Talk:List of terrorist incidents/Archive 1

message: (formerly titled 'first ideas')
Missing here are deeds by Baader-Meinhof, Irish Republican Army (in various flavors), Palestine Liberation Organization, etc. It's not possible to list everything, of course, but are there any major incidents from these that should be present? --Pinkunicorn
:There's a strong case to omit IRA and PLO/Palestinian incidents for the reason that these are longstanding "insurgent" resistances against in an occupying powers.  In the latter case, against an occupying power that doesn't offer a vote in the occupying power structure to those occupied.  It is a similar but somewhat different thing to deal with a separatist movement like Quebec's FLQ or Spain's Basque ETA or Kashmiris in India/Pakistan.  However it's probably best to omit those too, and to restrict the word "terrorist" to incidents where a group has no attachment to a political cause that is widely recognized as being at least legitimate to discuss in international forums.  Without that rule, China gets to call all Tibetan or Taiwanese resistance to its occupation or planned occupation "terrorism", Russia gets to call all advocates of Chechnya's separation "terrorists".  You really want that?
:Incidents like Timothy McVeigh's Oklamhoma City bombing or the early Al Qaeda attacks before the formation of the broad united group of jihadis made their 1998 declaration of war against "all Crusaders and Jews" can be called terrorism, as they had little support at the time, but, once you see the formation of a vast network to support specific acts worldwide you must admit that you are dealing with something a bit beyond "terror", a new form of warfare really.  McVeigh hoped to spark an insurgent movement but this didn't happen - accordingly a terrorist is a failed insurgent.
:Also attacks on military facilities or political decision makers, however conducted, are not "terrorism", period.  They are politics as usual.  Attacks on police facilities (as the Oklahoma City federal building was) can also often be seen as military or "insurgent" activities.
-----
The assasination of Indira Gandhi by her two Sikh body guards is listed as terrorism. But the killing of 3000 innocent Sikhs after the assasination is not listed as terrorism. Is terrorism only called terrorism when it involves a non-state actor or a weak minority?
----
Added some IRA incidents. Not sure if they are the most important ones. Any know about the Tamil Tigers or the Red Brigade? This site lists some groups that the U.S. considers terrorist groups: http://www.state.gov/www/global/terrorism/terrorist_orgs_list.html
Anyone know of their actions?    ---rmhermen
-----
My first idea on moving this list over to a less ambiguous title, was to call it list of major terrorist incidents. However, who gets to decide what is a "major" incident? "Major" is also a relative word - In Israel if a suicide bomber 'only' kills 2 people other than himself many would not regard that as a "major incident" becasue scores of people have been killed in single incidents in the past. But if that same number of people were killed in a terrorist attack in a country that was previously untouched by these acts then many people there would consider that to be a major incident. Also, how can we really define "major" after 3,000 were killed on 9/11? Maybe I am splitting hairs here.... Is list of major terrorist incidents still a better title in spite of this concern? --maveric149
----
Reading the definition of terrorism in the Wikipedia, the USS Cole bombing doesn't appear to belong in this list, since the ship was a military target. It could be that, as the article says, "some people call it terrorism", but this doesn't fit with the definition of terrorism here.
On the topic touched by maveric149, I'd say that this list is automatically about the major incidents, since the minor incidents will likely not get an encyclopedia entry. jheijmans 
-----
There's lot of lack about terrorist acts in Italy, Germany and France.
I will try to find sources.
Who known something about Munich olympics ?
How come you are all focusing on the PIRA? There have been terrorist acts by loyalists, not just republicans.
----
Removed:
* 1986 New Year's Eve fire at the Dupont Plaza Hotel in San Juan, Puerto Rico, claimed 97 lives, mainly in the casino area. Fire set by 3 Dupont workers. 
I didn't know duPont was a terrorist organization. Now if you had said Microsoft....  Were/Are these workers part of a terrorist group, perhaps one of the Puerto Rican independence groups?  --rmhermen
--Rmhermen:
Dupont is not a terrorist gropu. Read well. Dupont Plaza Hotel was the name of the hotel were the act happened. The fire was set by three hotel workers who later admitted they wanted to do it because they were mad cause of hotel workers' salaries in Puerto Rico and wanted to scare tourists and make them not come to Puerto Rico. In that way, it was a case of terrorism.
----
2000-2002 Israel is subjected to a campaign of attacks on civilians that leave 400 dead
I find that this is not netural for four reasons.
1. by not naming the terrorists it clearly is a political statement. I know who they are. (well not personally)
2. by not listing similar state terrorist activities, by Israel in particular, it is also a political statement.
3. The PLO (implied) is the only Governmental (mostly) body listed in the list. It is singled out for special attention. There are a number of people who would argue quite vehemently that the USA is the worlds largest state terrorist orginization.
4. The list of terrorist incidents is highly relevent to specific countries.
Suggestion for limiting the listing of this increadibly incomplete list of terrorist incidents:
This list of terrorist incidents is meant to be representative of non-statitist terrorist incidents which receive international coverage. Countries, like Israel, and pseudo governments like the PLO are not included. See State Terrorism. 
- Karl
:What's the purpose of restricting ourselves to events which 'recieve international coverage'? If we're doing this, can we state it explicitly, i.e., "List of non-statist terrorist incidents which recieve international coverage"? Because, otherwise, the exclusion of, say, violence by the Contras (which could fill several pages worth of incidents) makes this article decidedly non-neutral. Furthermore having this page at all when our page on terrorism emphasizes that many people consider this to be a wholly political categorization devoid of substantive meaning is not NPOV. I see no good way to resolve this dilemna - furthermore including everything (i.e., Der Yassin as well as the Passover Massacre) does not make inclusions any more neutral. Graft
::I think we are mostly in agreement. I would welcome any sort of description of what terrorist incidents were being listed. I suggested international coverage and non-statist events only to try to bring some sort of criteria for what to include, and to keep down the total number of acceptable incidents. Where we differ, I think, is that the more I think about it, the more I like including this page, *if* the events listed can be reasonably grouped together. What is terrorism? Having a list can be better than an explination for some people. It also provides a direction for further research. I have no objection to any definition of what to include, just so long as there is one, and that it is explicitedly stated. I have no objection to dealing with State Terrorism in this section - my concern was, as you stated, there are far to many incidents of state terrorism. - Karl
Should massacres by militia groups (such as the Deir Yassin massacre) really count as terrorist incidents?  If so, we could add hundreds more incidents to this list, dating back to ancient times.  Going further, are we going to add things like the firebombing of Dresden, or the bombing of Hiroshima?  IMHO it's better to stick with a more conservative definition of terrorism.  Delirium
Delirium, youngest of the endless.. this goes to the heart of the semantics issue, as "terrorism" is of course, a buzzword with a catch-all meaning, that refers to anyone who poses any kind of threat what soever to the US and its 'interests' namely power. Im going to be peppering the WP with some Chomsky quotes, in various articles, just because hes got it on the ball, and has some perspective on these codewords and their use in subjugating the foreign masses, and rendering confused and complicit us domestic ones.
-Sv
----
Mav, there's no reason why we should exclude an incident simply because it happens to be carried out by a state. Personally I like Bibi Netanyahu's definition of terrorism, which is "violence against civilians intended to cause fear for political purposes", and says nothing about state or non-state actors. And, finally, our own Terrorism page says it can be committed by governments, so there is no reason the Qibya massacre doesn't qualify as a terrorist incident. Until this is changed, I think that link belongs on this page (as meaningless as this page is). Graft
:IF the Qibya massacre is a terrorist incident then by implication Ariel Sharon is a terrorist. I really dislike that man and blame him for instigating the current Intifada but to put him in the same league as Osama bin Laden is outrageous POV. The Qibya incident is not a clear case of anything other than a military operation gone tragically wrong due to badly interpreted orders. --mav 21:02 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)
Graft, the terrorism definition you quote would fit the German bombing of London during WWII, because Germany was (a) targeting civilians (b) to induce fear (c) for a political purpose, i.e., to weaken the British resolve to wage war against Germany.
Similarly, the definition would fit the American bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: civilians were deliberately targeted, were they not? It made Japanese fear that the US would kill even more people, etc.
(I'm just saying that "terrorism" is hard to distinguish from non-terrorism by any simple definition.) --Uncle Ed 23:29 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)
:Well, i've made this point here before (above), but again, I don't disagree with you. Yes, the implication is that Ariel Sharon is a terrorist, and yes, the implication is that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorist actions. Unless we have clarity on a specific definition of terrorism (e.g. as existing only in a certain political context defined by the United States), then we can't continue to bandy about the term "terrorism". The fact that we don't "like" calling Ariel Sharon a terrorist doesn't mean that, according to the definition we have of "terrorism" right now, he is not a terrorist. If you disagree, and think there is something that substantially differentiates Ariel Sharon killing Palestinian villagers from Osama bin Laden blowing up American soldiers in Saudi Arabia, then please make it clear what that is. Graft
:Per the definition of terrorism it is violence intentionally done to non-combatants (key word) in order to instill fear in that population for political gain. That is what most everybody agrees with but if you do not go on and say: "This is a tactic used in asymmetric warefare by militarily inferior non-governmental groups against the population of a stronger foe" then you open the floodgates and just about every nation on the planet has engaged in terrorism and every war-time leader is a terrorist. This is not to say that nations are not capable of performing terrorist-like acts just like they are cabable of engaging in guerilla-like warefare. 
:But due to the fact that it is a nation doing it there still is a conventional element to the acts because nations have to ultimately worry about things such as economic sanctions and world opinion (nations are also targetable with military action and make for hard targets to hit and destroy if needed). Violence perpetrated by the state, therefore, has a built-in accountability mechanism that violence perpetrated by stateless-entities does not. True terrorism is a very difficult thing to fight because no one nation can be fully blamed or punished for actions done by stateless organizations. This is the same reason why snippers are so hated and feared - they strike without warning, are very difficult to catch, can be anywhere at any time, and are very hard to catch.   
:That is not to say that countries cannot commit war crimes, atrocities, humanitarian abuses and even genocide (BTW, IMO Israel has and continues to commit many war crimes - yes there is a state of war - and atrocities against the Palestinians). Also, in this particular case I do not see anything by way of proof that the actions of Sheron are anything but badly misinterpreting orders that were already badly misinterpreted by his superiors. 
:So in the same way as it is incorrect to lable a large and well-established religion a cult (even though they may be cult-like) it is incorrect to lable actions by governments terrorist (however terrorist-like). --mav
----
"However, depending one's allegiance, these acts might be seen as freedom fighting. For example, in the 20th century, Jesse James was portrayed nearly always as a hero."
Jesse James was never portrayed as either a terrorist or a freedom fighter.
 
