Talk:Terrorism/Archive 10

Previous discussions:

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2

---

Before this gets into a case of reverts, can I endorse the version as it now stands that appends comments about minority views of who is a terrorist nation as prose after the list of widely accepted terrorist nations. If there is additional controversy, it would help to cite who widely considers (or once considered, as in the case of Libya) these nations to be terrorist. It is probabably more accurate to say "officially considered terrorist" in the context of identifying the office that made the declaration. SoCal 21:04, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

I agree with the trend of the edits by 165.228.127.160. The article is rather unwieldy. It should give the reader a better view of what terrorism is.

I haven't exactly figured how to word it, but I think an aspect of terrorist that most non-politically committed people would accept is that it works terror against civilians by the element of randomness and surprise. IOW, you know that if your nation is at war, and enemy planes are coming in that you are apt to be bombed, but in terrorist incidents, you are going about your business in a place you expect to be secure, and a bomb goes off, of a person reveals a weapon, and begins to kill unsuspecting civilians. Cecropia 07:05, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that I don't have the time (now), and maybe not the interest to get involved in nationalistic and politically charged disputes, but I dare say that I do not find Cecropia's view stated above to be of much use. For the victim, the assault may seem unexpected (although not neccessarily so), but terror wouldn't be of any use, if it weren't for the fear it is aimed at planting in its targets (which, of course, often is a much larger group than the actual victims). Randomness, yes, often that's the case, but surprise, no, not as a rule.
--Ruhrjung 07:40, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Talk? -SVtalk 09:05, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Considered by many"

"Considered by many to fit the definition" is a weasel term. Who is many? What makes them different from the undisputed terrorists other than that their political opponents think they're terrorists. Using "many" places virtually any world leader who has ever gone to war or been at the head of a state at war as a terrorist.

You'd have to include Tojo for Pearl Habor and the Rape of Nanking (among others), FDR and Churchill for the firebombing of Dresden, Both Mao and Chaing Kai-Chek in the Chinese Civil War, Lincoln for the burning of Atlanta, Stalin for the murder of Trotsky and lots of actions in WWII, and I'm not even getting started...

So can't we come up with a more responsive head than "considered by many"...?

"Considered by political opponents to fit the definition" is a weasel term. Who is are them? What are their opposing other than that their political opponents think they're terrorists. Using opponents places virtually any world leader (Jacques Chirac for instance ?) who opposed to something as a terrorist. Ericd 20:38, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Exactly my point. If the reason for including people in this "gray zone" list can't be described other than with weasel terms like "many" or "opponents" the validity of such a list at all is in question. Cecropia 22:37, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

BTW.... I include Tojo for Pearl Habor and the Rape of Nanking (among others), FDR and Churchill for the firebombing of Dresden, Both Mao and Chaing Kai-Chek in the Chinese Civil War, Lincoln for the burning of Atlanta, Stalin for the murder of Trotsky and lots of actions in WWII, and I'm not even getting started... Add Truman for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Yasser Arafat and Menahem Begin and you will be closer from the truth... And you know what I respect many of them they were humans confronted to situationsq I never had to face. Ericd 20:45, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

This article seems to be blurring any distinction between terrorism and other forms of violence. It's not just a Wikipedia problem, of course - I read a news story in which some protesters accused the military of "psychological terrorism" for playing patriotic music.

For the word to have any meaning at all, there needs to be a clear definition, and it needs to be better than what the article currently appears to be using: "organized violence for reasons that someone who has edited this article doesn't agree with."

Was the Holocaust terrorism? Was Hitler a terrorist? What about Pol Pot? Or Jack the Ripper? The section on state terrorism lists Soviet Russia. Does that mean that oppression the same thing as terrorism? Same goes for a couple of the other dictators listed. The problem is, if I started adding anybody I think fits the loose definition being used, and everyone else did the same, the article would collapse under its own weight. Sheesh, there isn't even a mention of eco-terrorism yet, and that's probably something that actually ought to be discussed.

Along these lines, I agree with Ericd's comments, and think that the "considered by some" list is meaningless and POV (meaningless since almost any world leader could qualify under the standards used, and POV because the only ones actually listed here are US and Israeli.) I could add a bunch of names to balance the POV, but the whole article is already large and confused.

