Talk:Terrorism/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Change Links

  • Please change link to Dr. Record's publication "Bounding the Global War on Terrorism". Three years ago we switched the names of our files and are about to delete the old files.

New link: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=207 Old Link: http://carlisle-www.army.mil/ssi/pubs/2003/bounding/bounding.pdf

Also, it might be useful to link directly to our terrorism studies, which are, like the above, free to the public. Strategic Studies Institute Global War on Terrorism Studies 144.99.8.10 19:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)JUstin


HTML Problems

Currently, at least when I view the page, it doesn't seem to render properly. This is with Firefox 2.0.0.3 on Mac OS X, and it doesn't seem to happen with other WP pages. I think the problem is in the {{terrorism}} template, because it looks fine if that's removed. I'm not sure how to fix it, but right now the page is terrifically ugly. --Kadin2048 05:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I think I fixed it ... someone had (apparently) vandalized the Template:Terrorism page. --Kadin2048 05:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Link to self-described Terrorists?

Not sure how to start this list but there are people who have admitted they are terrorists, as for example United States General William Yarborough. This info is found in Noam Chomsky's book, Hegemony or Survival, p192n9

   Here's another, for what it's worth. http://www.noobomg.com/83 Cheezmeister (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Kashmir

It is surprising that terrorism in Kashmir does not find enough mention.--Darrendeng 09:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Some of the attacks listed at Terrorism in Kashmir are on this page. There's not enough room in this article to go into detail about terrorist aspect of every conflict in the world; that's why there's a separate article for "Terrorism in Kashmir". Hopefully there are adequate navigational links to help readers who are interested find more info about any given aspect of terrorism. If not, anyone is free to try to improve them. -- Beland 01:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism of the USA

I have a question, why does the article not talk about terrorist groups in the USA, or how the United States government has backed terrorist in the past?? --Margrave1206 01:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The OK City bombing, an example of domestic U.S. terrorism, is indeed listed in this article. Coverage of what some people consider to be U.S. government-backed terrorism is found at state terrorism and state-sponsored terrorism. -- Beland 01:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
However, "terrorism" is a broader term than "state terrorism" or "state-sponsored terrorism", so examples of them are also appropriate here. -- DBooth 03:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The KKK an american group are terrorist, don't forget that. The USA is home to many terrorist groups.--Margrave1206 01:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah but name the US civilian terrorist groups that leave their home territory to cause trouble for other governments and peoples. No issues with other governments? I beg to differ. By Al-Queada criteria the US terrorist should be popping up in Mexico for jobs, drugs, and cultural invasion; in China for economic warfare; in OPEC countries for silly oil prices; in Islamic countries for having too many wives and selling US kids opium related drugs; etc etc etc 69.23.124.142 (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

An excellent point Margave. I think this article does not do enough to define terrorism carried out by nation states. If terrorism can be defined as the use of violence to achieve political ends (one of the most common definitions), then it is critical to discuss the role of nation states in sponsoring and engaging in terrorism as they are the best equipped to carry out terrorism as well as being the worst perpetrators. Clearly the United States tops this list, but almost every nation state has perpetrated one or more forms of terrorism, either against its own people or those of other nation states. 203.11.72.4 04:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

-Clearly your a dumbass, how could the US top a list containing Iran, Saddam's Iraq, and Nazi Germany???

Mainly on a time scale - the U.S. has for a far longer period (and in a far more global theatre) than the other three mentioned countries supported groups and acts that could be considered terrorists/terrorism BigRed 09:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes technically the US was founded by terrorists in 1776. The Boston Tea Party and many other actions were taken against non-military targets by people hiding as civilians. Actions against British soldiers were effectively the same as Al-Quaeda in Iraq today, involving non-uniformed forces calling themselves minutemen attacking unexpectedly. At that time attacks from ambush behind trees was against the civilized laws of war. The Tory (loyalists) actually outnumbered the revolutionaries at the start of the troubles. Most of the US forefathers were smugglers and slum lords and tax evaders. George Washington, while respected among his capitalist American peers, was known as disreputable slave-owning drug (tobacco) lord in polite British society -- where briefly the hazards of tobacco where accurately portrayed for a short while.
I guess any place the US stepped in militarily, but didn't remain to govern permanently, could be considered a terrorist act committed solely for political or economic gain. Hmmm...The United States in Europe does have a certain ring as does Kuwait the 51st state. However all that aside, Iran's people have been in business with much the same methods for brush wars for over 4000 years under names like Persia, etc. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

69.23.124.142 (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


COMMENT: TERRORISM is a METHOD not a goal, nor an actor. A government or underground group can engage in legitimate warfare, such as attacks upon the enemy's military assets or government in a declared war by combatants wearing insignia or uniforms to distinguish them from civilians -- to protect the civilians.

I guess I agree that the enire process here suffers from lack of consensus on what terrorism is.

The goals being pursued are not relevant to whether something is terrorism or not.

Intentional attacks on innocent civilians (not combatants disguised as civilians, nor accidental collateral damage) for the purpose of terrorizing the population is terrorism.

This article cannot rationally be combined with "freedom fighter" because the goal is irrelevant. Whether terrorism is pursued for a noble or evil purpose is completely irrelevant. It is the method of targeting innocent civilians intentionally and commiting random, wanton violence that is the hallmark of terrorism. The most noble cause in the world is still terrorism if it is carried out by methods of targeting civilian populations. The most EVIL cause in the world is *NOT* terrorism if it is carried out by attacking the opponent's military and/or government command structure in a declared conflict wearing insignia to protect the civilian population by identifying (even if only by wearing an insignia patch) combatants from non-combatants.

For a country, government, or small group to engage in open warfare, even if devious or secretive, is not terrorism. A freedom fighter who does not target civilian targets is not a terrorist. A freedom fighter who does target civilians is a terrorist, regardless of his goals, whehter good or bad.

