Open main menu

Wikipedia β

Talk:Terrorism

edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Terrorism:

I think we should add 'new terrorism' under the broad heading of terrorism. It is widely accepted within scholarly and policy circles we are in the midst of confronting something fundamentally different to the terrorisms of old.

Add link to Terrorism and internet article Blade8603 (talk) 13:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The linking of civil disorder and terrorism is tenuous at the least.


New paragraph in leadEdit

Should the paragraph added to the lead in this edit be allowed to stand, amended, or removed? Is the single source quoted sufficient to fully support the statements and the editorial tone ("no doubt whatsoever", "peaceful civilians" twice, "gruesome and blood shedding")? There appears to room for a lot of doubt about the statements in the light of what States do in the course of warfare: Noyster (talk), 09:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Remove for now. It says way too much in WP's voice, thus stated as certainty, things that are not only debated but actually contradicted in the next paragraph. There may be some point or two among all this that could be okay to state, but it wouldn't make this worth salvaging; just delete, and then maybe try again from scratch. --A D Monroe III(talk) 16:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

"indiscriminate"Edit

I find the use of this term confusing. Terrorism is, in my mind, certainly not "done at random or without careful judgement". The choice to fly two planes into the WTC was certainly not a random choice. The choice to murder people working at Charlie Hebdo in 2015 was a very specific choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davyker (talkcontribs) 19:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Terrorism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Terrorism and war crimesEdit

I think the two things are separate topics that can sometimes cross each other. Terrorism aims to frighten the civilian population to achieve a political objective, and war crimes are simply violations of code of conduct for waging war. CommanderOzEvolved (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

That's one view. Another is that people carrying out the sames crimes in the name of a government should be seen in the same way as people who are not employed by a recognized government. TFD (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
It is not clear what you mean TFD. International humanitarian law , draws a distinction between non-combatants, civilians who engage in combat, and combatants. In most cases combatants can legally carry out acts that would but considered a breach of municipal law by an enemy state if that state was not a party to a conflict -- eg bombing an enemy railway station is not a crime under international law. There is a whole article on unlawful combatants, that includes civilians engaged in combat, mercenaries and child soldiers. To weaken the moral of an enemy is considered to be a legitimate military option, the methods used to weaken enemy moral must be within the laws of war. In the case of terrorism it is not a question of the laws of war (unless one is in the Alice in Wonderland area of the Bush War on Terror), it is a question of whether the action is a breach of local municipal law. -- PBS (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Again, not every source agrees with that. In any case the article takes no side on the issue but reports the various views in Terrorism#State terrorism. TFD (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Return to "Terrorism" page.