Talk:List of terrorist incidents/Archive 1

Title needs to reflect restriction to "non-state terrorism" only

Discussion of this issue has been moved to the bottom of this page: #Renaming_the_article. Please read and discuss there.

Is a terrorist a failed insurgent?

(formerly titled 'first ideas')

Missing here are deeds by Baader-Meinhof, Irish Republican Army (in various flavors), Palestine Liberation Organization, etc. It's not possible to list everything, of course, but are there any major incidents from these that should be present? --Pinkunicorn

There's a strong case to omit IRA and PLO/Palestinian incidents for the reason that these are longstanding "insurgent" resistances against in an occupying powers. In the latter case, against an occupying power that doesn't offer a vote in the occupying power structure to those occupied. It is a similar but somewhat different thing to deal with a separatist movement like Quebec's FLQ or Spain's Basque ETA or Kashmiris in India/Pakistan. However it's probably best to omit those too, and to restrict the word "terrorist" to incidents where a group has no attachment to a political cause that is widely recognized as being at least legitimate to discuss in international forums. Without that rule, China gets to call all Tibetan or Taiwanese resistance to its occupation or planned occupation "terrorism", Russia gets to call all advocates of Chechnya's separation "terrorists". You really want that?

Incidents like Timothy McVeigh's Oklamhoma City bombing or the early Al Qaeda attacks before the formation of the broad united group of jihadis made their 1998 declaration of war against "all Crusaders and Jews" can be called terrorism, as they had little support at the time, but, once you see the formation of a vast network to support specific acts worldwide you must admit that you are dealing with something a bit beyond "terror", a new form of warfare really. McVeigh hoped to spark an insurgent movement but this didn't happen - accordingly a terrorist is a failed insurgent.

Also attacks on military facilities or political decision makers, however conducted, are not "terrorism", period. They are politics as usual. Attacks on police facilities (as the Oklahoma City federal building was) can also often be seen as military or "insurgent" activities.

---

The assasination of Indira Gandhi by her two Sikh body guards is listed as terrorism. But the killing of 3000 innocent Sikhs after the assasination is not listed as terrorism. Is terrorism only called terrorism when it involves a non-state actor or a weak minority?

---

Added some IRA incidents. Not sure if they are the most important ones. Any know about the Tamil Tigers or the Red Brigade? This site lists some groups that the U.S. considers terrorist groups: http://www.state.gov/www/global/terrorism/terrorist_orgs_list.html Anyone know of their actions? ---rmhermen

---

My first idea on moving this list over to a less ambiguous title, was to call it list of major terrorist incidents. However, who gets to decide what is a "major" incident? "Major" is also a relative word - In Israel if a suicide bomber 'only' kills 2 people other than himself many would not regard that as a "major incident" becasue scores of people have been killed in single incidents in the past. But if that same number of people were killed in a terrorist attack in a country that was previously untouched by these acts then many people there would consider that to be a major incident. Also, how can we really define "major" after 3,000 were killed on 9/11? Maybe I am splitting hairs here.... Is list of major terrorist incidents still a better title in spite of this concern? --maveric149

---

Reading the definition of terrorism in the Wikipedia, the USS Cole bombing doesn't appear to belong in this list, since the ship was a military target. It could be that, as the article says, "some people call it terrorism", but this doesn't fit with the definition of terrorism here.

On the topic touched by maveric149, I'd say that this list is automatically about the major incidents, since the minor incidents will likely not get an encyclopedia entry. jheijmans

---

There's lot of lack about terrorist acts in Italy, Germany and France. I will try to find sources.

Who known something about Munich olympics ?

How come you are all focusing on the PIRA? There have been terrorist acts by loyalists, not just republicans.

---

Removed:

• 1986 New Year's Eve fire at the Dupont Plaza Hotel in San Juan, Puerto Rico, claimed 97 lives, mainly in the casino area. Fire set by 3 Dupont workers.

I didn't know duPont was a terrorist organization. Now if you had said Microsoft.... Were/Are these workers part of a terrorist group, perhaps one of the Puerto Rican independence groups? --rmhermen

--Rmhermen: Dupont is not a terrorist gropu. Read well. Dupont Plaza Hotel was the name of the hotel were the act happened. The fire was set by three hotel workers who later admitted they wanted to do it because they were mad cause of hotel workers' salaries in Puerto Rico and wanted to scare tourists and make them not come to Puerto Rico. In that way, it was a case of terrorism.

---

2000-2002 Israel is subjected to a campaign of attacks on civilians that leave 400 dead

I find that this is not netural for four reasons.

1. by not naming the terrorists it clearly is a political statement. I know who they are. (well not personally) 2. by not listing similar state terrorist activities, by Israel in particular, it is also a political statement. 3. The PLO (implied) is the only Governmental (mostly) body listed in the list. It is singled out for special attention. There are a number of people who would argue quite vehemently that the USA is the worlds largest state terrorist orginization. 4. The list of terrorist incidents is highly relevent to specific countries.

Suggestion for limiting the listing of this increadibly incomplete list of terrorist incidents:

This list of terrorist incidents is meant to be representative of non-statitist terrorist incidents which receive international coverage. Countries, like Israel, and pseudo governments like the PLO are not included. See State Terrorism.

- Karl

What's the purpose of restricting ourselves to events which 'recieve international coverage'? If we're doing this, can we state it explicitly, i.e., "List of non-statist terrorist incidents which recieve international coverage"? Because, otherwise, the exclusion of, say, violence by the Contras (which could fill several pages worth of incidents) makes this article decidedly non-neutral. Furthermore having this page at all when our page on terrorism emphasizes that many people consider this to be a wholly political categorization devoid of substantive meaning is not NPOV. I see no good way to resolve this dilemna - furthermore including everything (i.e., Der Yassin as well as the Passover Massacre) does not make inclusions any more neutral. Graft

I think we are mostly in agreement. I would welcome any sort of description of what terrorist incidents were being listed. I suggested international coverage and non-statist events only to try to bring some sort of criteria for what to include, and to keep down the total number of acceptable incidents. Where we differ, I think, is that the more I think about it, the more I like including this page, *if* the events listed can be reasonably grouped together. What is terrorism? Having a list can be better than an explination for some people. It also provides a direction for further research. I have no objection to any definition of what to include, just so long as there is one, and that it is explicitedly stated. I have no objection to dealing with State Terrorism in this section - my concern was, as you stated, there are far to many incidents of state terrorism. - Karl

Should massacres by militia groups (such as the Deir Yassin massacre) really count as terrorist incidents? If so, we could add hundreds more incidents to this list, dating back to ancient times. Going further, are we going to add things like the firebombing of Dresden, or the bombing of Hiroshima? IMHO it's better to stick with a more conservative definition of terrorism. Delirium

Delirium, youngest of the endless.. this goes to the heart of the semantics issue, as "terrorism" is of course, a buzzword with a catch-all meaning, that refers to anyone who poses any kind of threat what soever to the US and its 'interests' namely power. Im going to be peppering the WP with some Chomsky quotes, in various articles, just because hes got it on the ball, and has some perspective on these codewords and their use in subjugating the foreign masses, and rendering confused and complicit us domestic ones. -Sv

---

Mav, there's no reason why we should exclude an incident simply because it happens to be carried out by a state. Personally I like Bibi Netanyahu's definition of terrorism, which is "violence against civilians intended to cause fear for political purposes", and says nothing about state or non-state actors. And, finally, our own Terrorism page says it can be committed by governments, so there is no reason the Qibya massacre doesn't qualify as a terrorist incident. Until this is changed, I think that link belongs on this page (as meaningless as this page is). Graft

IF the Qibya massacre is a terrorist incident then by implication Ariel Sharon is a terrorist. I really dislike that man and blame him for instigating the current Intifada but to put him in the same league as Osama bin Laden is outrageous POV. The Qibya incident is not a clear case of anything other than a military operation gone tragically wrong due to badly interpreted orders. --mav 21:02 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

Graft, the terrorism definition you quote would fit the German bombing of London during WWII, because Germany was (a) targeting civilians (b) to induce fear (c) for a political purpose, i.e., to weaken the British resolve to wage war against Germany.

Similarly, the definition would fit the American bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: civilians were deliberately targeted, were they not? It made Japanese fear that the US would kill even more people, etc.

(I'm just saying that "terrorism" is hard to distinguish from non-terrorism by any simple definition.) --Uncle Ed 23:29 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

Well, i've made this point here before (above), but again, I don't disagree with you. Yes, the implication is that Ariel Sharon is a terrorist, and yes, the implication is that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorist actions. Unless we have clarity on a specific definition of terrorism (e.g. as existing only in a certain political context defined by the United States), then we can't continue to bandy about the term "terrorism". The fact that we don't "like" calling Ariel Sharon a terrorist doesn't mean that, according to the definition we have of "terrorism" right now, he is not a terrorist. If you disagree, and think there is something that substantially differentiates Ariel Sharon killing Palestinian villagers from Osama bin Laden blowing up American soldiers in Saudi Arabia, then please make it clear what that is. Graft

Per the definition of terrorism it is violence intentionally done to non-combatants (key word) in order to instill fear in that population for political gain. That is what most everybody agrees with but if you do not go on and say: "This is a tactic used in asymmetric warefare by militarily inferior non-governmental groups against the population of a stronger foe" then you open the floodgates and just about every nation on the planet has engaged in terrorism and every war-time leader is a terrorist. This is not to say that nations are not capable of performing terrorist-like acts just like they are cabable of engaging in guerilla-like warefare.

But due to the fact that it is a nation doing it there still is a conventional element to the acts because nations have to ultimately worry about things such as economic sanctions and world opinion (nations are also targetable with military action and make for hard targets to hit and destroy if needed). Violence perpetrated by the state, therefore, has a built-in accountability mechanism that violence perpetrated by stateless-entities does not. True terrorism is a very difficult thing to fight because no one nation can be fully blamed or punished for actions done by stateless organizations. This is the same reason why snippers are so hated and feared - they strike without warning, are very difficult to catch, can be anywhere at any time, and are very hard to catch.

That is not to say that countries cannot commit war crimes, atrocities, humanitarian abuses and even genocide (BTW, IMO Israel has and continues to commit many war crimes - yes there is a state of war - and atrocities against the Palestinians). Also, in this particular case I do not see anything by way of proof that the actions of Sheron are anything but badly misinterpreting orders that were already badly misinterpreted by his superiors.

So in the same way as it is incorrect to lable a large and well-established religion a cult (even though they may be cult-like) it is incorrect to lable actions by governments terrorist (however terrorist-like). --mav

---

"However, depending one's allegiance, these acts might be seen as freedom fighting. For example, in the 20th century, Jesse James was portrayed nearly always as a hero."

Jesse James was never portrayed as either a terrorist or a freedom fighter.

Pro-Confederate newspapers in Missouri considered James a freedom fighter. And a few biographies of James have portrayed him as a terrorist, although the word was not yet in general usage in the USA during his lifetime.

The question of whether terrorism can be considered "freedom fighting" can be covered on the terrorism page, rather than here. -- Tim

---

Some glitch happened in the system on 2/7/04. I edited one entry (the Rome and Vienna Attacks), but when I saved it, it saved a very old edition of this page. I'm sorry, there are several entries that have been deleted.

This happened in an edit by User:TimShell, not the anon who posted the comment above this one. I restored the deleted information -- uriber 14:53, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I thought that had been me. Oh well, I restored some info as well. User:PBP 7 Feb 2004

---

I think somewhat differently about this matter now, so I don't want to leave my comments here as if they actually express somebody's opinion, because they don't express my opinion. You may review them on the page history. SoCal

---

Take a quick look at History of anti-Semitism. So, where do we want to start? Humus sapiens 06:37, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

The murder of Daniel Pearl was simply a kidnapping and homocide. Can hardly be considered "terrorism", sad though it is. -- Anonymous, 13 Mar 2004

I agree. To say 'all violence by (whoever we like to call) "terrorists" is "terrorism"' is simply more support for the contention that the term lacks any possible definition, and is therefore unencyclopedic. -SV(talk) 05:41, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

I added a disclaimer concerning the lack of consensus on the exact definition of terrorism. I deliberately worded the disclaimer in a way that will make this list more inclusive than exclusive. There are cases that are often referred to as "terrorism" but that probably shouldn't be under any reasonable definition. I think such cases should be listed regardless of the merit of the label, since a reader who thinks of them as "terrorist" would expect to find them here. We can't go wrong by providing too much information. Isomorphic 03:05, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It might be more prudent to add to the disclaimer with links to similar "alternative" events of murder, for example, List of massacres, as there is a danger the incidents listed may push the already broad definition of "terrorism" so such extremes as to be useless to any researcher - should all large-scale acts of violence be considered "terrorism"?. Indeed, I strongly disagree with the suggestion that the Deir Yassin massacre and the Qibya_massacre are acts of terrorism, and it seems unfair that we should single out the forces involved in those massacres - if we was to include those events, we would have to also include all the massacres by anyone ever, which is what the List of massacres article is for! --Admbws 13:47, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Have just added the bloodiest atacks by ETA basque terrorist group and 2 important attacks on former or came to be Prime Ministers. Miguel A. Arévalo 2/19/2004

_____

The 1950s was an era of little terrorism but there are incidents that occurred in Algeria and Vietnam that are not listed here.

Covert support for a coup may be evil and underhand, but it is not terrorism. DJ Clayworth 19:30, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

"2003 In response to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, guerrillas in that country stage dozens of suicide bombings targeting Iraqi and Coalition targets. This may not be a terrorist attack under Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions which gives lawful combatant status to non-uniformed guerrillas resisting foreign occupation if they display arms openly "

I don't think the "this may not be a terrorist attack" part is true, but I will keep it there because it says "may be," and I will change it to say "against Coalition targets." Here's why:

While it can be argued that suicide attacks against Coalition forces are not terrorist attacks, when bombers target and kill civilians, that IS a terrorist attack. Bombing a patrol of US soldiers may not be terrorism, but killing 181 civilians at shrines and bombing the Red Cross are terrorist attacks, 100%. (It's interesting to note that if the US were to bomb a Red Cross building, probably by mistake, it would be called a "war crime" by some; but when terrorists do it, it's called "resistance") --User:PBP

Cole bombing

Should the 2000 USS Cole bombing be included? It's a tough choice, but I say no. Although it was carried out by a terrorist organization, and it was not a legitimate act of war, still it specifically targetted only military personel and property. According to the definition of terrorism on Wikipedia, to be terrorism it must target civilians. So I think it should be left off. Any objections? Quadell (talk) 18:19, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

I say keep it in. It was an action undertaken by terrorists, by a terrorist group. The bombing was originally planned for another ship around New Years 2000 (see Millennium attack plot) and if it had occurred then, it would be considered a terrorist attack. User:PBP Aug 13, 2004

The Khobar Towers bombing and Marine Barracks Bombing are similar. They specifically targetted military personel. Ydorb 00:00, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

Totally disagree. The Cole was a military target, but:

• The action did not have a legitimate military objective. (I know, debatable.)
• The action was not government sanctioned. (So as to distinguish it from the Rainbow Warier incident)
• The combatant was a terrorist organization.
• It was not preformed during a declared war in a theater of battle.

I think it is way better to be broad and inclusive here. This is an encyclopedia; It has to be thorough. If need be we can classify further or add glyphs to indicate severity or disputed or even category. jcp 01:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

undeclared war

There's a lot of conflicts where no war declared, where individual actions not considered to be terrorism.

• In WW II when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, this was before they delivered declaration of war to USA.
• The Vietnam War and Korean War ... in both cases, USA labeled this as "a police action." I do not believe war was ever formally declared between the major combattants.
• When USSR in Afghanistan, and CIA covertly aiding the rebels, such as bin Laden, was that a dcclared war?
• In the part of Iran-Contra, where the CIA mined harbors with the intent of targeting neutral ships such as from Europe, that was never declared to be terrorist action.
• Long before 9/11, organizations declared a jihad against the USA, whose policy makers apparently not taking the threat seriously, until the attacks got more deadly.

AlMac|^(talk) 03:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Chechen attacks

Inspired by the Beslan hostage crisis, someone has added many bomb attacks related to Chechnya to the article. There is already an extensive list of Chechen bomb attacks in the History of Chechnya section. Do we need to add all of these to this list? Plus, we have a blurb saying "2003--Chechen militants carry out suicide bombings and other attacks across Russia and nearby provinces". Should we keep all of these incidents listed, or create a separate article, keeping the major incidents with their own pages here? PBP Sept. 4, 2004

I guess it depends if this is a list of Terrorist Attacks, if it is a list of 'some' terrorist attacks. Kouros 16:34, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

user adding "by muslims" to many entries

I've done a couple of reversions to this page the last couple of days - an anon user (different IP ranges each time) has been adding "by muslims" to many entries. Now this may or may not be true, I haven't checked every one, but is it NPOV to point out religious affiliation for one specific religion, and not others?

This edit [1] appears to be a valid reversion, but not sure about the others. Please revert my reversions if I am wrong! -- Chuq 06:02, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think adding the name of the religion is important if, and only if, the act of terrorism was done in the name of that religion. If someone bombs a hotel because they feel they got screwed on their bill, then who cares what the religion is. But if they bomb the hotel in the name of "ALLAH", then it should be included. What do you think?

I think that it is entirely appropriate to add "by Muslims," because their religion requires them to convert or kill the "infidel" (i.e., non-Muslims). While most Muslims are not terrorists, most terrorists are Muslims, and it is proper to point out those attacks which are carried out by Muslims. Also, would you be so kind as to sign your contributions in the future? (Leave 4 tildes (~)) Thanks. Godfrey Daniel 09:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings

I removed the following entry from the page (after it had been removed/reverted once already):

• 1945 the most lethal terrorist attack (act of unlawful political violence) in history: the nuclear(or atomic) bombing by the US Air Force of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which killed over 200,000 civilians, legally the crime against humanity of murder, and the war crimes of wilful killing of civilians and wanton destruction of cities (violations of the Hague Convention then in force)

I don't think that this is commonly understood to be terrorism. I didn't see it discussed in the Terrorism article, and if it was terrorism, I would expect to see it there, as the "most lethal terrorist attack". Eugene van der Pijll 15:52, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That is true, and I happen to agree with that. The problem is I think it can be successfully argued the intent was terrorism. Yes, the U.S. and Japan were at war, and yes both sides Axis and Allies firebombed cities - which I think should also be listed as terrorism - but regarding nuclear strikes the U.S. wanted to terrorize the Japanese government into submission, and they succeeded. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you agree with the following?

