Talk:List of designated terrorist groups/Archive 2

message: I have not made the change, but question the phrasing of "non-white racist terrorists." This should simply be headed as "Racist terrorists." Racism is not inately a "white" thing. All violence purpotrated in the name of racial or ethnic "purity" should be condemned equally. The KKK etc should be added to this list.
Regarding "Earth Liberation Front - USA (extremist environmentalist) - avoids harming people or animals, but is considered by the FBI to be a terrorist group": the ELF claims credit for tree spiking, which is the equivalent to planting land mines in civilian places, so I think the "avoids harming people" is a bit of a stretch. I'm going to change it in 24 hours unless anyone has a compelling reason not to. 141.154.203.120
The main thing missing from this list is that there is no way to see if a group is active today or is something from history.  Could we have a range of years after the name, for example? --Zero 01:22, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miscellaneous 

message: What is the relationship betweent this page and Category:Terrorist organizations Philip Baird Shearer 08:27, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Terrorist_organizations 

message: Why is the only religion Islam here?  To name two, the KKK is certainly Christian and the JDL is definitely Jewish.   If there are no objections within a few days, I'll redundantly add these groups (and others) to the religious section.
New Hindu Section 
Why is Tamil Tigers a Hindu group? They are a regional group based on ethnic lines not religious. There are muslims aswell as christians who are Tamil Tigers.
Also VHP is a religious group with many international chapters right-wing maybe but certainly not terrorist. Shiv Sena is a legitimate Maharashtrian Indian political party representing regional Marathi identity. Please be careful who you try to portray as terrorist organisations. I think we should stick to official government lists.
I changed militant to 'violent political' I don't think they should be called militant, they have no army and do not wage war against the people of India, mainly just religious fundamentalism and anti-westernism.
: But which government list? Hizbullah is a terrorist group according to US, Israel, and UK, but it's not considered terrorist group by most other countries. Like Shiv Sena, Hizbullah is legitimate political party that won parliament seats in Lebanon. Moreover, many nationalist/reginal groups are listed under "Islamic" such as Lashkar-e-Toiba -- a group regionally involved in Kashmir dispute.  OneGuy 16:44, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: in that case should the Bush Administration also be listed in these groups? Admittedly both the Shiv Sena and VHP espouse a right wing ideology, but its nowhere even as extreme as those spouted by NeoCons or Christian/Islamic conservatives. They certainly have not been responsible for 100,000 civilian deaths either, , if "harming civilians" is any test for being labelled a militant organisation.
 Wiki should be NPOV source, inclusion of RSS or VHP in that list is certainly not a NPOV.
- But Shiv Sena members do not wrap themselves with bombs and go around killing people in any country. 
ERM.. VHP, Shiv Sena(regional language based political party) are blatantly not terrorists. By all means if you think that groups should not be under Islamic then edit so... doesn't mean you can make potentially defamatory accusations against other orgs. --The industrialist 11:16, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious groups 

message: There seems to be a lot of cross-over. Also, I'm not sure "fascist" really applies to the Zionist groups. —Ashley Y 10:02, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)
I agree with the above statement.  The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "fascist" as:  
1)  a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2)  a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality 
The Zionist Terrorist groups (JDL, Kach, Kahani Chai) in no way advocate a dictatorial regime or "social regimentation."  They believe in the right of The Jewish People to live in Israel, at the expense of all non-Jews, by way of forced removal or destruction.  Racist?  Yes.  Fascist?  No.
These are some comments on the discussion going on about inclusion of RSS,VHP and ShivSena in the list of terrorist orgnizations. Comments made above are highly misleading. Shivsena,RSS and VHP are  terrorist orgnizations. They are into existance since more than 50 years, never shown any sign of terrorism as shown by other orgnizations listed in this article. RSS is known for training people with ideology of nationalism, but not through violance. Same with VHP and shivsena. Offcourse are  "terrorist training camps" into existance which are run by above mentioned orgnizations. If anybody considers RSS,VHP and ShivSena as trrorist orgnization, it is just a sign of there illitracy. 
Actually, you've misrepresnted JDL, though you're dead on about Kach and Kahane Chai. JDL hasn't been considered a terrorist group since around 1992. Please also remember to sign your comments with ~~~~⇒ SWATJester  Ready  Aim  Fire! 17:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationalists & Right-Wing 

message: http://jdl.org.il (see mission statement)
--Bill Maniaci 18:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Jewish Defense League is Not a Racist, Facist, or Terrorist Organization:

