Talk:Terrorism/Draft a1

message: the Washington Beltway sniper attacks (which were an attempt at extortion.)
:I don't think this is a good case to cite, because his motives are so debatable. From what I heard most recently, they wanted to use the $ to have 100 boys, and 100 girls go around the world teaching Islam, or something like that. I think his motive was to use the $ with political intent. Much like the robberies commited by The Order (group). Sam Spade 01:30, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I knew they were trying to extort money.  I didn't know there was a political purpose behind it.  If anyone knows of a similar case that would work better, put it in. Isomorphic 03:27, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've actually heard suggestions that there were direct terrorist tie-ins in that case which have been suppressed to prevent hysteria, so I definitely think a different example would be in order. Which one to choose seems pretty broad, since there are so many non-terrorist incidents. I guess the best would be one where it is a close call, the deciding factor being motive. Sam Spade 03:41, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It'll prob do fine w/o an example, others also lack them. Sam Spade 05:20, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If I could think of one, I'd include it, but nothing comes to mind. Isomorphic 05:21, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The "deciding factor being motive"? ?? LOL. Now, we're getting somewhere. -SV(talk) 10:49, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  moved from article, motives section 

message: *Terrorists and Former Terrorists, Alleged
The classification of a person or group as "terrorist" is nearly always disputed.  Below, we list some of the better-known individuals who are regarded as terrorists (or as having been terrorists in the past) by a significant body of opinion apart from the victims of acts with which they have rightly or wrongly been linked.  In many, perhaps most, cases there is also a significant body of contrary opinion.  Inclusion of many people in this one list does not indicate any type of equivalence between them.  We have not included leaders of governments even when they are widely regarded as guilty of "state terrorism".
* Yasser Arafat, as leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization
* Mohammed Atta and his September 11, 2001 accomplices (deceased)
* Muhammad Atef (deceased)
* Yihia Ayash (deceased)
* Said Bahaji
* Djamel Beghal
* Menachem Begin (1913-1992), the leader of the Irgun (1944-1948) 
* Ramzi Binalshibh
* Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the "spiritual" leader of HAMAS
* David Copeland aka the "London Nailbomber"
* Byron De La Beckwith (1921-2001)
* Riduan Isamuddin, aka "Hambali"
* Luke Helder aka the "Smiley Face" bomber
* Khadaffy Janjalani
* Theodore Kaczynski aka the "Unabomber"
* Mohammed Jamal Khalifa
* Amir Khattab (deceased)
* Osama bin Laden, (al-Qaeda)
* Tomioka Makoto (deceased)
* Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma city bomber (deceased)
* Khalid Sheik Mohammed, (al-Qaeda)
* Zacarias Moussaoui,(al-Qaeda)
* Imad Mugniyah
* Hassan Nasseralla, secretary-general of Hizballah
* Terry Nichols, associate of Timothy McVeigh
* Abu Nidal (deceased)
* Jose Padilla, (al-Qaeda)
* Talwinder Singh Parmar (deceased)
* Abbedalla Qawasameh (deceased)
* Bassal Qawasameh (deceased)
* Abd Al-Aziz Rantisi, leader of Hamas
* Richard Reid, AKA the "Shoebomber"
* Inderjit Singh Reyat
* Ilich Ramirez Sanchez aka "Carlos the Jackal"
* Paul Rose
* Yitzhak Shamir, one of Lehi leaders 
* Adnan G. El Shukrijumah,organizer and operational commander for al-Qaida
* Abraham Stern (deceased)
* Michael Collins (Irish leader) 
* D. C. Stephenson (1891-1966)
* Mahmoud Tawallbe (deceased)
* Tohir Yuldashev
* Ramzi Yousef
* Ayman al-Zawahiri, (al-Qaeda)
* Abdurahman Khadr (al-Qaeda)
::This section is prob the main trouble with the article. How about a title and paragraph we can all agree to? Maybe we should include anyone commonly refered to as a terrorist? Its a subjective term, and I donno if I want my prez. (Bush) put on there, but the truth is the definition is hard to nail down, and here we have a list... Lets see some alternate ideas? Sam Spade 05:37, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Im glad to see this comment by you Iso - it shows that you understand the problem of inconsistency, and a real awareness of how not-easy it is to find common ground between the definition and the polemic meaning. -SV(talk) 11:01, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "Commonly referred to." How commonly? If you really want to throw the door open, you could include eco-terrorists, cultural terrorists, etc. I know it would be a big disappointment to everyone who has worked so hard on it, but if you begin adding in world leaders you don't like, which have to include any politician who has ever headed a country at war, I would favor stripping out all names of both individuals and groups. We might actually do a service if we could define what terrorism is and what terrorists do and leave IDs to the imagination. Cecropia 05:51, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, keep in mind, that the process we devise here must be somewhat grounded in convention. So, Im not for saying 'Yasser Arafat was a saint,' but I am in favor of saying that he is "portrayed by Israel and the West as an irrational extremist, who uses violence wantonly, wheras they claim to use violence rationally" Wink wink. These are sides, in otherwords, and though people should know what POV they are swimming in themselves, it's no good if we ask them to believe that they are birds, when in fact they are fish. So, list goes to its own article (where it was a year ago) but with some stronger (decending from the main article) understanding of how the term is applied.-SV(talk) 11:01, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Yes, this is a major problem.  However, it still seems like there should be an index of some sort.  It seems to me that it might be useful to have a list of famous terrorist incidents rather than a list of famous terrorists.  That might be somewhat less of a political morass, as it characterizes actions, not people.  Isomorphic 05:56, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Essentially, I agree with you, but it would still be contentious. Put it this way, we just had a user strike "terrorist" from the first paragraph of the article on the 9/11 attacks (since restored). If that incident raises dispute, what could you possibly list? Cecropia 06:09, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: I'm not saying you wouldn't have any controversy, only that you might have less controversy.  I want there to be a list of some sort, but events seems likelier to be doable than people.  Isomorphic 06:21, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, thats not the best response to Cecropia's question - better to say that the POV framework must be described with each use of the term terrorism. To strike it out completely would be to ignore the reality that the term is used. A little extra (consistent) context for the POV from which it comes is all Im talking about.  Yes, the list of acts, rather than who is who is not is a far more rational approach. (glad I re-scanned the discussion to find that Iso comment) -SV(talk) 11:01, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Yes, Sam. Everyone first joins this discussion by posing this "solution," but thats actually part of the problem, strangely enough. ;) -SV(talk) 11:01, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  moved from article