"Any action, in addition to actions already specified by the existing conventions on aspects of terrorism, the Geneva Conventions and Security Council resolution 1566 (2004), that is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organisation to do or to abstain from doing any act."

I do.

I think it is obvious that Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings fully qualify as terrorist acts. You see, it has nothing to do with the acts been committed during a war, or that they where committed by governments, or even that you actually support them.

A terrorist act is a terrorist act.

11:32, 19 oct 2005 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.141.119.34 (talk • contribs) .

Expanding "terrorism" that far would include every war ever fought. No, declared war is not terrorism much as you might like it to be. - Tεxτurε 16:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

USSR vs. Japan

This is a commonly held belief that is not universally held. Another common belief is that until the nuclear bombs were dropped, the Russians had not yet entered the war against Japan, but the Russians realized the implications of the bomb meant that the Allies were going to defeat Japan, so the USSR entered the war to grab as much territory as they could. The Japanese were having trouble grasping the enormity of the nuclear attacks, but what convinced them they were going to lose, and thus time to surrender, was the entry of the Russians into the war against them. AlMac|^(talk) 14:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Eh? The Russians (you mean the USSR) entered the war after the nuclear bombings of Japan?? They had entered way earlier (and before the US entered the war, I believe). Actually, if you look at the death tolls, you'd be inclined to conclude the war was between Germany and the USSR (about 30 million deaths each), with some other nations also participating. In fact, that was a complain of the USSR, that the other allies weren't doing their bit. DirkvdM 10:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that the former Soviet Union had in fact been in WW Ii from the beginning, but they were active only in the theatres of operation where the Germans were, they had not formally declared war on Japan until almost the very end of the war. AlMac|^(talk) 02:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Hiroshima/Nagasaki need to be re-added to the list.
Regardless of whether or not you feel they were 'justifiable', they still very much qualify as terrorist acts. And I'd challenge anyone to give a definition that proves the contary. Were civilians specifically targetted? Yes. Was the objective to kill enough people to scare them into surrendering? Yes. Was it thus achieving political goals at the expense of human life? Yes.
Again, some people think that, overall, it saved a great deal of lives. However, the result is separate from the act.
And the act itself was terrorism by its very definition. The fact that it was done as a part of war is irrelevent. Bladestorm

Re: Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings

Considering that many of the other examples on this page are also not found on the Terrorism article, I don't believe one can look at the Terrorism article to provide a comprehensive list of terrorist incidents. According to the criteria, however, on the Terrorism page, the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombing does meet the characteristics of a terrorist act. I personally would not expect to necessarily see Hiroshima/Nagasaki on the Terrorism page, because that page is one to define what terrorism is, not what specific acts of terrorism are. That is what this page is for.

As for not Hiroshima/Nagasaki not being commonly understood to be terrorist acts, this is the entire purpose of the wikipedia -- to provide for people information that they may not have known, or to provide additional insight on the topic in question. A nation dropping munitions on another nation (meets "Legitimancy" criterion) without their approval, while violating human rights laws by killing civilians (meets "Target" criterion), in order to intimidate the attacked country into stopping a war (meets "Objective" criterion) and in order to facilitate political change by facilitating the surrender of Imperial Japan as well as stopping the spread of Japanese expansionism (meets "Motive" criterion). Removing an entry such as this does the Wikipedia a disservice.

18:59, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Okay, if Hiroshima and Nagasaki is listed, then that opens the doors for all civilian deaths during wars. For example, the bombing of Dresden would have to be included, since the Allies bombed the city, both military and civilian targets, until the buildings started melting. I think we can go without listing such things. Let's use a little bit of CS here. Lokifer 09:56, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • The problems relating to the inclusion or exclusion regarding the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings gets to the heart of the problem of defining 'terrorism'.

The above note is correct in stating that it 'opens the doors for all civilian deaths during wars', yet a lot of terrorists consider themselves to be fighting wars. Any page like this is bound to be plagued with problems regarding what is terrorism and issues of contributors personal politcal opinions -I think particularly with Israel/Palestine.

• • Terrorism is a disphemism for any attack against us. To US contributors, the nuclear attacks are not terrorism, but the Cole bombing is. Bombing Itaqi civilians isn't terrorism, but Iraqi insurgents defending their regime are terrorists. I don't think I'll get my way, but I would prefer to have the terrorism article focus on the propaganda elements of using the term terrorism and so on, and list these attacks under political violence. IForgetMyLogin.
• Just as at the top of the article, there are pointers to similar lists of assassinations and massacres, there could be a parallel article on the history of warfare's devastation as it applies to impact upon civilians and the troops. Until technology supported some horrible act, or until people's dreamed something up, the world could not have imagined some acts might occur.
  • Weapons of Mass Destruction, specifically chemical and biological, were used heavily in WW I.
  • The fire bombings of cities in WW II, via aerial bombardment, was a new phenomena, thanks to advances in aviation. Destroying enemy cities, or trying to destroy them, was not new.
• History of Genocide is yet another topic, starting with the Holocaust and similar actions before there was a name for it, such as when nations were deliberately depopulated by invaders, so that the land could be colonized by the vistors. AlMac|^(talk) 14:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

It will always be a problem providing a definition which could be acceptable, but I think a startting point is use of weapns during declared wars are not terrorism, we can have a seperate debate over whether they are reasonable or war crimes but that brings in Dresden and the firebombings of Tokyo a few weeks before. We will also have a debate over is it during war or not i.e. The IRA thought of themseves at war with the British forces. In Israel/Palestine the attack at the Olymics in 1972 is clearly terrorism but any attack inside Israel some will argue are part of a war. (DS)

Operation Days of Penitence

To defuse edit wars over this, we should bring up the issue of the Operation Days of Penitence addition to the list. Is this terrorism? Or is it just a military operation in response to the killing of children (albeit one that has killed countless innocents, including children, not exactly a justifiable operation)? Was it intended to terrorize the populace (as Qassam rockets obviously are, and terrorism is defined as), or was it just a military operation that had tragic consequences? Obviously, there have been dozens of IDF raids on the Palestinians, but they have not merited an addition. Does every military operation in recorded history deserve to be added as well, since someone undoubtedly believe they are terrorist attacks as well?

I think this should be removed (we can keep the blub about "attacks by the IDF"), but possibly it could be added to List of massacres, if people consider it to be one. Personally, I don't consider it a terrorist operation (though it is a horrible event, even if it was in response to other horrible events). PBP, 20 Oct. 2004

First of all, under international law, the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is illegal. The entire military occupation apparatus is state terrorism against Palestinian refugees who were evicted from Israel in campaigns of mass ethnic cleansing. Qassam rocket attacks and other paramilitary attacks by guerilla groups against the illegal Israeli occupation, including the illegal Jewish settlements, are legitimate acts of resistance. Israeli reprisal attacks against the refugee camps are designed as mass punishment to further terrorize the civilian refugee population. The extremist Zionists delete mention of Israeli atrocities against civilians and reference to the Israeli military occupation of Palestinian territory because, in their POV, Israeli crimes can always be justified. Alberuni 03:03, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Israeli presence is not illegal, "state terrorism" is a disputed term and its application inaccurate here, "ethnic cleansing" is POV and false, and not relevant to the current article and dispute. The Qassam rockets are fired on civilian towns not military targets, so they can't possibly be "guerilla" or "paramilitary" actions, but rather are terrorist actions. Israeli actions are designed to destroy terrorist apparatus, not punish civilians. And finally, ad hominem statements about other editors are an abuse of Talk: pages. Jayjg 04:09, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See what I mean? Alberuni 04:13, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The "occupation" as you put it NOT illegal under international law, go look up the tenets and precedents of international law again. The UN General Assembly is NOT international law. Terrapin 13:45, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Military occupation of territory seized in war is illegally occupied territory. Only Israelis dispute this characterization, as most criminals deny their guilt. "UN Resolutions 242 and 338 stipulate that Israel must withdraw completely from these territories. Israel has not withdrawn, however, and it has built many Jewish settlements in the territories, actions deemed illegal by virtually all other states." [2] Alberuni 14:07, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

* Really? I didn't know that about the military occupation stuff. Could you show me the exact source of that in international law precedent. Please note that in order for you to START having claims that an occupation is illegal, the party being "occupied" had to have been a sovereign entity when they were originally occupied (please tell me the last time those territories were sovereign - and, I have a PhD in this stuff). Thank you for your time, and be on your way son. Terrapin 19:58, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I thought you were going to ignore me. There's no point discussing these issues with another tiresomely arrogant Zionist who thinks he knows everything and can justify all Israeli war crimes. Your photo should be labelled "Causes" in the article Anti-semitism. I'm sure weasely Zionist laywers will always find ways to ignore international law to hide their crimes and maitain their racist state privileges but that doesn't make them right. Belligerent occupation is governed by The Hague Regulations of 1907 and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. Security Council Resolution 1322 (2000), paragraph 3, “Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and its responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in a Time of War of 12 August 1949;...” Feel free to ignore international law. Israel is recognized as a pariah terrorist state already. More punishment is sure to come. --Alberuni 20:19, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

* Uh...you didn't answer my challenge(see above). Please show me your sources or support to that question, or are you just going to continue to spout boring rhetoric we've heard a thousand times before. In order for you to justify "international law", shouldn't you have to know what that is? Since you obviously don't (or you would have provided proof), are you going to continue to use the words "international law", in actual sentences that learned people read, and hope we don't notice that you don't know what you are talking about ? It's fairly humorous if so. Let me know. Terrapin 21:02, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• • Unfortunately for your argument, state sovereignty trumps the UN General Assembly (yes, even in International Law - which is built on the idea of sovereignty). As for "Military occupation of territory seized in war is illegally occupied territory", can you read that sentence again, as written, and then tell me why I'm LMAO at you? No, go ahead, read that sentence again. Good lord, there should be an intelligence test on wiki. Terrapin 16:24, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Killing 31 children is still terrorism. You would recognize it as terrorism if the victims were Jews. But your biased pro-Israeli POV is compelling you to deny Israeli atrocities. It is like a disease. Alberuni 17:22, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Huh? Only if IDF deliberately targeted children. Please show me a valid source (i.e. not consistently pro-either side) that claims that. If you don't have that source, you have no floor to stand on, and you lose the argument. Simple as that. I can show you sources that say Hamas used children as human shields, but those are usuall POV as well. The only solution is to use a NPOV term, and blind accusations of terrorism, because of who the "perpetrator" is, is certainly not that. Terrapin 18:25, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Page protection

I have protected this page while this is debated on the talk page. Please let's keep the accusations out of the discussion and come to an agreement here first. Rmhermen 17:30, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Please mark it as "Protected" next time, it is almost impossible to tell otherwise. Thanks. Jayjg 17:43, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Will Israel's supporters ever admit Israel's terrorism?

The IDF massacred 31 Palestinian refugee children this month to "teach the militants a hard lesson" about launching resistance attacks against the Israeli occupation of Palestinian Territory. This is terrorism, by definition; violence against civilians for political purposes. Who can deny it? Well, it's quite obvious what kind of people relentlessly deny and censor mention of Israeli atrocities. Alberuni 17:44, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is that really how Israel described its goals? Also, 2/3rds of the dead were combatants, and estimates of the number of children killed, generally as collateral damage, vary from 18 to 31. Jayjg 18:06, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sure, and the Jewish kids killed in the Qassam rocket attacks against the Occupation Forces were also collateral damage, right? --Alberuni 19:40, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

When the Palestinians launched Qassam rockets essentially blindly against a civilian town, exactly who did they imagine they were going to hit? Jayjg 22:29, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Unlike the case for the IDF, the U.S. government did not supply the Palestinians annually with billions of dollars in Apache helicopter gunships and other high tech weapons with which to defend themselves. The Palestinians are doing the best they can to resist the overwhelming military might and illegal occupation of the racist Jewish state with the limited technology available. The lower level of military technology available to the guerillas in their strikes on Israeli military bases makes total misses as well as "collateral damage" more likely. In fact, they have been firing those rockets for years without causing a single fatality. The fact that Israel has access to higher technology which it employs against civilian areas to terrorize refugees and "teach them a hard lesson" for supporting militant resistance hardly legitimizes Ariel Sharon's morally bankrupt policy of state terrorism. In fact, it makes it all the more grotesque and fascist. --Alberuni 00:58, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I guess you're saying that they knew they were going to hit civilians, since they were aiming at civilian targets, but they're justified in doing so because the U.S. is unfair and Sharon is a meanie. Jayjg 18:50, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You guessed wrong. Your comprehension level is diminishing. Read it again and try to understand the meaning of each word this time. --19:01, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)Alberuni

*Can you name me a military base anywhere near the latest Qassam rocket impact points? (I'll give you a hint, there aren't any). Terrapin 15:41, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

* Also, in what military capacity are city buses being used for, that requires terrorists to blow them up? Don't soldiers have their own transports (jeeps and the like)? I think they do, but I could be wrong. Enlighten me. Terrapin 15:43, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As a proponent of the "collateral damage" excuse when Israel murders innocent people, you shouldn't be so surprised when there's payback. Alberuni 19:53, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Payback". Thank you for elegantly destroying your own argument (made three inches north of here), that the Terrorists are attacking the military apparatus and just "missing" once in awhile. Once again, thank you for making my own point for me. Terrapin 20:13, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni, you are the only one arguing for the addition of this entry. We have several general entries on the current intifada, and this operation could be added to the Violence in the I/P conflict in 2004 article, which is on this list as well. But you are being enormously hippocritical when you say Qassam rocket attacks and bus bombings are legitimate "resistance attacks" when the killing of Palestinian civilians in military operations is terrorism. And if anyone doubts you, you accuse them of being a Jew/Jewish supporter/Zionist to deflect away from flaws in your argument. Plus, do you honestly suspect that every singe Israeli soldier, which is several thousand, WANTED to kill Palestinian civilians in the air strike, thereby lowering world opinion of Israel? If only a few wanted to kill innocents, how can the entire operation be considered terrorism? And in case you haven't heard, Israel has apologized for many of the civilian deaths it caused, while Hamas has apologized for none of the children it killed in Israel? None whatsoever. PBP 21 Oct 2004

Useless to talk to this guy

Alberuni doesn't see illogic in his arguments. Each sentence is rife with flaws, exaggeration and is a broken record. It's like arguing with the furniture. I suggest ignoring him. Terrapin 18:25, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sure, Zionism is truth and anti-Zionism is just illogical. Why would anyone believe anything else? Everyone knows Israel can't commit terrorism. They are a state and a nation-state can't be terrorist (that was your first argument). Then, if they do happen to kill masses of children, well, it must be an accident, collateral damage while firing at terrorists (that was your second and current argument). Sure, because we all know Jews can't be terrorists! They suffered so much under the Nazis. Give them a break. A few dead Arab kids shot at their desks or on the way to school, who's really counting anyway? Some biased human rights NGO that Dore Gold tells us is a partisan, so it's really unverifiable. Pay no mind to the 31 dead Arab kids, the pools of blood, the ripped flesh and torn limbs. Palestinians don't really exist anyway and those kids would have grown up to be terrorists anyway. Good shooting IDF! Woohoo! We'll cover for you inthe US media, don't worry. No one will notice the atrocities (except the Arabs and what are they going to do about it? Hate the Jews more? Too late!). Let's just say that most of the victims were terrorists and the rest, well, unfortunately they got in our way. Too bad. Hey, Jews can't be perfect! Those aren't illegally occupied territories. Jews have every right to be anywhere the hell they want to be. That's not terrorism. That's just another day in the defense of the Jewish state and Jewish people against the anti-semites who would stuff us in the gas chamber or throw us in the sea. Remember the Holocaust and don't dare ever criticize the Jewish state! God Bless Israel and protect our boys and girls in the IDF. Over to you Jayjg. --Alberuni 19:40, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Alberuni, but there's little I can add to your latest diatribe. Jayjg 22:30, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Kent State & Tiananmen Square

I protest Kingturtle's Reverting to remove these 2 entries. They are accurate and fit the description of terrorism (see excerpt below)

-* 1970 May 3-4 USA Kent State University, Ohio. US National Guard bayonets two men on Friday, on Saturday shoots 13 in a crowd of university students protesting the bombing of Cambodia. Four die.

-* 1989 June 4 China Tiananmen Square. Chinese government sends tanks into a 7-week-old million-person peaceful protest. Hundreds die.

"Terrorism," thus is a term that attempts to define, as a separate phenomenon, a philosophy of coordinated violence which tends to have a high degree of social impact on the target society. Terrorist violence may be perpetrated by rebels in opposition to an established social order or it may be inflicted by a state upon its own citizens or those of another state (see State terrorism).