QUITE SIMPLY, THE LABEL "TERRORISM" IS NOT A COMMENTARY ON WHETHER THE GOAL IS GOOD OR BAD. Terrorism is a label concerning the methods used.

  --  Jack Rogers

I agree with Jack - this article should, in true encyclopedic fashion, try to state factually and comprehensively information about the topic in an academic way. I suspect the problem we are facing is the misuse of the term 'terrorism' by political leaders in their rhetoric, and the hence skewed meaning it has imparted on those who do not seek dictionary definitions for fun. --Growly 01:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I mean, wouldn't it be much more relevant and helpful if we had a map of say, worldwide terrorist incidents for a year more recent than 2001? I'm sure such a map exists, and would probably give people a better idea of the current worldwide situation, right? 67.165.87.42 08:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  When most people look up 'terrorist' they want to read about the damn hindus. I mean jihadists'. People already know about U.S. terrorists'.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.121.74.210 (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Jack above said: "It is the method of targeting innocent civilians intentionally and commiting random, wanton violence that is the hallmark of terrorism".

Jack you seem to affirm that the demarcation between terrorism and freedom fighters is the targeting of innocent civilians. What about a group that attacks government or military people or buildings etc? This cannot strictly be deemed wanton killing if the target is of srategic military importance, in the same way that the execution of a busload of civilians can. 
The point is, who decides who is a terrorist? Many governments around the world use the label terrorist to apply to what other people may deem freedom fighters, because of the emotive connotations of the word, and the fact that it automatically implies guilt, wrongdoing and illegitimacy on the part of their enemy. Hence the old adage 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'. 
Ultimately, a comprehensive definition that applies to all circumstances is impossible. I do however agree that generally speaking what distinguishes a terrorist act from an act of insurgency is the targeting of innocent civilians, but this view is not universally applied, and groups deemed as 'freedom fighters' often stray into 'terrorist' actions, so the waters are far too murky for clear criteria. The term is used so loosely, a consensus may never be possible, but as mentioned above, it is a method of war rather than a tangible subject. A 'war on terror' is akin to a 'war on guerrila fighting' or a 'war on hand to hand combat'.  (M Bennett)
Ah yes the old terrorist adage that "there are no innocent civilians, because they aid and abet the government forces or another faction -- when they should be aiding us!!!". Philosophically false but probably true in practice.

The simple truth is terrorism is the direct result of a disparity in forces, particularly heavy technological equipment, though numbers of troops is also important. Given that any freedom fighter that fights head on against a vastly superior opponent will be crushed, terrorism must be considered a valid means for small weak groups to oppose the superpowers of their region. That is assuming forceful opposition from the weak is considered legitimate given they have no democratic mandate.

The freedom fighter versus military targets only is a practical method only where the opposing forces are not that much stronger at any given point of attack. Sneaking off into the unpopulated back country is an increasingly difficult trick given thermal imaging and aerial surveillance.

Now if only we could convince the superpowers and the small terrorist of today to lay down those unequal weapons then send individuals and small teams to battle on some isolated island or desert area for resolution of issues. Maybe some world media combination of NBC, BBC, and Al-Jazzeri televising and flying Drones to prevent cheating as they enter the arena and some sort of olympic warfare rules and primitive weapons? 69.23.124.142 (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

69.23.124.142 (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Article length

As previously recommended, I've split "Tactics of terrorism" off into its own article. The main article is down to 34K, which is reasonable for now. -- Beland 00:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

POV and todo items

I have removed the "NPOV" and "Globalize/USA" tags from the top of this article, as it has made significant progress from previous versions, I have just re-written the introduction, and nothing jumps out at me as particularly USA-centric anymore. However, perhaps some of you do see room for improvement. If so, could you please tag a specific section or statement that needs attention, or make a specific suggestion on the talk page? Hopefully that will help stabilize the article and focus efforts on improvement.

I removed two rather vague tasks from the todo list:

  • Remove morality judgments
  • Determine how to discuss "terrorists" without being pejorative

If anyone has any specific complaints in these areas, elucidating those would be helpful for further improvement. -- Beland 01:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

For my part, I simply cannot understand why people have such trouble being objective about terrorism. What is so difficult about acknowledging that a cause with which one sympathizes may be shared by terrorists? (Is there any popular cause which has not at one time or another been supported through terrorism?) What is so difficult about discussing terrorists without feeling the need to assert one's disapproval? (This latter seems particularly ridiculous. It is like how nobody can talk about a murderer without showing their disapproval for murder. Gee, aren't you a great moral leader for renouncing murder! I'd never thought about it that way before! I'll quit murdering right away now!) To me, terrorism is as straightforward a concept as flanking. —Jemmytc 15:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The statement, under Major Acts of Terrorism, "-The killing of Nicaraguan civilians by the United States in the 1980's," represents bias and certainly not general consensus and should therefore be omitted. At any rate, its only correct in an extremely lose sense anyway, as whatever killings occurred were generally done by proxy. Its always annoying when people with strong political agendas try to edit wiki :(. -- Anonymous

Well, that terrorism was real enough (see Nicaragua v. United States, but I agree the above phrasing should be more precise. -- DBooth 03:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

non-combatants

The current article says

deliberately target "non-combatants"

What is a non-combatant? --Philip Baird Shearer 15:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

A civilian - i.e. not a soldier, militiaman or other fighter, and someone who therefore cannot legitimately be shot at or bombed. Interestingly enough, the term combatant/non-combatant has interesting alternative definitions when viewed in relation to The War on Terror.... --JulesVerne 13:01, 29 January 2007 (GMT)

Is an off duty soldier a combatant or a non-combatant? Are civil servants who work in a ministry of defence combatants or non-combatants? Are civilian police officers combatants or non-combatants?

