Talk:Terrorism/Archive 9

Is the article getting better?

 * (Please note that the "current article" mentioned in the following discussion indeed "got better" thanks, in large part, to the extensive rewrites of User:Hipocrite and User:Stevertigo. --Zephram Stark 15:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC) )

As I understand it, the only ethical reason to edit a Wikipedia article is to make it better, not to delete or confuse information that you don't want people to know about. Yet going through the "terrorism" revision history, there are many versions that are frank, concise, and NPOV, something the current article cannot boast by a long shot. How did the article get worse if everyone is concentrating on making it better? Obviously, some of the editors here have an ulterior motive. I submit that they are the ones who disrupt discussion, threaten other editors, delete and revert sections that they don't like without sometimes even an explanation, and do nothing themselves to improve the article. They are obviously in the minority, so let's ignore them. Although they have blocked sixteen people for opposing their vandalism, it's going to stop right here if I have anything to say about it. Anyone who gets blocked from here on out merely for expressing their opinion in association with this article will be a person I fight for with everything I have. This cannot keep happening. Feel free to express your mind about this article. A few corrupt administrators haven't been able to keep me down, and they won't be able to keep you down either if you take a stand and demand your right to be heard.

If you like any version in history better than the current one, please tell us below. It doesn't have to be perfect. It just has to be better (granted, not a very high bar). Please provide a link below to any revision that you like better. --Zephram Stark 16:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Terrorism Revision 04:12, 26 December 2001 This is the oldest revision I can find, from December 2001.  I like it better than the current one because it starts out by conveying a pretty useful and universal definition of terrorism and terrorist, separately.  Since this article tries to define both terms, I think it's important to explain the differences.  Granted, it hasn't been Wikified, but at least it doesn't contain a bunch of POV "examples."  --Zephram Stark 16:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Why not use two articles if they mean different things? --Black Angus 19:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * - I like this one because there is no preamble. A preamble should be only those things that agree with all meanings of the word. If there is nothing in common, there should be no preamble. We should launch straight into the facts and conclusions of other sources with no original research of our own, like this revision does. The revision could be improved, but I think it has the right idea. Instead of fighting over which opinions are better, we should express no original opinions. We should use cited sources that we all agree are unbiased.  If we can only use biased sources, we should represent them all and compare the difference. --Black Angus 19:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * A bunch of definitions without a common introduction sounds like a disambiguation page to me. It's true that when there are multiple definitions without anything in common, a disambiguation page is the only way to go, but I think everyone here would rather see something simple like "Terrorism is the systematic use of terror" than a disambiguation page.  --Zephram Stark 21:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

flimsy?
Could someone explain to me at what point in time did a verbatim quote from a notable source with a URL to back it up qualify as "flimsy"? . Or has policy remained unchanged and someone is simply trying to defend their POV pushing with a rather loose interpretation of policy? FuelWagon 14:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't use a linguist in an article on terrorism just as I wouldn't use a counter-terrorism expert in an article on generative grammar. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If you simply read Noam Chomsky, it says "Chomsky is also widely known for his political activism, and for his criticism of the foreign policy of the United States and other governments." Now, you can argue the accuracy of that article, but I'm sure I can find a number of non-wikipedia URL's that support the notion that Noam Chomsky is a notable figure known for his political activism, and as such that makes him a qualified source for this article. OK, that excuse didn't work, time to shift tactics and come up with a completely different one. FuelWagon 14:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Please stop the ad hominem comments and concentrate on content. Chomsky is a highly partisan, non-expert source. I haven't reverted you because I want to wait to see what the other editors on the page think, as I may be in the minority, but I oppose using him as an expert source on anything other than the area he's an expert in. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Chomsky's relevant observation would probably best fit into the category of "dangerous information." We could do a side by side comparison of "terrorism" to "low-intensity conflict," as Chomsky suggests, but I think we all know that the result would be the same.  This quote is the best way to convey that unique and relevant information in the shortest amount of space.  Good job, FuelWagon.  --Zephram Stark 14:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not up to Wikipedia to "do a side by side comparison of "terrorism" to "low-intensity conflict,"". That would be considered original research. The fact is that Chomsky is not a terrorism expert and his opinions on terrorism are only appropriate for the Noam Chomsky article. Carbonite | Talk 14:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I hope we are beyond the point of trying to hide dangerous information. The fact that "Unconventional" or "Low-Intensity" warfare has almost exactly the same meaning as the U.S. Army, Webster, and OED definitions of terrorism isn't something that most people would like to get out because it begs the question, "What really is the difference between 'terrorism' and 'shock & awe?'"  Yet, readers want to explore the answer to that question.  Conveying relevant information is the purpose of an encyclopedia.  Now that people have the internet, we can't keep them from discovering the truth.  If we don't provide it at Wikipedia, readers will simply use another resource.    --Zephram Stark 14:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not about exploring answers to questions; it's about organizing facts from reliable outside sources. We don't include original research and we don't make our own conclusions. We present facts, not someone's opinion of "the truth". Carbonite | Talk 15:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * FuelWagon, please try to tone down the hostility of your reponses (or at least the last sentences of them). As for the Chomsky quote, I'm not sure how his activism qualifies him to speak on terrorism. Would Sean Penn or Cindy Sheehan also be qualified sources, since they're both notable activists? Carbonite | Talk 14:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The validity of Chomsky's opinion is irrelevant. The Chomsky quote is merely an observation.  Readers of the article could make the same observation if they compared army manuals, but researching manuals is not why most people look up an encyclopedic references.  They want to read the results of the observation from an authoritative source.  Chomsky certainly has a reputation sturdy enough to make an authoritative observation.  --Zephram Stark 14:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The issue is why do we include Chomsky's quote? Chomsky is not an expert on terrorism nor do I believe he's ever claimed to be. Why should Chomsky's quote be included, but not one from dozens of other sources? The argument seems to be that because he's notable and spoke about terrorism, his quote should be included in the article. That's just not logical. Carbonite | Talk 14:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Sean Penn doesn't have an entry in the "Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers" that says :


 * By the 1980's he had become both the most distinguished figure of American linguistics and one of the most influential left-wing critics of American foreign policy. He has been extremely prolific as a writer: his web-site in 2003 listed ... his political books ... exceeds 40. According to a 1992 tabulation of sources from the previous 12 years in the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, Chomsky was the most frequently-cited person alive, and one of the eight most frequently-cited authors of all time.

