Talk:Terrorism/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

First paragraph

From where I stand, "the use of violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religous, or ideological goal" is appliable to a too wide range of acts. Any militar action, such as the recent invasion of Iraq would be classified as terrorism... there are many other examples but I have no time to write them all. To my mind, terrorism would be perfectly defined by "the use of TERROR (great fear induced to the masses) for the purpose of achieving a political or ideological goal".I would erase 'religious', this statement alludes clearly to Islamic terrorism, whose goal is simply politic and they use religion as an excuse to recruit masses.

--GTubio 07:22, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I always liked this one: "Raising 'Collateral' targets to the Primary role in an act of mass violence for the purpose of instilling fear or causing chaos in order to advance one's cause." It gets everything: Hiroshima isnt terrorism because the people were not the target; they were such collateral that the even the Nation of Cowboys refuses to use that weapon any more, but they were not the target. Blowing up a group of shoppers in an Israeli mall IS terrorism: the shoppers are the primary targets of a violient action in order to advance the cause of the oppressed Palestinians. Bombing the USS Cole was not terrorism because it was a military target. Crashing planes into the WTC towers IS terrorism because the target, symbolic buildings and teh people in them, is what would be normally "collateral damage" in open warfare. Tom S.

No kidding. This "definition" is a joke! - Mustafaa 02:28, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Much more plausible is Merriam-Webster's "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion". - Mustafaa 02:29, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That means when I scared my little brothers into submission as a teenager I wasnt just a bully, I was a terrorist. Nope... still doesnt work. Unless you want to say that the the good relationship I NOW share with my brothers is just Stockholm Syndrome.  ;) Tom S.

I think terrorism does not apply to the American invasion to Iraq, because it does not intentionally target Iraqi civilians in order to achieve publicity to the American cause. The publicity of Iraqi civilian casualties (and the Invasion in general) only hurts the American cause, whereas civilian casualties only assist the cause of real terror groups, and are one of the main reasons for them in the first place. Think about this logic: if you think America wanted to steal the Iraqi oil, how does publicity benefit this illegal intention? so it follows, whatever your political persuasion, you'd have to agree that America invaded iraq DESPITE the publicity, and not because of it. A main Terrorism characteristic is a desperate effort against obscurity and a compulsive attention deficiency...

Well... that and the fact that the majority of Iraqi civilian casualties have been the result of the "insurgency", not US actions. Which would make my definition of terrorism a shoo-in for describing the insurgency.  :) Tom S.

Somebody has used the definition of Guerilla warfare, inserted the terms "through intimidation or by instilling fear" (as if this is not the psychological warfare tactics in every war) and thinks the matter is settled. This is disgusting bastardisation of a term. By that definition I am probably a sympathizer with terrorists. Terrorists seek ways to inflict terror on civillians and non-political figures for publicity. Criminals terrorize regularly. Morasul 12:57, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No... I dont think the criminals terrorizing thing works, but I think you're on the right track. It's all a matter of WHO you're targeting. Much as I am a patriotic American, I have to admit that there is no objective way to describe events such as the bombing of the USS Cole as terrorism. It was a valid military target; it was a geurilla hit and a damn good one. If it had been a civilian cruise ship or yacht, THEN it would be terrorism! But criminals aren't trying to advance a cause not directly affected by the strike; so they aren't terrorists either! The definition MUST: net in any sane definition of terrorism BARRING political bias, and must be FREE of ambiguities that cause common-sense non-terrorists to be lumped into the label. Tom S.

Really, there ought to be a distinction between terrorists and "guerrillas." It’s unfortunate that the terminology is not used more precisely. I’d propose something like the following definition for “terrorist”: Someone who systematically targets civilians in order to create disaffection between the populace and the government. Thus, I’d categorize blowing up an airliner or a restaurant as terrorism, while I would call driving a truck of explosives into a marine barracks (or a boat of explosives into a warship) as a military attack.

I agree. What do you think of mine above? Tom S.

if you do not consider the invasion of iraq terrorism then you must reject the definition, "the systematic use of terror..." - the first phase of the american invasion was self-titled the "shock and awe" campaign.

Exactly. Tom S.

In regards to GTubio's objection to "religion" being a reason for terrorism ("this statement clearly alludes to Islamic terrorism"), it does not (at least not to me). Having had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) training, anti-abortion clinic bombings are considered by the government to be a form of terrorism and they are associated with the (Christian) religious right.

Likewise the IRA is widely considered a terrorist group. However, I think limiting the causes necessary for definition as terrorism to religion to be overly limiting of the definition itself. By that I mean that using religion in the definition excludes or at least reduces the fit of NON religious terrorism. Tom S.

The opening section is extremely obtuse IMO. What in the name of Bin Laden's grandma is FISA-Terrorism? I'd never heard this term before and the definition doesn't help me very much. The whole opening section could do with a severe rewrite.

Exile 15:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

A definitional view

terrorism is a form of warfare. that is to say, politics by other means. the term is therefore subject to the same disputes of ethics, morality and law as are other types of warfare. the most prominent of these other types is military warfare.

definitions of the term usually depend of these four elements: a) subject b) object c) the means d) the objective.

the term is currently used when one or more of the following is true: a) the subject is a non-state actor b) the object is a non-combatant c) the means are not military (ie conventional tools such as guns, bombs, tanks, ships & planes) d) the objective is to change the established order.

this leads to both inconsistencies of usage and overlaps with miltary warfare. for instance: iraqi partisans defending falluja against united states marines fall under definition a) above, whereas the united states marines fall under d) with a strong case to be made under b) if the (very few) news reports are to be believed. in any case, by this reasoning, both sides are terrorist. notwithstanding this, the united states marines would claim to be engaging in military warfare.

other cases in point are: cretan partisan defence against german paraborne invasion in world war 2; the atomic bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki; the warsaw uprising in world war 2; the vietcong; the american revolutionaries.

in practice then, the term is used to suggest that one or more of the elements are good or bad in his / her opinion. that is to say: the speaker wishes to imply one or more of a) the subject is bad b) the object is good c) the means are bad d) the objective is bad.

if the speaker wishes to certify the person or the action as illegitimate, then he / she finds cause in one or more of the four elements. if he / she doesn't, then he / she finds cause in one or more of the four elements. it is that easy.

let us be grateful for, and irritated by, the elasticity of the english language.

"Intention" a factor? I disagree

At the very least that section is disputed and should be cleaned up to accurately relflect the opposing view. Concern for 100,000 civilians killed should have included the possibility of not invading. Would bombing a hospital or arresting doctors count as terrorism? Here is the problematic section from the "No concern for civilian life or safety" sub section:

If the attackers make at least some attempt to reduce civilian casualties, such as by using precision-guided munitions rather than weapons designed to cause maximum area damage; if civilians in the target zone are forcefully removed prior to the attack, or warned and allowed a reasonable space of time to evacuate; if the attackers show some concern to civilian casualties, or if they indicate the primary target to be the "system" rather than its civilian inhabitants. Attacks that lack any of these traits are more easily defined as terrorism.

zen master T 06:30, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've contributed to that portion, but for the record, they were only for grammatic reasons. I'm relatively neutral on the whole concept, really; I'm just trying to contribute my knowledge of the language. If it's to stay, I think perhaps it could be rephrased as 'potential signs of non-terrorism', with the emphasis on 'potential'. Perhaps a more appropriate approach would simply be to point out that civilian(s) unforeseeably getting in the way (intelligence failure, battlefield accidents, 'being a hero') is not the same as targetting them (or allowing them to become targets due to recklessness or neglect). Dunno. -- Wisq 00:13, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

Re. "First paragraph", and generally agreeing with "A definitional view"

The article as it stands now takes a strong and, in my opinion, a biased stance, in trying to define "terrorism".