If a soldier is constructing a sangar he is a combatant. But what if a civilian contractor is employed to construct the sangar? What about the person who fixes the digger that the civilian or soldier uses to build the sangar? What about the person in a machine shop who make the part that is needed by the person who fixes the digger, that is used by the civilian contractor build a sangar? The trouble with this simple definition is that the difference between a combatant and a non-combatant is not clear cut given the amount of civilian support which modern combat requires. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Philip! -- DBooth 03:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
That may be the motivation for such attacks on 'non-combatants' - if we see violence as a consequence of a battle of ideologies, then everyone is involved, not just designated soldiers or 'combatants'. Hence 'unconventional' warfare. 203.164.167.15 09:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Any such definition is going to suffer from the "argument of the beard" -- at what point does a five o'clock shadow become a beard? Drawing a precise line will never be exactly possible.

But I think the common sense understanding of most people is that terrorism is attacking the civlian population who have nothing at all to do with theh enemy goverment's acivities. Blowing up a pizza parlor where teenagers are out on dates on Friday night is terrorism. Blowing up a bus carrying the general public is terrorism. The question of how close to the government one can get without becoming a combatant I think misses the point.

However, I think it is fair to say that ANYONE who is part of the military effort is a reasonable proxy for a combatant. I don't think anyone is going to object to calling an attack on part of the military efforts of the opposing country a legitimate form of warfare. (Except the military beig attacked perhaps.)

THAT SAID, I do believe that the goal of legitimate warfare on an enemy government is to cripple and defeat the enemy mlitary, not to maximize the loss of life. Entering the army's typing pool and slaughtering secretaries would probably be a reasonable candidate for terrorism. The standard is legitimate warfare. Legitimate warfare aims to defeat an enemy, not to kill janitors, cooks, or secretaries. -- Jack Robers

From a purely functional perspective, warfare comprises any action to destroy a threat. In the case of the sangar, the civilian contractors would be considered non-combatants, in that individually, they pose no threat. Collectively, however, they are producing a threat (the sangar), which becomes a legitimate target for military action. A ball-bearing plant, a command and communication installation, an infrastructure target, all collectively produce a threat during war and are legitimate strategic targets. The non-combatants that staff (or just happen to be near) these strategic targets are not themselves specifically targeted, hence the concept of collateral damage. -- Ian Campbell

109 definitions

The citation is weak. It cites a study (Jeffrey Record, "Bounding the Global War on Terrorism") that cites a book (Bruce Hoffman “Defining Terrorism,” ) that cites a book (Alex Schmid, et al. "Political Terrorism: A New Guide to Actors, Authors, Concepts, Data Bases, Theories, and Literature") that cites either the study or a book that cites the study (it is unclear at the moment). I left off with the [schmidt] citation if someone can track from there. I suspect its a political statement that biases original information. What is apparent from the secondary or tertiary source I tracked down is that it was survey work among experts and that the author was able to construct a defiintion that "81% of [expert] respondents found fully or partially acceptable". Mrdthree 18:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Images used

I believe the photograph of the WTC used in this article invokes doctrined points of view without proof or cause. Although the 9/11 acts can very easily be described as "Acts Of Terrorism", that is an assumption with no solid references. Perhaps a separate article, or subsection, could be dedicated to that particular event. It is possible I am in the minority with this point of view, debate is welcomed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.42.209.103 (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

I doubt there would be much debate about whether the 9/11 acts qualify as terrorism, but I do agree that the choice of one photo over any other adds a certain bias. Perhaps we need an image from the French Reign of Terror, from whence the word "terrorism" derives.[1] -- DBooth 03:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
9/11 is certainly terrorism but IMHO the debate is still open on who did it and why and, and who benefitted most from it. The entire 9/11 event is the subject of intense propaganda around the world ahs been itself been used to justify the worst terrorism of the 21st century. Where 9/11 is used as an example of terrorism, authors should not give their openions of who did it and why.

Modern-Day Terrorism

A small comment: I believe that terrorism is too general a term to describe the different types of terrorism. Modern day terrorism and pre-9/11 terrorism are two very different things. Today, terrorism mainly is derived from islamist extremism ideology, with its goal being to destroy democracy and human rights of the west and to destroy Israel. I suggest the article be refined so that it reflect the fact that modern day terrorism and pre-9/11 terrorism are completely different things. This site here gives a little more information about modern-day terrorism in the middle east: linkBen339 05:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia articles should be neutral POV. -- DBooth 03:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not saying you need to change the POV. Differentiating between modern day terrorism and pre-9/11 terrorism does not change the point of view. All that is needed is a simple comment linking to religious terrorism saying that this is about pre-9/11 terrorism and religious terrorism is completely different.Ben339 14:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
This article is about terrorism in general -- both pre- and post-9/11 -- so of course it is broad. Claiming that there is a significant difference between pre- and post-9/11 terrorism seems to me to reflect a POV that is biased by your own particular criteria of what differences you think are important -- above and beyond the criteria that distinguishes terrorism from other acts. Furthermore, claiming that "Today, terrorism mainly is derived from islamist extremism ideology, with its goal being to destroy democracy and human rights of the west" reflects an extremely biased POV. You can be sure that even islamic extremists would not characterize the goal of their jihad that way, but would more likely characterize it as righting or revenging wrongs or evil that they see, which, BTW, you can be sure is different than their enemies see, because their perspectives are different. It isn't easy to write articles that are neutral POV, but as much as possible it should be attempted. -- DBooth 04:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Agree with DBooth 100%. Ungovernable ForcePoll: Which religious text should I read? 05:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I see both of your points 100%. I am glad that now there is a sidebar which gives a link to information on different kinds of terrorism, that was all I wanted... Ben339 20:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


....If terrorism is the attacking of civilians for political or ideological gain then can anyone explain why George W.Bush and every single American President before him is not a terrorist? answer- he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.9.155 (talk) 02:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Economic terrorism

Should add a link to Economic terrorism —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Philogik (talk • contribs) 07:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Politicians and linguists