message: Many of the groups here are legitimate national liberation groups - For instance the PLO is recognised by the vast majority of countries and has observer status at the United Nations. There are many more examples - Does wikipedia only respresent the USA point of view or is it an effort of the global community. The terror group Hisbullah was created when Isreal aggressively invaded Lebonon.
: In the eyes of wikipedia, the opinions of the average US citizen is the truth, and everything else is propaganda.
:There is talk of changing this article to list of alleged terrorist groups (See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of terrorist groups).  This article should aim for neutral point of view, but removing accused groups would not achieve that in my opinion.  The accuser should be identified where possible and accused groups added from all sides of conflicts.  The official US State Department list is at Foreign Terrorist Organizations and the official UK list is at Terrorism Act 2000.  I am unaware of any other official lists.
:As for your introduction that was removed, I agree with its removal.  It shows only one point of view, being heavily apologetic for listing Islamic groups.  Also terrorism is defined in that article - we should not redefine it here, and Wikipedia should try to be internally consistent.  Thanks for your contributions, I personally appreciate that you are trying to be constructive.  --ChrisRuvolo 16:11, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does a group become terroist just because the USA say so 

message: For the vfd debate related to this article see Talk:List of Militant Organizations/delete -- Graham  ☺ | Talk 16:09, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Why was this article moved to "List of Militant Organizations" when only 4 people in the discussion voted to move it there, out of 25 votes?  --ChrisRuvolo 17:36, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the vast majority of votes to keep were on the condition that the name was changed, but no agreement was made (as it very rarely is in these cases) as to what it should be renamed to.  Now, there are two options at this point for the admin clearing away the old vfd debates: first is to leave it on vfd/old until agreement is reached, second is to move it to one of the suggested locations.  The first option, in my experience, is the least useful because we then end up ith a meaningless vfd/old page, much like the one we have now that is so chockabloxck full of old debates you might as well do away with vfd altogether for all the use it does. The second option at least starts the ball rolling with regard to what the article should be called, it can always be moved again at a later date. -- Graham  ☺ | Talk 18:18, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vfd debate 

message: I have changed the introduction because I think it is important that it is made very clear that the list does not claim to be objective/uncontrovercial. This should be esspecialy true if Wikipedia is seeking to be a world thing (not just a 'western' thing) as world opion is very divided.--JK the unwise 10:50, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: While the page name has been changed from list of terrorist organisations to list of militant organisations or actualy with a crazy american z spelling in orrder to apparently be more neutral, the content seems still to be writtern as if the page were list of terrorists --> so why don't we just change it back?--JK the unwise 00:34, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me.  Jayjg (talk) 00:28, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one offered me a reason not to I have done this. I couldn't get it to go to the american spelling (as page allready existed) so have moved to UK spelling.--JK the unwise 15:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page name v's page content 

message: Shiv Sena has been termed a terrorist organisation by Pakistan, because this Bombay based political party opposes the state terrorism of Pakistan, after Pakistan gave refuge to the terrorists involved in the Bombay serial bomb blasts of 1992.
Here's a description statement "The group has been involved in several religious riots that lead to the death of several thousands."
This is categorical nonsense. I would like anybody to substantiate this!
: How about the attack on the Oriental Research Institute in Pune, as a minor but relatively well-documented case? http://www.complete-review.com/quarterly/vol5/issue1/laine0.htm  That looks like terrorism to me. OTOH, that may fall into the "fringe elements of a larger group that are ambiguously encouraged/endorsed by the group" category - which is the problem that's going to arise with a lot of groups listed here. -- Danny Yee 22:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hindu Organisations 

message: Hello all! How appropriate is it to classify the Northern Irish nationalist and loyalist groups as 'Religious Terrorists'? Without a doubt, religion is a significant factor in the conflict, and the targeting of individuals has often been based on their religious affiliation. But, to the best of my understanding, the principal issue of contention has been nationalistic, and the Catholic-Protestant distinction is less relevant to the conflict than the Nationalist-Loyalist difference.
I like to think of this way:
* The conflict is religious if Catholics target Protestants and vice versa irrespective of an individual's position on the Nationalist-Loyalist spectrum (including, a Catholic Loyalist would target a Protestant Loyalist and/or a Protestant Nationalist would target a Catholic Nationalist).
* The conflict is nationalistic if a Nationalists target Loyalists and vice versa, irrespective of religion (including, a Catholic Nationalist would target a Catholic Loyalist and/or a Protestant Loyalist would target a Protestant Nationalist).
Now, of course, neither of these extremes holds entirely, but I think the latter is a far better characterization of the Northern Ireland conflict than the former. Black Falcon 15:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northern Irish groups 

message: Somebody decided to include the "Minutemen" under the "Others" category.  While I can understand some of the oppositions some may have towards this group, I would hardly believe it to be fair that they be classified as a "militant group".  They are more akin to a community self-policing or para-policing type force than a "militant" group.  I am aware that some do indeed carry arms for self-defense purposes, but calling men aiding the Border Patrol a "militant group" is far from justified.
:The Minuteman Project is a racist, terrorist militia which attracts white supremacists and separatists. There is ample documentation on the Internet and elsewhere to support this assertion. —Seselwa 05:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minutemen - "Militant" organization? 

