Talk:Terrorism

Previous discussions:

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2
• /Archive 3
• /Archive 4

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)

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)

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...

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 bastardisationm 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)

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.

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.

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.

Source of terrorism in the world

Plz consider the fallowing passage:

"The women chosen by the BBC on its web page [1] are special people... the common Saudi women are living a life beyond our imagination... Under the global pressure, if the Saudi regime is opening the doors of freedom of thought, speech and expression in that conservative society, it will not only benefit the common people but will nip the roots of terrorism around the world as well. We the common Muslims in Pakistan are directly affected by the traditional conservative policies of the Saudi Arabian and Iranian regimes... Both Saudi Arabia and Iran have been financially supporting their agents in Pakistan and thus sectarianism and terrorism has been nourished in our land. These terrorists never let us common Pakistani women to walk around freely and try to through acid on our faces or stop marathon races by force and they want to show us the model of Saudi Arabia and Iran... (Sick). If Saudi Arabia and Iran are motivated by the world community to be a part of the world community then the world can get rid of terrorism and extremism.

The Saudi man has all the privilege...they can have 4 wives at a time... many trips around the world, especially 'moral holidays' in the West but their women live a life less than human beings...it should change now!

Just 4000 princes (from the King to the police officer) of a family are ruling the poor Saudi people with tyranny and it is not only affecting them but every one in the region, especially in the Muslim world…

These things should be included in the main article of Wikipedia in a balanced way!"

Keith Henson's thoughts

william buckland's thoughts, "terrorism is a form of warfare."

I would put it a bit differently. Terrorism and warfare are both the outcome of stressed human populations.

Also: "that is to say, politics by other means."

I think "politics" misses he evolutionary origin of war and terrorism. I commented about this recently on the virus list when someone mentioned that there was disagreement about the Wikipedia page for "terrorism" and proposed that it might be recast as a memetics issue. My comments there:

(begin quote)

I am sorry to say that memetics is not the right tool for the job. This is coming from a person whose status depends to a considerable degree on work in memetics now dating back over 20 years.

What is needed is evolutionary psychology.

Many of us overrated memes as being causal to wars and related social disruptions. They do play a role in the causal *chain* leading to war and/or terrorism but as members of interchangeable class. They are not at the origin of the chain.

The ultimate cause of "uncaused" wars and terrorism is rooted in the problems of any species that escapes its predators. Without predation, animals always over exploit their environment. This is true of chimps as well as humans. By taking to the trees to sleep and staying in groups during the day, very few chimps get eaten by leopards.

So chimp populations are limited by violence--sometimes total genocide--between groups. (Bumper sticker: Be Your Own Predator!)

For this to be stable, there has to be feedback making violence between chimp groups more likely as the population rises or the food supply falls. I do not know what it is that turns on chimpanzee genocides, though this would be an important question to ask.

Humans have an evolved behavioral switch that is activated by the anticipation of coming hard times. The link through memes is that the switch turns up the gain of circulating xenophobic memes. In the environment of evolutionary adaptiveness, the circulating memes synchronized a tribe's warriors to a do or die attack on a neighboring tribe.

In a situation where the tribe members would all starve without taking over a neighbor's territory, the genes of the warriors were better off *even if the warriors lost and were all killed.* The reason is that their genes were also present in the female children which were normally booty to the winning tribe. (You need to understand Hamilton's inclusive fitness for this to make sense.)

If you wonder why humans seem to have rather flexible morals, it is part and parcel of our evolutionary heritage. Morals *are* situational. If you want peace rather than wars and terrorism, all human populations need to be looking at an improving future (or at least not a bleak one).

[A question for the class to consider is why some parts of the world are much more stable than others.? As a specific case, give an EP account for why population support for the IRA faded out? Date (+-5 years) the origin of the proximate cause.]

As an analogy, removing a lug nut from a wheel with sticks and rocks would be an awful job. But it becomes a simple task with an air wrench. So it is with understanding wars and terrorism with EP instead of memetics.

Unfortunately, the understanding that emerges is extremely depressing. Because it uses the E word, it can't even be comprehended by the rising political forces in the US.

(end quote)

Bradley Thayer's recent book _Darwin and International Relations_ more or less supports this view.

If there is interest for this merging of war, terrorism and relates social disruptions, I will be happy to contribute a draft.

