'terrorists' are true Hannibal Lecter's some are simply exasperated with forces beyond thier control. And resort to highly unethical actions. Yes, I know that is to some degree a values statement, but I think there are differences between Morals and Ethics. Paragraph two has too many quotation marks, it looks unprofessional. I would really appreciate feedback on this. Johnzw 00:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you have said, particularly the part on the American POV the article is slanted to the current fad of worring about Mad Mullahs, (Why did the Yanks alow NORAID to operate while the IRA were boming targets in the UK?).

I think there is a lot wrong with most of the sections of the article for example the section "Terrorism and immigration in Europe" "... Much of Europe has not experienced a domestic religious threat since the Wars of Religion." First the Wars of Religion link to a war before the 30 Years War and before the English Civil War? How many of the wars in Ireland after Henry got his divorce, were not in part about religion? Many nationalistic movements have in part wrapped themselves or the enemies in religious flags. For example Franco argued that he was on a crusade to save Spanish Catholicism from the Godless communists, which is precisely the opposite from the argument advanced by those Spaniards who were supported by the French 120 earlier during Peninsular War.

Also the list of incidents can never be completed and as such those selected are bound to make the list non-NPOV so all such lists should be removed. Likewise "History of Terrorism" and "Responses to terrorism" should be removed and not split off into separate articles --Philip Baird Shearer 00:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because different sides in different conflicts continue to muddy the intellectual waters so that their side is not a terrorist, we should not help them. We have now a world wide deffinititon (from the UN) that was allways the common-man definition. That terroism is the deliberate targeting of civilians to get them to do something you want them to. This article should be based around that definition, as should history of terrorism.Hypnosadist 22:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit perplexed as to how you got that the article has a strong American POV. I don't remember reading, "this is what terrorism is, and I don't want to hear any of you dirty foreigners saying otherwise!" (Not to mention if someone did write something like that it would remain that they would not have to be American. Cough.) Quit harshing on my people. 68.48.160.243 00:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I split the Response and History sections into subarticles. The article is still a bit on the long side. I would recommend merging Examples into the History section, and spinning Tactics off into a subarticle. As I was summarizing, I noticed that the content in the sections I split off is not comprehensive, so it's good that there's now more room to grow, and additions are encouraged. -- Beland 06:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is a clusterfuck. There shouldn't be so many quotation marks in the header paragraph. Dejitaru

"Pejorative" section

The new "pejorative" section appears to consist almost entirely of uncited original research. Could someone please provide some proper sources which actually discuss "terrorism" as a pejorative term, rather than removing requests for citations? Otherwise it will have to be deleted again. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• It is not a new section. It was here earlier in the year and was removed.
• Please explain how this "This is exemplified" needs a reference as it is not a full sentence and as it stands does not say anything.

As to its pejorative use, it hardly needs a proof as it is common use by just about every Government in the world about none state actors who attack their interest using bomb and gun, but it is rairly used by Governments about their about none state allies who attack enemy states' interests. There are thousands of example of this, so I am not sure what it is that you want as a source. Such an idea is not a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".

For example does this (http://www.oxfordtoday.ox.ac.uk/2001-02/v14n2/04.shtml) cover any part of it?

Terrorist or freedom fighter?

The facile and oft-repeated statement 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' reflects genuine doubts about the term. In the past there have been strong disagreements about whether the Irgun in Palestine, the Viet Cong in South Vietnam and the Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland were or were not terrorist movements. Famously, in 1987-8 the UK and US governments labelled the African National Congress of South Africa 'terrorist': a preposterous attribution even at the time, let alone in light of Nelson Mandela's later emergence as statesman.

Or this (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds05/text/51205-16.htm) from a debate in the House of Lords:

The Earl of Onslow: There is nothing new in this. The King David Hotel in Jerusalem was blown up by a gentleman who was later welcomed in Downing Street. In the village of Dier Yasin in Palestine, 230-odd women and children were slaughtered by terrorists, including a gentleman who was later welcomed in 10 Downing Street. The Government are trying to muddle something that is difficult to define. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. There is a whole list of people whose actions hundreds of British governments have approved. There were the guerrillas in Spain during the peninsular war and the Afghan guerrillas under the Russian occupation. We are in danger of getting ourselves into the most appalling muddle and it will not be the first time.

Or this (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199697/cmhansrd/vo970214/debtext/70214-04.htm) from a debate in the House of Commons:

Mr. Galloway: I did not travel to South Africa in the old days and I have not done so recently, but I accept that jibe in the spirit in which it was offered. I have chosen Nelson Mandela's case because it is an easy case. Almost nobody would now say that they would have wanted him to be prosecuted under this legislation. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. That saying is a cliche because it is so true. Nelson Mandela was always a freedom fighter to me, but to some Conservative Members, for a long time, he was a terrorist. Some still probably cannot get their lips around the words "freedom fighter".

--Philip Baird Shearer 19:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph 53 of this judgement (Judgments - Secretary of State For The Home Department v. Rehman (AP)) clearly shows that for the Law Lords, one man's terrorist can be the UK Government's freedom fighter

53. Accordingly it seems to me that the Commission is not entitled to differ from the opinion of the Secretary of State on the question of whether, for example, the promotion of terrorism in a foreign country by a United Kingdom resident would be contrary to the interests of national security. Mr Kadri rightly said that one man's terrorist was another man's freedom fighter. The decision as to whether support for a particular movement in a foreign country would be prejudicial to our national security may involve delicate questions of foreign policy.

--Philip Baird Shearer 19:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

In case you missed it above.Just because different sides in different conflicts continue to muddy the intellectual waters so that their side is not a terrorist, we should not help them. We have now a world wide deffinititon (from the UN) that was allways the common-man definition. That terroism is the deliberate targeting of civilians to get them to do something you want them to. This article should be based around that definition, as should history of terrorism.Hypnosadist 22:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

PS none of the sources you posted show a source claiming a use of the lable "terrorist" as an insult or pretext for action against that group. There will be a lot of this evidence in existance of this but the above does not cut it.Hypnosadist 22:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

AFAICT the UN definition has not been accepted for wording into a treaty because:

• Not all states have signed up to Protocol I
• Not all states have sigened up to the ICC, and even in that treaty (Rome Statute) there is no definition for terrorism. As the ICC article says

  Many states wanted to add "aggression," "terrorism" and drug trafficking to the list of crimes covered by the Rome Statute; however other states opposed this, on the grounds that these crimes were difficult to define, and that dealing with less serious crimes such as terrorism and drug trafficking would distract from the seriousness of the crimes the ICC was established to deal with. As a compromise, the treaty merely brands "aggression" as a crime without providing a definition, pending adoption of an amendment to the Statute. It may also be amended to include other crimes. However, no amendments can be made to the Rome Statute until seven years after the Statute became legally binding.