While to many in academia, and protestors against the War in Vietnam, Kent State became a cause celebre, this event happened because the original protest was not peaceful, the troops were there because the police could not cope with the mob. Police brutality against demonstrators can sometimes be for reasons of terrorizing them, such as Tsarist Russia against what turned out to be a Communist Revolution, and in USA during Civil Rights Movement, but this ended up getting recruits for "the cause." AlMac|^(talk) 14:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Potato Famine

Much later, the British Government acknowledged that this was an engineered event, and appologized for it. Over one million Irish died in consequence. There are many incidents in history where a nation, or important elements within a nation, did things that caused massive casualities to their own people. In many cases the actions happened because the people doing it did not think of the victims as being their own people, such as many massacres of American Indians in American history. Perhaps such events belong in a separate article on the history of human inhumanity to human. AlMac|^(talk) 14:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

State terrorism

There's a distinct lack of state terrorism in this article. In fact, this article seems to be quite simply a list of those events in asymmetric war that were perpetrated by the less well-equipped side. Where are the terror bombings of European cities in WWII, which would fit any definition of "terrorism"? Where the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, whose stated objective was to induce surrender? The Roman destruction of Carthage? The American destruction of Falluja? Etc etc etc.Dr Zen 01:19, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. - Mustafaa 10:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV discussion

"Terrorist" is by definition hopelessly point of view. See terrorism and definition of terrorism. There is too much useful work here to throw it away. I suggest looking at the existing listing and identifying common characteristics and grouping or labeling them and/or retitling this whole list. Example: For the purpose of this list, terrorist act will mean : "Deadly acts against noncombatants to cause terror immediately and political change eventually." You need to group or label or limit SOMEHOW. Using terrorism as the criteria for your list is BY DEFINITION POV (like a list of locations that is is on the horizon). 4.250.138.206 08:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you: a list of locations on the horizon would be very POV. I do not see, however, where the analogue is in the article. You or/and the person who has put on the warning say there is a pro-American and Israeli bias in the article. I would flip your statement: there is an unfortunate anti-American and Israeli bias with terrorists. The article is just the mirror of the situation. In other words, it seeks to map all locations, whether on the horizon or not. But if you feel a terror incident is missing then please add it! By making these incidents better known, we may make them less likely to occur. Unless the warning is followed by more specifics, I would like to have it removed. gidonb 04:19, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Apart from this article being biased by definition, there are users who are dominating this article, and similar ones, who are continuously enforcing their own POV and twist on the article. Over the period in which I just monitored this article and the edits which I've added or made, they do not just edit or counter the data, but rather just delete any and everything they dislike in a manner that is in itself contrary the NPOV policy of Wikipedia, and arrogant. Thus your solution does not seem to be feasable.A.Khalil 11:14, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of having an article like this in the first place, the intent is to provide a brief listing of events which are seen as terrorist attacks under commonly accepted definitions of terrorism. Non-specific claims are not useful, nor are attempts to broaden the definition to disputed instances of "State terrorism", nor are attempts to insert histrionic language and gory details into the description of certain entries, nor are attempts to convert certain single line entries into entire articles when such articles already exist and are linked to. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:27, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Commonly accepted definitions of terrorism" meaning "any and all non-governmental attacks against the US, Israel, Western European states, and Russia", to the exclusion of nearly everything else?? --Node 8 July 2005 01:10 (UTC)

The list would have to either be completely inclusive or be inherently biased to a POV selection. There is a definition for terrorism, and anything that falls under this definition is a terrorist act, be it in the past, present or future, and on your side or on my side. You should list your points of interest as you find them and I would list mine, and as long as they fit the definition you have no right to remove them just because they do not fit with you agenda or dilute your propaganda. Per Wiki policy as I read it, you are supposed to discuss, edit, and add to articles, but not just delete as you please. Anyway, I sense that this is a politically hopless argument. However, if this domination continues I think the article should be nominated for deletion and let others vote on the issue.A.Khalil 03:56, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

If we are going to have a list of terrorist incidents then we must allow the inclusion any violent incidents that meets any of the definitions of terrorism listed in Definition of terrorism article. Removing incidents from this list because it does not meet ones personal definition of terrorism is POV. As to whether "state terrorism" is a proper term, I don't feel it is our job to decide that. Some people consider it a proper subcatagory of terrosism and as such we can't exclude state terrorsist incidents solely becuase we don't agree with the state terrorism concept. Maybe we should list claimed state terrorism incidents in a seperate section or on it's own page with a link to it on this page. --Cab88 17:47, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Some people think almost anything. This list is about terrorism, not state terrorism. It's not a great article, and inherently POV, but if it is going to exist, at least it can conform to some sort of standards. And I don't intend to respond to A. Khalil until he learns how to make comments that do not contain personal attacks. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes mother, I will learn politeness from you! Huh? When did I pesonally attack you, unless you know yourself to be the one who is dominating, advancing his\her POV, and deleting anything that does not mesh with your agenda? And even then, how is this a "personal" attack. Actually, by the same measure you would be personally attacking me and all the people you dissagree with, which I presume to be many.A.Khalil 23:05, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

WTF?

Would someone care to explain why pogroms are terrorism and other massacres of civilians, as at Cholula and Carthage, are not? You won't find anything helpful on terrorism, which defines it as including any war act at all! ("Terrorism refers to the use of violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological goal.")- Mustafaa

Consistency is called for. Either we include all the many massacres of this century - needlessly duplicating List of massacres - or we include none. I am therefore removing all pogroms. In any event, pogroms are rarely if ever described as terrorism. - Mustafaa 08:59, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think a "List of assassinations, massacres, and terrorist incidents" to replace this list, the other list, and the list of assassinations, would be a better idea. 68.32.48.32 20:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The ancient times

1st Century - The Sicarii and other groups generically termed Zealots begin a covert campaign against the Roman occupation of Judea, characterized by assassinations of "collaborators".

In antiquity, genocide and what we'd now call terrorism were common occurrence. I understand some desperately need this particular entry to score some political points today, but it is farther than a millenium away from any adjacent one. Why single out Jews? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 02:26, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"In antiquity, genocide and what we'd now call terrorism were common occurrence" - then all the more reason to start filling out this sadly lacking section of the list. - Mustafaa 02:32, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think it is silly to include antiquity in this list. From millenia of violence you singled out Jews because...? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 02:40, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I had Romans and Jayjg keeps removing the list. Futher, no one said that state terrorism is immune from inclusion as acts of terrorism, because they are just that, terrorism. For the example I included, the Romans massacre of Carthagians, there was no military need for the massacre because the Romans had already won the war, but they did it for political effect on the region and other adversaries. That is terrorism.A.Khalil 03:48, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this, and other historical articles about inhumanity to one another, should be split into what happened in particular historical periods, when the norms of behavior were very different. Was the Inquisition a form of religious state sponsored terrorism? AlMac|^(talk) 03:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Other Forms of Terrorism

Would mass arrests, communal punishments, demolition of homes and land, and the like be considered acts of terrorism? They are surely intended to terrorise civilians into submission to the political will of the aggressor. A.Khalil 20:01, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Typically not; terrorism generally refers to non-governmental attempts to deliberately kill or injure civilians. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:21, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

False. See State terrorism. --Prisk 03:35, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Definition of Terrorism

Why wouldn't the definition of "terrorism" include any act which involves the use of terror either for the use of perpetrating a capitulation or as an act of vengeance or vengeful punishment? Isn't the basis of the word "Terrorism" derived from the word "Terror" and the use of the suffix "ism" as a means to describe the use of terror for a purpose if for no other reason than to terrify?

It would seem quite subjective, political and egocentric in a way to assume terrorism is only the act of outlaws or those attacking "us". Terror is an emotion, terrorism would seem to be all acts which invoke or attempt to invoke that emotion no matter who sponsors or perpetrates such an act. How does anyone describe acts of terror as anything less than acts of terror except in an effort to be subjective not objective? What makes the thought of someone coming to ones door with the threat of decapitation by sword or being blown to bits by a bomb strapped around someone's waist any less terrifying than the threat of a 500 pound or atomic bomb being dropped from the planes of an organized military? How are campaigns of "Shock and Awe" meant to be something less than terrifying? How was the dropping of two atomic bombs in 1945 killing tens of thousands of non-combatant men, women and children in a matter of minutes, meant to be something less than terrifying? It would seem logical if we want to describe acts of terror, we describe all acts of terror and leave the subjectivity out of the definition. By doing so, we might perhaps see the root of much of the trouble in the world and how examples are set and examples followed, leading to an endless cycle of the use of terror by all sides with the belief that the use of terror will somehow terrify (shock and awe) "terrorists" or governments into abandoning their use of terror instead of simply offer the example that if the use of military force can be used in an attempt to terrify other military forces or civilians of any group into capitulation, that perhaps terror is an effective means and thus is used as a tactic by not only governments and militaries, but those attempting to counteract such forces, without having access to the same. As much as I would like to believe that I am a good person and do what is "right" not only for me and nation, but for all of humankind and as much as I love my own nation, I believe there is something basically flawed in the suggestion that because I want it to or need it to, for myself or my nation or group, I can suggest that 2 plus 2 equals 3 for me, not four or in other words, terrorism is something that is done to me, not something I do to someone else. I don't believe the laws of nature or math work that way. If we all think about it for a while we can all realize why we might be or are reluctant to accept the definition of "Terrorism" as strictly derived from and related to "what", not to "whom". If we describe and define terrorism as the use of terror only, we implicate and indict ourselves of the same when one considers the objectives of some of the tactics of war. Certainly the events of August 1945 were not meant to simply kill as many Japanese as could be killed by the use of such weapons, the intent was to terrify through the act of killing many many innocent people in a single blow so that further killing was not required. If the Japanese had not been terrified and horrified by such acts and had simply kept on fighting, had we had many more bombs and known they would work we could have then attempted to simply kill all the Japanese with them figuring no more Japanese, no more Japanese killing anyone in as much as such a theory or attempt might end in success or be condemned before it was completed for being more evil or deadly than the evil death it proposed to halt.

In a fight for survival and for your life, fighting honorably would seem of little concern, thus such terrifying acts of desperation as the dropping of two atomic bombs (WMD) on two Japanese cities in 1945, killing more innocent non-combatant men, women, and children in minutes than have ever been killed in one single incident of mass destruction before or since. That is the objective side of the incident and the objective side makes it no less an incident of terrorism than any other. The subjective (justification) side, which shall never be proven, is that from the perspective of those that dropped the bomb and their allies, it "had to be done" and the thought and theory is that it saved more lives than were lost. That debate could go on into eternity, because it cannot and will never be proven. One thing was proven and that was the number of people killed in those incidents, who they were and what the act was meant to induce and by what emotion. One might also debate or discuss that which was loosed by the opening of that Pandora's box and how we have struggled with it and are still struggling with it to this day and perhaps are only really beginning the real depth of the struggle now with such a lead by example. That lead being one of the effectiveness of the terrifying threat of the use of such WMD. Since it appeared to work for us, it appears more and more nations and even more troublesome, smaller "interest" groups would like to acquire the same power. Ironically, the only nation to have actually used such weapons in an actual demonstration of it's terrifying destructive force on innocent living human beings is the nation that continues to develop and keep such weapons ("for defense" of course) while at the same time trying to suggest other individuals, groups or nations that want to acquire such weapons want them perhaps for a "different" purpose. One might ask what "different" purpose could there be, when the United States has used them both offensively as a terrifying means to force a capitulation and defensively as a terrifying threatening deterrent. Such an overwhelming success in both uses, creates a demand for their acquisition for either use. How does one condemn the use of weapons they maintain in their own arsenal while at the same time developing them for and maintaining them in their own arsenal? Perhaps if anyone should follow a lead by example the better lead might be the condemnation of such weapons of terror, by the destruction of such weapons of terror, including one's own arsenal. As long as we deem them permissible for our own use, it would seem impossible to deny or condemn the use of them by others. Such logic appears akin to holding a gun at ones own head in order to prevent others from holding a gun to ones head. If we use violence to teach the lesson that violence does not work, are we not using something we propose to teach does not work to demonstrate how it does not work? If our use of force and violent is successful in suppressing violence, what have we proven, that force and violence are a means to an end. How is then we are surprised when others see the success in such means and use it against us, no less than we have used and continue to use it against them?

-LEG 08-04-05 ---

I agree this is extremely difficult to define, and that it is affected by historical precedent and realities of different conflicts.

I consider terrorism to be acts of barbarism, primarily, but not exclusively, against civilians, outside of war, declared war, or a state of war accepted by both sides. Also outside international norms of the time period, like just before The war of 1812 when British warships were stopping ships of other nations, but mainly those of the USA, to forceably remove passengers and crew, and make them slave soldiers and sailors in the British navy. But I recognize that a lot of events, that fit into the definition, have not gone into general mainstream as having that label.

At the time of the Cole bombing, the US military was acting like it was in ignorance for bin Laden declaration of war against USA, unlike on the eve of the invasion of Panama, when that state declared war on the USA, and the USA did not treat it like some kind of political rhetoric joke.

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in WW II, could fall into the definition of terrorism, because Japan screwed up the process of declaring war, and did this attack, mainly on US military, at a time when USA and Japan not at war with each other.

Was Ghengis Kahn a terrorist? No, he was just a very successful military leader, in an age in which what he did was acceptable to his victims, if they did it to someone else. AlMac|^(talk) 19:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Political assassinations of rivals is terrorism?

Mustafaa, is it really your contention that political assassinations of rivals are "terrorism"? Under which definition? Does this mean every incident in which a king who kills a rival to the throne is a "terrorist" incident? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:26, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Aha - I was waiting for you to say that... - Mustafaa 08:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I said "rival to the throne", not any person killing any political leader. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:39, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All these assassinations are of rivals for power. Most if not all terrorist groups want to take power in their countries. In any event, such incidents are redundant with List of assassinated persons. - Mustafaa 08:44, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Few of these groups want to take over the role of the assassinated individual. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by "role". They want to take his powers. - Mustafaa 09:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Moreover, the only one of the ancient assassinations that involve "rivals to the throne" is Pompey. - Mustafaa 08:50, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Right. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Seriously, though, is it your contention that assassinating a president constitutes terrorism? I find that kind of strange, although, judging by this article, clearly held by many editors. - Mustafaa 09:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, if we're being serious, and trying to clean this up together, what kinds of incidents would you include, and what kinds would you exclude? Jayjg ^(talk) 09:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Me personally? I wouldn't have this article at all. It's an inherently totally ill-defined title, as its introduction confesses. What I would do is move its contents to a set of articles with better-defined and more neutral titles:

• List of politically motivated killings of non-combatants (a definition which excludes Presidents - who are commonly Commanders-in-Chief - but may include other government members)
• List of assassinations (including Presidents and many others...)
• maybe List of attacks by insurgent groups (for the benefit of those idiots who insist that attacks by insurgents not wearing uniforms are terrorism even if directed against soldiers)
• List of mass killings of non-combatants (or maybe just List of massacres)

I think that would cover all the bases; what do you think? - Mustafaa 09:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A particular advantage is that, instead of squabbling over the definition of terrorism, it allows the reader to choose his own unambiguous one(s), making this a disambig page. - Mustafaa 09:44, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with some of your distinctions, particularly because they fail to distinguish between intentional and non-intentional killings of non-combatants, one of the hallmarks of the difference between terrorism and other mass killings. I think others have merit; for example, I think that the pogroms and the Hebron massacre are massacres, but not exactly terrorism of the kind mostly described here. Why don't we start by making sure all assassinations are moved to List of assassinated persons, and all massacres of the kind mentioned are moved to List of massacres, which already exist, and then re-visit once the article is cleaner? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For a killing to be politically motivated, it has to be deliberate, right? Though for massacres, the issue is less clear-cut. Anyway, moving out the assassinations and massacres would be a good start; however, I strongly argue that making this a disambiguation page is the only way we can hope to have a well-defined, NPOV list. As the terrorism article puts it, this is a "controversial term with multiple definitions"; to make a decent list, you need a well-defined criterion for inclusion. - Mustafaa 21:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I hear your argument, but don't agree with it. There really are things that are unambiguously terrorism; by moving out the dubious cases into other categories that fit better, we will end up with a much less controversial article IMHO. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Even if there are some things that are unambiguously terrorism - and I'm not sure there are, if by "unambiguously" you mean nobody notable denies it, as NPOV strictly speaking dictates - I don't think that's sufficient to make for a good article in a wiki environment. Where every list is open for additions, the list's scope needs to be well-defined; otherwise you have a recipe for perpetual edit wars, and a pretty useless list as well. There's not much point in removing the marginal cases if anyone can rightly readd them, noting that they are, as the article says, "commonly called terrorism" - because readd them they will, and when someone removes them again, they will correctly complain that the removal is POV. - Mustafaa 23:57, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But if certain classes of incidents are restricted to other more appropriate pages, which are clearly deliniated at the top of the page (as discussed above), then there can be no complaints. We can start with the first two, then work our way through the others. In the end, we may well end up with a disambig page, but let's work on things one at a time. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism of Julius Caesar

You cannot claim that the assassination of Julius Caesar was terrorism. Who was being terrorized? If you do that then you are claiming any killing is terrorism. (This may be the point you are making but it is not appropriate to the article.)

Similarly, Columbine is not a terrorist act. Who was the terrorist group? Students? Did they have a cool terrorist name? No, it was a murder-suicide. - Tεxτurε 19:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Columbine was a terrorist incident

Murder-suicide can be considered terrorism in cases where folks want to bully someone else in submission, even if it's a form of revenge. The terrorist group need not survive in order to precipitate a terrorist attack. Mind if I point out that 9/11 was partially a murder-suicide; indeed, that some Islamic bombings may be murder suicides precipitated by loners, and they're considered terrorist attacks. 68.32.48.32 19:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

And what world-wide terrorist group are those two boys part of? - Tεxτurε 20:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Terrorists need not be part of a group to be terrorists. 68.32.48.32 20:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

They don't? What ideology were they trying to promote? Free some oppressed people, perhaps? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The ideology of "leaving nerds like us alone", apparently. But, then again, they were aiming to terrorize a whole bunch of others into submission, which amounts to terrorism regardless of ideology.68.32.48.32 20:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I do not think there is even a definition of terrorism. Just like one of my friends told me "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

There are a number of fairly clear definitions of terrorism, but there are also many people who like to muddy the waters in a morass of moral relativism. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The people who did the shootings at Columbine weren't terrorists - they went to the same school as the victims. School shootings weren't common back in Romania - in fact, I've never even used a gun in my life. [[User:NazismIsntCool|{{NazismIsntCool/sig}}

Nazism isn't cool]] 02:41, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

There hasn't been any shootings yet at my school either. And also, just shut up about Romania while posting. It sucks there. Scott Gall 02:48, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

That just proves how dumb you are. Romania doesn't suck. [[User:NazismIsntCool|{{NazismIsntCool/sig}}

Nazism isn't cool]] 02:55, 21 May 2005 (UTC) PS: Romania Romania Romania. (See? It's not hurting anyone, is it?)º Romania Romania Romania Romania and so on and so forth until my son comes into the room and asks "Mommy, what's Romania?"

Do as Scott says. Don't keep mentioning Romania. In fact, fuck Romania. If I were you and your son did ask what Romania is, I'd tell your son that it's the third biggest terrorist organization in the world, with 22 million members. ºAnd it is hurting my head, if not me, how you can go on about Romania and not have the GNAA redirect your talk page here. 218.101.117.171 03:02, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

218.101.117.171, please stop that nonsense. Romania is a country, not a terrorist organization. And you'd better not be mixed up in this autofellatio redirect business as well. Thye've already bombed my user talk page with that dirty photo once. Scott Gall 01:31, 2005 May 22 (UTC) PS: How can one country that you call the third biggest terrorist organization have 22 million members when the more powerful groups like al-Qaeda don't even have a hundred? You don't need your lot to be large if you want to be powerful or notable. In fact, you don't know anything about Romania.