Politicians and linguists/political activists are not researchers in the field of terrorism, and are therefore not reliable sources when it comes to terrorism. Polemics and political speeches are fine for propaganda tracts, but not for Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Pofessor Noam chomsky is more known for his critique research than his linguistic. Try to read the second paragraph in "Noam Chomsky". And a Journalist's sole profession is to dig and that what research about. BUT I upon your objection I have changed the word "researchers". Dont show your extremism please. I also dont like many articles in wikipedia but I have to tolerate them. Be fair to your conscience.VirtualEye 13:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Chomsky is a linguist and political activist, and is not any sort of expert in Terrorism. Galloway is a radical politician. Phrases like "Dont show your extremism" are violations of WP:CIVIL. If you continue I will take this to the admin noticeboard. Jayjg (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

A person who is not liked by Americans, makes him radical? And the person who speaks for your president and other OIL sellers that is a good expert and the prson who is declared as one of the most finest minds of the 20th century, that you call "not a terrorism expert". Is'nt it biased and extreme? VirtualEye 14:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Pofessor Noam chomsky opinion is important on the meaning of the word terrorism and its use in political language as an expert in linguistics who specialises in taking apart the speaches of politicians to show what they really say (and don't). So he is not a reliable source on what is terrorism, but he is a first class source on the use of the word/concept terrorism in political polemics.
Galloway is a current sitting British MP and head of his own political party and famous for his Anti-war stance on the current Iraq conflict. These facts make him notable by wikipedia standards to criticise the policies of his own government and its allies, he repeatedly calls the Iraq war and extrodinary rendition terrorism, i'd look on the BBC for a quote if you want it to meet the verifability standard as well as it meets the notability standard. Hypnosadist 15:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Chomsky is a linguist and polemical political writer, and the POV insertion was an allegation about the actions of the United States government, not the meaning of the word terrorism. Galloway a radical politician. Neither are experts on this subject. Jayjg (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
"and the POV insertion was an allegation about the actions of the United States government" Yes thats the point Jay, many people have the POV that the american government commits acts of terrorism and as Npov is produced by the inclusion of different POV's then this "allegation" of terrorism should be included and Galloway is notable for that. Given there are now 30+ europe wide arrest warrents for american citizens for crimes commited against EU citizens durring the war on terror (rangeing from murder to kidnap) this could even be said to have a legal basis as the EU wide arrest warrents are for terrorism/security related crimes only.Hypnosadist 18:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Hypnosadist, Is is neccessary for Professor Noam Chomsky to become a memeber of house of congress to be accepted as a notable critique about terrorism? All his bestsellers books and videos were to know what is terrorism in linguistics? Come on ! Do you think that millions of people in the world are reading linguistics? People are searching for truth through critique. And Chomsky's critique makes him very well known against the war on terror. His allegation towards American Regime to be terrorist makes him unreliable? ok dear, thanks for the True and fair thinking. VirtualEye 16:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
And by the way, A big part of the world hates America (not americans as individuals), there are many many people who wrote millions of pages of critique and thousands of books. How many of those have you people mentioned in wikipeida? You people simply dont accept what clashes your personality. Because, how will you feel proud being American if you have to accept the opinions of people like Noam Chomsky, Robert fisk and george galloway? Are these people bit by dogs that they are out to criticize? could anyone prove that they do this for money? could anyone prove that Noam Chomsky does it for religion (when he is just an atheist)???? Rejection and biasness is the habbit of only those people who just cant see their own face in the mirror.

I think after watching This video, you should simply put Galloway in the list of trashed people, because you will surely not like him. VirtualEye 16:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Martin Rudner's quote is circular logic. He could just as well flip his thesis around and say "The idea that one man's terrorist acts are another man's freedom fighter acts is complete rubbish, because they are cetainly terrorist acts when they are commited by terrorists." Maybe his quote is taken out of context, but it comes across as pseudo-intellectual garbage. -- Kendrick7talk 17:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Rudner's quote is not circular at all. He is saying that terrorism is about means, not ends; regardless of the intent or ultimate goal of your cause, if you use terrorist actions to achieve that goal, then you are a terrorist. Jayjg (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Jay that is Not what he says re-check the quote below.Hypnosadist 15:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that is what he says. What "quote" are you referring to? Rudner didn't say "they are cetainly terrorist acts when they are commited by terrorists", or anything even remotely like that; it was Kendrick7 who said that. Jayjg (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Jay you are right, i was taking Kendrick7 words on good faith, the real quote is not "pseudo-intellectual garbage" and is logical. Sorry, now can we get back to Galloway and whether the american government is accused of terrorism (Maybe Putin has someing to say on this in the speach he gave yesterday).Hypnosadist 16:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I went back to the source and read the quote in context. I stand by what I said that the way we quote him is meaningless here ("if one commits terrorist acts, it is terrorism") because we don't include his definition of terrorist acts. I'm saddened no one else sees this quote, by itself, is circular reasoning. -- Kendrick7talk 21:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
No-one sees it because it is not there. Differentiating between ends and means is a powerful and logical argument, not a circular one. Jayjg (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
In anycase, I clarified this in the article. -- Kendrick7talk 21:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I clarified your clarification. Jayjg (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Kendrick7 says:
"they are cetainly terrorist acts when they are commited by terrorists."
Thats what you say, right? War heros of one nation can be terrorists for the other. Palestinians are freedom fighters in the eyes of many while terrorists in the eyes of many. Israeli forces are retaliating in the POV of some but terrorists in the POV of many people.
You think only America is the absolute authority to declare someone as terrorist? Does that mean there are no clashes of ideolgies in the world? Does that mean world is one country? Does that mean West does not have clash with communism of China? If no clash then go kiss china and dont moan over their policies. People who are killed in China are considered terrorists while they are considred as innocent in the eyes of America.
You just wanted to waste my time in convincing you or you got some benefit too? VirtualEye 06:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
That's the point; that the circular reasoning I was parroting isn't helpful. -- Kendrick7talk 21:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Misrepresenting powerful reasoning is not parroting circular reasoning; perhaps you should review circular reasoning. Jayjg (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I did understand that part (ends vs. means) of what he was saying, though that's fairly boilerplate too. Doesn't anyone fighting for a cause believe their cause is just? Powerful reasoning, OTOH, might consider the relationship of terrorism to the philosophy of clothes -- that whether or not its permissible in our society to kill and be killed largely comes down the the question of who your tailor is. -- Kendrick7talk 22:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Powerful reasoning points out the excuses which are used to justify terrorism, based on the fact that the people who justify it insist their cause is just. However, as you point out, everyone fighting for a cause thinks their cause is just; therefore, it is the "one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter" pseudo-aphorism which is weak and morally bankrupt boilerplate, whereas Rudner's statement is the bracing refutation of that kind of feeble Newspeak. Oh, and please try to avoid violations of WP:CIVIL in your edit summaries. Jayjg (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is becoming a sterile argument. Not all acts labeled terrorism have the same level of opprobrium for a third party observer. Just as in the case of "military necessity", one has to consider "distinction" and "proportionality". As an example there was widespread outrage in the Republic of Ireland over the second of the Warrington bomb attacks (1993) by the IRA, -- The bomb was in a bin close to a McDonald's and people thought that the IRA should have considered that children could be casualties, and not planted it there. The negative reaction to the much larger London Bishopsgate bomb (1993) was much more muted as the IRA argument that it was a legitimate economic target could not be totally discounted -- The damage was so large that it forced the British government to underwrite some of the cost of the damage, something they resisted because it made a political statement that this was war damage not criminal damage. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