• Some states do not agree with the UN defintion. For example some states want exemtions like there are in Protocol I "Article 1. Paragraph 4 ... in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes...".
• There is the problem of when does a terrorist campaign become a civil war? If it is a terrorist campaign then the attacks on civilians would be a terrorist act but in a civil war they would be a war crime assuming that they fell withing the remit of Protocol II.

None of this changes the fact that people are going to use the word in a partisan way in the way that for example assasination is not. -- Philip Baird Shearer 09:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

exemplified "To show or illustrate by example." --Philip Baird Shearer 16:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Moved from the article:

We need examples of Begin being called a terrorist at the time, and a statesman later - that is what you are trying to show here. Did the British government call him both? Not the BBC, in a retrospective article and a broken link.

Theodore P. Seto [The Morality of Terrorism] includes a list in the Times published on July 23 1946 which were described as Jewish terrorist actions, including those launched by Irgun which Begin was a leading member. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I found this image via this web site which claims that The faces of Menachem Begin , Yitzhak Shamir and Rabin you can find on wanted posters , saying “Terrorists, Reward 100,000 British pounds”.

This link says "You can find in books and posters at least two Israeli Prime Ministers, including Menachem Begin, with their pictures next to the words 'Terrorists, Reward This Much'. The highest reward I have noted so far was £100000 on the head of Menachem Begin, the terrorist."

A Google search on [Menachem Begin “Terrorists, Reward"] throws up around 40 pages, take you pick to the one which is the best to use in the article. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking through them I think the best to use as a refrence is this one Eqbal Ahmad "Straight talk on terrorism" Monthly Review, January, 2002:

Until the 1930s and early 1940s, the Jewish underground in Palestine was described as "terrorist." Then something happened: around 1942, as news of the Holocaust was spreading, a certain liberal sympathy with the Jewish people began to emerge in the Western world. By 1944, the terrorists of Palestine, who were Zionists, suddenly began being described as "freedom fighters." If you look in history books you can find at least two Israeli Prime Ministers, including Menachem Begin, appearing in "Wanted" posters saying, "Terrorists, reward this much." The highest reward I have seen offered was 100,000 British pounds for the head of Menachem Begin, the terrorist.

--Philip Baird Shearer 17:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The French Resistance was a terrorist movement according to the Nazis. Ericd 18:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The UK National Archives have just released some material circa 1948 in which MI6 and the Daily telegraph firmly categorise Begin/Beigin as a terrorist. Johnbibby 18:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

When was the word first used? Johnbibby 18:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Any reason for keeping the template in this section which starts "This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims. ..."? --Philip Baird Shearer 21:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Problem?

I understand the tearing down of Saddam's statues was listed as a form of terrorism to appease those nutcases who think 9/11 was justified, but the citation is incorrect. The article states that US forces tore it down--further, it argues it was a form of psychological warfare. Yes, the Marine's used their trucks to tear it down--with the help of a crowd of 1,000 Iraqis. This should at least be noted since its effect was intended to scare or intimidate (according to the authors) and instead thousands came out to celebrate. Just a thought...jaja

Links with terror groups

While I can't say for sure that the US has never had links to terror groups--depends on your definition of terror groups, the timeframe, and certain legal requirements which are meticulously followed--it is unfair to cite only the US.

1. Citation: To add insult to injury, the author only cites the genious linguist and psychologist, yet crazy and utopian anarchist/socialist political theorist Noam Chomsky. If we are going to have a serious encyclopedia, we need to cite soures that are respected in their fields, not those that have huge followings among anarchist/socialist/communist college clubs yet recieve ridicule or indifference in the foreign policy field.

2. Context: While the US MAY have links, according the author and his less-than-reliable and known-to-exagerate-when-condemning-America source, few deny Iran's links to Lebanese Hizballah, Palestinian HAMAS, PLFP, PLFP-GC, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. Some may dispute their status as terrorist groups, however, despite the fact that they strap bombs on their children and send them onto buses full of civilians. Or Syria, which uses groups in Lebanon as a proxy force. We can also cite Cuba, which media report has links to the Basque ETA, Peruvian Shining Path, Colombian FARC, and others.

Therefore, in order to keep everyone happy, I think we should remove the reference to the US links. Otherwise, we (probably me) will need to list every country linked to terrorism, which will only make the article longer and more controversial. Would love to hear discussion...

Ok, Hold on! Here is a partial list of people the USG supported Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega, Diem of Vietnam, the Shah of Iran, Marcos (Philippines), Batista (Cuba), Mobutu (Congo). ALSO!! It is very important to differentiate between the US and the USG. The US indicates the continuum that is the United States of America, and refers to citizens who may not approve of the actions of the USG, the United States Government. Johnzw 21:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually if america is as claimed a democracy then the USG follows the views of the US people. Thus the US people are responcible for the actions of thier government that they failed to exercise proper control over (at the time) or brought to justice (later) for crimes like "Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega, Diem of Vietnam, the Shah of Iran, Marcos (Philippines), Batista (Cuba), Mobutu (Congo)" not to mention the pride of the CIA's coldwar ops against the Soviet Union, Osama Bin Ladin, surely you have heard of him?Hypnosadist 01:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I refuse to get into a long-term quarrel about the iniquities, real and imagianed of the USA/USG. However in short response to your argument 1) There are serious serious serious flaws in american "democracy". B) The USG systematically lies C) where there is corruption it is usually hidden, and the people are misled. D) Perhaps you should vist the USA and see how bitterly partisan and divided, not to mention delusional we are. This is all I will say. I will not permit this thread to devolve into an episode of Mclaughlin GroupJohnzw 18:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence

Terrorism is the systematic use, or threatened use, of violence to intimidate a population or government and thereby effect political, religious or ideological change.

Under this defintion all armed conflicts/wars are terrorism because all armed conflict is the systematic use of violence to intimidate a population or government and thereby effect political religious or ideological change. I think the definition needs to be changed so that it does not include conflicts within the laws of war. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I will support. Besides, there are lots of different definitions and it's not for an encyclopedia to decide which one is the correct even if there was one.DavidMarciano 11:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the first sentance is right out. Johnzw 22:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhase it could be replaced with the first two sentences in the definition of terrorism article which is now the first two sentences in the definition section. --Philip Baird Shearer 01:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems good to me Johnzw 16:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

To me too DavidMarciano 17:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism, under this definition, is specifically singled out as being an attempt to force someone else to do something by coercing or intimidating them, whilst a traditional war is an attempt to effect change with or without the enemy's assistance.