Yeah. 218.101.117.171 is so critical about Romania. And I don't really think he was in the autofellatio redirect business. Barely There 04:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The Columbine massacre was not politicaly motivated. It was not a well thought-out plan to instill fear in the masses as part of a political movement. The Columbine massacre was an act of pure insanity. --Zeno of Elea 09:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Please do not create copies of articles

Rickyrab, please do not create copies of articles; if you want to move an article, there are processes by which consensus can be gained and articles moved. As it is, the general consensus on this article was to break out things like assassinations and massacres into their own articles, not include them with a different title. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism in Africa

--80.43.61.236 12:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

This is a fascinating discussion, but what always strikes me is how little attention gets paid to terrorism in Africa. I don't just mean incidents like the embassy bombings in Kenya. Primarily I mean things like the Gatumba massacre which took place less than a year ago and claimed 152 lives. The killings were carried out by a Burundian Hutu-extremist group, deliberately targetting civilians, as part of their effort to destablise the Burundian government. Regional leaders described the attack as terrorism and called for the group to be "proscribed" internationally, but this call was ignored. It seems to me that there may be a serious double-standard at work, whereby western governments rightly condemn attacks on their own civilian population but are less forthright it when it happens in Africa. In the Democratic Republic of Congo the scale is even larger, with dozens of armed political groups targetting civilians in their struggle for political control - but again, this is not normally seen as terrorism.

There's been a lot of Genocide in Africa, some state-sponsored, and some by rebel groups.

Names

You know, if the rebellion is unsuccessful, it is called a Civil War, or the rebels not even rise to that stature, while if the rebels are successful, it is called a Revolution. The outcome of the conflict defines what it is called. In contemporary times, foreign fighters are an important part of the resistance, but their participation helped with the success of many revolutions in history. Labeling these people as terrorists helps make the battle more brutal and inspires them never to give up. The actions by the old government against the rebels are generally as brutal or more brutal, as that of the rebels, but until the rebellion, there was little outside attention to the brutality. AlMac|^(talk) 14:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Hate Crimes

Hate Crimes are often motivated by the same human psychology as Terrorism, a pathological hatred for the victims of the attack, and the desire to do genocide against that, or failing that, to "pui them in their place". Perhaps there should be link to separate article on History of Hate Crimes, in addition to articles about specific target groups like history of anti-semitism.

Arson vs. churches of African Americans in USA are usually initially believed to be hate crimes, but most perpetrators, when tracked down, had reasons unrelated to Racism. Thus, only attacks on Black Churches during the Civil Rights Movement were intended to terrorize, and as we can see from the wild success of the movement, were totally unsuccessful.

In fact, the attack on Emmett Till is believed by many to be what triggered the start of the Civil Rights Movement in the USA.

Since 9/11 there's been lots of assaults on Mosques by misguided individuals.

Motivation to terrorize, but the acts generally considered to be hate crimes, since victims targeted because they belong to some sub-group of society hated because of their religion, race, ethnicity, gender preferences, etc.

AlMac|^(talk) 14:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

---

This "article" is garbage and probably can't be saved. There are at least these problems with it:

• An assassination of a present, recently past, or likely immediate future power holder is not "terrorism", it is assassination: killing Julius Caesar. One does not kill these people to scare their followers, one does it to remove their voice; Two different concepts politically.
• Very large scale attacks like 9/11 which actually do affect the economy of a country drastically are a form of warfare not a form of terrorism: they are like any other bombings of civilians. If you include 9/11 as "terrorism" then you should include Dresden and Hiroshima - all three were attacks of such scale and induced such terror as to affect civilian morale throughout the countries affected.

A major difference is in how the war is perceived. bin Laden declared war on USA long before his first actual attacks. He was not taken seriously by the USA. AlMac|^(talk) 15:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• The people debating this aren't qualified to debate it. Consider:
  • To User:RK every edit to any article he touches 'is terrorism' or at least anti-semitism
  • Every faction of trolls with any political axe to grind will be adding every pie in the face to every player on their side to the list of terrorist incidents

You might start at least by excluding all incidents which are clearly attacks on political figures with decision making power or influence.

Yes, such incidents belong in the list of assassinations, not here. AlMac|^(talk) 15:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Increase in Terrorism?

I checked this article to get an indication of whether, as often claimed or at least suggested, terrorism is on the rise. But the article naturally focuses more on more recent events (you always get that). Also, the definition of terrorism stands in the way. It would be nice if a source could be found that lists all terrorist attacks according to just one specific, generally acceptable, definition, with the death tolls and a graph that shows the amount of deaths (possibly per nation/region) per year, thus indicating if there is indeed such a rise. Does anyone know where such a list could be found?
Ah, I now see the terrorism article says something on this under 'global trends'. Apparently, if you exclude the 2001 attacks on the US, the death toll stayed fairly constant around 1000. But that is only about the years after 1985, while I was thinking more in terms of decades. It does show one other interesting thing though. Not only is there not really an increase, the total yearly worldwide deathtoll is just 1000. That's peanuts compared to various deseases and the death toll of traffic (US traffic probably needs just some 3 months to equal the death toll of '9/11'). DirkvdM 11:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

What is a Terrorist Incident?

Are all the things on this list terrorist incidents?

Examples:

1991: Two IRA members are killed by their own bomb in St. Albans.

Why is this a terrorist incident?

December 14: Ahmed Ressam is arrested on the United States–Canada border in Port Angeles, Washington; he confessed to planning to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport as part of the 2000 millennium attack plots

Why is a failed terrorist attack a terrorist incident?

Why is the attacks on the USS Cole a terrorist incident?

Zntrip 02:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Declared War Is not Terrorism

Folks, Terrorism is not war. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were controversial, yes, but they were carried out by a miltary structure against another - the civilians were not the targets, Mitsubishi Arms Works was. All wars have civilian casualties, this DOES NOT make them terrorist attacks, anymore than Hitler's bombing of London was. It was a war action. The US in Iraq, distasteful as I may personally find it, is not a terrorist action. However, the civilian uprising that targets US soldiers is - it is carried out by unlawful combatants. In fact, there's possibly one of your primary guidelines right there. An attack by unlawful combatants, as defined by Geneva Convention. Let's agree to leave war out of it; most of that information is covered on that articles of war themselves, such as the Dresden bombings.Daemon8666 21:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC) Daemon8666 21:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not dispute your claim that the atomic bombings should not be in this article (perhaps under "war crimes"), but I will dispute your claim regarding the target. When a nuclear bomb (13KT yield) or even 1,500 metric tons of bombs (firebombing of Tokyo, March 9-10, 1945) are dropped on a city, the target is not an individual, a vehicle, a building, a factory, an industrial complex, or even an entire neighborhood. It is the entire city and everyTHING and everyONE in it. Black Falcon 21:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

To me it seems like considering terrorism to be equal to war (or a subset of warfare) would simplify this discussion a lot. Terrorism/War = using/threatening violent means to further policy. A simple definition like this would preempt a lot of the confusion here. I think the confusion is from the fact that terrorism the ACT (de re) is very similar to warfare (maybe a proper subset) whereas terrorism the WORD (de dicto/connotation) is a kind of rhetorical tag used for various political purposes (none of which is to enlighten people or actually define the word, what I assume you're all trying to accomplish here). 128.125.163.218 03:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Abe

AfD of this article

Have you considered talking about your concerns here on the talk page? - Tεxτurε 21:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

List of terrorist incidents is an article consisting entirely of original research. Attempts have been made to cite sources and have failed. Labeling certain events "acts of terrorism" and labeling people responsible for the events "terrorists" simply because an editor wants it to be so is against Wikipedia policy. Additionally, most (if not all) of these examples are consistent with the U.S. State Department and against the views of most of the rest of the world making the article westerncentric. If there were merely a concern or a fix for the article, I wouldn't have put an AfD on it. Without sources, the entire page is original research. --The Random Element 21:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Labelling things your way instead of how it was labelled is no different. The idea is to work together to improve an article. Not abandon it because you won't compromise. Why nominate something for deletion just because you think the wording should go one way and others disagree? - Tεxτurε 22:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

We all agree that the claims in this article fail NPOV, so we must either fix them or delete them. I tried to fix them and was told that there was no way to fix them. Therefore, any that cannot be verified must be deleted. --The Random Element 22:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

terrorist attacks in india

I'm surprised that there was already a heading for this (previously empty) in the discussion page, when I had noticed the striking absence of mention of Indian (including Pakistan, Sri Lanka) terrorist incidents - there are many recent ones involving Tamil/Sinhalese conflict in Sri Lanka; there were many in the Punjab region arount the time of partition; incidents around the assination of Indira Ghandi; the Mumbai train bombs this year ...

Other items for discussion?

The Unabomber - sent letterbombs and other nasties to technocrats and various nerds to "fight against the evils of technological progress." Sounds like a terrorist of sorts to me.

Any of the acts of ALF and ELF - These guys destroy private property to promote their causes. Dspillmann 22:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC) Dspillmann

List of Incidents Too Short?

Aren't your lists of contemporary terrorist attacks extremely understated? For example, here's a list of over 1000 attacks worldwide from 2005 alone (be patient, the page takes a long time to load):

List of Islamic Terror Attacks from 2005

And these are only ones with Islamic implications. There are, of course, many more worldwide. It seems like your recent lists are off by a factor of 50 or more. I'm not suggesting that every single attack needs to be listed, but I'm wondering if there is any point in maintaining such an abbreviated list. It's very misleading. JoeWilliams 06:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Joe, by all means, please add those incidents! You can do it one at a time, and maybe others will help you (I'm very inclined to do so). Godfrey Daniel 09:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

March 2006 - Mohammed Taheri-Azar

Someone keeps on listing this incident as a terrorist incident. It's not clear whether or not the perp was a terrorist or not and therefore whether this incident was a terrorist attack, so I have removed it from the listing. For more about the debate see Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar. AlanzoB 15:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

User: Godfrey_Daniel continues to list Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar's attack as a terrorist attack, stating "Experts and journalists call this terrorism". To that I say while some have, most have not. Additionally politicians have been absolutely silent on this attack and none have called it a terrorist attack. Please refrain from editing the page again until you state why the opinion of a handful of experts and journalists overrides the vast opinion of both local and national journalism as well as all politicians both local and national. AlanzoB 15:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Godfrey_Daniel: Even though you may disagree with an editor on a personal level I still think you should explain why this attack should be listed. It seems AlanzoB has a valid point above, especially in regards to a lack of polticians even mentioning what should be--if it's terrorism--a major terrorist attack on our soil. James Roberts 22:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

James,

I think the main reason it's not been widely labeled as terrorism is that the attack was unsuccessful in its main goal of killing people. 9 people were injured, and only some of them even bothered to go to the hospital. All were released shortly after treatment. So, it slipped under the radar on that count. Furthermore, the perpetrator has been charged with attempted murder, not terrorism (and in any case, how many statutes do we have against terrorism?).

I believe another reason is that many people didn't even consider the possibility that it might have been terrorism. For most Americans, terrorism is something that happens in faraway places, and only rarely on American soil (9/11, the Oklahoma City bombing, the anthrax letters, and... well, it's hard to come up with more off the top of your head, isn't it?). For most Americans, terrorism involves shadowy organizations, convoluted plots, and explosions. This attack had none of those hallmarks.

As for the local news media and leaders, I believe that they didn't even consider the possibility of terrorism either, and in any case, they don't have expertise in terrorism. What expectation is there that they would recognize a terrorist attack? It's not a common problem in the US. Also, it's more comforting to think of it in terms we understand, terms we're familiar with. For example, some people think that the attacker is mentally unstable. That's something we can understand. While we still can't fathom why he did it, at least it fits into a familiar category.

So what made it terrorism? The fact that the attack was intended to instill fear in a civilian population. It was intended to disrupt normal life. The people attacked had no direct connection to US involvement in the Middle East; their only "crime" was to be members of US society. It had a political agenda: revenge for the death of Moslems worldwide.

Look at the DoD definition of terrorism: "The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." The attack fits this definition perfectly.

Furthermore, as noted in the article on Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, actual experts in terrorism labeled his attacks as lone wolf terrorism. In this case, I think that expert testimony far outweighs the opinions of local reporters and politicians, who probably have no first-hand knowledge on this topic. What's more, Daniel Pipes, a well-known journalist who writes on Islam and terrorism, also labeled it a terrorist attack. Other journalists from outside North Carolina also labeled it as terrorism; their lack of affiliation with the local area probably gave them clearer perspective.

I keep putting it back in for two reasons. One is that I believe that it was a terrorist attack, and therefore should be listed. Another is to raise awareness: not all terrorists are affiliated with organizations, not all terror attacks are deadly, not all involve bombs or plots or anything like that. Even if the second point appears not to be in keeping with agendaless encyclopedia writing, it actually is, if part of the point of an encylopedia is to tell you something you didn't already know.

So--shall we leave it in? Godfrey Daniel 18:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

At the very, very least Godfrey you need to add a source to the entry that (1) allows readers to easily get the whole story, especially since no wikipedia article on the incident appears to exist and (2) identifies the incident as a terrorist attack. This source should be a mainstream media article (CNN, BBC) with an active hyperlink that any reader can click on. If the only source you can find is a controversial pundit like Daniel Pipes than I think that significantly weakens your case GabrielF 18:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to your assertion, there is a Wikipedia article on the attacker and his attack, and it has existed since soon after the incident. It can be accessed in this article, i.e., List of terrorist incidents (click on the word graduate in the article); I also linked it in my discussion above, and, for your convenience, you can also access it right here. Links to mainstream media sources (ABC, New York Sun, The Economist, etc.) can be found there; look in the References section. The last three references are especially germane.

Daniel Pipes may be controversial, but he has a degree of expertise in the area not found among the majority of journalists. Furthermore, jihad expert Robert Spencer called the attacker a jihadist and labeled it a terror incident. These expert views should be given more weight than the opinions of those less familiar with the topic, and this accords with the Wikipedia-espoused notion that different views don't all deserve equal space. Not coincidentally, this is true in all serious research: experts' opinions are always weighted more heavily than non-experts' views. Godfrey Daniel 23:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

GabrielF, why add his name? Very few of the other incidents have the terrorists' names, and it only serves to make what should be a short entry longer. Godfrey Daniel 00:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

May I ask why you all spend so much time arguing over whether or not a particular incident should be included, when easily 95% of the world's terrorist attacks are not included? Seems like a case of missing the forest for the tree(s). See my previous discussion topic called List of Incidents Too Short? I've done a random spot check with Google News on some 15 or 20 incidents from this list and found all of them documented on various international news sites. So while I can't swear that every entry is legitimate, so far I have no reason to believe that they are not. JoeWilliams 06:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't notice your comment earlier GD, I added his name because that's where the information about the incident is located on wikipedia. I felt that the link needed to be unambiguous. GabrielF 01:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. Good reason. Godfrey Daniel 09:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Flags

Glad to see that flags were added to the list, however, there are a couple of issue that need to be sorted out. First, should we add flags to countries that didn't exist at the time? For example, the entry on the Zealots took place 2000 years before the state of Israel was founded and adopted the flag used on the page. Second, there needs to be an explicit standard for which flag is used. I think that it should be the country where the incident took place, however this is not always the case in the article, for example the Rangoon bombing has the flag of North Korea (the perpetrator) instead of the flag of Burma where the incident took place. GabrielF 01:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

A worthy point, for Guy Fawkes I changed it from UK to England. Had there been a suitable flag for the Palestine mandate territory (other than the shipping red ensign) I would have applied that for the King David Hotel. I suggest that for territories with no identifiable flag or emblem that it be omitted rather than use an anachronous flag. GraemeLeggett 09:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

At first, I was in favor of using flags in use at the time of the incident. For example, the use of the flag of the British Mandate of Palestine would be more accurate for an incident that occured in 1946. Or at the very least, no flag should be used at all since the State of Israel did not come into exsitance until 1948. I would feel the same about using a Russian flag for an incident that occured in the former Soviet Union.

Then, I started to go through the list and realize that the flag only reflect WHERE the occured and not the terrorist organization that instigated the incident. This may be misleading since it may lead a reader to think it refers to the terrorist organization involved. In many cases, the location of the incident was not very important. One example would be a plane that was attacked upon landing in Greece. The Greek flag is currently used, but the real important facts of the incident is that it was an attack by a Palestinian gunmen against an Israeli plane.

In another incident, I found an error. In 1975 January 24, a FALN, a Puerto Rican clandestine terrorist group, bomb the Fraunces Tavern in New York City. Currently, the Puerto Pican flag is associated with this incident rather than the United States based on the current flag rules. I don't think either the Puerto Rican or United States flag should be used, but rather a symbol of the FALN (if one exists) should be used. For now, I have changed the flag to stay with the current flag rules to reflect the LOCATION of the incident. In yet another incident, an Iraqi plane was hijacked and the Iraqi plane is used. However, the plane crashed in Saudi Arabia. The terroist involved was the pro-Iranian group, Islamic Jihad. Wouldn't it be more informative to use the flag of symbol of the terrorist organization?

Since this would be a major change to the article, I would like to open up this matter for discussion. --user:mnw2000 04:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

MNW2000: We do have the flags of a number of terrorist organizations in the middle east (Hezbollah, Hamas, etc.) - I have just added them to List of flags. I'm not sure that using the flag of a terrorist organization is necessarily the most informative choice because they aren't as recognizable as national flags, but at least some of them are available if people want to use them. I think that your point about the location of a particular incident not being particularly important in some cases is very valid, in some cases it would be useful, for example, somebody who didn't immediately recognize the new name Mumbai might recognize the flag of India instantly, but I agree that if a plane happens to crash over a country that otherwise has nothing to do with the incident the location might not be important. I'm curious to see what other editors think. GabrielF 01:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that most people would not know the flag of a terrorist organization if they saw it. Ideally, we should use a flag of the national suppporting the terrorist, but that would open a new can of worms since honest people can honesting disagree as to who supports a terrorist organization. I would agree that we should stay away from that one. However, I still feel we should remove a flag of a country that did not exist when the incident occured. My analogy of the Soviet Union/Russia is an example. In fact, the more I think about it, I think we should remove all flags. --user:mnw2000 01:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:11 July 2006 Mumbai train bombings.jpg

Image:11 July 2006 Mumbai train bombings.jpg, is proposed for CSD as it is a copyright violation of [3]. I have replaced image with Image:Mumbai2006.jpg . This image was used earlier, It a fair use image, we will use it till we find a more suitable free-licensed image. --Sartaj beary 23:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Notice

The organizations, Hezbollah and Hamas, are known as terror organizations. They are responsible for the capture of Shalit and other Israelis, as well as killing several Israelis. The conflict was initiated by terrorists and therefore it is legitimately a terrorist incident. If you claim that it is not a terrorist attack because they are soldiers, then you would have to say that the attacks against American soldiers and Iraqi military forces are NOT terrorist attacks. Stop holding a double standard against Israel!! --- Note to you: Not every attack against a soldier, even when committed by a terrorist, is an act of terrorism itself. I won't touch the section listing hezbollah firing rockets at israel, but their attack and abduction to which you refer does not qualify as a terrorist act, in and of itself. And you'll have to cite a (legitimate) definition of terrorism that says otherwise.Bladestorm

Civilians

"Warfare against civilians must never be answered in kind. Terror must never be answered with terror." Caleb Carr

This may ruffle some feathers but I always thought the definition was simple. Here goes:

Terrorism = "Deliberate lethal/physical attack of civilian persons/non-combatants to influence political or religious change in a society."