Would you care to try again? Perhaps you can compare Noam Chomsky to Paris Hilton. FuelWagon 15:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Once again, please tone down your hostility. I'd prefer that this discussion be a bit more civilized. Thus far, your argument is that Chomsky is a notable critic of American foreign policy. I don't dispute that he is. What I dispute is that we should include his opinion in this specific article. Your evidence may be a bit dated (covering the time period of 1980-1992), but even assuming it's still accurate, are you saying that we should cite Chomsky because he's often cited? Again, that's just not a logical argument. I'm looking for a list of reasons why Chomsky's opinion on terrorism is so important that we should include in the article. Why not include the opinion of an actual terrorism expert? Carbonite | Talk 15:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hostility? Hey, man, you were the one who mentioned Sean Penn. Now that I come back with the same flippant attidute and mention Paris Hilton, you want to call it hostility. Sorry, it works both ways. If you can dish it out, be prepared to take some as well. As for the article, we should report all points of view around the topic in question. Apparently reporting the point of view held by those who think the US is a terrorist state missed that bit of NPOV policy. The quote was inserted with a URL because people kept deleting it. Controversial POV's should be quoted rather than paraphrased and URL's allow people to verify its accuracy. And stop playing the "expert" card. Noam Chomsky is notable and the above encyclopedia entry shows it. He is "one of the most influential critics of US foreign policy". How much more notable do you need? Given that his opinion is so influential, it should be reported. FuelWagon 16:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Isn't Sean Penn a noted (and by some respected) activist while Paris Hilton is, well, a ditz? I don't see a reference to activists to be out of line but I haven't heard about Paris Hilton's work. What causes does she support and lobby for?  What disaster sites has she visited and worked as a volunteer? -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  16:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Carbonite that including opinions from Chomsky without including opinions from other people is not logical. That is why we are not including opinions.  We are including observations that anyone would make if they researched the items noted.  Chomsky's observations are highly relevant to the article.  They are undisputed.  They come from an authoritative observer, and they are concise.  That is a hell of a lot more than you can say for the rest of the article.  --Zephram Stark 15:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this like adding Einstein to an article about God? Might be interesting but may not really add to it. - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  16:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The short answer would be "no." Einstein to God is not the same as Relevant, undisputed observation is to terrorism.  --Zephram Stark 16:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * FuelWagon, please leave the attitude problem at the door and concentrate on content. Carbonite's analogy to Sean Penn is a good one: he's a well known activist too, and was very active opposing the war against Iraq, but we don't quote him in our article about it &mdash; at least, I hope we don't. ;-) Chomsky isn't any kind of expert on terrorism, not even slightly. It isn't even his main interest as an activist. We could all name dozens of actors, musicians, columnists who would say the same thing, none of them experts either, but we're meant to use credible sources, and while Chomsky might be a credible source for some other articles, I don't see what he brings to this one. Texture's right: it would be like adding Einstein to God, or perhaps we could quote Richard Dawkins saying there's no such thing. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin, please concentrate on NPOV policy. The article currently states the followign in the "State Terrorism" mentions Iran and Pakistan as specific examples of states that use terrorism. A notable and influential critic of US foreign policy has said the U.S. is an example of a state using terrorism. It is just another example of states using terrorism, except it's an unpopular view. But that it is a POV held by someone who is considered an influential critic of US foreign policy means that his view should be reported. Iran would dispute that they use terrorism. So would Pakistan. But we still list them as examples. Many would dispute that the US uses terrorism too, but it is just another point of view like the pov that Iran or pakistan use terrorism. FuelWagon 17:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Counter-terrorism experts say that the Iranian govt is a sponsor of terrorism (I don't know about Pakistan). If you want to accuse the U.S. govt of terrorism, or of sponsoring it (which is it?), you have to find a counter-terrorism expert who makes that claim, or a scholar in a very closely related field. Chomsky's claim has the status of uninformed gossip, and you're including it only because he's a celebrity, but he has zero expertise. If you want to stick to NPOV, then note that we don't include tiny-minority views. If the view that the U.S. is a terrorist state, or a state that sponsors terrorism, is a respectable significant-minority view, you'll be able to find a terrorism expert who has said it, and if you can't, you should let that tell you something. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * "If you want to accuse the U.S. govt of terrorism" okey-dokey. here is the problem. I do not want to accuse anyone of anything here. Noam Chomsky is the one saying that the US uses terrorist behaviours. The only relevant question is whether that POV is worthy of being reported. There is no absolute list of all nations who are terrorists and everything not on the magic list is heresay. This is all just various points of view. The US state department has a point of view that Iran is a terrorist state. Iran would dispute that. As for Chomsky's point of view, given that the man is considered the most influential critic of US foreign policy, given that he's written something like 40 books on politics, given that he qualifies as notable in that respect, he has a point of view that deserves reporting. You are playing games with the definition of "expert" here simply to rule out points of view that you do not want to be reported. One does not have to be a counter-terrorism "expert" to have a point of view that deserves being reported. Sean Penn didn't publish 40 political books. Sean Penn isn't considered the most influential critic of US foreign policy. Whether you personally agree with his point of view, he is sufficiently notable in the field of foreign policy to have his point of view reported. FuelWagon 18:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure, as long as there as sufficient balancing material to avoid POV. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Is there any balancing material for Chomsky's observation? I've been looking, but I can't find anyone who thinks that the official U.S. Army definition of "terrorism" is different than the official U.S. Army definition of "Low-intensity warfare."  Both have intention as their central theme——same as President Bush's definition of terrorism——the purpose of which is to control the will of the enemy by threatening to make undesirable things happen, rather than to destroy his conventional forces.  --Zephram Stark 20:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Splitting Terrorist from Terrorism
There is already a discussion about this above, but it got sidetracked with personal attacks. Please say if you agree or disagree with making a separate Terrorist article. Include a short reason why if you must.


