Talk:Islamic terrorism/Archive 5

message: 1. "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the Fire: And evil is the home of the wrong-doers!" (Qur'an 3:151)
2. "How many a township have We destroyed! As a raid by night, or while they slept at noon, Our terror came unto them. No plea had they, when Our terror came unto them, save that they said: Lo! We were wrong-doers." (Qur'an 7:4-5)
3. "Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): 'I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.'" (Qur'an 8:12)
4. "Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly." (Qur'an 8:60)
5. "Lo! those who disbelieve spend their wealth in order that they may debar (men) from the way of Allah. They will spend it, then it will become an anguish for them, then they will be conquered. And those who disbelieve will be gathered unto hell,"(Qur'an 8:36) 
6. "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."(Qur'an 9:5)
7. "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (Qur'an 9:29)
8. "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!" (Qur'an 9:30) 
9. "And the True Promise draweth nigh; then behold them, staring wide (in terror), the eyes of those who disbelieve! (They say): Alas for us! We (lived) in forgetfulness of this. Ah, but we were wrong-doers!" (Qur'an 21:97) 
10. "He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it conqueror of all religion however much idolaters may be averse."(Qur'an 61:9)
11. "On the Day when (some) faces will be whitened and (some) faces will be blackened; and as for those whose faces have been blackened, it will be said unto them: Disbelieved ye after your (profession of) belief ? Then taste the punishment for that ye disbelieved."(Qur'an 3:106) 
12. "Lo! Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment. Lo! Allah is ever Mighty, Wise." (Qur'an 4:56) 
13. "And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do." (Qur'an 8:39) 
14. "O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty steadfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred (steadfast) they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence." (Qur'an 8:65)
15. "Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings."(Qur'an 98:6) 
16. "Say: (It is) the truth from the Lord of you (all). Then whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve. Lo! We have prepared for disbelievers Fire. Its tent encloseth them. If they ask for showers, they will be showered with water like to molten lead which burneth the faces. Calamitous the drink and ill the resting-place!" (Qur'an 18:29)  
17. "These twain (the believers and the disbelievers) are two opponents who contend concerning their Lord. But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads,Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted;And for them are hooked rods of iron.Whenever, in their anguish, they would go forth from thence they are driven back therein and (it is said unto them): Taste the doom of burning." (Qur'an 22:19-22)
84.146.210.194 19:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qur'an Quotes 

message: Could you please explain why you think this article does not adhere to NPOV?  Thanks, --Urthogie 20:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  npov tag 