Pro-Confederate newspapers in Missouri considered James a freedom fighter. And a few biographies of James have portrayed him as a terrorist, although the word was not yet in general usage in the USA during his lifetime. 
The question of whether terrorism can be considered "freedom fighting" can be covered on the terrorism page, rather than here.  -- Tim
----
Some glitch happened in the system on 2/7/04. I edited one entry (the Rome and Vienna Attacks), but when I saved it, it saved a very old edition of this page. I'm sorry, there are several entries that have been deleted.
: This happened in an edit by User:TimShell, not the anon who posted the comment above this one. I restored the deleted information -- uriber 14:53, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. To say 'all violence by (whoever we like to call) "terrorists" is "terrorism"' is simply more support for the contention that the term lacks any possible definition, and is therefore unencyclopedic. -SV(talk) 05:41, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: It might be more prudent to add to the disclaimer with links to similar "alternative" events of murder, for example, List of massacres, as there is a danger the incidents listed may push the already broad definition of "terrorism" so such extremes as to be useless to any researcher - should all large-scale acts of violence be considered "terrorism"?. Indeed, I strongly disagree with the suggestion that the Deir Yassin massacre and the Qibya_massacre are acts of terrorism, and it seems unfair that we should single out the forces involved in those massacres - if we was to include those events, we would have to also include all the massacres by anyone ever, which is what the List of massacres article is for! --Admbws 13:47, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Is a terrorist a failed insurgent?

message: Should the 2000 USS Cole bombing be included? It's a tough choice, but I say no. Although it was carried out by a terrorist organization, and it was not a legitimate act of war, still it specifically targetted only military personel and property. According to the definition of terrorism on Wikipedia, to be terrorism it must target civilians. So I think it should be left off. Any objections? Quadell (talk) 18:19, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
:I say keep it in. It was an action undertaken by terrorists, by a terrorist group. The bombing was originally planned for another ship around New Years 2000 (see Millennium attack plot) and if it had occurred then, it would be considered a terrorist attack. User:PBP Aug 13, 2004
The Khobar Towers bombing and Marine Barracks Bombing are similar.  They specifically targetted military personel.  Ydorb 00:00, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
Totally disagree. The Cole was a military target, but:
* The action did not have a legitimate military objective. (I know, debatable.)
* The action was not government sanctioned. (So as to distinguish it from the Rainbow Warier incident)
* The combatant was a terrorist organization.
* It was not preformed during a declared war in a theater of battle.
I think it is way better to be broad and inclusive here. This is an encyclopedia; It has to be thorough. If need be we can classify further or add glyphs to indicate severity or disputed or even category. jcp 01:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cole bombing 

message: There's a lot of conflicts where no war declared, where individual actions not considered to be terrorism.
* In WW II when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, this was before they delivered declaration of war to USA.
* The Vietnam War and Korean War ... in both cases, USA labeled this as "a police action."  I do not believe war was ever formally declared between the major combattants.
* When USSR in Afghanistan, and CIA covertly aiding the rebels, such as bin Laden, was that a dcclared war?
* In the part of Iran-Contra, where the CIA mined harbors with the intent of targeting neutral ships such as from Europe, that was never declared to be terrorist action.
* Long before 9/11, organizations declared a jihad against the USA, whose policy makers apparently not taking the threat seriously, until the attacks got more deadly.
AlMac|(talk) 03:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  undeclared war 

message: Inspired by the Beslan hostage crisis, someone has added many bomb attacks related to Chechnya to the article. There is already an extensive list of Chechen bomb attacks in the History of Chechnya section. Do we need to add all of these to this list? Plus, we have a blurb saying "2003--Chechen militants carry out suicide bombings and other attacks across Russia and nearby provinces". Should we keep all of these incidents listed, or create a separate article, keeping the major incidents with their own pages here? PBP Sept. 4, 2004
I guess it depends if this is a list of Terrorist Attacks, if it is a list of 'some' terrorist attacks. Kouros 16:34, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chechen attacks 

message: I've done a couple of reversions to this page the last couple of days - an anon user (different IP ranges each time) has been adding "by muslims" to many entries.  Now this may or may not be true, I haven't checked every one, but is it NPOV to point out religious affiliation for one specific religion, and not others?
This edit  appears to be a valid reversion, but not sure about the others.  Please revert my reversions if I am wrong! -- Chuq 06:02, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it is entirely appropriate to add "by Muslims," because their religion requires them to convert or kill the "infidel" (i.e., non-Muslims). While most Muslims are not terrorists, most terrorists are Muslims, and it is proper to point out those attacks which are carried out by Muslims. Also, would you be so kind as to sign your contributions in the future? (Leave 4 tildes (~)) Thanks. Godfrey Daniel 09:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  user adding "by muslims" to many entries 

message: I removed the following entry from the page (after it had been removed/reverted once already):
:* 1945 the most lethal terrorist attack (act of unlawful political violence) in history: the nuclear(or atomic) bombing by the US Air Force of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which killed over 200,000 civilians, legally the crime against humanity of murder, and the war crimes of wilful killing of civilians and wanton destruction of cities (violations of the Hague Convention then in force)
I don't think that this is commonly understood to be terrorism. I didn't see it discussed in the Terrorism article, and if it was terrorism, I would expect to see it there, as the "most lethal terrorist attack". Eugene van der Pijll 15:52, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That is true, and I happen to agree with that. The problem is I think it can be successfully argued the intent was terrorism. Yes, the U.S. and Japan were at war, and yes both sides Axis and Allies firebombed cities - which I think should also be listed as terrorism - but regarding nuclear strikes the U.S. wanted to terrorize the Japanese government into submission, and they succeeded. - RoyBoy 800 07:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Expanding "terrorism" that far would include every war ever fought.  No, declared war is not terrorism much as you might like it to be. - Tεxτurε 16:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a commonly held belief that is not universally held.  Another common belief is that until the nuclear bombs were dropped, the Russians had not yet entered the war against Japan, but the Russians realized the implications of the bomb meant that the Allies were going to defeat Japan, so the USSR entered the war to grab as much territory as they could.  The Japanese were having trouble grasping the enormity of the nuclear attacks, but what convinced them they were going to lose, and thus time to surrender, was the entry of the Russians into the war against them. AlMac|(talk) 14:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings 

message: ::This is a commonly held belief that is not universally held.  Another common belief is that until the nuclear bombs were dropped, the Russians had not yet entered the war against Japan, but the Russians realized the implications of the bomb meant that the Allies were going to defeat Japan, so the USSR entered the war to grab as much territory as they could.  The Japanese were having trouble grasping the enormity of the nuclear attacks, but what convinced them they were going to lose, and thus time to surrender, was the entry of the Russians into the war against them. AlMac|(talk) 14:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  USSR vs. Japan 