 * Agree --Black Angus 19:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree —— It would be better than a disambiguation page. --Zephram Stark 13:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You are going to have to explain the split before I can agree. What will go to each artile? - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  14:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think we've got that far. What would you propose?  --Zephram Stark 18:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe I need to ask a different question. Why are you proposing to split terrorist from terrorism?  What will you split? Why should I (and others) agree with this proposed split? -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  18:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that the guy who proposed it is still blocked. Personally, I think the split is a good idea because it might keep "terrorism" from turning into a disambiguation page, which is where it's headed if we can't think of something that the various definitions have in common.  --Zephram Stark 01:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Terrorism is not going to become a disambiguation page. There may be many definitions, but they are all attempting to refer to the same phenomenon.  Disambiguation is used when the same word refers to separate topics, which is not the case here. Isomorphic 07:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion. Can you back it up?  Can you give us a descriptive sentence that applies to all definitions of "terrorism?"  --Zephram Stark 21:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Odd that that definition of "terrorist" requires membership in an organization; odd that it requires that the organization aim to coerce established governments. Is this the sole OED definition? (I don't have one handy at the moment). What is the OED's usage history that makes the definition so exclusively one of "terrorist as member of an organization"? Seems to me that Wiktionary definitions fit far better with the actual use of the term; a terrorist is one who engages in terrorism. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That's why there's a link, JP. You merely have to push it to verify everything you're asking.  I can't take credit for the link, however.  Smyth found it.  We've been referring to it and the Webster's International definition over the past months because the Oxford English Dictionary and Webster's New International Dictionary are generally considered to be the most authoritative definitional resources of the English language.  --Zephram Stark 13:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

From my copy of The Concise Oxford Dictionary:


 * terrorist n. a person who uses or favours violent and intimidating methods of coercing a government or community. terrorism n. terroristic adj. terroristically adv. (French terroriste (as TERROR))

No membership requirement, no separate definitions for terrorist versus terrorism. --Calton | Talk 06:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Smyth was good enough to provide this link to the full definitions of both terms. --Zephram Stark 13:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * So OED is actually saying, from that link, Any one who attempts to further his views by a system of coercive intimidation.. In other words, any one who practices terrorism. Obviously, then, no separate article is necessary, any more than we need separate articles on "Fascist" and "Fascism" or "Murder" and "Murderer". --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Am I to gather from your words, that "terrorism" is the furthering of views by a system of coercive intimidation? --Zephram Stark 16:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No. Those aren't my words. All you can gather from my words are that the OED defines "Terrorist" with those words. My position, as I've stated before, is that there is not a consistent and choate definition of terrorism. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If there is "not a consistent and choate definition of terrorism," how can you assert that the two terms mean the same thing? If, as you put it:
 * a terrorist is "any one who attempts to further his views by a system of coercive intimidation," and
 * terrorism' does "not [have] a consistent and choate definition,"
 * certainly the two terms do not mean the same thing. Which way is it, JP?
 * You can't play one side of the fence part of the time and the other side only when that suits your interests. Either the two terms both mean "furthering views by a system of coercive intimidation," or they don't mean the same thing.   --Zephram Stark 16:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Who said that the two terms mean the same thing? One's the act, the other is the actor. At any rate, I was simply following the logic YOU provided with the definitions YOU pointed to. A terrorist is someone who commits terrorism, no matter how you define terrorism. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * All the pejorative things you, Jayjg, and Smyth try to sneak into "terrorism" really belong in "terrorist." As you can tell from the OED definition, there is nothing inherently pejorative about "terrorism."  Terrorism is not associated with "clandestine or expatriate organizations" by necessity.  Terrorism is not associated with "coercion of established governments" by necessity.  When you bring these things up in the article, you are really talking about the popular definition of a "terrorist," not "terrorism."  Terrorism is usually spoken of in dispassionate terms that have nothing to do with anyone's definition of "evil."  One notable exception is President Bush, but everyone thought it was kind of odd when he tried to associate "terrorism" with "evil."  Terrorism, by itself, does not have to be evil.  If it was, we would be condemning ourselves.  Murdering over a million children in Iraq during the 90s with our sanctions for the expressed purpose of coercing the Iraqi government certainly makes us guilty of terrorism.  By including "terrorist" with the definition of "terrorism," you necessitate that the United States of America is a terrorist organization.  --Zephram Stark 17:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, your opinion is my fault. OK. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't think of the world in terms of "fault." My opinion is that a "terrorist" is a member of violent and coercive clandestine or expatriate organization, while "terrorism" is a policy intended to strike with terror or intimidation.  My opinion just happens to match the Oxford English Dictionary definitions of the two disparate terms.  --Zephram Stark 16:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The above dictionary definitions show the two terms to be intertwined, not disparate. How many dictionaries does it take to determine proper usage of the two words? In my opinion, none. It requires consensus of usage. - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  17:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Abridged dictionaries sometimes combine the two words because of the similarity. Unabridged dictionaries are more like encyclopedias, especially ones with international usages of terms, like the Oxford English Dictionary and Websters New International Dictionary.


 * I personally don't find the "bad guy" definition of "terrorist" to be useful as an axiom or building block in discussing how to get rid of "terrorism." I realize that victim mentality tempts people to redefine their words about an enemy to pejorative terms, but that will not help us win the war.  In order to win, we have to understand the enemy, and we can only do that when we aren't preoccupied with calling him a "bad guy."