message: Am I being blind, or are a lot of groups marked with "**" but with no explanation as to what that means?  Tim 07:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double asterisks 

message: A humanitarian organisation or business that acts as a "front" for a terrorist organisation is not itself a terrorist organisation. Yodakii 16:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they're not on a list. Swatjester 15:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Front 

message: I think Shiv Sena should be removed from the hindu group, they are a right-wing political party comparable to the republicans in USA, that doesn't make them terrorists. I suggest that it should be removed.
Shiv sena has not been implicated in any terror operation to date.... they have been accused of ransacking shops and cricket pitches but this surely doesnt qualify, if they are a terrorist org. then the republicans or the labour party would be fair game too.
:Shiv Sena has, amongst other thing, been involved in murders and violent harrasment of political opponent. However, i can't see them as a terrorist group per se. Rather as a violent-prone political party. --Soman 08:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shiv Sena as a terrorist group 

message: Everything is subject to discussion. Even removing the PLO, which to you appears to be obviously correct. To me, I believe that they previously declared themselves a terrorist orginization and then renounced such. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The PLO is an internationally respected organization whose chairman have received the Nobel Peace Prize. Listing them as "terrorist" is exactly as controversial as the listing of IDF as "terrorist" would be. ThompsJohn 21:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In your broad removal, you deleted the Al Aqsa Marytrs Brigade. Do you deny they are "terrorists?" Perhaps instead of just deleting things you could have mentioned that the PLO renounced terrorism? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd recommend some compromise on this.  I think blanket listing of the PLO is indeed wrong.  And also the sublisting of Fatah generally.  But listing the Al Aqsa Marytrs Brigade or the Abu Nidal organization seems fairly well supported.  Actually, I'd frankly support listing the IDF as terrorist, or at least the Mossad, too; but that's a slightly different issue (state-sponsored vs. non-governmental, in part).  Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everything needs to  be discussed 

message: In my perception, Jakes18 has taken it on himself to remove OR from this list out of political motives that are not really influenced by citation, clarification, or explanation.  Of course it is always possible, on any topic, to declare by fiat that your conversant has not sufficiently refuted some given point (or some new point)... but that's not a game that ever ends.
So as a hoped-for resolution to this, I suggest the following quick poll to see where editorial opinion lies.  Of course, I'm sure political partisans could be recruited on pro- or anti-abortion rights pages to put a thumb on the scale.  That's sort of pointless.  I'm interested in how editors who have actually edited this page, or closely related ones, feel about the inclusion of OR on the list (given roughly the explanation and citations that are now provided—they might be tweaked after the page is unprotected, but something like the general pattern would be there is the item is to be kept).
=== Should list Operation Rescue ===
# Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick poll on Operation Rescue inclusion 

message: # Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should list Operation Rescue 

message: #--Jakes18 05:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should not list Operation Resuce 

message: * I haven't found any information indicating that Eric Robert Rudolph was a member of Operation Rescue, and http://www.operationsaveamerica.org/wwworn/legal/alabama.htm indicates otherwise.  If there were any such information, it should be added to his article and Operation Rescue, in addition to this article.  I have removed this claim from the article.
* I agree that the citations by Lulu do not successfully establish that Operation Rescue has advocated violence.  Mostly they just establish the existance of the lawsuit.  I have created the NOW v. Scheidler article, which includes the lawsuits against Operation Rescue and its founder.  It now gives a relatively good overview of the case, and has much better citations to actual court decisions.  I have removed the now-unneeded citations from the article, but retained some that have extra details beyond the lawsuit article - those have been moved to either Operation Rescue or Randall Terry.
* A Chicago jury seems to have found Operation Rescue guilty of racketeering.  Though the racketeering charges were overturned because there was no economic benefit for the organization, this does not refute the charge that there were underlying acts of violence or threats of violence.  For details on exactly who did what on behalf of which organization, the best place to look is probably the court documents for that trial.  (Which might even be available online?)  See NOW v. Scheidler for references.  Based on what I've read so far, it seems the Operation Rescue founder, Randall Terry, was personally involved in these and other acts of abortion-clinic-related violence. I don't know whether he was still active with the organization. Unlawful violence committed by a non-state actor against non-combatants for religious reasons and with political goal seems to meet the common definition given in terrorism.  NOW is a prominent national civil rights organization, and in publicity materials, it consistently uses terms like "abortion terrorists" to describe the defendants in its lawsuit.  Certainly I wouldn't personally use that term - it's provocative and propagandic, and I think of such actions as "violent protests" rather than "acts of terrorism".  But if it's established that Operation Rescue has taken part in "violent protests", it would seem to qualify for inclusion under the given criteria.  So, I would support including the organization on this list for references purposes, but marking it as disputed (at least until more details from the court cases can be established).  Given that I seem to be the tie-breaking vote here, I will implement my own suggestion.
* Given the previous revert war, I would recommend not adding any claims to the article that aren't supported by details in a properly-referenced Wikipedia article, nor removing the listing without discussion on the talk page.  Proper documentation will also help skeptical readers understand that the material in the article has not been inserted by partisans, or mistakenly. -- Beland 05:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Borderline case 

