Talk:Terrorism/Archive 11

message: While I can't say for sure that the US has never had links to terror groups--depends on your definition of terror groups, the timeframe, and certain legal requirements which are meticulously followed--it is unfair to cite only the US.  
1. Citation: To add insult to injury, the author only cites the genious linguist and psychologist, yet crazy and utopian anarchist/socialist political theorist Noam Chomsky.  If we are going to have a serious encyclopedia, we need to cite soures that are respected in their fields, not those that have huge followings among anarchist/socialist/communist college clubs yet recieve ridicule or indifference in the foreign policy field.  
2. Context:  While the US MAY have links, according the author and his less-than-reliable and known-to-exagerate-when-condemning-America source, few deny Iran's links to Lebanese Hizballah, Palestinian HAMAS, PLFP, PLFP-GC, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.  Some may dispute their status as terrorist groups, however, despite the fact that they strap bombs on their children and send them onto buses full of civilians.  Or Syria, which uses groups in Lebanon as a proxy force.  We can also cite Cuba, which media report has links to the Basque ETA, Peruvian Shining Path, Colombian FARC, and others.  
Therefore, in order to keep everyone happy, I think we should remove the reference to the US links. Otherwise, we (probably me) will need to list every country linked to terrorism, which will only make the article longer and more controversial.  Would love to hear discussion...
Ok, Hold on! Here is a partial list of people the USG supported Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega, Diem of Vietnam, the Shah of Iran, Marcos (Philippines), Batista (Cuba), Mobutu (Congo). ALSO!! It is very important to differentiate between the US and the USG. The US indicates the continuum that is the United States of America, and refers to citizens who may not approve of the actions of the USG, the United States Government. Johnzw 21:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually if america is as claimed a democracy then the USG follows the views of the US people. Thus the US people are responcible for the actions of thier government that they failed to exercise proper control over (at the time) or brought to justice (later) for crimes like "Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega, Diem of Vietnam, the Shah of Iran, Marcos (Philippines), Batista (Cuba), Mobutu (Congo)" not to mention the pride of the CIA's coldwar ops against the Soviet Union, Osama Bin Ladin, surely you have heard of him?Hypnosadist 01:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I refuse to get into a long-term quarrel about the iniquities, real and imagianed of the USA/USG. However in short response to your argument 1) There are serious serious serious flaws in american "democracy". B) The USG systematically lies C) where there is corruption it is usually hidden, and the people are misled. D) Perhaps you should vist the USA and see how bitterly partisan and divided, not to mention delusional we are. This is all I will say. I will not permit this thread to devolve into an episode of Mclaughlin GroupJohnzw 18:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links with terror groups 

message: I don't think the phrase "the main difference being that under the Laws of Armed Conflict, a formal declaration of war had been made for each of the WWII incidents" belongs where it is, that is, following examples of state terrorism. If somebody conceives that a state can be a terrorist, a formal declaration of war makes no difference. What does matter is the killing of civilians, or innocents, as stated in the text. The "state terrorism" article is pretty clear: "Generally, the definition of terrorism does not extend to states in direct and open military conflict, if the actions of their armed forces are within the laws of war." Killing civilians isn't within the laws of war, therefore, for those who conceive that states can be terrorists, those acts are examples of incidents.--Ezadarque 20:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't.  I'm also not entirely sure that every nation involved formally declared war before attacking, so the statement may not be accurate either. --Mr. Billion 14:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The main difference

message: I got a bit of a weird error, and wanted to state it here in case anybody else got it: The page only showed some notices (such as long page), and only showed the other information, when I pressed "edit this page", and then preview (and than save changes, which of course didn't change anything, but the page now showed correctly. If nobody else has this problem, no worries :) . Otherwise: better tell someone. Regards Sean Heron 14:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page did not show up 

message: Why is the first paragraph of "Examples of major incidents" restricted by the US state department list? It looks like it is simply a list of places and dates crammed into paragraph format. Does anyone object to altering the state department list, turning the section into more paragraphs with the significance of specific incidents etc?
For instance: The 1995 Tokyo Subway attack killed 12 people and was one of the first examples of the use of chemical weapons for domestic terrorism...
or something like:
[From Munich massacre]
Simon Reeve writes that the attack was one of the most significant terrorist incidents of recent times, one that “thrust the Palestinian crimes into the world spotlight, set the tone for decades of conflict in the Middle East, and launched a new era of international terrorism”
raptor 10:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the 1995 Tokyo Subway attack is definately a major attack due to the use of chemical weapons.Hypnosadist 18:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples of major incidents 