In spite of its several and varied qualifications to the definition -- that the term is "controversial", that it has "multiple definitions", providing various conflicting examples, and so on -- the fact that any definition of "it" as a "term" even is offered, here, immediately involves an inescapable contradiction. In our post-9/11 "War on Terrorism" world, the term itself has been appropriated by adherents of one extremist political position, such that if you believe "terrorism" can be defined, at all, then you're on their side, and if you don't you're against them. This may be linguistic and logical nonsense, but nowadays it is political fact.

It is nonsense. Plenty of dictionaries define terrorism in their own way; are they all now considered extremists? Or by "their" side, do you mean the dictionaries are all run by terrorists? I'm sure Oxford and Webster's would love to hear that. Why, as an encyclopedia, should we refrain from telling the truth (that people have defined this, over and over again) just because some nuts will think that means we're taking sides in the "war"? -- Wisq 19:12, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

A good illustration of the contradiction can be found in the definition in fact offered here. The article starts out saying the term has multiple definitions, but then says, "Intentional violence against civilians (noncombatants) is the type of action most widely condemned as 'terrorism'..." -- which looks and sounds pretty "definitional", to me. Problems then arise with every word in that definition. "Intentional", for example, causes difficulties for even its simplest applications in basic criminal law, in defining and discerning "mens rea" and the rest. "Violence" defies definition too, both syntactically and semantically: was Nelson Mandela a "terrorist" when he merely "thought about" violence? or when he "prepared to use" violence, but then didn't? -- was Patrick Henry a "terrorist" because he "advocated" violence? because he used "violent words"? -- is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater 'terrorism'?..., aka. what does it take?

Firstly, it's not "definitional". There are many definitions of terrorism. It's just that the particular action stated, "intentional violence against civilians", happens to be considered terrorism by most or all definitions of the term. Some may define that as the definition, but others may simply include it as a possible terrorist action.

Secondly, "intentional" is defined as "done or made or performed with purpose and intent". It does not mean "having the intent but not performing the action". Hence, questions about thought versus deed are moot; it's only the combination that is considered "intentional". -- Wisq 19:12, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

And "civilians" is even more problematic, as the article recognizes: it makes very little sense, in fact, in the modern war-making world -- even as supposedly-qualified by the other vague term "non-combatants" -- civilians have been participants in warfare at least since Napoleon's "massed armies" -- and since the Fall of the Wall, and the end of the bi-polar Cold War, any armed resistance to forces-in-power has been "not in uniform".

You counter your own point here -- "armed resistance". The "typical definition" on the page states "unarmed and not in uniform". -- Wisq 19:12, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

So the "terrorism" definition offered here, even couched and qualified as carefully as it is, simply defines any armed resistance to established authority as "terrorism". If they're not "civilians or non-combatants", then what else would they be?... But that's not linguistics, or logic, it's a political position.

Show me a government that will try to quell resistance by sending in unarmed, out-of-uniform officers. Then maybe I'll call that resistance "terrorism". -- Wisq 19:12, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

The article needs to step back from even saying that "terrorism" is a "term" amenable to "definition" nowadays, then. See George Lakoff and Hannah Arendt and Harold Lasswell, among many others, on the appropriation of previously-neutral terminology for political purposes. Certain rightwing political parties, in various countries, have appropriated the term "terrorism" for their own political agendas, now, and even merely suggesting that the term has any sort of "definitional" meaning puts Wikipedia into their conservative / reactionary / "established power" political camps -- as vs. anyone who disagrees with them, or who wants to change the established political system, somewhere, peacefully or otherwise...

By your definition, our only option is to delete the Terrorism page altogether; after all, if we define it, we're POV right, and if we don't define it, we're POV left.

I think we have properly addressed the non-conservative views of terrorism in addition to the conservative ones, by way of NPOV and representing as many sides as we can. If that's not enough, then we can add more. Perhaps if you can find us a reference, we can add a paragraph about how "some people feel terrorism cannot be defined, and that to do so is to support the 'War on Terrorism'". -- Wisq 19:12, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

The problem, simply-stated, is the old one of, "one person's 'terrorist' is another person's 'freedom fighter'". By offering current "War on Terrorism" efforts the possibility of a neutral or even value-free definition, for their favorite term, the article lumps together all armed resistance to established authority as "terrorism": Nelson Mandela, Ho Chi Minh, Mao, Gandhi... George Washington... -- most who ever have resisted established authority have been labeled "terrorist", or the equivalent, by those who feared them or fought them.

And that's fine. That's one definition. Not everyone shares it. We should not censor such definitions just because some people might call important historical figures "terrorists". Maybe they were. Who are we to say? If a notable number of people call them terrorists, or subscribe to a definition that does so (even if they have never consciously called those people terrorists), it's part of Wikipedia's duty to report that. -- Wisq 19:12, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

That is why we don't have an accepted international law definition of "terrorism" now, and are unlikely ever to have one. My own understanding of the travaux préparatoires and political contexts is that efforts to define the term in various treaties, throughout the last century, including those listed at,

International_conventions_on_terrorism

-- all were frustrated, every time, as people sought exclusion from the definitions for their own personal "freedom fighter" national heroes -- the Indians and Israelis and their supporters, during the late 1940s, the Soviets throughout the Cold War, and many before and others since -- more current examples nowadays would include Mandela, for most of us, and the US Armed Forces vav the International Criminal Court for our current US White House and political administration, and for many US citizens -- and, always, nearly any "original Founders" of any society, anywhere...

I would hate to think that we now have become so settled, and so sclerotic, that we really do want to accept the current established systems of all of us everywhere as "the end of history", so that we simply can lump together all who now and will oppose and call that "terrorism". But that is what the article's "definitional" approach here does. It would be naive at best, I believe, and pretty smug -- also unrealistic, and not historically accurate, as change will be coming again just as it always has.

So in the lead article here I would say terrorism is not "a controversial term" but "a current political issue" -- i.e. in place of the current, non-neutral, initial wording,

"Terrorism is a controversial term with multiple definitions."

-- I would go further and use, instead,

"Terrorism has become a controversial part of current political policy."

-- and then proceed to outline the politics of it, providing references to Lakoff & Arendt & Lasswell et al.. Otherwise the article runs afoul of a fundamental linguistic and philosophical problem: that there is nothing simply "definitional" about terrorism, nowadays, even though some would like to sidestep complex and difficult issues by hiding behind definitions -- category mistake, at the very least... "Terrorism" has become a meaningless buzzword for central controversies in our entire global and societal situation, now, and deserves explanation as such.

