Talk:Terrorism/Draft

message: :"We don't comment on the corporate terrorist activities of PETA. They are corporate terrorists and just like the United States government, we will not negotiate with corporate terrorists." - KFC spokeswoman Bonnie Warschauer  New American Empire
::That's just being stupid on the part of the KFC spokeswoman.  I have no idea what she thought she meant by "corporate terrorist".  PETA are activists - they use emotional shock tactics, but I've never heard of them using violence.  We probably should put in something about groups like the Earth Liberation Front, or at least a link to ecoterrorist. Isomorphic 19:45, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should be careful about diluting the definition with too many "hyphenated" subissues. I'm not trying to give destructive advocates a pass on anything, but in a discussion of warfare where you're thinking about The Hundred Years War or the Iraq War or World War II, you might think twice in including the "War on Drugs" or three times about Mr. Clean's "War on Dirt." Cecropia 19:59, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  I don't care that much about this issue.  A link under "related topics" might still be appropriate. Isomorphic 20:43, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Corporate terrorism

message: Is there really discussion of going live with the current version?  Has anybody read the section on state terrorism lately?  Not only is it inappropriately placed before the more universally recognized forms of terrorism, it's also way longer than the rest and is blatantly POV.  I'm going to clean it up.  I won't mourn it if a lot of what I delete disappears forever, but if anyone wants to salvage anything, put it in state terrorism, not in the main article. Isomorphic 20:43, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: State terrorism

message: I also object to the last two sections.  The US waged terrorism in Vietnam, the Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened , and we're going to blame Israel for Palestinian terrorism?  How much of this article are we going to devote to Chomsky's views?  Seriously?  Whenever I try to NPOV something Stevertigo writes, he leaves my edited version and writes more POV into a new section.  I'd try to NPOV the new stuff, but I'm getting tired of this, and I don't want the entire article to be "Blah, but Chomsky claims Blah.  And also Chomsky says blah and blah."  Isomorphic 22:44, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Heaven forbid we don't get what we want. I agree that since they are controversial, (and way too over-specific) they should be removed.  It would be interesting to include them as hypothetical possibilities that engage us to think about the issues, but that's not factual and not encyclopedic, is it?  That's now out of the way.  I think it's ready to sent up to the big kahuna.  Cecropia and you and I all appear to agree. -SV(talk) 23:19, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Last two sections

message: Ah, it's good to see the fruit of so much labor ready for prime time. However, before everyone gets that good night's sleep (or after, if everyone is snoring) I have a thought about this section and the last paragraph in particular:
:"Some believe that it is impossible to define the term terrorism in any neutral or objective way. According to this viewpoint, the term "terrorism" is inherently and inescapably political in nature, and is always defined and used politically. Hence, "history is written by the victors," and it is the dominant society who dictates to history which particular acts of violence will or will not be labeled as "terrorism."
While I can agree with that being a legitimate argument, I don't think it is fair to say terrorism is "always" defined politically. For example, Nazi Germany did many terrible things in warfare, but a fair reading would describe some (blitzkrieg) as legitimate war tactics, but the V2 bombing that targeted civilian areas as terrorism. So my point is that terrorism is still a useful descriptive term even with a hated enemy, unless we can come up with a less charged but accurate generic term to describe the same general behavior, as "ethnocentrism" is a less charged term than "racism."
Also, the politicization section focuses mainly on belligerents simply claiming that the word is used politically, thus is meaningless. But there is a second front in this, as it were, in claims that terrorism the speaker defends is only one aspect of terrorism. Over use of the term to describe (as recently here) rogue opponents of Fried Chicken franchises as terrorist is a shot in this battle. Cecropia 00:15, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Politicization

message: It's true that Chomsky is a prominent linguist, but he is also very prominent as a well known leftist critic of American and other policy and something of a loose cannon. I'm not saying he's always wrong but some of his tangents are not worthy of history, such as apologia for the Khmer Rouge and assertions about Vietnam not backed up by other histortical writing, especially The "Pentagon Papers." I think he can be quoted relevantly, but not extensively. Since his comment on "terrorism" does not come from the simple academic discipline of linguistics, couldn't we say "Linguist and leftist critic Noam Chomsky"? Cecropia 00:33, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Chomsky

message: Aside from the fact that most of the edits are a barely coherent POV  and/or off-topic rant, this new user violates Wikipedia:Username#No_inflammatory_usernames and the referenced section Wikipedia:Profanity. I realize this person can sign up again under a different username, but I feel it damages the Wikipedia to let this stand without challenge. Cecropia 14:42, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: He's just a reincarnation of User:Bird.  He's on a crusade against Wikipedia, and spent some time yesterday trying to mess up everything I've worked on because I told him off.  You can pretty much revert anything a Bird reincarnation writes, as none of it is going to be useful.  Isomorphic 16:14, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, looking at the edit, all he did was revert the most recent series of edits.  The "POV, off-topic rant" was just what the section looked like until I edited it down.  The most egregious bits were written by User:62.212.110.113, a French editor whose history shows a rather strong POV.  Isomorphic 16:24, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rverted FYVM's edits 

message: Terrorism should be defined objectively and not politically or emotionally (even though fear is an emotion).  The best operational definition that matches the way people actually use the word is
Acts of War committed by Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO's)
This definition captures the special nature of Terrorism, does not obsess on civilian vs. military targets, and excludes all the things people want to exclude (crime, warfare, accidents, vandalism).  This definition fairly includes both the Contras and Hezbollah.  This definition gives a crisp definition to the phrase "State-sponsored terrorism" that otherwise tends to merge with warfare or covert action by governments.  This definition can be agreed upon by people with differing religions and moral codes.  This definition is pretty resistant to the duplicity of lawyers, propagandists, and politicians, and does not depend on multi-lateral treaties.  Definitions are useful so that we may have words to use in our treaties.  We cannot let treaties be the only origin of our definitions.
The Terror of the French Revolution and certain Marxist states is a related but different phenomenon deserving of its own word. This Terror always induced fear and was intended to induce fear and obedience.  Modern Terrorism sometimes (apparently) intends to create over-reaction.  Note that the September 11th attacks produced more anger than fear. Should we call al-Queda an "Angrist" organization?
It is hoped that an agreement on the meaning of Terrorism may facilitate the communication and negotiation that ends it.
:While I agree with your sentiment that it would be highly desirable to have an objective definition, which a number of us have been working toward, I feel your definition does not really touch any accepted legal or functional definition of the term except in the popular mind, bolstered enormously by 9/11.
:In fact, at least in terms of treaties, conventions and tradition, there are virtually no true non-state terrorists, because terrorists tend to represent the interests of states or combinations of states, and, as succinctly put after 9/11, "they do not exist in disembodied space"--i.e., they usually train and operate with the aid and/or acquiescence of states. The best-known example of arguable non-state actors in war-like acts are pirates, which still exist, but in their modern incarnation are more like highwaymen than terrorists or belligerents. Still, even pirates (during the most active age of piracy) had state support, which is why the formation and international sanctions against the Trucial States were effective in reducing piracy.
:I would refer you back to the substance of our discussions defining terrorism more by its method, intent and effect than by who does it. Cecropia 04:38, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Proposal