 * If you want a "bad guy" definition, use "terrorist," but please leave "terrorism" to mean something objective that we can talk about rationally. --Zephram Stark 17:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't make this up. You act as if it is my definition. It is not. I went to dictionary.com and wanted to know if it agreed with the only definition you provided. (Not "yet another" as you might imply.) The way you want the word to mean doesn't mean that it really does mean only that. You pointed them as disparate and used a dictionary as an authority. I don't believe them to be disparate and other dictionaries show that they are not. - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  17:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Please don't put words in my mouth. I was merely pointing out that the "American Heritage Dictionary" is not international, nor is it unabridged.  International and unabridged dictionaries are considerably more recognized universal resources.  --Zephram Stark 17:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If you mean "yet another", the words that I put in your mouth were your own:
 * (cur) (last) 12:26, 14 October 2005 Zephram Stark (→Splitting Terrorist from Terrorism - Do we really need yet another way to say "bad guy?")
 * If you mean "disparate" it is in your post. I understand your point but I don't see how you can say that one dictionary is right and all others are wrong.  Can you give us the complete Oxford entry and not a third-party website's snip of it? -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  18:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * As my university has a subscription to it, I can confirm that the page is the complete OED entry for both words. First, remember that the OED lists definitions in chronologal order, not in order of importance. Then notice that "terrorism" 2 says "Also transf. Cf. terrorist 1 b.". "Transf." means "transferred meaning", i.e. "terrorism is what is done by a terrorist 1b", where "terrorist" 1b is the very definition I suggested several months ago, which you are now accusing me of "sneaking in falsely".


 * I am not claiming that the definition in question is The Final Authoritative Meaning, but I thought it was a useful one to cite. – Smyth\talk 10:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * "I realize that victim mentality tempts people to redefine their words about an enemy to pejorative terms, but that will not help us win the war. In order to win, we have to understand the enemy, and we can only do that when we aren't preoccupied with calling him a "bad guy.""

I'm puzzled by your statement (quoted above). Are we writing this article with the intent to "win the war" on terrorism? I thought we were only tasked to write an accurate and comprehensive article on the subject. Why do we want to "understand the enemy"? It shouldn't be the enemy of Wikipedia at all in order to keep NPOV. Calling a duck a "duck" doesn't make the duck a "bad guy". It makes it a duck. - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  17:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Our task is to write articles that convey information about the term.


 * Efficiency of communication is the most important tool available to a society . A word can be an axiom of generally accepted information.  Combining several of these axioms, we can create a larger idea that is only possible when we think of the complex ideas of each word as an icon of information.  The larger idea can itself become an axiom of information if we assign a word to it, and if that word is generally accepted as the icon of the larger idea.  This building of complex ideas as "black boxes" of information has enabled modern mathematics and computer hardware/software design, among other things.  To understand computer hardware design, for instance, one might not have to comprehend the fundamental philosophy of XOR gates, only that they work —— the black box returns specific output based on specific input.  Language works the same way when it is codified into black boxes.


 * If we have an objective definition for terrorism, regardless of what that definition is, we can debug it. We can see if specific input produces desired output.  We can run events and intentions though the "black box" of terrorism and see if it outputs the parties that we want to be terrorists.  If it does not, we know that we have to change the interior of the black box to serve our purposes.  As I'm sure you know, if you've been looking through the edit history for terrorism, nobody can figure out a black box for terrorism.  We input things that we do and things that the enemy does, and it always spits out that we are either both terrorists, or that neither of us are terrorists.  Finally, Jayjg and Smyth rewired the black box to always output, "I don't know."  The term became so vague that it could only be defined by examples with nothing to explain why those examples were terrorism and others events were not.


 * Why is this a problem? A box that says "I don't know" can never be used as an axiom.  It can never be thought of as a building block for a larger concept.  Larger concepts, like, "How do we end terrorism?" can never be addressed without an objective definition for a key component of that question.  --Zephram Stark 17:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Are Jayjg and Smyth saying that we don't know what terrorism is? Can you two respond to this? I haven't seen that. As for "How do we end terrorism?" and the like - they are noble but this article does not have that goal. Is there another article trying to address this? If not, perhaps you should start one. (Let me know the name if you find one. It would be a good read.) -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  18:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Please join me in ignoring anything User:Zephram Stark says about me or attributes to me, as those statements inevitably have little relationship to reality. Jayjg (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I keep forgetting that you weren't around to see what happened a few months ago, Texture. You can read all about it in the archives, or see a brief overview here.  It would be kind of hard to start an objective article on how to end terrorism before we have an objective definition of terrorism.  Splitting Terrorism from Terrorist might allow us to talk about terrorism objectively.    --Zephram Stark 07:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

This is going worse not better !
As long as we don't provide a definition of terrorism that is reasonably NPOV this article will be junk. Here in France most people will agree that terrosrism is related to Terror. I don't think the the DoD definition to be neutral as violence by a person or an organized group against property doesn't bring Terror to me. Ericd 19:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * perhaps we could have country-specific definitions? FuelWagon 20:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No we could have "definition according to... (the US Dod, the French governement, Groucho Marx or anybody else...)" but I think that we could agree about a basic definition of terrorism. Ericd 20:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

We already have a Definition of terrorism article listing over a dozen definitions. Jayjg (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Ericd, the thing is that I don't think we can find a universal definition of terrorism. We can only look at the notable sources that give definitions of terrorism. If there are common pieces between all the definitions, we could report that as "universal" or, in wikipedia policy lingo, NPOV. But if the US has a definition with nothing in common with, say, France, then we can report no universal definition. We could take a look at all the dictionary definitions and report a conglomeration of definitions, reporting the most common parts first, and the least common pieces last. But "no original research" forbids us from sitting around and coming up with our own definition of "terrorism" and deciding that our definition is "universal". FuelWagon 21:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Anybody in the world has an idea of what is the concept of a murder. Legal definition of murder in various countries may differ. The extend of the concept may differs : "Is abortion a murder ?". The term can be used as pejorative by some "George W. Bush murdered a lot of Iraqis...". I don't think it's very different from terrorism. Ericd 21:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It certainly makes sense that "terrorism" has to do with "terror," but what does the "ism" part mean? --Zephram Stark 14:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe they have the same relationship "exorcism" has with "exorcist".