message: Considering that many of the other examples on this page are also not found on the Terrorism article, I don't believe one can look at the Terrorism article to provide a comprehensive list of terrorist incidents.  According to the criteria, however, on the Terrorism page, the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombing does meet the characteristics of a terrorist act.  I personally would not expect to necessarily see Hiroshima/Nagasaki on the Terrorism page, because that page is one to define what terrorism is, not what specific acts of terrorism are.  That is what this page is for.
As for not Hiroshima/Nagasaki not being commonly understood to be terrorist acts, this is the entire purpose of the wikipedia -- to provide for people information that they may not have known, or to provide additional insight on the topic in question.  A nation dropping munitions on another nation (meets "Legitimancy" criterion) without their approval, while violating human rights laws by killing civilians (meets "Target" criterion), in order to intimidate the attacked country into stopping a war (meets "Objective" criterion) and in order to facilitate political change by facilitating the surrender of Imperial Japan as well as stopping the spread of Japanese expansionism (meets "Motive" criterion).  Removing an entry such as this does the Wikipedia a disservice.
18:59, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings 

message: To defuse edit wars over this, we should bring up the issue of the Operation Days of Penitence addition to the list. Is this terrorism? Or is it just a military operation in response to the killing of children (albeit one that has killed countless innocents, including children, not exactly a justifiable operation)? Was it intended to terrorize the populace (as Qassam rockets obviously are, and terrorism is defined as), or was it just a military operation that had tragic consequences? Obviously, there have been dozens of IDF raids on the Palestinians, but they have not merited an addition. Does every military operation in recorded history deserve to be added as well, since someone undoubtedly believe they are terrorist attacks as well?
I think this should be removed (we can keep the blub about "attacks by the IDF"), but possibly it could be added to List of massacres, if people consider it to be one. Personally, I don't consider it a terrorist operation (though it is a horrible event, even if it was in response to other horrible events).  PBP, 20 Oct. 2004
:First of all, under international law, the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is illegal. The entire military occupation apparatus is state terrorism against Palestinian refugees who were evicted from Israel in campaigns of mass ethnic cleansing. Qassam rocket attacks and other paramilitary attacks by guerilla groups against the illegal Israeli occupation, including the illegal Jewish settlements, are legitimate acts of resistance. Israeli reprisal attacks against the refugee camps are designed as mass punishment to further terrorize the civilian refugee population. The extremist Zionists delete mention of Israeli atrocities against civilians and reference to the Israeli military occupation of Palestinian territory because, in their POV, Israeli crimes can always be justified. Alberuni 03:03, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The Israeli presence is not illegal, "state terrorism" is a disputed term and its application inaccurate here, "ethnic cleansing" is POV and false, and not relevant to the current article and dispute.  The Qassam rockets are fired on civilian towns not military targets, so they can't possibly be "guerilla" or "paramilitary" actions, but rather are terrorist actions.  Israeli actions are designed to destroy terrorist apparatus, not punish civilians.  And finally, ad hominem statements about other editors are an abuse of Talk: pages. Jayjg 04:09, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: See what I mean? Alberuni 04:13, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Military occupation of territory seized in war is illegally occupied territory. Only Israelis dispute this characterization, as most criminals deny their guilt. "UN Resolutions 242 and 338 stipulate that Israel must withdraw completely from these territories. Israel has not withdrawn, however, and it has built many Jewish settlements in the territories, actions deemed illegal by virtually all other states."  Alberuni 14:07, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  * Really?  I didn't know that about the military occupation stuff.  Could you show me the exact source of that in international law precedent.  Please note that in order for you to START having claims that an occupation is illegal, the party being "occupied" had to have been a sovereign entity when they were originally occupied (please tell me the last time those territories were sovereign - and, I have a PhD in this stuff).  Thank you for your time, and be on your way son.  Terrapin 19:58, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought you were going to ignore me. There's no point discussing these issues with another tiresomely arrogant Zionist who thinks he knows everything and can justify all Israeli war crimes. Your photo should be labelled "Causes" in the article Anti-semitism. I'm sure weasely Zionist laywers will always find ways to ignore international law to hide their crimes and maitain their racist state privileges but that doesn't make them right. Belligerent occupation is governed by The Hague Regulations of 1907 and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. Security Council Resolution 1322 (2000), paragraph 3, “Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and its responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in a Time of War of 12 August 1949;...” Feel free to ignore international law. Israel is recognized as a pariah terrorist state already. More punishment is sure to come.  --Alberuni 20:19, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  * Uh...you didn't answer my challenge(see above).  Please show me your sources or support to that question, or are you just going to continue to spout boring rhetoric we've heard a thousand times before.  In order for you to justify "international law", shouldn't you have to know what that is?  Since you obviously don't (or you would have provided proof), are you going to continue to use the words "international law", in actual sentences that learned people read, and hope we don't notice that you don't know what you are talking about ?  It's fairly humorous if so.  Let me know. Terrapin 21:02, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Killing 31 children is still terrorism. You would recognize it as terrorism if the victims were Jews. But your biased pro-Israeli POV is compelling you to deny Israeli atrocities. It is like a disease. Alberuni 17:22, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Huh?  Only if IDF deliberately targeted children.  Please show me a valid source (i.e. not consistently pro-either side) that claims that.  If you don't have that source, you have no floor to stand on, and you lose the argument.  Simple as that.  I can show you sources that say Hamas used children as human shields, but those are usuall POV as well.  The only solution is to use a NPOV term, and blind accusations of terrorism, because of who the "perpetrator" is, is certainly not that.  Terrapin 18:25, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation Days of Penitence 

message: I have protected this page while this is debated on the talk page. Please let's keep the accusations out of the discussion and come to an agreement here first. Rmhermen 17:30, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
:Please mark it as "Protected" next time, it is almost impossible to tell otherwise.  Thanks. Jayjg 17:43, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protection

message: The IDF massacred 31 Palestinian refugee children this month to "teach the militants a hard lesson" about launching resistance attacks against the Israeli occupation of Palestinian Territory. This is terrorism, by definition; violence against civilians for political purposes. Who can deny it? Well, it's quite obvious what kind of people relentlessly deny and censor mention of Israeli atrocities. Alberuni 17:44, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that really how Israel described its goals?  Also, 2/3rds of the dead were combatants, and estimates of the number of children killed, generally as collateral damage, vary from 18 to 31. Jayjg 18:06, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, and the Jewish kids killed in the Qassam rocket attacks against the Occupation Forces were also collateral damage, right? --Alberuni 19:40, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: When the Palestinians launched Qassam rockets essentially blindly against a civilian town, exactly who did they imagine they were going to hit? Jayjg 22:29, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlike the case for the IDF, the U.S. government did not supply the Palestinians annually with billions of dollars in Apache helicopter gunships and other high tech weapons with which to defend themselves. The Palestinians are doing the best they can to resist the overwhelming military might and illegal occupation of the racist Jewish state with the limited technology available. The lower level of military technology available to the guerillas in their strikes on Israeli military bases makes total misses as well as "collateral damage" more likely. In fact, they have been firing those rockets for years without causing a single fatality.  The fact that Israel has access to higher technology which it employs against civilian areas to terrorize refugees and "teach them a hard lesson" for supporting militant resistance hardly legitimizes Ariel Sharon's morally bankrupt policy of state terrorism.  In fact, it makes it all the more grotesque and fascist. --Alberuni 00:58, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you're saying that they knew they were going to hit civilians, since they were aiming at civilian targets, but they're justified in doing so because the U.S. is unfair and Sharon is a meanie. Jayjg 18:50, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You guessed wrong. Your comprehension level is diminishing. Read it again and try to understand the meaning of each word this time. --19:01, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: *Can you name me a military base anywhere near the latest Qassam rocket impact points?  (I'll give you a hint, there aren't any).  Terrapin 15:41, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: * Also, in what military capacity are city buses being used for, that requires terrorists to blow them up?  Don't soldiers have their own transports (jeeps and the like)?  I think they do, but I could be wrong.  Enlighten me. Terrapin 15:43, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As a proponent of the "collateral damage" excuse when Israel murders innocent people, you shouldn't be so surprised when there's payback. Alberuni 19:53, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Payback".  Thank you for elegantly destroying your own argument (made three inches north of here), that the Terrorists are attacking the military apparatus and just "missing" once in awhile.  Once again, thank you for making my own point for me.  Terrapin 20:13, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Alberuni, you are the only one arguing for the addition of this entry. We have several general entries on the current intifada, and this operation could be added to the Violence in the I/P conflict in 2004 article, which is on this list as well. But you are being enormously hippocritical when you say Qassam rocket attacks and bus bombings are legitimate "resistance attacks" when the killing of Palestinian civilians in military operations is terrorism. And if anyone doubts you, you accuse them of being a Jew/Jewish supporter/Zionist to deflect away from flaws in your argument. Plus, do you honestly suspect that every singe Israeli soldier, which is several thousand, WANTED to kill Palestinian civilians in the air strike, thereby lowering world opinion of Israel? If only a few wanted to kill innocents, how can the entire operation be considered terrorism? And in case you haven't heard, Israel has apologized for many of the civilian deaths it caused, while Hamas has apologized for none of the children it killed in Israel? None whatsoever. PBP 21 Oct 2004
===Useless to talk to this guy===
Alberuni doesn't see illogic in his arguments. Each sentence is rife with flaws, exaggeration and is a broken record.  It's like arguing with the furniture. I suggest ignoring him.  Terrapin 18:25, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Sure, Zionism is truth and anti-Zionism is just illogical. Why would anyone believe anything else? Everyone knows Israel can't commit terrorism. They are a state and a nation-state can't be terrorist (that was your first argument). Then, if they do happen to kill masses of children, well, it must be an accident, collateral damage while firing at terrorists (that was your second and current argument). Sure, because we all know Jews can't be terrorists! They suffered so much under the Nazis. Give them a break. A few dead Arab kids shot at their desks or on the way to school, who's really counting anyway? Some biased human rights NGO that Dore Gold tells us is a partisan, so it's really unverifiable. Pay no mind to the 31 dead Arab kids, the pools of blood, the ripped flesh and torn limbs. Palestinians don't really exist anyway and those kids would have grown up to be terrorists anyway. Good shooting IDF! Woohoo! We'll cover for you inthe US media, don't worry. No one will notice the atrocities (except the Arabs and what are they going to do about it? Hate the Jews more? Too late!). Let's just say that most of the victims were terrorists and the rest, well, unfortunately they got in our way. Too bad. Hey, Jews can't be perfect! Those aren't illegally occupied territories. Jews have every right to be anywhere the hell they want to be. That's not terrorism. That's just another day in the defense of the Jewish state and Jewish people against the anti-semites who would stuff us in the gas chamber or throw us in the sea. Remember the Holocaust and don't dare ever criticize the Jewish state! God Bless Israel and protect our boys and girls in the IDF. Over to you Jayjg. --Alberuni 19:40, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Alberuni, but there's little I can add to your latest diatribe. Jayjg 22:30, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will Israel's supporters ever admit Israel's terrorism? 