message: IMHO, we need to make clear what definition we're using for "terrorist".  This is obviously the basis for all the other sub-issues we're encountering (e.g. "Does a group become terroist just because the USA say so").  I agree with other wikipedians that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is a red herring, and believe it is only a result of not having a clear definition.  Without an agreed definition, we cannot reach NPOV.
If we adopt a broad definition, such as, "Terrorism is the use or threatened use of force designed to bring about political change", then the United States MUST be considered to be a Terrorist Organization (many times over).  Even on narrower definitions, the US would most certainly be considered to be a terrorist organisation, based on past actions.  The World Court, for instance, found that the US involvement in Nicuragua during the Reagan admin. was a terrorist crime.
But, i'm sure if i put the good ol' USA on the list as a terrorist organization, an edit-war will result....
130.126.220.138 03:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  We need an agreed definition of "terrorism" to construct a list of "terrorist" organizations 

message: The Nagas are fighting on the basis of nationality and race, and not on the basis of religion. At the same time, the Meiteis, Asom, Bodos, Tripurans and Kamptans, all predominantly Hindu nations, are fighting on the basis of nationality and race, not religion. 
The claim that the Nagas seek to "annex parts of India and Burma with Christian majority" is a deliberate and conscious lie and an exercise in Goebbelsianism; the Nagas merely demand the union of Naga majority areas adjacent to Nagalim. 
Jogendra "Joshua" Debbarma was s general secretary of the NLFT in Tripura; he converted to Evangelical Protestantism, sought to foist a Protestant agenda on the NLFT and was rejected, leading to a split, with only a very small number following him. Debbarma hates Catholics as much as he hates Bengalis, the staple hate-objects of the NLFT cadres, and has murdered Catholics. 
The "Tripura Ressurection Army" never had any connection with Christianity; confusion may have arisen due to the identification of "Resurrection" with the "Resurrection of Christ Jesus". 
Jogendra Debbarma's faction later changed its name to "Borok National Council of Tripura" (BNCT)  This is no longer active. The three Hindu factions of NLFT are, however, active. 
The KKK is also Protestant and anti-Catholic, which is itself recorded in the entry. 
The US has always been an anti-Catholic state as a whole, see Know-Nothing, Saint Patrick's Battalion; attacking Spain, it declared that it wished to take over the Phillipines to "Christianize" the Phillipines, which had been Catholic for about four centuries before. 
KKK and Joshua Debbarma's rump faction of the NLFT must be recorded as Protestant Terrorists, along with the Ulster and Orangemen, and not as "Christian". 
Lastly, why is there no mention of the Chechens? 
Regards, 
WikiSceptic 19:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian terrorists? 

message: The Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front of Amanullah Khan is, like the National Conference, a secularist and Kashmiri nationalist organization and is NOT an Islamic terrorist organization. JKLF seeks a Kashmir independent of both India and Pakistan, which is why it is suppressed in Pakistan. Why do most Indians lack compunction passing off their crass prejudices and libels as certitudes? WikiSceptic 07:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  JKLF 

message: If the list includes defunct groups - then how back do we go? Stern gang and possibly Irgun were terrorist groups. If the list goes back to the 1940s then they should be included to give a balanced perspective.
Agree with Stern gang (at least) being added. 70.30.56.128 08:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stern gang and Irgun 

message: I know that this is controversial, but many groups such as the ANC were considered to be terrorist groups by the apartheid government and by US administrations to name but a few. They are no longer considered to be such and are in power in South Africa. 
Should the ANC be included in the list of terrorist groups (historical)? This comes back to the definition of terrorist, since their cause was just, but their methods not always so.
* agree with ANC being included. Certainly their cause was just, but blowing up a café full of innocent civilians (just one example) strikes me as being a pretty prototypical terrorist action. nsandwich 09:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  African National Congress 