message: I thought of a good compromise that doesn't favor the academy but should satisfy Palmiro: Islamic political terrorism.--Urthogie 15:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the problem nags here, too. Here is an unfortunate little story: Qu'ran apparently desecrated, two churches get burned in Pakistan . Church burnings are relatively common in Pakistan and while I wouldn't call it terrorism as such (disorganized mobs are not necessarily terrorists) it certainly comes close. We need a label that can accomodate religious-sectarian stuff. Marskell 15:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is sectarian mob violence, which I think is quite different from terrorism. Was the pillaging of Christian-owned businesses in Achrafiyyeh terrorism? Was the Damascus massacre of 1860 terrorism? Were any of the various anti-Christian mob attacks in Egypt in recent decades terrorism? Palmiro | Talk 18:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Good point.  Damn..  Palmiro, Islamism doesn't seem to address stuff like that, so why have Islamist in the article title?--Urthogie 15:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But here we are talking about violence by Islamists, not some sort of generic Islamic violence. See my reply to Marskell aboce. Palmiro | Talk 17:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: So why have "Islam" in the title or even "terrorism"? Why not just have an article entitled "Sectarian Violence" with references to sub-articles such as "Sectarian Violence in Pakistan"?--Lee Hunter 16:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why 'in Pakistan?' Why 'sectarian?' Tom Harrison Talk 16:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't suggesting my example belongs as it stands or that this should lose a focus on terrorism. I was only pointing out that using the term "political" may be something of a straight jacket in certain instances. If, out of our disorganized mob, a dozen men get together, come up with a name to the effect of "Burn every Church in Pakistan," stockpile some weapons, and start agitating, you'd have a terrorist group--but not an especially political one. --Marskell 16:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to mention Islam on this page title because all religions have factions that promote political violence, but we have an obligation as encyclopedists to not be routinely offensive to religions. So there needs to be a balance between what is accurate and NPOV, and what is sensitive and not offensive. It is a compromise.  It would not be accurate to exclude mention of Islam in some way in the title. The issue is where is the proper balance between accuracy and offense. Se we need pages on Political violence by Islamic militants (both historic and contemporary); Political violence by Jewish militants (both historic and contemporary); Political violence by Christian militants (both historic and contemporary); Political violence by Hindu militants (both historic and contemporary); and because of regional geographic conflicts that are longstanding and violent, we also need a page on Political violence by Zionist and Israeli militants (both historic and contemporary); and Political violence by Palestinian militants (both historic and contemporary) or at least Political violence involving Israelis and Palestinians. --Cberlet 16:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course, you could choose to do what we did with the issue of neofascism, Neofascism and religion and ceate a page called Religion and political violence that covered multiple religions.--Cberlet 16:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Political violence by Islamic militants doesn't cover non-political violence, as Marskell pointed out.  I really completely disagree with the word Islamism ever being the name of this article.  It's like saying, Marxist terrorists aren't real marxists!--Urthogie 17:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: My entire point was that there was no such terrorism mentioned on the page at the time. Where is it now? Palmiro | Talk 17:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add it this weekend possibly.  I'm sure that wasnt your entire point, right?--Urthogie 17:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to recall saying that this article was quite obviously about "terrorism" by Islamist organizations. If it had really been about "islamic terrorism", whatever that might be, and nobody has as far as I can see defined what it might be adequately (in my personal and obstinate view), I wouldn;t have been objecting in the first place. Palmiro | Talk 18:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What would you call terrorism(such as burning of churches) that does not aim to create Sharia law, but results from revenge or hatred, and justified by Islam?--Urthogie 18:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "justified by Islam". Anyway, mob violence is not the same as terrorism. Also, as far as I know, most of the sectarian attacks against Shia, Christian and Sunni targets in Iraq lately have been ascribed to Islamist organizations. I believe that the same is true in Aceh, for example. Palmiro | Talk 18:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Urthogie, your question is circular and deceptive. "Non-Islamist terrorism that was justified by Islam" presupposes that everything has to be defined in relation to Islam. Behind this Islamist/Islamic terrorism are many and diverse political struggles. In each case there are happen to be incidents of terrorism that result from one or more of the actors. It's true that these terrorists do try to justify their actions in terms of their religion (as people have done throughout history) but this attempt by WP editors to label the whole thing as "Islamic" smacks of western bias. In other words, rather than treat Palestine, Chechnya, Iraq etc. as political struggles that have spawned terrorism, we take the lazy way out by squeezing everything into the same box and slapping an "Islamic terrorism" label on the side as if that explains everything. That's why I liked the "Islam and Terrorism" article because I think that examing attitudes towards terrorism among Muslims is a legitimate topic. Terrorism is a legitimate topic. Sectarian violence is a topic. "Islamic sectarian violence" would be a faux topic dreamed up to serve the predilictions of the editors.  --Lee Hunter 18:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: What is wrong with simply calling it "terrorism" or perhaps "religious terrorism". I think this fixation on trying to associate Islam with terrorism, is just a reflection of the current obsessions and paranoia of western society.  --Lee Hunter 19:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your opinion on fixations of society has nothing to do with the fact that its encyclopedic.  When there's a wealth of information on a notable topic, you're supposed to split the article and summarize it in the main one(religious terrorism).  By the way, it must be asked, do you think there is there a fixation on state terrorism? on christian terrorism?--Urthogie 19:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, split a larger article but that begs the question of where you make the split. Why not split it geographically like we do for virtually every other topic? Terrorism in the the Middle East (or Terrorism in Iraq etc.) and so on? The decision to split things by religion reflects the systemic bias (I would call it lazy thinking) of the editors. --Lee Hunter 20:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  How about we make it Religious terrorism in the Arab-Israeli conflict?--Urthogie 20:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the current title is a bit unwieldy, but it is NPOV.  Lee, Palmiro, I'm wondering what you think of Mars' reply to your concern over bias.--Urthogie 11:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem, once again, is that this article is primarily talking about terrorism that has arisen from political and terroritorial struggles. Religion is simply the flag that the terrorists have draped themselves in. Sure, they will happily tell you that they do what they do because "it is the will of Allah" and if they die they'll go to heaven etc etc. But just because they are talking about how God is on their side, does not, in itself, make it a religious conflict. It doesn't change the fact that they are actually engaged in a political and territorial struggle. Calling it "Islamic" just glosses over the whole messy reality of what is happening on the ground and gives it a convenient handle.  --Lee Hunter 14:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the territorial conflict named above deserves to be highlighted to avoid analytical bias, but there is a lot of recent scholarship on religion and violence and religion and terrorism. I do not think this is an either/or situation. Perhaps a page on Religion and violence could have satellite pages on Violence and (pick a religion), and if it grew then Terrorism and (pick a religion). But I think there are problems with starting a title with the name of a religion and then using words like terrorism or violence. It is bound to be a magnet for confrontation. And the term "extremist" is rapidly being junked by social scientists as a meaningless perjorative label. This is especially true among sociologists who study movements.--Cberlet 14:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Extermist is  not completely junked yet, and terrorism(despite its contentious use) is a word with a meaning(albeit many meanings, apparently)  To Lee: if religion is part of the motivation and justification, doesn't it deserve an article, just as territoriality and political analysis do as well?  For example, Osama Bin Laden.  Islam is his main justification.  His perverse understanding of Islam leads him to conduct terror.--Urthogie 15:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bin Laden is a great example of someone who has framed his movement in religious terms, but if you look at his goals, they are again political and territorial. Changes of government in Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc. the Palestinians returned to their homeland, Jerusalem regained, Kashmir, the Americans out of the Gulf and Iraq. Yeah, there's a whole lot of religion intertwined with this, but the rhetoric about killing Jews and Christians would have no traction if it wasn't very much grounded in these post-colonial regional conflicts. --Lee Hunter 17:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why is it that terrorists are trained at schools of religious teaching?--Urthogie 18:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the point of your question. What difference does it make? Religion is obviously an enabler of the conflicts and the conflict is framed in religious terms so people are recruited and trained at mosques, madrassas and wherever but to make something of that is to confuse how a conflict is fought with what it's about. World War II was less a war against totalitarianism than it was against Axis of Evil 1.0. It was a geopolitical conflict. Fascism and Nazism were just the ideologies employed by one side. Primarily it was a struggle between nations for territory, resources and influence. --Lee Hunter 19:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it valuable to examine the way ideology can enable violence?--Urthogie 19:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. Although I'm afraid it's the kind of article that Wikipedia is genetically incapable of doing well. --Lee Hunter 03:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well what's wrong with the article current attempts to do that?--Urthogie 11:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it really attempt to examine the way ideology can enable violence or does it just provide a meandering dog's breakfast of random bits of information (each factoid given equal importance)? As much as I love WP, this article is a poster child for the encyclopedia's natural weaknesses. A good article on religion and violence could only be written by one person, someone who has a deep knowledge of the subject, and who is able to marshall the information in a way that gives some perspective, perhaps even a point of view. I'm not optimistic that an ever-changing gaggle of lightly-informed and disputative dabblers (like myself for example) could do any justice to the subject. --Lee Hunter 13:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll put the expert template it on it as a temporary request for an expert.--Urthogie 14:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Idea