For instance, and I stress that this is merely an example within the context of this discussion and in no way do I wish this to become tangental, the recent abduction of two Israeli soldiers, and the firing of Katyusha rockets into heavily populated civilian areas, by Hizbollah, for the express purpose of obtaining a prisoner release, constitutes a terrorist activity because they are using violence and intimidation to obtain compliance in furtherance of their political objectives.

The Israeli response was a more traditional military approach. The IDF attacked Hizbollah targets, and those targets that they believed to be agents of Hizbollah. (regardless of the number of mistakes they have evidently made, this remains true) The IDF's objectives were to prevent Katyushas being fired, and to retrieve their missing soldiers. Naturally they appealed to Hizbollah to return them, and responded with force, however at no point did they specifically use coercion as a tool for exacting action.

The difference here is that the IDF issued warnings, whilst Hizbollah was issuing threats.

To illustrate my point, the IDF gave warning to the populace to evacuate particular areas in preparation for a strike against that area. They then carried out a strike on the area(s) that they believed to be harbouring Hizbollah militants, or Katyusha rockets. They asked people to leave so they could attack, thus minimising loss of life.

Hizbollah fired Katyushas into civilian areas, evidently with the intent to maximise civilian deaths when we consider the hundreds of metal ball-bearings carried by each device, threatening further acts in the event of non-compliance. They attacked so they could obtain the Israelis' compliance.

I agree that the line may be blurred to some extent, for instance the deliberate bombing of civilian areas in WW2, where a terrorist activity is carried out within the context of a traditional war. However, as I've shown, the two things, Terrorism and traditional Warfare, are entirely distinct in their pure forms. BOMBkangaroo

There are grounds for discussion, of course, but I find it very difficult talking about “pure forms” either of war or terrorism, among others. Both evolve and adapt to the different situations, including the perception of the enemy. From my point of view, thinking of “pure forms” is a very academic, thus not a very realistic way of addressing the issue. The goal here shouldn’t be to achieve a definite definition on terrorism, but mainly to address the issue in terms that the reader understands what it can be and what kind of problems it arises. DavidMarciano 12:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Did anyone read the Israeli warnings (people of lebanon, can you pay this price again), this sounds more like a threat to me, it also states that targeting civilians was intended, else the warning would say (people of lebanon, sorry for killing hundreds of you by mistake, but our soldiers suck at aiming)....Jewlover

Jewlover, there's no need to be asinine. We're all aware that near enough every government in the world puts out propaganda that suits their purposes. What you have there is not a specific threat.

DavidMarciano, I feel that the reader would benefit from having a definition that is relevant, just as you do. However, I don't think it can really be relevant if the definition becomes too flexible. As above, if we can consider any military action to be terrorism of a sort, then the word ceases to be relevant, as there are other terms that more accurately cover a wider range of activities. Without establishing the pure forms of warfare and terrorism it becomes a difficult task distinguishing between them when they enter the grey area.

Honestly, I'm beggingin to think we should just invent one or two more words for terrorism that don't carry the pejorative connotations that often allow discussions on the matter to be sullied by constant accusations of POV. BOMBkangaroo

I think the first sentence was changed precisely not to encompass common military action. To me the gray area is exactly what should make us avoid an assertive definition. In fact, distinguishing between war and terrorism is very hard sometimes and it won’t be an encyclopedic article that will change that fact, I guess. Besides, I think the lead section is neutral and balanced. There is only one reference to governments using terrorism (at the very end) and I see it as a link to “state terrorism” and “state sponsored terrorism”. Others may see it otherwise of course, but, again, I think we shouldn’t try to squeeze a gray area into a drawing line, since it would misrepresent reality. I'm not a fan of the "black or white" way of putting things, so I try to avoid it as much as I can.(To sign your posts just use four tildes or click the four tildes after "Sign your name:" in the box below the editing window) DavidMarciano 15:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I added {contraversial} because it is and this duscussion page is starting to become a [b]blog[/b] Johnzw 03:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The main difference

I don't think the phrase "the main difference being that under the Laws of Armed Conflict, a formal declaration of war had been made for each of the WWII incidents" belongs where it is, that is, following examples of state terrorism. If somebody conceives that a state can be a terrorist, a formal declaration of war makes no difference. What does matter is the killing of civilians, or innocents, as stated in the text. The "state terrorism" article is pretty clear: "Generally, the definition of terrorism does not extend to states in direct and open military conflict, if the actions of their armed forces are within the laws of war." Killing civilians isn't within the laws of war, therefore, for those who conceive that states can be terrorists, those acts are examples of incidents.--Ezadarque 20:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody oppose my removing this sentence: "the main difference being that under the Laws of Armed Conflict, a formal declaration of war had been made for each of the WWII incidents"?--Ezadarque 20:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't. I'm also not entirely sure that every nation involved formally declared war before attacking, so the statement may not be accurate either. --Mr. Billion 14:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Page did not show up

I got a bit of a weird error, and wanted to state it here in case anybody else got it: The page only showed some notices (such as long page), and only showed the other information, when I pressed "edit this page", and then preview (and than save changes, which of course didn't change anything, but the page now showed correctly. If nobody else has this problem, no worries :) . Otherwise: better tell someone. Regards Sean Heron 14:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

First paragraph

It's rather absurd that an article would not actually define what it is talking about in its first paragraph, and rely so heavily on one American survey from decades ago. David, as you're a new editor, who has been here less than a month, and made fewer than 250 edits to the encyclopedia, perhaps you should discuss the proposed change to the introduction rather than reverting and risking violating the three revert rule, for which you can be banned. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn’t introduce the change, but I’ve supported it. I find it normal and desirable that an article starts with the definition of the subject, just as you do. But there are situations where exceptions must be considered, in my opinion, and this is one of those. The study may be just one, but the definitions are more than 100 and the definitions are what matters in this case. There is one article on the definitions and there is a link to that article. I believe this is the best way of addressing this very controversial issue, even if in a way I can understand your point. DavidMarciano 14:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

While I appreciate your attempt at avoiding controversy, it cannot come at the expense of noting that Terrorism is in fact an action, and not just a pedagogical argument. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 16:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's the new introduction you want to insert:

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.

The first sentence is pure POV, and entirely unsourced POV at that. The second sentence quotes one U.S. Army study from two decades ago. In addition, the quote doesn't qualify the reliability and authority of those definitions, and those "100 definitions", while not identical, undoubtedly had much in common. If we looked at 10 different dictionary definitions of almost any word, they would not be identical, but would have much in common. We need to provide the commonality to the reader in the first sentence, so we actually know what this article is about. And I'm very disappointed that you ignored my comment about violating WP:3RR. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg we have already had this debate over Terrorism#Pejorative use. The words are a paraphrase of the first source in that section.

