Talk:Definition of terrorism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
this comes from the doublespeak page, where User:Uriyan had added it at one time:
- Note however, that in scholarly contexts, "terrorist" is usually defined in a way consistent with the biases of the politics of
the region where the scholastic institution is located.
I'm not sure if it can be considered useful inspiration?? Mozzerati 21:26, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
I changed the section on the EU definition to update it. It referred to the source and substance of the proposed definition, rather than the source and substance of the definition actually used. Further, I removed the section delaing with the Euro-med summit 2005 which was not relevant to the European Union definition of terrorism, and was principally concerned with showing that a definition had not been agreed within the context of that summit.There are many international meetings where the groups have failed to agree on a definition of "terrorism." I do not see how the fact that a meeting between the EU, and certain North African countries failed to agree a definition of terrorism is relevant to a section on the EU definition of terrorism. Diranh
The article says:
- For this reason, many news sources avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers", "militants", etc.
There should be some discussion here about the fact that this is a new development. News services stopped using "terrorist" and "terrorism" only in the last few years. And some people believe that this is evidence of their taking a stand on a controversial issue. --71.146.181.227 19:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
There is no evidence that "[n]ews services stopped using 'terrorist' and 'terrorism'...in the last few years." There are almost daily news about "suspected terrorists" being apprehended here and there, thereby not only entrenching this term, but actually labelling persons in advance of any court proceeding. Such methods are not used by respectable media with regard to ordinary killings. It is not common that news services label a person a "suspected murderer" but at most the "person suspected of having committed the murder". The term "terrorist" has become, for all appearances, a new pejorative label used by mass media and public authorities to destroy the reputation of people. Thus, a person who was befriended with a "suspected terrorist" is already tainted by this label. --157.157.37.178 (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Wider implications of this article
Wikipedia should be internally consistent with itself, so shouldn't the content of this article determine if we use the word 'terrorist' at all? As far as I am concerned, and how I read the article, the term expresses a POV and so has no place in wikipedia articles except when attributed to a source. Damburger 09:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Designations
Although the definition of terrorist conduct is controversial, many organisations have been designated as terrorists, which has a very real and specific legal consequence. Shouldn't this be mentioned in this article?--AndrewRT 19:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
A useful reference is this article: Jenny Teichman, How to define Terrorism, Philosophy: The Journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy, vol. 64, no. 250, (October, 1989), p. 511
The article gives historical overview, in brief (if memory serves):
Originally (18th C.) the term was coined for acts of state violence, eg collective punishment, intended to instil fear in the population. The modern use was taken up in 1960's West Germany to designate RAF activities, and has since been increasingly used for acts of violence by individuals or nongovernmental groups. She goes on to propose a definition covering most uses. The article was written in response to a definition proposed by (?US state dept?) under the first Bush administration, which more or less excludes acts by a state.
A partial rewrite using Teichman as source may bring a little coherence to the current article. It seems also to be cited in literature (well, from a quick googling...) Klapautius 11:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Boston Tea Party
There is currently a discussion in Talk:Boston Tea Party, as to whether the BTP meets the definition of an act of terrorism. Could interested parties peek in? For the sake of a more pluralistic viewpoint, it would be nice if people not from the US also got involved in the discussion. Thanks, samwaltz 14:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Edward Peck quote
I propose that the Edward Peck quote be either eliminated or reduced to: Some United States government groups have had trouble creating a definition for terrorism that was accurate while keeping the definition from encompassing acts by the United States and Israel.[[1]] Reason: the quote does not hold the weight of federal law, a UN resolution, or even an academic definition.--Mich112358 20:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 109 definitions
The citation is weak. It cites a study (Jeffrey Record, "Bounding the Global War on Terrorism") that cites a book (Bruce Hoffman “Defining Terrorism,” ) that cites a book (Alex Schmid, et al. "Political Terrorism: A New Guide to Actors, Authors, Concepts, Data Bases, Theories, and Literature") that cites either the study or a book that cites the study (it is unclear at the moment). I left off with the [schmidt] citation if someone can track from there. I suspect its a political statement that biases original information. What is apparent from the secondary or tertiary source I tracked down is that it was survey work among experts and that the author was able to construct a defiintion that "81% of [expert] respondents found fully or partially acceptable". Mrdthree 18:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I do not understand why it seems like most definintions either: 1. Try to model the formulation in order to target as best as possible the author's (group or culture) primary anemy. 2. To blure the term in such a way that almost every act of war/violence can fit the definition. 3. To say in some words that "it is in the eye of the beholder".
so either "my enemy is the best example of terrorism" or "everebody is a terrorist" , or "nobody is a terrorist".
Inclusion in the definition of highly subjective and interpretable terms like the 'motivation behind', or if it's "legal" or "(un)justified" makes the definition worthless when it can be as simple and clear as this: "Organized acts of violence intended against noncombatant civilian population." I think most of the "experts" were concerned more of who the definition might or might not include, rather then defining what is terrorism.
[edit] 'War' on Terror
I am bothered by this quote "Generally speaking, only a small group of radical interest groups define the War on Terror as "atrocities" or compare it with acts of terrorism."
I believe that a lot of people consider the 'war' on terror to be comparable with acts of terrorism. So saying that only a small 'radical' group believes that violates NPOV.
