Difference between revisions of "Talk:Terrorism"

Revision as of 23:07, May 9, 2007

A definition

Here's the definition as of March 13, 2007: "Terrorism is a term used to refer to violence (usually against civilians) instigated to further a certain political or ideological goal."

That's obviously not a good definition, unless you want to include all armed action. By saying usually against civilians, violent action against armies is not ruled out as a form of terrorism. For example, by that definition George Washington's fight at Valley Forge would be considered terrorism (because it was violent and it sought to further a political goal). I assume that's not what the person who wrote that definition intended.

It's also not a good definition because it seems some terrorist violence is not intended to further political or ideological goals. For instance, were the Aum Shinrikyo sarin gas attacks in the Tokyo subway a form of terrorism, and if so, what political or ideological goal did they support? --Rotifer 05:22, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I OBJECT to the inclusion of the IRA as a terrorist group. Some splinter groups of the IRA have committed terrorist attacks, but for most of its history the IRA was a group of freedom fighters. The British government occupied Ireland against the Irish people's will, and Irish people (regular folks and leaders) banded together to fight (yes, with weapons, violence, etc.) against the occupying troops and police forces of the British. Attacking civilians is a different issue. --Madonna 04:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

That's simply untrue. An argument could be made that the IRA of 1916-1921 weren't terrorists. But at least since 1956 they have been. Indiscriminate killing of civilians who were in the wrong store or the wrong bar or restaurant at the wrong time certainly fits the definition. Yes they targeted soldiers and policemen, but most of those they killed were civilians. La Mon, Bloody Friday, Enniskillen, Baltic St, Canary Wharf.--Murray 18:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Like Rotifer said, could someone please try to come up with a correct definition of terrorist? The definition so far seems to include freedom fighters as if they are terrorists. --Madonna 04:14, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Freedom Fighters are Terrorists our government likes. --Scrap 04:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I removed the sentence about freedom fighters since it is misleading - terrorism and freedom-fighting are not mutually exclusive. JamesK 05:42, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Wait a minute!!! You seem to be implying that conservatives are sometimes in favor of terrorism!!! That's not what you meant to imply, is it? I'm putting the statement about the difference between terrorism and freedom-fighting back in. You are very, very, welcome to clarify it... I think the whole page needs clarification... But we can't allow confusion between terrorism and freedom fighting in this page. --Madonna 06:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Terrorism and freedom fighting are not "opposites", Terrorism is a tactic, or method. So "Terrorists" might be freedom fighters, or might not be, and "Freedom fighters" might employ terrorism, or might not. You can say that the IRA were freedom fighters, but you can't deny that they committed terrorist acts. JamesK 06:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

The "freedom fighter" definition needs work. I've commented on its talk page, but it's also relevant to this discussion.--British_cons (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

New to this site so not sure as to the talk protocol but I'd like to point out the truism that one man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter" and that a objective analysis based on political affiliation is incredibly biased. And, as a UK resident, I'd object to anyone wishing to remove the IRA from the list of terrorist organisations. From personal experiance, the Manchester bombing carried out by the IRA purely targeted civillians which would label them firmly as terrorists.--Fingermouse 17:47, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

To agree with what has been said above on the Terrorist/Freedom Fighter debate, these are subjective labels depending on your opinion of the groups under discussion, whereas "terrorism" is a defined military/paramilitary tactic, regardless of who uses it, whether for freedom, national self-determination, religious hatred or anything. Orgone 23:50, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Terrorist vs. Freedom Fighters

I think what needs to be pointed out is what somebody did say before: terrorism is a tactic; freedom fighters are people. Freedom fighter can be a terrorist, but a terrorist does not have to be a freedom fighter. There is an enthymeme there, but I don't have time to go into it just now. I will come back to discuss this later on. Flippin 09:46, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

IRA

I have added Continuity IRA and Real IRA as they are both considered to be terrorist organizations by the British and American governments.--British_cons (talk) 06:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Government

A government can support a terrorist, or the terrorist's goals, but cannot itself be terroristic.