Ask most people on the street what terrorism is (particularly in today's post-9/11 world), and I think you'll get answers. For a 'meaningless buzzword', people assign a lot of meaning to it -- even if there's no consensus as to what, exactly, that meaning is. -- Wisq 19:12, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

Kudos on the article

Having been part of the debate for this article for a long time, it was pleasantly surprising to see it at this level of clarity and completeness. Nice work all. However the "No concern for civilian life or safety" reads like an apologism for state violence. This could be corrected with some pointed clarification and distance from accepting terms like "collateral damage" and "precision guided munitions." Also do not use weasel terms would apply to phrases like "these actions show some concern" and "a finer definition will.." Understanding that the intent is to show a spectrum and to qualify each, it fails to distance itself from the subjective, using a "we can define" approach rather than "is commonly asserted as" approach. "many actions can define a criminal act as non-terrorism" is problematic - certainly this is a very fine distinction indeed - whether a an "terrorist act" may or may not be a "criminal act" seems to miss the point that "terrorist act" is used to perjoratively characterize an enemy attacks as criminal, and likewise to refer to particular acts of violence as being part of a larger immoral philosophy. -SV|t 23:23, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Sociology and evolution paragraph

Any evidence or links for this nonsense? Genetic disposition to violence? Unquestioning acceptance of authority? Dehumanizing other people? Brainwashed? Sounds a lot like a description of Americans. -Anon

I agree with most of the above. Below is the questionable pg in question, by Wisq:

"It should be noted that social psychologists, evolutionary psychologists, and sociologists who have studied ethnoreligious conflicts via controlled experimentation have a very different view of the etiology of terrorist violence. For them, terrorism is almost invariably the result of an interaction between genetic and environmental variables. Terrorists are most easily created when a person with a genetic predisposition to violence and to unquestioning acceptance of authority comes into contact with an ideology that dehumanizes another group of people. Given sufficiently strong ideological indoctrination (known in common parlance as brainwashing ), a large segment of virtually any group of people will engage in acts of violence against civilians. Examples of this behavior include the Holocaust and the widespread mass-murders that have occurred in recent years in Sudan."

Uh, what? I sure didn't write that! :) Relevant edit diff aside, you can tell because I use British spellings -- dehumanises, behaviour. Those show up as red in my auto spell checker, too. -- Wisq 02:53, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

Very, very, very bad start

"Acts of terrorism can be perpetrated by individuals, groups, or states, as an alternative to an open declaration of war." Let's be clear that everyone in Europe that was watching TV on September, 11 at the right time the second plane crashed on the second tower and had a brain had two ideas in mind "This is a new Pearl Harbor" and "someone (or something) has started a war with the USA". However this is very unencyclopedic way (to say the less) to define terrorism as an alternative to a declaration of war... Terrorism is using means that are intended to cause Terror to achieve political purposes. Ericd 23:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merge of Definitions of terrorism

(I have put a copy of the new revision at User:Smyth/Terrorism, and am updating it with any other changes people make. – Smyth\^talk 7 July 2005 10:49 (UTC))

(following on from #Re. "First paragraph", and generally agreeing with "A definitional view"):

I agree that the word is now so loaded that attempts to provide any kind of objective definition are doomed. I would even go so far as to say that Wikipedia should not, under any circumstances, call anyone a terrorist, even when guarded by weasel phrases like "the following are viewed by most people...".

However, the fact that the word is still used by prominent people people in politics and the media as if it had an objective definition, means that we should discuss the criteria that they tend to use. In particular, I found the Target / Objective / Motive / Legitimacy list in Definitions of terrorism very useful, as it explicitly points out what the various criteria exclude.

As the definition of this word is so controversial, I suggest that the Definitions article be reincorporated into this one. The article as it stands contains a great deal of unfocused and vague wandering around the definition (see the introduction, pretty much all of "Overview", and "Definition") but nowhere is it so clear and precise as the list mentioned above.

Furthermore, the article should begin, as it used to do, with a clear division between the objective and the subjective uses. Edits like [1] are in good faith, but we cannot escape the fact that this word is now used primarily in a perjorative sense, and that should be explicit from the start. – Smyth\^talk 29 June 2005 11:52 (UTC)

I will go ahead with the merge tomorrow if there are no objections. – Smyth\^talk 3 July 2005 12:29 (UTC)

I have now done this, and tried to excise from other sections all ramblings about the definition, of which there was a great deal. I have left the POV tag on for now, but I will take it off in a few days unless there is any evidence of a dispute. – Smyth\^talk 5 July 2005 17:37 (UTC)

It's a good improvement. Do you have any text in mind for the "groups" section? As is, the article is unbalanced, since "groups" are the single most prominent perpetrators of the acts this article addresses. For the same reason, you might want to re-order the secions describing them, to have the most common phenomenon first. Also, the article seems to lean rather heavily on quotations from Chomsky. Jayjg ^(talk) 5 July 2005 18:00 (UTC)

I'm more of a synthesizer than a writer; I don't tend to add large amounts of new material to articles but to condense and rationalize what's already there. There is no text in #Groups section because there was no corresponding text in the old version, presumably because people thought that because most terrorism is carried out by groups, there was no need for any particular discussion of them. I thought this seemed strange, and added the stub section to invite people to fill it in. But perhaps it would be better to introduce #Perpetrators with something simple, like:

The most common image of terrorism is that it is carried out by relatively small and highly secretive groups. However, some acts have been committed by individuals acting alone, while others are alleged to have the backing of established states.

Then there would be no need for a section specifically on groups.

As for Noam Chomsky, he does perhaps seem overly stressed, but he's actually only mentioned in two contexts. I included his quote in the intro because it seems to sum the issue up better than any other text that was already there or that I could write myself, but if there was some other person who could be mentioned instead in, say, the #Causes section, that would help prevent the article from seeming like it was all from his POV. – Smyth\^talk 5 July 2005 18:13 (UTC)

---

(From User talk:Guy Montag, who reverted Smyth's version):

Could you explain why you thought my revision was so worthless? I also notice that you threw away the changes of four other people, none of which were remotely controversial. (I will watch this page.) – Smyth\^talk 6 July 2005 00:42 (UTC)

Whenever there are major revisions in a controversial, well written article, I, and most editors cannot accept drastic unless they are discussed in talk. In many points your edits read like editorials, in other places, controversial claims are not supported by sources. I read your revisions and judged that they were inferior to the current article. This does not mean that you do not have valid, even important information to add, but it does means that the large scope of information you have added has significantly changed the article to the point where it is not recognizable. Please cite where you think the article is lacking in talk. Also, discuss where you want the article to go and feel free to suggest and provide minor addition of information to the article first, instead of changing it sentence by sentence in one edit. Each block of information you add will be discussed and if it is valid information, there will be very little objection to its inclusion.

Regards,

Guy Montag 6 July 2005 01:04 (UTC)

I prefer to keep discussions in one place; please reply on this page.

First, thank you for restoring the edits of the four other people which you reverted. If you examine the talk page history you will see that I proposed my changes several days ago along with my reasons and got no response. I agree that the article is not recognizably the same as it was before, but I believe that this is no bad thing as it was rather poor before.

