Talk:Definition of terrorism/Archive 2

message: this comes from the doublespeak page, where User:Uriyan had added it at one time:
:Note however, that in scholarly contexts, "terrorist" is usually defined in a way consistent with the biases of the politics of
the region where the scholastic institution is located.
I'm not sure if it can be considered useful inspiration??  Mozzerati 21:26, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
I changed the section on the EU definition to update it. It referred to the source and substance of the proposed definition, rather than the source and substance of the definition actually used. Further, I removed the section delaing with the Euro-med summit 2005 which was not relevant to the European Union definition of terrorism, and was principally concerned with showing that a definition had not been agreed within the context of that summit.There are many international meetings where the groups have failed to agree on a definition of "terrorism." I do not see how the fact that a meeting between the EU, and certain North African countries failed to agree a definition of terrorism is relevant to a section on the EU definition of terrorism. Diranh
The article says:
: For this reason, many news sources avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers", "militants", etc.
There should be some discussion here about the fact that this is a new development.  News services stopped using "terrorist" and "terrorism" only in the last few years.  And some people believe that this is evidence of their taking a stand on a controversial issue. --71.146.181.227 19:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2004

message: Wikipedia should be internally consistent with itself, so shouldn't the content of this article determine if we use the word 'terrorist' at all? As far as I am concerned, and how I read the article, the term expresses a POV and so has no place in wikipedia articles except when attributed to a source. Damburger 09:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wider implications of this article 

message: Although the definition of terrorist conduct is controversial, many organisations have been designated as terrorists, which has a very real and specific legal consequence. Shouldn't this be mentioned in this article?--AndrewRT 19:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Designations 

message: There is currently a discussion in Talk:Boston Tea Party, as to whether the BTP meets the definition of an act of terrorism. Could interested parties peek in? For the sake of a more pluralistic viewpoint, it would be nice if people not from the US also got involved in the discussion. Thanks, samwaltz 14:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Boston Tea Party

message: I propose that the Edward Peck quote be either eliminated or reduced to:
Some United States government groups have had trouble creating a definition for terrorism that was accurate while keeping the definition from encompassing acts by the United States and Israel.[]
Reason: the quote does not hold the weight of federal law, a UN resolution, or even an academic definition.--Mich112358 20:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edward Peck quote

message: The citation is weak. It cites a study  (Jeffrey Record, "Bounding the Global War on Terrorism") that cites a book (Bruce Hoffman “Defining Terrorism,” ) that cites a book (Alex Schmid, et al. "Political Terrorism: A New Guide to Actors, Authors, Concepts, Data Bases, Theories, and Literature") that cites either the study or a book that cites the study (it is unclear at the moment). I left off with the [schmidt] citation if someone can track from there. I suspect its a political statement that biases original information. What is apparent from the secondary or tertiary source I tracked down is that it was survey work among experts and that the author was able to construct a defiintion that "81% of [expert] respondents found fully or partially acceptable". Mrdthree 18:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree. Do we really need to quote Jeffrey Record quoting other people? Wouldn't it be better to quote directly the original source of the information? -- Bonifacius 08:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 109 definitions

message: I am bothered by this quote "Generally speaking, only a small group of radical interest groups define the War on Terror as "atrocities" or compare it with acts of terrorism."
I believe that a lot of people consider the 'war' on terror to be comparable with acts of terrorism.  So saying that only a small 'radical' group believes that violates NPOV.
I know I am biased, but I believe that saying the WOT is comparable with acts of terrorism is a fairly common non-fringe belief.  
Going much further, I also believe that the doctrines of 'Shock and Awe' and 'preemptive war' are fairly commonly held to be comparable with, if not actually completely, terrorism
:Shock and Awe was meant to terrify, but it targeted potential combatants, particularly the Iraqi army and government, instead of civilians. therefore it wasn't terrorism. Preemptive war isn't any different than regular war as far as similarities with terrorism. If preemptive war is terrorism then all war is terrorism. It's perfectly possible to conduct preemptive war while minimizing civilian casualties as much as is reasonably possible. Mindbuilder (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 'War' on Terror

