Talk:Islamic terrorism/Archive 3

message: The term "Many" implies more than half. Please use "Some" instead. Extc
:Actually, it implies 'a large number'. Palmiro | Talk 16:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, "some" makes the party look isolated, while many shows that while they may not be the majority, they are a significant force.--Urthogie 19:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Many"

message: This section used start off logically enough (but how accurately is a different question) by saying something along the lines that the MB in Egypt and Hizbullah were the two first major Islamist terrorist org's designated as such by the US. 
Now we have a structure which doesn;t make much sense at all. It starts with HA, which is probably the most controversial organisation to be designated as "terrorist" - the designation is pretty much universally disputed in the Middle East outside Israel (by Christians as well as Muslims for what that's worth). It would probably make more sense to start with the Egyptian extremist groups of the late 70s / early 80s (the so-called Takfir wa Hijra and the like), the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, move on to Palestinian groups, then deal with Lebanon, Afghanistan, Algeria and finally with al-Qaeda and the current crop of extremist groups. That would allow us to discuss all the main players in more or less sensible (and roughly chronological) order.
The current version as it stands just mentions three groups (Hamas, Hizbullah and al-Qaeda), which seems to reflect a purely Western view of it. Also, there are lots of organisations whose designation as "terrorist' is rather less controversial than in the first two of those cases, and accordingly should be dealt with - although the controversies over whether Hamas and Hizbullah (in their different ways) are or were terrorists does of course deserve to be discussed here. Palmiro | Talk 17:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood actually a terrorist group? Reading the article History of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, this seems debatable. What about groups in other parts of the world - Chechnya, Phillipines, Kashmir etc? --Lee Hunter 18:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Palmiro, if you disagree with this western bias, please add Islamist terrorist organizations not already included.  Also, something being controversial doesn't mean it's not NPOV, so it makes sense that the most newsworthy organizations should be mentioned first.  Thanks, --Urthogie 18:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree with you anywhere there in principal, but some remarks. First of all the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. I don't think anyone denies that they were responsible for a large number of attacks which would fit into most definitions of terrorism - perhaps, as that article claims, not for all of the ones they were blamed for by the government, but still for an awful lot. Secondly, on an international level, Hamas and al-Qaeda are probably rather more newsworthy then Hezbollah, and the Algerian Islamists were in their day if anything more so. Thirdly, it doesn't make much sense to give the most prominent place to a disputed example, which in fact no major Lebanese political players (to the best of my knowledge) consider to be terrorist. Of course this question should be mentioned, but it means it's not a very good example of an Islamist terrorist organisation. Fourthly, insofar as Hezbollah is newsworthy at the moment, it's not for terrorist activities but for its role in internal Lebanese politics and its armed activities on the Israeli border. Fourthly, I think it makes sense to deal with things in roughly chronological order, to show the development of "terrorist" activities by Islamist organisations; there's also an argument to be made for dealing with them region by region or in order of prominence, but we don't have any of those at the moment. Fifthly... no, wait, that'll do for the moment! Palmiro | Talk 21:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I trust that you'll make excellent additions as long as they're sourced.  You know more than me about the Muslim Brotherhood, so I'll just fine tune any edits concerning it.--Urthogie 21:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I trust that you'll make excellent additions as long as they're sourced.  You know more than me about the Muslim Brotherhood, so I'll just fine tune any edits concerning it.--Urthogie 21:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Organisations" section 

message: anyone planning on citing the requested sources?--Urthogie 09:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I usually allow a week or ten days for someone to give a citation. That's not a rule or anything, but some people only edit on weekends, etc. and I like to give everyone a chance for input. Tom Harrison Talk 14:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not suggesting I would delete it, I was just wondering if anybody was planning on doing certain ones at some point.--Urthogie 15:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  citing the sources 

message: It's a terrorist organization. From Hezbollah: "On March 10, 2005 the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly (473 in favor 33 against) on a resolution branding Hezbollah in whole as a terrorist organization. The resolution stated that the "Parliament considers that clear evidence exists of terrorist activities by Hezbollah. The (EU) Council should take all necessary steps to curtail them"[9]. The EU has also decided to block Hezbollah's Al-Manar television from European satellites in order to enforce European regulations against "incitement to racial and/or religious hatred". [10]"
Got it?Extc
:Okay. Now you go and read up on the political structures of the European Union, and come back when you know what you're talking about. Palmiro | Talk 23:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: EU and Hezbollah

message: I was trying, in my edits here, to get across the rather significant point that "takfir" is a significant concept in extremist Islamist ideology. It forms a sort of dividing line between the extremists and more mainstream Islamic thought, and the "takfir" of Muslims for what are essentially political reasons is a hallmark of the extremist groups that is rejected by the vast majority of Muslims. However, Hamas and Hezbollah do not fall into this extremist category. I think the subsequent edits have rather lost this idea, in particular I see that Hamas and Hezbolah are gone (though perhaps the idea wasn't expressed very well in the beginning). Palmiro | Talk 23:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Takfir