message: Alberuni doesn't see illogic in his arguments. Each sentence is rife with flaws, exaggeration and is a broken record.  It's like arguing with the furniture. I suggest ignoring him.  Terrapin 18:25, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, Zionism is truth and anti-Zionism is just illogical. Why would anyone believe anything else? Everyone knows Israel can't commit terrorism. They are a state and a nation-state can't be terrorist (that was your first argument). Then, if they do happen to kill masses of children, well, it must be an accident, collateral damage while firing at terrorists (that was your second and current argument). Sure, because we all know Jews can't be terrorists! They suffered so much under the Nazis. Give them a break. A few dead Arab kids shot at their desks or on the way to school, who's really counting anyway? Some biased human rights NGO that Dore Gold tells us is a partisan, so it's really unverifiable. Pay no mind to the 31 dead Arab kids, the pools of blood, the ripped flesh and torn limbs. Palestinians don't really exist anyway and those kids would have grown up to be terrorists anyway. Good shooting IDF! Woohoo! We'll cover for you inthe US media, don't worry. No one will notice the atrocities (except the Arabs and what are they going to do about it? Hate the Jews more? Too late!). Let's just say that most of the victims were terrorists and the rest, well, unfortunately they got in our way. Too bad. Hey, Jews can't be perfect! Those aren't illegally occupied territories. Jews have every right to be anywhere the hell they want to be. That's not terrorism. That's just another day in the defense of the Jewish state and Jewish people against the anti-semites who would stuff us in the gas chamber or throw us in the sea. Remember the Holocaust and don't dare ever criticize the Jewish state! God Bless Israel and protect our boys and girls in the IDF. Over to you Jayjg. --Alberuni 19:40, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Alberuni, but there's little I can add to your latest diatribe. Jayjg 22:30, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Useless to talk to this guy

message: I protest Kingturtle's Reverting to remove these 2 entries. They are accurate and fit the description of terrorism (see excerpt below)
-* 1970 May 3-4 USA Kent State University, Ohio. US National Guard bayonets two men on Friday, on Saturday shoots 13 in a crowd of university students protesting the bombing of Cambodia. Four die.
-* 1989 June 4 China Tiananmen Square. Chinese government sends tanks into a 7-week-old million-person peaceful protest. Hundreds die.
"Terrorism," thus is a term that attempts to define, as a separate phenomenon, a philosophy of coordinated violence which tends to have a high degree of social impact on the target society. Terrorist violence may be perpetrated by rebels in opposition to an established social order or it may be inflicted by a state upon its own citizens or those of another state (see State terrorism).
:While to many in academia, and protestors against the War in Vietnam, Kent State became a cause celebre, this event happened because the original protest was not peaceful, the troops were there because the police could not cope with the mob.  Police brutality against demonstrators can sometimes be for reasons of terrorizing them, such as Tsarist Russia against what turned out to be a Communist Revolution, and in USA during Civil Rights Movement, but this ended up getting recruits for "the cause." AlMac|(talk) 14:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kent State & Tiananmen Square 

message: Much later, the British Government acknowledged that this was an engineered event, and appologized for it.  Over one million Irish died in consequence.  There are many incidents in history where a nation, or important elements within a nation, did things that caused massive casualities to their own people.  In many cases the actions happened because the people doing it did not think of the victims as being their own people, such as many massacres of American Indians in American history. Perhaps such events belong in a separate article on the history of human inhumanity to human. AlMac|(talk) 14:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potato Famine 

message: There's a distinct lack of state terrorism in this article. In fact, this article seems to be quite simply a list of those events in asymmetric war that were perpetrated by the less well-equipped side. Where are the terror bombings of European cities in WWII, which would fit any definition of "terrorism"? Where the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, whose stated objective was to induce surrender? The Roman destruction of Carthage? The American destruction of Falluja? Etc etc etc.Dr Zen 01:19, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. - Mustafaa 10:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: State terrorism

message: "Terrorist" is by definition hopelessly point of view. See terrorism and definition of terrorism. There is too much useful work here to throw it away. I suggest looking at the existing listing and identifying common characteristics and grouping or labeling them and/or retitling this whole list. Example: For the purpose of this list, terrorist act will mean :  "Deadly acts against noncombatants to cause terror immediately and political change eventually." You need to group or label or limit SOMEHOW. Using terrorism as the criteria for your list is BY DEFINITION POV (like a list of locations that is is on the horizon). 4.250.138.206 08:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Commonly accepted definitions of terrorism" meaning "any and all non-governmental attacks against the US, Israel, Western European states, and Russia", to the exclusion of nearly everything else?? --Node 8 July 2005 01:10 (UTC)
The list would have to either be completely inclusive or be inherently biased to a POV selection.  There is a definition for terrorism, and anything that falls under this definition is a terrorist act, be it in the past, present or future, and on your side or on my side.  You should list your points of interest as you find them and I would list mine, and as long as they fit the definition you have no right to remove them just because they do not fit with you agenda or dilute your propaganda.  Per Wiki policy as I read it, you are supposed to discuss, edit, and add to articles, but not just delete as you please.  Anyway, I sense that this is 
a politically hopless argument.  However, if this domination continues I think the article should be nominated for deletion and let others vote on the issue.A.Khalil 03:56, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
If we are going to have a list of terrorist incidents then we must allow the inclusion any violent incidents that meets any of the definitions of terrorism listed in Definition of terrorism article. Removing incidents from this list because it does not meet ones personal definition of terrorism is POV. As to whether "state terrorism" is a proper term,  I don't feel it is our job to decide that. Some people consider it a proper subcatagory of terrosism and as such we can't exclude state terrorsist incidents solely becuase we don't agree with the state terrorism concept. Maybe we should list claimed state terrorism incidents in a seperate section or on it's own page with a link to it on this page. --Cab88 17:47, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV discussion

message: Would someone care to explain why pogroms are terrorism and other massacres of civilians, as at Cholula and Carthage, are not? You won't find anything helpful on terrorism, which defines it as including any war act at all! ("Terrorism refers to the use of violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological goal.")- Mustafaa
: Consistency is called for.  Either we include all the many massacres of this century - needlessly duplicating List of massacres - or we include none.  I am therefore removing all pogroms. In any event, pogroms are rarely if ever described as terrorism. - Mustafaa 08:59, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think a "List of assassinations, massacres, and terrorist incidents" to replace this list, the other list, and the list of assassinations, would be a better idea. 68.32.48.32 20:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: WTF?