message: This section is badly out of shape with regards NPOV guidelines. "However it needs to be stated", "The legitimate governments of nations, and their police and military forces, need to"  and "This is true " have no place in any Wiki article. The third paragraphs suggestion that the world is beginning to regard terrorism as a purely Muslim activity is, as well as being un-cited is rather shrill.
Unless soemone wants to do a fairly extensive re-write on paragraphs 3-5 of this section, they should be deleted altogether. Epeeist smudge 16:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for controversy 

message: (a) the action falls within subsection (2),
    (2) Action fall s within this subsection if it
    (a) involves serious violence agai nst a person,
    (b) involves serious damage to property,
    (c) endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
    (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or
    (e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
does this mean that it is only terrorism if it covers part 2a AND 2b AND 2c AND 2d OR solely 2e? OliverR 02:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Definition 

message: It has also been argued by who that the political use of violent force and weapons that deliberately target or involve civilians, and do not focus mainly on military or government targets, is a common militant, terrorist, or guerrilla tactic, and a main defining feature of these kinds of people[citation needed] these kind of people? terrorism is behavior not identity. The criminal act is clear when babies, children, mothers, and the elderly are put in harms way mothers serve as members of the US military and are "put in harms way". All nations have distinct criminal laws that prohibit the predictable murder or severe injury of civilians not true. Even in times of war, there is an effort to avoid civilian casualties, unlike the intended use of civilian targets by terrorists.[who?] says who, what's the source?, in total war there are no functioning civilians who are uninvolved in supporting the war effort. children act as messangers. old ladies sew uniforms... 
As terrorism ultimately involves the use or threat of violence with the aim of creating fear not only to the victims but among a wide audience, it is fear which distinguishes terrorism from both conventional and guerrilla warfare baloney. there is plenty of fear in all forms of war. While both conventional military forces may engage in psychological warfare and guerrilla forces may engage in acts of terror and other forms of propaganda, they both aim at military victory utter nonsense. war “is merely the continuation of policy by other means,”(Karl von Clausewitz) many policy objectives are other than military victory. Terrorism on the other hand aims to achieve political or other goals, when direct military victory is not possible.more nonsense. terrorism has also been used in cases where military victory was achieved This has resulted in some social scientists referring to guerrilla warfare as the "weapon of the weak" and terrorism as the "weapon of the weakest."[3] only using terror is a symptom of weakness, but that does not prevent the strong also using terror as a weapon 
WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The intro is crap 

message: What are the reasons for the banner "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page."? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Worldwide view

message: What are the peacock terms referred to in the banner "The quality of this article or section may be compromised by peacock terms: wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information.You can help Wikipedia by removing peacock terms or finding content which backs the claims."? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Peacock terms

message: What are the reasons for the banner "The tone or style of this article or section may not be appropriate for Wikipedia."? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone

message: The best definition I have heard is this: "subversive, orchestrated acts of violence". 
It is the only thing that works, in my opinion. You have to define violence, orchestrated, and subversive, of course, but once you've done that it holds up. It is not always done defensively, or offensively, but it is always done subversively, and in an orchestrated way. All these mentions of "intent to influence public opinion" are bullshit, and should not be included in the definition. Terrorism is not always done in the attempt to influence public opinion or even to influence terror. It is done for a whole plethora of reasons. It seems like it is done to influence public opinion because we intrinsically empathize (not sympathize) with the underdog, and subverts are always the underdog.
This is, in my opinion, the only adequate definition I have ever heard: "subversive, orchestrated acts of violence". 66.69.194.16 (talk) 03:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The French resistance during WWII engaged in "subversive, orchestrated acts of violence" against Nazi military targets. But that was not terrorism when the targets were military. Mindbuilder (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The best definition