message: The spelling is inconsistent in this artice. I have no idea what is the more appropriate spelling, but it should be the same throughout.Nunn08 23:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al-Quaeda 

message: Why is this under religion? Furthermore, this is not a group, there is no organization called anti-abortion terrorists. It should either be a category of it's own, or not exist. Therefore if nobody adds specific examples of anti-abortion terrorist groups, I'll be removing it from the article. ⇒ SWATJester  Ready  Aim  Fire! 07:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  anti abortion terrorists? 

message: Hello, OAS was not a racist terrorist organization. Surely considered as a terrorist organization by french legal government but surely not racist.
A lot of arab volunteers, later called 'harkis', fight with these men during the ' Algeria "War"' and the essence of the conflict was beetwen french legal government and OAS, not with the terrorist organization FLN.
The slogan was "French Algeria", as Algeria a "département" of France, so we may consider that it was a nationalistic terrorist organisation... ?Oe kintaro 09:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OAS 

message: The people who added RSS, VHP, Bajrang Dal and Shiv Sena have a vendetta in mind rather than a valid rational reason in adding them to the list. None of these organizations are fugitive. They do not maintain private guerilla armies or go conduct suicide bombings, nor do they harm the populace. The flimsy reason being offered for this group is that they go to shops and disrupt valentine day sales? Who in their right mind uses this as a criteria for a terrorist group? This section has to be disputed. User Basawala has taken it upon himself to maintain these groups in the terrorists list. He is misguided and has absurd reasoning behind the logic to add them to the list. Yukon guy 20:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RSS, VHP... are terrorist groups?

message: This list is inherently problematic because the word "terrorist" itself is ill-defined. I suggest this list should be exclusively for those organisations that are designated as terrorist organisations by the UN, EU, US or other governments. AndrewRT 20:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current definition is indeed completely arbitrarily. I can find myself in listing only those deemed to be terrorist organizations by bodies of law, like the UN, EU or national governments (since they are the 'ultimate law monopolists'). A reference can be included for each organization for who deems it to as such. Intangible 17:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further more, this left-right dichotomy here clearly does not work. Better would be something along the lines of "Maoist Terrorist Groups" or "Royalist Terrorist Groups" or "Republican Terrorist Groups". Intangible 17:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: I'll try make a copy of this list, so that terrorist organizations per continent / country can be listed. Intangible 02:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List Copy 

message: I've suggested this article to be renamed to List of terrorist organizations at WP:RM. Intangible 02:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: After some discussion with others I have created a new category related to this list.  It is :Category:Organizations accused of Terrorism.  I think a :Category:Terrorist organizations is needed as well (which together with the other list could eventually render this list unnecessary) there are so many arguments usually when trying to classify an organization as terrorist or not I decided to make the former category first to put of the headaches.  --Ben Houston 05:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on the :Category:Terrorist organizations, not so sure though about the one you've just added, because that will soon run into a NPOV debacle. Intangible 09:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like this new category as I think it will only create arguments. See the Hamas article for a dispute with some saying it should be in one cat and others saying it should be in another. Categories should be factual. I propose both cats are merged into a single cat called "Designated Terrorist Organisations" AndrewRT 22:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think :Category:Terrorist organizations is a good idea. As for AndrewRT's comments, I don't see why there wouldn't be similiar problems with "Designated Terrorist Organizations": who does the designating? (etc). There will be arguments either way. --Cultural Freedom talk 06:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Designated Terrorist Organizations are those that have been designated by national and supra-national institutions that have the power to designate them, e.g. the UNSC Committee of Terrorism, the US Government, the EU etc etc. Sourcing and definitions for this is much more clear cut than a definition based on an interpretation of actions. I've created :Category:Designated terrorist organizations and we'll see how it develops.AndrewRT 23:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FYI: new related category

message: I have removed the NPOV template, since there is a new definition. There probably are still groups on this list that should not be there. But that does not make the page POV, only inaccurate. Intangible 19:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV template 

message: Not all orgs in the list are designated TOs. I sugegsted one of two sols: Either, remove all non-DTOs and rename article. Or, separate out the DTOs at the top and then other TOs further down. DTOs should have more prominence than non-D TOs. AndrewRT 13:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see if I can come up with a table format, with information on country of origin, designator etc. Intangible 18:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Designated