You seem to think I have added things to the article, but apart from the Legitimacy paragraph and a comparison of "terrorist"'s connotations to "rebel" and "guerilla", I added virtually no new material. Everything else that was in my revision, was in the previous revision of either Terrorism or Definition of terrorism. I don't know what "controversial claims" you could be referring to.

I did remove a great deal of text. As I explained on the talk page both before and after my revision, this is because there was a huge amount of redundant discussion of "terrorism"'s definition spread throughout the article. Presumably this was added a sentence at a time by well-meaning editors, but its effect was both to obscure the other sections and to confuse the question of what terrorism actually is. In some places it is said that terrorism has some objective definition, in others it is stated that it is merely a value judgement. I wished to clearly separate these two uses from the start of the article. – Smyth\^talk 6 July 2005 01:22 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer Smyth's version. Perhaps this discussion could be moved to the article Talk: page? Jayjg ^(talk) 6 July 2005 03:39 (UTC)

Sure, move away.

Guy Montag 6 July 2005 04:01 (UTC)

I think the paragraph on guerrilla warfare and assymytric warfare deserves to stay in this article.

Guy Montag 6 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)

I didn't remove it! – Smyth\^talk 6 July 2005 16:59 (UTC)

I know that in the current version it exists. I mean't that if we are going to alter this page, that the passage of guerrilla warfare and assymytric warfare should stay.

Guy Montag 6 July 2005 17:01 (UTC)

It exists in all versions. Now could you please respond to my message of 01:22, or at least explain specifically what was so bad about my revision that reverting was a better solution than editing? Quotes would be helpful. – Smyth\^talk 6 July 2005 17:05 (UTC)

I'm baffled why WP is having such problems with the word terrorism. As far as I can see, every legitimate dictionary, encyclopedia etc. (with the exception of Wikipedia) has a remarkably clear and consistent definition (violence directed specifically at civilians by a sub-national group for political reasons). Of course, no source uses exactly the same words and there are slight variations but that's no different than any word in the English language. So why do we pussyfoot around with statements like "there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism". Good heavens, there is no universally accepted definition of ANYTHING. There IS dispute about whether a specific individual or group can be called a terrorist. And yes some people would like to EXPAND the definition to include other acts, but this shouldn't stop us from presenting the basic (darn near universally) accepted definition. Just because one academic (Laquer) says there is not one definition does not make it so. Even in the definition of terrorism article we started out saying that there isn't one definition and then present 20 definitions which, lo and behold, all say pretty much the same thing. --Lee Hunter 21:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

We're getting there, see #Definition dispute. The problem is that this is the sort of prominent yet sensitive article whose rate of editing tends to rise proportionately to the number of Wikipedia users, so you have to be careful. – Smyth\^talk 21:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Radical Redefinition Idea

I've noticed the same problem here as I did on the page for totalitarianism. By attempting to find examples to fit the definition, contributors create partisan, heavily POV discussions that simply lead to the rather foolish concept that "it cant be defined". I'm willing to bet that with BOTH pages that if we remove, and enforce ongoing removal, of any and all examples, historical and current, regardless of wether a consensus exists on the worthiness of the examples, then a consensus can be reached on the definition. Then the reader of the article will be free to form his/her own conclusions on what entities fit the definition. I'm going to attempt it. Tom S.

As I did in totalitarianism, I have done this to the first few paragraphs to see if anyone else concedes on this idea. I think this is the best way to reach a consensus for both pages!  :) Tom S.

I have yet to see any evidence that there was a lack of consensus about the new version. The text you have removed gives examples of things that are not terrorism according to various definitions, which I believe is vital for understanding what the various criteria are trying to do.

Then why does this page look radically different than it did yesterday? Oh well... I guess we'll just all have to admit that there are some touchy subjects that even Wiki cannot handle... But I'm not willing to give up yet. Tom S.

I never argued that the word can't be defined. I argued that there were very many definitions, that they were inconsistent with each other, that there were several broad aspects which many definitions contained, but that because the word is so perjorative, the technicalities of the definition are relatively unimportant. As I said above, I'm all for Wikipedia not calling people "terrorists", just as it shouldn't call people "evil", but removing all real-world examples of any kind is not the answer. – Smyth\^talk 5 July 2005 21:45 (UTC)

I'm trying to AVOID the idea of the word being left in the limbo of undefinition, not point any fingers at anyone for not defining it. I did not mean to offend or cast aspersions on any other users. My whole idea was to remove real-world examples because, as stated, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". If we leave examples in there, we may either spark contraversy and thus a round of edit-wars or at best miss out on an offended user's possibly valid points. If someone were to accuse the US of terrorism, for example, it would rankle my nerves and make it hard for me to stomache reading the article, as does whitewashing the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Applying the concept of the simplest solution being the best will significantly shorten the article, and provide a clear and succinct definition of what terrorism IS. All I know is that on this talk page and from what I've seen of the article in just a few days is that I do NOT see a consensus on this page. It still has the contested neutrality warning, after all. Tom S.

• Tom, I see what you're getting at, and I note the (similarly underdiscussed) proposal a while back to ban all the (Insert Adjective Here) Terrorism simultaneously.

• I'd ask all considering Tom's suggestion to look at perpetually venomous talk pages like this one and Talk:Zionist _terrorism and evaluate whether it's really worth defending a standard under which people are, often, constantly spending their time trying to destroy each other's work.

• We could be defending a different editorial standard, one that 90% of the people contributing in good faith could actually agree on. (Gasp.) And yes, if we remove all the examples, we should remove all the examples from the Lone Wolf section, too. Mission would then become keeping anybody from adding any examples, lest the Troubles start again. Sounds like a tall order, but it has been done. (See Just war.) BrandonYusufToropov 6 July 2005 16:30 (UTC)

We have one person so far who disagreed with my revision, and he hasn't really explained his complaint yet. Could you both look at it and decide whether it's an improvement on the old version? Having something clearer and better structured to start from, as I believe my revision is, would make it easier to discuss your proposal.

I should point out that I am also all in favour of banning articles called (Whatever) Terrorism. But that's for another day.

And I still disagree with your proposal right now. As far as I can see, the "lone wolf" flamewar, like most of the others on this page, was caused by a small number of people all intent on maximizing the amount of mention that their terrorists got and minimizing the amount of mention of their freedom fighters. Detaching this page from the real world and making it into some sort of abstract philosophizing about a hypothetical concept called "terrorism" may stop these wars, but it won't make it a useful article. Encyclopedias are about the real world. – Smyth\^talk 6 July 2005 16:48 (UTC)

With all respect, the subject heading here suggests that this talk is about, not your revision, but Tom's idea, which may not yet have been sufficiently examined. BrandonYusufToropov 6 July 2005 17:00 (UTC)

Then I apologise, and invite you to contribute to the section above. – Smyth\^talk 6 July 2005 17:08 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting an 'abstract philosophizing about a hypothetical concept'. What I want is for this page to focus on a definitive, logical and plain explanation of the very real concept of terrorism. I believe it can be summed up quite simply as "guerrilla action against civilian and/or symbolic rather than military targets". But whatever definition we choose, the removal of examples will prevent the revision wars I see going on now. By my definition, Al Qaeda is undeniably a terrorist organization. But what good does it do to say that and have some offended sympathizer revise the crap out of it? Examples are not necessary on this page. A simple definition and exploration of the concept will suffice; we're not dunces. We can, all of us, extrapolate such reasonings in our own minds. Adding examples just invites people on both sides to flame eachother and abuse Wiki doing it. By my own definition, I am forced to admit that the attack on the Cole was not a terrorist action. I hate admitting that. But giving such a simple, coldy logical and very real version of this page will force people to admit such uncomfortable truths and take the page for the simple expression of FACT that Wiki is supposed to be. Real world examples of terrorism will in the end be nothing but INTERPRETATIONS. And that is neither NPOV nor does it belong on Wiki. Tom S.