Keith Henson

FactFinder

"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)

Rudolph and Goldstein examples

I notice a little edit war going on with whether to include Rudolph and Goldstein as examples of terrorists whose intentions were to maximize casualties. The only problem I see is that terrorists generally are seen as acting on behalf of an organization. These two, as far as I understand, are mass murderers but perhaps aren't clear examples of "terrorists". What do you think? And are there any better examples to use instead of them? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 15:51, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I removed them because they operated as indivduals and therefore the issue of giving warning is irrelevant to them. A psychopath never issue a warning before he opens a killing spree (which is usualy done spotanoussly out of revenage, the phsycho takes a gun and just start shooting). However, organizations are more calculated and often act in the pursuit of a certain goal. Their attack are almost always planned and carried out by dedicated teams, which act in a more calculated way and are suboedinate to their group's agenda. Therefore, they have the means to issue warnings (anonymous call to the press by another team members), if they want to spare human lives and just cause panic. MathKnight 16:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that's much better. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 16:05, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

A hallmark of contemporary far-right-wing terrorism is the encouragement and support of "lone wolves" who can deny formal involvement with any organization. The FBI thinks the phenomenon exists:

http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2005/US/02/01/schuster.column/

Someone who doesn't think this pattern exists should bear the responsibility of proving that the FBI is wrong on this point.

If you remove Rudolph from the article, do you plan on rewriting the Eric Robert Rudolph page to defend the view that he is not a terrorist? What type of language do you plan to use on that? How about Timothy McVeigh?

Both Goldstein and Rudolph belong in. BrandonYusufToropov 16:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Which groups did encouraged Goldstein and Rudolph to commit these acts? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are they part of a group? Did they operated on behalf of a group? Can you back these charges? As I stated before, individual terrorists or murderers, who acts on their own, and usually out of vandatta, don't issue warnings since they act is usually spontanous and second – they are usually get killed or caught after their first attack, so no pattern can be determined. The issue of warnings valid only for group terrorism – attacks which are mastermind by groups and so a pattern can be determined (the attackers may get killed, but the group have other attackers, willing to do similiar acts). So far you failed to address the issues. MathKnight 17:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And the FBI would be, in your view, delusional in describing them as terrorists? BrandonYusufToropov 18:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Where does the FBI mention Goldstein? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Correction: "Him." And the other half-dozen US lone wolves mentioned in the article. Obviously, they don't have jurisdiction over Goldstein.

The question remains — we are writing an article on Terrorism. FBI says Rudolph is a terrorist. Are they right or wrong? Wriggle elsewhere, please. Looking for a direct answer. Thanks loads. BrandonYusufToropov 19:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yusuf, you again fail to address the issue. The question is not whether their activity consist of being terrorist, but rather they were belonged to a group or not. MathKnight 19:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm challenging the contention that one has to be a publicly declared member of a group to be a terrorist, yes, and pointing out that the FBI agrees with me on this point. Acknowledged? Or is some fact in dispute in what I just wrote? BrandonYusufToropov 19:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You again failed to address the point. I don't claim they were not terrorist, but that they acted as individuals and therefore the issue of giving warning is pretty much irrelevant for them. Please see Independent terrorist actor for more information. MathKnight 19:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The CNN article I forwarded (see above) makes the point that these individuals operate quote independently unquote — but under the tacit approval of, and with the training, support, and education of — organized groups. (This was Goldstein's pattern as well, by the way.) The terrorists in question do this in order to pursue their bloody agenda effectively over time and, yes, that agenda definitely includes sneaking up on civilians whom they wish to kill without giving prior notice.

Question number one: Did you read the article?

Question number two: Do you think it's about terrorism?

Question number three: Where is this information included in our discussion of how terrorist groups target their victims? BrandonYusufToropov 20:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This was Goldstein's pattern? Who approved, trained and supported him in his attack? He took a machine gun and gunned down a bunch of people. There were no bomb labs, timing devices, disguises etc. required. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You know what I love about chatting with you, Jay? Those slipstream reversals. Was I talking about bomb labs? Was I talking about disguises? No. What I said was, "tacit approval," and "training, support, and education." Not specific ops. After they're cut loose, having received early indoctrination, lone wolves are on their own. (Like you didn't get that already.)

I quote:

http://www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/goldstein_significance.html

Goldstein's refusal to give proper medical treatment to non-Jews continued after he was transferred to Kiryat Arba. In his February 27,1994 Yediot Ahronot article, Nahum Barnea wrote:

"The senior Israeli army officer in the Hebron area told me about his two encounters with Baruch Goldstein. The second time he saw him was in the company of Kach goons who were abusing President Ezer Weisman during his visit to Kiryat Arba."