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. `What is called terrorism', Brian Jenkins has written, `thus seems to depend on one's point of view. Use of the term implies a moral judgement...

This can be used as a source on the first sentence if you insist, but as it is sourced lower down I do not see any advantage in doing so. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to a discussion on the semantics of the term and even its usage in political rhetoric, but I think you'll see that all or most definitions converge on a few salient characteristics that should form the basis for our definition. If we start out by making it a semantic issue, we're weaseling our way out of the article's topic, which is very important. --Leifern 17:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Philip Baird Shearer suggested the change on September, 11 and introduced it on September, 13 after discussion. He followed wikipedia’s good practices. About POV, what can I say? All the salient characteristics will make it clear what terrorism is about for anyone who gets to the definitions page, or am I wrong? Isn’t the definitions article enough for people to understand what terrorism is all about? Do I see any intention of avoiding people to go to the definitions article? Should wikipedia be a vehicle of propagation of what politicians want to be propagated? Why do people repeat tirelessly the term terrorism? Does “reinforcement”, in the field of propaganda, mean anything to people interested in explaining about terrorism? Or “labeling” or “slogan”?

What this reminds me of is someone’s definition: you are a terrorist if you lose; if you win you’re a freedom fighter. This is what POV is all about.

About disappointment, it really looks like POV again: some people may see disappointment others may see a bit of cynicism. Until there is some discussion on the issue (I mean only this particular case, of course), it’s only a question of POV. Deeds instead of words would really account for showing what it really is.DavidMarciano 17:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Every attempt I've seen at a serious definition converges on the proposition that terrorism is a strategy and a set of distinct tactics used in furtherance of an overarching goal. I think we should be able to work within that framework to make it NPOV. And certainly to avoid the trap that victors write history. --Leifern 19:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I do really think that there is little point in trying to have one more definition. I also think that it’s important for people to go to the definitions article. This is why I’ve supported the change by PBS. I don’t know if he is still around and would like to contribute to the discussion, he and other people who have expressed opinions on the subject. On the other hand, of course I understand that people think in terms of having the term immediately characterized in the article and, in this context, I can only agree with Leifern. However, I think this particular subject should be exempted from this rule. I can also say that I understand if some people could feel uncomfortable with the first sentence as suggested by PBS, even if it is a true sentence. So I could easily support a rewording. But for the sake of NPOV I think it’s important for people to go to the definitions article, that’s why I think a definition shouldn’t be directly provided here. DavidMarciano 13:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

We have to give the reader at least some indication of what we are talking about. Yes, it's true that many people contend that the term "terrorism" is used for political purposes - that's true of many terms. Regardless, people still know what it meant when the term is used, and the various definitions have some commonality, including use of violence to promote an ideological goal, deliberately directed against civilians/non-combatants. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

“We have to give the reader at least some indication of what we are talking about” – one can only draw the conclusion that you haven’t read not even the lead section, except for the first sentence. Not even the remainder of the first paragraph! DavidMarciano 14:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I certainly have read the rest of the lead section; I actually had a hand in writing it. But we need to explain what it is first, before we explain how it is characterized, or viewed, or whatever. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

After having contributed to the lead section you conclude that unless the first sentence is a definition, people won’t have “some” indication of what we’re talking about?!! You advance that we can’t characterize something as terrorism unless we provide a definition for it?!! And all this when you’re aware of the controversy over the definition?!! What kind of argumentation is this? DavidMarciano 14:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

People all agree that "terrorism" means something, and there is broad agreement about what exactly that meaning is. This needs to be explained to the reader, so that it is clear what the article is about. The fact that people think that the term is applied selectively, or used for propagandistic purposes, or also used as a general smear term, also needs to be explained, but that still doesn't take away from the term's essential meaning. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

“People all agree” – this one is simply hilarious. Are you talking about Afghani people? Iraqi? Palestinian? All people? Is it because “people all agree” that we have more than 100 definitions? More likely you’re talking about people who have been exposed to the word a million times, in contexts known by everybody. It’s called reinforcement, among other. You can look for it in propaganda. This article alone mentions the words terror, terrorism or terrorist 210 times (including tables), not counting the three last sections. In these (so, from the Foot notes section), I’ve counted 50 more appearances. Not bad when it is one of the Wikipedia:Words to avoid. Neither Wikipedia nor its editors should be anyone's parrot. People who need a dictionary definition look for it in a dictionary, not in an encyclopedia. What needs to be explained to the reader is that the systematic trying to unilaterally frame a concept and the systematic repetition of the word aim at something different from enlightening them. But this doesn't clearly seam to be the interest of whoever wrote the article. And that's a problem Wikipedia has, has shown here and here, just as exemples. DavidMarciano 14:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

We have the UN definition, this is certainly the most important and relivent, the next would be the Oxford english dictionary (due to the fact that what they say is english is english). These two are more then enough, you only need more when you want to make what you do acceptable and the other side terroism, so you find a definition that suits or just make one up.Hypnosadist 18:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Britannica and the American Heritage Dictionary are equally good, and reasonably neutral. UN definitions are iffy, since the UN is essentially a political body. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The point about the UN definition is that it was made up with a broad church of world political possitions signing up to it after a long internal debate. That and the power, relivence and notability of the UN makes that defininition the most important politically and the OED defininition is the most important lingusiticly due to the history and notability of the OED and the fact that they have the highest levels of scholarship on the english language.Hypnosadist 17:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said above in #The first sentence

Terrorism is the systematic use, or threatened use, of violence to intimidate a population or government and thereby effect political, religious or ideological change.