What do other editors think of Tom's comments? BrandonYusufToropov 7 July 2005 16:02 (UTC)

I lean to Smyth's position. I think that if terrorism is defined well enough, examples enhance the page and make it more useful. Jayjg ^(talk) 7 July 2005 17:09 (UTC)

Your definition is well-worded, but insufficent because it ignores the VERY strong negative connotations that the word carries. The Pentagon is a military target, therefore the 9/11 attack on it was not terrorism. For the entire period that he was in prison, the U.S. government, using a definition similar to yours, had well-known saint Nelson Mandela listed as a terrorist. The fact that these things are difficult for you to accept is not a problem with you. It is a problem with the definition I was using, your definition. Calling someone a terrorist is no longer an objective description of their actions, it is almost always a statement that you consider their actions to be wrong, and if the article does not make that clear, then the article is incomplete. – Smyth\^talk 7 July 2005 17:55 (UTC)

Smythe, was your comment directed to me? Jayjg ^(talk) 7 July 2005 18:48 (UTC)

Oops, no, sorry. *corrects indentation* – Smyth\^talk 7 July 2005 18:50 (UTC)

If AL-Qaeda add shot a missille on the Pentagon this would probably not have been terrorism. But they crashed a civilian plane. Ericd 8 July 2005 20:06 (UTC)

Yes, but the plane was not the main target, and it would still have been called terrorism if the plane was empty. The point is that by arguing over all of these civilian/military and government/guerilla distinctions, we're losing sight of the way in which the word is actually used. – Smyth\^talk 8 July 2005 20:15 (UTC)

POV Language

An editor just reinstated this (and other) language

The most common form of terrorism is islamic pro-theocracy terrorism, and it is known that most of such terrorists originate from Saudi Arabia, so it is effective to use the limited resources to monitor the people from Saudi Arabia specificly. Many people object to that method though. However, there are many terrorists (islamic pro-theocracy or otherwise) that are domestic in origin, but who support the terrorists' causes (as was the case in the Madrid train bombing), so monitoring people from specific countries can not stop all of them. An other method is to hunt and kill the terrorists in their countries of origin and to destroy any national regimes that deliberately harbor them, as has been the case in Afghanistan. Pacifists object to that method.

• with the explanation: This is the original and unbiased version with no information excluded, thus the talk page is used for objecting to IT.
• This can hardly be called unbiased. The first statement alone is extremely biased and would need a definitive source. The last statement is also biased. This type of unsourced, off-the-cuff bias has no place in the encyclopedia. -Willmcw 23:57, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I've already removed this stuff once (at a time when I did not realize I wasn't logged in). Someone else's turn. BrandonYusufToropov 00:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, good argument -saying that objective statements are 'extremely biased' without backing it up, then using strength of numbers to compensate for lack of logic. You must state WHY you believe something to be biased in order for it to constitute an actual argument. At the current time, I have no specific argument to respond to. If you only object to those specific sentences, then only change THEM, without removing all of the other information that I added. Anyway, I've wasted enough time trying to fight against your silly dominance struggle of fact suppression, so I probably won't even bother continuing to try to bring sense to the 'preemptive neutralization' section. (unsigned comment by user:216.112.42.61)

For example, what is our source for the assertion that "the most common form of terrorism is islamic pro-theocracy terrorism"? Thanks, -Willmcw 01:27, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Haven't you ever watched the news or read the newspaper?

Please provide source for the assertions. Thanks, -Willmcw 02:09, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

---

Here is the other paragraph that was edited out (posted here by the author, not Willmcw):

An other major method of preemptive neutralization is interrogation of known or suspected terrorists, so as to learn of specific plots, specific targets, the identity of other terrorists, and if the interrogation subject themself is guilty of terrorist involvement. For known terrorists, more brutal methods can be used (due to the lack of major political repercussions). 2 major methods of interrogation are torture and increasing suggestibility. Both of those methods are prone to causing disinformation. Torture causes disinformation due to the interrogation subject wanting the torture to stop, whereas increasing suggestibility causes disinformation due to the interrogation subject being less in touch with reality and saying things that they merely imagine. In practice, increasing suggestibility has been the more effective of the 2 methods. Increasing suggestibility is done via moderate sleep deprivation, exposure to constant white noise, and usage of GABAergic drugs such as sodium amytal. Many people object to the use of torture.

"Haven't you ever watched the news or read the newspaper?" Perhaps we watch different news and read different papers. For example, try looking at the State Department's Patterns of Global Terrorism 2003 (2004 wasn't published due to a fear that is would show that the Iraq invasion was clearly producing terrorism by the Dept.'s own definition). Even in specifically anti-US attacks, the majortiy of the attacks in 2003 were in Latin America. These are mainly bombs against US energy infrastructure and had nothing to with any form of Islamic militantcy. --Finnishing 07:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Anti-terrorism policy

I have started to expand the anti-terrorism section, this is a much broader subject than counter-terrorism. Major terror attacks have social, ethical, geopolitical and historical consequences, and the existing text said nothing about all that. The separate counter-terrorism article is not much more than a list of special forces, it is not a substitute for an overview of all that happens during terror camapigns. Ther should be a separate section on the consequences of terrorism.Ruzmanci 12:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Then I suggest you move Counter-terrorism to Anti-terrorism, and break out most of the current text to it. Terrorism is growing rather too large. – Smyth\^talk 13:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Ruzmanci- What exactly is "Anti-Terrorism?" Please explain how you see it as different from counterterrorism. Where did you get your information for the anti-terrorism section? Also, the word is spelled "neutralization," not "neutralisation."

and just as a general note: the reading list on this page is extremely narrow and dated... does anyone have any ideas as to what they want to put on it? --Security Geek 16:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

The term is 'anti-terrorism policy' and (as the text says) it is wider than counter-terrorism, which is used in a specific sense to mean primarily actions taken against terrorists or terrorist acts. For example there is now a proposal to make everyone in Britain swear allegiance to the nation on their 18th birthday. The idea is a direct response to the London bombings, but it does not fit any usual idea of 'counter-terrorism'. The social and political responses to terrorism go far beyond 'security'. It seems good idea to create an separate article on 'Responses to Terrorism'.Ruzmanci 11:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

This making them swear allegiance, seems to be a patriotism issue, figuring that if they are patriots they would not do anything to harm their own country (being that the bombers were British themselves). --PinchasC 12:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I see what you are saying about the two terms. I believe that you see “counterterrorism” as limited to operations and other direct action while you see “anti-terrorism” as broader measures taken to curb the phenomenon of terrorism. These actions could be political, economic, social, or any other type of effort towards that end. The reason why I asked where you got the information that you based this distinction and your ideas on was because I see this as incorrect. “Counterterrorism” is the term used to define both direct action and broader “counterterrorism policy.” “Anti-terrorism” is not commonly used by people to describe these topics, and when it is used, it is not accurate. I would be interested in seeing what convinced you that this is the case, but I am sure that it would be better to use the term “counterterrorism.” A quick search of both terms on Amazon.com or the internet will demonstrate that “counterterrorism” is the applicable term.