message: In the general fate of this article.  It is basically one giant NPOV violation, and people are moving sluggishly to do anything about it.  But it is particularly egregious to have several Latin American paramilitary organizations all slurred in the same instance of a poorly edited section in a poorly edited article.  There is nothing cited at all either about these groups or those that "accuse" them or "desigate" them as terrorists.  It is basically an accumulation of anti-Castro groups (probably put here by the POV warrior Comandante) as well as vague references to Salvadorean "death squads".  Death squads are terrorists?  Really?  How about a group name to start with?  141.153.114.88 00:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Omega 7 is/was not a terrorist group? Intangible 21:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not for you or I to determine.  That is the problem with this article.  72.65.69.157 01:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A quick search shows that Omega 7 was listed in a 1999 terrorist report by the FBI. Probably there is even more info about this group beyond the Internet, so I find the deletions premature. Intangible 01:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I am not interested

message: I added the budhist group after reading several articles on the sacking of the CWC centre. I know that budhists claim non violence however so do most religous groups. Googling the name will reveal more. 
http://www.peace-srilanka.org/media_statements/1998/12_11_98.htm
I made the list alphabetical to avoid claims of biasSchnizzle 14:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the passage on NMAT. Little to indicate that it would be a terrorist group. It might have been involved in violent incidents and vandalism, but if thuggery is a criteria for terrorism then all major political parties in Sri Lanka are terrorists. --Soman 08:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, by that criteria, I'm not sure NMAT qualifies. 
Shiv Sena was discussed earlier, and although I have zero sympathy for them, they cannot be considered as terrorists. All forms of political violence is not terrorism. Terrorism aims to push the society as a whole in a specific direction through the use of violence. Vendettas between political parties does not serve that purpose. Also, I question the 'Buddhist' character of this organization (as opposed to viewing the group as a Sinhala nationalist outfit). --Soman 11:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added buddhist group and made list alphabetical. 

message: None of the organizations listed in the section "Anarchist, Communist, Socialist, Maoist and Marxist" is anarchist, so I removed the term "Anarchist" Maziotis 13:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been Anarchist terrorist groups in the past; they should be documented in that section. Jayjg (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change in the section titled "Anarchist, Communist, Socialist, Maoist and Marxist" 

message: In the ecologist section is stated "These groups are active on environmental issues. Some of these groups attempt to limit their actions to property damage only, and avoid harming humans (or in some cases, humans and animals)."
Please name one ELF or ALF attack that has resulted in the harm of an human being or animal. I don't mean to dispute that this organizations are terrorists, at this point, but simply to point out an error on this particular reference. In fact, some of those who accuse this organizations of being terrorist claim that it is only a matter of time till someone gets hurt, which means that there isn't an account of someone getting hurt.
The problem concerning this groups is that they are not exactly groups, as in a phisical organization with an hierarchy following the orders of specific leaders. They are more the definition of ideological movements than of groups per se. This is how it works: Anyone that follows the publicly declared principles of ELF or ALF (no harm to inoccent life, actions against economical exploration of the environment or animals, propaganda to raise this issues) may call himself or herself an ELF or ALF. Well, till this day there hasn't been an action that was meant to follow this principles that hurt somebody. In other words, there hasn't been any "accident". Those that with full awarness target people for ecological issues cannot be considered are part of the ELF/ALF movment.
Neverthless, it should always be clear that these organizations are not violent int their porpuse. ELF and ALF movment are no more dedicated to hurting people than your local political party.The fact that they are illegal doesn't change this, even if something "goes wrong".Maziotis 13:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you dig up someone's corpse and hide it away, is that property damage or does it harm humans? Jayjg (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Communist Combatant Cells did not seek to attack humans, still people got killed by their actions. Intangible 17:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Here are some facts: Jail for animal rights extremists who stole body of elderly woman from her grave (from The Guardian).  Sub-heading: "Threats to kill owner's friends and employees". It made worldwide headlines for days; why did your "intense reading on the subject" not turn this up? Jayjg (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The ALF was listed on the FBI's domestic terrorist list in 1987, so it can definitely be included in this article, as do other ecologist militant groups. Intangible 01:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The source I provided specifically mentions the ALF. Jayjg (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong statment 

message: I found that there was an entire section on Hindu terrorism, but was deleted by User:69.158.187.183, without anyone noticing and without any reason on the talk page.  Because of this vandalism, I will bring the section back.  Also, User:Spartian had filled the section with tons of citation needed's, so I would appreciate any help in filling these citations.  Thank you. Basawala 20:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another user deleted the section without giving ANY explanation anywhere, so naturally I have put it back. Basawala 22:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you can cite a source on those organizations? A national government or so... Intangible 17:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: RSS, VHP are off the list. They are not listed as terrorists by anyone anywhere. Even if nsome internet sources say they are terrorists, it doesn't make them so (internet sources also say Elvis is living on the moon). Put them on the list only when an accredited agency says that they are terrorists (al-Qaeda sympathisers don't count). I did add Ranvir Sena, though. They're classified as terrorists by Indian govt.Netaji 04:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hindu Terrorism 