message: A very important aspect of the Islamic terrorism is missing. It is well established that Al-Quaeda has Wahhabi roots and it is the Wahhabi Islam which preaches violent means for the establishment of its ideas. Almost all other sects denounce terrorism. Even if the title of the article couldn't be changed to Wahhabi extremist terrorism, it would be more informative if we add a section about wahhabi idealogy and its terrorist consequences.
:The ideology section in general needs a thorough going-over. I don't think we need anything as reductive of as "Wahhabi Islam preaches violent means for the establishment of its ideas" but some link and description could work. Marskell 09:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, its a bad idea to limit the possible content with such a name, but it'd be great to add some stuff about Wahhabism(spelling?) to the ideology section.--Urthogie 10:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to Wahhabism

message: Islamic terrorism redirected here. "Islamic extremist terrorism" is a pleonasm. Tazmaniacs 02:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Good luck with succeeding though.--Urthogie 08:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This needs to be discussed again.  Please do not revert the message flag.--Cberlet 13:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Can we not just read the archives? --Lee Hunter 14:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Reverted; the merge was to an article which does not exist (ie. a redirect) and therefore confusing to our readers. If you are suggesting renaming this article to Islamic terrorism, please see lengthy discussion leading to previous renaming in the talk archives. — JEREMY 14:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This is not a merge request, it's a move request. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 02:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Cmon you can't ever find a muslim apologist willing to call a spade a spade. 128.84.178.81 02:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Feel free to help us improve this page, but please note that the content of other articles matching this is not the way we approach things-- the goal is to individually reach neutrality on each article, one at a time.--Urthogie 15:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge to [[islamic terrorism]] 

message: To whoever put up the weasel words template, could you explain your rationale?  Thanks, --Urthogie 11:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, no hit and run tags please. Obviously this is far from perfect but it's no more weasely than any run-of-the-mill of the page. Marskell 11:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think its quite reasonable. The wikipedia community seems quite uncomfortable with the correlation between faithful muslims and terrorism. A simple baysian analysis says that given a suicide bombing, the probability that a muslim did it is very close to 1. Mohammed al-Khawal 15:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  weasel words 