message: Would mass arrests, communal punishments, demolition of homes and land, and the like be considered acts of terrorism?  They are surely intended to terrorise civilians into submission to the political will of the aggressor. A.Khalil 20:01, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
:Typically not; terrorism generally refers to non-governmental attempts to deliberately kill or injure civilians.  Jayjg (talk) 22:21, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: False. See State terrorism. --Prisk 03:35, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Forms of Terrorism

message: Why wouldn't the definition of "terrorism" include any act which involves the use of terror either for the use of perpetrating a capitulation or as an act of vengeance or vengeful punishment?  Isn't the basis of the word "Terrorism" derived from the word "Terror" and the use of the suffix "ism" as a means to describe the use of terror for a purpose if for no other reason than to terrify? 
It would seem quite subjective, political and egocentric in a way to assume terrorism is only the act of outlaws or those attacking "us".  Terror is an emotion, terrorism would seem to be all acts which invoke or attempt to invoke that emotion no matter who sponsors or perpetrates such an act.   How does anyone describe acts of terror as anything less than acts of terror except in an effort to be subjective not objective?   What makes the thought of someone coming to ones door with the threat of decapitation by sword or being blown to bits by a bomb strapped around someone's waist any less terrifying than the threat of a 500 pound or atomic bomb being dropped from the planes of an organized military?   How are campaigns of "Shock and Awe" meant to be something less than terrifying?   How was the dropping of two atomic bombs in 1945 killing tens of thousands of non-combatant men, women and children in a matter of minutes, meant to be something less than terrifying?   It would seem logical if we want to describe acts of terror, we describe all acts of terror and leave the subjectivity out of the definition.   By doing so, we might perhaps see the root of much of the trouble in the world and how examples are set and examples followed, leading to an endless cycle of the use of terror by all sides with the belief that the use of terror will somehow terrify (shock and awe) "terrorists" or governments into abandoning their use of terror instead of simply offer the example that if the use of military force can be used in an attempt to terrify other military forces or civilians of any group into capitulation, that perhaps terror is an effective means and thus is used as a tactic by not only governments and militaries, but those attempting to counteract such forces, without having access to the same.  As much as I would like to believe that I am a good person and do what is "right" not only for me and nation, but for all of humankind and as much as I love my own nation, I believe there is something basically flawed in the suggestion that because I want it to or need it to, for myself or my nation or group, I can suggest that 2 plus 2 equals 3 for me, not four or in other words, terrorism is something that is done to me, not something I do to someone else.   I don't believe the laws of nature or math work that way.  If we all think about it for a while we can all realize why we might be or are reluctant to accept the definition of "Terrorism" as strictly derived from and related to "what", not to "whom".  If we describe and define terrorism as the use of terror only, we implicate and indict ourselves of the same when one considers the objectives of some of the tactics of war.  Certainly the events of August 1945 were not meant to simply kill as many Japanese as could be killed by the use of such weapons, the intent was to terrify through the act of killing many many innocent people in a single blow so that further killing was not required.  If the Japanese had not been terrified and horrified by such acts and had simply kept on fighting, had we had many more bombs and known they would work we could have then attempted to simply kill all the Japanese with them figuring no more Japanese, no more Japanese killing anyone in as much as such a theory or attempt might end in success or be condemned before it was completed for being more evil or deadly than the evil death it proposed to halt.
In a fight for survival and for your life, fighting honorably would seem of little concern, thus such terrifying acts of desperation as the dropping of two atomic bombs (WMD) on two Japanese cities in 1945, killing more innocent non-combatant men, women, and children in minutes than have ever been killed in one single incident of mass destruction before or since.  That is the objective side of the incident and the objective side makes it no less an incident of terrorism than any other.   The subjective (justification) side, which shall never be proven, is that from the perspective of those that dropped the bomb and their allies, it "had to be done" and the thought and theory is that it saved more lives than were lost.   That debate could go on into eternity, because it cannot and will never be proven.  One thing was proven and that was the number of people killed in those incidents, who they were and what the act was meant to induce and by what emotion.   One might also debate or discuss that which was loosed by the opening of that Pandora's box and how we have struggled with it and are still struggling with it to this day and perhaps are only really beginning the real depth of the struggle now with such a lead by example.  That lead being one of the effectiveness of the terrifying threat of the use of such WMD.   Since it appeared to work for us, it appears more and more nations and even more troublesome, smaller "interest" groups would like to acquire the same power.   Ironically, the only nation to have actually used such weapons in an actual demonstration of it's terrifying destructive force on innocent living human beings is the nation that continues to develop and keep such weapons ("for defense" of course) while at the same time trying to suggest other individuals, groups or nations that want to acquire such weapons want them perhaps for a "different" purpose.   One might ask what "different" purpose could there be, when the United States has used them both offensively as a terrifying means to force a capitulation and defensively as a terrifying threatening deterrent.  Such an overwhelming success in both uses, creates a demand for their acquisition for either use.  How does one condemn the use of weapons they maintain in their own arsenal while at the same time developing them for and maintaining them in their own arsenal?   Perhaps if anyone should follow a lead by example the better lead might be the condemnation of such weapons of terror, by the destruction of such weapons of terror, including one's own arsenal.  As long as we deem them permissible for our own use, it would seem impossible to deny or condemn the use of them by others.   Such logic appears akin to holding a gun at ones own head in order to prevent others from holding a gun to ones head.  If we use violence to teach the lesson that violence does not work, are we not using something we propose to teach does not work to demonstrate how it does not work?   If our use of force and violent is successful in suppressing violence, what have we proven, that force and violence are a means to an end.  How is then we are surprised when others see the success in such means and use it against us, no less than we have used and continue to use it against them?    
-LEG 08-04-05
---
:I agree this is extremely difficult to define, and that it is affected by historical precedent and realities of different conflicts.
:I consider terrorism to be acts of barbarism, primarily, but not exclusively, against civilians, outside of war, declared war, or a state of war accepted by both sides.  Also outside international norms of the time period, like just before The war of 1812 when British warships were stopping ships of other nations, but mainly those of the USA, to forceably remove passengers and crew, and make them slave soldiers and sailors in the British navy.  But I recognize that a lot of events, that fit into the definition, have not gone into general mainstream as having that label.
:At the time of the Cole bombing, the US military was acting like it was in ignorance for bin Laden declaration of war against USA, unlike on the eve of the invasion of Panama, when that state declared war on the USA, and the USA did not treat it like some kind of political rhetoric joke.
:The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in WW II, could fall into the definition of terrorism, because Japan screwed up the process of declaring war, and did this attack, mainly on US military, at a time when USA and Japan not at war with each other.
:Was Ghengis Kahn a terrorist?  No, he was just a very successful military leader, in an age in which what he did was acceptable to his victims, if they did it to someone else. AlMac|(talk) 19:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Definition of Terrorism 

message: Mustafaa, is it really your contention that political assassinations of rivals are "terrorism"?  Under which definition?  Does this mean every incident in which a king who kills a rival to the throne is a "terrorist" incident? Jayjg (talk) 16:26, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha - I was waiting for you to say that... - Mustafaa 08:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I said "rival to the throne", not any person killing any political leader. Jayjg (talk) 08:39, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  All these assassinations are of rivals for power.  Most if not all terrorist groups want to take power in their countries. In any event, such incidents are redundant with List of assassinated persons. - Mustafaa 08:44, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Few of these groups want to take over the role of the assassinated individual. Jayjg (talk) 08:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Depends what you mean by "role".  They want to take his powers. - Mustafaa 09:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Right. Jayjg (talk) 08:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: OK, if we're being serious, and trying to clean this up together, what kinds of incidents would you include, and what kinds would you exclude? Jayjg (talk) 09:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't agree with some of your distinctions, particularly because they fail to distinguish between intentional and non-intentional killings of non-combatants, one of the hallmarks of the difference between terrorism and other mass killings.  I think others have merit; for example, I think that the pogroms and the Hebron massacre are massacres, but not exactly terrorism of the kind mostly described here.  Why don't we start by making sure all assassinations are moved to List of assassinated persons, and all massacres of the kind mentioned are moved to List of massacres, which already exist, and then re-visit once the article is cleaner? Jayjg (talk) 17:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: For a killing to be politically motivated, it has to be deliberate, right?  Though for massacres, the issue is less clear-cut.  Anyway, moving out the assassinations and massacres would be a good start; however, I strongly argue that making this a disambiguation page is the only way we can hope to have a well-defined, NPOV list. As the terrorism article puts it, this is a "controversial term with multiple definitions"; to make a decent list, you need a well-defined criterion for inclusion. - Mustafaa 21:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I hear your argument, but don't agree with it.  There really are things that are unambiguously terrorism; by moving out the dubious cases into other categories that fit better, we will end up with a much less controversial article IMHO. Jayjg (talk) 21:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even if there are some things that are unambiguously terrorism - and I'm not sure there are, if by "unambiguously" you mean nobody notable denies it, as NPOV strictly speaking dictates - I don't think that's sufficient to make for a good article in a wiki environment.  Where every list is open for additions, the list's scope needs to be well-defined; otherwise you have a recipe for perpetual edit wars, and a pretty useless list as well. There's not much point in removing the marginal cases if anyone can rightly readd them, noting that they are, as the article says, "commonly called terrorism" - because readd them they will, and when someone removes them again, they will correctly complain that the removal is POV. - Mustafaa 23:57, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But if certain classes of incidents are restricted to other more appropriate pages, which are clearly deliniated at the top of the page (as discussed above), then there can be no complaints.  We can start with the first two, then work our way through the others.  In the end, we may well end up with a disambig page, but let's work on things one at a time. Jayjg (talk) 13:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political assassinations of rivals is terrorism? 