Merge from Political terrorism

Please merge any relevant content from Political terrorism per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political terrorism. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 07:42Z

interwiki for Croatian (hr)

Please add an interwiki link for Croatian. I cannot, because the article is protected.

Code:
[[hr:Terorizam]]

Thanks. --89.172.63.165 22:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. --JohnnoShadbolt 02:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Colombia

Colombia is poorly mentioned (see the very red spot in the map of terrorist acts?)--((F3rn4nd0 ))(BLA BLA BLA) 23:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

interwiki for Latin (la)

Resolved.

Please add Latin language interwiki:

 [[la:Tromocratia]]

Thanks 71.208.225.146 18:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Done --h2g2bob (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


Types of Terrorism

Under the section "Types of Terrorism" there is nothing listed about the violent religous fanatical terrorism which was experienced on 9/11 for example. I believe that should be listed. WacoJacko 10:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, there was nothing listed about terrorism against civilians which is what happened on 9/11, what happened in Britain, and what happens in Israel. This to me would seem very important. This terrorism based on religous extremism seems to be the most prominent form of terrorism that encountered today.WacoJacko 10:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


Any input here?WacoJacko 04:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
That technically falls under political terrorism, unless it is expressly for the benefit of the terrorists in which case it becomes non-political terrorism. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 03:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The activities of the mafia and other organised crime, particularly involved in "protection" rackets and suppressing informants involves the use of terror, even if it only involves horse's heads in the bed, but the only thing which distinguishes it from "terrorism" is its lack of political focus, but for financial gain. Even so there is an overlap because the mafia has often controlled politicians and unions and has its origins in the Italian Risorgimento as a "resistance group" along with the Neapolitan Camorra.In Ireland the terrorist groups have funded themselves througfh criminal enterprise and in the case of several protestant para military groups have become indistinguishable from financially motivated criminal gangs. I would use the definition in a Chinese saying- "Kill one- frighten ten thousand" Workersdreadnought 12:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Opening sentence

See also: Talk:Terrorism/Archive 11#The first sentence, Talk:Terrorism/Archive 11#First paragraph, and Talk:Terrorism/Archive 11#Reguarding the introduction

'Terrorism' is a term used to describe violence or the perception or threat of imminent violence.

Really? Is that the best possible way we can word the lead sentence? That terrorism is a synonym for violence, or even perceived, or threatened imminent violence?
If so, I used to occasionally terrorise my younger brother, I was terrorised in school, and every single boxing or Mixed Martial Arts match is a showcase for terrorism. Also, one of the things that some people look forward to most in ice hockey is the terrorism.
Surely there has to be a better way to word that sentence? --Dreaded Walrus t c 07:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe 'against a large group of people' or a community, country, etc.--Solar Sunstorm 17:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


I agree, there must be a better way to describe it, perhaps violence against a group of innocent people?WacoJacko 09:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The key questions for labeling an action as terrorist are :

-The goals are political -The one who does is not a regular army (then would be a "war crime") -The action is criminal -The action is not done for the advantage that gives for itself but for the sake of propaganda.

So any reasonable wording must say this.

There is a shortcut which is increasingly used by academics and is to say that "Terrorism is war crimes commited without a regular war (or by non-soldiers)". --Igor21 11:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


I would consider terrorism to be violence commited against civilians by non soldiers.WacoJacko 11:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps not just any violence committed against civilians by non-soldiers, as that encompasses just normal assault, murder e.t.c.
I quite like Igor21's summary, and the current lead sentence of the article seems to be good. Any objections?

Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or other ideological goals.

I think it's good, and certainly an improvement over the pretty ambiguous previous version. --Dreaded Walrus t c 11:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


It sounds good to me, much better than before.WacoJacko 20:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The opening sentence is much better, but one word choice makes a lot of difference - civilian vs. non-combatant. American definitions of terrorism (and I know there are many) tend to emphasize non-combatant, because that leaves room for the interpretation that attacks on off-duty police or military count as terrorism (see Khobar Towers bombing). Personally I prefer the use of civilian, but please be aware of the implications of your choice. Dchall1 08:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out that distinction, after some consideration, I actually prefer non-combatant to civilian. However, this is just my opinion.WacoJacko 09:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one who sees a clear distinction between the word terrorism, violence and/or the mention of personal goal?
A terrorist is someone who instills terror, it does not imply means or reasons.
For peaceful ways of terrorizing people, one can watch the classic John Cleese movie on "How to irritate people"

Hi,

The problem of the definitions that imply the need of a will of certain nature (e.g. the will to "cause terror" ) is that it is possible to say that the intention of the terrorist is not to cause any "sensation" but to achieve a certain political goal. It has a point because if a terrorist wants the independence of a certain region, and does something and the independence is achieved without having caused terror, he has achieved his goal so it is slippery to say that they want "to cause terror" because they want to cause terror at the same title that they want to cause destruction or death i.e. as a tool to achieve their true or final objective.