 * Is English your first language, Stark? You don't really seem to understand how the English language actually works. --Calton | Talk 16:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, to both implied questions. English is my first language, and I understand how the English language works.  My question to Ericd regarded an inquiry about which one of definitions of "ism" apply to "terrorism."  --Zephram Stark 16:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The ism page gives a limited number of options:
 * doctrine, theory or religion (e.g. pacifism) - Yes, terrorism may be part of a religious doctrine, but it is not limited to religion.
 * theory developed by an individual (e.g. Marxism) - I seriously doubt that a man named Terror invented terrorism.
 * political movement (e.g. feminism) - Yes, terrorism may be part of a political movement, but it is not limited to politics.
 * action, process or practice (e.g. terrorism) - (terrorism is used as the example in the Ism article) Is there any example of terrorism that is not an action, process, or practice of terror?
 * characteristic, quality or origin (e.g. heroism) - A situation characterized by terror (being terrorized by a ravenous wolf) is not necessarily terrorism.
 * state or condition (e.g. pauperism) - A state or condition of terror (being in the middle of a hurricane) is not necessarily terrorism.
 * excess or disease (e.g. botulism) - Terror is not a disease. You can claim terrorists have a mental disease, but terror itself is not a disease.
 * prejudice or bias (e.g. racism) - Yes, terrorism may be used in prejudice or bias, but it is not limited to prejudice.
 * characteristic speech patterns (e.g. Yogiism) - Terror is not a speech pattern.
 * My conclusion would be that the "ism" in use is "action, process or practice". Therefore, the definition would be, "An action, process or practice that is intended to produce terror."  I don't care for that definition because it labels spiders as terrorists simple because some people get very scared when they innocently walking by. Kainaw 20:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

how great Chomsky is
This is fun. First people delete Chomsky's quote sayign he isn't notable, he isn't an expert, he's a linguist, blah blah blah. Then when information is pointed out that establishes Chomsky qualifies as a quotable source for this article, someone goes and deletes that information. The quote isn't there to say how great Chomsky is, it's reporting what the dictionary of american philosophers says about Chomsky to establish that Chomsky can be quoted in the article. If this information gets deleted, the exact same circle of arguments will come up again by editors down the road. It also answers the reader's question that might come up as to who Chomsky is and why he is being quoted in the article. FuelWagon 20:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Chomsky opinion is notable and it's much more notable if the article doesn't provide any definition of terrorism, as Chomsky stated that terrorism is a pejorative term and the terrorist for one is the freedom fighter for another one. Ericd 20:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Being described in a Dictionary of Philosophers as a critic of American policy does not make one an expert on terrorism. Chomsky's opinions have no relevance to an article on terrorism to begin with, but adding gratuitous and irrelevant flattery only compounds the error. And we have a whole article giving definitions of terrorism. Jayjg (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No Chomsky opinion are very relevant and we have a long article giving no universal definition of terrorism and avoiding to deal with state terrorism.

As I get bored with trying to express something subtle in a language that isn't my native language, I will try to sum up my POV by writing that the article makes a lot of efforts to avoid any serious effort toward a universal definition of terrorism because the answer will lead to the question "Was the bombing of Hiroshima a terrorist act ?" Ericd 20:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, carbonite, jayjg, fancy meeting you here. Fancier still seeing back to back reverts by you two. Imagine that. FuelWagon 21:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey, FuelWagon, fancy seeing you suddenly show up here 3 days ago at an article and talk page I've been editing for months, supporting someone who is campaining against me. Imagine that. Jayjg (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey, Jayjg, the Chomsky quote is relevant and a bunch of POV pushers are trying to delete it. I found a verbatim quote, a URL, and sufficient justification for why Chomsky counts as a notable source. Now, I recall that during the "wikistalking" proposed policy, the great many people opposed the idea of making it policy because content wins out over someone's personal feelings. So, you wantto talk about how your feeling thinking I'm stalking you? Or you wantto talk about content?


 * Jayjg annoying the hell out of a wikipedian? I am Shocked! --Irishpunktom\talk 22:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Some wikipedians need annoying, in my opinion.


 * FuelWagon, before leap in half-cocked in the middle of a longtime article discussion (say, wasn't that supposed to be SlimVirgin's great sin at Terri Schiavo?), scroll back through the archives and look at whose side you're helping, Zepheram Stark. Not a serious contributor, a single-purpose axe-grinder who nearly rises to GordonWatts level, minus the logorrhea. --Calton | Talk 00:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Calton, buddy, you seem to be forgetting one very important fact in your comparison between my edit here and SlimVirgin's edit on Terri Schiavo: SLIMVIRGIN'S EDIT WAS RIFE WITH FACTUAL AND NPOV ERRORS. My edit is a verbatim quote from a notable source with a URL to verify its accuracy and an explanation as to why the source is notable. Your comparing apples to sour grapes. But of course, SlimVirgin has never admitted a single factual error in her edit, despite an actual Neuroscientist writing up a 5,000 word critique of everything wrong with her edit. And of course it's far more important for the friends of SlimVirgin to likewise deny a single factual error on her part as well and let content suffer than to admit a member of the pack screwed up. FuelWagon 22:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * FuelWagon, pal, you're forgetting that I'm noting your jumping in half-cocked and uninformed is like SlimVirgin's jumping in and working on Terri Schiavo: I don't know how you could have forgotten that between the time you read it and the time you hit the "edit" button, but slips happen. And as for My edit is a verbatim quote from a notable source , substitute "NPOV" for "verbatim", and noting that "notable" doesn't equal "expert" would bring things closer to the mark.


 * And speaking of misinformed, to refer to me as a "friend of SlimVirgin" is hilarity itself. --Calton | Talk 00:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Lover? --Zephram Stark 00:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Personal attacks and innuendo have no place in this discussion. I'm sure we can reach a compromise about who Chomsky is, but that's not the important thing.  Chomsky observed something that is highly relevant to the article on terrorism.  He observed the Army's definition of "low-intensity warfare" (unconventional political-military operations used primarily for subversion, employing political, economic, informational, and military instruments) is an implementable rewording of the Army's definition of "terrorism" (violence to inculcate fear, intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies).  --Zephram Stark 16:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Recent Chomsky reverts
On the recent reverts regarding Chomsky: I think referencing 9/11 is POV in this context and the "War on Terrorism" is probably the correct reference. "Critics of American foreign policy, like Professor" is similarly POV in that it implies a group of backers that are not substantiated. (Not that there wouldn't be plenty.) Instead of trying to expand the facts beyond the facts, how about:


 * Political activist Noam Chomsky maintains that the USA qualifies as a state terrorist government. After President Bush declared a "War on Terrorism," Chomsky stated:


 *  ... the U.S. itself is a leading terrorist state. ... The U.S. is officially committed to what is called “low–intensity warfare.” That’s the official doctrine. If you read the definition of low–intensity conflict in army manuals and compare it with official definitions of “terrorism” in army manuals, or the U.S. Code, you find they’re almost the same.

