Talk:Terrorism

Quoting nonsense-English in the article

Leading terrorism researcher Professor Martin Rudner, director of the Canadian Centre of Intelligence and Security Studies at Ottawa's Carleton University, defines "terrorist acts" as attacks against civilians for political or other ideological goals, and goes on to say:

"There is the famous statement: 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.' But that is grossly misleading. It assesses the validity of the cause when terrorism is an act. One can have a perfectly beautiful cause and yet if one commits terrorist acts, it is terrorism regardless."''

This is logically absurd. The (very accurate) "famous phrase" refers to a "terrorist rather than a specific act. "It assesses the validity of the cause when terrorism is an act." Exactly. It doesn't specifically deal with "terrorism"; just people who are described by their opponents as such. How someone who mangles logic and English like this can be regarded as an "expert" on anything is a puzzle; but the section should be removed from the article. Sarah777 (talk) 10:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism

May I ask why Islamic terrorism is listed on the main terrorism page yet Christian / Catholic, Jewish and other religious terrorism is not?

Because Islamic Terrorists aren't just terrorists who happen to be Islamic. They are terrorists who are driven by an extreme version of Islam. IRA terrorists may be Catholic, but they are not driven by Catholicism (and don't praise Jesus or shout out religious slogans like Muslim terrorists do), but rather a nationalist hatred for Great Britain and Irish protestants whom they view as being British puppets who are economically keeping down the catholics in Northern Ireland. To be sure, there are some Palestinian groups who are really more terrorists of nationalist grievance than terrorists of religion (though, the groups funded from Iran are closer to being religious extremists). Al Qaeda, however, is pure religious extremism, at least that's whats indicated by their rhetoric and the writings of the leadership. Just a question, do you actually believe that religion is something that has no bearing or cause on the actions of Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc.?68.164.6.249 (talk) 03:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Surely this section should be clear of any specific faith based propoganda?

If not, then surely there should be a comment on the other faiths too, or are you simply trying to promote a bias ideology of what terrorism is?

For example, it is a fact that the IRA, who are a Catholic terror group have commited hundreds of attacks in the name of terror, yet they are not mentioned.

So I ask again - do you feel that having a section for Islamic terrorism under the main 'Terrorism' category is justified, unbias, factual and fair?

Is Wikipedia unbias and factual or another dumping ground for any random opinion?

I look forward to hearing your answers... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.65.219 (talk)

You may find a discussion of this in the archives - if you look near the top of this talk page, there are archived past discussions you may find useful. As for the rest, if you have a proposal to make, we are listening. General assertions aren't helpful, reliably sourced, neutral changes are helpful. And remember that you can fix perceived problems in the article by editing it - though due to the controversial nature of the article, you may wish to propose large-scale changes here first. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

Yet again the lead sentence has been gradually morphing into one specific definition of what terrorism is. I propose to go back to one of the earlier structures that reports that there are lots of definitions and that to date there is not internationally agreed definition for terrorism, For example see this one from the beginning of the year. --PBS (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

What makes domestic terrorism?

I seem unable to find any flat-out information on this, so I'll just lay my ignorances bare to thee. Is citizenship (and terrorist activitiees, of course) the only requisite to being a domestic terrorist? If someone moves from, say, Canada and never gets U.S. citizenship, and lives here for many a year, and commits and act of terrorism, is that still considered "foreign terrorism"? Is it more of a case-by-case issue, in which the person's motives, methods, and social integration play critical roles? Even then, if a person were merely a the "doer" for a larger, foreign organization, is that domestic or foreign terrorism? An example would be something like Al Qaeda hiring, funding, supplying, and directing middle-aged white men to blow up a government building, or something. I'm just trying to make sense of the "border" between different types of terrorism, though I wouldn't be against adding a section on this. NeutronTaste (talk) 06:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If it is not already in Wikipedia with cited sources, this is a question to answered by looking for reliable sources that discuss such on such things (and then adding a piece into this article if it is relevant and interesting). However in case of regional nationalism the definition over whether the terrorist is domestic is itself part of the issue. "The South was my country".[1] --PBS (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the help. Very interesting link, by the way. I will dig around and try to find legal, or generally accepted data on this. NeutronTaste (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism (An Islamic Monopoly, or an Unfounded Allegation) 1

Wikipedia... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Overview#Who_owns_Wikipedia.3F

"Who owns the Web site?"

... SNIP...

"The site is run by the community of Wikipedians guided by the principles articulated by Jimmy Wales, including, for example, an adherence to a neutral point of view."

So, I will ask my question again, aswell as three others, and please note that I don't want a reply telling me that I am able to submit a proposed change - I am familiar with how Wiki's work, I am asking you a question so please answer it.