message: I have put the "Zapatista Army of National Liberation" as an anarchist group, but I am not sure if they are. The reason why I decided to give them this category was because I have read that the EZLN is ideologically based on the political principles set by the man Zapata, and he is classified as being a mexican anarchist, here in wikipedia.
I hope some of you can help me in answering this question and making the decison. In the wikisource there is six declarations that constitute a sort of Zapatista manifesto. I don't have much time now, but i will try to read some of it in the near future.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:EZLN
The "Sixth Declaration" seems to be the most ideological in nature.
It is possible that anarchism has a strong influence in their ideology, but that they are not strictly anarchist. there are other groups in other sections in this article that are in similiar conditions.Maziotis 14:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if the Mexican government has a "terrorist" list, But if EZLN or its members have been convicted under a specific statute of Mexican law that deems them to be "terrorist" it can stay on the list. Otherwise it should be removed. I do not know enough about this group to make this call. Intangible 15:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: MIPT has described the group here: . Intangible 15:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the EZLN an anarchist group? 

message: Why is the LRA listed as Christian/Pagan/Muslim? I can't find any reference to links with any religion other than Christianity. --AndrewRT 23:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LRA 

message: Each individual T-org page should be linked to this page.
This page has a forward navigation but doesn't have a backward one—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.65.227 (talk • contribs) 
:They are linked via "What links here" on the left hand side and also via :Category:Designated terrorist organizations where they have been added. --AndrewRT 18:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The pages should be better linked 

message: The PLO should remain on this list because it WAS a terrorist organization at one time, even though they have renounced terrorism as of 1988. This list includes organizations that no longer exist, so organizations that used to be terrorist belong in the list for historical record.  I have included a note next to the entry to alert the reader that the PLO has renounced terrorism for fairness. --Britcom 19:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your contribution on this highly contentious topic. I am keen to build up this article - which is highly subject to NPOV disputes - in a sustainable way and I think the best way is to provide sources as much as possible so that people don't remove entries where they shouldn't. Many constituent components of the PLO have been designated as terrorist organisations, which is why they are listed here. However I am not aware of any source which confirms a government listing the PLO, as distinct from a component of the PLO, as terrorist - even in the past. If you are aware of a source that does this it would be most helpful. Thanks. --AndrewRT 19:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  Former PLO member source is in footnote, and others. --Britcom 22:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, I can remedy the problem you see here. My understanding is that you doubt that the PLO is "proscribed" by a governmental body (other than Israel I take it) and you doubt that Shoebat is telling the truth, even though Fox and CNN both have reported his story.  Okay, lets go with verifiable hard facts that indicate that the PLO was "proscribed" as a "terrorist organisation" at one time, if not now. Lets start with the United States government.  I will place references to the appropriate documents. --Britcom 08:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: What makes you say that I believe that the PLO is still a terrorist organisation?  I only stated that the PLO was a terrorist organisation in the past.  I don't know what Israel thinks about it now, but at this point it doesn't really matter.  I just want to set the record straight about the PLO's history. --Britcom 16:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent sources thanks for sorting that out. I've also added the info into the PLO article too. Now it's much easier to argue for its retention if anyone comes and tries to delete it. --AndrewRT 20:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PLO 

message: Maybe it is best to start such a list as well? Intangible 23:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  list of former terrorist organisations 

message: I think it would be nice to have a map of the world on this page showing the locations of terrorist organisations.  The dots could be colour coded for type of organisation.  Perhaps nations known to sponsor terrorist organisations could be shaded.  If that would be too small, then perhaps maps of each continent with dots as explained above.  Anyone care to comment on this idea? --Britcom 10:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of Terrorist organisations 