message: This article is already controversial. I think that qualifying the whole operations of the United States in Iraq, Korea and Vietnam as terrorism would seriously hurt NPOV. Furthermore, the article personalizes the Iraq War, attributing it solely to Bush. In my opinion, these last sentences of the paragraph should be removed: "George W. Bush invaded the nation of Iraq in 2003, killing thousands of American soldiers and Iraqi civillians. This is also viewed as one of the worst acts of American state terrorism, along with the Vietnam and Korean war[citation needed]"
: I agree. It should be removed. DavidMarciano 14:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the personalisation of the iraq war should be removed, but the war itself has to be mentioned that many people (not me!) see it as an act of state terrorism and so sholud be mentioned. Vietnam is a different matter altogether, this war (oh sorry police action) has resulted in war crimes charges being made (in belgium) for the use of Napahm and Agent Orange so is much more relivent to this article. Finally Korea WTF! i mean the only thing i can think of is the last use of flamethrowers.Hypnosadist 14:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But state terrorism is not the same as war crimes. Furthermore, a war may involve acts of state terrorism (the world war II being an example), but I don't think a war can be described as a terrorist act (that is, World War II is not a terrorist act because of the bombings mentioned in this article). If we start listing any war that presented war crimes as terrorist acts, we would probably have to include every war ever fought.Ezadarque 17:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples of major incidents - 2

message: Terrorism#Methods_of_attack
"Often damage is done with an improvised explosive device, sometimes by chemical or biological weapons."
As far as I am aware chemical weapons have only been used once in a terrorist attack (Tokyo Subway bombing). I've never heard of biological ones being used. The next section strikes me as being superfuous and unnecessary: "A source of concern is also a possible use of a nuclear weapon. In the September 11, 2001 attacks, planes were used as guided incendiary devices." Thoughts?GiollaUidir 14:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Biological?

message: After all the discussion on the issue, the different perspectives it can take, the use of the terms for propaganda, the POV it carries, etc is it NPOV helping to add the twin towers picture? Does the picture add anything to the understanding of the phenomenon? Is there really the need to repeat twice again the words terrorist/terrorism in a highly visible place? Is there anything such as “modern” terrorism? Again, in my opinion one of two things is ruling here: either people have been subject to a so effective propaganda campaign that they reproduce it unconsciously or they are contributing to the propaganda campaign consciously. But, as much as my understanding can get, Wikipedia was not meant for propaganda purposes. Well, I might be wrong, I can accept that. DavidMarciano 15:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what you are saying is, for the most part, true. I didn't add the picture, however I suspect whoever did thought that an article like this needed a picture or whatever. I would personally support removing the pic as a)It doesn't fit into the layout of the page very well and b)How could we choose one that is acceptable to the wikipedia community. (For many of the reasons given above).GiollaUidir 15:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm removing it. DavidMarciano 15:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to revert but this is NPOV gone mad, does anyone say 9/11 is not terrorism?Hypnosadist 17:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually after thinking about it nothing shows terrorism as clearly as 9/11 and the picture of it is not POV so i'm going to put it back in.Hypnosadist 20:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  'this is NPOV gone mad'
hmm, i suggest that 9/11 was mass-murder & criminal damage (or possibly warfare), dubbed terrorism by a dubiously-democratic executive & hysterical population of a country that then urged the world to subject the nation it felt harboured the responsible parties to being 'bombed back to the stoneage'... until a satisfactory manner of discrimination between warfare & terrorism is identified i suggest they are listed as different facets of the same whole - abominable acts or impersonal-mass-murder.
The above view hardly rates a responce, pathetic!Hypnosadist 17:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: The beginning says:
Few words are as politically or emotionally charged as terrorism.Hoffman, Bruce "Inside Terrorism" Columbia University Press 1998 . Page 32. See review in The New York TimesInside Terrorism Google cached copy One 1988 study by the US Army found that over 100 definitions of the word "terrorism" have been used.Dr. Jeffrey Record, Bounding the Global War on Terrorism(PDF)
Yet, under the section "definition", we find the exact same thing:
Few words are as politically or emotionally charged as "terrorism". One 1988 study by the US Army Dr. Jeffrey Record, Bounding the Global War on Terrorism(PDF) found that over 100 definitions of the word "terrorism" have been used. For this reason, many news sources avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers", "militants" and so on.    
I have decided to remove the first duplicate, and I'll be rewriting the beginning. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 22:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: see the above sections #The first sentence and #First paragraph --Philip Baird Shearer 22:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did, and I found them unsuitable, which is why I created a new section. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 23:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: What is there now is even worse than the definition (see above #The first sentence)  that Jayjg supported in #First paragraph. At least the version that Jayjg was in favour of had two citations, the current version is a role you own with no citations. So it has to go. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reguarding the introduction 