1) Why is "Islamic Terrorism" defined as the only faith-based religion on the main 'Terrorism'? 2) Why are all other belief systems left out from this section? 3) Shoudl the main 'Terrorism' page be unbias and unspecific? 4) Where is your proof that there is such a thing as 'Islamic Terrorism', may I see it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.98.1.11 (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't contributed to this page so I can offer an outsider's opinion for what it is worth (=not much).

1) Why is "Islamic Terrorism" defined as the only faith-based religion on the main 'Terrorism'? I guess because of well meaning systemic bias, 9/11 etc etc. Who knows but I think that section of the article should deal with things at the level of religiously motivated terrorism more generally covering the various types and point people towards the detailed articles about the various type.

2) Why are all other belief systems left out from this section? See above.

3) Shoudl the main 'Terrorism' page be unbias and unspecific? Of course.

4) Where is your proof that there is such a thing as 'Islamic Terrorism', may I see it? I think that is a question for the 'Islamic Terrorism' page...or is it called Islamist again now. Anyway, my point is that that article should be the master and this one should follow the terminology used there.

Ultimately though there is little point asking questions like these. It's better to make specific proposals based on reliable sources. Or simply be bold and take it from there. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism (An Islamic Monopoly, or an Unfounded Allegation) 2

I removed it from there are replaced it with a 'general "religious terrorism" section' taken from your own pages, however it was removed and the same unproven, unsubstantiated garbage was put back. Garbage? Well, there is no factual proof that Islam was the cause of 9/11, there is only accusation and theory, which is garbage. So Wikipedia is basing articles on heresay, which is not great for an encyclopedia, right or wrong? answer please?

"I guess because of well meaning systemic bias, 9/11 etc etc" - you guess, you assume, you think - you have no proof therefor you are spreading potential lies, slander and incorrect information. Lets look at what the founder of Wikipedia stated again: "The site is run by the community of Wikipedians guided by the principles articulated by Jimmy Wales, including, for example, an adherence to a neutral point of view." So your systemic assumption is bias, provoked by brainwashing and media propoganda, or social engineering, or you are a liar, which is it?

I will again remove the page but no doubt it will be re-added to further the falsehood based on unfactial assumption rather than truth and factual knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.172.13.2 (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You're addressing your questions to something that doesn't exist. There is no "you" to respond to questions like "...you are a liar, which is it?". Articles develop as individuals like you add, amend and subtract material, sometimes with discussion and sometimes without. Anyone can participate. The closest thing to a "you" is the set of all of the people that have edited the article or the talk page. That set includes you now. You will need to argue your case on this page with people who care about this article. Be polite or stop talking. You won't get anywhere saying things like "spreading potential lies, slander and incorrect information". People don't donate their time here to have shit thrown at them. If you want something changed, explain why and make sure you have a reliable source to support your statement. Saying something like X did or did not cause Y is meaningless unless it comes from a reliable source and is directly related to a proposed change to the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism (An Islamic Monopoly, or an Unfounded Allegation) 3

"You" is the oligarchy that is in control of Wikipedias publishing and editing, not a specific editor. No, it does not include me, I am simply trying to enforce the founding principle on which Wikipedia was 'apparently' created, to share an unbias, factual warehouse of information. I have no power of decision on what can and will stay, I can simply appeal to the you 'wikipedia editors' own human decency, goodness and truth to do the right thing. What I am pointing out is that a majority belief does not make fact and being that this is an encyclopedia, anything that is not a fact and merely based on a majority opinion should be removed with vigour and a review of publishing policy should be implemented whereby non-factual, or potentially non-factual information be removed as a priority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.255.83 (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

um...there isn't an oligarchy. You misunderstand Wikipedia. Yes, the "you" does include you. You are a 'wikipedia editor'. You don't have to appeal to anyone unless they revert you. Read WP:BRD. You have the same rights and privileges to edit anything in the article as anyone else according to mandatory policies like WP:V and WP:NPOV etc and the various guidelines and you are encouraged to do so. Wikipedia has nothing to do with 'human decency, goodness and truth' apart from perhaps in the sense that certain aspects of it (e.g. some images) are within scope of the universal declaration of human rights. It's about providing verifiabile, neutral information based on reliable sources and Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources. It's just an encyclopedia. See WP:MORALIZE. You cannot 'appeal' to an imaginary oligarchy. If you think something needs to be fixed, fix it. If you find that someone is deliberately and repeatedly misrepresenting things then there are complaint procedures to follow. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Is Civil Disorder a type of Terrorism ?

Headline text

The artle defines Civil Disorder -A form of collective violence interfering with the peace, security, and normal functioning of the community. Are you kidding me ? When you click on the Civil Disorder, wiki defines it to include illegal parades and sit-ins. Once a illegal parade or sit in turns into a riot, it is no longer civil, its a riot. I suggest this sentence be removed Bill Ladd