- (I'm discussing here because a bunch of random edits masking a revert war is not productive.) T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  21:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that you think "political activist" sounds more substantiated than "critics of American foreign policy?" --Zephram Stark 13:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. "political activist" is a term applied to a single individual, Chomsky.  "critics of American foreign policy" applies to multiple individuals.  Who are they? I'd say keep this to the single activist you are quoting.-  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  16:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The Elephant Sitting at our Table
As Ericd pointed out, in France people "agree that terrorism is related to terror." This is akin to saying, "The Emperor has no clothes!" It's blatantly obvious, but nobody wants to admit it. Why? Because it implicates us!!

Every one of us support a government that uses terror as a means of coercion. This makes us unfit to edit an article on terrorism. There is a blatant conflict of interest. With a little bit of introspection, we have to admit that we've been jumping through a lot of hoops that are unnecessary. "Terrorism" means nothing more than "terror" + "ism." The top usage of ism is "doctrine." Anything else, I'm afraid, is merely an attempt to vilify others while exonerating ourselves. --Zephram Stark 17:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Interesting take, but unfortunately it's also original research. However, if you'd like to recuse yourself from this article on the grounds that you're unfit to edit it, I personally have no objections. Carbonite | Talk 17:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I would think anyone who espouses a definition not consistent with "terror" + "ism" should recuse themselves due to their obvious bias. The world's two most widely used English language resources, the Oxford English and Webster's International dictionaries, both define terrorism as "terror" combined with a commonly held form of "ism:" doctrine, political movement, action, process, etc.  --Zephram Stark 19:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Dedicated "peace advocate"
This article has known Yasser Arafat listed as a known peace advocate. This is a man, who even until his death supported violent attacks on Israel. He talked from both sides of his mouth, supposadly advocating peace on in Western media, while supporting the intifadah on Arab propaganda networks such as Al-Jazeera. 69.158.57.79 05:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Anyone who advocates peace is a peace advocate, regardless of whatever else they do. --Zephram Stark 14:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think he's trying to point out that while advocating peace to the media Arafat was funding terrorist war. Does calling yourself a "peace advocate" make you one?  If I call myself a pulitzer prize winning author does that mean I am one? -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  14:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I find it odd too but it looks ok in the context it is presented. Perhaps something could be added to demonstrate the fine line in perception between peace advocate and terrorist since he was considered both in the days before his death (depending on what country's media you were watching).  Since this is an international encyclopedia the differing views might demonstrate something about terrorism.


 * I'd even further add that peace (and the opposition of terrorism) was much served by his death. Not only because he was not there to fund terrorism but because Israel would not deal peace with him due to their view of his actions. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  14:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think any authoritative source will say that Arafat simply liked to kill people. We have to look at the root of his actions to determine his motive.  It's kind of like asking how Jefferson could have be an anti-slavery advocate while owning slaves.  An end to a system of slavery or violence requires agreement by all sides, not just one.  Motivation for such an agreement can only come when all sides have something greater to lose than what they gain through the system of slavery or violence.  Arafat knew that the only motivation great enough to override Zionist ambitions would be unprecedented violence.  This violence was not an end unto itself, but for the sole purpose of an eventual peace.  As soon as Israel stopped expanding her borders and subjugating the Palestinian people, there would be no more need for violence.  Of course, the Palestinians would always want the land back that was stolen from them, but nobody blows themselves up to regain land.  Freedom is more important than life.  Land is not.


 * There are also those around the globe who feel that they can reason with Israel in the interest of fairness, but questions of fairness assume that everyone involved is equal. Israel, of course, thinks that it consists of the chosen people of God.  --Zephram Stark 15:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think any authoritative source will say that Arafat simply liked to kill people. (emphasis added)


 * Who are you talking to? Who has said anything like this? -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  15:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It was pretty implicit in what you wrote. If Arafat's intentions were not to advocate peace, what do you or anyone else claim that his true intentions were?  --Zephram Stark 15:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * To support terrorist actions against Israelis. You think that equates to "simply liked to kill people"?  That's the definition of a serial killer, not a terrorist supporter.  Do suicide bombers "simply like to kill people"?  Not from what I've read.  They have religious or idealogical reasons.  People who "simply like to kill people" do not become leaders but leaders, like Arafat, do support targeted killing of their enemies.  (I have to explain this?) -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  16:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Let me rephrase then. I don't think any authoritative source will say that Arafat simply liked to kill people for religious or ideological reasons.  Arafat wanted the violence to end, but an end to violence requires agreement by all sides, not just one.  Motivation for such an agreement can only come when all sides have something greater to lose than what they gain through systems of terror and violence.  Arafat knew that the only motivation great enough to override Zionist ambitions would be unprecedented levels of violence.  This violence was not an end unto itself, but for the sole purpose of an eventual peace.  As soon as Israel stopped expanding her borders and subjugating the Palestinian people, there would be no more need for violence.  Of course, the Palestinians would always want the land back that was stolen from them, but nobody blows themselves up to regain land.  Freedom is more important than life.  Land is not.

Is that better? --Zephram Stark 18:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No. "simply liked to kill people for..." is inherently biased POV no matter what you are discussing. What I was really looking for in your response was a return to the subject.  Not an aside (by either of us) on your use of words.  Arafat sponsored attacks on the enemy while claiming to want peace.  He was not what I would call a "peace advocate".  Meanwhile I agree with you that Israel did not foster peace either. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  21:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, he did, but for what reason? Was it for religious or ideological reasons, as you suggest, or did he do it to promote peace?  He claims to have done it to promote peace, and I believe him.  I don't buy for one minute the claims that Muslims attack Israel or the United States because of some misguided religious fanaticism.  If someone were occupying your country and kept taking increasingly larger tracts of land, and kept making life increasingly harder to live, you would fight back too, and it wouldn't have anything to do with religion or ideology.  Human nature simply requires us to be free.  We can't subjugate ourselves for very long, even if we try.  Knowing this, as all great leaders do, Arafat would naturally arrive at the conclusion that the only way Palestinians can stop fighting for their liberty is when their government is at the consent of the governed.  This concept is apparently lost on God's chosen people, which leaves a sovereign Palestinian state as the only viable solution. --Zephram Stark 21:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you saying Arafat was a terrorist for peace? - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  21:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Like so many things, that would depend on your definition of terrorism.  For me, terrorism is an actionable belief that people can be coerced if threatened enough.  Under this definition, Yasser Arafat, Osama bin Laden, George W. Bush and Ariel Sharon would all be terrorists.  Sharon and Bush apparently think that anyone can be coerced through terrorism, but Osama bin Laden has said on many occasions that only those who welcome terror can be played like puppets.  In this, he echoes Marilyn Manson's assessment that the West has become a society of victims who enjoy being played so that they can feel sorry for themselves.  That's certainly our choice, but we have to remember that victims are the one people susceptible to terrorism.  Even though it must have been horrible for parents to watch over a million children wither and die as a direct result of our Iraqi sanctions during the 1990s, Iraq did not give up her freedom to a foreign power.  Even an invasion and occupation didn't coerce Iraq into giving up control.  George W. Bush has more firepower than any force in the history of the world, but it is not enough to get people to subjugate themselves who do not want to be subjugated.


 * To answer your question about Arafat's intentions, we must understand how Arafat and bin Laden were able to use terrorism effectively when Bush and Sharon were not. Arafat wasn't very verbal about his intentions, but bin Laden told us exactly what he was trying to do.  He said in his video addresses before and after 9/11, "America is the paper dragon that will burn itself up when provided the match," and "We have no difficulty in dealing with Bush and his administration because they resemble the regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the military and the other half by the sons of kings ... They too have a lot of pride, arrogance, greed and thievery.  Bush has adopted despotism and the crushing of freedoms from Arab rulers and called it the Patriot Act under the guise of combating terrorism."   Osama said what he was going to do in the first quote, and then said how he got the job done through terrorism in the second quote.  Although Arafat made no such claims, we can see how the same police state was formed in Israel.  Just like with bin Laden, Arafat succeeded in coercing his opponents into giving up their most basic freedoms.


 * People often claim that Arafat and bin Laden had to give up their own freedoms to do so, but did they? Arafat and bin Laden had a choice.  They chose the lives they led.  Their opponents in Israel and America claim that they did not have a choice, that they were forced to give up their freedoms.  I for one, refuse to be controlled by a terrorist, and that is why I actively fight the USA PATRIOT Act.  Unlike the victims I see around me, I have three choices:


 * I can give up the minimum guarantees of the Bill of Rights and adopt the USA PATRIOT Act (something I am absolutely sure will destroy this country).
 * I can continue trying to assert my authority over the people of other nations and live with the consequences without trading away essential freedom for security.
 * I can adopt the principles of the Declaration of Independence, consider other people equals, acknowledge their unalienable rights, and stop trying to usurp their government by consent of the governed.


 * Obviously, only an idiot or someone with so much pride that they would plaster their car with flags and pride stickers would pick anything but option 3. From what few words he spoke on the subject, I think Arafat knew this, and was counting on common sense overcoming our desire to control the Muslim people.  I share Arafat's vision of all people living in peace, treating each other as equals, and recognizing the rights that cannot be separated from what it means to be human.  --Zephram Stark 21:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That's all very well and good; do you share the rest of his vision, including targeting busses full of schoolchildren to make your political points? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Nothing like a completely neutral and unbiased discussion to sort out differences. The article states that Arafat won the nobel peace prize after being considered a terrorist. This is completely factual reporting. It could just as easily mention that Sharon was considered a Haganah terrorist by the British when they still controlled the area back in the 40's. the Haganah carried out anti-British operations in Palestine. bombing of the country's railroad network, sabotage raids on radar installations and bases of the British police. And now Sharon is considered a moderate compared to his more hawkish countrymen. But should we condemn Sharon for his "vision" in the 40's? Or should we allow that people can change over time? FuelWagon 03:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, exactly. Wasn't it Rabin who said something like "you don't make peace with your friends, you make peace with your enemies"? And mentioning Sharon as a rehabilitated terrorist would be a good balance for a similar mention of Arafat -- the degree of said rehabilitation being quite subject to debate in both cases. And sorry about the schoolbus comment; shall we say I've a strong POV regarding Arafat. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * My quote would be "Peace and justice are two sides of the same coin." --Dwight D. Eisenhower. I would say that the corrallary to that is that war is a symptom indicating injustice exists. And there is a difference between getting peace through force and getting peace by fixing whatever injustice you've created. This would seem to apply to both sides (Israel and Palestine) as being equally guilty in my opinion. FuelWagon 04:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hm. War can be a symptom indicating injustice exists. Sometimes war itself is the injustice (in the case of wars of territorial, religious, or economic aggression); it's not always a reaction to prior injustice -- I'd venture that historically, it rarely has been.