It also seems to me as though it is just common sense that the prefix “counter,” and not “anti-,” should be used to characterize efforts against terrorism. Terrorism is a strategy based on specific tactics. Strategies are always “countered,” not “anti-ed.” Does one say that one is following an “anti-insurgency” strategy, or does one adopt a “counterinsurgency” strategy and implement “counterinsurgency” policies? “Anti-“ is usually reserved for positions that are opposed to something (anti-abortion, anti-corporation, anti-immigration). One could certainly be “anti-terrorism” in one’s position, just as one could be “pro-terrorism.” Are terrorists carrying out “pro-terrorism” policies, or are they simply conducting “terrorism?” Accordingly, one does not “anti” terrorism, one counters terrorism.

This is not that big of a deal but it bothers me. Most authors and experts utilize the term “counterterrorism” (this is an undeniable fact). “Counterterrorism” should be the term used in the Wiki-definition of terrorism. Unless you can show otherwise… --Security Geek 03:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

'Responses to terrorism' is probably the best name for an article~, which should indeed include counterterrorism. The current section can be moved there. Counterterrorism is indeed widely used, but it has specific meanings that do not cover all responses to terrorism. Use of the term strategy, and the analogy with counterinsurgency, imply that terrorism is military in nature, which is of course denied by most governments facing a terrorist campaign. (If the terrorists are indeed an army, that gives them certain legal rights under the laws of war, and for instance Guantanamo Bay would have to close).Ruzmanci 11:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Zionist Terrorism

Deserves a link because:

1. Was the frist largescale use of "terrorist techniques" post WWII and thus the first to exploit the global media int he way that it did. 2. Many of its techniques were innivative at the time - in particular the bombing of civillians. These techniques set the scene for later terrorist activity by other groups. 3. Alone amongst the terrorist groups listed the won. It's the only example I can think of of a modern nation which owes its foundation to a "terrorist" uprising. Again this is a bit of a role model for others.

So I think it is one of the seminal examples of its type - effective, mass media exploiting, successful terrorism and as such definitely deserves a link. 62.253.64.15 10:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

62.253.64.15, The current links are either linking to current terrorist activities (For example Terrorism in Iraq or to other forms of Terroism (For example Corporate terrorism), Zionist Terrorism does not fit any of those categories.

Now in response to your claims, nearly all terrorists use their activities to exploit the global media, why would post WWII be different than pre WWII. Number 2 in regards to the inovation that you say is "the bombing of civillians" besides being POV, because they would claim that they were attacking the British soldiers, see Terrorism#History for a list of terrorist activites that targeted civilians way before the Zionists started there activites. And in response to your third statement, once again if you read thru Terrorism#History you will see that plenty of other causes for terroism won, and nations were founded based upon them (For example Ireland and Macedonia. --PinchasC 10:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Firstly - your opening gambit was that Zionist Terrorism did not deserve a link because it is the same as the other links (you said - do we link every terrorist thing here?) - now you are claiming it does not deserve a link because it is different. How do you reconcile this?

If it is different from the other links then that is an arguement for inclusion not against.

Post WW2 is diferent because of the extensive media involvement especially on a World stage.

Read the article on Zionist Terrorism I link to - you will see that in addition to bombing Brit Soldiers Lehi also explicitly made a point of bombing civillians.

Ireland and Macedonia are both different cases - largely because of widespread involvement of (and deliberate manipulation of) the media whiuch I say makes zionist terrorism an interesting case study. 62.253.64.15 10:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

In my first statement I said why I felt it shouldn't have had a place there, I didn't mean because it was similiar to the groups listed ther, I meant because it was similiar to all the groups not listed there. then I responded to your claims that Zionist Terrorism was different.

I don't believe that because it was post WWII it makes a difference. Furthermore they didn't start post WWII rather it was a continuation from before.

As I said above see Terrorism#History for a list of terrorist activites that targeted civilians way before the Zionists started there activites.

This that you say that "Ireland and Macedonia are both different", Anything to back up your claim with? --PinchasC 10:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

See Also

I have removed the links to Terrorism in India, Terrorism in Iraq, Terrorism in Kashmir, because this is why we have Category:Terrorism, if we were to list every article about current terroist activities in the see also section we would have a very long list as can be seen from Category:Terrorism. --PinchasC 10:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Would it not be sensible therefore to have a List of current conflicts involving terrorism (or something similar) artcile linked from here, to distinguish between current and historical terrorist disputes? Thryduulf 10:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Query about references

What are our sources for the whole "Official definitions" section? These seem to be somewhat lacking. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You're right, but we have a list of definitions of terrorism, so it shouldn't be too hard. I'll look at it later today. – Smyth\^talk 09:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

American centric

Especially since the United States declared its "war on terror" in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks, definitions of the word have ranged widely, typically involving some subset of the following criteria, which are discussed in more detail below:

I did not realise that before "September 11, 2001" the definitions of the word had not ranged widely. There was large scale terrorism in two predominantly English speaking countries for more than 30 years before the United States declared its "war on terror". I had not realised that the populations of those two countries had not had wide ranging discussions on the word during that time. Philip Baird Shearer 12:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism and terrorist have been mere scare-terms for many years in the popular press, probably in all countries -- I remember daily headlines about "dacoits", in India, from the 1970s, which definitely were ill-defined and were sort of a scatter-gun approach used by some to scare others, also to sell newspapers. The terms have been debated in great detail, though, and continually, in various specialized disciplines: international law, international relations, national liberation movements, political action groups and causes -- anything involving police work, or the military. Never with any success at arriving at a definition, though...

The earliest organized discussion of which I am aware took place post-WWII, resuscitating some earlier 1930s work, basically in an effort to define and suppress various "insurgency" movements in South and Southeast Asia as I remember: the Indians and Malays and Indonesians and others didn't want their colonialists back, I think it was, and the latter bunch began referring to the local liberation tactics as "terrorism". Efforts to define the term more precisely foundered, tho, when folks began looking at their own histories: every Founding Father or Liberator had been labeled a "terrorist" at some point by the opposition, it turned out -- also, in the post-WWII period the Arab/Israeli example was out there for some, each side calling the other "terrorists", and ultimately the Soviets shot down "terrorism" treaty efforts at the UN, as they at that point favored "national liberation movements".

So one person's "terrorist" always is another person's "freedom fighter"... it's been that way forever...

The subject has been discussed continually. International relations literature is filled with it: treaty negotiations, conferences, hi-level meetings, lo-level meetings -- every time a bomb has gone off somewhere. Also every time some politician has needed an "external threat" platform: Caesar invaded Gaul to "protect" the French from Swiss terrorists, he said... None of it ever has defined the term successfully, tho.

