Talk:Terrorism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The main discussion forum for this series of articles is Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Terrorism

This is not a forum for general discussion of Terrorism. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

Terrorism is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

	This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Terrorism, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

To-do list for Terrorism:	edit · history · watch · refresh

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Contents 1 Merge Terrorist with freedom fighter? 2 Defining terrorism should be our first task 3 The lead January 2008 3.1 Fear 4 References 5 Map 6 In film list 7 Lead paragraph 8 Out of context 9 Terrorism is a coercive form of unconventional warfare 10 Add article to category 11 Lead 12 Bad template message 13 Page Deletion

[edit] Merge Terrorist with freedom fighter?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Defining terrorism should be our first task

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

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

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

1. What distinguishes terrorism killings from ordinary killings?

2. What distinguishes terrorism killings from carpet bombings?

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] The lead January 2008

The first sentence currently says:

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

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

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

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

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

Few words are as politically or emotionally charged as terrorism.^[1] One 1988 study by the US Army found that over 100 definitions of the word "terrorism" have been used.^[2] Acts of terrorism are not intended to merely victimize or eliminate those who are killed, injured or taken hostage but rather to intimidate and influence the societies to which they belong.^{[citation needed]}

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

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

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

[edit] Fear

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

[edit] References

Click on show to view the contents of this section
^ Hoffman, Bruce "Inside Terrorism" Columbia University Press 1998 ISBN 0-231-11468-0. Page 32. See review in The New York TimesInside Terrorism ^ Dr. Jeffrey Record, Bounding the Global War on Terrorism(PDF)

[edit] Map

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

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

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

[edit] In film list

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

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

[edit] Lead paragraph

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

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

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

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

[edit] Out of context

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

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

[edit] Terrorism is a coercive form of unconventional warfare

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Add article to category

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terrorism, ^[1] is violence against civilians to achieve political or ideological objectives by creating fear.^[2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Bad template message

If this message:

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

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

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

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

[edit] Page Deletion

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

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