Under this defintion all armed conflicts/wars are terrorism because all armed conflict is the systematic use of violence to intimidate a population or government and thereby effect political religious or ideological change. I think the definition needs to be changed so that it does not include conflicts within the laws of war. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not, PBS. Warfare contains (or may contain) all kinds of different tactics and most of them are not intidimating the population into giving up. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

War is in part the systematic use, or threatened use, of violence to intimidate a population or government and thereby effect political, religious or ideological change. In war one aims can can of course be for a Cathergenian peace (a Debellatio) and not bother with the intimidatedation part, but usually there are some enemy survivors who are intimidated into agreeing to a peace in part on the terms dictated by the winning side. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

As for the replacment being POV it is the POV of the first sentence of the article Definition of terrorism and is also covered by the section Terrorism#Pejorative use. Jayjg as I pointed out the re-instated definition does not exclude actions taken during conflicts within the laws of war which are not generally considered to be terrorism, so how do we change it so that the definition does not include such action? --Philip Baird Shearer 10:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a wording you would like to add about the laws of war? Do most standard definitions of terrorism refer to the laws of war? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No idea, that is why I want to replaced the first sentence with the one used in the Definition of terrorism, because in one or two sentence we can not put in a generally agreed definition when there is a whole article on the issue. In such cases it is usually better to use the introduction from the more detailed article in a more general article --Philip Baird Shearer 11:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Clearly a number of reliable sources have been able to come up with definitions, and these definitions have some commonality, which we attempt to distill. Do you know of any reliable sources which provide other nuances? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a wholw article Definition of terrorism which covers this. As I have already said the current definition can be read to include acts taken within the law of war during a war. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

So find an authoritative definition that deals with that, or tweak the existing one to deal with it. Don't insert weasel words into the first sentence, based on the opinion of one individual who, by the way, doesn't even support the claim you make for him. And by the way, the current Definition of terrorism article is complete garbage, particularly the lead section. It's mostly unsourced, pushes a very specific POV, and even when it uses citations, it's a mess of an article, so please try not to let it bleed into this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

If words themselves mean something, terrorist is someone who spreads or tries to spread terror. Terrorism can only be the set of activities associated to spreading terror. But it seems we’ve got to a time when words must have whatever meanings “experts” want them to have. What is war if not a “systematic use of violence to …”? The N.Y., London, Madrid, etc. attacks, are they a systematic activity or a random one? Anyway, whoever has followed the discussion here and in "The first sentence" understands very well what the problem is. For some people the worthiness of arguments does not lie in the arguments themselves but in whom brings them to the discussion. Someone has written the article so his arguments are always good, despite any inconsistency, and anybody else's are never good. It's basically an article ownership problem. The question is how Wikipedia is supposed to deal with this. DavidMarciano 14:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I haven't written the article, but the word has a meaning, and we must provide it. If you feel the definition needs to be tweaked a little, based on other definitive resources, feel free to suggest those tweaks. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Quotes on terrorism

I propose we include a section with quotes on terrorism. Many WP articles include such sections. Terrorism is a contentious concept that dominates the news and I think a list of quotes will add breadth to the article giving the reader some perspective about what notable people have said about terrorism. I suggest the following 5 quotes for being very concise (I have references for all of them):

• "For states that support terror, it is not enough that the consequences be costly - they must be devastating", by George W Bush - I find that this December 2001 quote explains in part GWB's later policies.
• "We will not be intimidated or pushed off the world's stage by people who do not like what we stand for, which is freedom and democracy, and the fight against poverty and disease and terrorism", by Madeleine Albright - this relatively old (1998) quote I think nicely encapsulates the US position.
• "War is the terrorism of the rich and powerful, and terrorism is the war of the poor and powerless", by Peter Ustinov - Peter Ustinov was not only the actor we all know but also a notable intellectual who served for more than 10 years as president of the World Federalist Movement. This amazing quote reflects what many around the world think.
• "Terrorism is what the other guy does", by George Galloway - the British MP who famously stood up to the US senate. I think his short quote speaks volumes, and is similar to the well known ""One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
• "We all have to be concerned about terrorism, but you will never end terrorism by terrorizing others", by Martin Luther King III - I think that's a fine quote.

Now these are my choices. I am sure other editors can contribute more, and I personally think that 10 or 15 quotes would not be too many. I would only ask editors to avoid long and longwinded quotes when possible. Dianelos 13:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

What I think is, even if the quotes are good examples of different perspectives about what terrorism is, they only repeat what is already in the article. I don’t think they’ll help much. What ever President Bush says, it’ll be supported by some and condemned by others, instead of being analysed. The same about other people you suggest to be quoted. Many people just disregard the quotations they don't agree with and stick to the ones they already believe in, without really trying to understand the phenomenon in its different perspectives. Wikipedia shouldn't help this. On the other hand, the article tends to keep longer, but with little really worth information. DavidMarciano 16:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Cherry-picked quotes about terrorism have no place in an article. There is no end to the things people have said about terrorism, and choosing one or another inevitably introduces POV. Neither Ustinov nor Galloway were experts in terrorism, and in any event, there is a place for quotes, and it's not here: it's called Wikiquote. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

POV is not the opposite of NPOV. On the contrary for an article to be neutral it is important to include the various POVs - see WP:POV. Terrorism is a controversial issue. To include a section of quotes will add breadth to the article and give the reader the opportunity to have a taste of the broad range of POVs that exist here. Fortunately there are many editors working in this article, and we shall certainly be able to produce a representative sample of views. To supress such a section will only serve to supress information about the broad range of opinions there are about terrorism. Finally, an interested reader could use the respective references to read more about the various POVs. I strongly think such a section would enrich the article. Dianelos 16:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Your comments failed to address a single one of my points. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, including a list of quotes chosen by different editors cannot but help make the article more neutral by introducing different POVs, and cannot but help make the article more informative for the same reason.

Galloway's quote can of course be turned against him, since his party refuses to condemn actions by the Iraqi resistance, whilst condemning violence by the occupying forces. If we take it at face value, of course, then the term "terrorism" becomes meaningless. If it is meaningless, then on what grounds can I, Galloway or anyone else criticise any violent action (unless we are pacifists, and Galloway isn't), and we are forced into a nihilist position. Of course we can sidestep this conundrum by stating that any particular action (eg killing civilians) is justified if the cause is just (ie in combatting imperialism, racism, godless communism, or whatever). Not a very satisfactory argument, I feel, though it is probably the position actually taken by governments and "terrorist" organisations throughout the world.

Exile 09:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether Galloway's quote can be turned against him or not is irrelevant. It's a good quote, that very concisely captures the idea that people often use the expression "terrorist" for their opponents but never for their friends. Ustinov's quote by the way in the sense that we reserve pejorative words for the weak has very deep roots and is even reflected in St Augustine's City of God: "because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, whilst thou who dost it with a great fleet art styled emperor" (see here).

Incidentally I found two more remarkable quotes:

• "If I were a Palestinian youth I would have joined a terrorist organization" by Ehud Barak - this infamous quote made in 1998 by the soon to be Israeli Prime Minister raised a storm of criticisms but really expressed the common view that some people have not good alternatives for achieving their freedom but to resort to terrorist practices. I personally don't agree with this view - I think non-violent resistance a la Gandhi would be much more effective in the Palestinian case.

• "Fighting terror is rather like fighting crime, not like fighting another army" by Shimon Peres - I found this quote in the October 9, 2006 issue of Time magazine; it's rather illuminating coming just after the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war.