Probably fair to state, then, that "populations of those two countries had not had wide ranging discussions on the word" -- "populations" rarely do, or the press -- but also fair to say we "either knew or should have known". Folks in the US & UK just now figuring all this out haven't read their own histories: John Brown, Wat Tyler...

--Kessler 15:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Latest overview on the "definition" question, by a guy who has studied all of this for a very long time: he says, "'terrorism' has never been defined..."

M. Cherif Bassiouni, 36 Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 2&3, 2004, p. 305

He cites: A More Secured World, Our Shared Responsibility, Report of the Secretary-General's High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change UN Doc A/59/565 (2 Dec., 2004).

Nongovernmental?

Maybe I am a complete idiot, but does anyone else smell something fishy about the phrase, "perpatrator must be nongovernmental". This seems to be a very thin smoke screen to save the United States actions in Iraq from being considered terroist actions. Our current campaign in Iraq seems to fit all of the other qualifications. Sure the U. S. isn't violently attacking civilians, but they have certainly aimed a lot of propaganda at them, plus the nightly raids might also be considered as such. Let me know your opinion on this, I love my country, but am skeptical of my governments motives.

The idea that it includes only non-governmental acts long precedes the U.S. actions in Iraq. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Not an idiot. Very good point. The division between governmental and non is artificial, but no less artificial than the idea of defining a definitionally-wicked term like "terrorism" in the first place. The distinction is not between different behaviors, as you are pointing out, but among those who do the behaving. If it is an official "nation-state" the behavior may be permitted, and only if not may the behavior be called "terrorism".

There are other rules, then, governing nation-state behavior: human rights law, humanitarian law, international law of various types, treaties -- all of these are intended to prohibit, by nation-states, the sort of behavior we condemn in others as "terrorism". But, no, nation-states can't be terrorists. It's an aspect of nation-state sovereignty -- sort of a "dirty corollary" of that.

If you'd like a pretty good overall critique of the concept, read Michel Foucault: he figured that even something so general as criminality is subject to your objection -- that we "discipline and punish" not the behavior but the individual, and that depending more on the individual's social status than on anything else. RD Laing thought the same thing about insanity, or some forms of it anyway: he figured we're all a little nuts, only some of us are nuttier than others -- varying degrees of normal -- so that our usual definitional criteria boil down to social status here too, on things like incarceration and the insanity defense and even diagnosis. But these are extreme views.

Your objection, that nation-states do things which look very much like terrorism, points to one of the growing limitations of our current international law structure: the nation-state system is fraying around the edges, now -- some are combining / re-combining, others are dissolving / disintegrating -- the international lawyers are trying to aim 500 year old concepts at modern fast-moving targets, and they miss, on things like international finance and terrorism. Increasingly the world is not inter-national but trans-national, and nation-state thinking no longer fits it. But until we have an effective International Criminal Court, and some form of international political entity to give it legal validity, we're stuck with "nation-states can't be terrorists"... even if we are able, which I personally doubt (see the objections I make under "American centric", above here), to come up with any general definition of "terrorism" at all...

--Kessler 17:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the nongovernmental distinction is quite useful. For example, if we have an international conference on how to reduce terrorism, it would be good to narrow the focus on things like shared intelligence on terrorists and terrorist organizations, instead of being distracting by governmental actions like the support for the Janjaweed by the government of Sudan. While the Sudan situation certainly deserves attention, I don't see how discussing it at an anti-terrorism conference would help either to prevent terrorism, or to improve the situation in Sudan. Anti-genocide talks should be taken up by the UN Security Council, or other international bodies with the power to influence the government of Sudan, such as NATO (where actions could be taken without threat of a Chinese veto). StuRat 20:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Definition list

In my opinion, non governmental perpetrator general requirement should not be in the list without a large caveat also in the list. Some definitions specifically do not require anything about the political affiliation of the perpetrator, this should also be included in the list. zen master T 17:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The list is not one of "general requirements" and is prefaced by an explanation: "definitions typically involve some subset of the following criteria". This means that definitions may include these criteria or they may not. The specific criterion you take issue with, that of non-governmental status, is prominent enough in mainstream discourse to merit inclusion in this list. This specific criterion is heavily qualified immediately below the list: "The requirement that the perpetrator is a non-state actor, for example, is the subject of fierce debate". I don't see a problem with this list as it stands. Would it appease you to rephrase "The perpetrator is a non-governmental or sub-state actor" to "The perpetrator is commonly a non-governmental or sub-state actor"? TreveX^talk 18:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

By including that definition without a large caveat you are effectively excluding an opposite definition possibility that specifically did not consider the applicability of whether the perpetrators were governments or not (the arguably historically accurate definition). The list must specifically include the possibility the word "terrorism" makes no distinction between governmental and non-governmental perpetrators. zen master T 19:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't exclude anything. It's quite obvious from the wording that the list is NOT a definition in itself, but a list of things that have been used in definitions. Literally every single entry on that list has been omitted from some definition or other. – Smyth\^talk 20:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

But including the "sub-national entity" entry to a certain extent excludes the opposite possibility, that any violent act, regardless of government or not, is "terrorism". The intro currently does not sufficiently note the historic controversy over this exact point. zen master T 21:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The intro is an intro, the place for talking about historic controversies is in the article body. The "sub-national entity" entry is not given any special prominence in that list, and the paragraph introducing the list has always made it clear that including something in the list is nothing but a statement that the criterion has been used in some official definition of "terrorism". Unless you're claiming that this is not the case for "sub-national entity", I can't see what your problem is. Every entry on the list deserves a caveat, but the place for those caveats is #Official definitions, where they are already plentiful. – Smyth\^talk 11:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed "Terrorism and Immigration in Europe"

This section was full of factual errors, (eg: Pim Fortuyn was killed by white Dutch animal rights activist with mental health issues - so that had nothing to with Immigration, and Europe has seens lots of religious terrorism since the Wars of Religion - the writer seems to forget the religious dimension to the Northern Ireland conflict, or for example Cyprus amongst others, not even mentioning Islamist violence pre-9/11) and was simply in the wrong place.

I have temporarily returned that section. I encourage you to try to improve the information rather than just deleting it. Or, if you feel there is no hope, you should open the discussion here before removing the section from the article, and wait for other users to respond. --Canderson7 20:34, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

OK fair enough, but even with your(?)changes much of it remains inaccurate. There has always been a far right to European political life, and it has always tried to suggest immigrant communities as a security threat. Jean-Marie Le Penn predates Fortuyn by decades and has always scapegoated Muslim immigrants for French social ills. Also, after the murder of Theo Van Gogh there were no real attempts to "control the backlash", indeed the opposite was true with Ministers making panicky statements and the media using inflamatory headlines. Again, after Madrid there was no real policy for controlling a backlash as, due to the actions of the government, the backlash came to be aimed at them not Spanish Muslims. Really of all the major recent attacks in Europe, the British government is the only one to have anything resembling a policy on this after the London attacks. Apologies for not name tagging the comment on the original edit, I'm still learning my way around --Finnishing 17:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The section makes an important distinction between EU countries (Britain, Spain, Netherlands, Germany) with large Muslim minorities, and the US, where people still generally see Muslims as living far away in the desert. If you look at British reactions to the recent bombings, you can see how much they have had to re-assess their attitudes to part of their own population, and how much is about internal policies, and culture, and religion. You can dispute who did it first, but linking immigration and terrorism is now part of politics in these countries, and that should be emphasised. Earlier versions of this article tended to see terrorism in terms of bombs and anti-bomb barriers, and that is far too narrow.Ruzmanci 19:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that terrorism and immigration are linked. Specifically, those countries which restrict immigration to only people without any links to terrorist organizations, who are willing to integrate (language, customs, dress, integrated communities) into their new country will have less terrorism than those which allow unrestricted immigration. A particular threat is where people seeking asylum from their former countries are allowed to stay, despite their terrorist activities in those former countries (which is why they needed to seek asylum in the first place). StuRat 19:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

New Criterion: Containment ?