This is the reason why in academic circles, everybody is more and more willing to accept the loose in the definition of the nuances "will of causing terror" and "will of propaganda" -that tradicionally have been used to key concepts- for the sake of having a unified definition. In this regard, if we divide political violence in four sections we have a complete taxonomy. These are

-War : done by armies following the Geneva Convention (or Law of People in Wartimes of whatever)

-War crime : done by armies and not following the Geneva Convention

-Civilian uprising : done by non-soliders who follow Geneva Convention

-Terrorism : done by civilians who do not follow Geneva Convention

This criteria are free of any need for judging the will of the perpetrator. To adopt this taxonomy would be very good for wikipedia since it saves no ending discussions about intentions and legitimacy that are really evanescent concepts.

One more remark : terrorism can be done against soldiers as the case of the two English NCOs killed by Irgun in 1946 using means not allowed by Geneva Convention; or the linching of the solider in the palestinian police station some years ago just to name two.

Unfortunately it seems that terrorism will be on front pages for the whole century so it is important for wikipedia to have an agile procedure to deal with the articles speaking aobut it. Let me know what you think and I can bring references from recognized academic world experts so backup the above way of handling. --Igor21 10:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


I have added the word unlawful to the first sentence because the threat of violence in a war by enemy armed forces is not terrorism, nor is the lawful threat of violence by the police terrorism, even though in both cases they are preformed for political or other ideological goals
There is a furhter problem with this simple definition because just like military necessity it is necessary to consider proportionality and distinction.
Distinction is covered to a certain extent by the use of the word "civilians" but civilians can be unlawful combatants for example were the attempts to murder members paramilitary organisations terrorism in Northern Ireland. Was the murder of Billy Wright terrorism? Are attacks on a civilian police force terrorism? How does one judge if a police force is a civilian police force or a paramilitary police force. Was there a difference between the killing of a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary patrolling with the British army and one who was not? If an attack on the command and control structures of an opposing force a terrorist act? For example was the Brighton hotel bombing a terrorist act? What about off duty soldiers? Was the bombing of pubs used by off duty soldiers a guerrilla attack with any civilians killed collateral damage (they were not the target) or a terrorist attack? Was the killing of off duty part time soldiers terrorism eg Harry D. Dickson?
Proportionality: Are attacks on the military never terrorism? What about the Hyde Park and Regents Park bombings? Is killing military bandsmen (who are medics in times of war), in a park in central London a legitimate guerrilla attack? The British Government makes a distinction on proportionality proscribed-groups do not include the Animal Rights Militia because in part to date their attacks are not seen as often sever enought to be listed as a terrotist organisation.
One always comes back to "terrorism is a pejorative term" I think we are better off going back to the introduction "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."[1] --Philip Baird Shearer 11:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Philip Baird Shearer : Let me kindly suggest to you reading what I wrote above. With your new change, definition is longer but without being univocal.

Answering your questions under my definition :

-The murder of Willy Wright is clearly terrorism since was commited by non-soliders against someone who was not a soldier. Because we do not need to judge about proportionality or about the doings of Mr. Wright we do not entangle is evanescent subjects.

-Attacks on a police force are terrorism since police force by definition do not carry weapons to cause the maximum destruction but weapons to limit the colateral damage. Its true that if police is armed with military weapons and acts as an occupation army there is a problem but the problem is caused by this fact not by the definition. A police by definition is there to protect all the civilians and if does not so, this is the problem.

-The Brighton bombing was clearly terrorism since was an attack of civilians against civilians.

-To attack a patrol of Red Barrets armed with FAL is not terrorism but civilian uprising since those soldiers had the means to self defend.

-To attack pubs because there are off-duty soldiers inside is terrorism. It would not if the attacked pub were inside a military compound.

-Hyde Park and Regents Park bombings are terrorist acts since the soldiers were not acting as such but doing a parade for tourists and in fact many tourist were wounded.

-Animal Rights Militia actions have the shape of terrorist acts but if they are so mild, they can be considered out of the cathegory because are not criminal enough. This is a different discusion because if an occupation army do such things we cannot say if are crimes of war or not.

This thing of the "hundred definitions" is absurd. There are not hundred but thousand wordings but definitions as such there are very few. In one hand we have the definitions based on who is the one who does("any civilian act of political violence is terrorism"). After we have the definitions based on legitimacy and proporcionality which normally lead to no ending discusions about each conflict. Then we have two definitions based on aim ("acts of political violence with the will of causing terror" and "acts of political violence were violence is used for propaganda). This two have the variants of including military personnel or not. And then there is the one, I am proposing that is to ask "if this would have been done by soldiers, would it be a war crime?". If yes then is terrorism. --Igor21 14:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think some people are getting way off course here, terrorism still doesn't imply a political goal nor violence, even though western media often uses the word that way.

1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.

2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.

(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorist)

2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism)

Many of the American dictionaries have changed/added the definition after 9/11, however, most of us still remember the original meaning of the word.

A policeman trying to scare someone is terrorism, and so is a government showing it's muscle to the less fortunate. However, most of the time, terrorism is the word used to describe actions done by the "other" side. --213.114.213.212 03:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I just thought I'd say, I've came back here after not checking this for quite a while, and the current version of the lead section:
"Terrorism is a term used to describe unlawful violence or other unlawful harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or other ideological goals."
Is much, much better than the very vague statement at the top of this section. Good work everyone. :) --Dreaded Walrus t c 12:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Alteration to

Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or other ideological goals.