I think a better solution is just to delete it. Otherwise it's just a list of people someone doesn't like. If somebody reverts, I'm not going to try to force it, but I really think this list should go. Isomorphic 22:25, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Agreed Cecropia 22:37, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree that "For the word to have any meaning at all, there needs to be a clear definition" This is the point. The word, without its political contexts, is meaningless. One does not generally mold the definition to fit a lopsided POV, unless you are operating under the pretexts of that POV. The definition, Iso, that you gave was mistated, rather the definition should be the one most clearly fits the facts. Facts might be relevant to an encyclopedia, although it seems, not where the US and its pet POV are concerned.

Next thing, someone would say that Kennedy's blowing up of a factory in Cuba forty years ago wasnt "terrorism," by some selective reasoning. Either it fits the definition, or we agree that the term is largely polemic and therefore meaningless. You cannot have your cake and eat it too, even if you think you somehow deserve that the rest of us preserve your collective delusions. -SVtalk 23:04, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that I was delusional. Thanks for enlightening me. Perhaps you should take a second look at the link you posted here to Wikipedia:Civility. Please see my comments below for further explanation of my position. Isomorphic 00:18, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Protected page

Thank you KingTurtle, for protecting the page, reminding some of our more reactionary clan to engage in civil discourse, rather than inane reverts. Its just a Wikipedia article, after all. :] With liberty and justice for us special ones, -SVtalk

Arafat not a terrorist? Weather Underground is a person?

Stevertigo reverted my edits by adding BACK arafat as a terrorist and deleting the weather underground from the list of INDIVIDUAL terrorists (it is on the organization list. If Begin and Shamir are on the terrorist list, who would leave Arafat out? Is this just spite or what? Cecropia 23:12, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well Arafat was a terrorist, C'mon...SVtalk 23:17, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is precisely because terrorism is so readily politicised by those with POV barrows to push that this article MUST be stripped down to its NPOV bones. Stevertigo's path will lead to constant revert wars. In fact, we are already seeing this. It is ludicrous and misleading to try to use the intro para as a forum for Arab apologetics or some other political agenda. As it happens, I am pro-Palistinian, but I still don't want the Arab-as-victim scenario in the first or second para. The article is getting better but it is still a hodge-podge of views and opinions, very much the proverbial camel designed by a committee. Still, let's keep at it. This is an important piece in Wikipedia. Marcusvox

Marcus, youre using GOPPOV and NPOV interchangably, please correct this behaviour. Its a political term, in almost any way you use it. This isnt rocket science - be fair. -SVtalk 23:24, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I removed the claim that Operation Condor was a CIA operation. It was a collaboration between South American governments. Even Counterpunch isn't claiming that it was a CIA operation, only that the CIA "may have even abetted" it . The fact that I have to remove a charge against the US that even Counterpunch won't make doesn't give me confidence in the current neutrality or accuracy of this article. Isomorphic 23:23, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is a shame that the page protection came on just in time to keep this para in place -

The term "terrorist" is label for one who is an active participant in a "terrorist act," be it through direct personal action, or through direct funding or logistical support in the goal of executing a terrorist act —at times the tacit definition is generalized to include "moral support" for a political agenda that can be associated with a "terrorist" group. In addition, these terms each may tend to be applied to non-violent groups which have a non-direct political association with a violent faction. Within particular political contexts, use of the term is typically avoided when discussing violence by actors who happen to function within a locally acceptible political context. In current practice, within American or Western culture, "terrorism" and "terrorist" can often be seen as acceptible racial or political euphemisms for "violence by Arabs" and even "Muslims" in general.

This is a typical left-wing perspective. It is strongly POV and not appropriate at this point in the article. In fact, it possibly has no place in the article at all. I thought NEUTRAL point of view was the goal. I will keep removing this para. Marcusvox