A guerrilla is a guerrilla until he deliberatly targets a harmless civilian to incite fear or gain retribution. I think the real gray area comes with sympathizers and informants. If your a guerrilla you most likely don't have a court system so anything you do against a civilian is arbitrary at best. This is the slippery slope that armed resistance groups tip toe or fall down all together.

Flags Issue Revisited

What does the public feel about removing the flags for one or more of the following reasons (or another if you can think of one).

1) The country where the incident occurs may, in some cases, not be pertinent to the incident itself. For example, country A's plane is attacked on the tarmac of a country B by terrorists from country C or operating in country C. In such as case, country B is not the key factor in the incident.

2) The flag used represents a country that did not exist when the incident occured. This is the case of the Kind David bombing in British controlled Palestine in 1946. Israel did not come into existence until 1948.

3) The country where the indident occurs in may cases is the victim. Isn't the point of this list to highlight incidents committed by terrorist? Shouldn't we try to highlight the terrorist and, therefore, use its flag where it exists.

Again, I vote to remove the flags. How does everyone else feel? --user:mnw2000 17:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with that, the location probably ought to be mentioned (if not obvious). GraemeLeggett 09:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I vote to keep them. They give a little colour to a dreary page. --Guinnog 20:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Guinnog, they do help aesthetically, unfortunately, they do cause more confusion than they're worth. I would probably get rid of them, but I might be convinced by a good argument otherwise. GabrielF 02:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If we want to have a flag for aesthetics, then lets have the flag of the terrorist entity. In fact, a terrorist flag would be appropriate since it would provide a link to the Wikipage regarding that terrorist organization. Some terrorist organizations don't have a flag, so we would simply leave it out. Other terrorist acts are committed by individuals, and therefore, there would be no flag. However, if a terrorist act is committed by a recognized state (as history defines it), then we use that state's flag. For example, if Hezbollah commits an act of terrorism on the direction of Iran (once it is considered a fact and not just speculation), then we add the Iranian flag to that of Hamas. --user:mnw2000 15:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, here is my two-cents worth: Instead of having just the one flag to represent where the evet took place, why not have three flags in a specific order so that the reader can determine what is important? The first flag being the perpetrator. The second flag being the target. The third flag being the location of the event. This would give more information for the reader and would avoid tarmac issues. Svyatoslav 14:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

July 2006 Seattle Jewish Federation shooting

Several anon users have listed July 2006 Seattle Jewish Federation shooting here and have been reverted. Personally, I think that this incident fits the definition of lone-wolf terrorism, since it was clearly a politically motivated attack on civilians and may have been intended to cause fear and disruption. However, no reputable source seems to be saying this outright, so I think that listing it here would violate WP:NOR. GabrielF 04:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC) --- You're entirely right. It was certainly a hateful act, deplorable, presumably racist, and (POV alert here) outright despicable. However, there's been no direct evidence showing that there was any specific intent behind it of terrorizing a larger population, or of using those deaths to force anyone to change policy. As such, it qualifies as murder (though I guess that may be POV as well), but not terrorism as such. Bladestorm

Murder for any reason is a form of terrorism. The murder here was done not to end the life of these six persons, but as a message to others that support Israel that it could happen to them unless they change. In fact, killing Jews for being Jewish is not about thier individual persons, but trying to create terror amoung the Jewish population. That by any definition is terrorism.

It may be time to end this article. Every act committed in wartime is a act of terrorism by definition. --user:mnw2000 17:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

To say that all murders are acts of terrorism is a valid (and quite possibly admirable) idealogy. However, it isn't a universally accepted definition. To be honest, I think you might be right about the need to end the article. The fact is, it's just too hard to say what is or isn't an act of terrorism. (Seems peculiar that people can argue about what kinds of death are terror and what aren't, but there you have it) I do believe there is some value in the idea of documenting a history of the acts, but between the listing of events where the full facts are not yet known, and the disagreements over what type of entity is capable of committing terrorism... it just seems that, at the very least, anything listed in 2006 has more value as political potshots than as historical/educational record. But, uh, I could just be rambling. Bladestorm

This is about a more complex issue, one that Wikipedia must deal with. Is Wikipedia the appropriate forum for ongoing conflicts? The traditional encyclopedia has the luxury of looking at events with the luxury of time and history. For example, we now know that Hilter had the Reichtag burned in order to blame the Jews. However, at the time, we didn't know this. Now we have a incident where some say Israel deliberately bombed a UN post. In that definition, it was a terrorist act. However, Israel says it was part of a military campaign and its enemy was purposely positioning itself behind UN positions. In that case, it can not be considered an act of terrorism. Is a missile attack against the people of Israel (not a specific military target) a terrorist act or simply one designed to get Israel to cease its military operation? Again, it depends on who is doing the recording. That is why we should either end this article or limit it to acts that have been proven based on historical records. --user:mnw2000 23:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Good points. I am afraid in todays political climate we may never get a true historical consensus on these events. The 1967 Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty is still hotly argued about in some circles and of course there are some "conspiracy theory" historians that contend that President Roosevelt "allowed" Pearl Harbor to happen. And even if we get a "majority consensus" that might take a generation and this project is based on getting speedy information. And this article will never come close to listing all terrorist incidents. So it is either accepting that this particular article will never be up to Wikipedia standards but keeping it because it does give you a "reasonably" accurate look at terrorism over the years or deleting it because once you start lowering standers for one article where does it end?. My POV is the former 69.114.117.103 08:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Back to the issue at hand. If several users, even if some of them are anonymous, keep listing the incident, then there is a consensus among at least some editors that the incident qualifies. I believe that Wikipedia should be more inclusive, rather than more exclusive, of information. To a certain degree, the user/reader will always have to make his own decisions, but those decisions are best made with more information available, not less.

GabrielF pointed out that this incident fits the definition of lone-wolf terrorism, yet says that he is against its listing. So, is the article a list of terrorist incidents committed by groups only? Does it exclude lone-wolf terrorism? If so, why? What's the justification?

Making this a list of terrorist acts committed by groups opens up another can of worms. The Oklahoma City bombing was committed by two people. Since it was more than one person, it wasn't really lone wolf, but the perpetrators' connections to larger groups is weak, and any groups' connection to the perpetrators even weaker. Does a two-person group count?

I don't see the justification for excluding lone-wolf acts. Are a lone-wolf terrorist's victims any less dead?

Above, Bladestorm presented his view of the act (evil, but not terrorism), and then an anonymous user added his (definitely terrorism). The Definition of terrorism has a very good discussion, and here is a summary:

The victims of terrorist acts are targeted not because of who they are as individuals, but because of what group they represent. The motivation is not personal (i.e., against the individuals for who they are), but is political/religious/racial/ideological, etc. The purpose of terrorist violence can be intimidation, coercion, propaganda, manipulation, or to make demands. The aim is to create a state of terror among the general public or a particular group. The terrorists can be lone individuals or part of a larger group.

It's pretty broad. However, even by this broad definition, I think that this attack fits. The people targeted by the murderer were unknonwn to him; he attacked them because of their group membership. We know this from some of his statements:

"These are Jews. I’m tired of getting pushed around, and our people getting pushed around by the situation in the Middle East."

"I'm a Muslim American; I'm angry at Israel."

Note that those attacked were Americans, even though he was angry at Israel.

It's clear he did it to make a statement:

"I'm only doing this for a statement."

And he made demands:

(Indirect quote, from the main article on the attack): He demanded that the US military leave Iraq. He is said that this was his personal statement against Jews and the Bush administration for giving money to Jews, and for Jews for giving money to Israel, about Hezbollah, [and] the war in Iraq.

Incidentally, the FBI determined that the July 4, 2002 El Al shooting at LAX was terrorism. The terrorist in that case said much the same thing as the Jewish Federation attacker: he made anti-Israel statements and said he was against US policy in the Middle East.

So, I really don't see the justification for removing this incident from the list. It fits most of Wikipedia's own definition for terrorism, and, to my mind, is clearly terrorism. So, I'm putting it back in.

Full disclosure: Bladestorm & I have had a debate on my talk page; it got less friendly as it progressed. Third-party views are welcome. Godfrey Daniel 23:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Should we end this article or limit additions?

I vote to either end this article or hold off on any incidents occuring during a ongoing military conflict until the conflict is concluded. --user:mnw2000 23:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course this article should not be ended because of any difficulty in deciding what is or is not terrorism. We, being the WP community, will come to a consensus eventually over what to include and what not. It is only natural that the most recent entries here would be the more contentious untill all facts of a given incident are known, like the Seattle shooting. As for the current war in the Middle East, an operation carried out by the regular Israeli armed forces cannot be deemed terrorism, especially since there is an ongoing militairy operation underway. One definition of terrorism I think most will agree upon is that it must be commited by irregular, extranational if that's the word, groups or forces, not a regulated national military organization.--Kalsermar 18:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with your definition. --user:mnw2000 06:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with that definition in the slightest. By that definition, if a rogue group murders several civilians to pressure a larger population, then it's terrorism, but if a government orders the same thing, then it isn't? An act of terrorism shouldn't be defined by who is launching it. The action either is or isn't terrorism. And, keep in mind that, if you DO choose to adopt your definition of terrorism, then no reference can be made to Hamas since they were elected in. Personally, I think that if Hamas were to decide to blow up a bus or something, that would qualify as terrorism. But it wouldn't under your definition. By the very definition of the word, several of Israel's actions are indisputably terrorism. However, I just don't think it would be appropriate to list them at the moment, as it's still ongoing.

I don't think it's necessary to end the article entirely, but I don't think it's appropriate to list incidents that have occurred in 2006, as the primary sources of information on such events come from political rhetoric and media headlines. (or original research, but that isn't permitted here) Bladestorm

My agreement is that a military operation does not in itself mean that every attack is a terroritst incident. However, an action such as a car bomb against civilians, is a terrorist act, regardless of who does it. Would you call the car bomb by Hizbollah in 1982 against the US marines to be a military operation or a terrorist incident? This is part of the reason that this article may be more opinion than fact. I would call it terrorism since Hizbollah was not an authorized military organization, others would say they are a legitimate resistance organization. There is no easy answer. --user:mnw2000 15:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not personally familiar with the specifics of that event, so I can't say which it was; but it's easy to answer based on a conditional. If it was intended to send a message to the US (or other marines), then it was just terrorism, pure and simple. If it was because they felt like killing a marine, then it was murder. But you are right, and there isn't any easy answer. As such, I won't be removing any listed incidents unless they're *flagrantly* in opposition to the most basic definitions of terrorism. I would simply suggest that people not list incidents from 2006, so people can judge it objectively and relatively free of political and media bias. Bladestorm

Agreed. Now if Wikipedia would make such a logical rule to other articles. There is a danger with current events that the facts are not what they seem at the momement. --user:mnw2000 20:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Chapel Hill SUV terroris

This is an example of the problem with this article. If the suspect in this case wanted to kill person A and person B, then it could be considered attempted-murder (he actually admitted to attempted-murder). What makes this terrorism, that he has stated that he just wanted to kill as many Americans as possible. That, by definition, is an act designed to terrorize a group of people - Americans. --user:mnw2000 23:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Alleged Michican bridge plot

NPR is reporting some men from Texas were arrested after having bought about 1,000 cell phones, and prosecutors are alleging they planned to blow up the Mackinac Bridge. This story will have to be watched to see if it pans out. -- Beland 02:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The Weather Underground

I put in several incidents from this group for the year 1970. These were terrorist incidents by most definitions. The problem with this group is that they committed several small scale bombings a year. Should I 1.List each incident seperately 2.Put every incident for that year in one line 3.Other 02:17, 14 August 2006 (Ed Kollin)

Well, if there are several instances, my suggestion would be to group them by year. But I don't think anyone will have a problem if you leave them separate either. Bladestorm 14:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal or Financial Motivations should not count

Only incidents driven by the desire for political or social change should be entered. Examples of what should not be in here. The serial killer Son of Sam motivation was his own psychosis. At most it was a hate crime (girls with short brown hair). An incident in Puerto Rico where striking workers set off an explosion that was listed should not count because the motive was financial only. When I entered incidents from The Weather Underground and The Black Liberation Army I declined to list their bank robberies. 00:33, 17 August 2006

Criteria for including assassinations?

The lead-in to the article says that assassinations are in a separate list; yet some are included here. I wouldn't have objection to that, as long as what's included follows some consistent criteria. But what are those criteria? I see president McKinley, but not President Lincoln.

I don't know which assassinations(and attempts) are included, but what should be included are cases where the shooter was trying to scare the larger masses. People who just had a personal grudge, or simply didn't like the president don't count. In cases where no motive is known, and no intent is obvious beyond simply killing the specific target, then it really shouldn't be included either. Hopefully that's enough info for you to sort out what should or shouldn't be included. :) Bladestorm 05:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think, if the assassination includes killing civilians in the process (eg. Bombing a plane full of people, intending only to kill the president or some personnel on the plane), then it counts as terrorism as well. _dk 05:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I do think listing the assinations of U.S. Presidents is questionable. Most of the motives were personal or revenge related. Motive in my opinion is more important then collateral damage. This is different then in Iraq where the purpose of many of the assassinations is to instill fear for political reasons. 02:40, 21 August 2006 (Ed Kollin)

Bull

This list is bullshit, it contains many acts of resistance against dictatorship governments, illegal occupations, and other deeds that are only labeled terrorism because they are not conducted by an official armed forces. With these standards we could list all civilian resistance against the nazi's during WW2 as terrorism. Anyway, people will keep adding events to this list as they fit their agenda so it's best to remove this list since it's all original research anyway. Just put up some lists of terrorist incidents made by big newspapers or something. --62.251.90.73 14:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You are at best partially correct. Everything is cited so the claim that this is all original research is incorrect. Taking a list of incidents from a newspaper would lead to a more biased result then this list where you get a variety of sources. I do not believe every act of resistance needs to be listed. There is a line a tough one to figure out between traditional guerilla warfare and terrorism. I am not an expert at this topic but my understanding is that of the underground movements against the Nazis did things like blowing up trains carrying military supplies which would fall under traditional guerilla warfare. That being said I agree that there were incidents that from that period need to be listed. There are probably many incidents from both the American Revolution and The Civil War that need to be listed. As it says on the top this list needs to be expanded. 03:00, August 21 2006 (Ed Kollin)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.114.117.103 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 21 August 2006.

Everything is cited, yes of course these attacks were true, I do not dispute that, but to compose an arbitrary list like this of them is original research, making a connection between these incidents that is not there and many people dispute. Getting one list from some newspaper or government database would be weird yes, but more logical would be to open this page with "Because of the arbitrary definition of terrorism it's hard to compose an objective list of terrorist actions" (because it would be OR) "Some major newspapers and government institutions have nevertheless tried to compose one:". Like Lists of billionaires is not some list composed by wiki users of random people of whose there is a source somewhere saying that they own more then a billion, but it's the list of forbes. Therefor it's not OR.

For the rest trying to list acts of resistance from WW2 or the american revolution is even worse then the list is now. I'm saying those and contemporary acts of resistance should both not be listed, not that they both should. It is not terrorism to kill some soldiers sent to illegally conquer your land or supress your human rights in name of some dictator. --62.251.90.73 19:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

So, you're saying that, if another person should become a billionaire, then it would be inappropriate to include him on a list of billionaires, specifically because he hasn't previously been included on a list of billionaires in the past... Sorry, but I disagree. Bladestorm 02:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying at all, maybe you should reread my first post. I'm saying that if you want a list of billionaires in wikipedia it's better to fetch a list composed by a reliable source (like forbes) instead of trying to compose a list yourself (original research) by puting in each person of who some source says he's worth a certain amount.--62.251.90.73 10:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

In order to have strict non original research all articles should only use cites and never words because words are the writers arbitrary interpretation of the cite. Since we are using words we are accepting some bias by nature. If we are accepting bias we should accept that some topics are more prone to bias then others. The theory of relativity is straightforward. This topic is not. If we do not accept this having an article on any controversial topic is questionable. I am not saying at all that we should not try to be as neutral as possible. So something along the lines of what you proposed a statement at the top saying the definition of terrorism is controversial, arbitrary, changes from time and place. The definition of terrorism used for this list is so and so and is based on the (creditable cite or cites). Figuring out this definition will take time. The 9/11 conspiracy article posters argued over a year before coming to an agreement on what a “9/11 conspiracy” is.

To a the more specific problem of what American revolutionary or WWII incidents should be listed. The criteria should be loosely based on the criteria for listing and not listing used in the Iraq War. (IED attacks on solders are not listed) 02:58, 22 August 2006 (Ed Kollin)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.114.117.103 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure we are accepting some bias, there's no denying that, all is relative etc. Even with letteral quotes you can still make a biased article. But saying all is relative is just some cheesy cliché dude, of course all is relative, so what?

I'm suggesting a more objective, less OR way of composing a list of terrorist incidents. One that is also used in other similar situations on wikipedia. This list is under constant attack by people trying to put their own biased opinion in, as you can read on this talk page, freedom fighters for one are terrorists for the others. Making such distinct choices about what is terrorist and what is not is not something wikipedia researchers should do. Leave it to opinion makers, governments, magazines, and then point the wikipedia user to these lists.