message: You cannot claim that the assassination of Julius Caesar was terrorism.  Who was being terrorized?  If you do that then you are claiming any killing is terrorism.  (This may be the point you are making but it is not appropriate to the article.)
Similarly, Columbine is not a terrorist act.  Who was the terrorist group? Students?  Did they have a cool terrorist name? No, it was a murder-suicide.  - Tεxτurε 19:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorism of Julius Caesar 

message: Rickyrab, please do not create copies of articles; if you want to move an article, there are processes by which consensus can be gained and articles moved.  As it is, the general consensus on this article was to break out things like assassinations and massacres into their own articles, not include them with a different title. Jayjg (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please do not create copies of articles 

message: :You know, if the rebellion is unsuccessful, it is called a Civil War, or the rebels not even rise to that stature, while if the rebels are successful, it is called a Revolution.  The outcome of the conflict defines what it is called.  In contemporary times, foreign fighters are an important part of the resistance, but their participation helped with the success of many revolutions in history.  Labeling these people as terrorists helps make the battle more brutal and inspires them never to give up.  The actions by the old government against the rebels are generally as brutal or more brutal, as that of the rebels, but until the rebellion, there was little outside attention to the brutality. AlMac|(talk) 14:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names 

message: Hate Crimes are often motivated by the same human psychology as Terrorism, a pathological hatred for the victims of the attack, and the desire to do genocide against that, or failing that, to "pui them in their place".  Perhaps there should be link to separate article on History of Hate Crimes, in addition to articles about specific target groups like history of anti-semitism.
:Arson vs. churches of African Americans in USA are usually initially believed to be hate crimes, but most perpetrators, when tracked down, had reasons unrelated to Racism.  Thus, only attacks on Black Churches during the Civil Rights Movement were intended to terrorize, and as we can see from the wild success of the movement, were totally unsuccessful.
::In fact, the attack on Emmett Till is believed by many to be what triggered the start of the Civil Rights Movement in the USA.
:Since 9/11 there's been lots of assaults on Mosques by misguided individuals.
:Motivation to terrorize, but the acts generally considered to be hate crimes, since victims targeted because they belong to some sub-group of society hated because of their religion, race, ethnicity, gender preferences, etc.
AlMac|(talk) 14:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A major difference is in how the war is perceived.  bin Laden declared war on USA long before his first actual attacks.  He was not taken seriously by the USA. AlMac|(talk) 15:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, such incidents belong in the list of assassinations, not here. AlMac|(talk) 15:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hate Crimes 

message: I checked this article to get an indication of whether, as often claimed or at least suggested, terrorism is on the rise. But the article naturally focuses more on more recent events (you always get that). Also, the definition of terrorism stands in the way. It would be nice if a source could be found that lists all terrorist attacks according to just one specific, generally acceptable, definition, with the death tolls and a graph that shows the amount of deaths (possibly per nation/region) per year, thus indicating if there is indeed such a rise. Does anyone know where such a list could be found? 
Ah, I now see the terrorism article says something on this under 'global trends'. Apparently, if you exclude the 2001 attacks on the US, the death toll stayed fairly constant around 1000. But that is only about the years after 1985, while I was thinking more in terms of decades. It does show one other interesting thing though. Not only is there not really an increase, the total yearly worldwide deathtoll is just 1000. That's peanuts compared to various deseases and the death toll of traffic (US traffic probably needs just some 3 months to equal the death toll of '9/11').
DirkvdM 11:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Increase in Terrorism? 

message: Are all the things on this list terrorist incidents?
Examples:
1991: Two IRA members are killed by their own bomb in St. Albans.
Why is this a terrorist incident?
December 14: Ahmed Ressam is arrested on the United States–Canada border in Port Angeles, Washington; he confessed to planning to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport as part of the 2000 millennium attack plots
Why is a failed terrorist attack a terrorist incident?
Why is the attacks on the USS Cole a terrorist incident?
Zntrip 02:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a Terrorist Incident? 

message: Folks, Terrorism is not war. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were controversial, yes, but they were carried out by a miltary structure against another - the civilians were not the targets, Mitsubishi Arms Works was. All wars have civilian casualties, this DOES NOT make them terrorist attacks, anymore than Hitler's bombing of London was. It was a war action. The US in Iraq, distasteful as I may personally find it, is not a terrorist action. However, the civilian uprising that targets US soldiers is - it is carried out by unlawful combatants. In fact, there's possibly one of your primary guidelines right there. An attack by unlawful combatants, as defined by Geneva Convention. Let's agree to leave war out of it; most of that information is covered on that articles of war themselves, such as the Dresden bombings.Daemon8666 21:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not dispute your claim that the atomic bombings should not be in this article (perhaps under "war crimes"), but I will dispute your claim regarding the target. When a nuclear bomb (13KT yield) or even 1,500 metric tons of bombs (firebombing of Tokyo, March 9-10, 1945) are dropped on a city, the target is not an individual, a vehicle, a building, a factory, an industrial complex, or even an entire neighborhood. It is the entire city and everyTHING and everyONE in it. Black Falcon 21:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Declared War Is not Terrorism 

message: Have you considered talking about your concerns here on the talk page? - Tεxτurε 21:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: List of terrorist incidents is an article consisting entirely of original research.  Attempts have been made to cite sources and have failed.  Labeling certain events "acts of terrorism" and labeling people responsible for the events "terrorists" simply because an editor wants it to be so is against Wikipedia policy.  Additionally, most (if not all) of these examples are consistent with the U.S. State Department and against the views of most of the rest of the world making the article westerncentric.  If there were merely a concern or a fix for the article, I wouldn't have put an AfD on it.  Without sources, the entire page is original research.  --The Random Element 21:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Labelling things your way instead of how it was labelled is no different.  The idea is to work together to improve an article.  Not abandon it because you won't compromise.  Why nominate something for deletion just because you think the wording should go one way and others disagree?  - Tεxτurε 22:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We all agree that the claims in this article fail NPOV, so we must either fix them or delete them. I tried to fix them and was told that there was no way to fix them. Therefore, any that cannot be verified must be deleted. --The Random Element 22:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD of this article 

message: The Unabomber - sent letterbombs and other nasties to technocrats and various nerds to "fight against the evils of technological progress."   Sounds like a terrorist of sorts to me.
Any of the acts of ALF and ELF - These guys destroy private property to promote their causes.
Dspillmann 22:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other items for discussion? 

message: Aren't your lists of contemporary terrorist attacks extremely understated?  For example, here's a list of over 1000 attacks worldwide from 2005 alone (be patient, the page takes a long time to load):
List of Islamic Terror Attacks from 2005
And these are only ones with Islamic implications.  There are, of course, many more worldwide.  It seems like your recent lists are off by a factor of 50 or more.  I'm not suggesting that every single attack needs to be listed, but I'm wondering if there is any point in maintaining such an abbreviated list.  It's very misleading.  JoeWilliams 06:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Joe, by all means, please add those incidents! You can do it one at a time, and maybe others will help you (I'm very inclined to do so). Godfrey Daniel 09:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Incidents Too Short? 

