Talk:Terrorism/Archive 3

message: The list of "terrorist" organizations should be removed. Who belongs on that list is solely up to the reader. If one who would be defined as a terrorist by the list edited it, there would be massive changes resulting in potential revert wars. Wikipedia articles are supposed to list and explain facts. If there is a controversy, neither side is to be considered as a fact "right", "evil", "cruel," etc. 
A strict definition of "terrorist organization" that will be used objectively, such as "any group that intentionally kills, attempts to kill, or threatens to kill, non-military targets as a means of gaining political influence, or a group that funds such an organization" could be applied to the lists. Of course, there would be a debate over the facts involving the actions of proposed terrorists and definitions of phrases like "political influence." 
The lists in reality serve little to no purpose. Those who read about the actions of those organizations can make their own decision about which ones are terrorists and which are freedom fighters.
----
Before this gets into a case of reverts, can I endorse the version as it now stands that appends comments about minority views of who is a terrorist nation as prose after the list of widely accepted terrorist nations. If there is additional controversy, it would help to cite who widely considers (or once considered, as in the case of Libya) these nations to be terrorist. It is probabably more accurate to say "officially considered terrorist" in the context of identifying the office that made the declaration. SoCal 21:04, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

message: OK, so if we're including the terroristic intimidation of Greasy Food Franchises, there are other forms of terrorists we can't leave out:
*Vaporterrorism--Bean eaters on crowded subway cars stuck between stations
*Audioterrorism--Neighbors who leave their dogs out all night
*Boboterrorism--what evil clowns do to children in stories like Stephen King's It
*Canoterrorism--what Beagles do to rabbits
*Transitterrorism--bus drivers who throw you off in dangerous neighborhoods because you don't have exact change
*Marketterrorism--shoppers who bring 30 items onto a 10-or-less line, then pay with foreign currency travelers cheques with forged signatures
*Wikiterrorism--reverting three hours of carefully researched edits two minutes before the editor is to got to bed Cecropia 04:21, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: ROFL. I agree, when it comes to the trashing of my own articles. - Very terroristic. ;) If theres any point to be made, its how silly the term is, considering the way it has so many built-in stipulations.  I'm taking a crack at the opening now, adding some fat, hopefully it will be a little meatier, while still remaining within dietary norms. -SV(talk) 01:40, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Saw your rewrite of the intro. I like it. Orders and retains the key points without going off into babble that makes the phrase meaningless. Also think the (1) and (2) an excellent idea. Cecropia 03:17, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! But where are the new extra additions to your list? I was all geared up to get my chuckle on. :) -SV(talk) 03:27, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: More Terrorism That Must Be Included

message: Has some sort of balance developed so we can lift the protection? Are we ready? Kingturtle 18:04, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and no. See Pair of ducks. -SV(talk) 01:40, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  page protection 

message: Chomsky's views on terrorism are not unifaceted.  On page 76 of his book 9-11, Noam Chomsky defines terrorism:
Wanton killing of innocent civilians is terrorism, not a war against terrorism. 
Chomsky clearly distinguishes between the targeting of civilians and the targeting of military personnel or installations.  Thereby placing the definition of terrorism on an objective basis.  At other times, Chomsky defines terrorism as being relative: 
It is the weapon of those who are against 'us' whoever 'us' happens to be. And if you can find a historical exception to that, I'd be interested in seeing it.
 
In addition, Noam Chomsky identifies terrorism with  low intensity warfare.
The U.S. is officially committed to what is called “low–intensity warfare.” That’s the official doctrine. If you read the definition of low–intensity conflict in army manuals and compare it with official definitions of “terrorism” in army manuals, or the U.S. Code, you find they’re almost the same. Terrorism is the use of coercive means aimed at civilian populations in an effort to achieve political, religious, or other aims. That’s what the World Trade Center bombing was, a particularly horrifying terrorist crime.
- - - - - - - 
The problem is that the analysis being presented does not distinguish between what Chomsky thinks terrorism is and what he says other people mean by the word.  In the first quotation he is giving an opinion of his own (but it is not a definition since it doesn't say that nothing else could be terrorism also).  In the second quotation he is commenting on what he sees as the establishment usage of the word "terrorism".  He is not saying he agrees with it and in fact it is obvious that he does not.  In the third quotation he is again emphasising the commentary made in the second quotation, and again he does not at all say that he agrees with either of the two usages of the word "terrorism" that he describes.  In other words, there is nothing at all contradictory between these three quotations.  I find them entirely consistent and entirely Chomskyesque. --Zero 07:23, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Chomsky

