Talk:Terrorism/Archive 4

message: : The means used to achieve any goal should be placed within the context of what means were actually possible. For instance, the American revolutionaries led by George Washington who fought against the British in the 18th century were not terrorists because violent revolution was the only means possible for change in their circumstances, while modern day Basque organization ETA are terrorists because peaceful means for change are possible within the EU.
This is monstrous. What "peaceful means for change … within the EU are open to the ETA? It seems to me that their position is comparable to that of Washington's revolutionaries.
I have altered this paragraph.
Shorne 23:48, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Washington and the ETA 

message: : State-sponsored terrorist attacks on their "own" civilian populations are far more deadly and can be sustained for longer durations. Stalin's pre World War II purges and the 1960s "cultural revolution" in China two conventional examples. Conscripton is also state sponsored terrorism. The "support" for the government extracted by the military is of the most direct and personal kind. The casualties among the innocent conscripted civilians in both world wars dwarfs that of all other weapons of mass destruction.
It's not clear whether this paragraph can be salvaged at all, but in particular the part beginning with  "Conscription..." seems to evade NPOV (at the very least). - toh
--
Also, the 'facts' are blatant NPOV violation - far more deadly is based on what facts exactly?  In the 'Chomsky' newspeak State Terrorism refers only to right-wing militias sponsered by any non-leftist government, while purposely ignoring that most left-wing militants and terrorists had massive state sponsorship from Soviet client-states such as Cuba, Syria, Egypt, East-Germany, etc.  Doug Sep 29 05:51:26 UTC 2004
:I'll delete that paragraph. I agree that it cannot be salvaged. As for conscription, shouldn't it be called corvée labour rather than terrorism? Shorne 07:30, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm assuming the sentence meant conscription into the military, and the possibility of being sent into battle against one's will.  Conscription, however, is as old as civilization, and it's kind of ridiculous to call it "terrorism."  Isomorphic 16:27, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conscription 

message: OK.  I went through and tried to remove editorializing from all sides.  The only way to keep this article from being a constant battleground (as well as a rambling mess of "some say.. but others say... and on the third hand...") is to keep it stripped down to essentials.  Anybody who wants to fight or editorialize can do it in one of the sub-articles as far as I'm concerned.  This article should remain short and clean. Isomorphic 21:09, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Oh the neutrality!

message: There's a debate going on at Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks#The Great "Terrorism" Debate that may interest followers of this article.  – Quadell (talk) (help) 11:56, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
I would argue that 9/11 is mentioned FAR too many times in an article that should address all sorts of terrorism, cite original examples and stray from the Americocentric examples often associated with the topic.
:Eight types,
:I suggest that perhaps a better way to go would be not an ideal type definition, but a typological approach, a interpretation of terrorism as a strategy of intimidation & violence broadly delimited into eight categories.  This isn’t intended to be a typological theory, but instead read as an array, a temporary representation and ordering of tropes in order to foster a critical view. 
:8 types, mytho-terrorism, anarcho-terroism, socio-terrorism, ethno-terrorism, narco-terrorism, state-terrorism, anti-terrorism, and pure-terrorism. 
:1.Mytho-terrorism: the protean form of terrorism—fear desire, and violence converging and erupting when the desires of the alienated can no longer be ignored.  There’s a power to mytho-terrorism that handicaps a reasonable inquiry, because it affirms the boundary between legitimate & rational use of violence, and the illegitimate irrational use.  A grand category that would equate all forms of terror, and cut off inquiry. 
:2.Anarcho-terrorism: anti-state political violence. 
:3.Socio-terrorism: those who indorse and conduct class warfare. (parses terrorism & marxism). 
:4.ethno-terrorism: the violent efforts of a national, communal, or ethnic group to acquire the status of a state. 
:5.narco-terrorism: the violent blending of illicit drug trade & political intimidation 
:6.state terrorism: premeditated politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by clandestine state agents.  (a shift that obscures a long history of state rule by terror) 
:7.anti-terrorism: the combating of terrorism, in the struggle for international legitimacy by small state sponsored groups. 
:8.pure terrorism: an international political crisis in which violent intimidation and manipulation has created a pervasive state of insecurity and fear—a state in which the critical production and distribution of terrorist threat that is temporal, and not territorial.
::Have these distinctions been made by others, or is this original research? Jayjg (talk) 16:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Great "Terrorism" Debate 