message: (I repost this as i feel its not going to be noticed where it was)
In fact there is a pretty simple and obvious Definition of 'Terrorism'.
As the '- ism' Indicates its the Ideology/Idea to use Terror to achieve ones goal. Terror on the other hand can be defined as mortal fear and panic.
Thats all Terrorism really is. The deliberate inducement of panic and mortal fear to further ones (Ideological) goals. 
Or, even shorter:
Terrorism= scare tactics.
Of course, while that definition would be as NPOV as they get, it is too broad, atleast too broad to use it as a propaganda buzzword, wich seems to be its sole purpose. (Which is, btw, the reason why the whole category should be deleted from wikipedia as inherently POV, but ofc thats not going to happen since so many Wikipedians share the POV)
So, to narrow it down one might add: 
[...] by violent means.  [as to exclude _purely_ psychological terror] (I personally see no reason to, but that i consider debateable)
[...] by non-governmental actors [as to exclude Soldiers and Intelligence Assets] (pure Whitewash Imho, and esp. given the secretive nature of the latter would render the definition useless again since no one can really know for example if the CIA and Bin Ladin have or havent severed their ties. That would make the same thing terrorism or not terrorism simply on the grounds of who's footing the bill - Its called a Double Standard. Additionally there you run into the complex issue of what is or isnt a *legitimate* government. e.g. are the chechens a legitimate government of the territory they control? how can legimacy be ascertained in the first place [de facto power? a democratic vote? by what percentage of the given territories population? ) 
[...] by criminal means. [same as above] (this is essentially the same as above as the distinction between legal and illegal is made by governments. furthermore, they seem to not be very coherent of what they regard as legal :) 
One should keep in mind that the UN's Human Rights explicitly declare Resistance to a 'foreign' Oppressor/invader as legitimate. AFAIR it makes no such claim with regard to domestic opressors. and, btw, domestic/foreign by what standards again? would Isreali soldier be foreign or domestic to the gaza strip? would the Wehrmacht have been domestic in those parts of poland that were integrated into the Reich? in those that were populated by German majorities? ... catch my drift? 
[...] to further POLITICAL goals [as to exclude the Use of Terror to achieve more mundane goals like making a fortune with airline stock put options] (again that might be good for Propaganda but makes classification difficult and blurry. Do we really know the motivation of the alleged terrorist? Would 9/11 not have been Terrorism if it was just for the money?[note that religous goals are a subgroup of political goals, as are military goals.)
To sum it all up: You can choose between defining it in a propagandistic, double-standards way and thereby violating the NPOV policy on the one hand and defining it as scare tactics (throu violent means) and would have to include not only the US, UK Isreal, Soviet, Chinese Governments; in fact *ALL* governments rely on the plausible threat of violence to coerce its people. Granted, to different extents. Western Democracies rely mainly on the power of propaganda and only secondly on the plausible threat tactics, exactly the opposite of, for example China.
however, especially said Western Democracies use violent means on foreign Territory to achieve their political Goals on a daily Basis, which evens out any advantage they might have had with regard to their internal power structure.
Of course, this is all being a total waste of my precious time, since nothing is going to change and Wikipedia will continue to reflect a pretty Biased POV on the world, like it does with a number of issues. (Anybody ready to define 'War Crime' for me?.
It cannot be helped as Wikipedia can always be only as neutral as the people that make it. And those are only human and therefore have a POV which is influenced by a lot of highly paid specialists.
The definition i like best btw is: 
Terrorism is the organised use of shocking people with acts of overwhelming violence, in order to influence their state of mind in a way that promotes a certain goal. 
The only thing thats wrong with my perfect little definition is that it suits Bin Laden as well as Bush or Blair.
------------ --Macho-a-Velli 11:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I understand your objection to the apparent definition of terrorism.  I think terrorism should be understood to mean acts by organizations that use illegal and violent tactics to induce fear in a civilian population other than legitimate use of accepted military tactics in time of war.  By accepted, I mean the Geneva conventions and other treaties of war that the warring nations have ratified. I think this also defines a war crime.  Now a crime against humanity is different.  This is a somewhat grey area that attempts to compare itself to natural law, but I think natural law is a much better forum for such crimes as natural law is somewhat more of a science of understanding the nature of human morality than is some corrupt UN bureaucrats idea of what should be a crime against humanity. I think generally speaking, international terrorist organizations are akin to international mafia organizations, and should be dealt with in a likewise manner if possible, if not possible, then the rules of war are applicable, if that is not possible, then any means of eradication of the organization is warranted, since the world cannot allow these organizations to grow to a size that would enable them to take the whole population of the globe hostage. Ultimately that is the goal of all mafia organizations, to control and enslave the populace using fear and death. --Britcom 12:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  /* Definition of Terrorism, or lack thereof. */  

message: Can we get semi-protection for this page to stop vandalism by anon editors? AndrewRT 22:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semiprotection 

message: I'll remove the sentences that appear to be weasal words tomorrow, unless anyone provides citations or appropriately rewords. Also, I'll remove the dubious statement that witch burning (that was certainly a crime against humanity) constituted terorism, unless someone provides a citation. Addhoc 18:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasal words