Talk:Religious terrorism

message: Why under the Jewish section does it say "see also Zionist political violence", and under Islam it says "Main article: Islamic extremist terrorism"? Are we not calling a spade a spade?
I find this recently added statement to the Jewish section to contain POV: "Most, if not all, however, support the transfer of Palestinians to other regions within the Middle East, rather than their murder (as opposed to groups like Hamas which want to kill Jews wherever they are found)". Especially the end of it referring to Hamas. It seems to me the statement isn't a fact but an opinion, or at least a generalisation.
I've been lurking on Wikipedia for a while but I'm relatively new to editing articles. If I've misunderstood the concept of NPOV please correct me. Otherwise, I'd like to know what other's opinions are on the quote.--Tye 05:38, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)
:It's a fair point. (FWIW, I added that sentence). My goal was to contrast the anti-Democratic "terrorism" of those who advocate what's euphamistically called transfer (aka: kick out the Arabs) to the violent "terrorism" of those advocate pushing the Jews into the sea (aka: murder). Without digressing into another "is it terrorism" debate, I think we can all agree on two things: Transfer is an attack on an individuals civil rights as understood in most of the western world, but it's not the same as murder. An analogy to White Supremecists (sp?) groups suggests itself, although most of the listed Jewish groups are mostly bark and not bite. PS - welcome to Wikipedia, Tye! --Mikeage 09:16, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues

message: This has made my jaw drop. Shiv Sena is a political party in Maharashtra. One of their members incited a riot in response to killing of Hindus by Muslims on account of Babri masjid demolitions but c'mon by that description Congress (India's ruiling party) is also guilty of inciting anti Sikh riots, they dont fall into definition of terrorists do they? Shiv Sena & VHP can be called vandals at the most. Let us see
Do their members blow themselves up in public? \
NO
Do they intend to challenge Indian Union?
NO
Have they ever carried out attacks in Pakistan?
NO
Do they fight any freedom movement?
NO
Except a stary incident in 1992 SS & VHP have been peaceful.
Just because Pakistan designates them to be terrorists, they DONT become terrorist. For god's sake this is Wikipedia not a Pakistani government website.
:Shiv Sena has been removed. Unfortunately wikipedia sometimes has inaccurate info - please feel free to remove it next time. AndrewRT 00:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shiv Sena & VHP terrorists??? 

message: ..but who decided what order to put these in, right now it goes Islamic, Jewish, Christian, Other...
seems like either an oddly arbitrary order, anti-alphabetical, or a nice way of saying, hey, we can't put Christians first on list of bad people! Which seems kind of POV--64.12.116.136 22:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This might be a silly question.. 

message: I'm wondering about the inclusion of the JDL. The article is about groups who used "violence to further what they see as divinely commanded purposes." I'm not sure which divinely commanded purposes the JDL is seeking to further through violence. First, what current or recent violence (as a group) has there  been, and secondly, what are we saying the purposes of it are? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  JDL 

message: The term "Jewish terrorism" is directed here.  Jews are a race as well as a religion.  All of the edits made on the grounds the groups are not religious should be reinserted.  Or a new page for "Jewish terrorism" must be created.
:I'm working on that.  See Talk:Jewish extremist terrorism.--Urthogie 08:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion or race 

message: Why are the Christian and Jewish groups bold but the Muslim groups aren't?  POV? Rmt2m 19:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold 

message: I suggest a rename to religious terrorism.  The content would not need to change, really.  Thanks for input, --Urthogie 15:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename suggestion 

message: There's two groups I'm not entirely sure are relevant to the topic. First, under Abu Sayyaf it states that the group "aims for the establishment of an Islamic state in the Southern Philippines." Now as far as I'm aware nobody is exactly sure what it is that Abu Sayyaf is aiming for, aside from ransom money from kidnappings. Some scholars classify it as simply a crime syndicate and I've even come across some works which speculate that it is in some way connected with the Phillipino military who support the group in the aim of undermining the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. I'm not advocating either interpretation, merely pointing out that Abu Sayyaf is a somewhat murky group and any definite statement of what their intent is seems like over-reach (though I'd be happy to stand corrected if someone can come up with some sources in support of the claim).
The KKK is also slightly dubious, in my opinion. Whilst they do have a certain religious element in their ideology it is by no means the primary motivation for their acts. In particular it seems strange that the KKK is included but similar religiously-oriented but not primarily religiously motivated groups (such as the IRA, the LVF or the UVF) are not.
Daduzi 18:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the details on the first group so I couldn't comment on that.  As far as the KKK I'd say that its not about motivation so much as the fact that they use religion for justification.--Urthogie 20:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable entries 

message: And also the Ulster Defence Association?
Both of these groups (and others) in Ireland are organized around religious divisions and also are terrorist.
Here's a good article to find a religious terrorists: Terrorism Act 2000
87.118.100.99 08:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. In this case terrorism is not religiously, but ethnically and politically motivated: Irish/Republican - British/Loyalist.The situation is similar to conflict between Serbs and Croats in former Yugoslavia. Yeti 08:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You can't make such a distinction. In every case in which there is significant "religious" terrorism, two ethnically disparate groups living in close proximity espouse competing religions. That's fine unless one group gains a political advantage over the other and warmongers sell them weapons. Wowest 04:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the [[Provisional Irish Republican Army]] (IRA)? 

message: Not exactly Buddhist, maybe should put this under Sectarian?
There was this "Jeemah Islameeya" written twice under the Islamic section. Does that mean someone is trying to make the Islamic section appear longer? or maybe it's just a mistake. Anyway I removed it. --212.162.130.85 17:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aum Shinrikyo 

message: Are these guys really terrorists? I thought they were a non-violent group. Have they been designated terrorists by the CIA or FBI? I'm taking them off until this is cleared up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.67.90.241 (talk • contribs).
Actually I have quite serious concerns about this article, the tone seems to be one of trying to find other groups that can compete with violent Islamic terrorists. I think it deserves some clearing up. I don't know how we are defining terrorist or how we are defining religious.
No, the Westboro Baptist Church is not a terrorist organization. It is classified as a hate group. Hardcoreromancatholic (talk) 04:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Westboro Baptist Church 

message: The KKK attacked Hispanics and Irishmen because they hated those groups, mostly due to a xenophobic dislike of immigrants. The religious issue was secondary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.184.244.25 (talk) 02:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And some people would say that al Qaeda is primarily fighting against Western occupation of Arab lands, and the whole Islam thing is secondary. Doesn't matter. Al Qaeda and the Ku Klux Klan are still both religiously-motivated terrorists. — coelacan talk — 02:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ku Klux Klan Should Not Be On Here

message: I removed the reference to the Nagaland rebels, as per the discussion on the Christian terrorism page.--MarcusAnniusCatiliusSeverus 04:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nagaland Rebels

message: I've removed this paragraph from the introduction:
"Further items often neglected in opposing views about terror are; 1) the rights of "innocent third parties" who are tragically manipulated or sacrificed as pawns in political conflicts; and 2) the deception which ferments at the core of terrorism.  Deception masks itself behind various strategies of propaganda and indoctrination. Whatever their motives, fabricated threats lie at the essence of effective terrorist tactics, religious or political. Lies about intentions to wreak chaos may generate fears comparable to physical devastation.  In short, at the critical nucleus of terror lie the mesmerizing powers of propaganda and indoctrination."
It seems like someone's original research and is strongly POV.--Nydas(Talk) 17:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: Removed, as the Irgun was not a religious organization. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not confuse "Jewish" as the ethnicity with "Judaism" as the religion. This article is specifically about Religious terrorism. Shall we include the Red Army Faction because Gudrun Ensslin was a Christian? Of course not, the terrorism was not related to the religion. Same with the Irgun. See below at Talk:Religious terrorism#Irgun and Lehi. -- Avi (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Irgun]] 

message: Shouldn't men such as Stalin be added, as atheist terrorists? Of course, "atheism" is not to blame for his genocide (or Hitler, or Rasputan, or Pol Pot: all atheists) but "christianity" or "Judaism" cannot be blammed for radicals who go against their teachings.
It might add more depth to the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.193.228 (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Any definition of religious terrorism includes a claim of religious justification, be it directly from the views of the religion, or from the more controversial interpretations of those views. I don't think atheism has those views (or misinterpretations) to use as a justification. I do agree with you that Christianity, Islam, Juadism, or any other religion cannot be blamed for extremists who misinterpret their views. Bastc (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Atheistic Religous Terrorism?

message: In Islamic terrorism the definition has recently been changed from "religious terrorism by those whose motivations and aims have a predominant Islamic character or influence" to "religious terrorism by those whose motivations are rooted in their interpretations of Islam". I suggest the same change is made in Religious terrorism, as the current definition implies that the motivations and aims of a religious terrorist are actually supported or condoned by the religious beliefs itself. In reality, only a very small minority of Christians, Muslims or Jews support this interpretation of their religious texts and laws; The vast majority of the major religions condemn acts of terrorism. 
Since the term religious terrorism is easily misused to ignore the real motivations of a terrorist, and to demonize a religion based on the acts and beliefs of a minority of that religion, we should take more care defining the term itself. For instance, the motivations for the 9-11 attacks, the largest example of religious terrorism, show little Islamic influence or character. Most of the motivations are related to American foreign policy, only (mis)using Islamic texts to exhort violent action. The predominant influence is not Islam, but a very negative view of American foreign policy, guided by a controversial interpretation of Islam. In the same article, president Bush used the alledged Islamic motivation of al-Qaeda by stating "They hate ... a democratically elected government. ... They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." This contradicts the reaction by the muslim organisations in America, who "called upon Muslim Americans to come forward with their skills and resources to help alleviate the sufferings of the affected people and their families". Former CIA Bin Laden Unit Chief Michael Scheuer explains that "politicians really are at great fault for not squaring with the American people. We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live."
Since it's blatantly obvious that no major religion incorporates these violent views, and religion is only used as a tool by extremists to justify their actions with interpretations not supported by the vast majority of the religion, the definition should at least cast some doubt over the religious motivations of the terrorists.
Bastc (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition is POV 

message: All other examples here are of groups, not individuals. Therefore, as this article stands now, both specific Goldstien and Zata examples are inappropriate. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Christian terrorism and Islamic terrorism both include individuals. The only reason it looks odd here is because "Jewish terrorism" has no main article.129.215.37.171 (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goldstein 

message: This is ridiculous entry that transcends mere "POV". It is Islamophobic, libellous and shames Wikipedia. If Wikipedia editors are going to play this game, then we may as well include "AIPAC" and the "ADL" as terrorist organisations too. If I were a member of CAIR looking at this I would certainly consider legal action against it's inclusion, and the "sources" cited are also a travesty of Wiki's NPOV policy. I propose removing it and removing it soon. Paulzon (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed CAIR from the list. None of the sources were sufficient to support its inclusion. Remember that you are and editor yourself and can fix these sorts of problems yourself. Due to the nature of Wikipedia there will always be problems in need of fixing, and you can help fix them. :) Be BOLD. -Neitherday (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Neitherday. I'll try to be more bold in future! ;-) Paulzon (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Council on American Islamic Relations a "terrorist group"?! 

message: Someone has put the Church of Scientology in now. I know that some people have strong views about it but this is ridiculous!  I'm removing it. Paulzon (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church of Scientology 

message: The Mahdi army are no mothers knitting circle, but they aren't really a terrorist group either, they're a Shi'ite militia. They're not on the US List of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations, or any other to my knowledge.  Paulzon (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm curious, Paul, seriously. You have obviously given this a lot of thought. What makes the Mahdi Army more of a militia and less of a terrorism organization than the Irgun or Lehi? Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an inherent flaw in making any NPOV list of terrorist organizations: there has never been a clear cut and agreed upon definition of terrorism. -Neitherday (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You, personally, don't need to decide if the Mahdi Army are terrorist or not. Wikipedia rules: if a reliable source publishes that "x says the Mahdi army are (Muslim/religious) terrorists", then that can be included here. See WP:TERRORIST. 129.215.37.171 (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True. To conform to WikiPedia guidelines, what should be listed here is "Religious groups that have been labeled as terrorist organizations" and each group's entry should list who it is that calls the group a terrorist organization. -Neitherday (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mahdi Army 

