Talk:Terrorism - Definition and Overview

Previous discussions:

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2
• /Archive 3

On 16:06, 1 Nov 2004, 208.59.117.137 added the following:

The State of Israel was also founded upon terror tactics including bombings, assasination and civilian murder. Right wing Zionist radiacals like Menachem Begin and Yitzak Shamir, both to be later elected as Prime Ministers of Israel, were most definitly terrorists by any objective standard. Examples of Zionist terror operations sactioined by Begin and Shamir include the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which killed many British soldiers, as well as innocent civilians, the assasination of Count Folke Bernadotte, and the assasination of Lord Moyne. In fact, most of what we recognize as the modern tactics of terror were first intorduced into the Middle East by the radical Zionists: bombing public markets, letter bombs, assasinations, etc.

In the course of the Zionist terror war against the British Mandate, the kidnap and murder of British soldiers was also a commonly used tactic. Eventually the British, exhausted from the struggle of World War II, wilted before the Zionist terror war and withdrew from Palestine, leaving the Arabs to face the same tactics.

The massacre of hundreds of Arab civilians, men, women and children alike, at the peaceful Arab village of Deir Yassin by Irgun terrorists on April 9, 1948 was a key in creating the atmosphere of fear and panic that led approximately 750,000 Arabs to flee Palestine in the Spring of 1948, clearing the way for the establishment of Israel.

And apparrently nobody noticed the anti-Israel rant for a couple of weeks. :)

I've removed the offending text. (I have a dynamic IP and no account as of yet.)

I think an objective summary of the Deir Yassin incident as an example of terrorism would be appropriate, but not if it is coupled with demagougic crap.

Bruce - 13 Nov 2004 207.173.205.13 added this text under "Examples of Terrorism" but I removed it because it seemed out of place and not worded appropriately. Perhaps someone with experience editing this article can add the material if appropriate. — SimonEast 11:42, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"(not to mention the revelations a few months back when Jordanian authorities arrested numerous terrorists who were intending to kill over 3,000 people in the Jordanian capital of Amman by attacking government buildings and the such with massive explosive-laden trucks)"

Yeah, I saw that and almost removed it myself. Seems like a non sequitur. Isomorphic 03:29, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I removed the just-added "Kinds of terrorism" section. The article used to have extensive detail on kinds of terrorism. Now that material is in other articles and accessible from the sidebar, so there's really no need to have it in the main article. Isomorphic 14:55, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Washington and the ETA

The means used to achieve any goal should be placed within the context of what means were actually possible. For instance, the American revolutionaries led by George Washington who fought against the British in the 18th century were not terrorists because violent revolution was the only means possible for change in their circumstances, while modern day Basque organization ETA are terrorists because peaceful means for change are possible within the EU.

This is monstrous. What "peaceful means for change … within the EU are open to the ETA? It seems to me that their position is comparable to that of Washington's revolutionaries.

I have altered this paragraph.

Shorne 23:48, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) I think a main point being missed is observing the targets and methods being used. Attacks against an adversary military/quasi-military force isn't considered terrorism, but rather militancy. The idea being that militancy is a military form of opposition. In contrast to American Revolutionaries who fought the British military, ETA frequently attacks non-military targets. As such ETA is a terrorist organization, while the former are not. Random attacks in shopping malls intended to terrify civilians and the murder of judges is hardly the same.

Doug Mon Jun 28 04:50:50 UTC 2004

Conscription

State-sponsored terrorist attacks on their "own" civilian populations are far more deadly and can be sustained for longer durations. Stalin's pre World War II purges and the 1960s "cultural revolution" in China two conventional examples. Conscripton is also state sponsored terrorism. The "support" for the government extracted by the military is of the most direct and personal kind. The casualties among the innocent conscripted civilians in both world wars dwarfs that of all other weapons of mass destruction.

It's not clear whether this paragraph can be salvaged at all, but in particular the part beginning with "Conscription..." seems to evade NPOV (at the very least). - toh

--

Also, the 'facts' are blatant NPOV violation - far more deadly is based on what facts exactly? In the 'Chomsky' newspeak State Terrorism refers only to right-wing militias sponsered by any non-leftist government, while purposely ignoring that most left-wing militants and terrorists had massive state sponsorship from Soviet client-states such as Cuba, Syria, Egypt, East-Germany, etc. Doug Sep 29 05:51:26 UTC 2004

I'll delete that paragraph. I agree that it cannot be salvaged. As for conscription, shouldn't it be called corvée labour rather than terrorism? Shorne 07:30, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm assuming the sentence meant conscription into the military, and the possibility of being sent into battle against one's will. Conscription, however, is as old as civilization, and it's kind of ridiculous to call it "terrorism." Isomorphic 16:27, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh the neutrality!