message: : :Image:11 July 2006 Mumbai train bombings.jpg, is proposed for CSD as it is a copyright violation of . I have replaced image  with  :Image:Mumbai2006.jpg . This image was used earlier, It a fair use image, we will use it till we find a more suitable free-licensed image. --Sartaj beary 23:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:11 July 2006 Mumbai train bombings.jpg]] 

message: What does the public feel about removing the flags for one or more of the following reasons (or another if you can think of one).
1) The country where the incident occurs may, in some cases, not be pertinent to the incident itself. For example, country A's plane is attacked on the tarmac of a country B by terrorists from country C or operating in country C. In such as case, country B is not the key factor in the incident.
2) The flag used represents a country that did not exist when the incident occured. This is the case of the Kind David bombing in British controlled Palestine in 1946. Israel did not come into existence until 1948.
3) The country where the indident occurs in may cases is the victim. Isn't the point of this list to highlight incidents committed by terrorist? Shouldn't we try to highlight the terrorist and, therefore, use its flag where it exists. 
Again, I vote to remove the flags. How does everyone else feel?  --user:mnw2000 17:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy with that, the location probably ought to be mentioned (if not obvious). GraemeLeggett 09:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I vote to keep them. They give a little colour to a dreary page. --Guinnog 20:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Guinnog, they do help aesthetically, unfortunately, they do cause more confusion than they're worth. I would probably get rid of them, but I might be convinced by a good argument otherwise. GabrielF 02:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Alright, here is my two-cents worth: Instead of having just the one flag to represent where the evet took place, why not have three flags in a specific order so that the reader can determine what is important? The first flag being the perpetrator. The second flag being the target. The third flag being the location of the event. This would give more information for the reader and would avoid tarmac issues. Svyatoslav 14:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags Issue Revisited 

message: This is an example of the problem with this article. If the suspect in this case wanted to kill person A and person B, then it could be considered attempted-murder (he actually admitted to attempted-murder). What makes this terrorism, that he has stated that he just wanted to kill as many Americans as possible. That, by definition, is an act designed to terrorize a group of people - Americans. --user:mnw2000 23:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Chapel Hill SUV terroris 

message: NPR is reporting some men from Texas were arrested after having bought about 1,000 cell phones, and prosecutors are alleging they planned to blow up the Mackinac Bridge.  This story will have to be watched to see if it pans out. -- Beland 02:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged Michican bridge plot 

message: I put in several incidents from this group for the year 1970. These were terrorist incidents by most definitions. The problem with this group is that they committed several small scale bombings a year.  Should I  1.List each incident seperately  2.Put every incident for that year in one line  3.Other  02:17, 14 August 2006 (Ed Kollin)
:Well, if there are several instances, my suggestion would be to group them by year. But I don't think anyone will have a problem if you leave them separate either. Bladestorm 14:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Weather Underground 

message: The lead-in to the article says that assassinations are in a separate list; yet some are included here. I wouldn't have objection to that, as long as what's included follows some consistent criteria. But what are those criteria? I see president McKinley, but not President Lincoln.
:I don't know which assassinations(and attempts) are included, but what should be included are cases where the shooter was trying to scare the larger masses. People who just had a personal grudge, or simply didn't like the president don't count. In cases where no motive is known, and no intent is obvious beyond simply killing the specific target, then it really shouldn't be included either. Hopefully that's enough info for you to sort out what should or shouldn't be included. :) Bladestorm 05:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think, if the assassination includes killing civilians in the process (eg. Bombing a plane full of people, intending only to kill the president or some personnel on the plane), then it counts as terrorism as well. _dk 05:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criteria for including assassinations?

message: Can someone please check whether this is considered an act of terrorism? I am doubtful that it should be listed here after reading part of the article. GabrielF 17:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Husayn ibn Ali]] 

message: I removed the listings of incidents involving the Weather Underground, as their actions were directed against property targets rather than humans. Their targets were generally military or governmental. The only civilians killed by their actions were their own members, in the Greenwich Village incident. Their actions certainly did not meet the criteria of the terrorism entry - the actions were not "indiscriminate", did not involve "targeting of civilians," and were not executed "with disregard for human life". JoseJones 03:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The deletion of the Weather Underground misses the mark for several reasons. The Greenwich Village bombs were meant for a non-commissioned officer’s dance.  While not in a literally a civilian target military members were being targeted in a non military capacity. Using this definition most IRA attacks should be deleted. The targets were symbolic. Media attention is more important to terrorists in many cases then casualty numbers. Any attacks that “target” can not be “indiscriminate”. Most important is that we are looking at this from a post 9/11 point of view not a 1971 POV. The Weather underground did cause fear and a reaction. The Weather Underground was a part of a political climate that led to Huston Plan, Watergate and other White House abuses. The justification of the reaction is irrelevant the fact that it did is what counts. That being said every attack need not be listed. A summary or summary by year might be the way to go. 69.114.117.103 05:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weather Underground 

message: The montreal shooting has just been added to the list. When they were first reporting it on the news, they were quick to say that it wasn't considered terrorism... And, since then, I still haven't seen any evidence of terrorism (as opposed to a massive act of non-political brutality). Does anyone have any links or citations, or even an explanation, showing that it's terrorism? Bladestorm 01:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been deleted by another party. The suspect according to reports had a fascination with the Columbine killings. At this point it is individual psychosis not terrorism 69.114.117.103 06:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Montreal Shooting? 

message: There is no good answer but I would make it a summary that looks something like "During the summer of 2006 an estimated 1000 civilians were reported being killed weekly. Methods and used were primarily suicide bombing, ied’s, and assassination. Motives were primarily, secretion and religious hatred, driving out coalition forces, and criminal.  Due to the chaotic situation it is very difficult to even make a rough estimation of how and why these deaths are occurring 69.114.117.103 03:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to Handle Iraq 

message: Senator Robert F. Kennedy assassinated ...
Is this really a terrorist act ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirhan_Sirhan
:You may have a point here. Ideally, it shouldn't be listed as a terrorist incident unless it's generally accepted as being such, or at least unless a credible and solid argument can be made proving it as such. In this case, the article on Sirhan Sirhan implies that it was more an act of (possibly deranged) murder. So, what do you guys think? Bladestorm 20:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sen. Kennedy 

message: The firebomber claimed he had a mental defect and was proscribed Prosac
for Attention Deficit Disorder  New York Times article </ref>] 69.114.117.103 07:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1994 NYC Subway Firebombing taken out 

message: 1986 April 6.  Amount of civilian deaths changed to 100 citing the BBC. Raharu00 17:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit 

message: The top of the article states "incidents of alleged state terrorism have not been included below due to controversy". Is not the initial 2003 invasion the very definition of an incident of alleged state terrorism? 69.114.117.103 
The Pearl Harbor attack should be deleted for the same reason 69.114.117.103 19:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial Iraq Invasion 

message: Having not previously heard of this astounding incident, I wanted to add some idea of who was responsible for it to the entry. Information is from New York Times, 10 March 1977 and 11 March 1977, accessed through ProQuest, so I can't add a link. I also added the fact that one man was killed, and clarified that the District Bldg. is city hall. The reasons for the takeover are interesting, but I didn't want to make the entry too big. These are: (a) the militants were opposed to the opening of the movie Mohammad, Messenger of God (film), and (b) they were engaged in a violent dispute with the Black Muslims. Gusuku 02:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Having not previously heard of this astounding incident". There was a earlier discussion about if should there be a list like this at all because there are no agreed definition of terrorism and thus compiling a list like this is original research. While I agree that this list pushes and even goes over the line on Wikipidia rules your statement is the great argument for this list flawed as it may be. 69.114.117.103 06:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  March 9, 1977, Washington D.C. domestic terrorist incident 

message: I apologize for the Newsday link that did not work. I changed the link to the New York Times one. I can understand while having no link why you would think the attack was not notable but hopefully this link will stay unbroken and you see why it is notable. The attacker Michael Stone attempted to bring pipe bombs into the Northern Ireland provincial assembly in an attempt to attack the top Sinn Fein leaders.The aasembly was meeting to broker a power sharing agreement to restore local rule to Northern Ireland. Mr. Stone was charged with five counts of attempted murder two each for the attempted attack on the Sinn Fein leaders one charge for the rest of the members of the assembly. In 1988 the same man killed three mourners at an IRA funeral. I added that incident to the list 69.114.117.103 07:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Spelling and linkage corrections for Michael Stone 69.114.117.103 18:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti Sinn Fein 2006 attack put back in 1988 attack added 

message: I assume that the entry below, inserted as of 07:23, 15 September 2006  into the article by 69.114.117.103, is vandalism. I have moved it to here, so you can judge by yourself.
* A bomb place on a bus in the West Bank kills one and severely injures three. A Jordanian Mahmoud Mahmoud Atta is arrested ,extradited to Israel,convicted,sentenced to life in prison and freed by the Israeli Supreme Court. He was confused with September 11th ringleader Egyption Mohammed Atta 
--Túrelio 15:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This it not vandalism.  If you read the Wikipedia articles for both men Mahmoud Mahmoud Atta and Mohammed Atta a bomber that placed a bomb on a bus has been confused with the 9/11 ringleader 69.114.117.103 06:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification, though I don't like that the article about Mahmoud Mahmoud Atta has no sources at all and hat there is no information about when all this (arrested ,extradited to Israel,convicted,sentenced to life in prison and freed) did happen. --Túrelio 07:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is a two links links
69.114.117.103 07:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the search. The 1986 entry has been restored. --Túrelio 08:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Probably vandalism resp. falsification 

message: For at least nine of the terrorist incidents in France in 1986 (List of terrorist incidents#1986) there is no source and also no information on the type or group of suspects/terrorists. The corresponding list on :fr has the same problem. Can anybody help out with more data?--Túrelio 11:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorist incidents 1986 in France 

message: Notice: There is currently a proposal to change calls  to  at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Flag_Template#Changing_USA_flag_calls. Please consider posting there to keep the discussion in one place. (SEWilco 04:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to replace <nowiki>{{flagicon|USA...}}</nowiki> calls 

