Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
14,697
edits
Changes
Undo revision 1193882 by FilthySocialist (talk) Profanity, trolling
{{Protect|Hojimachong}}
==A definition==
==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."
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."
* [[Contra]]<ref>National Security Archive, [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/publications/irancontra/irancon.html ''The Iran-Contra Affair: The Making of a Scandal, 1983-1988''] 1990.</ref>
* [[Contra]]<ref>National Security Archive, [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/publications/irancontra/irancon.html ''The Iran-Contra Affair: The Making of a Scandal, 1983-1988''] 1990.</ref>
I agree the Contras are not a terrorist group. It was a group that fought a Communist dictatorship.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 13:24, 2 March 2014 (EST)
===SAVAK===
===SAVAK===
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. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:00, 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. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:00, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:: [link] This the image you're referring to? [[User:GodlessLiberal|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. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:20, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
==IMG X2==
Wow, looks great. Thanks! [[User:Flippin|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. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:33, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
== Link for edit ==
At "See also"
[[Yasser Arafat]]
::Only problem is, he wasn't a terrorist. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 19:07, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
==Spectrum theory==
Elmadri, while the recent inclusion are ambitious, some of it warrants discussion. This appears to be an effort to re-establish the old [[political spectrum theory]] and apply it to terrorist thinking, motives, and ideology. Let's examine this for example,
*''[Leftist] radicals believe that they are currently being oppressed by some current government, idealogy or regime, and therefore they should overthrow that oppressor and install a better government.''
*''[Rightist} Reactionary terrorist violence is an attempt to regain the lost government and return to "order" and status quo.''
And we see [[al-Qaeda]] placed under "Leftist." Leftist then proceeds to propound Marxist-Leninist motivations. Now, it can be argued Al-Qaeda can fit under either of these definitions, but debating which is more appropriate may not be helpful. The fundamental problem is the spectrum theory itself. And this simply appears, once again, of trying to pigeon-hole a square peg into a round hole.
So, while some, if not most of the material is good, it probably needs reorganization. That is, we should probably remove the subheads and not try to assign some or all extreme terrorist groups to an ideological class defined by the spectrum theory. While discussion of tradition Marxist-Leftist terrorism is valuable, nonetheless, the spectrum theory is not definitive of all politcal motivations. Some groups come together simply out of the practical necessity of the moment, irregardless and irrespective of an underlying ideology of its members, that is to say, not all political activity (in this case, I'm referring to extremist political activity) is ideologically driven. This is the fundamental flaw of the spectrum theory. Therefore, we should not perpetuate a flawed theory by assigning questionable motives to groups on other pages outside the [[Political spectrum]] article. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:13, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::Well, to be quite frank, I'm working from some of my textbooks here. Now the thing is, that they do address the changes in though about terrorism, and I want to rewrite some of it to take into account what you are talking about. Obviously, there has been changes in how terrorist operate and how we view terrorism, and what I've put in doesn't reflect that, but rather more the post Cold War view. I was going to go in and put that stuff in, but I think I upset Andy with the article on the Patriot Movement, which was my bad. I wasn't thinking at the time. Therefore, I'm trying to kinda stay away from the more politically charged stuff for the time being. Feel free to go in and change stuff of course, but I would like it if you left the the stuff in and perhaps simply categorized it as spectrum theory and added that its a little outdated.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 17:34, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Thank you. If you've read the [[political spectrum theory]] article, you'd probably see how difficult it is to label persons, groups, and even ideologies as "left" or "right", and never was this more true than in the post-Cold War era. The simple fact is, not all poltical action is ideologically driven. Take the [[NRA]] for example, widely regarded as the most powerful special interest group in the US, yet nonetheless, it's broadbased grassroots come from a huge cross section. A woman who carries a gun in self defence to protect herself against rape, can hardly be pigeon-holed into an ideological mold.
:::Being that the question is so unsettled, and "left/right" spectrum theory really is little more than journalistic shorthand to argue prejudices without having to discuss issues, I suggest we just drop it from the article. We can come up with better subheads. I'll be a little busy in the early part of this week, but by mid week should be able to focus a little closer and help you out. Thanks again. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:18, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
AL QAIDA is not leftist.
Anyone care to explain exacly how al Qaida qualifies as a LEFTIST terrorist group?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:11, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
:Good observation PF, and we are discussing it. The idea here is to eliminate the ideological groupings, and fund some other system of classification. Perhaps reviewing some of the source websites would be helpful. Care to assist? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:13, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
::Why do you consider imposing a system of classification so important? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:02, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::Terrorism, as of the last decade or so, has undergone a radical shift in how it operates. We're starting to see a breakdown of the old system that RobS was pointing out. For example, it is getter hard to classify terrorists within a political spectrum, as the world is no longer really divided between communism and capitalism anymore. Also, terrorist are changing their goals and strategies. Where once, a terrorist would choose a target that would be symbolic and surgical, now terrorist are concerned with indiscriminate destruction. Also, now rather than operating in clandestine groups, they choose to operate in this small cell network. Like I said, I was planning on retooling it, but at the moment, I was more concerned with getting the most information in as possible.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:29, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
Here's some ideas, we could use these classifications:
*Communist/Socialist
*Environmental
*Nationalist/Separatist
*Racist
*Religious
[[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:38, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
And in the meantime, you've still got Al Qaeda incorrectly listed as a "leftist" terrorist group. Why is that grossly inaccurate "information" allowed to remain? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:00, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
*I think you have fallen victim, Fox, to a world view, globalist mentality! If Al Qaeda isn't leftist aligned, what in the world is it aligned with? Rightist governments? All of the governments I see supporting it are socialist and communistic, not right-wing. And we have already dealt with the silly idea, and Big Lie that Facists are right-wing. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 13:14, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
==PKK==
Should the [[PKK]] be added to the list of terrorist groups in this article? Its recognized as one by the [[United States]] and [[EU]], and it has had significant impact on Turkey and the U.S. mission in Iraq.--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 12:49, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
*I agree it possibly should, and defer to RobS on this. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 15:12, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
== Al Qaeda, leftist terrorist organization? ==
Never heard of anyone referring to Al Qaeda as a Left wing terrorist organization and I don't understand why it's being labeled as one. First of all they fought against Communists, which are rather much to the left. Second, Al Qaeda is a religious terrorist organization with a ideological belief that pretty much contradicts Left wing ideologies. Suggest that the classifications as proposed by RobS should be used --[[User:Sachaztan|Sachaztan]] 18:54, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
I think it would be better to create a separate section referring to Islamic terrorist groups and move Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood to that section, while adding in Jemaah Islamia and Abu Sayaaf to the list, as well as the Palestinian groups (maybe the palestinian groups "deserve" their own sub-heading or should be included with nationalist / independence groups
[[User:Luojie|Luojie]] 10:12, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
== EFF, ACLU, etc ==
I know conservatives don't like them, but I don't see any evidence that they give money contributions to terrorism. I looked on the articles about each organization as well and could not find it there either.
I think perhaps what you are getting at is that these organizations oppose certain "terrorist-fighting laws" (such as the Patriot Act), but there's a long difference between "opposing the Patriot Act" and "supporting terrorism". If this is what is meant by the new section, it should be stated more explicitly. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:30, 31 December 2007 (EST)
== Interesting ==
Andy, if the common definition doesn't fit your narrative, you change the definition? Does this work for you in court? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:38, 14 May 2015 (EDT)