OK. I went through and tried to remove editorializing from all sides. The only way to keep this article from being a constant battleground (as well as a rambling mess of "some say.. but others say... and on the third hand...") is to keep it stripped down to essentials. Anybody who wants to fight or editorialize can do it in one of the sub-articles as far as I'm concerned. This article should remain short and clean. Isomorphic 21:09, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

template

How can you edit the terrorism template? It contains a serious mistake by including "guerrilla" in it. - pir 00:57, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Go to Template:Terrorism and click edit [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Template:Terrorism). BTW, you're right, guerilla should definitely be removed from the list. --style 06:46, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)

thanks. - pir 23:25, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Great "Terrorism" Debate

There's a debate going on at Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks#The Great "Terrorism" Debate that may interest followers of this article. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 11:56, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

I would argue that 9/11 is mentioned FAR too many times in an article that should address all sorts of terrorism, cite original examples and stray from the Americocentric examples often associated with the topic.

Eight types,

I suggest that perhaps a better way to go would be not an ideal type definition, but a typological approach, a interpretation of terrorism as a strategy of intimidation & violence broadly delimited into eight categories. This isn’t intended to be a typological theory, but instead read as an array, a temporary representation and ordering of tropes in order to foster a critical view.

8 types, mytho-terrorism, anarcho-terroism, socio-terrorism, ethno-terrorism, narco-terrorism, state-terrorism, anti-terrorism, and pure-terrorism.

1.Mytho-terrorism: the protean form of terrorism—fear desire, and violence converging and erupting when the desires of the alienated can no longer be ignored. There’s a power to mytho-terrorism that handicaps a reasonable inquiry, because it affirms the boundary between legitimate & rational use of violence, and the illegitimate irrational use. A grand category that would equate all forms of terror, and cut off inquiry.

2.Anarcho-terrorism: anti-state political violence.

3.Socio-terrorism: those who indorse and conduct class warfare. (parses terrorism & marxism).

4.ethno-terrorism: the violent efforts of a national, communal, or ethnic group to acquire the status of a state.

5.narco-terrorism: the violent blending of illicit drug trade & political intimidation

6.state terrorism: premeditated politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by clandestine state agents. (a shift that obscures a long history of state rule by terror)

7.anti-terrorism: the combating of terrorism, in the struggle for international legitimacy by small state sponsored groups.

8.pure terrorism: an international political crisis in which violent intimidation and manipulation has created a pervasive state of insecurity and fear—a state in which the critical production and distribution of terrorist threat that is temporal, and not territorial.

Have these distinctions been made by others, or is this original research? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Uri Avnery

Prey tell, are there any grounds for his inclusion here?

He considers himself a peace activist these days (some people think otherwise). Who did ever label him a terrorist?

Lame joke: Maybe some starlet that got the hachet treatment in his days as a journalist?

elpincha Oct 2004

He was a member of the Jewish terrorist organisation Irgun, but later became a dedicated peace activist. - pir 11:08, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mistake here. In 1948 Avnery was with the Haganah, specifically with Giv'ati. Most people who argue that he was/is a terrorist or an accomplice to terrorists are Israelis or pro-Israeli observers (who support what could roughly be called the Likud view, please don't flame over this) that think his positions ever since the late 1970s have actually aided and abetted terrorists. This is strongly POV, and even though I personally disagree, I can see through their line of interpretation. Now: To claim, as some people has done, that his Gush Shalom group has praised attacks on civilians, is factually false.

Is 'Sabra and Shatila Massacre' Terrorism

Could, the Sabra and Shatilla Massacre [2] (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/09/16/palestinians.anniversary.reut/), be considered to be terrorism? and If not please explain in the light of first statement of the article which is

" Terrorism refers to the use of violence against noncombatants for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or socio-economic goal. Terrorist acts can be carried out by individuals or groups, and are sometimes sponsored by governments as an alternative to an open declaration of war."

Thanks in Advance

With regards

Zain 11:17, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If it has any connotation relating to terrorism it would have to be State sponsored terrorism as the act was done by the IDF. While I believe the act was a massacre, it was against possibly armed forces. In a situation in which the details are so vague, I believe it is best to leave it alone.

                     -FreestyleFrappe

In the definition there is no mention of 'possible' armed force and in the definition there is no mention of 'state' involvement. So according to the definition given in the page it looks to me that the incident qualifies as terrorism. Any suggestions? (according to the definition please note)

Zain 10:36, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Do civilian killings due to hate, qualify as Terrorism

In the statement and American law definition, I didn't see hate as a reason. So if 'Al Qaida' killed thousands of people just because they hate America then you won't call 9/11 'Terrorism'. Sounds very strange to me. So to prove any instance as Terrorism, you have to first prove that hate was not the 'only' reason that they killed civilians?

with regards

Zain 11:27, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In the case of the WTC attacks on September 11, hate was not the main motivation for the act. Political change in American Foreign Policy was at least the claim used by the perpetrators.

                     -FreestyleFrappe

Well I tried to say if 'Al Qaida' did it for hate, instead of political motivation, then will it be regarded as terrorism.