Dianelos 10:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Another one:

• "It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed" by Winston Churchill. This quote is from way back, 1945. Terrort tactics is not a new phenomenon. Dianelos 12:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI: On consideration he withdrew that memo and replaced it with one which said "It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of the so called 'area-bombing' of German cities should be reviewed from the point of view of our own interests. If we come into control of an entirely ruined land, there will be a great shortage of accommodation for ourselves and our allies… We must see to it that our attacks do no more harm to ourselves in the long run than they do to the enemy's war effort." --Philip Baird Shearer 12:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I was aware of that Philip. Still the original quote makes clear that one of the objectives of bombing the cities was to intimidate the enemy into submission, which precisely squares with the definition of terrorism given in the very beginning of the article. To paraphrase Ezadarque bellow there probably isn't a war where terrorism has not been used.Dianelos 16:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"objectives of bombing the cities was to intimidate the enemy into submission" while this was certainly the case with the Blitz of London the same can't be said of the allied bombing of germany (excluding the Dresden firebombing which was a revenge strike for Coventry) as these targets factorys and train tracks and other military targets with the most advance targeting tech available at that time.Hypnosadist 16:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I wrote "One of the objectives of bombing the cities was to intimidate the enemy into submission". I think the Churchill quote above (he spoke of "German cities" in plural), as well as common sense, substantiates this statement. I have no doubt that the Blitz of London had that objective too. As, obviously, the strategic bombing of Japan. Incidentally there are very good articles in Wikipedia about strategic bombing, carpet bombing, and so on. It seems that the Allies structured the bombing runs as to ignite firestorms and then prevent firefighting efforts. So I am not so sure about them using the most advanced targeting tech for only hitting military targets. War is a terrible terrible thing. By the way in Coventry 1,200 people were killed; in Dresden at least 30,000. It seems people people manage conflict under the motto of "ten eyes for an eye". Dianelos 18:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to all moonbats for my country (britain if you can't work that out) liberating europe and protecting the world from Nazism. I now realise this was morally wrong and cultual imperialism that only the west can do. Sorry and Heil Hitler!Hypnosadist 18:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hypno, maybe we should distinguish here between ends and means. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I say, Hypno old chap, for a Brit you are a little hot-tempered ;-) And we are really way off target here and rather abusing Wikipedia's database resources. Do you have any good quotes on terrorism you would like to contribute? Dianelos 07:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Any selection of quotes will inevitably be POV, most of the quotes suggested are from non-experts on terrorism, and, most importantly, lists of quotes go in Wikiquote, not in Wikipedia. These points still have not been addressed. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

But they have been addressed, see above, especially this bit: POV is not the opposite of NPOV. On the contrary for an article to be neutral it is important to include the various POVs - see WP:POV.

Please observe that Wikiquote is not part of this encyclopedia. Our task here is to offer to the reader as informative an encyclopedic article as possible. I think the article as it now stands is fairly well written, but a section of quotes that documents the wide range of opinions that exist about terrorism would clearly add value it. Terrorism is an important phenomenon that concerns all of humanity. It's not only the ones you or I judge to be experts on terrorism whose opinion is relevant, but also the opinion of the various political leaders, religious leaders, intellectual leaders - and not only of the US, but also of other regions of the world, and indeed of the Arab world - it would be great if some editors would contribute quotes by Muslim leaders about terrorism. Please keep in mind that one goes to an encyclopedia to gain understanding; not to be taught one particular line of thought. Dianelos 18:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The opinions of non-experts on various subjects are not noteworthy, and any selection of quotes will be inherently POV; that is, one cannot overcome POV issues because there are thousands of quotes about terrorism. Lists of quotes are not "encyclopedic", and one will not find them in other general purpose encyclopedias, as they do not "add value". The proposed lists will not illuminate anything but the fact that everyone has an opinion. And finally, and again, Wikiquote is the related project specifically designed for lists of quotes, because they do not belong in encyclopedia articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg , as editors we are supposed to follow Wikipedia policies; we agree on this correct? Wikipedia's policy in relation to POVs is described in WP:POV, which I think you should read. The very first sentence there is:

At Wikipedia, points of view (POV) are often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects.

Terrorism is certainly a controversial subject. So we should try to include in this article the various POVs that exist. As Wikipedia's policy says, "it's essential". Now, there are two ways to go about achieving this goal. Either edit the article itself, maybe by inserting a section describing the various POVs there are. Or else by adding a section with a representative gamut of quotes. I think the latter is the more practical way. Dianelos 06:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

We have presented all sorts of POVs on the subject of terrorism; adding random quotes isn't an encyclopedic way of doing so. Wikiquote is the specific project used for random quotes like this; Wikipedia is not a quote farm. And please desist from pretending that not including lists of quotes is in any way a violation of any policy, much less the NPOV policy. Also, please desist from insinuating that I have not read that policy; that insinuation alone is a violation of WP:CIVIL. Any further comments which make any reference to this will simply be ignored as further violations of WP:CIVIL. Cheers, Jayjg ^(talk) 02:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry for my misunderstanding. I thought you did not know that POVs should be included in the article, because above you wrote that "choosing one or another [quote] inevitably introduces POV", as if introducing POV were a bad thing. Anyway we agree now that this article should include the major POVs. So let's investigate whether this article does include the various POVs. You say "We have presented all sorts of POVs on the subject of terrorism". Can you point out which POVs are these? I don't see them. For example surely there should be something about the Arab world's POV. And the POV of the political Left. And the POV of human or civil rights organizations. And maybe the POV of religious leaders.

Incidentally I also find this article should include a section about the causes of modern terrorism. This is a hugely relevant issue of course, and one where various quite different POVs are to be found. Dianelos 16:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that "the Arab world" has a monolithic POV about terrorism? Or that "the political left" or "human or civil rights organizations" all have monolithic views? And again, do you imagine that NPOV is all about quoting or representing every individual's position on something? WP:NPOV relies on reliable sources; we need to summarize what expert organizations or individuals have had to say on the subject, not what every blowhard on a streetcorner wants to get off his chest. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "monolithic POV" - POVs are normally not monolithic, nor are they supposed to be monolithic. Also I am not sure how you classify "expert organizations or individuals" about terrorism. Would you say that Al Qaida is an expert organization or that Osama Bin Laden is an expert individual in this context? In any case there certainly are notable organizations and individuals in the Arab world whose POV should be included in the article. Terrorism is a hugely controversial subject matter; we don't serve the encyclopedia's goal of neutrality by excluding from the article major POVs about it.