I quote:

http://www.ict.org.il/inter_ter/orgdet.cfm?orgid=19

"Kach (Hebrew for 'Only Thus') was founded by radical Israeli-American rabbi Meir Kahane. The stated goal of Kach and its offshoot Kahane Chai, which means 'Kahane Lives,' (founded by Meir Kahane's son Binyamin following his father's assassination in the United States), is to restore the biblical state of Israel. Both organizations were declared terrorist organizations by the Israeli Cabinet in March 1994. [my emphasis--BYT] This followed the groups' statements in support of Dr. Baruch Goldstein's attack in February 1994 on the al-Ibrahimi Mosqueand their verbal attacks on the Israeli Government. Goldstein was affiliated with Kach.

You've been a busy bee lately, Jay. One of the things you've been busy doing is misdirecting conversations like these. Back to camp, compass in hand:

Question number one: Did you read the CNN article (above) about lone wolves?

(Replay: These individuals operate quote independently unquote — but under the tacit approval of, and with the training, support, and education of — organized groups. This was Goldstein's pattern as well, by the way. The terrorists in question do this in order to pursue their bloody agenda effectively over time and, yes, that agenda definitely includes sneaking up on civilians whom they wish to kill without giving prior notice.)

Question number two: Do you think the CNN article I posted is about terrorism?

Question number three: Where is this information included in our discussion of how terrorist groups target their victims? BrandonYusufToropov 20:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC

Actually, my questions were directly to the point. The alleged phenomenon of "lone wolf" actors who are indoctrinated and then stealthily sent on their way to act on their own, so that the indoctrinating organization can deny responsibility, is fundamentally different from the typical terrorist phenomenon, wherein an organized group uses sophisticated means to train and equip its operatives, and then claims responsibility for the resultant acts in order to increase its prestige, power, following, and funding. Your attempts to conflate these two fundamentally different phenomena were simply incorrect; now that the lone wolf phenomenon has been placed in its own logical and coherent section, the article once again makes sense. So, in answer to your questions, 1) Yes. 2) It's an allegation about a different kind of terrorism, and 3) Where it belongs, in its own section discussing the alleged phenomenon. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:37, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Progress. Clearly, we allegedly understand, as perhaps we have allegedly understood for some time, what a "lone wolf" (allegedly) is. So:

• Your earnest, seemingly befuddled demand for explanations of precisely how Kach (or Allegedly, Inc., if you prefer) had overseen and supported Goldstein in the details of his attack ... that was a typo, right? Otherwise someone might wonder if you were deliberately throwing the conversation off track. (Same deal with your puzzlement over my error in describing the FBI as identifying Goldestein. An innocent question, or a one-line attempt to avoid actual discussion of Goldstein's actions? Or, again, a typo?)

There is quite a difference between an allegation of such a connection, and a proudly touted action. And the questions were precisely on-track; you were trying to confuse an alleged secret conspiracy between Kach and Goldstein with the typical terrorist organization which arms, trains, sends off, then proudly claims responsibility for it's members actions. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Your insistence that "neither Goldstein or Rudolph are relevant" — you really meant by this that they deserved a section of their own, yes? Just want to be clear. I missed some elusive shade of meaning in the header, right?

They certainly weren't relevant where they were. As I said above, you were conflating two distinct phenomena. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Is it my imagination, or have your edits, deletions, and additions here consistently followed a pro-Israel, pro-white-guy pattern? Did you write, just for the sake of balance, a long section on McVeigh or the KKK that somehow got lost in the shuffle? And what, if you don't mind my asking, would make you so very eager to exclude such loathsome characters from an article like this?

Is it my imagination that you are focussing on me, rather than article content? Is it my imagination that you are using sarcasm, innuendo, and mockery as not-so-subtle attempts to put me down? Is it my imagination that your questions have already been answered, but you continue to ask them again anyway? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Let's clarify: Suicide bombers who slavishly carry out a hatemongering religious agenda, and who imagine they are thereby winning entry to Paradise ... those are bad guys. Racist machine gunners with a hatemongering religious agenda, who imagine they are fulfilling God's will by murdering civilians .... those are bad guys, too, right?