I think the removal of the word unlawful is not helpful as I wrote above: I have added the word unlawful to the first sentence because the threat of violence in a war by enemy armed forces is not terrorism, nor is the lawful threat of violence by the police terrorism, even though in both cases they are preformed for political or other ideological goals. So I am going to reinsert it and I hope we can discuss it further before it is removed again. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

First, judging from this talk, it is not "alteration", it is "restoration". Second, the article goes at lengths and details to say that there is no single clear-cut legal definition of "terrorism". In particular, "unlawful" is not universally accepted. The intro must match the article content, otherwise it will create confusion. If the topic is not simple, the inntro cannot be simpistic, kinda "for dummies". I added an explanation about this in intro to this purpose. `'Míkka 15:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Without the term unlawful it means that terrorism encompasses the lawful use of violence, this is clearly a nonsense. If you want to go this way then I suggest that we go back to the opening paragraph as used in the Definition of terrorism:

Few words are as politically or emotionally charged as terrorism. A 1988 study by the US Army[2] counted 109 definitions of terrorism that covered a total of 22 different definitional elements. Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur in 1999 also has counted over 100 definitions and concludes that the "only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence". For this and for political reasons, many news sources avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers", "militants", etc .

--Philip Baird Shearer 16:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, some definitions do not exclude "lawful violence", and it is not nonsense. I have already suggested you to re-read the article, which you obviously ignored. So, once again, if you insist that it is nonsense and can prove it with reliable sources, go ahead and delete "Unlawfulness or illegitimacy" paragraph from Terrorism#Key criteria section, and I will no object to your version of intro. Military like to invent various euphemisms to justify unreasonable use of force, like "collateral damage", etc. Other people, including UN, prefer to call a spade a spade: any intentional violence against noncombatants is terrorism, because this may be of two purposes only: either pure cruelty or intention to seed terror. (Oh, I forgot genocide and probably something else; whatever.)`'Míkka 19:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You have not addressed the issue of lawful violence. Not all violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or other ideological goals. is terrorism. Lawful Coercion by a state is not terrorism. --Philip Baird Shearer 07:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to address it, if only because the definition of "lawful" is not without its own controversy. Not to say the word is not used. Once again, the intro must correspond to the article. re: "Lawful Coercion by a state is not terrorism.": not universal opinion, see state terrorism.
I will no longer be involved in theoretical dispute. I am not an expert in politics, neither I pretend to be. Obviously, people worked hard and diligently to write this article. This is my last word of the common sense: the intro must correspond to what is written in the article. Period. Either fix the article or don't do it in the intro. `'Míkka 14:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


Certain acts that are popularly labeled "terrorist" are legal within commonly accepted interpretations of international law. An example would be the capture of an Israeli soldier within the West Bank or Gaza, or operations against settlements, which are illegal encroachments by an aggressor nation within mainstream interpretations of international law. It is also highly inaccurate to label terrorist acts "criminal." This presupposes the legitimacy of the repression of the armed group responsible, which should be determined by the particular details of each case as it is considered. Therefore, the references to acts of terror being "criminal" should be removed, simply because it misconstrues and distorts our perception of the reality of terrorism. Terrorism is not committed by irrational actors, it is highly considered deliberate violence, and should not be viewed as inherently criminal or deviant. Because violence exists in all levels of social relations throughout most societies, the use of violence by "terrorists" cannot be considered inherently socially deviant, social deviancy being the primary definition of criminal behavior, if violence also exists in relationships and actions traditionally accepted not being socially deviant, like the police. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.226.182 (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I would point out that if the word "unlawful" is inserted to define an act as an act of terrorism, which, if lawfully justified would not be, then suspected terrorists would have to be treated as accused criminals rather than enemy combatants, because their status could be ascertained only after the question of their legal justification is litigated. Should it not be a matter of consensus that violence perpetrated upon another, not in order to neutralize them as a military threat, but in order to provoke a reaction by others, e.g., political leaders, commanders of armed forces, or the morale of an enemy population, is always unlawful whether or not the actor carries any government authority? And is this not the most useful and neutral definition to give to "terrorism"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.178.99 (talk) 02:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Examples of major incidents

I propose that we remove this list. It is next to impossible to create such a list that does not contain a bias by the editors who edit this page and even with good faith edits, it will still tend to have the Wikipedia systemic bias. The list is also in breach of WP:OR and WP:V (not just the individual entries) but also the collation of such information into a list of "major" incidents. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Examples make sense when it is necessary to clarify the concept. Here it is enough to put List of terrorist incidents into the "See also" section or incorporate it into the text. `'Míkka 17:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Thirded and carried out. bobanny 18:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

how long has this been protected?

I wanna edit. byurbyur 00:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


Key Criteria

It should be part of the definition that terrorists fight in disguise and pretend to be non-combatants. We all know many examples of terrible things done by uniformed soldiers, but this word is not used for such acts. Apart from bumper stickers, I have never heard this word used for the acts of uniformed soldiers. There are strong and obvious reasons why we look with special horror on those who fight in disguise. No doubt there are pacifists who want to expand the definition of terrorism to condemn all wars. But that is not what the word means. Alrees 18:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

"almost invariably" pretend to be non-combatants, hide among non-combatants, fight from in the midst of non-combatants, and when they can, strive to mislead and provoke the government soldiers into attacking the wrong people, that the government may be blamed for it." Impartial? (Neilarmius 20:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC))

"When an enemy is identifiable as a combatant, the word terrorism is rarely used?" Is it? (Neilarmius 20:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC))

What about British Commandos "In future, all terror and sabotage troops of the British and their accomplices, who do not act like soldiers but rather like bandits, will be treated as such by the German troops and will be ruthlessly eliminated in battle, wherever they appear. ... From now on all men operating against German troops in so-called commando raids, even if they are in uniform, whether armed or unarmed, in battle or in flight, are to be annihilated to the last man...."(See Commando Order). Or the frequent use of the terror bomber/bombing for Allied airmen and raids by Goebbels? --Philip Baird Shearer 17:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