message: Has anyone bothered defining what "Jewish religious terrorism" would possibly mean in a rational WP:NPOV way without it being a violation of WP:OR or WP:NEO? Oh, in such a serious forum with a topic of such consequences, why doesn't the above anon get a Wikipedia user name to help build confidence that this discussion is moving along entirely WP:AGF lines. Thanks a lot, IZAK (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The book "Terror in the mind of God" has a chapter on Jewish religious terrorism. That is (some of) the content that was deleted. Can you explain why you think it is "Original Research"? Or if you're concerned about conflating ethnicity with religion - suggest an acceptable title that applies to followers of Judaism? 129.215.37.156 (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi 129.215.37.156, thanks for responding, hope you can get a regular Wikipedia user ID soon. Well, there is no such thing as "Jewish terrorism" as such because Judaism does not advocate terrorism of any kind nor does being Jewish have a connection with the phenomenon of terrorism, so that for the word "Jewish" as a prefix to be added to describe something as if there is an objective normative "Jewish" terrorism is false. It would be like asking for "Jewish warfare" or "Jewish fighting" when there is no such thing. What there is, is terrorism, or warfare or fighting by people who may or may not be religious Jews or ethnic Jews and if it's truly describable and explicable in rational, objective, scholarly and NPOV ways then by all means go for it. One can also call a spade a spade and talk specifically of Kahanism and the spin-off groups that indeed advocate/d a form of "terrorism" but it can in no way be called, labelled or misconstrued as a definitive reflection of Judaism or what being Jewish means, since Judaism and being Jewish is a peaceful thing. Perhaps there could be an article about Terrorism by Jews in Jewish history or Terrorism by Jewish groups in the modern age or some such title, so that it is clear that it is not "Jewish terrorism" but acts of terrorism by Jews that is the subject. Hope this helps. IZAK (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We have "Christian terrorism". The Christian Bible does not advocate terrorism. Why is that okay, but not "Jewish terrorism"? -Neitherday (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Neitherday: Two wrongs do not make a right! There should not be "Christian terrorism" either because Christianity is officially not a religion of "terror" nor should being Christian become a prefix for terrorism which it is not. How many groups are there in the world today that justify their supposed "terror" in the name of Christianity? Probably about zero! I hate to say it, but in today's world, neither Christians nor Jews nor Christianity nor Judaism are supportive of or advocate any form of terror or terrorism. Which then brings us to how to decribe what is happening with the Islamic world and Muslims today and what that is called, and no doubt it is because of radical Islam and its consequnces that this discussion is taking place in the first place and that in a silly desire to placate, and act as "honest brokers" that moral relativism then kicks in and rather than there being a focus on major facts and a serious real topic, a whole set of other bogus topics are created to create an impression of contrived even-handed "neutrality" when reality clearly runs in the opposite direction. Just some thoughts, IZAK (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: "Judaism does not condone or encourage political violence or terrorism. "
I know for a fact this is true, but I am under the impression Christianity doesn't either.--69.234.193.143 (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: * This article should be about religious terrorism. It is not List of religious terror groups. If you want, then move the lists to a new article. But what is the point:
:* What is the point in including the list of Islamic groups? They are only one click away in the main article. If we include the list of Christian groups, this article will become ridiculously long. So I propose removing the list. The information is only one click away in the appropriate main article. 
:* In a similar vein, what is the point of including the Jewish groups? There is an appropriate main article. When a main article is available the accompanying text only needs to be a short summary. Anyone interested in reading more is only one click away.
* How on earth is the NDA not a terrorist group??? They're carried out a series of bombings, are fighting for a Hindu state, and claim to have 1,200 trained soldiers and 5 trained suicide bombers in their command.
129.215.37.149 (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, and the Hindustan Times, which is a reliable source, published Hindu Al-Qaeda training suicide bombers in Nepal. Come on guys, this article is a joke when everyone is pushing the "my religion has no terrorists" POV... 129.215.37.149 (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindu terrorism and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindutva terrorism which I just stumbled upon. While I take the point that the content of these articles might have had no value (I haven't even looked but I'll take that as a given from the discussion) it's in sharp  contrast to articles we do have on other terrorists who associate themselves with religions such as Christianity and Islam. It seems a gap in our coverage, and perhaps an example of undue weight being given to non-Hindu terrorists.
Should at least the article on Hindu terrorism be recreated as either a stub or perhaps as a redirect to Terrorism in India? Andrewa (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hindu terrorism on Deletionpedia. The content actually doesn't look that bad. 129.215.37.31 (talk) 11:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hindu terrorism

message: This article is one of a  number (about 100) selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue   are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes"  would be appreciated.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Pending changes

message: I want to copy this matter from the section titled, "religious terrorism" from the article Terrorism that was copied from the Terrorism in Pakistan article originally and incorporate it here. Any objections?
-Karumari (talk) 05:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not relevant to this article - please stop inserting this material on multiple articles -----Snowded TALK 07:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious terrorism