Zain 10:33, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Killing civilians because the perpetrator hates the civilians is not terrorism. The last thing the Nazis wanted the Hungarian Jews to be was to be terrified, because it would have slowed down their killing. Terrorism is the act of trying to inducing a change in a political process by using violence or the threat of violence on a population to alter their behaviour or to influence the policy of a government. Philip Baird Shearer 00:16, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So if a Palestinian suicide bomber attacks due to hatred it won't be terrorism? Then I think many of those suicide bombers are not terrorist and even some (if not all) of the 9/11 Hijacker won't be terrorists! But of course if I say Atta Muhammad or any one of his gang was not terrorist I'll be labeled as Islamic Extremist may be even Terrorist Collaborator or their spokes man. :-D

Zain 00:29, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If a Palestinian suicide bomber attacks to try to influence the political views of her target population then that is terrorism. The suicide bomber's emotional state has no relevence in judging if the attack is a terrorist one. Philip Baird Shearer 01:56, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I understand but if the main factor of a suicide bombing is hatred instead of bringing a political change, then can we call it terrorism?

Zain 02:13, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd just call that mass murder. Jack the Ripper may have caused terror, and hatred of women is often suspected as a motive: but so far as I know no entity ever claimed responsibility and made demands for change that would end the killings. So it is not called terrorism. It's that demand for some sort of change (other than simple reduction of population) that makes terrorism. Killing for pure hate, hate alone (as distinct from hate generated by oppression, say, which could be removed by departure of the oppressor), is "merely" murder, genocide, etc. Kwantus 03:52, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

Hm. Is it really the motive that matters, or the intention to instill terror? If so, it would not matter if a suicide attacker dislikes his/her victims, but if he/she primarily attacks to achieve a demoralizing effect on civilians. (Note that there are military reasons to suicide-attack at target where the attack would not be considered terrorist.) (Some Guy) 05:04, 26 Dec 2004 (EMT)

In a word 'yes'. All definitions of terrorism include motive. For example Holocaust is not counted as terrorism!. I personally haven't found any definition which calls 'hate' as a 'motive' to terrorism. Same as I haven't found any definition which doesn't include motive as factor to distinguish between 'terrorist acts' and 'non-terrorist acts'.

Zain 11:22, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Examples of terrorism

The examples should be limited -- Perhaps the half dozen with the larges loss of life over the last ten years. Otherwise the list is very arbitrary and wide open to none NPOV. Philip Baird Shearer 01:56, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is NPOV to include all views, not simply those with wide acceptance. An "examples" section is by its nature POV, of course. It says "these are acts of terrorism" while anything left out may or may not be. Dr Zen 01:22, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Most people would agree"

This is the worst kind of weasel wording! Come on now. I've tried to NPOV the section a little but frankly it's ridiculous and should be scrapped entirely. I haven't been bold, but I would like other editors with an interest to discuss why they feel a selective list adds anything to this article, and why they believe such a narrowly defined interpretation of terrorism, which conflicts with the definition we give in kicking off the article, should be used.Dr Zen 01:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with your rewrite of the examples section. "Most people would agree" is indeed weasel wording without supporting evidence. However, there is a problem with the description of terrorism as currently given in the intro.

The current intro is the result of a fairly recent rewrite, before which the article consistently used a more limited definition. The reason the article is now inconsistent is that the current intro defines terrorism so loosely that there can't be an article on it. It's too broad to define a subject, so the rest of the article just continued using the more restrictive definition because that was the only way to have much of anything to say.

A possible solution to this would be to adopt a single definition for the purposes of Wikipedia. Then we could include an explanation to the effect that not everyone defines terrorism this way, but for the purposes of Wikipedia we are describing the phenomenon [definition]. Isomorphic 05:42, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Isomorphic, my suggestion, prompted by discussion with SlimVirgin, is that we should not define it at all, but should give a selection of definitions from various sources. I don't think it would be anything like NPOV for us to choose one definition over others. What do you think?Dr Zen 02:54, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We had such a section. It spun out into a subarticle, definitions of terrorism, which is pretty decent. I'd love it if people collected more definitions (from well-known or reputable sources) and added them there.

However, I'm less concerned with nailing down a definition than with returning the intro to something other than a POV screed. It spends lots of time implying that state violence should be considered terrorism, that the term terrorism is inherently contradictory, or that the popular definition of terrorism is flawed. At the same time it manages to spend no time at all discussing the phenomenon usually called terrorism. And where an intro section is supposed to summarize and introduce the rest of the article, this one has nothing to do with the rest of the content. Most of its content belongs in a separate section, if anywhere.

Lest anyone ask why I don't correct it instead of whining, the answer is that I did. The current tone of the intro was introduced in a rewrite by Vermillion, and I reverted part (but not all) of it at the time. Despite the fact that the version I reverted to had been fairly stable for a month and was fairly bare-bones, I was accused of POV. I figured it was pretty futile to continue at that point. Isomorphic 07:01, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Flagrant bias

The title of the entry in the INFORMATION offering updates on "Islamic Terrorism" displays egregious bias and must be changed or deleted.

Suppose someone were to insert a link to a site purporting to profile recent Israeli assaults against civilians. Any attempt to entitle such a link "Information on Jewish Terrorism" on Wikipedia would be instantly (and correctly) protested.BrandonYusufToropov 16:17, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)