I do not agree this is the same situation as with other controversial topics, about which certainly articles should be kept, because in these articles you can put in both opinions and there is no need to draw a conclusion like is done with this list. An article about some terrorist incident could read "President Bush labeled the attacks as terrorist while many major european newspapers mark it an act of resistance". See, nuance. This list has none.--62.251.90.73 10:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeesh, this is a lot of arguing, with very little being said. You think it'd be more appropriate to just use a pre-made list. That would be far worse. Taking a single voice would guarantee more subjectivity. Either way, it doesn't matter. If you don't like the article, here are your options:

• Make it better. If you think some elements shouldn't be listed, then remove them. Just make sure that you follow a consistent criteria for making that decision. What's the expression here? "Be Bold"?
• Mark it for deletion. It'll survive. There's absolutely no question of that. But if you wish to make your objection formal, then that's entirely acceptable.
• Ignore it. If you aren't willing to contribute, and don't want to have it removed, then any other criticisms are just trolling. So make it better, work constructively, or just don't interfere with legitimate attempts to improve articles.

k? Bladestorm 16:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If you think I want only one list made by one person then you did not read my previous comments. Please read them before flaming me.--62.251.90.73 20:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Boston Tea Party

I've added the BTP to the list of terrorist incidents. It meets all requirements listed at Definition of terrorism (intimidation, violence for politcal ends) and occurred two years before the War of American Independence began - hence, not during wartime. samwaltz 14:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure this counts? Since I'm just a Canadian, and am probably not as familiar with the subject, I won't remove it myself, but I don't see how it applies. It's my understanding that it was a protest against the English monarchy, yes? Was there a specific intent to invoke "terror"? For example, industrial sabotage (causing only property damage) isn't necessarily terrorism. Flag-burning isn't terrorism. (cross-burning on the other hand... there's room for debate there) Not all protests, even when there's damage done, are terrorism.

So, I guess I'd just ask you this: Were they actually trying to significantly scare a population? Bladestorm 16:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Husayn ibn Ali

Can someone please check whether this is considered an act of terrorism? I am doubtful that it should be listed here after reading part of the article. GabrielF 17:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Weather Underground

I removed the listings of incidents involving the Weather Underground, as their actions were directed against property targets rather than humans. Their targets were generally military or governmental. The only civilians killed by their actions were their own members, in the Greenwich Village incident. Their actions certainly did not meet the criteria of the terrorism entry - the actions were not "indiscriminate", did not involve "targeting of civilians," and were not executed "with disregard for human life". JoseJones 03:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The deletion of the Weather Underground misses the mark for several reasons. The Greenwich Village bombs were meant for a non-commissioned officer’s dance. While not in a literally a civilian target military members were being targeted in a non military capacity. Using this definition most IRA attacks should be deleted. The targets were symbolic. Media attention is more important to terrorists in many cases then casualty numbers. Any attacks that “target” can not be “indiscriminate”. Most important is that we are looking at this from a post 9/11 point of view not a 1971 POV. The Weather underground did cause fear and a reaction. The Weather Underground was a part of a political climate that led to Huston Plan, Watergate and other White House abuses. The justification of the reaction is irrelevant the fact that it did is what counts. That being said every attack need not be listed. A summary or summary by year might be the way to go. 69.114.117.103 05:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Montreal Shooting?

The montreal shooting has just been added to the list. When they were first reporting it on the news, they were quick to say that it wasn't considered terrorism... And, since then, I still haven't seen any evidence of terrorism (as opposed to a massive act of non-political brutality). Does anyone have any links or citations, or even an explanation, showing that it's terrorism? Bladestorm 01:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It has been deleted by another party. The suspect according to reports had a fascination with the Columbine killings. At this point it is individual psychosis not terrorism 69.114.117.103 06:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

How to Handle Iraq

There is no good answer but I would make it a summary that looks something like "During the summer of 2006 an estimated 1000 civilians were reported being killed weekly. Methods and used were primarily suicide bombing, ied’s, and assassination. Motives were primarily, secretion and religious hatred, driving out coalition forces, and criminal. Due to the chaotic situation it is very difficult to even make a rough estimation of how and why these deaths are occurring 69.114.117.103 03:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

There has been controversy over including the original 1993 invasion that started the war. The answer is no because if you look at the first paragraph of this article it says "Incidents of alleged state terrorism have not been included below due to controversy" 69.114.117.103 14:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Sen. Kennedy

Senator Robert F. Kennedy assassinated ...

Is this really a terrorist act ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirhan_Sirhan

You may have a point here. Ideally, it shouldn't be listed as a terrorist incident unless it's generally accepted as being such, or at least unless a credible and solid argument can be made proving it as such. In this case, the article on Sirhan Sirhan implies that it was more an act of (possibly deranged) murder. So, what do you guys think? Bladestorm 20:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

1994 NYC Subway Firebombing taken out

The firebomber claimed he had a mental defect and was proscribed Prosac for Attention Deficit Disorder New York Times article </ref>] 69.114.117.103 07:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

edit

1986 April 6. Amount of civilian deaths changed to 100 citing the BBC[4]. Raharu00 17:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Initial Iraq Invasion

The top of the article states "incidents of alleged state terrorism have not been included below due to controversy". Is not the initial 2003 invasion the very definition of an incident of alleged state terrorism? 69.114.117.103 The Pearl Harbor attack should be deleted for the same reason 69.114.117.103 19:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

You're right. As much as I dislike the notion of only including some events, and not others, the current criteria is to omit state-sponsored. As such, I've taken out Pearl Harbor. (pending a concensus to include state-sponsored events as well) Bladestorm

March 9, 1977, Washington D.C. domestic terrorist incident

Having not previously heard of this astounding incident, I wanted to add some idea of who was responsible for it to the entry. Information is from New York Times, 10 March 1977 and 11 March 1977, accessed through ProQuest, so I can't add a link. I also added the fact that one man was killed, and clarified that the District Bldg. is city hall. The reasons for the takeover are interesting, but I didn't want to make the entry too big. These are: (a) the militants were opposed to the opening of the movie Mohammad, Messenger of God (film), and (b) they were engaged in a violent dispute with the Black Muslims. Gusuku 02:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

"Having not previously heard of this astounding incident". There was a earlier discussion about if should there be a list like this at all because there are no agreed definition of terrorism and thus compiling a list like this is original research. While I agree that this list pushes and even goes over the line on Wikipidia rules your statement is the great argument for this list flawed as it may be. 69.114.117.103 06:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Anti Sinn Fein 2006 attack put back in 1988 attack added

I apologize for the Newsday link that did not work. I changed the link to the New York Times one. I can understand while having no link why you would think the attack was not notable but hopefully this link will stay unbroken and you see why it is notable. The attacker Michael Stone attempted to bring pipe bombs into the Northern Ireland provincial assembly in an attempt to attack the top Sinn Fein leaders.The aasembly was meeting to broker a power sharing agreement to restore local rule to Northern Ireland. Mr. Stone was charged with five counts of attempted murder two each for the attempted attack on the Sinn Fein leaders one charge for the rest of the members of the assembly. In 1988 the same man killed three mourners at an IRA funeral. I added that incident to the list 69.114.117.103 07:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Spelling and linkage corrections for Michael Stone 69.114.117.103 18:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably vandalism resp. falsification

I assume that the entry below, inserted as of 07:23, 15 September 2006 [5] into the article by 69.114.117.103, is vandalism. I have moved it to here, so you can judge by yourself.

• A bomb place on a bus in the West Bank kills one and severely injures three. A Jordanian Mahmoud Mahmoud Atta is arrested ,extradited to Israel,convicted,sentenced to life in prison and freed by the Israeli Supreme Court. He was confused with September 11th ringleader Egyption Mohammed Atta

--Túrelio 15:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This it not vandalism. If you read the Wikipedia articles for both men Mahmoud Mahmoud Atta and Mohammed Atta a bomber that placed a bomb on a bus has been confused with the 9/11 ringleader 69.114.117.103 06:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin).

Thanks for the clarification, though I don't like that the article about Mahmoud Mahmoud Atta has no sources at all and hat there is no information about when all this (arrested ,extradited to Israel,convicted,sentenced to life in prison and freed) did happen. --Túrelio 07:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is a two links links[6]

[7] 69.114.117.103 07:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Thanks for the search. The 1986 entry has been restored. --Túrelio 08:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Seattle Jewish Center Attack belongs

The only possible reason for it not to be in here is that the individual acts should not count. I disagree with that line of reasoning but find it understandable. If individual acts are going to count the Seattle Jewish shooting meets many definitions of a terrorist act. You think his reasoning is loony? I and many others agree with the POV that his reasons are “loony” as well as the reasoning for many of the attacks listed here. Many terrorists can be categorized as psychotic. The fact is opposition to Israel and the Iraq war is the reason for numerous acts listed as terrorism here and elsewhere. It does not matter that the motive for the attack is “loony” just that that motive has a basis in political or social dissatisfaction which this attack clearly does. The guy in Chicago that killed three people in a law office because he was dissatisfied with the way a lawyer handled his patent case is not terrorism because the motive was personal. The Mafia whose activities meet most definitions of terrorism is not a terrorist organization because the motives are financial. The guy who wanted to do a grenade jihad in a shopping mall is terrorism because the motive was social dissatisfaction.

The other reason the Seattle attack should not have been deleted is that the deletion is inconsistent with the type of attacks that have been allowed to stay with seemingly no controversy. More specifically the “loner” assassinations of U.S. political leaders whose motivations in some cases are less clearly known or political the terrorist that attacked the Seattle Jewish Center. 69.114.117.103 18:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

I didn't mean to say "loony" to imply that psychos are incapable of terrorism. :) There was simply only a bit of info I could include in the description, so I kept it short. The idea of it being perpetrated by a lone gunman actually has nothing to do with it. For reference, John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo were certainly terrorists, even though there were only two of them, and even though I don't think either of them had any specific political intent. However, they had a clear desire to invoke fear (ie terror) into the hearts of people; that made it terrorism. Back when the KKK used to burn crosses and lynch people (I should hope they don't do this anymore), that was terrorism, not because there was a race associated with who they were targetting, but because they were clearly trying to scare more than just their targets.

In this case, it easily qualifies as a "hate crime". It certainly qualifies as racism. However, there's no proof that he was trying to scare anyone; just murder anyone he felt could be remotely connected with Israel. Targetting based on race isn't terrorism. Trying to scare others of that race is. Keeping in mind that, while although I'm sure other people were scared, that doesn't necessarily make it terrorism, since scaring them wasn't the actual intent.

If that seems like a bit of a screwy argument, then there's something more significant you have to consider. Whenever you have direct, reliable, verifiable sources, that trumps any arguments you may be able to make. Take a look at the article for the shooting. You'll see that this was a terrible, and premeditated, crime. He murdered people just because they were jewish. He didn't like what Israel had done, and so took it out on innocent people. However... Police deemed it a "hate crime". FBI spokesman said it wasn't terrorism-related. Prosecutor said it was a hate crime, not terrorism. That is to say, those directly involved in the case said it wasn't terrorism. That means that you can't list it as terrorism on Wikipedia. On the article for the shooting yourself, you can cite reasonable quotes of people who disagree, but on all other pages on Wikipedia, it can't simply be referred to as terrorism, because, as far as wikipedia is concerned, it isn't. And that is why it isn't listed; not simply because he acted alone. Bladestorm 20:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record I do consider the KKK a terrorist organization but do not consider John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo or the Son of Sam to be terrorists because of no known social or political reasoning behind the attacks. I agree that killing people just because they are Jewish is not terrorism. Because the killer perceived Jews as behind the support of Israel and the Iraq that added a political slant to it. Having a different view of terrorism is part of life. But the part of my argument you ignored probably due to my vagueness is the inconstancy of this delete. The assaination of Lincoln, McKinley and the Kennedy's are listed. These were revenge loner type killings with a vague political undertone(Conspiracy theories are another discussion). In Sirhan Sirhan's case there a lot of similarities to the Seattle shooter. No authorities that I am aware of (correct me if I am wrong) ever said that these attacks were meant to "scare" people. 69.114.117.103 05:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

I apologize. You're right that I didn't address one of your points. You are correct that there appears to be some inconsistencies. However, I think the problem is that they should go the other way around. An assassination of personal motivation doesn't qualify as terrorism either. If I was stronger with american history, I probably would have removed those presidential shooters myself. However, as a canadian, I really just don't know enough about those situations to feel comfortable about removing their entries in the list. But that doesn't at all mean that I'd oppose removing them either. (Similarly, I also know nothing about Sirhan Sirhan. As such, I can't say you're wrong, but I also can't say you're right) If you feel other entries should be removed for consistency, then I don't object to either removing obvious cases, or discussing less obvious cases here. (you should probably start another heading for any such discussions though) Bladestorm 06:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I actually agree with you that most of the assassinations U.S. political leaders do not belong with the possible exception of President McKinley whose assassin was an anarchist. The motive for the others are murky. While thinking over the last two days many of the acts listed are not acts that were done to "scare" people. The man recently arrested for trying to launch a grenade jahid in a mall is similar to the Seattle shooter in that he was trying to kill as many people as possible. Yet unlike the Seattle shooter authorities the F.B.I. called this a terrorist plot a most of the media followed with this description. It is questionable that the motive for 9/11 itself was to "scare" people. Bin Ladin in released tapes has said the motive was to cause economic harm and praised the fact that the attacks had brought a wide discussion of the Muslim religion. The list of targets suggests a quick decapitation of the U.S. as a motive. The World Trade Center probably would not be the symbol of 9/11 today if Flight 93 hit the capital building as Congress was in session that morning. As a Canadian you recently had a plot with a similar nature against your parliament foiled. But getting back to the article 9/11 is sure commonly perceived as a terrorist attack and no terrorist list would be considered complete without it. 9/11 and the other attacks probably belong under the "commonly understood" clauses as are the others I listed. The only difference in the Seattle Center Jewish Center shooting is while some reputable persons did label this a terrorist attack local law enforcement labeled it a hate crime(possibly to calm fears). Sorry for rambling on but there are a lot of issues that reside in the grey area and I am asking for as many people to weigh in on these issues 69.114.117.103 07:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC) (ed Kollin)

Update on the Seattle case prosecutors have decided not to seek the death penalty because of a long history of mental illness. Does this mean he was to insane to have terrorist motives or does the fact that the prosecutors are still trying him mean he was lucid enough to have them? 69.114.117.103 06:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Terrorist incidents 1986 in France

For at least nine of the terrorist incidents in France in 1986 (List of terrorist incidents#1986) there is no source and also no information on the type or group of suspects/terrorists. The corresponding list on :fr has the same problem. Can anybody help out with more data?--Túrelio 11:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to replace {{flagicon|USA...}} calls

Notice: There is currently a proposal to change calls {{flagicon|USA..}} to {{USA|..}} at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Flag_Template#Changing_USA_flag_calls. Please consider posting there to keep the discussion in one place. (SEWilco 04:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC))

Discussion at MoS on flag icons

Please contribute to the discussion on flag icons at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Flag icons - manual of style entry?. (SEWilco 14:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC))

1968 Columbia University Protests

This should not have been taken out. While I agree that 99% of the time as the deleter said "Student Protests are not terrorist incidents" in this case it was because a dean was held hostage. Hostage holding is a time honered terrorist tactic. In this case hostage holding was used as an attempt coerce people to make political and social change 69.114.117.103 07:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Agree. Here just some random quotes out of the source given in that entry:
„during scuffle a French instructor, Richard Greenman, is injured“
„Acting Dean Henry Coleman is restrained from leaving his office by protesting students.“
„Dean Coleman advises against calling police to secure his release because of potential for violent confrontation.“
„Dean Coleman remains detained.“
„relief that his safety no longer in doubt“
„500 white students vacate Hamilton at SAS direction.“
„made 712 arrests; 148 reports of injury“

--Túrelio 08:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Again the same deleter has taken out Abbie Hoffman's threat to poison the water of Chicago with LSD. In this case unlike the other one he or she "might" have a point but I still think he or she is wrong. Abbie Hoffman probably had no intention of actually poisoning the water and even if he did would not have had enough LSD to get the city high. This threat in the climate of 1968 did cause real fear in Chicago and helped cause an overreaction (Police Riot in Grant Park) which is exactly what Hoffman intended to do. Again creating a climate fear to cause an overreaction to gain sympathy for a cause is a time honored terrorist motive. A "threat" is not an action but it can be argued is an "incident". In 2007 had he done this he probably would have gotten his own reality show but this was 1968. If you or anyone wants to delete an incident please put here first or if you must delete give a detailed explanation here. The one line blurb in the history although allowed is rude. 69.114.117.103 08:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Finally I've reverted both deletions by Irvingbird. Should be discussed here first.--Túrelio 09:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It's absurd to place either of these on a "List of Terrorist Incidents." Look at what else is on the list. This kind of foolish quasi-information is what keeps Wikipedia from being taken seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvingbird (talk • contribs) 16:49, 8 February 2007

Attack Against Israel 1/29

It is outrageous that the information pertaining to the January 29th 2007 suicide bombing in Israel was removed here. How is that different from any other event? No double standards are permitted. The information will be reposted. If it is removed without a clear explanation, the user will be warned. --138.16.52.11 20:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Federation Shooting (again)

Hi, I'm putting this here because it's easier to discuss at the bottom of the page:
I suppose it's time to sort out all the rationales here.
I know there are easy arguments for why one might want to include the shooting: Murder, mass-shooting, hate crime, related to Israel, etc. (I won't include the tendency of some editors, anonymous or not, of trying to include it as a reason. The fact that other editors haven't been continuously deleting it is immaterial: It's usually already deleted. If you want to try to prove a concensus, then do it on the talk page; don't substitute persistence for evidence of concensus. I also won't consider the, "He's muslim." argument as a reason, in and of itself.)
However, there are also several reasons as to why it shouldn't be included. (And I'm sorry, but I'm getting sooo tired of this argument, that only one argument is actually going to be strong)

1. No clear idea of his motive. He shouted many things, but the investigations and interviews didn't turn up a clear motive. The only thing that was certain was that he was hateful, violent, malicious, and taking out his anger on the wrong people. (hateful includes a hatred of israel, and probably jews)
2. Related to that, his lack of mental stability. Now, I'd argue that every terrorist has at least a few screws loose. I'd never argue that terrorists are "sane". (I suppose it's possible that some could be; but sanity surely isn't a requirement for the "terrorist" label) However, in this particular case, it's uncertain that he had the mental wherewithall to devise a clear motive.
3. "Officially", it wasn't terrorism. Read the article here. The prosecutor and FBI decided that it was a "hate crime", not terrorism. Obviously, it still warrants investigation as to whether or not it could be called terrorism in that article. However, this list is merely a compilation of accepted terrorist events. Any time there's substantial controversy over whether or not it qualifies, it should simply be removed. In this case, those most closely related to the investigation said it wasn't. The official view of the government was that it wasn't. As such, it can hardly be considered non-controversial or "straight-forward" that it definitely was. As such, it can't be included.