Typical left wing? O-boy. You must unlearn what you have learned, young Jedi. -SVtalk 23:55, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thought you might chaff at that. That's the Achilles heel on most armchair lefties living it up in the comfortable West and pontificating about some theoretical workers paradise. (I assume, safely, that you are not a Romanian, or a Cuban, or a North Korean.) Lefties in the West are invariably people who pride themselves on being different, hip, radical, not mainstream, seeing deeply into the nature of things. But sadly, you are just another typical leftie, average, boring and predictable. Shall I profile you? You are probably an academic or a writer or artist of some sort; you admire people like Noam Chomsky; you believe America is evil; you think Bill Clinton was a right-wing sell out; you privately fantasize about being Michael Moore (but thinner and better dressed); you go to S11 rallies, green rallies and all sorts of protests against something (anything!) You smoke pot and think it's cool (it was in the 1960s dude!) You are anti-war but you love the democratic freedoms underwitten by American strength-at-arms. And you write and edit WP with strong SPOV, of which you are blithely unaware. Apart from all that, you are probably a hell of nice person. Marcusvox

Just by the way, I have been wondering what GOPPOV means --- is this Grand Old Party POV, a cleverdick reference to the US Republican party??? I am not an American, nor am I British or European. So, Stevertigo, your crude attempt to pigeon-hole me as a US neo-con has failed ;-) I am an independent thinker, I study history, I accept nothing as received wisdom, I worship no ideology, I keep my eyes open, AND I believe that Ronald Reagan will be remembered as the most influential US President of the 20th century. (I love adding that last bit - it makes the neo-Trots see red, right before they turn purple and start dribbling spittle!!!) Marcusvox

• FDR was more influential ;) They even had to amend the constitution because of him ;) Kingturtle 23:49, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dont forget Thatcher - Thatcher was quite the lady when it came to little islands, and labor unions. -SVtalk 23:55, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Good point, yes it was because of FDR that terms were limited. But Ronald called the Russian bluff, knocked the straw out of their pants, and so hastened the decline of communism. It was a true Ophrah moment. Marcusvox

You have a very simplistic view of history, and its terms. Consider the meaning of communism as synonymous with terrorism. "The enemy," by some coincidence, always seems to have a name which somehow doesnt fit any definition. If you know history at all, maybe you can understand that the enemy "communism" was merely a misnomer for "totalitarianism" (which has too many syllables, so you can use it in stump speeches). That is the forgving view. The less POV view is that "communism" represented a contradicting, perhaps more totalitatarian view than capitalism did, (again, these are both just ideologies) and the debate was not so much over correctness, but of control. Now we live in an era when capitalism itself is exposed (Enron, Worldcom) for its totalitarianism ('how dare people argue over the definition of terrorism') and its inefficiency, which was the primary economic criticism of communism. -SVtalk 00:26, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You are both wandering far off topic. This is not a place for either of you to air your political views. The point is to improve this article. And an article on terrorism cannot proceed until there has been some agreement on what "terrorism" is. Isomorphic 00:33, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I concur, and yet I disagree. The political views are central to the task of finding and using a neutral definition, not just for this article, but elsewhere as well. I'd like to see "terrorism" reduced to what it is, which is a name, like "communism" was moreoften used as a name, almost entirely unrelated to its economic meaning. - SVtalk 00:44, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

For the record, one doesn't have to condone actions to say that they aren't "terrorism". My point above was only that the article needs to find something clearer than a viewpoint that any organized violence by anybody under any circumstances can be classed as terrorism. This article needs to define terrorism with respect to each of the following forms of violence that might overlap: guerilla warfare, war, low intensity conflict, covert action, organized crime, and revolution. Stvertigo appears to believe that no useful definition is possible, since he has claimed that either we have to include everything or admit that the term is largely polemic. Either one of those options leaves the term meaningless, and leaves this article to be nothing but a political playground. I believe that such a definition is possible, and I suggest that some thought be put into it. Isomorphic 00:18, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, you seek meaning where there is none. Perhaps better said, you seek literal meaning, where exists only political meaning in common rhetoric. -SVtalk 00:46, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

U.S. state department

Prior to 9/11, the U.S. state department defined terrorism as:

Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

Noncombatants are not only civilians, but military personnel who are unarmed or off duty at the time. This definition is worded carefully so that governments cannot be listed as terrorist organizations. Kingturtle 00:47, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Interesting. But does the pre-911 United States State Department have reign over the definition? We agree that even this less 911-influenced meaning was was "worded carefully" —for political reasons. -SVtalk 00:51, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Not at all, but we certainly should include this definition and a critique of it. Ours is not to omit, but to include with criticism. Kingturtle 00:53, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Actually, though, metnioning the state department definition only addresses terrorism as an expletive. Terrorism by a government is covered under "clandestine agents." "Agents" means "agent of a government." The argument about "state terrorism" is really only a "don't complain I do it, you do it, too." The sanction against a government for a terrorist act is called a "war crime," although according to the laws of war, war crimes can be committed both by governments and individuals. Cecropia 00:54, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. This is constructive discussion. The distinction between terrorism and war crimes does exist. It's only since 9/11 that it's become chic to call everything "terrorism." My point from the beginning is not that it's OK for governments to do it, but that we call it something different then. Isomorphic 01:03, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Bush administration has been very careful to overuse the term terrorism. Bush is more likely to get funding for what he wants when he invokes the word. This article should discuss Bush's overuse of the word, and why he does it.

The use of the term, however, is not new. In fact, this is not the U.S.'s first war on terror. Kingturtle 01:06, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's not just Bush, it's everyone. You can smear your opponents by linking them with something that most people condemn (9/11). I would be happy to see a section on the overuse of the word (as long as it does not single out Bush alone,) and the reasons for it.

Also, what is this earlier war on terrorism you're referring to? I'm no sure if I know what you mean, but I'm interested. Isomorphic 01:13, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Reagan administration had a war on terrorism too. The opponents included Lebanon and Libya. Events included attacks on the American embassy and Marines in Beirut, bombing of U.S. embassy in Kuwait, the hijacking of TWA 847, the kidnappings of Americans in the Middle East (including William Buckley), the hijacking of the Achille Lauro, the bombing of La Belle Discotheque, and the bombing of Pan Am 103. Frontline did a terrific episode about it all. Kingturtle 02:33, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps a mention of this should go in the article for historical context? Isomorphic 02:38, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Some education from KT. Thanks again! -SV(talk) 03:16, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Definitive definition of terrorism

"What the other guy does." Cecropia 00:47, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Basically thats it. It doesnt sound encyclopedic, but its correct. And what's a correctable encyclopedia supposed to be if not correct.?

-SVtalk 00:51, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So let's put that definition up, and go out for a beer. Cecropia 00:55, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's the lazy way out. Anyone can agree that a husband beating his wife is not terrorism. And I don't think most people would call an invasion "terrorism", because that's war. So obviously there IS some meaning here. Also, I don't think that the fact that everybody has been abusing the term ridiculously since 9/11 is any reason for us to assume that it never had meaning. Isomorphic 00:59, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The problem is no so much one of definition. The article has a good opening para and later paras cover the distinctive nature of terrorism acceptably well. It is the introduction of POV material like this which is in contention:

"Within particular political contexts, use of the term is typically avoided when discussing violence by actors who happen to function within a locally acceptible political context. In current practice, within American or Western culture, "terrorism" and "terrorist" can often be seen as acceptible racial or political euphemisms for "violence by Arabs" and even "Muslims" in general."

This is erroneous, dubious and contentious. Marcusvox

I see - so, though you (typically) avoid the issues, you pretend that you and your views are meritous enough to erase material, and dictate to us what is "in contention." The issue in contention is the very use of the term terrorism, not just on this article, but throughout wikipedia, to conform to a logical definition that is agreeable to most. Who are most? Consider recent (international) polls which put Israel and the US at the top of a 'most danger to the world' list. Now you could say openly here now Marcusvox, that "world opinion" is misinformed or otherwise under the control of some "evil" influence, but as you know, you would then have to deal with the some 70 percent of the English wikipedians who belong to that World opinion. -SVtalk 01:23, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your comment about polls is completely irrelevant. Terrorism =/ evil. You can be morally wrong without being a terrorist, and some might even say that you can be a terrorist without being morally wrong. Apparently you feel that because you dislike the foreign policy of the United States, you must define terrorism in such a way as to include it. You realize, don't you, that it's perfectly possible to find an action reprehensible and not call it terrorism? Isomorphic 01:45, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree. But the tendency is to label Arab violence "fanatical" and "terrorist." In otherwords its OK to grumble a bit about US or Western violence, but leave the real science of labelism to "the enemy," whomever it be. How do you deal with how the tendency for bias contradicts logic? Does logic not have a place in how a term is defined or used? -SV

