Talk:Terrorism/Draft a1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'd rather start from Marcusvox's proposed revision. If we're just going to work on this version, I don't see much point in spinning it off into a draft. My only problem with Marcus' version is that I don't know if there's a way to get his version here with its links. Isomorphic 08:03, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fine. Move it here, that it be a starting point to "work on" -SV(talk) 08:16, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, cool, thanks. I'll copy/paste. Best I can do as far as I know. Isomorphic 08:19, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Actually after a more careful reading, I've decided I'll just incorporate some of his changes rather than replacing. Here's to (hopefully) a better article... Isomorphic 22:32, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Alright, I've made a major revision. Rather than try to make a single definition, I gave some criteria that could be used, and the implications of using them. That way, the readers can make their own decision on what they consider to be "terrorism". I also moved some stuff around to improve the overal organization.

I think that the state terrorism and international agreements sections are too long. They should be summarized, and their contents moved to state terrorism and international law and terrorism. Isomorphic 03:31, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There's already a section on politicization of the term - you didn't need to create one. I moved the content and tried to integrate it with what was already in that section. Also, Chomsky is not an expert on terrorism. Isomorphic 05:57, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

An "expert on terrorism" by definition, would be someone invested in a particular way of confining terrorism to established boundaries, would they not? Chomsky, unlike many so-called "experts," at the very least gives reasonable, in-context definitions—not because he's a terrorist, or an expert on violence in general, but because he's an expert with words, (which terrorism is) and explains quite nicely how they are used. Deal with it. -SV(talk) 13:16, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yes, he is an expert on linguistics. If you had inserted a quote in which Chomsky critiqued what the word meant or how it is used, I might consider it. The quote you did add was
It has required considerable discipline on the part of the "specialized class" to maintain its own studied ignorance while denouncing the terrorism of others on command and cue.
This is not about the meaning of the term or about how it is used. It's Chomsky's political POV. Isomorphic 13:28, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Please read this [1] Thanks."Compare mathematics and the political sciences -- it's quite striking. In mathematics, in physics, people are concerned with what you say, not with your certification. But in order to speak about social reality, you must have the proper credentials, particularly if you depart from the accepted framework of thinking."-SV(talk) 10:45, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ok. I'll Agree that that wasnt the best quote. This one is more appropriate. You can use it if its relevant. "The term "terrorism" is used, standardly, to refer to the terrorism that they carry out against us, whoever "we" happen to be. Even the worst mass murderers —the Nazis for example —adopted this practice." [...] "Since the rich and powerful set the terms for discussion, the term "terrorism" is restricted, in practice, to the terror that affects the US and its clients and allies." -SV(talk) 07:48, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Excellent progress ... my congrats to all involved! ----Marcusvox 08:12, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)