message: "Most often people simply refer to such activity as "terrorism" without qualifying it, and there is much debate about whether commentary on the subject unfairly caricatures Muslims, and Arab Muslims in particular."
That sentance just doesn't make sense to me.  The first clause seems to deal with semantics-- what its called.  The second clause seems to discuss the issue of bias in the coverage of Islamic terrorism.  The second clause comes like a nonsequitor, despite being part of the same sentance and being preceeded with "and."--Urthogie 15:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The intent was to point out that if you don't qualify it you wind up reductively targetting one group with the label (i.e., you have Basque and Irish terrorism, but terrorism as such = Arab). Marskell 15:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see a single source complaining about "terrorism" automatically referring to muslim/arab terrorism.  It seems like a not so obvious statement.  I'll  it.--Urthogie 16:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My goodness Urth. The sentence strikes me as one of the most obvious on this page. You may have read about a certain cartoon issue recently. See also:        Marskell 16:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All that proves is that the commentary may be biased-- it doesn't prove anything about how that bias relates to the issue of semantics.--Urthogie 16:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'd like to split the sentence in two, do so. But "there is debate about whether this caricatures Arabs and Muslims" really doesn't need a source. It's a plain fact that there's debate around this issue. Marskell 16:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reviewing it again, I see that its a complete non-sequitor of a sentance.  The paragraph is about what the terrorism is called, not opinions on its coverage.  The sentance should stay, but belongs in a paragraph that actually deals with that subject.--Urthogie 18:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: As you like. "A complete non-sequitor" seems a little harsh. "Islamic terrorism is wrong because I like ducks" is a complete non-sequitor. This sentence may be out of place in a paragraph dealing with semantics, but it isn't totally out to lunch. Marskell 21:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guess you're right.  I'm becoming extremely impatient and deletionist.  Need to chill with this stuff.--Urthogie 21:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I would say this: relative to the page in general, the intro is fairly tight. Hits the points that are obvious and isn't POV (says me, anyhow). Concern over this sentence is something of an at the margins debate. Sure, the sentence might flow better if we arranged things a little differently, but it does follow in the general sense. I think by and large we do well in saying both this topic is obvious and serious, without saying "let's impune the wider Muslim world" in the intro. The larger issues: Can we make a good ideology section for this? Can we describe the history properly? I would like to see this happen without getting bogged down in edit wars over the intro. Marskell 21:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If its terrorism done by faithful muslims, for claimed Islamic reasons, then it is Islamic terrorism. The only reason that Islamic terrorism is associated with arabs is that most arabs are muslim. Mohammed al-Khawal 15:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sentance I edited 

message: It shows that religion is a proxy for terrorism.Robin Hood 1212 13:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article should be deleted 

message: Muslims did not do the 9/11 attacks, and claiming they did is to present the American view as factual. --Striver 09:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, in the sense that not all 1.2 billion participated, Muslims did not "do" 9/11. Insofar as the nineteen hijackers were in fact Muslims, then Muslisms did. Marskell 09:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh please, do you want to present conspiracy theories.  Muslims did commit terrorism on 9/11, they hijacked four planes and killed thousands of people.  How could you not believe Muslims killed themselves when you see them blowing themselves up everyday?  Osama Bin Laden said he planned the attacks, there is video of them at the airport, there is audio tape of them hijacking United 93.  What more do you need?  I don't know where you live or what news you get but you are sadly misinformed and it's offensive. (Anonymous User) May 23, 2006
Dear Anonymous User 
I find your contribution both comical and unbecoming. Just because there are some suicide bombings in a land a couple of 1000s miles of US , how could we reach to conclusion that muslims have done it. In that case we can also hold Japanese resposible for the 9/11 since they were the ones who started this tradition of suicide attacks on enemies (and perhaps Japanese casualities as a result of Hara Kari out number the suicide attacks occured in Israel to this date). 
Using video/audio evidence to proclaim some one as guilty for a mass murder ......when such evidences arent given any weitage even in the most trivial courts of law any where in the world even for the smallest crimes....then how can we use it to convict some one for such horrific crimes...... perhaps you have gone to a different law school
Hussain 14:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: HussainAbbas your answer is why the clash of civilisations will end in genocide(and thats not a good thing!).Hypnosadist 15:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: If "Islamic Terrorism" can be tolerated then why not White Christian Terrorism. Is wikipedia only for the white folks? -- AmandaParker
:Who cares? MOD 13:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, we have a policy in this regard: Wikipedia:Only white people may edit Marskell 20:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There already is a Christian terrorism page, feel free to join us in contributing there.--TVPR 23:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries. By the way, who says one of them is being tolerated? Just please relax and take it easy instead of spamming articles' talk pages. -- Szvest 23:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If "Islamic Terrorism" can be tolerated then why not [[White Christian Terrorism]]. Is wikipedia only for the white folks? 