Now I believe I understand your concerns. Maybe you don't want in the article any views that appear to justify terrorist actions. I wouldn't like that either; I am a pacifist. On the other hand there is a major major POV in the sense that modern terrorism is not the result of parthenogenesis nor is it the consequence of an intrinsically violent religion in an expansionist drive. Rather that modern terrorism is a reaction to some states' longstanding violation of the dignity, freedom, and sense of justice of some peoples and indeed to what can be called state terrorism. A reaction that is extremist, desperate, murderous and polarizing, and which unfortunately often finds fertile ground in religious fundamentalism (see for example terrorism in Northern Ireland). Dianelos 10:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You stated that we need to include "the Arab world's POV", as if it were one single thing. Is there such a thing? If so, exactly where can it be found? Or did you plan to quote 200 million people's opinions? As for "experts", same as everywhere else, people who study the subject in academic settings, notable institutes that write on the subject, notable authors who write on the topic, etc. Finally, regarding my concerns, they are that lists of quotes are inherently biased, non-encyclopedic, and belong in Wikiquote, which is the related Wiki specifically designed for that. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought that a section with quotes would help this article achieve some breadth. I see now that nobody agrees with this idea, so let's drop it.

I think we can find references about major POVs about the issue of terrorism. I shall do some research in this direction and maybe you would like to join in this effort. I think the major POVs here include those of the UN, of the Western governments (basically the positions of the US and the EU), of the Arab world, of the intellectual Left, of the major spiritual traditions (Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam), and of the international human rights organizations. It may be distasteful but the POV of the organizations who resort or have resorted to terrorism (Al Qaida, IRA, Chechnya separatists, Tamil Tigers, and so on) should somehow be represented too. This may take some time, but I believe terrorism is such an important issue that the effort is worthwhile. Dianelos 06:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Examples of major incidents

Why is the first paragraph of "Examples of major incidents" restricted by the US state department list? It looks like it is simply a list of places and dates crammed into paragraph format. Does anyone object to altering the state department list, turning the section into more paragraphs with the significance of specific incidents etc?

For instance: The 1995 Tokyo Subway attack killed 12 people and was one of the first examples of the use of chemical weapons for domestic terrorism...

or something like:

[From Munich massacre]

Simon Reeve writes that the attack was one of the most significant terrorist incidents of recent times, one that “thrust the Palestinian crimes into the world spotlight, set the tone for decades of conflict in the Middle East, and launched a new era of international terrorism”

raptor 10:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

the 1995 Tokyo Subway attack is definately a major attack due to the use of chemical weapons.Hypnosadist 18:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Examples of major incidents - 2

This article is already controversial. I think that qualifying the whole operations of the United States in Iraq, Korea and Vietnam as terrorism would seriously hurt NPOV. Furthermore, the article personalizes the Iraq War, attributing it solely to Bush. In my opinion, these last sentences of the paragraph should be removed: "George W. Bush invaded the nation of Iraq in 2003, killing thousands of American soldiers and Iraqi civillians. This is also viewed as one of the worst acts of American state terrorism, along with the Vietnam and Korean war[citation needed]"

I agree. It should be removed. DavidMarciano 14:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes the personalisation of the iraq war should be removed, but the war itself has to be mentioned that many people (not me!) see it as an act of state terrorism and so sholud be mentioned. Vietnam is a different matter altogether, this war (oh sorry police action) has resulted in war crimes charges being made (in belgium) for the use of Napahm and Agent Orange so is much more relivent to this article. Finally Korea WTF! i mean the only thing i can think of is the last use of flamethrowers.Hypnosadist 14:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

But state terrorism is not the same as war crimes. Furthermore, a war may involve acts of state terrorism (the world war II being an example), but I don't think a war can be described as a terrorist act (that is, World War II is not a terrorist act because of the bombings mentioned in this article). If we start listing any war that presented war crimes as terrorist acts, we would probably have to include every war ever fought.Ezadarque 17:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Problem: If Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq are acts of state terrorism, so are the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the various wars in Southeast Asia where the US -wasn't- involved, World War II, and most others. I'd agree that Iraq would classify as an /invasion/ but NOT as state terrorism, as the rules of engagement and objectives are decidedly different. State terrorism is randomly driving tanks or bulldozers through shanty towns (forcing submission through fear and fear alone), not military actions with set geopolitical objectives to which attacks on enemy morale are more or less natural. Some of the juicier bits of the ANC's history -are- terroristic, as are the jucier bits of any given revolution you'd care to name. Unfortunately, we can't name Every Single Bad Violent Thing That Ever Made People Scared as terrorism, or else the word loses all meaning altogether (then again, it may already have, somewhat like "fascist" has).

On an unrelated note, I always considered that one could be a "freedom fighter" and a "terrorist" simultaneously (re: Nelson Mandela), but that's just me.--The Centipede 23:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Biological?

Terrorism#Methods_of_attack "Often damage is done with an improvised explosive device, sometimes by chemical or biological weapons."

As far as I am aware chemical weapons have only been used once in a terrorist attack (Tokyo Subway bombing). I've never heard of biological ones being used. The next section strikes me as being superfuous and unnecessary: "A source of concern is also a possible use of a nuclear weapon. In the September 11, 2001 attacks, planes were used as guided incendiary devices." Thoughts?GiollaUidir 14:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Picture

After all the discussion on the issue, the different perspectives it can take, the use of the terms for propaganda, the POV it carries, etc is it NPOV helping to add the twin towers picture? Does the picture add anything to the understanding of the phenomenon? Is there really the need to repeat twice again the words terrorist/terrorism in a highly visible place? Is there anything such as “modern” terrorism? Again, in my opinion one of two things is ruling here: either people have been subject to a so effective propaganda campaign that they reproduce it unconsciously or they are contributing to the propaganda campaign consciously. But, as much as my understanding can get, Wikipedia was not meant for propaganda purposes. Well, I might be wrong, I can accept that. DavidMarciano 15:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think what you are saying is, for the most part, true. I didn't add the picture, however I suspect whoever did thought that an article like this needed a picture or whatever. I would personally support removing the pic as a)It doesn't fit into the layout of the page very well and b)How could we choose one that is acceptable to the wikipedia community. (For many of the reasons given above).GiollaUidir 15:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing it. DavidMarciano 15:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert but this is NPOV gone mad, does anyone say 9/11 is not terrorism?Hypnosadist 17:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually after thinking about it nothing shows terrorism as clearly as 9/11 and the picture of it is not POV so i'm going to put it back in.Hypnosadist 20:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

'this is NPOV gone mad'

hmm, i suggest that 9/11 was mass-murder & criminal damage (or possibly warfare), dubbed terrorism by a dubiously-democratic executive & hysterical population of a country that then urged the world to subject the nation it felt harboured the responsible parties to being 'bombed back to the stoneage'... until a satisfactory manner of discrimination between warfare & terrorism is identified i suggest they are listed as different facets of the same whole - abominable acts or impersonal-mass-murder.