Iso, there needs to be some looking at paramilitary, and guerilla, etc. to consolidate these. Terrorist, special forces, guerillas, and paramilitary seem to be just different words for the same thing - there needs to be an organized treatment of the differences between them. If there is no substantive difference between any two terms, then they need to be consolidated. -SV(talk) 22:31, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In some cases more than one of those terms may apply, but they are certainly not the same.
The terms don't specify the same trait. "Guerilla", for example, is used to describe the tactics of the group in question. "Paramilitary" as I understand it refers to a group's organization - the fact that the group is organized along quasi-military lines and performs semimilitary functions, but is not a professional military. And terrorist, well, I assume you've read my definition section. Depending on which criteria you apply, you can exclude plenty of groups that are considered guerilla or paramilitary, or both, from the definition of terrorist. Personally I think the "deliberate targeting of civilians" is the most broadly accepted, and you could find groups that fit any of the other three terms but do not target civilians.
Special forces are the most obviously distinct. They are not, by definition, paramilitary, because special forces are formal military units, operating in uniform and under the laws of war. You may be confusing them with the paramilitary units of organizations like the CIA, but those are not "special forces". Actually, the paramilitary article needs to be broadened somewhat, since "paramilitary" is much broader than that article makes it out to be. Isomorphic 23:19, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
All this attention to detail astounds me, Iso - just the other day, you said that I was "too concerned" with who is or isnt a terrorist, and then you give this rather nice and tidy (messy, really) treatment of what is or isnt a terrorist. In all of this, do you even consider my criteria at all, which is to start with the definition of an "act of terrorism?" It doesnt appear so at this point. -SV(talk) 10:43, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Funny thing, that didn't sound like something I'd say, so I went back and looked, and sure enough, I never said you were too concerned with who is or isn't a terrorist. That was Cecropia's comment. You're getting on my nerves - you accuse me of being delusional, you consistently put words in my mouth, you attribute to me something that was said by someone else, and you call my careful work "messy" (I'm assuming you're referring to the definition section.) As for "your criteria" to define a terrorist act, last I checked Cecropia and I have been trying hard to come up with a meaningful definition. He and I have each written pieces of the article in this attempt. Meanwhile, you've been sitting on the sidelines saying that the term is meaningless and polemical. Isomorphic 10:07, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)


I removed the reference to paramilitary in the intro. It seems to confuse the issue. First of all, were you meaning to imply that, by definition, a formal military cannot commit terrorism? That's what you were saying, and while I'd agree (as such actions when committed by a military are called war crime) it seems at odds with both your overall POV and with your comment above equating special forces with terrorists. Second, the word "terrorist" has been commonly applied to plenty of groups that wouldn't be considered paramilitary - for example, I don't think Al Qaida is generally called "paramilitary" and I don't think they really fit the term. Paramilitary is certainly not an appropriate term for any individual acting alone, like the Unabomber. Isomorphic 23:38, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] moved from article, motives section

the Washington Beltway sniper attacks (which were an attempt at extortion.)

I don't think this is a good case to cite, because his motives are so debatable. From what I heard most recently, they wanted to use the $ to have 100 boys, and 100 girls go around the world teaching Islam, or something like that. I think his motive was to use the $ with political intent. Much like the robberies commited by The Order (group). Sam Spade 01:30, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I knew they were trying to extort money. I didn't know there was a political purpose behind it. If anyone knows of a similar case that would work better, put it in. Isomorphic 03:27, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I've actually heard suggestions that there were direct terrorist tie-ins in that case which have been suppressed to prevent hysteria, so I definitely think a different example would be in order. Which one to choose seems pretty broad, since there are so many non-terrorist incidents. I guess the best would be one where it is a close call, the deciding factor being motive. Sam Spade 03:41, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It'll prob do fine w/o an example, others also lack them. Sam Spade 05:20, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
If I could think of one, I'd include it, but nothing comes to mind. Isomorphic 05:21, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The "deciding factor being motive"? ?? LOL. Now, we're getting somewhere. -SV(talk) 10:49, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] moved from article

  • Terrorists and Former Terrorists, Alleged

The classification of a person or group as "terrorist" is nearly always disputed. Below, we list some of the better-known individuals who are regarded as terrorists (or as having been terrorists in the past) by a significant body of opinion apart from the victims of acts with which they have rightly or wrongly been linked. In many, perhaps most, cases there is also a significant body of contrary opinion. Inclusion of many people in this one list does not indicate any type of equivalence between them. We have not included leaders of governments even when they are widely regarded as guilty of "state terrorism".

This section is prob the main trouble with the article. How about a title and paragraph we can all agree to? Maybe we should include anyone commonly refered to as a terrorist? Its a subjective term, and I donno if I want my prez. (Bush) put on there, but the truth is the definition is hard to nail down, and here we have a list... Lets see some alternate ideas? Sam Spade 05:37, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, one possilibility is to move it to its own article. That doesn't really solve the problem though, just shifts it. This article really is too long though - as I said above, I favor spinning off the international agreements section into its own article, and moving most of the state terrorism section to state terrorism. Isomorphic 05:41, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Im glad to see this comment by you Iso - it shows that you understand the problem of inconsistency, and a real awareness of how not-easy it is to find common ground between the definition and the polemic meaning. -SV(talk) 11:01, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
"Commonly referred to." How commonly? If you really want to throw the door open, you could include eco-terrorists, cultural terrorists, etc. I know it would be a big disappointment to everyone who has worked so hard on it, but if you begin adding in world leaders you don't like, which have to include any politician who has ever headed a country at war, I would favor stripping out all names of both individuals and groups. We might actually do a service if we could define what terrorism is and what terrorists do and leave IDs to the imagination. Cecropia 05:51, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well, keep in mind, that the process we devise here must be somewhat grounded in convention. So, Im not for saying 'Yasser Arafat was a saint,' but I am in favor of saying that he is "portrayed by Israel and the West as an irrational extremist, who uses violence wantonly, wheras they claim to use violence rationally" Wink wink. These are sides, in otherwords, and though people should know what POV they are swimming in themselves, it's no good if we ask them to believe that they are birds, when in fact they are fish. So, list goes to its own article (where it was a year ago) but with some stronger (decending from the main article) understanding of how the term is applied.-SV(talk) 11:01, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yes, this is a major problem. However, it still seems like there should be an index of some sort. It seems to me that it might be useful to have a list of famous terrorist incidents rather than a list of famous terrorists. That might be somewhat less of a political morass, as it characterizes actions, not people. Isomorphic 05:56, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Essentially, I agree with you, but it would still be contentious. Put it this way, we just had a user strike "terrorist" from the first paragraph of the article on the 9/11 attacks (since restored). If that incident raises dispute, what could you possibly list? Cecropia 06:09, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'm not saying you wouldn't have any controversy, only that you might have less controversy. I want there to be a list of some sort, but events seems likelier to be doable than people. Isomorphic 06:21, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well, thats not the best response to Cecropia's question - better to say that the POV framework must be described with each use of the term terrorism. To strike it out completely would be to ignore the reality that the term is used. A little extra (consistent) context for the POV from which it comes is all Im talking about. Yes, the list of acts, rather than who is who is not is a far more rational approach. (glad I re-scanned the discussion to find that Iso comment) -SV(talk) 11:01, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My soloution is this: Define the term "terrorism" as clearly (perhaps in more than one way) as possible. That is something that isn't done. The definition here [2] focuses on its criminal nature. Prob the best way to define what the laws are is going by the U.N. and worlds courts usages, since all nations vary. The definition here is also good [3]. Lets all check references, and cite definitions (if we have to go w multiple ones) of the term specifically, so we know what is being talked about. If its to be used against say Bush, you should cite a definition that would be so inclusive. If we get the term properly defined, then it will be easy to make a seperate list article or two. Clearly world leaders and suicide bombers shouldn't be on the same list of "terrorists". If we put arafat, its just as legitamate to put sharon, and everyone else. Sam Spade 07:17, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Sam. Everyone first joins this discussion by posing this "solution," but thats actually part of the problem, strangely enough. ;) -SV(talk) 11:01, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Try again for a new core definition

I would be grateful if you would bear with me for a short time, and not edit my proposed wording until I've had a chance to post my explanation and rationale. Cecropia 15:27, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My aim is to have a definition that is short, accurate, and neutral. In order to try to get there, I've leaned on my knowledge of the laws of war, a subject that I taught many years ago. My approach is to present the issue as I would to introduce a lesson plan which is to be fleshed out with discussion.

The word "terrorism" is not used in the core treaties that comprise the written laws and rules of warfare, more than a century of Geneva and Hague Conventions, but the conditions that make actions against a civilian population a war crime are. This includes attacks intentionally directed at civilians and attacks against either civilian or military (but especially the former) where the the toll of death and injury is intentionally greater than absolutely dictated by military necessity. War crimes as an element also come into play where the attack on the civilian target was carried out without warning or on undefended structures. All these elements come into play for example, in the WTC attack.

If you find this approach at all useful, I'll be glad to add details or comment as needed. Cecropia 16:34, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight - Are you saying that firing a missle from a helicopter into an apartment complex, killing eight or so kids, is not terrorism, because the intended target is a "legitimate target?" I'm sure you can see the gaping flaw in that word, "intentionally." It's like the famous "I slipped, and my penis accidentally entered your wife" excuse. The road to hell is paved with "intentions". -SV(talk) 20:41, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
If you aren't familiar with the laws of war, I suggest you acquaint yourself with the basic tenets. They're highly relevant to discussions like this. The article on collateral damage discusses your question although it's by no means complete. I can't find a good summary of the overall laws of war, but if you're feeling ambitious, [here is a rather extensive treatment. Isomorphic 22:16, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Stevertigo: No, I'm not arguing that at all; in fact I'm trying not to argue (at least at this point), but you are giving me a chance to elaborate. I see where you're going with your particular example; on the face of it you might be describing both a war crime and terrorism. Or you might be describing a war crime which is not terrorism. There is also the important issues of proportionality and minimizing suffering. As I've been trying to say, terrorism isn't the be-all and end-all of criminal war activity. The Nazis managed to exterminate millions of Jews, Gypsies, people he deemed otherwise defective and political opponents while being careful not to terrorize, so I would argue that the exterminations were not terrorism; but they were a series of incredible war crimes. Likewise, Pearl Harbor was probably a war crime but not terrorism. The V2 bombing of London was probably both war crime and terrorism.
If we can get away from the politics and remember that we are defining a word, we might actually be able to come up with something workable and a framework to evaluate particualr incidents (if we must evaluate specific incidents. Maybe we should have separate articles to fight over: Terrorism to define it flat; Terrorists; and Major terrorist incidents.
BTW, the concepts of war crime and terrorism rest partly on the concept of actual intent (not excuses). In the instance you gave, there might actually be war crimes on both sides of the incident: one the side of the missile firers if they reasonably knew that the building contained innocents; and on the side of the targeted person if he intentionally hid himself in a populated area in the hope of expectation that its civilian status would protect him from harm. Cecropia 22:30, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I think this is a very useful conversation, and I'd like to interject only to say that IMO hiding in a building to escape helicopter gunships would not constitute terrorism in any normal situation. I suppose if it were somehow premeditated, but... That just doesn't seem reasonable. I think the key is an act internationally recognized as criminal, with the intent/effect of inciting terror. Sam Spade 22:40, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'm trying not to get too bogged down in specifics at this point. I would like a definition above the fold, as it were, more or less along the lines I proposed, to be as descriptive and neutral as possible in accordance with the appropriate international treaties, so that readers get some sense of a baseline; then below the fold (below the TOC) is the place for wrangling. To paraphrase what I said elsewhere, the only definition that all of a political bent would agree on in Terrorism is something you do, and I don't. If we accept that as a reasonable debating point, we need nothing else in the article.
I'm also trying to get the article off dead center, and at least that seems to be happening for a few of us
To get back to the inherently devisive helicopter example, the broader question is really not the particular details of the incident (of who knew what when), e.g., did the gunship think there were no civilians in the building? or did they know there were? should they have known there were?was the target trying to simply conceal himself or did he intend to use the civilians as human shields? The broader issue involves the intentional use of civilian areas as venues for war operations, and the way that is responded to by the other side if that's true. Cecropia 22:54, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I dont have time to fully respond - here are a few points. 1. you use common rhetorical examples of what constitutes genocide and terror. Are you ready or willing to deal with real examples which contradict the sterotypes? 