message: "Islamic extremist terrorism" gets only 929 google hits (mostly to wkipedia) while "Islamic terrorism" is a much more common name geting 1.5 M hits.  Zeq 10:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  name 

message: Anonymous editor, please stop trying to bury the image of 9/11 attacks somewhere in the middle of the article. Pecher Talk 11:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The September 11, 2001 Attacks were done in the name of Islam by the terrorist group Al Qaida. I believe they are an example of Islamic extremist terrorism. Why can't we include a picture of the attack in this article?--Sefringle 02:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: September 11, 2001 Attacks picture must be part of this article as it is the most notable example of Islamic extremist terrorism. Hypnosadist 18:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  9/11 Image 

message: Regarding the recent revert wars, a couple of thoughts: 
* To Anon, a terrorist group can be both separatist and religious (see The troubles). I wrote the "Nationalist, separatist, and occasionally Marxist-Leninist organizations..." line but it wasn't meant as a didactic division ("if it's separatist, it's out"). Attacks within Kashmir may be "tactical" and not necessarily appropriate to this page but, for instance, the attack at Varanasi is I think fairly unequivocally a sectarian terrorist act. 
* That said: lists of "bad things" are notoriously unstable and likely to cause revert wars on just about any article. I'm having that confirmed to me again and again as I move about this place. One solution would be to reduce, remove, or turn the list to prose. Marskell 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorizing 

message: There seems to be some confusion about revolutionaries and mujahids. For instance, Kashmiri nationalists include Hindus as well. I have removed some of the baseless POV. Will do more soon. Anwar 21:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever you want to do, give reliable sources to proove your point. No major edits are acceptable without discussions. -  Holy Ganga  talk  21:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should be the one who gives sources to the rest of us for including conspiracy theories. Anwar 21:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What conspiracy theories, specifically? How does Kashmiri nationalism relate to whether those groups are [also] IET groups? El_C 21:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  HG refuses to recognise the difference between ideology-driven fundamentalism (which is the gist of this article) and plain old nationalist struggles. See his conspiracy theories. HG believes LET and JEM aim to destroy India and annihilate Hinduism. Plus there are no links to support this theory. Infact, I suspect it is based on the popular stereotype in India that all bomb blasts are planned in Pakistan. HG refuses to see Kashmiri as an entity separate from Pakistani. Also, Sri Lanka is a Buddhist nation pitted against Hindu terrorists like the recently EU-banned LTTE. Anwar 21:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A factual correction: the LTTE is not a Hindu organisation.  It includes a good number of Christians in high positions - for instance, a certain Anton Balasingham.  Christians have been closely associated with Tamil nationalism in Sri Lanka - SJV Chelvanayakam, its founding father, was Christian.  -- Arvind 23:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's quite true. But India labels and bans LTTE as a terrorist outfit even though they have a standing army, navy and airforce manning 75% of the Sri Lankan coast. Anwar 02:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Both of those are banned by US ,UN, India, UK and even Pakistan because they are IET.  . You may have asked for citations (thats why wikipedia invented this function) or took part in discussions but here again from whole article (which is lacking citations) you selectively picked and reverted without discussions.-  Holy Ganga  talk  22:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point I want to advance is for this article to remain consistent with what is being said on the Lashkar-e-Toiba —tagged for cleanup for a year now(!)— and the Jaish-e-Mohammed entries. El_C 22:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Both of those articles on LET and JEM are sham. No independent sources were provided. Also, in such delicate matters, its better to ignore claims of the parties involved lest we be flooded with contradictory news accounts. For instance in the case of Kashmir, all Indian sources are irrelevant as they are the one who brand nationalists as fundamentalists. There is a conflict of interest. Only independent international sources like the websites of UN, EU, etc. should be considered. That's why I removed Times of India link. Remember, the victim cannot be the witness for the same crime. Anwar 22:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, Just because Anwar thinks that one of the most reputed and high circulated newspaper "Times of India" is biased, so he has every right to remove and delete whole material. What is the use of talk pages? Why are they here? Did you discussed that matter? How many more internatonal citations you need? . That was the site of police investigation. Nobody have problem with links of American press calling Osama as Terrorist but you have problem with Indin press calling those demonic unwanted terrorists of India as terrorists. -  Holy Ganga  talk  22:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because, Now citaions are avaliable and i will add more if required, so these two major IET groups should be readded. -  Holy Ganga  talk  22:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You are asking for citations but in your haste you even riverted information which was with citation [24 September]] 2002 - Machine Gun attack on Hindu temple in Ahmedabad, India. 31 dead, 86 injured.  and this once again prooved like a previous article that you are selectively attacking and riverting.-  Holy Ganga  talk  22:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nationalism vs Fundamentalism

message: On other articles it had been established that the Quran is a primary source, open to very different interpretations by different scholars. Thus for an editor to select verses and attribute meanings to them relative to ongoing conflicts amounts to original research. For this reason, I'm removing the usage of the Quran unless other secondary sources can be used to support the content. A fact tag wouldn't do the job as the content implies Wikipedia's interpreting religious scripture. Finding secondary sources should be easy enough. His Excellency... 14:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet when we add info from the terrorist's such as Mohammed Reza Taheriazar (see below) about the lines in the Quran as justifying mass murder they get deleted!Hypnosadist 20:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The verses of the Qur'an 