message: Orchistrated implies more than one act, or else more than one person.  No one act by a single person could then be an act of terrorism.
Subversive is a matter of opinion. Mass media brings me orchestrated acts of violence and I think it's subversive. Is this terrorism?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Possible new definitions of terrorism:
A threat or act to kill people which is designed to cause fear in the general public
Any violence which has creating public fear as one of it's purposes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Kill/violence": this excludes acts of property damage unless it will cause fear.  An explosion away from the public is not a terrorist
act, or else no one could use explosives for mining or construction. If an explosion weakens a dam it would be terrorist if the dam
breaking threatens the public.
Excludes military targets. Attacking military bases or personnel is not terrorism unless wars are terrorism.
"Causing fear" is important because some acts are justifiable that cause fear.  For example a nation seals off one of it's own towns that
has been exposed to some disease or chemical exposure to keep it from spreading.  The town citizens will probably be fearful, but this
isn't a terrorist act. The release of the disease or chemical would be terrorism however if intentional.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Border cases/problem with the definition:
  Many criminal acts are terrorism if applied to many victims at once:
    Kidnapping, Murder, and Assault all may become terrorism when applied to large numbers of people.
    maybe the dividing line is "causing fear in the general public"; single murders happen; mass murders cause fear.
  If someone kills many people through negligence, can he be a terrorist?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::I will concede your point regarding orchestration. What I really meant is 'premeditated'. I have thought a lot about this definition, and the word "subversive" is probably the most important. It is what allows us to decipher between military ("overt") acts of violence and para-military ("subversive") acts of violence. It's not perfect, but I think it's the best we're gonna do. It separates violence into 2 categories, and violence has to be strictly defined, too. Nothing anybody does on the news is directly violent. It's something else. There's another word for that. Violence is not it. Regarding fear, I don't think causing fear has anything to do with terrorism. The fact that premeditated subversive acts of violence inspire fear doesn't mean that's one of the terrorist's intentions. Many times the terrorist's only intention is to take hostages or hijack planes so that they may have a list of demands met. They're not necessarily always trying to make the world afraid of them, nor is it always (or even often) political. We can't go into the reasoning, is my point. We just have to specify what kind of act of violence it is. 66.69.194.16 (talk) 04:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition of terrorism has to include causing fear because the very word "terrorism" is derived from the word "terror" which is synonymous with fear. Are you trying to say that though terrorism causes fear, it is not necessarily meant to cause fear? Hijackings are carried out for various reasons. Some are done for money. Others are done to obtain transport that is otherwise unavailable to the hijacker. And some are done in hopes of making a prisoner swap. But hijackings done for those purposes alone are not terrorism. They're just criminal kidnapping and extortion, or the non-terrorist war crime of using civilians for hostages. Mindbuilder (talk) 01:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rebuttle to "best definition" (subversive, orchestrated acts of violence)

message: It would be great if someone could spell out explicitly if "activities that involve violent ... acts" includes violence against things as opposed to human beings.  In other words, for an act to qualify as terrorism (according to the USA defn) do people have to murdered (attempted to be murdered, threatened to be murdered)? 
--24.85.68.231 (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  defn of terrorism in the USA 

message: I have put the Global tag on this article, as it seems to represent the views of a tiny majority of the world - Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, Turkey, Syria and many other countries views need to be incorporated fully before this tag can be removed.93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am removing it. The views are global as the United Nations is discussed. You have had a month to add some new views but have not done so. You are free to add other countries views if you think that they will add new perspectives on the issue. --PBS (talk) 11:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global - Why are the views of so few countries represented?

message: OK, so I propose we have a new definition of terrorism, one that focuses on the violent action, its executor, its target, and its intended effect. I think its a logical application of the vocabulary developed in the game theory analysis of nuclear war scenarios. It is basically the classification of an violent (i.e. essentially military) action as being counterforce or countervalue.
In this generalized definition, we will focus on the main complaints against terrorists. They usually target non-combatants, and they attack without warning, without declaring the state of war, and without putting any physical or geographic limits to the military action.
Terrorist organizations that strike against non-combatants are essentially exhibiting countervalue targeting behavior. Precisely because most terrorist organizations are small and stateless, they cannot engage their enemies (in the contemporary global context, this is often an industrialized and developed country) in a symmetrical "conventional" counterforce military operation and expect to win. Therefore, attempts to change behaviors or policies in the richer country through symmetrical military action (that is to say violent) action will not work. 
This is why these organizations logically pursue asymmetrical conflict models, and strike at countervalue targets instead of counterforce targets. 
Therefore the main criteria for terrorism becomes whether the target selected is countervalue, and whether the organization in question clearly declares the geographical and otherwise physical extent of its military operations. This is related to the countervalue vs. counterforce targeting issue, as pre-defining the theatre of war physically allows non-combatants a chance to escape the area before fighting begins. In countervalue targeting, you don't do this precisely because the non-combatants are the target.
The final aspect of terrorism, which is the sensation of "terror" it is designed to induce, is also a logical consequence of the method. Because the terrorist organization has less developed resources than the group it is fighting, it is in its interest to maximize the psychological (and therefore political and generally mental) value of what is usually a relatively small actual attack. The structure of modern media often facilitates this. 
Argantael (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countervalue definition of terrorism 

message: The reasons for the controversy includes the sentence "Some such definitions are so broad, like the Terrorism Act 2000, as to include the disruption of a computer system wherein no violence is intended or results." The provision in the act is not as strange as it seems because at that time the British Government was worried about electromagnetic pulse weapons being used by the IRA. (This source is not reliable but it cites a reliable source) --PBS (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This section has to be redrafted.  It has POV problems and lacks good citations.-- Bonifacius 21:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for controversy 

message: The first chapter "what is terrorism" of richard english's new book "Terrorism how to respond", as it deals at length and in great detail with the topic and would greatly enhance this article. Sherzo (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful source 

message: Who is SAJID DAWAR and why should he be quoted in the UN section?  -- Bonifacius 21:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: United Nations

message: I have moved the Further reading section to here:
* Cyrille Begorre-Bret, Terrorism, Globalization and the Rule of Law: The definition of terrorism and the challenge of relativism, 27 Cardozo Law Review (2006) pp. 1987-2004.
* Bruce Broomhall, "Terrorism on Trial: state actors in an international definition of terrorism from a human rights perspective", 37 Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, p. 421 (2005)
*C.F. Diaz-Paniagua, Negotiating terrorism: The negotiation dynamics of four UN counter-terrorism treaties, 1997-2005, City University of New York (2008)
* Ben Golder and George Williams, "What is 'Terrorism'? Problems of Legal Definition" (2004) 27 University of New South Wales Law Journal 270.
* Malvina Halberstam, “The Evolution of the United Nations Position on Terrorism: From Exempting National Liberation Movements to Criminalizing Terrorism Wherever and by Whomever Committed “ 41 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 573 (2003)
* Roberto Lavalle, "A Politicized and Poorly Conceived Notion Crying Out for Clarification: The Alleged Need for a Universally Agreed Definition of Terrorism," 67 ZaöRV (2007), 89-117
*Daniel D. Novotny, What is Terrorism? in Edward V. Linden, ed., Focus on Terrorism, v. 8, (2006)
*'Review of definition of “Terrorism” in British Law published'
*What is Terrorism - Collated & Sequenced by Nadesan Satyendra
*Terrorism (Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
* Ben Saul, Defining Terrorism in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 3.
* Ben Saul, “Defining ‘Terrorism’ to Protect Human Rights” in Sydney Law School Legal Studies Research Paper ,No. 08-125 (2008)
* Ben Saul, Attempts to Define ‘Terrorism’ in International Law, Sydney Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-115, (2008)
*Gerhard Hafner, “The definition of the crime of terrorism,” in: Guiseppe Nesi, ed., [International Cooperation in Counter-terrorism: the United Nations and regional organizations in the fight against terrorism] (Aldershort, UK, and Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Co., 2005)
*Susan Tiefenbrun, "A Semiotic Approach to a legal definition of terrorism", 9 ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law (2003) p. 357.
* Reuven Young, “Defining Terrorism: The Evolution of Terrorism as a Legal Concept in International Law and its influence on definitions in domestic legislations” 29 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 23 (2006)
*Sami Zeidan, Agreeing to Disagree: Cultural Relativism and the Difficulty of Defining Terrorism in a Post-9/11 World, 29 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. (2006) p. 215 
*Sami Zeidan, "Desperately Seeking Definition: The International Community's Quest for Identifying the Specter of Terrorism", 36 Cornell International  Law Journal 491 (2006).
The may be useful for further article development, but as for the list in the articles it is large "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files" (WP:NOT) --PBS (talk) 11:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading 

message: Find it here: . I think it's more useful, in its very brief way, than the vast number of words thrown at this impossible topic here. In any case, what do people here think of the definition section in 'History of Terrorism' (yes, the rest of the article is quite a mess!), understanding that that section needs to be very brief but not inaccurate or misleading.Haberstr (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Definition' in [[History of Terrorism]]'