Saying "war itself is the injustice" sounds like you are claiming that there is no deeper motive for war. I assert that war is always fought for oppression or against oppression, sometimes with both sides assuming the same role. If that assertion is true, war is always the symptom of much deeper disease. --Zephram Stark 16:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah: lust for land and resources or desire to impose one people's religion (I include faith-based political systems like Communism and Naziism here) on another people are a deeper disease; nobody goes to war saying "We're at fault here" -- there's always some or another moral or practical justification for oppression, some stated injustice, manufactured or otherwise. And in this case, the war itself is the injustice, not the symptom of one. There's nothing unjust about coveting your neighbor's ass (though some religious philosophies think the coveting itself is wrong); however, there can be great injustice in acting on your covetousness. Replace "ass" with "elbow room" or "cheap oil" at will. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Are we still talking about Arafat? --Zephram Stark 03:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The line that I've heard with regard to the current war on terrorism is "we're making new terrorists faster than we can kill them". I think it is a reflection of the US's use of torturing our prisoners, exporting our prisoners to other countries to have them tortured there, holding people captive without declaring them prisoners of war, without reporting them to the red cross and other appropriate authorities, hiding prisoners from various organizations such as the red cross. I also think its a reflection of the US's complete fabrication of Weapons of Mass Destruction to get into Iraq, fabrication of Iraq's involvement with Al Queda, fabrication of any sort of concern for Sadam's gassing of his own people (when the gassing occurred, Donald Rumsfeld went over and shook a finger at Saddam and then did a photo shoot shaking his hand). In case anyone is curious what sort of ramifications that sort of endorsement might have, check out Jimmy Carter's endorsement of the Shaw of Iran back in the 70's. The people of Iran were protesting the Shaw's use of secret police, torture, and assassinations as a way of maintaining power. Carter went to Iran while he was president and gave a speech supporting the Shaw, taken by many Iranians to mean an endorsement of the Shaw's tactics. Within a year, the Iranians had stormed the US embassy in Iran and started the hostage crises that would last 444 days. They also threw the Shaw out of power and put in an extremist ruler by the name of the ayatollah khomeini. Only difference now is that they don't take hostages anymore, they blow people up with IED's or suicide vests. Israel's use of gunfire to thrown rocks, of firing missiles into cilivian areas to kill militants in response to suicide blasts, of bulldozing homes of alleged militants without trial, of use of military force that as often hits innocent bystanders as it does combatants, would seem to deny Israel the right to claim the moral high ground here. The boston massacre was started when civilians pelted the british redcoats with rocks and snow. The british responded with gunfire killing five americans. Five people killed, but it became known as a massacre. And the Boston massacre was one of the sparks that fanned the flames of the american revolution. And Israel is having boston-style massacres on a regular basis. Yes, palestinian militants and suicide bombers are killing Israelis. But Israel is resonding in kind, killing innocent palestinians while attacking militants with missiles, killing innocent bystanders during their gunbattles, subjecting entire populations to curfews and martial law for the crimes of a few individuals. FuelWagon 06:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I remind you that this page is for discussing the article. – Smyth\talk 08:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I was. The question was what is a terrorist and who do we get to call a terrorist. perhaps I was a little long winded. The short answer is that Arafat and Sharon have both been called terrorists. FuelWagon 02:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I've been following this ongoing discussion on what terrorism is and have decided to put in my two cents worth. First off, I'm not a terrorism expert, but I have taken a couple of university courses on international terrorism and counter-terrorism and one of the first things is we had to do is define terrorism. The definition that we finally arrived at is what I consider to be one of the better definitions out there: its short, concise and to the point. The definition is as follows:


 * "The illgeal use of violence against innocent civilians to bring about   political change and gain media attention."


 * I'll break this down and try to explain the definition in a little more detail.


 * - "Illegal use the violence against innocent civilians." This means outside of any rules or conventions such as the Geneva Convention, United Nation conventions, Rules of Land Combat or national laws. Setting off a bomb in a subway is illegal as it is the deliberate targeting of civilians which violates the Geneva Convention, among other laws.


 * - "bring about political change." Terrorism is a political act; no matter how crazy or irrational the act may seem. Whether its to establish a Islamic caliphate, or overthrow a government, there is a political context to what the terrorist is doing.


 * - " to gain media attention." This is one part that a lot of people miss. Again, no matter how irrational the terrorist act may appear, one of the goals of the terrorist is to reach a specific audience. This is especially true with the advent of global TV channels and the internet.


 * Now, I'm not saying this is the perfect definition, but I offer it up for discussion. L.J. Brooks 03:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That's certainly one of the perceived surface manifestations of terrorism, although use of the term "illegal" without defining which set of laws leaves a range of subjectivity that could be argued to preclude any act. "Illegal" also doesn't apply to all uses of the term.  In fact, the first use of the term described a system of terror that was entirely "legal."
 * A stipulation that could be argued to encompase any act of violence, and also argued to preclude any act of violence, doesn't narrow down the meaning that much. It only confuses objective communication about it.  When we also consider that many of the examples cited in the article are not "illegal," "against innocent civilians," or "to gain media attention," this definition would require us to also change our examples.  (To be fair, I should also note that the current definition does not match the examples.  In fact, no definition except "violence for the purpose of coercion or political change" could be argued to match all of the examples).  --Zephram Stark 18:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I wonder who this sockpuppet is
[]

Curious, BrandonYusufToropov 23:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

please do not blank article sections
The information can be cited without relabelling articles or making the section US-centric. The article is not copyright of homeland security. It is only a source of the information and not the source of the Wikipedia article or section. (We editors are) - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  21:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If you can fix the section, please feel free to add it back. As long as the content is original research and in direct conflict with Wikipedia:Words to avoid (because it labels events, and consequently, people terrorists/terrorism without citing the person making the claim), it has no place on Wikipedia. --The Random Element 21:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * What is the source that reports the 9-11 attacks as "the most deadly" in all history? I can think of some events that happened in other countries that may qualify as terrorism that might also qualify as genocide and would easily qualify as "the most deadly". Just wondering where that came from. FuelWagon 21:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * And while we're at it, why are we reporting the "most deadly" attack, excluding state terrorism? This paragraph seems a little weird. FuelWagon 21:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It's all very westerncentric, but some of us easterners know English too. --The Random Element 21:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Do any other nations dispute the list contains acts which were not terrorist acts? I know the US State Department is a westernistic source, but does any nation dispute the US labels of these acts as being acts of terrorism? FuelWagon 21:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I can't talk for nations, but in eastern hemisphere conversation, terrorism means something very different than what you are claiming here. Most of the examples in the list of "terrorism examples" would not be considered terrorism at all, and dozens of very notable examples would be considered to be left out of your list. In the east, we tend to use examples that match a specific set of parameters. --The Random Element 19:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

If you have issues with the information consider bringing that up here and perhaps it can be made more neutral. Which items do you dispute? - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  22:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the most glaring incongruity is that your list of examples doesn't match your definition. --The Random Element 19:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)