2. you say that the term needs defining - this is contradictory to current linguistic theory, by the way, which sees words as containers: 'the English dictionary will tell you what the word means in English, but it says nothing about what word actually means - that is brought to the table by the human reader.' So, we dont need to "define" it - there are various definitions, we simply need to make certain that the term is as more of a political characterization, depending on who uses it, not that there ever is a reasonable possible definition, because noone will agree to rank the CIA in proportion to another organization as a terrorist group, simply because it's paramilitaries generally dont wear headscarves. I cant understand the objection to the use of the term paramilitaries, instead of terrorists. It makes zero sense. 3. "Divisive helicopter example" - on the one hand Im criticized for being too inclusive (CIA, Sharon, KDH, Ronald Regan, Jimmy Carter) and then you object to raising an actual example - not a hypothetical. If this terminology we are working on here isnt supposed to apply to factual cases, what then is it? Maybe a colored spectrum graph using fuzzy logic would better illustrate the exact boundaries between terms. Rspctfly,-SV(talk) 23:24, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have the feeling you are trying to "read between the lines". I credit your helicopter example as a debating point (but note it's an especially emotional one) but am tring to point out that it can be evaluated against established international law—that's a bottom line of sorts. I can't agree much with your point on words as containers in the instant debate, because it puts us into a humpty-dumpty situation: words mean what I want them to mean. So then there's no point in an article at all. In that event, we should really have a series of articles: Terrorism/US POV; Terrorism/PLO POV; Terrorism/Chechan POV; etc., then allow only those who credit each POV as accurate contribute to the article—no criticism of the POV allowed in each article. I'm not particularly advocating such an approach, but it would at least give people an opening into the minds of different groups.
But I have to take note of your comment: "I cant understand the objection to the use of the term paramilitaries, instead of terrorists. It makes zero sense." You really can't? A paramilitary is an irregular fighting force or militia (or member of same) (also specifically covered and defined in the Hague Conventions). A paramilitary group may or may not commit war crimes. They may or may not use terrorist tactics. Paramilitary <> Terrorist. Yours, Cecropia 23:57, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Are you agreeing that paramilitaries can be used as a more NPOV term? Note, also that in some (many?) cases, a terrorist may or may not actually use "terrorist tactics." ;) -SV(talk) 00:22, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Of course Cecropia's not agreeing. Did you read his post? Cecropia, you may note in the discussion above that Stevertigo doesn't see any difference between paramilitary, guerilla, terrorist, and special forces. Suggesting an equivalence between paramilitary groups and special forces (when one is by definition military and the other is by definition not) implies to me that he doesn't really know what he's talking about. When he says there are no distinctions, what he means is "I am unwilling or unable to see these distinctions." He's not interested in international law, because if he acknowledged it he might be forced to admit that the US usually (not always) does pay attention to it, where many others do not. Isomorphic 00:33, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yes, but I needed a setup for the 'tactics' comment. :) OK, in the above, Iso you show an attachment to two general assumptions, both of which could easily be replaced with more solid reasoning: 1. that the distinctions between military and extra- or para- or super- (whatever) military are actually meaningful. 2. you attempt to support the established bias that the US by rights defines the terms, (along with your above assertion that there is a 'difference') by saying that the US 'usually' pays attention to International Law (patently false-pun intd), and is therefore 'more moral' in terms of its conduct. This may be true, but there are a number of outstanding facts in history that remain in flat contradition to this statement. The reflective tendency to blame 'economic interests in Polynesia', 'paranoid Cold War ideology', or some other nefarious influence or other, does nothing to say that history should continue to be written with only one view in mind. So, the tendency (not just the past tendency) the current tendency is for the state to act in immoral ways, and by the time people find out about it, it becomes then just 'a matter of course' or 'relic of a bygone era', and 'how much better we are now.' Its not so much sociology as a willful mass self-delusion. Maybe it's a good feeling, I dunno. -SV(talk) 01:02, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)