The Nazi regime was not terroristic? Saddam putting people in woodchippers is not terrorism? The Soviet, Chinese, Korean & Cuban gulag systems are not employing terrorism to intimidate the populace and keep them in check? RobS 18:01, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Yknow, I didn't like the way that was originally written, but I disagree more with the re-edit. Governments can engage in terroristic activities. Thats why we have the term "State Sponsored Terrorism."--Elamdri 18:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

The term is not accurate. "State sponsored terrorism" is an oxymoron. States, by definition, cannot be terroristic (including the Nazis, or whomever else you want to name) because their forces are ALWAYS military. Calling state actions terrorism is the equivalent of saying the US Navy Seals are state sponsored terrorists-- does that make it more clear? The term SST entered the lexicon probably in the same way "irregardless" did, as a useless modifier. Flippin 17:38, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

It is possible for states to harbour, fund or support terrorists due to the fact that, although not being part of the state, they are considered to have the same aims as the controlling party of said state. Hence whilst not strictly "state sponsored terrorism" this could be construed as "state sanctioned terrorism".--Fingermouse 17:54, 10 April 2007 (EDT) offtopic, I need to remember to sign my contribs ; )

Please sign your posts with four tildes "Flippin 17:57, 10 April 2007 (EDT)" I understand that states can harbor terrorists, but they cannot be terroristic. Terrorism, by definition (which is admittedly difficult) is not a state act. Look at a country like Somalia, they essentially have no government, but are they a nation of terrorists? They can't be a nation is the problem. Flippin 17:57, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Flippin, So is it just my imagination this document exists (pgs. 171 - 178 pdf), or are denying the legitimcay of US State Dept. authority to publish it?

An excerpt:

Chapter 6

STATE SPONSORS OF TERROR OVERVIEW

Iran and Syria routinely provide unique safe haven, substantial resources and guidance to terrorist organizations.

State sponsors of terrorism provide critical support to non-state terrorist groups. Without state sponsors, terrorist groups would have much more difficulty obtaining the funds, weapons, materials, and secure areas they require to plan and conduct operations. Most worrisome is that some of these countries also have the capability to manufacture WMD and other destabilizing technologies that can get into the hands of terrorists. The United States will continue to insist that these countries end the support they give to terrorist groups. --RobS 17:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I am saying the distinction is rhetorical, not ideological. In 2008, the terms will probably change. Look at the recent episode with the "global war on terror" language. Flippin 17:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

This is still an issue of semantics. Whether a state is complicit in acts that would be viewed as terrorism (therefore rendering it not an act of terrorism) or whether it "merely" supports their aims and provides a haven, it makes little difference in the end. --Fingermouse 18:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

It makes a great deal of difference. The problem is this: when a state acts it is not terrorism. Simply put, that is like saying putting one foot in front of the other and moving your body is walking. So, every time I put one foot in front of the other I am walking. So, cross country skiing becomes a form of walking. OR every time I move forward, I am walking. If I am in a car, moving forward, we don't call that walking. Semantics are important in this case. When a state acts, the resulting action is from their military force-always. If a state is complicit in acts of terrorism, they are declaring war because that is a military action. This distinction is key to why our country is divided on what to do about Iraq right now. Terrorists act outside the state--they may have the same goals, but if they act within the state they are not terrorists, they are troops. Flippin 13:35, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

So Saddam gassing the Kurds (including infants) was not an act of terrorism? RobS 13:38, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

No, neither was Hitler gassing the Jews. They were acts of genocide, they were atrocious and vulgar, but definitely not terrorism. Flippin 13:41, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Citations needed

We need citations for each one of these:

• Al-Qaeda
• Contra
• Mujahadeen el-Khalq
• SAVAK (Iranian Organization for Intelligence and National Security)
• FRAPH (Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haïti)

RobS 00:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I tried to give the following references, but someone else was working on the article (someone who actually knows how to use the 'reference' tags!) and there was an edit conflict, so ill put them here for now:

• Al-Qaeda
• Contra
• Mujahadeen el-Khalq
• SAVAK (Iranian Organization for Intelligence and National Security)
• KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army)
• FRAPH (Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haïti)

Orgone 01:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Now added to the article Orgone 02:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Orgone, Thank you, and good job. Now two problems exist; (1) the al Qeade reference is unacceptable in the regard, the source state unequivocally "Al-Qaeda....was created in 1989 .... The organisation grew out of the network of Arab volunteers who had gone to Afghanistan in the 1980s to fight under the banner of Islam against Soviet Communism". It was Mujahideen that recieved support, not al Qeade. (2) Subhead reads, "Groups Considered to be Terrorist Organizations Funded by the United States"; considered by whom? we need a source for this claim.