message: Please contribute to the discussion on flag icons at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Flag icons - manual of style entry?. (SEWilco 14:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion at MoS on flag icons 

message: This should not have been taken out. While I agree that 99% of the time
as the deleter said "Student Protests are not terrorist incidents" in this case it was because a dean was held hostage. Hostage holding is a time honered terrorist tactic. In this case hostage holding was used as an attempt coerce people to make political and social change 69.114.117.103 07:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Here just some random quotes out of the source given in that entry:</br>„during scuffle a French instructor, Richard Greenman, is injured“</br>„Acting Dean Henry Coleman is restrained from leaving his office by protesting students.“</br>„Dean Coleman advises against calling police to secure his release because of potential for violent confrontation.“</br>„Dean Coleman remains detained.“</br>„relief that his safety no longer in doubt“</br>„500 white students vacate Hamilton at SAS direction.“</br>„made 712 arrests; 148 reports of injury“</br>
--Túrelio 08:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Finally I've reverted both deletions by Irvingbird. Should be discussed here first.--Túrelio 09:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1968 Columbia University Protests 

message: It is outrageous that the information pertaining to the January 29th 2007 suicide bombing in Israel was removed here. How is that different from any other event? No double standards are permitted. The information will be reposted. If it is removed without a clear explanation, the user will be warned. --138.16.52.11 20:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attack Against Israel 1/29 

message: I guess the justification is that the British media are calling it a terror campaign but as I write this the motive is unknown. There is a widely held theory that these attacks are a protest against Englands system of taxes and fees that were put on moterists to hinder global warming and traffic congestion. If the theory is true this would qualify as terrorism because it would be a social motive. The only "proof" of this is weak circumstantial evidence based on the targeting of the letter bombs. But as of this writing this is a THEORY. As I illuded to in the above discussion with Bladestorm this is a general problem with this listing. The 1975 LaGuardia Airport bombing stands out but there are others on the list. The idea here is that if it looks like a terrorist attack it must be a terrorist attack but this may not be true. 69.114.117.103 07:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  England Letter Bombs entries are premature 

message: For more details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SAR23/Terrorism_%26_Terrorist_Tagging_are_POV_%26_Subjective
SAR23 15:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorism & Terrorist Tagging are POV & Subjective 

message: The following was originally posted at the top of this page under #Title_needs_to_reflect_restriction_to_.22non-state_terrorism.22_only.  It has been moved here to conform to official guidelines.
If this article is limited to acts of non-state terrorism only, then its title needs to be changed to reflect that fact.  It is misleading to call it a "List of terrorist incidents" when it is really a "List of non-state terrorist incidents".   -- DBooth 06:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am dismayed to see that someone has reverted the page retitling described above and redirected "List of non-state terrorist incidents" to "List of terrorist incidents".  I am reinstating the change per the above, as this change has been open for discussion for two months, and no objections were raised.  If you disagree with the corrected title, please discuss it on this talk page BEFORE reverting the page again.   Thanks.  -- DBooth 20:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Why are you adding this paragraph here?  Input on the proposed title correction was prominently solicited over two months ago at the top of this page (see #Title_needs_to_reflect_restriction_to_.22non-state_terrorism.22_only).  No other suggestions were made, and no objections were raised.  The change was then enacted.  -- DBooth 07:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If you think the original title is better please explain why.  There is no "original research" whatsoever involved in aligning the title more precisely with its actual scope.  The corrected title makes no change whatsoever to the content or scope of the article.   -- DBooth 15:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You won't get any argument from me about calling 9/11 a "terrorist incident".  But what kind of terrorist incident was it?  The scope of this article is specifically limited to terrorist incidents that are NOT considered state terrorism.  (Incidents of state terrorism are excluded from this page and listed on a separate page.)  Please read the beginning of the article if you are unclear about this.  -- DBooth 15:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As an example, the cars on the New Jersey Turnpike are almost universally called "cars", though some of them are red cars and some of them are non-red cars.  There is no need to refer to them specifically as "red cars" or "non-red cars" unless the distinction is relevant.  But if an article is written about "Cars on the New Jersey Turnpike", but the actual scope of the scope of the article is specifically limited to non-red cars, then the distinction clearly *is* relevant, in which case titling the article "Cars on the New Jersey Turnpike" is either misleading or it is strongly biased toward a particular POV (that red cars do not count as cars).  -- DBooth 15:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Finally, please read the talk page BEFORE reverting changes.   As mentioned, this title correction was discussed over two months ago, with no objections.  -- DBooth 07:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DBooth, as such a name change isn't a minor point, IMHO you can't conclude that everybody agreed to that only from the fact that nobody objected to it, as actually nobody at all answered to your proposal. Though the latter may be disappointing, it might have been better to raise the question again in order to get some input from other contributors to this article. And that is what User:Snowolfd4 tried with this paragraph. -- Túrelio 07:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, DBooth, if you're going to suggest an important change to an article, then you may want to respect conventional wikipedia practices, like adding new topics to the end of a talk page. You put your 'discussion' about moving it at the very top. True, comments are comments regardless of their location, but there's a reason the "Add a comment to this discussion" button automatically adds to the bottom of the page. It's because that's how people can easily see that there's a new addition without having to scour the page-history or 70+ element table of contents every day. If you don't make it easy for people to see your suggestions, then don't be surprised if you don't get much participation. Bladestorm 13:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I wasn't aware of that convention.  I solicited input at the TOP of the page precisely to maximize the likelihood that people would see it and comment, since very few people normally read the bottom of a long page, but nearly everyone reads the top.  -- DBooth 15:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit) Oops, sorry. I was (slightly) wrong. It isn't just conventional wikipedia practice, it's actually part of the official guidelines. Bladestorm 13:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake, I missed that.  Respecting wikipedia practice and guidelines is exactly what I tried to do in prominently raising the issue and soliciting input on this page over two months ago.   -- DBooth 15:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: So now the issue is raised BOTH at the top and the bottom of this page.  Is there any other mechanism you suggest for soliciting input?  It is rather frustrating to solicit input for so long, get none, make the discussed change, and then have someone revert the work WITHOUT discussing it.  -- DBooth 15:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming the article 

message: The ex head of the CIA discusses plots that were thwarted or cancelled over a several year period in different countries . Should this be included and if so how? Edkollin 08:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly such alleged plots should NOT be included.  Regardless of how credible they are, this page is a list of incidents of terrorism that actually occurred -- not a list of every terrorist plot or pipe dream.  -- DBooth 15:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about the "plot" in Saudi Arabia where actual arrests have been made?. By the way as you may know the "Terrorism in the United States" article has a separate section for "failed plots" and another one for "Arrests and Detentions" Edkollin 05:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe such interrupted plots should be in the relevant "Terrorism in COUNTRYNAME" articles until a pattern emerges for an article.  This makes it easier to explain the situation within each country.  Keeping them within the context of each country also helps deal with variations in local laws.  (SEWilco 16:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[George Tenet]] Book 

message: I have added terrorist attacks that occured in Colombia, mainly in 1988 - 1993. It took a lot of research and there were simply too many to detail all of them. I have only added the ones I could verify through newspapers and news agencies. More is to come, as terrorism in Colombia was an issue again in the late 90s/early 2000s. It seems to me very few people are actually sourcing their contributions, though. I have made an effort to provide verifiable sources, but many times the count of victims differs due to deaths that occur a few days after the incident, missing people, etc. As you can see, the list is now littered with Colombian flags...Jealonso 19:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware of untitled sources being covered in style guide, but I'd be satisfied with using the first few words of the article, followed by …, as a placeholder for a title.  At least it provides some identification of the content.  When someone finds an actual headline they can replace it.  Perhaps WP:CITE should include this.  (SEWilco 16:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terorrism in Colombia 

message: I deleted "the bishop" case where a man sent pipe bombs and threatening letters to Midwest U.S. Financial Service Companies. Although defiantly using coercive tactics motive according to cite was to raise stock prices for personal financial gain. This was regular old criminal extortion not terrorism. Edkollin 08:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   Bishop incident taken out 

message: Does that really fit as "terrorism".  
The guys boat/ship ran aground in 'enemy/rebel' territory.  It was boarded by rebels/enemies civilians, rather than comply with their demands.  He blew up the boat.
I seem to remember that at the battle of the Alamo, it was rumored that someone was trying to get to the powder magazine to blow it up. (Would that have been terrorism?)
:No. Destroying your equipment before the "enemy" gets a hold of it or trying to destroy  "enemy" gunpowder is a normal wartime practice. There is no trying to coerce a population or trying to make a political or social statement. There were probably civilians killed in the van Speyk incident but not innocent ones.Edkollin 08:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1831: Jan van Speyk detonates his own ship in the harbour of Antwerp. 

message: :Image:Mumbai2006.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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Mumbai2006.jpg