Now, only one of those is very strong or important. The very last one.
And that's also the binding reason.
How in the world can this list have any use at all if it's forced to devolve into, "List of possible terrorist incidents, even if the FBI says they aren't"? I mean, it's bad enough that state terrorism is already (selectively) excluded. But to then start including anything that anybody thinks might be, even when investigators decide that they aren't?
Again, I'm not suggesting that the article on the shooting itself should only be presenting the official word. But this list should be readable at a glance, with readers not feeling compelled to manually verify each entry whenever they read it.

Incidentally, I don't think the fact that he worked alone is at all relevant. A single person, even entirely unaffiliated, can very much be a terrorist. Bladestorm 15:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree that it better to sort it out here then to have an edit war. But the problem is as said above Law enforcement officials in Seattle say the Jewish Federation shooting was not terrorism law enforcement officials in Illinois say that the foiled "Jahid" plot against a mall is terrorism. Both lone wolf incidents in which the attacker is trying to kill as many as he could. Seattle shooter wanted some sort of "revenge" against Israel foiled mall grenade attacker had a less specific "jahid" motive. It would seem to me the Illinois guy had more of a pure hate crime motive then the Seattle guy. So should Wikipedia while not relying 100% on law enforcement give more weight to their seemingly inconsistent opinions in this case?. As far as how sane the attackers were based on the scant information available all we know is that the mental heath system seemed to have found the Seattle shooter(or the other way around?) and not the other guy. 69.114.117.103 04:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

I'll admit that I'm not familiar with the Illinois attempt. If you think it's necessary to know the details before I comment, then I'm more than happy to read any links you might have. In the meantime, there are other mall attacks on the list, so for now I'll proceed on the assumption that they're basically similar. If it's done as a jihad plot to terrorize, then it's terrorism. (I know, real helpful, eh?) But there are other things to consider.

First off, look at what was happening when the seattle guy went off. Israel was in the middle of butchering civilians. (I know, that's a very POV and politically charged statement to make, but it's true. And that's certainly how it would have seemed to him) The federation had, just five days earlier, held a rally in support of that massacre. (and before anyone accuses me of distorting facts, just look up info on "cluster bombs")

Still, that obviously wouldn't have justified violence. A rally is still very much peaceful, no matter what it's supporting. But I want you to remember something.

Remember right after the twin towers were attacked? A lot of muslims in north america (possibly elsewhere, I wouldn't know that) were victims of some pretty nasty crimes. Some were attacked, some had their homes, businesses, or mosques vandalized. And yet, even though they were being targetted solely based on their demographic, and even though they weren't the actual culprits that people were getting "revenge" for, it still didn't count as terrorism. Why? Because it was a hate crime. It was people lashing out at those they perceived as having wronged them. But that didn't make it terrorism.

But, still, I imagine you could easily argue against that rationale, so I'll go back to the strongest position. If law enforcement said the Illinois attempt was terrorism, and if everyone who actually investigated it said it was terrorism, and there's no real dissenting opinions on whether or not it was terrorism, then it can go on the list. When people start making significant arguments against its inclusion, it could then be removed.

But, in this case, there are very significant dissenting opinions. Most notably from everyone who was involved.

This includes the fbi, the prosecutor, the jewish federation themselves (the site's down right now, does it work to link to google cache like this?), and CNN.

So, in this case, it seems like it isn't "obvious", or "indisputable" that it was terrorism. As such, I don't think it should be included in a list of cut-and-dry terrorist incidents. When in doubt, leave it out. Bladestorm 15:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to apologize I did not realize the Illinois Incident had been taken out. Here is the link [8]. The difference between both the Seattle Shooter and Illinois plotter and most of the post 9/11 anti Muslim attacks is the involvement of a certain level of planning in advance. Many of the post 9/11 attacks were people seeing a person dressed a certain way and beating them up or "knowing" a neighbor was muslim and firebombing thier house. But certain attacks of that period maybe some of which was against your friends do belong on the list. Attacks against Mosques or local Muslim associations that occurred during that period were terrorism because they were symbolic targets. There could be many good reasons law enforcement disagreed on these similar incidents. The mental record is obvious. Seattle authorities may have been more attuned to preventing fear or reprisal attacks. Either Wikipidia agrees these style attacks are or are not terrorism and law enforcement views while noted and cited should not be the determining factor in listing attacks. 69.114.117.103 05:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Hi. I'll write a more detailed reply a bit later (I'm off to do a tutorial for first year comp sci students right now), but this is the part that I think has to trump everything else: The FBI, the prosecutor, the news, and even the Jewish Federation (ie. collectively the victim) all said it was a hate crime. Can you concede that, even if you don't agree, a sane and rational person still can think it wasn't terrorism? That is, do you concede that, at the very least, there's some dispute, controversy, or disagreement over it? (that isn't just localized to nutjobs, I mean.)

If so, then the issue should definitely be discussed in the article for the shooting itself, but it shouldn't be included on a list that's just meant to be read quickly. See what I mean? It should only include incidents that aren't heavily disputed. (and, by "disputed", I mean disputed logically, by sane people. I'm sure there's somebody who would say all the people in the twin towers were "asking for it", or some other such nonsense.) Bladestorm 22:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Reposting some of what I wrote above, with some added material. I've taken the liberty of moving it out to the left because it's getting too narrow.

If several users, even if some of them are anonymous, keep listing the incident, then there is a consensus among at least some editors that the incident qualifies. I believe that Wikipedia should be more inclusive, rather than more exclusive, of information. To a certain degree, the user/reader will always have to make his own decisions, but those decisions are best made with more information available, not less.

On the other hand, Bladestorm says "when in doubt, leave it out." He and I are at opposite ends of the spectrum. I'll make my case for putting in more, rather than less, information; I'll try to be brief.

Wikipedia is an amateur effort; that is, the people doing it are (often) not professionals or experts in the fields they write about, and even those of us who are may edit outside of their specialities. That's fine. However, it means that the information is inherently less reliable, and more subject to bias, intentional or otherwise. In order to overcome some of that bias, I think it is important to include more information than, for example, a professionally-produced encyclopedia would include, and let the reader make his own judgments.

Above, Bladestorm presented his view of the act (evil, but not terrorism), and then an anonymous user added his (definitely terrorism). The Definition of terrorism has a very good discussion, and here is a summary:

The victims of terrorist acts are targeted not because of who they are as individuals, but because of what group they represent. The motivation is not personal (i.e., against the individuals for who they are), but is political/religious/racial/ideological, etc. The purpose of terrorist violence can be intimidation, coercion, propaganda, manipulation, or to make demands. The aim is to create a state of terror among the general public or a particular group. The terrorists can be lone individuals or part of a larger group.

It's pretty broad. However, even by this broad definition, I think that this attack fits. The people targeted by the murderer were unknonwn to him; he attacked them because of their group membership. We know this from some of his statements:

"These are Jews. I’m tired of getting pushed around, and our people getting pushed around by the situation in the Middle East." "I'm a Muslim American; I'm angry at Israel." Note that those attacked were American Jews, even though he was angry at Israel.

It's clear he did it to make a statement:

"I'm only doing this for a statement." And he made demands:

(Indirect quote, from the main article on the attack): He demanded that the US military leave Iraq. He is said that this was his personal statement against Jews and the Bush administration for giving money to Jews, and for Jews for giving money to Israel, about Hezbollah, [and] the war in Iraq.

Incidentally, the FBI determined that the July 4, 2002 El Al shooting at LAX was terrorism. The terrorist in that case said much the same thing as the Jewish Federation attacker: he made anti-Israel statements and said he was against US policy in the Middle East.

So, I really don't see the justification for removing this incident from the list. It fits most of Wikipedia's own definition for terrorism, and, to my mind, is clearly terrorism. So, I'm putting it back in.

To respond directly to Bladestorm's three points:

1. "No clear idea of his motive." I think his statements make it clear enough: punishing Jews and getting revenge against them, and a desire to change US foreign policy in the Middle East. He appears to view "Jews" as a monolithic entity, regardless of citizenship, which is typical of anti-Semites.

2. "Mental instability." The FBI found that the Egyptian (Moslem, by the way) who shot up the El Al counter in LAX on July 4, 2002, was both mentally unstable and a terrorist. They are not mutually exclusive categories. (Most Westerners find terrorism to be so alien to their worlds—and worldviews—that we automatically think that terrorists must be mentally unbalanced, but psychologists generally deny that terrorists fit the definitions of mental illness as found in the DSM-IV.)

3. "'Officially,' it wasn't terrorism." Neither was the Tar Heel Terrorist attack, but it's included in this list. The fact of the matter is that local officials simply aren't terrorism experts, and often have little idea of what constitutes terrorism and what does not. Furthermore, whenever someone commits a politically-motivated act of violence in America, the authorities chant, "it's not terrorism." There appears to be a willful, politically-correct movement to deny that terrorism is occurring on US soil.

As for the FBI ruling out terrorism, they generally consider only those acts committed by groups to be terrorism. So by their definition, no lone-wolf act is ever terrorism. While this may make sense from the point of view of the FBI and its investigations, it is not the best way for the rest of the world to look at the problem.

By the way, as for Bladestorm's charge that "Israel was butchering civilians," did it ever occur to you that they were retaliating against acts of war committed against them? (I personally find your mischaracterization to be exceptionally biased. Furthermore, there is no such thing as a "disproportionate response." Any properly-fought war is an all-out war, where each side tries to destroy the other's will and ability to wage war. To say "no fair" when Israel responds to an attack is ludicrous.) In light of the situation in the Middle East, it makes this attack even more political and more likely to be politically-motivated, rather than just garden-variety anti-Semitism.

As for Bladestorm's assertion that "[a] lot of muslims in north america [sic]... were victims of some pretty nasty crimes," and and 69.114.117.103's assertion of retaliation against Moslems, could you list these attacks, or at least provide a link? If anything, Americans reacted with extraordinary restraint, with very few incidents. (Interesting to contrast this with the reaction of Moslems worldwide after they were urged to react to—cartoons.)

Well, I'm getting off-topic here, so I'll wrap it up.Godfrey Daniel 01:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a lot of material to reply to, so I hope you won't mind if I condense a bit, especially since I still owe our anonymous friend a better reply later.

As for Israel's actions: Cluster bombs are never proportionate. Any munition which has a very high chance of detonating after the conflict is over is unacceptable. That includes landmines. It was wrong that hezbollah used them. It was wrong that Israel used them far more.

I don't have links offhand referring to attacks against muslims. I know that someone tried burning down a mosque in my own hometown, but finding articles for the Standard online is a bit troublesome (they keep changing their online system).

The fact that you call it a "properly-fought" war, when so many civilians were directly targetted, is insulting.

Israel tried to say that anyone left in the southern end of lebanon could be considered a terrorist (and thus killed), even though several didn't have any means of escape, whether from lack of transport, illness, injury, OR THE BLOODY FACT THAT ISRAEL TOOK OUT SEVERAL MAJOR HIGHWAYS.

Any and all targetting of civilians on a large level can be called butchering, especially when limbs tend to get separated from people's bodies.

Israel was not responding directly to the attacks. Yes, they were attacked, but rather than focusing on hezbollah, they focused largely on civilians. That is to say, you can't retaliate against civilians for the actions of terrorists.

That's why, even though israel murdered so many palestinian civilians, the acts of hamas (and a buttload of other groups) are still entirely unjustifiable. Because targetting civilians based on what the IDF did is equally despicable.

And I have no problem expressing bias in a talk page. Though I have nothing against jews, I have a very strong dislike for the IDF and the current israeli government (and I think that Ariel Sharon was just as bad as Arafat was). It's very simple, any intentional harm of civilians is bad. Any terrorism is bad, whether by state, organization, or lone individual.

Now, that's as much time as I'm willing to devote to that debate. This isn't a forum, and this isn't really related to the article.

I still hope to address our anonymous friend's points later, but for now, my simple counter to you as well (which is going to sound like a broken record):

• The FBI said it wasn't terrorism.
• The prosecutor said it wasn't terrorism.
• News outlets presented it as a hate crime.
• The jewish federation called it a hate crime.
• Those investigating, prosecuting, reporting, and on the receiving end of the senseless violence all called it a hate crime.

There is ample evidence that, at the very least, it isn't readily cut and dry.

At the very least, though a reasonable person might be able to call it terrorism, a reasonable person can still say that it isn't terrorism.

Countless reasonable people have already done so.

As such, it shouldn't be included on a list of terrorist incidents. At the very least, including it would be Original Research, and as such, would have to be deleted immediately.

The very existence of the list is already very much in the grey area as far as Original Research is concerned, but deciding to include things specifically excluded by so many other (notable and reliable) sources is absolutely out of the question.

Now, do you have a specific line of reasoning to throw out the prohibition against original research?

Do you have a specific citation to directly and conclusively prove that the jewish federation (and fbi, and prosecutor, and cnn) can't be trusted? To the point where they don't even qualify as reliable or notable?

(Incidentally, just for the record, I'm neither muslim nor jew. I'm just a plain old canuck with no particular vested interest in either side, other than a general distaste for seeing nonsense being presented as logic.) Bladestorm 01:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

First I have to say again stop posting the incident until the matter is resolved. I do not know where you get the idea the I or others that disagree with you believe that people with your POV are unreasonable or that this is not a grey area. None of us have ever said that. Many incidents will have a greyness to them. I remember making a case in the other Seattle Shooting thread that 9/11 was terrorism arguments has significant flaws(and was shocked I did not get torn to threads on that one LOL). Your or my POV on the IDF is irrelevant to this talk page but I will suggest it is a good mental exercise to post incidents that hurt arguments for your POV. I have posted the Israeli settlers poisoning of Palestinian fields and Jewish Defense League incidents from the early 1970's because I believed they were terrorism. As far a the list thing this list and many of the other of the thousands of Wikipedia lists are to a large degree Original Research. Inclusion for the sake of inclusion in these lists is wrong but when there is a reasonable debate include with cites for both sides of the argument. 69.114.117.103 04:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

..

(I hope you don't mind me changing your indents. These things just tend to grow quickly.) Mind if I call you "Ed" instead of "our anonymous friend"? :)

Sorry if I made it seem like I thought you were accusing me of being unreasonable. I just always feel weird if I say things like, "nobody could possibly disagree with" something, because there are always weirdoes. :)

Anyways, I very much agree that there are certainly reasonable arguments to be made. The problem is that, in a simple list, there isn't room to say "both sides of the argument". I mean, how would the entry look?

July 2006: A man of pakistani descent opens fire in the Seattle Jewish Federation. Though deemed not terrorism by the FBI, prosecutor, major news outlets, and the Jewish Federation themselves, it was still called terrorism by some.?

That's why I would be arguing just as fiercely against removing all suggestions of terrorism from the main shooting from the article. Where appropriate, both sides need to be covered, even if I personally disagree with them. But, in this case, including it in the list very definitively chooses one side over the other. And since it's easy to cite references that explicitly state that it wasn't terrorism, it's absolutely impossible to take solely the "it's terrorism" side. If you try including both sides in the list, then anything that could possibly be deemed terrorism by anyone ends up on the list. It's just too messy. Too inconsistent. It just seems that (reasonably) indisputable events should be included, but nothing else. To that end, I have no problem with including incidents that may not have been explicitly declared terrorism by law enforcement, but things which were explicitly deemed not terrorism are bad candidates. And when that declaration is repeated by the victims... eh... it just seems like it's too much. Bladestorm 06:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Do not care about indenting do what you must. I have written an incident in the "Terrorism in the United States" with a dispute. "1994 The Earth Liberation Front since its founding that year has committed more than 1,200 acts of vandalism and arson in the U.S., causing more than $200 million in damage to property that they believe is being used to injure animals, people or the environment. The FBI has classified the group as the top domestic terror threat. Because they do not target people they have objected to being categorized as terrorists. " For this case I would write what happened the shooters statements and mention that the categorization of this incident as terrorism is vigorously disputed and use many cites to direct the reader to the pros and cons. That way you do not use to much room but if the reader chooses to use the reader can get a good education on the disputes and difficulties in categorizing terrorism. Your concern is about opening a can of worms is valid but so far my U.S. entry has caused no problems. My theory is that most incidents do not cause this level of dispute at least in the population that edits Wikipedia articles. If doing so here does cause problems I will agree with your recommendation on "reasonable agreement" 69.114.117.103 12:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Is that really feasible, though? Keep in mind that I very strongly believe that lists should have entirely neutral and reliable information, that can be quickly read at a glance. Now, keeping that in mind, consider how this would have to be written:

An American Muslim of Pakistani descent opened fire inside the Jewish Federation of Seattle, killing one and wounding four. This event was explicitly declared to not be terrorism by both the FBI and the lead prosecutor, who both classified it as a "hate crime". News organizations followed suit. The Jewish Federation, the actual target of the crime, also instead called it a "hate crime".

In case you didn't notice, going strictly by character-count, literally two thirds of the entry would be disclaimers explaining why it shouldn't be on the list. If you also wanted to include why it would be considered terrorism, then you'd have to either explicitly state a rationale right in the text (which would be original research), or cite a credible, notable, and verifiable other source (not an editorial) declaring it terrorism, in spite of the ruling of the fbi and the expressed beliefs of the target. You don't think that entry would be rather long? What's more, wouldn't that be very much redundant with the article about the shooting itself?