message: I am concerned with the following sentence: "Some terrorist activities committed by Muslims do not fall into the category of Islamic extremist terrorism: Nationalist, separatist, and occasionally Marxist-Leninist organizations in the Muslim world often derive inspiration from secular ideologies." Please provide me with a reference that justifies the inclusion of "Marxist-Leninist organizations." Prompt and unequivocal justification is necessary if that sentence is to remain the same. Firewall62 (talk) 10:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note: I corrected the aforementioned problem. Without the inclusion of a reliable source, it is simply absurd to attribute acts of terrorism to Marxist-Leninist organizations; the history of Marxism-Leninism is starkly characterized by a pronounced opposition to terrorism. Consider, e.g., Trotsky's "Why Marxists Oppose Individual Terrorism" (1909). Indeed, the use of terrorism in revolutionary endeavors is a point of conflict between Marxist-Leninists (who oppose it) and anarchists (who do not). Firewall62 (talk) 07:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all Trotsky fell from power and was only one voice.  If you read "The World Was Going Our Way" by Mitrokhin and Andrew, you'll find that yes, Marxist-Leninist nations DID support terrorists, namely Middle Eastern groups that they could direct to attack Western interests.  Don't forget that Carlos the Jackel received some amount of support from the Soviet Union. Islamic groups DID receiving backing from the USSR which was a Marxist-Leninist state, was it not?Culmo80 20:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The USSR ceased to be a Marxist-Leninist state quickly after the October revolution. Radical political groups are free to consider themselves whatever they want, but the fact of the matter is that the ideas of Marxism-Leninism are incompatible with acts of terrorism. Firewall62 (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate reference to Marxism-Leninism 

message: The "extremist" ought to be removed from both Islamic extremist terrorism and Christian extremist terrorism.  Yes, the terrorists are a small minority of any religion.  But "extremist" simply doesn't communicate that fact successfully.  Not does the article title need to communicate it, that is the articles job.
Infact, I don't think one can justify that claim that "all *individuals* who cary out or lead terrorist acts with a religious agenda are religious extremists", as the religious agenda is only part of the picture for any given individual.  Racism, individual grievances, ignorance, etc. all play an important role both for the actors & the leaders (and the leaders can have even more complex & less religious motivations).
We are using slightly-incorrect weasel words in these two titles.  134.214.102.33 15:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stupid title 

message: We should probably include the 1983 attack on the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241. Ya think? (unknown)
:I agree here, the list ist very incomplete and US-focused and post-911 focused. I personally remember dozends of additional attacks in europe between 1970 and 2001:
:Do you know that french subways where bombed at least a dozend times in the 90ths?
:Or that the vienna airport was occupied by armed forces in the 80ths?
:What about the kidnapping of the Achille_Lauro? The Terroism against french citizens around the algerian war in the 50ths?
:The terrorism through the algerian civil war in the 90ths?
:Terrorism Campaigns in India are still the most deadly known?
:East Timor?
:The Philipines?
:Armenia?
Crass Spektakel 10:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the huge problems with this article is that people want to add all sorts of wildly off-topic events just because some of the people involved happened to be ethnically Muslim or Arab. Achille Lauro involved the PLF (i.e. a secular group). Algeria was a war against colonialism etc. --Lee Hunter 14:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  list of attacks very incomplete 

message: I don't think this part is well-written. It just lists bunch of verses without giving references as to where and when were these verses quoted or used by extremists. I have removed these verses and I have conducted a search to find the verses and the interpretaions that the extremists really used. 
To make it a balanced section I included the interpretaions that moderate Muslim scholars have to counter these extremist interpretations. Any comments? Please feel free to discuss it with me. Marwan123 10:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qur'an Interpretations 

message: There is like 10 different articles on basically the same thing. And honestly, is it really fair to use terms like "Islamic terrorism", "Islamic fascism", "Islamic extremism", "Islamofascism", "Jihadists"? It's kind of ridiculous, by putting Islam there you put it on trial just because some idiots want to blow things and people up. Every other religion and race gets the luxury of it just being some whackos, but not Muslims. The argument that most Muslims are not terrorists but most terrorists are Muslim doesn't fit. If you are going to use one anti-Muslim epithet, atleast pick one and enough with all the nonsense. I could say something like most child molesters are middle age white men or most gangmembers are young black and Latino youths and then insinuate things from there.
That's because it's such a large problem nobody is sure how to identify it for online encyclopedias.  Why doesn't the argument "not all Muslims are terrorists but.." fit?  Is it not true?  And you're comparing apples and oranges.  There is one key factor that connects the terrorists who tried to blow up the WTC in 1993 with the ones who blew up the embassies in 1998 and the ones we are facing now...Islam.  The only thing that connects child-molesters is their sick actions.  And Islam isn't a "race", it's a faith.Culmo80 20:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the point? 