message: Paragraph 1. under the Democracy chapter; Research shows that terrorism is most common in nations with intermediate political freedom and that the nations with the least terrorism are the most democratic nations.  The sentence seem to imply that research shows that the connection between an increased frequency in terrorism and lack of political freedom is an unquestionable fact, but the “Baader-Meinhof” group, and later “Rote Armee Fraction”, in Germany, the “Weatherman's” in the US and the “Red Brigades” in Italy all operated within societies that would be deemed some of the most politically free societies in the world.  Most of the members of these groups belonged to the privileged middle-class in each respective country and thus had few, if any, unjust restrictions on exercising their political rights.  The obvious common denominator within all of these groups is solidarity. In addition Germany had to deal with an external factor called the Democratic Republic of Germany.  
The keyword is perception, how the terrorists perceived the development of political freedoms in society and the international community and how the non-terrorist-rest of society perceived the development of their political freedoms in society.
Paragraph 2.; Some examples of "terrorism" in nondemocracies to include ETA under Francisco Franco, the Shining Path under Alberto Fujimori, and the Kurdistan Workers Party when Turkey was ruled by military leaders, has one word that I find questionable and that is the definition of Peru under Alberto Fujimori as a non-democracy.  
Alberto Fujimori was elected as President of Peru two times and his "so-called" constitutional reforms were approved in a referendum.  Still, I do agree that there are actions during his tenure that can be deemed undemocratic but those actions are not enough to label Peru as a non-democracy during all of his tenure as President, in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.227.206 (talk • contribs) 
Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 23:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democracy vs non-Democracy. 

message: *This is a query to all users -->
*I'm trying to improve the article on Terrorism in Kazakhstan, but I'm unfamiliar with several groups that are banned by the government. Is anyone familiar with Jamaat of Central Asian Mujahedins, the Islamic Party of Eastern Turkestan, the Social Reforms Society (in Kuwait), or Asbat an-Ansar (in Israel)? KazakhPol 18:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Have you heard of these groups?

message: Cyber-terrorism is not violent. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 10:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on your definition of violence, doesn't it? In any event, "certain acts" doesn't means nothing. Are you referring to pie-baking? Nose-picking? Hair-brushing? Intros need to mean something. I've added the phrase "or harm" to cover your objection. Jayjg (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes it redundant; violence is harmful. We may as well just say "harmful acts". Richard Thomas 15:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: But it's most commonly violence. I'll changed the introduction to accommodate your point. Jayjg (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "certain acts" are described in the article! This is not Wiktionary, we don't need to find a one sentence definition of the word. Let the reader of the article decide which acts are terrorism and which aren't. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 01:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saying that all terrorism is violent makes the article contradict itself 

message: I semi-protected this article unilaterally; too many anon vandals were around. I'll lift it after a week or so; if I forget, please ping me or put a request on WP:RFPP. Duja► 14:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Semi-protection lifted... for now. Duja► 12:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and returned back. Duja► 16:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected 

message: I have removed this paragraph from the article as it seems to have been copied from a dictionary or something and there already was a definition.--Rudjek 19:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two definitions 

message: Removed the below;
Some news sources refuse to use the term "terrorism"; others use the term in context. For example, the BBC and CNN has described the Northern Irish IRA as "terrorists" -ref-The IRA campaigns in England BBC 4 March, 2001. "neighbours of bombers brought to trial told how they had simply no suspicions of terrorist activity"-ref-, but describes Palestinian armed groups who employ the same methods against Israeli citizens as "militants". 
This is a misleading use of the source. The BBC describes them as bombers. Discussing "terrorist activity" is different. Also, the second line is unsourced--Zleitzen 20:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: BBC