Beyond the general problem of presenting extremely highly disputed entries into the list, it also leaves the general problem: You absolutely couldn't add it to the list without including those disclaimers right with it. (Can you imagine if someone was looking for information for a school project or something, and only went off the list for some quick examples, but then later found out that one of his examples was explicitly declared "not terrorism" by literally every single party involved?) Bladestorm 12:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I would try something like this "July 2006 Seattle Jewish Federation shooting An American Muslim of Pakistani descent opened fire killing one and injuring four. The shooter stated that he took this action as act of revenge because of what he felt were atrocities committed against Muslims by Israel. (War in Lebanon going on at that time?). Law enforcement and the target of the attack have described the incident as a hate crime and not terrorism. This assertion has been disputed (cites for/against)". I disagree that editorials are not a reputable source for a discussion of the definition of terrorism. It is a political subject which is their purview. The top of this article acknowledges the definition of terrorism is in dispute. I do not put in specific disclaimers letting the hyperlink to the Wikipedia article and the cites do that work. As far as that school kid give him /her a "D" for extreme laziness if the kid does not figure out this is disputed. As said above I do not think this type of listing will become the norm but if it does we do what we did with "alleged state terrorism" 69.114.117.103 08:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

You actually bring up (indirectly) a very interesting point: State Terrorism. So the current plan of action would be to continue discounting certain undeniable acts of state terrorism, officially "due to controversy", and yet intentionally allow other incidents which, at the very least, are also "controversial"? So... If the leader of a government decides to gas a couple hundred people, then that's out. But this is in? That seems so inconsistent to me. I just don't believe that "lists" should contain elements that are very strongly disputed. (in this case, very strongly) I wouldn't mind getting another opinion though, if anyone else is reading this. (other than from anyone likely to go off on a tangent about why blacks or muslims are destroying the planet) Bladestorm 14:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I will second the call for more people to jump into this debate. We are killing ourselves arguing over motives and yet there listings for incidents with no known motives 69.114.117.103 04:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

To be honest, I've given up on trying to convince you of motives. :) You've clearly given it a lot of very rational thought, and trying to change your mind on that point would be somewhat disrespectful. All I'm still trying to argue is the appropriateness of including entries that are (verifiably) heavily disputed. In this case, don't forget that even the Jewish Federation themselves called it a "hate crime". Even if you'd argue that the investigator, prosecutor, and victim are all wrong, that still adds up to a very grey area, at the very least. And that is what I'd like to get some more input on. (especially when state terrorism is supposedly excluded due to "controversy".) Bladestorm 05:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

---

More indent-changing by me. Hope no one minds.

Three last thoughts about war and the fight that surrounding Muslims incessantly pick with Israel. First, taking out the enemy's infrastructure is a time-honored tactic. Why should the Israelis be barred from it, especially when the Palestinians attack Israeli infrastructure (albeit on a smaller scale) all the time? Second, Arafat was a despicable, lying, two-faced murderer and terrorist. He never missed the opportunity to miss an opportunity. He is in a very, very special place in hell now. As bad as some Israeli leaders may be or may have been, none have sunk to his abysmally low level. Finally, Western news media reporting of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is horribly biased. Attacks made by Palestinians (etc.) are just barely mentioned, and Israeli victims are absent, but every Israeli counterattack is played to the hilt, and Palestinian victims get plenty of coverage. (Remember that the Palestinians have a choreographed victim play ready for Western reporters. Michelle Malkin dubbed it "Hezbollywood," and it stars the infamous "Green Helmet."

But you're right, this isn't the proper forum for this discussion.

Bladestorm, you are correct that a reasonable person could doubt that it was terrorism. (However, I find the entire concept of "hate crime" to be repugnant. Two reasons. 1: It doesn't matter what someone was thinking when he committed a crime; what matters is that he broke the law. (Think of the classic law school thought experiment of someone shooting a gun through a window, and just coincidentally hitting and killing someone who happens to be falling past said window: it's still murder.) 2. It sets up certain classes of victims as being somehow more valuable than others. A murder victim who was killed because of his skin color/race/sexual orientation/religion/etc. is just as dead as someone who was killed for any other reason. But again, I digress.)

Back to the point. While reasonable people can disagree as to whether or not it was terrorism, it seems that most of the reasonable people posting here think that it is. I'd disagree that it's original research, since this attack does fit Wikipedia's own definition of terrorism.

Finally, as I have mentioned elsewhere, there is a willful refusal to acknowledge terrorist attacks as such when they are committed by Moslems in the West. (Hate to have to bring up the Islamic thing, but there is a reason.) This follows Auster's First Law of Majority-Minority Relations: "The worse any designated minority or alien group behaves in a liberal society, the bigger become the lies of Political Correctess in covering up for that group." In this case, Moslems are committing crimes, and even acts of terror, in our midst. However, since they are a designated minority, those acts are whitewashed and under-reported. Doubt it? Well, have you heard of the gang rapes going on in Scandinavia and Australia? Groups of young Moslem men go out and assault and rape white women. It's reached epidemic proportions, yet we never hear about it. Funny how that doesn't rate any air time or any column space, but the Duke "rape" case gets in the news over and over again. Similarly, according to the US Department of Justice (sorry, can't find the original link, but here's a different one with the same data), there have been, on average, 15,000 black-on-white rapes per year for the past several years, but less than 900 white-on-black rapes (the number is actually lower, as crime committed by Hispanics is conflated with that committed by whites). That means that blacks commit about 17 times more rapes than whites--yet are only 12% of the population. When adjusted for percentage of population, blacks are 200 times more likely to rape than whites. But do we ever hear about this? Ever?

Relevance? It backs up the claim that the politically-correct news media downplay, and even ignore, the crimes of designated minorities, including terrorism committed by non-white non-Christians. So that's why I don't give much creedence to the various non-expert groups who chant, "it's not terrorism!" Godfrey Daniel 07:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Question about images

I noticed that someone removed an image from the article. Since they didn't even say why, Turelio (sorry, I have no clue how to get that accent over the 'u') reverted the change. And that was probably the best move, considering the lack of a provided reason for removing it.
However... it does leave me wondering, should that image really be there?
I'm talking about the one of the poor monks killed by the LTTE.
Considering this is a compiled list of incidents, I'd question whether or not images were really necessary at all. They relate to the details of the incidents themselves, but don't really contribute anything to its understandability as a list.
Besides that, showing images of corpses with their brains spilling out is really a bit too graphic. I realize that wikipedia is supposedly "not censored", but that's really pushing the limits, especially for a list. I won't plead for respect for the dead, since I know that wouldn't really be "encyclopedic", but I don't understand the rationale for having such a graphic and gruesome depiction in a list of all things.
Comments? Bladestorm 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, since there weren't any replies, I've removed the image.

Of course, I'm more than happy to discuss it if anyone disagrees. I simply don't see the need in including such a graphic image in a mere compiled list. In an article about the shooting, an argument could be made. But here? Is it necessary? Bladestorm 16:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

England Letter Bombs entries are premature

I guess the justification is that the British media are calling it a terror campaign but as I write this the motive is unknown. There is a widely held theory that these attacks are a protest against Englands system of taxes and fees that were put on moterists to hinder global warming and traffic congestion. If the theory is true this would qualify as terrorism because it would be a social motive. The only "proof" of this is weak circumstantial evidence based on the targeting of the letter bombs. But as of this writing this is a THEORY. As I illuded to in the above discussion with Bladestorm this is a general problem with this listing. The 1975 LaGuardia Airport bombing stands out but there are others on the list. The idea here is that if it looks like a terrorist attack it must be a terrorist attack but this may not be true. 69.114.117.103 07:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Terrorism & Terrorist Tagging are POV & Subjective

For more details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SAR23/Terrorism_%26_Terrorist_Tagging_are_POV_%26_Subjective

SAR23 15:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Settling the Seattle Jewish Center Shooting issue once and for all

I have three suggestions as a STARTING POINT for this discussion.

1. Straight up or down vote Should it be in or should it not be in?

2. Do like we did with state sponsered terrorism and something to the effect of "Incidents by individuals primarly motivated by revenge or hatred of a group or groups are not included due to controversy". PRO The controversy is over a larger disagreement then the one incident itself and reflects a fundemental disagreement over what is and is not terrorism that is unsolvable at this point. CON The other incidents of this nature do not have this controversy and the point of Wikipedia is to spread information not self censure it.

3. "Incidents by individuals are not included due to controversy". PRO Takes the PRO arguments for 2 further by saying trying to figure out motives by individuals adds a whole new set of intractable issues. CON The dispute is just over the issues in 2. Do not jump the gun and assume these other issues will be intractable

I will stay away from this discussion (not the article itself) for a period of time Edkollin 04:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt anyone's likely to be able to come to a consensus on any of those, to be honest.

What I think is a more viable approach is to set aside the terrorism aspect of it entirely.

In this case, we have a very heavily disputed incident. Some editors disagree that it's terrorism. The FBI disagreed that it's terrorism. The prosecutor denied that it's terrorism. The Jewish Federation called it a hate crime.

If this was a list of just about any other subject, evidence of severe disagreement would be enough to keep it off the list. In general, a list/category should only contain reasonably non-disputed instances.

Of course, it also occurs to me that BLP (biography of living persons) also applies here, but I'd prefer to establish a criteria that doesn't change depending on whether they're still alive or not.

In this case, I think saying that, "It has to be reasonably accepted that it's terrorism", and conversely that, "It can't be reasonably and heavily disputed that it's terrorism" really isn't all that overzealous of a guideline. Bladestorm 14:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Tech massacre

Virginia Tech massacre should and must be included in this list. It has a larger death toll than Columbine High School massacre and the École Polytechnique Massacre, both of which are school massacres and both of who listed are included in this list. The 2004 Beslan hostage crisis are also included in this list and is a school massacre as well. Jairus Garin 05:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that if Columbine Massacre is listed the Virginia Tech Massacre should also be listed. But my POV is that both should be deleted. All three shooters were highly mentally ill and was carrying out a revenge attacks against (apparently in the case of the Virginia Tech shooter as the information about motive is still sketchy as of this writing) perceived personal slights and were not trying to and were probably to narcissistic to be even thinking about perceived social or political injustice. Go to the CNN website and watch the interview with his roommates Edkollin 06:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

With the partial release of Cho's manifesto [9],[10]the case against listing the Virginia Tech Massacre becomes murkier. No clear motive or clear anything is stated and 95% of it is rambling perceived slights against him personally but not all of it. He mentions doing it for his brothers and sisters and Jesus Christ dying for others. He rages against several groups.He does call the Columbine Killers martyrs. He say you have done a 9/11 on my life. He has a drawing tilted "number of the anti-terrorist" on page 11. The strongest case for listing the incident occurs on page 21 with the phrase "let the revolution begin". Also in all of the media coverage of the incident at no point has the incident been labeled a terrorist attack. However two regular folks being interviewed by newsday one called him a terrorist and one labeled the incident a terrorist attack. At this point I still do not think it should be listed. The release of the rest of his manifesto may but probably will not clear things up Edkollin 06:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Are there any citations from reliable sources which label any of these as "terrorist" incidents (which explicitly use the word "terrorist")? If not, they both should probably be deleted from the list. My personal opinion would be they don't fit the definition of terrorism as there doesn't appear to be any deep rooted, well planned political motivation behind any of the incidents. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 16:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

For what it is worth Newsweek Magazine in this weeks cover story calls calls Cho "a terrorist who calls himself an "Anti-terrorist" [11]and columnist James P. Pinkerton writes "It's not pleasant to think about fortresses, but it's worse to think about more acts of terrorism." [12]

I agree. But the only real solution to this problem is to both: (a) be clear about what criteria are being used for inclusion; and (b) admit all reasonable criteria -- otherwise people would disagree about which criteria to choose. This could be achieved by labeling each act according to the criteria used. The downside is that this would be a lot of work. -- DBooth 15:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Renaming the article

The following was originally posted at the top of this page under #Title_needs_to_reflect_restriction_to_.22non-state_terrorism.22_only. It has been moved here to conform to official guidelines.

If this article is limited to acts of non-state terrorism only, then its title needs to be changed to reflect that fact. It is misleading to call it a "List of terrorist incidents" when it is really a "List of non-state terrorist incidents". -- DBooth 06:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless others suggest a better solution, I plan to rename this page to "List of non-state terrorist incidents" soon, in conformance with wikipedia guidelines at Help:Moving_a_page. More specifically, this probably means moving the current contents to "List of non-state terrorist incidents" and, in the old page, linking to both the new "List of non-state terrorist incidents" page and the existing List of state terrorist incidents page. Comments? Other suggestions? -- DBooth 23:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- DBooth 02:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I am dismayed to see that someone has reverted the page retitling described above and redirected "List of non-state terrorist incidents" to "List of terrorist incidents". I am reinstating the change per the above, as this change has been open for discussion for two months, and no objections were raised. If you disagree with the corrected title, please discuss it on this talk page BEFORE reverting the page again. Thanks. -- DBooth 20:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion has been made that the article should be renamed as "List of non-state terrorist incidents", and it will be nice to gauge if there is any consensus for this.

Why are you adding this paragraph here? Input on the proposed title correction was prominently solicited over two months ago at the top of this page (see #Title_needs_to_reflect_restriction_to_.22non-state_terrorism.22_only). No other suggestions were made, and no objections were raised. The change was then enacted. -- DBooth 07:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I personally think the article is better off as it is, especially and the fact that most "terrorist incindets" a la 9/11 and the 7 July 2005 London bombings, are almost universally called "terrorist acts" and not "non-state terrorist acts". Remember Wikipedia is not made up of original research and we cannot name things as we wish, but instead have to stick to the commonly accepted and cited terms. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 16:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If you think the original title is better please explain why. There is no "original research" whatsoever involved in aligning the title more precisely with its actual scope. The corrected title makes no change whatsoever to the content or scope of the article. -- DBooth 15:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You won't get any argument from me about calling 9/11 a "terrorist incident". But what kind of terrorist incident was it? The scope of this article is specifically limited to terrorist incidents that are NOT considered state terrorism. (Incidents of state terrorism are excluded from this page and listed on a separate page.) Please read the beginning of the article if you are unclear about this. -- DBooth 15:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As an example, the cars on the New Jersey Turnpike are almost universally called "cars", though some of them are red cars and some of them are non-red cars. There is no need to refer to them specifically as "red cars" or "non-red cars" unless the distinction is relevant. But if an article is written about "Cars on the New Jersey Turnpike", but the actual scope of the scope of the article is specifically limited to non-red cars, then the distinction clearly *is* relevant, in which case titling the article "Cars on the New Jersey Turnpike" is either misleading or it is strongly biased toward a particular POV (that red cars do not count as cars). -- DBooth 15:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Finally, please read the talk page BEFORE reverting changes. As mentioned, this title correction was discussed over two months ago, with no objections. -- DBooth 07:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

DBooth, as such a name change isn't a minor point, IMHO you can't conclude that everybody agreed to that only from the fact that nobody objected to it, as actually nobody at all answered to your proposal. Though the latter may be disappointing, it might have been better to raise the question again in order to get some input from other contributors to this article. And that is what User:Snowolfd4 tried with this paragraph. -- Túrelio 07:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, DBooth, if you're going to suggest an important change to an article, then you may want to respect conventional wikipedia practices, like adding new topics to the end of a talk page. You put your 'discussion' about moving it at the very top. True, comments are comments regardless of their location, but there's a reason the "Add a comment to this discussion" button automatically adds to the bottom of the page. It's because that's how people can easily see that there's a new addition without having to scour the page-history or 70+ element table of contents every day. If you don't make it easy for people to see your suggestions, then don't be surprised if you don't get much participation. Bladestorm 13:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware of that convention. I solicited input at the TOP of the page precisely to maximize the likelihood that people would see it and comment, since very few people normally read the bottom of a long page, but nearly everyone reads the top. -- DBooth 15:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit) Oops, sorry. I was (slightly) wrong. It isn't just conventional wikipedia practice, it's actually part of the official guidelines. Bladestorm 13:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, I missed that. Respecting wikipedia practice and guidelines is exactly what I tried to do in prominently raising the issue and soliciting input on this page over two months ago. -- DBooth 15:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

So now the issue is raised BOTH at the top and the bottom of this page. Is there any other mechanism you suggest for soliciting input? It is rather frustrating to solicit input for so long, get none, make the discussed change, and then have someone revert the work WITHOUT discussing it. -- DBooth 15:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

George Tenet Book

The ex head of the CIA discusses plots that were thwarted or cancelled over a several year period in different countries [13]. Should this be included and if so how? Edkollin 08:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Clearly such alleged plots should NOT be included. Regardless of how credible they are, this page is a list of incidents of terrorism that actually occurred -- not a list of every terrorist plot or pipe dream. -- DBooth 15:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What about the "plot" in Saudi Arabia where actual arrests have been made?. By the way as you may know the "Terrorism in the United States" article has a separate section for "failed plots" and another one for "Arrests and Detentions" Edkollin 05:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe such interrupted plots should be in the relevant "Terrorism in COUNTRYNAME" articles until a pattern emerges for an article. This makes it easier to explain the situation within each country. Keeping them within the context of each country also helps deal with variations in local laws. (SEWilco 16:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC))

Terorrism in Colombia

I have added terrorist attacks that occured in Colombia, mainly in 1988 - 1993. It took a lot of research and there were simply too many to detail all of them. I have only added the ones I could verify through newspapers and news agencies. More is to come, as terrorism in Colombia was an issue again in the late 90s/early 2000s. It seems to me very few people are actually sourcing their contributions, though. I have made an effort to provide verifiable sources, but many times the count of victims differs due to deaths that occur a few days after the incident, missing people, etc. As you can see, the list is now littered with Colombian flags...Jealonso 19:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC) Jealonso

@Jealonso, good work. If possible, could you add the titles of the articles in the references. Thanks. -- Túrelio 20:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Turelio: I have added the titles whenever they were available. A lot of the information came from AP excerpts without titles, but I am working on obtaining the titles published in newspapers so we can make it more professional. Thanks for the suggestions. Jealonso 20:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Jealonso

I'm not aware of untitled sources being covered in style guide, but I'd be satisfied with using the first few words of the article, followed by …, as a placeholder for a title. At least it provides some identification of the content. When someone finds an actual headline they can replace it. Perhaps WP:CITE should include this. (SEWilco 16:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC))

Bishop incident taken out

I deleted "the bishop" case where a man sent pipe bombs and threatening letters to Midwest U.S. Financial Service Companies. Although defiantly using coercive tactics motive according to cite was to raise stock prices for personal financial gain. This was regular old criminal extortion not terrorism. Edkollin 08:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

1831: Jan van Speyk detonates his own ship in the harbour of Antwerp.

Does that really fit as "terrorism".

The guys boat/ship ran aground in 'enemy/rebel' territory. It was boarded by rebels/enemies civilians, rather than comply with their demands. He blew up the boat.

I seem to remember that at the battle of the Alamo, it was rumored that someone was trying to get to the powder magazine to blow it up. (Would that have been terrorism?)

No. Destroying your equipment before the "enemy" gets a hold of it or trying to destroy "enemy" gunpowder is a normal wartime practice. There is no trying to coerce a population or trying to make a political or social statement. There were probably civilians killed in the van Speyk incident but not innocent ones.Edkollin 08:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mumbai2006.jpg

Image:Mumbai2006.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)