message: I've removed the following books because they don't seem to have anything to do with the subject of the article:
* The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion by Robert Spencer
* The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades) by Robert Spencer
* The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims by Robert Spencer 
* Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide by Bat Ye'or
* Decline of Eastern Christianity: From Jihad to Dhimmitude by Bat Ye'or
In other words, they don't seem to be on the subject of Islamic terrorism. --Lee Hunter 13:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Further reading

message: The wikiquote page has some great quotes  we should see which ones need to be added. There is no page for Sayyid Qutb.Hypnosadist 18:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Praise be to God, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said: I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but God is worshipped, God who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders. 
And i think this should go in the Interpretations of the Qur'an section. As there is already one edit war ongoing i thought i'd put this on the talk page first to get the positioning and wording right for this.Hypnosadist 21:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Osama Bin Laden]] and [[Sayyid Qutb]] quotes

message: Anyone else think the list should go? I see absolutely no reason for us to replicate it. If people want to know it, they can visit the website (although the link appears to have changed so someone should find a new one) which we can perhaps include in the external links. I considered just removing it but decided to ask here first given the high level of controversy. Nil Einne 22:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US State Department list 

message: While I personally agree with Lee that most of the books should be removed if we were to mantain them, we need to offer other books with counter points of view. I suspect finding some wouldn't be hard, the only question is which ones to add? 23:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. You want them included, you must explain why they are relevant. They look to me like the usual bunch of Islamophobic bs that's thrown into the mixer whenever someone wants to have a go at Muslims. Books on "dhimmitude" are, for instance, absolutely nothing to do with "terrorism", although I'm sure Bat Ye'or would have a thing or two to say about "terrorists" too, given the platform to do so. Grace Note 07:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the further reading section for now until discussion is closed. -- Szvest  Wiki me up ® 11:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't. It's the correct practice here to remove contested material until the dispute is resolved. Putting a list of Islamophobic books would maybe be okay in an article titled Books written to stir up hatred or whatever, but these are not works that seriously discuss the subject matter of this article. Grace Note 07:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book lists 

message: This article is supposed to be about Islamic Extremist Terrorism, not just Islamic extremism.
I would say that blowing up ancient Buddha statues, executing converts from Islam, cutting off thieves' hands, gang raping a woman for her brother's mistakes, killing women for dating outside the tribe, hanging teenage boys for being gay and cutting off little girls' clits all fall under Islamic extremism, however none of that is generally considered to be terrorism. Islamic extremism should either have an article of it's own or redirect to Islamism or Criticism of Islam. --BillyTFried 20:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And many of those subjects you mention are only indirectly related to Islam. They are tribal practices or criminal activities carried out by people who call themselves Muslim. --Lee Hunter 14:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is three many? Arrow740 09:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. It's like calling the execution of criminals in the US "Christian judicial murder" just because the man who signs the warrant is a Christian. Grace Note 07:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is "like" it, but worse. Arrow740 09:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think it would be about equal. Grace Note 07:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: How does one carry out things in the name of Islam? Can you explain how that is done? Grace Note 07:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you do someting, and claim you are doing them in the name of Islam, you are doing them in the name of Islam, assuming you are a muslim.--Sefringle 05:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That probably makes too much sense. Arrow740 09:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The Nazis invaded and terrorised several countries in Europe under the motto "Gott mit uns". Who's for including them in Christian extremist terrorism? Grace Note 07:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, quite. Do you see how that doesn't make a particular act of violence "Islamic" or "Christian" though? What this article wants to discuss are acts of violence that some people call "terrorism" perpetrated by Muslims whose views are considered by some to be extreme. Both "some"s include Muslims, who will say, wearily, there is nothing "Islamic" about the acts. Grace Note 07:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: How Muslims feel about Islamic terrorism has been explained in the article, there is no need to express that viewpoint in the title. Whether or not the views of these people are extremist in nature, the fact remains that the activities they indulge in are widely regarded as terrorism, and that fact (some may say it is a POV) should be included in the title for the sake of accuracy. Enigma059 10:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I can wrestle much meaning out of that but I guess you're saying that you don't agree that there's a problem that the article is about something that many people do not think exist. My apologies if I'm missing your point but there is every reason to express how Muslims feel about "Islamic terrorism", given that it is one viewpoint that there is such a thing and another that there is not. Views that are not well represented among the kind of people who edit Wikipedia tend to be sidelined here, but that does not mean that it's right that that should happen. "Whether or not these people are extremist" is surely apropos, given that the article purports to be about "extremist" "terrorism". Terrorism itself is a terribly difficult concept. This article, and others like it, take a particular line and a particular tone that, while they are generally held among white Westerners and consequently tend to be reflected in the media and some academic, or quasi-academic, literature, are not close to neutral or objective. Those are our aims though, or at least you need to make a better show of pretending they are. Grace Note 09:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic extremism should not forward to this article 

