Talk:History of terrorism/Archive 2

Fair use rationale for Image:Manchesterbomb-devestation.jpg
Image:Manchesterbomb-devestation.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Earlier version
I thought some of this information might worth reintegrating

Origin The term "terrorism" comes from the French word terrorisme, which is based on the Latin verb terrere (to cause to tremble), [1] It dates back to 1795 when it was used to describe the actions of the Jacobin Club in their rule of post-Revolutionary France, the so-called "Reign of Terror". Jacobins are rumored to have coined the term "terrorists" to refer to themselves. The English word "terrorism" was popularized in English when it was used by the conservative Edmund Burke, an outspoken opponent of the French Revolution and the Terror. Acts described as Jacobin Club "terrorism" were mostly cases of arrest or execution of opponents as a means of coercing compliance in the general public. According to Juegensmeyer, they were public acts of destruction which inflicted a public sense of fear due to the lack of military objectives.

Precursors Because of all the attention paid to it recently, terrorism is viewed as a modern phenomenon. In fact, the use of terror to achieve ideological or political ends is almost as old as human civilization. Starting with the ancient Assyrians, there are many examples of terrorism in the Greco-Roman world, the Mongol conquests, medieval Islam and Christianity. “Modern” terrorism evolved in Europe in the wake of the French Revolution and revolutionary movements of the nineteenth century. Terrorism established itself as a global phenomenon during the course of the twentieth century. Terror was used to enforce religious conformity, to ensure political obedience, and to promote revolution. In the 1st century, Zealots conducted a fierce and unrelenting terror campaign against the Roman Empire in the eastern Mediterranean. The Zealots enlisted sicarii to strike down rich Jewish collaborators and others who were friendly to the Romans. These terrorists were eventually defeated by the Romans in a series of conflicts (First Jewish-Roman War - Kitos War - Bar Kokhba's revolt), culminating in Hadrian edicts against Judaism and the reestablishment of Jerusalem as the Roman pagan polis of Aelia Capitolina.[citation needed] In the 11th century, the radical Islamic sect known as the Hashshashin (this word, derived from the word "Hashish," which the Hash-Ishiim reputedly used regularly, translates directly to the word "assassin" in the English language) employed systematic murder for a cause they believed to be righteous. For two centuries, they resisted efforts to suppress their religious beliefs and developed ritualized murder into a fine art taught through generations. Political aims were achieved through the power of intimidation.

French Revolution During the French Revolution (1789 - 1799), the most severe period of the rule of the Committee of Public Safety (1793 - 1795) was labelled "The Reign of Terror" (1793 - 1794) to describe rule through a systematic use of terror exemplified especially by extensive use of the guillotine. Historic references to the term "terrorism" first appeared during the Reign of Terror.

Nineteenth century The current use of the term "terrorism" is broader and relies more on the example of the 19th-century revolutionaries who used the technique of assassination, particularly the anarchists and Narodniks in Tsarist Russia, whose most notable action was the assassination of Alexander II. An early example of its use in the current sense is in Joseph Conrad's 1907 story "The Secret Agent", where it is used to describe anarchists attempting to cause terror and forment social disruption by blowing up Greenwich Observatory: "The venomous spluttering of the old terrorist without teeth was heard." Ch.3: "What is one to say to an act of destructive ferocity so absurd as to be incomprehensible, inexplicable, almost unthinkable; in fact, mad? Madness alone is truly terrifying, inasmuch as you cannot placate it either by threats, persuasion, or bribes." (Ch.2) In 1867 the Irish Republican Brotherhood, a revolutionary nationalist group with support from Irish-Americans, carried out attacks in England. These were the first acts of "republican terrorism", which became a recurrent feature of British history, and these Fenians were the precursor of the Irish Republican Army. The ideology of the group was Irish nationalism. In Russia, by the mid-19th century, the intelligentsia grew impatient with the slow pace of Tsarist reforms, and sought instead to transform peasant discontent into open revolution. Anarchists like Mikhail Bakunin maintained that progress was impossible without destruction. Their objective was nothing less than complete destruction of the state. Anything that contributed to this goal was regarded as moral. With the development of sufficiently powerful, stable, and affordable explosives, the gap closed between the firepower of the state and the means available to dissidents. Organized into secret societies like the People's Will, Russian terrorists launched a campaign of terror against the state that climaxed in 1881 when Tsar Alexander II of Russia was assassinated. At about the same time, Anarchists in Europe and the United States also resorted to the use of dynamite, as did Catalan nationalists such as La Reixa and Bandera Negra. Two groups within the Ottoman Empire also resorted to techniques considered by some historians to be in the same category as those used by the People's Will and the Anarchists. One group was those fighting for an independent Armenia, divided into two parties, the Social Democrat Hunchakian Party and the Dashnaks or Armenian Revolutionary Federation. The other group was those fighting for an independent Macedonia, divided into two organizations, the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO) and the External Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (EMRO). The IMRO was founded in 1893 in Thessaloniki, now in Greece but then part of the Ottoman Empire. The organisation was driven by Slavic nationalism, and later acquired a reputation for ferocious attacks, including the 1934 assassination of Alexander I of Yugoslavia during a state visit to France. The Fenians/IRA, the Hunchaks and Dashnaks, and the IMRO may be considered the prototype of all 'nationalist terrorism', and equally illustrate the (itself controversial) expression that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". At least one of these groups achieved its goals: an independent Ireland came into being. So did an independent Macedonia, but the original IMRO probably contributed little to this outcome. The territories of today's Armenia, however, are all in the former Russian empire.