What is all this babbling about Stevertigo? I understand you very well. You are a typical leftist. There are no surprises in you. I could write two dozen statements here and just about predict your responses to each of them verbatim. You are a completely known quantity. I have heard the leftist/liberal rant for many decades. I (no doubt we all) know what outrages you, what appalls you, what motivates you. But you are just a windbag, full of theories you have never put into practice. I suspect you are an American - but one of the strange ones who does not seem to comprehend the greatness of their own nation. I'll bet you are not a Romanian, an East German, an Albanian, or a North Korean, or any of the other poor bastards who have suffered terrible deprivation because of the inherent stupidities of socialism. Go play with your crystals Stevertigo, and let the grown-ups get on with NPOVing this article. Marcusvox

I wont respond to your attacks, as you seem to be under an assumption:that I have a "typical leftist POV," and an illusion: that your comments don't betray you as a right-wing nutcase—convinced that you by God's grace alone have made it to the top of your imaginary gene pool. All that being 'firmly established, to continue to argue with a person like you would be to argue with a fool—and then people might not be able to tell the difference, which I certainly don't want to happen. :D -SVtalk 02:49, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ha ha! Is that blood on your collar? Looks like I smacked you fair in your big RED nose! But alas! Don't tell me that, like Peter, you would deny your Christ? I see. What would Noam think? Not only are you an armchair lefty, but you're a pretty tame one at that. I suspected as much. Again, no surprises with you. Marcusvox

Definition baseline

How about if we start with several dictionary definitions? IMO, if we could define this without mentioning specific countries and especially people any more than necessary, we might come up with something that the ingenuous user might find useful.

• "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." -- The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
• "The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode of government by terror or intimidation. --Jefferson." -- Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
• "the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments." -- Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

If anyone attacks these as culturally biased, I dispair of having any kind of article at all. Cecropia 01:47, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If we start with these, then to whom are they applied? Some here maintian the claim that the US or Israel (the prime copyright-holders of the "terrorism" ad campaign) can never commit terrorism, nor can thier past, presiding, or future military commanders possibly be considered terrorists-- contrary to the above definitions, which if, taken literally, would apply. Take the case of Cuba, or Nicaragua, or Vietnam, and the use of terrorism (impressive weaponry or not) to exacerbate and inflame the pre-existing conflicts. If we can agree to be even-handed and logical about who gets labeled a terrorist, and not use other terms like "warfare" and "soldier" and "combatant" simply to obfuscate the agreed-to definition, then we can talk about starting with a "definition."

This has so far failed to happen, and right-wingers of all opposing sides typically get on Wikipedia to espouse their over-simplistic views - Wikipedia leaves itself open to this by not sticking to a solid definition --one that would require someone like Marcus to actually look up from his beerglass to understand. A beer does sound good, by the way. -SVtalk 03:01, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

SV, I think you're too hung up on labeling who is and isn't a terrorist. Do we care about whether a person looking for an encyclopedia entry comes away with some solid information, no matter what his or her view? If we can't start with a dictionary definition, then maybe there shouldn't be an article entitled "terrorism" at all. We can't even use the "Man fron Mars" standard, because such a being might read what we think is an impartial definition, throw out our earthly fascination with "just" and "unjust", "aggressor" and "defender", "civilian" and "military", "lawful" and "unlawful", and conclude that all war is terrorism, rendering the term meaningless. Cecropia 03:39, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Again, this sounds like you're representing a complaint that 'we can no longer use our favorite word' rather than an argument which shows that the word can have a neutral meaning. It cant —it's a polemic term, and every despot in history has used the term or something like it to characterise dissident violence as senseless mayhem, instead of natural social discontent, or a rebellion-por-libertad. The old rules —which count on cultures staying isolated by oceans and tongues, are no longer relevant. Fact. -SV(talk) 06:22, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There is nothing so elegant as simplicity. Perhaps you should have a beer, Stevertigo, it might loosen you up a little and perhaps you would become a little less pompous. But probably not. Marcusvox

Suggested Revision Ok, here is the revision of I have been trying to put forward. I have put it on an external web link at http://www.ballina.net/wik/terrorism.htm As you will see, it includes some of the stuff Stevertigo wanted. Perhaps we could use this as a starting point? Comments? --Marcusvox 09:01, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

• That link is not working. Kingturtle 09:03, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)