They're both bad-guys, though Goldstein didn't imagine he was fulfilling God's will. All mass murderers are bad guys, but not all mass murderers are terrorists. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I'm happy with the new section too. There we agree. Do note, however, that both ("alleged") "lone wolves" and (curiously, in your world, not "alleged") proponents of the "typical terrorist phenomenon," as you put it, target civilians without warning. BrandonYusufToropov 19:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Terrorists who proudly claim responsibility for blowing people up are not alleged, but admitted. And regarding targetting civilians without warning, so do mass murderers and serial rapists, but they're not terrorists. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's hard for me to tell whether you're referring to Goldstein in the reference above to mass murderers, but earlier you claim (through a spirit medium?) to have known what was on his mind before he killed civilians. He was clearly a religious extremist, and the idea that he "didn't imagine he was fulfilling God's will" seems to me difficult to defend. But go ahead.

This whole "alleged' thing, which I do indeed find irritating in the present context, appears to be designed as a fig-leaf for the benefit of Goldstein, the deletion of whose terrorist crimes sparked this little tete a tete. If you mean "alleged" in another way, please do clarify. But for the record, lest there be any doubt that his act was a political one with political consequences:

Tiran Pollak, one of the Kahane Khai leaders, wanted by the police, granted me an interview near the coffin. "Goldstein was not only righteous and holy," he told me, "but also a martyr. Since he is a martyr, his corpse will be buried without being washed, not in a shroud but in his clothes. The honorable Dr. Goldstein has always refused to provide medical help to Arabs. Even during the War for the Galilee he refused to treat any Arab. The Chief Rabbi of the Israeli army, General Gad Navon, at that time contacted Meir Kahane, asking him to persuade Baruch Goldstein of blessed memory to treat the Arabs. But Kahane refused, on the ground that this would be against the Jewish religion."--Ilana Baum

After Goldstein's coffin was brought to Kiryat Arba under heavy military guard, a second run of eulogies was delivered in the hall of the Hesder Yeshiva Nir, i.e., in a military institution. Goldstein was eulogized there by a whole motley of religious settlers, but also by the above mentioned rabbi Dov Lior. Lior said: "Goldstein was full of love for fellow human beings. He dedicated himself to helping others." It should be explained here that terms like "human being" refer in Jewish Orthodox Law [Halacha] only to Jewish human beings. — Israel Shahak

"The holy martyr Baruch Goldstein is from now on our intercessor in the Heavens. Goldstein didn't act as an individual: He heard the cry of the Land [of Israel] which is being stolen from us day after day by the Muslims. He acted in order to relieve that cry of the Land!" — Rabbi Israel Ariel

So yeah. He was "allegedly' mixed up with the Kahane folks. There is "allegedly" air to breathe, and gravity "allegedly' pulls objects toward the center of the earth.

Now, I acknowledge that a less bullheaded editor than I would have acceded to your various underhanded attempts to keep Goldstein out of this article. But I do want to be very clear that it is your edits, deletions, and additions I take exception to, not you as a person. Could be I'm off base here, and I've missed some more even-handed aspect of your work. Prove me wrong. BrandonYusufToropov 12:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I respect your work Brandon, and I'd like to work co-operatively with you on this and other articles. However, not only have you misrepresented completely what I have been saying, your tone and words here have been such an outrageous violation of the Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith policies (particularly the "various underhanded attempts" phrase) that I refuse to respond to your inquisition any further unless some sort of apology is forthcoming. I try to maintain a pretty even keel here, but it is difficult enough in the face of daily abuse from psychotic sockpuppets, I don't need more from you. As a final statement, I will simply direct you to this reversion and this edit I made last month at Baruch Goldstein. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whatever. Let's do assume good faith, and maybe talk to each other before deleting substantive material, okay? BrandonYusufToropov 15:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Brandon, after following his argument here, that there is a phenomenon of the "lone wolf" terrorist that should be addressed in the article. They would be differentiated from mass murderers because they act out of an extreme political agenda which includes the use of terrorist acts to further their cause. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:31, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. This topic deserve its own section (obviously, given the contention here). But the "warnings" section is obviously not that section.

I also suspect this issue would have been better discussed and resolved here before the parties involved engaged in their revert war... it's not like it'll kill anyone to have the page not "their way" for a couple of days. :)  — Wisq 03:59, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

That was actually my argument! Moreover, I combined Brendon's additions in their proper place: Independent terrorist actor. It will be better if the issue will be elaborated there, including the thesis of the "lone wolf". MathKnight 07:48, 21 Apr 2005 (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)

-SV|t 23:06, 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.