Finally, as a word of caution, whatever the cause of the error of represnting al Qeade with this claim false claim, I highly recommend having the proper research in place before posting such a controversial inclusion. There is nothing wrong with bringing valid, highly controversial material to light like this; however, when something is as easily disprovable as a claim like this one, it does reflect upon the credibility of the editor who placed it. So as to avoid being accused of wreckless partisanship or other things that can undermine true scholarship and research, please have the material properly orgainized and cited, and faulty inclusion of this nature then can be regarded as good faith errors as opposed to naked propagandizing. Thank you for your attention to this. RobS 13:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

al Qaede

reverted material:

• Al-Qaeda^[1]

Contras

Here's another one; the Reagan State Dept. did not have Contra's on the terrorist watch list. This is now example two of bad use of sources and sloppy research methodology. I think we have to revert the subhead now due to its controversial and unsourced claim.

• Contra^[2]

SAVAK

The claim SAVAK "received US funding" is highly questionable, being that (a) it was a bureau of the Iranian government. (b) Iran's oil wealth hardly necessitates US subsidies to run an internal bureau. Prima facia this claim appears bogus, but it will be researched. RobS 15:41, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

1. ↑ Al-Qaeda's origins and links, BBC News, July 20, 2004.
2. ↑ National Security Archive, The Iran-Contra Affair: The Making of a Scandal, 1983-1988 1990.

img

Good img. Why don't we move it up to the top? RobS 13:23, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Good idea. Done. GodlessLiberal 13:36, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, bad image. I really think this ought to be deleted. Terrorism is not just a political strategy, but a rhetorical one. This image is the reason many Americans died, but the image itself was what the terrorists wanted us to see. THIS image is their achievement and by putting it on this page, font and center, you endorse their message (which is: we can do this to even the most powerful nation on earth.) Ask yourself this one question: Had you, or your neighbors ever heard of Al Qaeda before 9/11? Most likely not. THIS image made them a household name. It really must be removed. Flippin 13:40, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

So if the 9/11 picture 'endorses' the terrorists' message, do pictures of starving Jewish prisoners from the Holocaust endorse Hitler's message? GodlessLiberal 13:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

No, the message with Hitler was military and political. With 9/11 the point was for everyone to see the terrorists strength--their ability to bring us to our knees, and all that. Flippin 13:54, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I disagree... but what sort of image would you recommend if this one is not good enough? GodlessLiberal 13:58, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

A picture of something that does not connote the terrorists' values. So, no images of them with Nick Berg, that sort of thing. Honestly, the best approach might be something like the picture of the guy on the balcony in Munich, 1972. Gives the image, without the current debate. That would be a good example. The other is simply too much, too soon. I appreciate your consideration on this. Flippin 14:00, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

File:Terrormunich.jpg This the image you're referring to? GodlessLiberal 14:16, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, I think it gives the impression of the what the page will discuss without the rhetorical issue I mentioned before. Thanks. Flippin 14:20, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

IMG X2

Wow, looks great. Thanks! Flippin 14:26, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

source for edit

http://www.amazon.com/Terrorist-Myths-Illusion-Rhetoric-Reality/dp/0139068015/ref=sr_1_1/104-9898859-8430311?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178134302&sr=1-1 Peter Sederberg's book is the first I found to directly address the issue of defining terrorism. Flippin 15:33, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Link for edit

At "See also"

Yasser Arafat

Only problem is, he wasn't a terrorist. Flippin 19:07, 9 May 2007 (EDT)