message: I would like to declare my non-intention to get into an edit war with Loweeel on this page.  I did revert his edits just now, but I don't plan on doing so repeatedly, or at least not frequently.  I just don't see how the US State Department is an NPOV source in characterizing enemy guerilla movements. - Nat Krause 15:26, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Declamation of hostilities

message: The comment about terrorists being ineligible for protection under the laws of war is not merely an opinion of the Bush administration.  Any questions of morality, and whether international law will need updating (as I expect will probably happen in the next decade or two) are separate from questions of legality under current international law.  Legal combatants are defined in terms appropriate for the middle twentieth century when the conventions were made.  They and are intended for symmetric conflicts in which both sides respect the laws.  For example, here are the Third Geneva Convention criteria allowing someone to claim POW status, copied directly from  (bolding mine)
:Article 4 
:A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: 
# Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. 
#Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: 
#:(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; 
#:(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; 
#:(c) That of carrying arms openly;
#:(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. 
#Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. 
#Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model. 
#Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law. 
#Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
The laws were written to protect civilians by making it clear who is part of a conflict and who is not.  Terrorists generally violate this in two ways.  First, notice how many references there are to various forms of clear identification:  a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, ID cards for military support people, multiple references to carrying arms openly.  Terrorists endanger civilians by not distinguishing themselves from the rest of the civilian population, thus forcing their opponents to view all civilians as potential threats.  Second, they attack civilians who are not parties to the conflict, thus further forfeiting protection under the laws of war by not "resecting the laws and custums of war."  What laws should apply to terrorists is a matter for debate, but they are clearly not covered under the laws of warfare. Isomorphic 18:58, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Your analysis is generally correct, Isomorphic, but I disagree with your referencing the conditions of the mid-20th century. First, the convention on defining privileged combatants was the beginning of the 20th century, and the principles is way older. And I removed the qualification in your paragraph: ", which were written in the early and middle twentieth century, and are generally intended for symmetric conflicts in which both sides respect the relevant conventions." This is just not correct. The laws of warfare were made for the purpose of forcing people to become regular combatants if they wanted privileged status (which includes more than POW rules) in the interest of minimizing the horrors of warfare for civilian and belligerent alike. Your implication suggests that, if the laws of war were written now, terrorists might be protected. -- Cecropia | Talk 23:08, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah.  Agreed.  I was trying to clarify that when the laws were written, terrorism wasn't the primary issue.  As I understand it the chief concern in peoples' minds was reducing the horrors of conflicts like World War I and similar European conflicts.  But you are correct that the end result was misleading. Isomorphic 16:30, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal status

message: Why do we have definitions from Walter Laqueur and James M. Poland? If they aren't known enough to have wikipedia articles, what credentials do they have to be quoted here? Kingturtle 08:29, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  definitions.... 

message: "The subjective nature of interpretation can be seen if such terminology had been used by Britain in the late 1700s. People that used violence in pursuit of the political goal of independence for the American colonies would have been defined as terrorists."
Is this sentence vague for a reason? What specific actions are being referred to when "People that used violence" are mentioned? Please elaborate here. Kingturtle 19:39, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think (judging by how the Chomsky point in Definition of terrorism was "rewritten") that the tendency of people to rewrite valid points into jibberish is 1.a deliberate act to obfuscate and destroy a valuable point, in the hope that people might think there was nothing there to begin with, or 2.reflective of the incapacity of certain individuals to understand points that they dont agree with, despite the validity or logic or sense imbued in the point - the change reflects an attempt to understand by alteration to the familiar befuddledness of their adhered views. -Stevertigo 22:23, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  dubious sentence...i removed it. lets discuss it 