Twentieth century A reincarnation of the 19th Century Ku Klux Klan arose in the United States in 1915, and became active for several decades, using terrorist tactics to promote a doctrine of white supremacy. Today, modern weapons technology has made it possible for a "super-empowered angry man" (Thomas Friedman) to cause a large amount of destruction by himself or with only a few conspirators. It can be, and has been, conducted by small as well as large organizations. Some people considered at some point in their lives to be terrorists, or supporters of terrorism, have gone on to become dedicated peace activists (Uri Avnery), respected statesmen (Yitzhak Shamir) or even Nobel Peace Prize laureates (Nelson Mandela, Yasser Arafat). Though in some instances, the label of terrorist may not follow the standard sense which requires the targeting of non-combatants. Since 1968, the U.S. State Department has tallied deaths due to terrorism. In 1985, it counted 816 deaths, the highest annual toll until then. The deaths decreased since the late 1980s, then rose to 3,295 in 2001, mainly as a result of the September 11, 2001 attacks, which took about 3 thousand lives. In 2003, more than 1,000 people died as a result of terrorist acts. Many of these deaths resulted from suicide bombings in Chechnya, Iraq, India and Israel. It does not tally victims of state terrorism.

Data from the MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base showed a similar decline since the 1980s, especially in Western Europe. On the other hand, Asia experienced an increase in international terrorist attacks. Other regions experienced less consistent patterns over time. From 1991 to 2003, there was a consistent increase in the number of casualties from international terrorist attacks in Asia, but few other consistent trends in casualties from international terrorist attacks. Three different regions had, in three different years, a few attacks with a large number of casualties. Statistically, distribution of the severity of terrorist attacks follows a power law ([1]), much like that for wars and also natural disasters like earthquakes, floods and forest fires. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.78.253 (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Beslan
as has been started before this article can't simple be a list of terrorism, (there is already an article for that), i left Beslan for now with an Expand tag to give the contributor the chance to actually add some information and show why its notable to the history of terrorism, i'm not greatly familiar with terrorism in Russia so any editors who are i'd appreciate it if you could review it. if no expansion is forthcoming the head should be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.249.200 (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Crusades
Couldn't the crusades have been considered terrorism?--69.234.210.39 (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

not really it was a military invasion a brutal one yes but you'd need a very loose defintion of terrorism, and one which would then start to include, the Mongols, and the allies and axis of world war 2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.244.16 (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

eurocentric
Up from the Seventeenth century to the Nationalism and the End of Empire it appears that this article is centered around Western events only.--69.234.210.39 (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

we have tried to diversify it as much as possible, but if you can add relevant stuff on other events please do —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.244.16 (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Although this is for the post-"End of Empire" period, I added Japanese Red Army, ASALA, PKK. Hezbollah, Tamil Tigers, Hamas, and Egyptian Islamic Jihad in an effort to add important groups from outside Europe and the U.S. Mcenroeucsb (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

tamil tigers and Sikh nationalists
These groups should really be added

I just added Tamil Tigers. Mcenroeucsb (talk) 06:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Stuff to add
Baader Meinhof, Japanese Red Army, PFLP, action directe, Brigate Rosse etc - more or less the whole seventies wave of red terror. Just throwing it out there for less lazy people to add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.238.113.244 (talk) 05:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

thats the problem, its beyond my expertise, so we wait, maybe when i have some time to do the proper work —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.165.159 (talk) 06:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Cold War Proxy Section
This section is very short, but it has a number of inflammatory and unbacked up claims. The Operation Gladio reference is especially incorrect as it suggests that Operation Gladio has been confirmed to be a false flag operation whereas it seems more likely that it was another case of training done for one purpose later turning around to bite the trainers. The link between terrorism and proxy warfare is real and key, but shouldn't be marred by unverified claims or paranoid conspiracism. 192.31.19.50 (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Article needs narrative
I think this article should be rewritten in narrative form. As it is, it has so many disjointed sections that its almost like reading a list. The ur-terrorists, the people responsible for popularizing the word in its modern sense, are People's Will and the other late 19th century Russian terrorist groups. So a narrative should begin with the incidents that inspired People's Will, then discuss Russian terrorism, and then continue with the anarchists and others inspired by the Russian terrorists, and then the people they inspired, and so on up to the present. The article shouldn't try to cover every notable act of political violence since the full complexity of the subject goes off in too many different directions. Kauffner (talk) 12:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I completely disagree, how exactly do you connect the people's will to the IRA SOE or Aum Shinrikyo Capt Jack Doicy (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The article should follow the organization and content of the established scholarship in this field like A History of Terrorism by Laqueur, Terror by Bowden and Davis, or Terrorism in Context by Crenshaw. The examples of terrorism given in the article should be from RS scholarship that focuses on terrorism. Some suffragettes go wild and burn someone's house down and that's enough for the movement to be listed as terrorist? This example is referenced only to suffragette literature. If any group that ever committed violence against civilians can go in, that would be a really, really long list. Kauffner (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Again we've aimed to be as NPOV as possible given the emotive subject matter, as you can see with slowey below, many people feel that certain groups aren't or are terrorists. so we include notable groups or events. Now to the matter of a narrative, first i'm not sure telling a story is entirely appropriate in a encyclopedia, second the early article was more in that style, but suffered from POV and was Anglo american in viewpoint, and one of the books you suggest is entirely european in perspective starting with the gunpowder plot, the second has a very american perspective, and this is a viewpoint the article has progressively been moving from not towards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.181.179 (talk) 04:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to understand the concept of NPOV. It's about balancing the points of view presented in the relevant literature. If the literature on terrorism is geographically unbalanced, it's not our job to "correct" it. Pulling stuff from non-terrorism literature based our own judgment of what constitutes notable terrorism makes the topic entirely open ended. Kauffner (talk) 13:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Everything is sourced, but what your suggesting would lead to POV, since if we then give equal weight to Iranian literature as we do western, then we have to add the US as terrorist. as it stands the list comprises of key groups and events, and even that suffers heavy pov and vandalism, a narrative implies someones story, whereas as it stand groups events etc that have had an impact are listed, i advise you read over the many complaints in these talk pages about a western POV, as we moved away from the style you suggest and towards this one those complaints have diminished, if you could find a couple of NPOV global sources, then i would reconsider my position.

Perhaps you should contact FANRA and sherzo and ask them to weigh in since they spent considerable time shaping this article to its current form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.181.179 (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Specialist scholarship is the best source under Wiki standards, that is, books and journal articles by mainstream scholars. Not one of the footnotes currently given refers to writing by authors who specialize in the subject terrorism. You throw around "NPOV" and "POV" in a way that suggests you have no idea what these terms mean. It's not a question of finding an "NPOV global source" -- every author has a point of view. The discussion of the IRA below suggests that the current content of the article in based on value judgments made by editors. This is not the Wikipedia way! Content disputes should be resolved be citing the opinions of authorities on this subject.
 * There is a strong U.S. orientation to the article now with sections on the Sons of Liberty, John Brown, and the KKK, although these groups are peripheral in terrorist history. So I don't follow your "Anglo american viewpoint" argument. Kauffner (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The POV is that groups US and UK considered terrorists were originally the only ones listed, its not wikipedia's place to repeat the POV of author's or else the british Empire article could be based on the bias of Niall ferguson. How about this then, you write the article how you think it should be in your User pages I'll look at and we see if we can reach some common ground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.181.179 (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I've reshaped the article into a hybrid of a narrative form and its previous list form, a compromise that will probably please no one. Also, to keep minor groups out of this article, I will create a separate "list of terrorist groups" article (if it doesn't exist already). Mcenroeucsb (talk) 09:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

IRA
The Irish War of Independance and the Troubles were two different campaigns, not a sustained one. And given that the original Irish volunteers were legally sanctioned by the only legal government of the time (the first Dail) and the attacks were funded and authorised by the members of the first Dail (namely Cathal Brugha and Michael Collins) I think it only appropriate to remove them from this section. Slowey55 (talk) 15:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm Afraid thats entirely a POV, technically the only legal government prior to partition would of been the UK government in London, the only time the IRA recieved money or weapons from an official government was during the troubles, from the irish government, or at least elements within it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.181.179 (talk) 04:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Im afraid that you are just wrong on that one. Support in the way of weapons overwhelmingly came from Gaddafi(the Libyan Dictator) Before coming up with such ludicrous presuppositions you should first substantiate them and not just auto revert to something that is wrong. The Government instituted by the majority of the Irish people was the Irish Dail. The Irish Dail declared the British Garrison illegal and the RIC also, which resulted in a nationwide boycott. Claiming that the Irish War of Independance and the Troubles were one and the same is entirely YOUR POV. Most historians and scholars would disagree with you. And If you insist on simply anonymously auto reverting then I will have to bring the case for vandalism to a wikipedia editor. Slowey55 (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)(talk) 18:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Look up the Arms Crisis. Your opinion of the Irish Dail is certainly a point of view, but legally and historically the whole of Ireland was part of the UK until partition. also i have you remind about the no threats guideline. If you have NPOV sources, for your point, however the current text is sourced to leading scholar on Ireland, Richard English of queen's university book Irish Freedom.

Sorry about the "threat" if you considered it to be such. (Fact) The Irish Dail was instituted by the majority of Irish people. Look up General election of 1918. (Fact) Irish Dail ruled the British garrison in Ireland illegal. (Fact) They proclaimed a nationwide boycott of the RIC. (Fact) Two ministers of that legally recognised government oversaw the military affairs of the IRA (Michael Collins and Cathal Brugha). (Fact) the Irish republican Army failed to be a UNIFIED ENTITY on the ratification of the treaty and the sides did not have the same aims. These are the Facts. And I will contribute Facts to wikipedia. Slowey55 (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC) And I am well aware of the arms crisis. But still, you claim that from no other source the arms came from the Irish government. Which is wrong. Most of the Arms came from Libya.Slowey55 (talk) 20:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you merely typing fact, perhaps you meant to use { that instead of (, does not make it so. If i win an election and thus declare by constituency independent does that make it legal? but the fact is those are your POV and you require a 3rd party source, please do not remove sourced information in future, i appreciate these are emotive issues but please try to gain some perspective, Michael Collins campaign was used as a blueprint by many future terrorist groups such as the Irgun. also can you please not leave a space between your comment and mine it makes it easier to read. Also you claim about Libya is a strawman, if i buy a christmas present for a friend, is the present from me or the shop keeper?

The very nature of voting for Sinn Fein who wanted none other than total secession from the UK was amounting to most of the Island claiming independence along with the wishes of the government. And most of the monetary funds for the PIRA came not from the Irish Government or from charities but from armed robbery. And most of the military material support came from Gaddaffi. And probably the most paltry litte support (that was intercepted) came from the Irish Government. The fact that only two of the ministers (who were sacked by the way) decided clandestinely to try and support the PIRA does not mean the vast majority of the rest of the government did also. Perhaps you should make a study of the arms crisis. Most people would agree that the splinter group the "real IRA" and the Provisional are not the same group. And that the "Continuity IRA" and the INLA are not the Same group. Likewise the original IRA with the contemporary ones. I cant help wondering if the emotional issue is with you when you try to muddy the distinction between them allSlowey55 (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

As said if you read the point the only time an official government was involved with the IRA was the arms crisis, i did not claim anything more than that, second if you cannot appreciate that you putting across a nationalist viewpoint, one of many and far from neutral then you are far to blinkered by your own bias, the section doesn't seek make moral judgements which what you are arguing about the legitmacy of one government or another, if that were the case the sections on WW2, cold war, FARC, ETA etc would all be removed, the tactics the IRA used were terrorist in nature and inspired other terrorist groups such as the Irgun and many former IRA men worked for the SOE during WW2. In short this article as with all wikipedia can not subscribe to either Nationalist or Loyalist version of events, but present the facts as they were and let the reader make up their own mind.


 * I have a copy of the book by Richard English, and I am unable to find any passage which supports the text "The most sustained terrorist campaign of the 20th century was that of the Irish Republican Army. Michael Collins led the first campaign which saw 26 of the 32 counties gain independence." Unless a page number is provided in order for this information to be verified, I propose to remove this claim. (Note that I am not disputing that the IRA's campaign was led by Collins and resulted in 26 counties gaining independence, but that Richard English has described it as a "terrorist campaign"). O Fenian (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Gunpowder Plot
I see the sentence "The aims of the conspirators are frequently compared to modern terrorists" is sourced by a fictional film, rather than any academic source. In the absence of any actual reliable source to claim this was an attempted act of terrorism, I propose to remove it. O Fenian (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Terror (2008) by Brett Bowden and Michael Davis is a history of terrorism that uses the Gunpowder plot as its starting point, so it is not just movies. Kauffner (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. It probably is a good starting point. O Fenian (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This article
It seems very incoherent to me. For example it starts giving a UN definition with the worrying qualifier "For the purposes of this article". This seems to me to imply that any incident fitting the description belongs in the article at the behest of an editor, even if reliable sources have not described it as terrorism. On the flip side of the coin, you will also be using reliable sources that have described incidents as terrorism which are using a different definition. The problem with the UN definition is that it throws up problems like the inclusion of the Suffragettes, and opens the door for say the inclusion of groups like Anti-Fascist Action who at their most militant would be willing to cause serious injury to fascists in order to dissuade a larger section of the population from joining or actively supporting a fascist organisation. Although you may be able to find a far-right academic or two that would describe their actions as terrorism, it would be a minority fringe view at best, certainly not one supported by mainstream academics. However as the UN's definition fits to an extent, they could go in this article?!

As mentioned above, the original IRA were not terrorist as such. They did not target the civilian population, apart from British spies operating within the population. I have not looked through the Geneva Convention (despite it not existing at the time) to find what classification civilian spies fall under, although I would not personally class them as non-combatants or civilians. I am not suggesting it was correct for the IRA to shoot them on sight as was the case, more that doing so was an act of murder (in the eyes of the British at least) rather than an act of terrorism. Despite this though, the original IRA do still need to be covered in this article as they played a role in the history of terrorism, inspiring groups such as the Irgun, and obviously the modern variants of the IRA that trace their history back to Collins. I would suggest covering them without referring to an unsourced claim that they engaged in a "terrorist campaign" though.

The Twenty-First Century section is rather woeful, consiting only of 9/11 and no mention of anything else.

I think the article should focus more on the changing tactics and aims of terrorism throughout history, and the efforts to combat it. It should be feasible to include everyone's "pet" terrorist group during the course of that surely? O Fenian (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The article attempts to reinvent the wheel, to determine what is terrorism and what is historically significantly based on first principles. It's a collection of pet groups with no narrative to give it structure. The sourcing is also very poor. Movie reviews are used and only a couple of minor points are sourced to literature that focuses on terrorism. We should look at the academic histories of terror to see what should be included and what should be left out. Kauffner (talk) 11:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

If you do that you run the risk of both POV and a western particularly anglo american bias, but if you want you write something you feel would be better on your personal pages then we can have look. Essentially the problem with Narrative is that its telling someones story, whereas an encyclopedia is about facts, and the more controversial a subject matter the more you should stick to the facts without bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.193 (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)