message: The examples should be limited -- Perhaps the half dozen with the larges loss of life over the last ten years. Otherwise the list is very  arbitrary and wide open to none NPOV. Philip Baird Shearer 01:56, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples of terrorism 

message: The title of the entry in the INFORMATION offering updates on "Islamic Terrorism" displays egregious bias and must be changed or deleted.
Suppose someone were to insert a link to a site purporting to profile recent Israeli assaults against civilians. Any attempt to entitle such a link "Information on Jewish Terrorism" on Wikipedia would be instantly (and correctly) protested.BrandonYusufToropov 16:17, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flagrant bias 

message: "Editing under false pretexts"?
Like I'm really from Neptune or something?
I'm correcting and expanding the article. Examples are nice and balanced, too, as you'll note. If you think there's a POV problem, please specify what you believe it to be so we can all discuss it.
That's the beauty of wikipedia.  It's always in motion. BrandonYusufToropov 01:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, it is rather hard to see the objection to your recent edit - or why the person who reverted it called it a "revert". - Mustafaa 01:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I note, too, that the person objecting to my edit keeps referring me to the talk page, but will provide no response to my request for details about what POV issues, precisely, are troubling him. BrandonYusufToropov 09:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  That's  a new one 

message: I was wondering why there is no mention of the IRA (Irish Republican Army) in the article? Does anyone feel they shouldn't be included?  Here is a list of some of their acts violence:
# the July 1972 bombing spree known as Bloody Friday, in which downtown Belfast was rocked by 22 bombs in 75 minutes, leaving nine dead and 130 injured;
# the 1979 assassination of Lord Mountbatten, Queen Elizabeth II’s uncle;
# the 1984 bombing of a Brighton hotel where then British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her cabinet were meeting, which wounded several British officials and killed four other Britons;
# a 1993 car bombing in London’s financial district that killed one person and caused $1 billion of damage;
# mortar attacks on the British prime minister’s 10 Downing Street residence and London’s Heathrow Airport in the early 1990s;
# and high-profile bombings of civilian targets, including pubs and subway stations, in Northern Ireland and mainland Britain throughout the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.
# BBC news article.
I would just add them myself, but I've never edited this article before, and someone else may have a better idea of where they should go.  --Silversmith  Hewwo 10:30, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, I think it's very odd that they aren't mentioned here. The only reason I can think of might be due to argument - the IRA are considered 'freedom fighters' in some countries.  Also, the section about charity funding of terrorism could definitely benefit from some material on the IRA - particularly the support they draw in the US and Scotland. Go ahead and add the material, although maybe don't metion Sinn Fein if you don't want a revert war. illWill 18:41, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  IRA 

message: Here's the Google listing (subscrip necessary for whole article)
[PDF] A Tertiary Model for Countering Terrorism in Liberal Democracies ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
Baruch Goldstein was identified as a ‘lone wolf’ at the. time – he committed the
massacre at the Tomb of the Patriarchs on his own ...
Further research identifies the publication as:
 Terrorism and Political Violence
  	Publisher:  	Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group
  	Issue:  	Volume 13, Number 2 / Summer 2001
  	Pages:  	1 - 26
 Article title: A Tertiary Model for Countering Terrorism in Liberal Democracies ... '''
Let's stop playing games and write a responsible article, okay? BrandonYusufToropov 02:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goldstein was identified as a lone wolf terrorist in Summer 2001 

message: (What with all the hullaballoo on this page, though, he may have simply not noticed them.)
* To whom are the terms "racist" and "Zionist" not "acceptable"? It's your word, you used it, I am curious about why. 
* Are you saying he wasn't a Zionist? Are you saying Kach isn't a racist organization? 
* Please be specific in your responses. They're pretty simple questions. BrandonYusufToropov 11:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third time I have posed these simple questions for Guy 

message: How many people can participate in an act of "Lone Wolf" terrorism? The Oklahoma City bombing was conducted by McVeigh and McNichols. Dual wolf terrorism? -Willmcw 19:22, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Good question.  Another question is, whose designation of someone as a "Lone Wolf" is authoritative?  Shouldn't these people have a description something like "designated as a "Lone Wolf" by the FBI" or something like that?  Not in this article of course, where there's already far too much information about them, but in the relevant article? Jayjg (talk) 19:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alone or with friends? 

message: # Jayjg (talk) 18:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Present the information in a single paragraph briefly listing all three individuals, and rely on links for further information