message: This article was getting much too big. I revamped the Template box and moved much of the content into other articles. It should be easier for the reader to navigate and to find the content they want. Maybe someone can make the Template box prettier. Maybe the Template box needs more organization. I am fully open to changes. Cheers, Kingturtle 23:23, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it can't stay the way it is now.  KT moved a lot of the material into sub-articles, and you've just removed the links to those articles.  Now all that content is just gone as far as anyone looking at this article is concerned.   I suggest you work on it sooner rather than later, because otherwise I'm going to solve the problem by putting back the terrorism box.  Isomorphic 12:20, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No links are missing. They have simply been moved to the terrorism-box on the side. Kingturtle 19:32, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: They aren't missing anymore.  Stevertigo had replaced the 'terrorism' box with the 'violence' box.  At that point, there were no links to the sub-articles, and that's what I was complaining about. But someone else re-added the terrorism box, so it's ok now. Isomorphic 00:21, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  breaking up the content of this article 

message: I have removed the added term "Patolinism" from the article.  I can not find this term in searches on dictionary.com or google.  Is it a real term or just vandalism? - Tεxτurε 16:31, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard of it.  I'd guess it's either silly vandalism or a neologism that no one uses. Isomorphic 01:10, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patolinism 

message: Sorry if my add at end was NPOV; we're new Wiki users and were writing a research paper on terrorism, and thus trying to find original first usage of the word, etymology, and other related matters.
Perhaps someone more well versed in Wiki can suggest how best to include origins.  Actually I guess we should have stayed within the main body of the text rather than added a new section, as Sloat has mentioned in the above with regards to his idea of including the material in the body of the text at an appropriate place.
I wonder if any of the links that we found could still be retained in the Wiki, since they serve as factual evidence of the first use of the word "terrorism", i.e. I wonder if the links could stay, even if what we wrote about needs to go for NPOV (or because it's said already previously in the article).
Actually we tried to paraphrase the links material rather than include directly because that might otherwise be copyright violation, but maybe someone can suggest for us a way of properly icluding some of this material without being too NPOV.
Also, we'd welcome thoughts on if etymology of terrorism deserves its own section or heading, because it would be nice for others to expand on this from a research point of view, so we could also use it in our research papers, as we continue to study origins of terrorism, and how usage and the terminology has evolved as a function of time.
Also, how much of the etymonline entry could we legally quote without copyright violation, i.e. it's kind of long to slog through all the "t" words  they have lumped together...
Also, there's part of the etymology that we left out because we'd thought it might have been inflammatory (we didn't want to mention modern tensions like Jewish and Palestine because they seem to get kind of heated); would welcome comments from more experienced Wiki users if this would be the case, and if so, how it could be done tactfully... (and if this long a quote could be allowed by copyright) or if it's of any value to include the origins of the modern usage of the word: "Terrorist in the modern sense dates to 1947, especially in reference to Jewish tactics against the British in Palestine -- earlier it was used of extremist revolutionaries in Russia (1866); and Jacobins during the French Revolution (1795) -- from Fr. terroriste." (Online Etymology Dictionary)
:If I understand you right, I don't think there's any copyright problem with use of a quote like that as long as it is properly attributed.  I don't see any reason it would be different than quoting in any other article or encyclopedia entry.  Hell, if you can quote it here on the talk page there is no reason you couldn't quote it in the article.  On your other questions, I never had any NPOV problem with the Jacobin stuff as you originally entered it, and I wasn't the one who removed it -- I just re-entered the stuff about the origin of the term you had in there because I thought it was important.  Whoever deleted the stuff originally (or anyone else who agrees) might better explain why they thought it wasn't npov....  Anyway, I encourage you to post whatever you think is relevant here; if anybody does have npov problems with it they will let you know or delete it themselves anyways :)  The whole point is collective accumulation of knowledge so you should feel free to add material you have expertise in. --csloat 02:05, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology of terrorism 

message: The sentence "The Old Testament contains many references to behavior that can be described as terrorism" under the history section should not be in the article.
Although wars are described in the Old Testament, saying that it contains many references to acts of terrorism is irresponsible if at least one example isn't provided.
The example of jewish zealots from the 1st century is not in the Old Testament.
:(response) - I think it would be easy to find examples, depending on what is considered "terrorism"; have you actually read Deuteronomy?  When God ordered the Israelites to fight their enemies He ordered, "thou shalt smite them; then thou shalt utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them."   There is no talk of sparing civilians here; "the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take for a prey unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee." There's plenty of other stuff like this throughout the old testament. --csloat 19:36, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That isn't terrorism though.  It's just really, really brutal warfare. See total war. Isomorphic 18:34, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples of terrorism from the old testament