I would like to suggest the addition of a new criterion for defining terrorism, and form a consensus, before making any change to the actual article:

• Containment - The degree to which attacks are limited to the geographic regions which they are designed to "liberate". The actions of al-Queada in the original war in Afghanistan against the Soviets would not be considered terrorism, using this criterion, as these were largely contained within Afghanistan. The actions by Chechen militants against the Russian Federation would be considered terrorism, however, due to the numerous attacks outside Chechnya. Note that this criterion only applies to "wars of liberation" (from the point of view of the perpetrators).

I am by no means suggesting that this should be the only criterion for defining terrorism, but that it should be used in conjunction with the others. What do you think ? StuRat 18:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

This makes sense as a refinement, but begs the question of what behavior is "terrorism". Certainly I can see distinguishing between "overseas" actions and actions "at home" -- the latter being defined as the area to be liberated -- and condemning the former more strongly than the latter. That might be a useful distinction, for all sorts of international purposes: in trade, too, and in education and other arenas -- "overseas" might get different funding than "at home", for instance.

But we still need to distinguish, at the most fundamental level, between "terrorism" and other things -- such as "wars of liberation" -- and we haven't successfully done that yet. To say we would treat either one, liberation wars or terrorism, differently if conducted "overseas" doesn't help: fact is, many of us might want to encourage a particular, while we would condemn terrorism -- so the "containment" distinction doesn't help.

It is a strategem employed to rationalize currently-fashionable "anti-terrorism" rhetoric -- as such it might be included, but only so-indicated -- if it suggests that it helps resolve "definition of terrorism" problem, somehow, it would be misleading.

--Kessler 20:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

It does not resolve the problem because it is not a definition, but a reason to dispute an accusation of terrorism. And in the example cited, the Russian government would not change its stance, since in their view Chechnya is Russian and therefore there is no distinction between an attack in Grozny or Moscow. Of course they take the second more seriously, but they would not say that publicly, and they would never say, 'OK, bomb south of this line and we will accept the bombings'.

The last (unsigned) comment seemed to take "geographic region" to mean nation. It is not intended to be limited to that specific meaning. It can also mean province or other geographic area (as the nature of the region is frequently in dispute). In this case, Russians would definitely agree that Chechens have attacked outside the PROVINCE of Chechnya, and hence it is terrorism, by this criterion. Also, obviously there are many behaviours beyond terrorism which are unacceptable, such as the genocide mentioned in the article. As for not being a complete resolution to the problem of not having a universal definition, of course it isn't. I think of this like the definition of "life" or the point matches needed in fingerprint comparison, you must look for if it matches the majority of the criteria, not all the criteria, to qualify as terrorism. StuRat 21:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Most importantly, I don't think I've ever seen anyone attempt to define terrorism using this criterion, and listing criteria that have actually been used is supposed to be the purpose of that part of the article. It's not really the place for proposing new ones. – Smyth\^talk 19:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Point taken. I noticed that it seemed to be an "implied definition" in that few in the US had any doubt the 9-11 attacks were terrorism, which I attribute partially to it's foreign origin, while purely domestic acts of destruction, like the pro-ecological arson of ELF, do seem to generate controversy when called "terrorism". StuRat 22:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

No known group describes itself as "terrorist" ?

This seems to be an error, some groups do, but also equate the actions of their enemies with terrorism, as in the following excerpt with a Chechen terrorist:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4727211.stm

In the interview, Mr Basayev - speaking through an interpreter - admitted that he was "a bad guy, a bandit".

"Ok, so I'm a terrorist, but what would you call them (the Russians)?

Can I get a consensus to fix this error ?

No, because it is obviously rhetorical. In reality, the western representatives of Basayev and his group do all they can to dispute the label, and to portray Chechen rebels as part of a legitimate national liberation struggle.Ruzmanci 20:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The valence of the term "terrorism" has changed over the years. For the late 19th century/early 20th century terrorists -- anarchist bombers -- the term was a positive one that many embraced. When Vera Zasulich shot a Russian police official but did not kill him, she famously threw her weapon down and declared, "I'm a terrorist, not a killer." The term was not embraced by Zionist, Irish, and Algerian anticolonial terrorists, but it was embraced again by some of the "New Left" terrorists of the 1960s and 1970s. Perhaps this broader historical perspective on the rhetoric of the term "terrorism" would be useful.--csloat 17:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I use the term FISA-terrorism all the time in philosophical discussion. How else are we supposed to discuss the FISA definition of terrorism? --EKBK 18:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Dude this comment is in the wrong place :) It doesn't matter if you use the term fisa-terrorism; unless you're Rohan Gunaratna or some other recognized terrorism expert and you use the term in a well-known published book on the topic, not on wikipedia or in barroom conversation. I will make further comments on this below where others are discussing it. --csloat 22:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I haven't been on this page for while—and, truth be told—been avoiding it. But I like the recent discussion; we're starting to get real about things.

One person who bears mention is Nelson Mandela. He's almost universally well-regarded. And (not but; and) he never hesitates to describes part of what he and his movement did as "terrorism"—and has never repudiated or condemned or expressed regret about that. I say this not to condemn him, but to point out that terrorism is a tactic, and while the dominant parlance (especially in the US) might not be comfortable calling a spade a spade if it is one's own and a rose a rose when it is the "enemy's", in an encyclopedia, we should strive to. —iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 21:37, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Can you indicate where Mandela uses the term terrorism like that? I am just curious - I am not as familiar with his discourse. Thanks.--csloat 22:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Completely off topic

Cute

I think this quite possibly is the prettiest talk page on all of WP. Tomer ^TALK 02:34, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

File:HappyToPlease.gif

Always happy to please. --Zephram Stark 02:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

European Union definition

The EU definition clearly distinguishes what it a terrorist act, because it actually lists them all. All of them are existing criminal offences. Nothing else is terrorism, at least for the EU. To distinguish them from 'normal' crime a political motive is added to the definition. A further constraint is that they must cause 'serious' damage. Clear definitions allow a consideration of whether the act is in fact right or wrong, which is far more important than what word is used for it. And the ethics are always disputed, since clearly the perpetrators think it is a good idea. That's what is missing from this article, obscured by over-emphasis on definition.Ruzmanci 11:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

What is "serious damage"? What about the July 21 bombers? Are they not terrorists? What about Eric Rudolph? I don't think that criterion helps us much. I think you're right about the morals issue -- terrorism is conceived not only as a political act but also as a moral act by its perpetrators. --csloat 11:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)