message: I've again reverted Grace Note's change to the article lead:
 Islamic extremist terrorism is a term some commentators use to refer to acts of what they describe as terrorism that are believed by its supporters and practitioners to be in furtherance of their understanding of the goals of Islam. Fred Halliday argues that most Muslims consider these acts to be egregious violations of Islam's ethics
back to:
Islamic extremist terrorism is terrorism done to further Islam as believed by its supporters and practitioners. Fred Halliday argues that most Muslims consider these acts to be egregious violations of Islam's ethics.
In Grace Note's version I count a total of four subjunctive clauses in one sentence.  Those clauses seem designed to make the precise point that is made in the very next sentence by Fred Halliday.  As such, it's an unreadable mess.
Grace Note says he feels that the simpler, more readable version is "hideously one-sided."  I don't see that.  Grace Note, could you explain exactly what is one-sided about it?  If the opening is unbalanced we should surely revise it, but we don't fix anything by turning the first sentence into something that only tangentially resembles English. Nandesuka 17:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing you reverted to is barely even English, dude. With respect, is it your second language? The subjunctive is a mood by the way. There are no instances of it in the paragraph I reverted to. I'm afraid I can't really discuss this meaningfully with someone who is not clear on that, nor with someone who doesn't believe it's onesided to describe things in a particular way when we're perfectly aware that there are other ways to describe them. Grace Note 08:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Grace Note, could you please explain the reasons why you prefer the other, wordier version?  You haven't done that  yet.  Doing that will surely help this conversation move forward.  Thanks.  Nandesuka 15:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was no move —Mets501 (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Lead 

message: #Sefringle 02:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - Support votes

message: Especially for such a controversial topic as this, article content needs to start off with good reliable sources and references first as well as a commitment to balance - these should not be an afterthought for later. Bwithh 03:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: OR /references tagging

message: this is the only NPOV way (and the most accurate) name for the people you are trying to describe I am no fan of such people but that is what they are, thats what ther CIA calls them  JIHADI is the non-anglo version, but jihadist is also correct. "Terrorist" is a value statement and is innapropriate for Wikipedia, there is no need to use such a word, the description of their actions presented in a NPOV is much more powerful in showing their charactor, using words like terrorist takes credibility away from the article, and anyone viewing it will look at it with suspicion. The organizations described are better able at demonising themselves without any need for us to do so.Komaknacon 18:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "MILITANT JIHADIST"s

message: I've removed the entire kidnapping and execution section as it seems primarily based on events in Iraq. In other words, a situation where an insurgency is fighting an occupying army doesn't qualify as terrorism. The way it was written also showed a perverse Western bias by listing a handful of white folks who got killed and not mentioning the more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians who have died because of the violence. --Lee Hunter 15:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then put in the information about the Iraqi's killed for not being the right type of muslim. PS You can have terrorism even though there is an insurgency.Hypnosadist 00:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: After reverting Lee i find the info contains iraqi's, korean's, japanise and a irish/iraqi aid worker but i will find more to add.Hypnosadist 00:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ive added some small bits on the kidnapping of iraqi's, please feel free to add more Lee.Hypnosadist 00:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kidnappings and executions

message: Please see the part of WP:NOR which prohibits "analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor" --Strothra 02:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I used this source:  Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar clearly mentions all these verses and many more within this letter. I don't know how this can be categorized as origional research when there is a source for it. And there are plenty of other sources for the letter as well.--Sefringle 02:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wouldn't be original research if you were putting the verses into an article about verses of the Quran and were not connecting them to an argument.  However, you are trying to use the verses to support an origional argument making it origional research. --Strothra 03:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am putting the verses in a section entitled "Interpritations in the quran." It only makes sense that we mention verses in the quran related to terrorism in a section entitled "interpritations in the quran." Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar wrote this justification using quranic verses to explain how his terrorist attack in the name of islam is islamic. This arguement is not origional, it has been presented numerous times by numerous people both in books and online including , , ,, ,  and in many of the following books and documentaries.--Sefringle 03:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they're making no sense. It's not original. Arrow740 05:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not OR we are quoting someone, we say in proper wikipedia form "X says these specific quranic ayats inspired me to do terrorism." and then we list (either with numbers or the whole quote) those Ayats.Hypnosadist 07:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I already explained that above, mentioning many.--Sefringle 05:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm gusesing it is some of the other uncited material as well.--Sefringle 07:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origional Research 

message: I've started this article 2007 Plot to Behead a British Muslim Soldier, could editors please pop by and make it better. Hypnosadist 17:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New article

message: Please stop revert warring. If you have any suggestions to improve the article, discuss them on this talk page. But please do not revert each other every 15 minutes. If the edit war continues, this article will be protected. AecisBrievenbus 11:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The revert warring will not stop as very few people here are willing to compromise, and as for editing for the ememy, thats none existant here in the WOT (Wiki On Terror).Hypnosadist 15:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop revert warring