Fighting in disguise is not a key criteria for defining terrorist. Covert special forces, for example, are often required to wear disguises and are not considered terrorists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.203.37 (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The assassination of Reinhard Heydrich by covert SOE agents was not terrorism as it was to eliminate a specific threat but it was not done in uniform and involved bomb-throwing and shooting. The Nazi reply was to massacre the village of Lidice in order to terrorise the Czech population in general, but this was done by uniformed troops yet it was terrorism.Workersdreadnought 11:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

What about the IRA assassination of Henry Hughes Wilson (1922) and Airey Neave (1972), and their attempted assassination of members of the British Cabinet in Brighton in 1984 (Brighton hotel bombing) and in Downing street in 1990 (10 Downing Street#Security)? What about the bombing of ferry, D/F Hydro, to prevent the transportation of heavy water from Norway to Germany? Knut Haukelid was not in uniform when he planted the bomb and in sinking the ferry killed 18 people, 14 Norwegians and four Germans. Comes down to the Pejorative use --Philip Baird Shearer 12:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The key criteria are that 1)is done for propaganda purposes 2)is done by a non-governement group and 3)it involves actions that would be considered crimes of war if done by armies in a war. Philip Baird Shearer keeps concentrating attention in border cases and moral enigmas but as I have said many times, the fact that it is dificult to say if an ornitorrincus is a mammal does not makes "mammal" and ambigous word. Frontiers of terrorism are blur but there is core which is clearly caracterized by academics and non-political organizations.--Igor21 19:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Was the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior a terrorist act? The whole point is that it is the border line cases that makes it impossible to construct hard and fast simple rules over this issue. If they were terrorists why were both Alain Mafart and Dominique Prieur allowed to remain servants of the French Government and on their return from prison promoted? It seems that a Kewi's terrorist is a Frenchman's hero.--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi again,

-Rainbow Warrior for me is not terrorism since was done by a secret service. Violent actions by states need a diferent category to be called "state ponsored terrorism" or whatever (we can discuss this at another moment).

Just for the sake of reciprocity -and aknowledging your knowledge about RAF and Red Brigades- can you kinldy tell me what name other that terrorism can be given to the main activity of these two groups?

--Igor21 (talk) 11:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

for those who read Igor21's last comment and find the egnamatic, please see Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid#Terrorism again
The article Red Army Faction covers the issue with the sentence "It [the RAF] described itself as a communist "urban guerrilla" group engaged in armed resistance, while it was described by the West German government as a terrorist group.". This sentence is within this guideline, and the rest of the article lets the reader decide which description is the more accurate -- as is recommended in the Wikipedia WP:NOR policy Let the facts speak for themselves --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that in this definition the ones who speak are not the facts but the members of RAF. It is completely incorrect to present the German governement as the only who thinks that they were terrorists. Everybody except the members of that group think so. They are an academic example of terrorist group. But this is wikipedia, so here rules the law of the most stubborn. And the winner is Philip Baird Shearer. Enjoy--Igor21 16:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism against combatants

Captured Pakistani soldiers are being tortured on video, and the footage is being propagated back to the Pakistanis. Surely, this is terrorism—not for the torture, of course, but for the use of the footage. I don't mean to assert my personal opinion here—rather, I mean that, surely, the vast majority of people would identify this as terrorism, in the ordinary usage, as exactly the same tactic as (say) murdering soldiers' wives. So—combatant status is irrelevant to terrorism, no? The attack is not against combatant qua combatant, but against combatant qua example. The soldier is captured; the torture serves only and exactly the military purpose of terror. —Jemmytc 15:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. The Black & Tans used to leave bodies of IRA men by the roadside with every bone in their bodies broken. Later the Free Staters used to castrate captured IRA men in order to deter their comrades from continuing their campaign. Equally the existence of Guantanamo Bay and the pretty much general knowledge of allegedly secret "rendition" may be calculated to deter other Jihadists. Workersdreadnought 11:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

How exactly does rendition and torture deter suicide bombers? My mind flashes to the idea {that the thought of crucifixion did not deter the Judean People's Front, crack suicide squad} --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Need Help on Wiki Violence Page

There are lots of links to the wiki violence page here. However, as you can see at Talk:Violence, the problem is that a non-registered editor over last couple years keeps trying to promote a narrow, left wing (black bloc oriented) theory of violence. I.E. that smashing physical things is NOT violent, and harming people UNintentionally while smashing things is NOT violent. He tries to use abstruse left wing theorists as his references while rejecting using a wider definition of violence with various dictionary references.

No one else is chiming in and I don't feel like getting in a revert/edit war with this guy. So if some level headed wiki editors committed to NON-POV want to get in there and opine, feel free.

The last definition he deleted wasn't perfect and was put in before I listed the dictionary definitions on the talk page. So feel free to put a good one together using those or other more neutral sources. Otherwise I'll do so myself and, if necessary, appeal to whomsoever one appeals to in such situations where only two editors opine and they disagree. Thanks! (Also, note the whole article itself is pretty messy, but who has time to clean up everything one wants to on wikipedia?) Carol Moore 15:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

The tone of discussion seems to be quite reasonable at the moment and congratulations for your efforts to keep it that way. I made a minor edit (spelling) and will keep the page on watch, but I may not be able to help it towards what you would see as NPOV. Since the page is High importance for the Sociology wikiproject, and only Start-class, then it should be possible to enlist a number of the members of that project to help. Leave a message on their project page explaining why it is important to get the page up to at least GA, preferably FA. They will all like to show off their knowledge of obscure sources though, that's what sociology is for. ;-) Itsmejudith (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Reference to pig lard

I moved the reference to pig lard as a deterrent to the Counter-terrorism page.Not home (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)