The above view hardly rates a responce, pathetic!Hypnosadist 17:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Reguarding the introduction

The beginning says:

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.

Yet, under the section "definition", we find the exact same thing:

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. For this reason, many news sources avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers", "militants" and so on.

I have decided to remove the first duplicate, and I'll be rewriting the beginning. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 22:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

see the above sections #The first sentence and #First paragraph --Philip Baird Shearer 22:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I did, and I found them unsuitable, which is why I created a new section. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 23:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

What is there now is even worse than the definition (see above #The first sentence) that Jayjg supported in #First paragraph. At least the version that Jayjg was in favour of had two citations, the current version is a role you own with no citations. So it has to go. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Democracy vs non-Democracy.

Paragraph 1. under the Democracy chapter; Research shows that terrorism is most common in nations with intermediate political freedom and that the nations with the least terrorism are the most democratic nations. The sentence seem to imply that research shows that the connection between an increased frequency in terrorism and lack of political freedom is an unquestionable fact, but the “Baader-Meinhof” group, and later “Rote Armee Fraction”, in Germany, the “Weatherman's” in the US and the “Red Brigades” in Italy all operated within societies that would be deemed some of the most politically free societies in the world. Most of the members of these groups belonged to the privileged middle-class in each respective country and thus had few, if any, unjust restrictions on exercising their political rights. The obvious common denominator within all of these groups is solidarity. In addition Germany had to deal with an external factor called the Democratic Republic of Germany.

The keyword is perception, how the terrorists perceived the development of political freedoms in society and the international community and how the non-terrorist-rest of society perceived the development of their political freedoms in society.

Paragraph 2.; Some examples of "terrorism" in nondemocracies to include ETA under Francisco Franco, the Shining Path under Alberto Fujimori, and the Kurdistan Workers Party when Turkey was ruled by military leaders, has one word that I find questionable and that is the definition of Peru under Alberto Fujimori as a non-democracy.

Alberto Fujimori was elected as President of Peru two times and his "so-called" constitutional reforms were approved in a referendum. Still, I do agree that there are actions during his tenure that can be deemed undemocratic but those actions are not enough to label Peru as a non-democracy during all of his tenure as President, in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.227.206 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 23:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

No I know, but my point is that there are other valid connections that are not covered in the above mentioned chapter and thus should be edited accordingly. Articles in Wikipedia should be as comprehensive as possible since these articles are used as references by a lot of people on the net and in my comments I have emphasised other relevant factors that haven't been mentioned in the Democracy chapter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.227.206 (talk • contribs)

Ok, so be bold. You should edit it yourself. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 00:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you heard of these groups?

• This is a query to all users -->
• I'm trying to improve the article on Terrorism in Kazakhstan, but I'm unfamiliar with several groups that are banned by the government. Is anyone familiar with Jamaat of Central Asian Mujahedins, the Islamic Party of Eastern Turkestan, the Social Reforms Society (in Kuwait), or Asbat an-Ansar (in Israel)? KazakhPol 18:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Saying that all terrorism is violent makes the article contradict itself

Cyber-terrorism is not violent. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 10:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Depends on your definition of violence, doesn't it? In any event, "certain acts" doesn't means nothing. Are you referring to pie-baking? Nose-picking? Hair-brushing? Intros need to mean something. I've added the phrase "or harm" to cover your objection. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That makes it redundant; violence is harmful. We may as well just say "harmful acts". Richard Thomas 15:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

But it's most commonly violence. I'll changed the introduction to accommodate your point. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The "certain acts" are described in the article! This is not Wiktionary, we don't need to find a one sentence definition of the word. Let the reader of the article decide which acts are terrorism and which aren't. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 01:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

how is the term most successful a violation of NPOV? surely a grow that achieve its aims is successfuly regardless if you agree with those aims? if the football team has a season were it wins ever game that would be called their most successful season, regardless of whether your a fan or a the victor in an election?

The term terrorist, being a pejorative term & subjective classification, does not justifiably merit inclusion outside the sections on warfare/soldiers & only therein as an addendum that opposing parties often define the actions of enemy combatants as...

that only if you apply your own emotional connatations to it. Take France for example it had signed a Peace agreement, which made Germany the legal authority in many parts of France. and the basic definition of a terrorist is a irregular fighter who use tactics such as bombing or assassination for a political motivation. in this regard the SOE was state sponsored terrorism or state sponsored freedom fighters depending on your persceptive. if groups like the IRA and Mujahadeid are in here it would clearly be biased not to include the group, especially since it invented the tactics and technologies that are such staples of modern terrorism, plastic explosives being one of many examples.

just because your got no argument don't insult me, the IRA and Mujahadeid never targeted civilians, the IRA provided warnings prior to attack unlike the SOE. the SOE and Marquis killed civilians the sink of a Norwegian ferry carry heavy water would be one example. However as for definition surely a more neutral definition is better plus the definition you gave would include the US and UK from the area effect and fire bombing of the axis cities in WW2, upto the bombing of TV stations in Kosovan and Gulf war.

Why no north of Ireland Loyalist (loyal to britain) terrorist group mentioned? The uvf (helped by the british mi5) carried out the biggest loss of life on the island of Ireland in a single day. Dublin and Monaghan Bombings 33 people murdered, Friday 17 May 1974. Is Ireland NOT important? or is it only usa and england!!!!! p.s. the uvf (ulster volunteer force) never acknowledged they did it to this until 1993 which had put suspicion on ira (sneaky, british tactic)

Semi-protected

I semi-protected this article unilaterally; too many anon vandals were around. I'll lift it after a week or so; if I forget, please ping me or put a request on WP:RFPP. Duja^► 14:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection lifted... for now. Duja► 12:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

...and returned back. Duja► 16:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Two definitions

I have removed this paragraph from the article as it seems to have been copied from a dictionary or something and there already was a definition.--Rudjek 19:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

BBC

Removed the below;

Some news sources refuse to use the term "terrorism"; others use the term in context. For example, the BBC and CNN has described the Northern Irish IRA as "terrorists" -ref-The IRA campaigns in England BBC 4 March, 2001. "neighbours of bombers brought to trial told how they had simply no suspicions of terrorist activity"-ref-, but describes Palestinian armed groups who employ the same methods against Israeli citizens as "militants".

This is a misleading use of the source. The BBC describes them as bombers. Discussing "terrorist activity" is different. Also, the second line is unsourced--Zleitzen 20:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)