I know I am biased, but I believe that saying the WOT is comparable with acts of terrorism is a fairly common non-fringe belief.
Going much further, I also believe that the doctrines of 'Shock and Awe' and 'preemptive war' are fairly commonly held to be comparable with, if not actually completely, terrorism.
Terrorism is 100% Racketeering under total satellite which is increasing & Fraud in mortgages, insurance, medical, kidnapping, terrorizing with electromagnetic weapons, massive, illegal supposed 'human studies' with the chemicals and all agents, weather weapons, food taintings, vaccine taintings, all 100%, indicting and firing, having murdered all agents every 8 years, total obstructions of justice, using all government agencies to run all crimes without lawsuits, or rights, up through the judges, to the top Drug Cartel; all with attorneys and judges, politicians, (millions worldwide and here who have disappeared, missing, killed, indicted for many years); this includes other massive organized crime with links also to the rest as fronts, the chemical waste being disposed of by gangsters now indicted for this top cartel; creating more and more people who will 'validate' by absenteeism of anything but a few historical notes, and their programming who will hellp in massive crime. Using all agencies for private pockets of organized criminals and cult fronts, fronts to 'oversight' This is terrorism. nonstop, pulse weapons, stalking, chemicals, set up and premeditated surveillance murder by those who are known at the top. Happens to over 50 million each year, and all of Israel whiel the reform is little use. The organized 'terror' is only increasing after over 50 million a year worldwide by this Cartel obstucting justice; there is only more crime and gangs. People will resort to immediate nonsense they have heard many times, rather than the fact that it is only orgnized crime. From 1995, not one single area, world bank, UN, radiation labs, CIA, NSA, FBI, government agency, judges, attorneys, agents, police, police chiefs, politicians, governors, senators, and even the prison guards with organized prison camps and murders, indicted, and now over 5,000 more 'studies' by nanotechnology ordered by organized crime each day; All money back to the top after they indict the attorneys & judges; they simply get people to believe they are 'invincible' in crime or to validate crime as science or thier job. Cartel running congress, and trillions in weapons deals worldwide and on Israel, over 40 million Israelis sent and killed before the absorption minister (immigration) and total obstruction of law. How much terrorism can fit into one box? It is not a Union, or World Peace, or Islamic War, while they are vacuuming every dime off Israeli descendants, but also spreading through Afghanistan, South America for many years, Egypt to Israel, Syria, the terror and organized crime under satellite is the only reality spreading.
http://journals.aol.com/suehon5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.55 (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] = Reasons for controversy
This section is badly out of shape with regards NPOV guidelines. "However it needs to be stated", "The legitimate governments of nations, and their police and military forces, need to" and "This is true " have no place in any Wiki article. The third paragraphs suggestion that the world is beginning to regard terrorism as a purely Muslim activity is, as well as being un-cited is rather shrill.
Unless soemone wants to do a fairly extensive re-write on paragraphs 3-5 of this section, they should be deleted altogether. Epeeist smudge 16:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Another reason for controversy is that states have a vested interest in defining terrorism in such a way as excluding their own violent and coercive acts from the ambit of the definition, while civil society might wish to include such acts in a definition of terrorism but exclude a too broadened definition. As an example, some state-based definitions might be used to criminalize workers' strikes as acts of terrorism because they may be construed as "violence" and as a form of "intimidating" the government. Thus, any popular effort aimed at pressurizing the government can be construed as coercive at a certain point, and if civil resistance is added, such resistance may be construed as violence (such as not obeying the orders of law-enforcement officials). For these reasons, any attempt to reach a consensus between civil society and states on the definition of terrorism is probably futile. It does not help either that individuals participating in the definition declare that they are not state employees. Finally, a legal definition will perforce remain an exercise by the state. Thus, the current legal definitions by states and the UN (a international states' organisation) exclude the most blatant violence by states against civilian populations from the ambit of terrorism.
Possibly the only solution to this dilemma is to explicit this dilemma and present in Wikipedia the underlying intersts involved in preventing a universal definition of terrorism. --Sannleikur (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Citations
NOTE: The link for citation #3 (RE: Russia's Terrorism List) is broken. Try changing it to Henry Meyer, "Hezbollah Not on Russia's Terrorist List," Associated Press, 28 July 2006. Available online at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/28/AR2006072801433.html. Accessed on 07 May 2007. Fixed!
NOTE: Citation #5, referencing U.N. Terrorism definitions, includes a misspelling. "Terrorism definicions" should be changed to "Terrorism Definitions." Also, "United Nations Organisation" should be changed merely to "United Nations." Fixed!
"Weapon of the weakest." Neither Google nor Encyclopaedia Britannica reveals who made this quote. Anyone have the answer?
- REDIRECT [[]]
[edit] UK Definition
(a) the action falls within subsection (2), (2) Action fall s within this subsection if it (a) involves serious violence agai nst a person, (b) involves serious damage to property, (c) endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action, (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or (e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
does this mean that it is only terrorism if it covers part 2a AND 2b AND 2c AND 2d OR solely 2e? OliverR 02:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
And under the American Patriot Act it is defined as "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state" Does this mean that an act which would not be against the law in the U.S. could still be terrorism if it is against any other law on the planet (For example under Sharia-law), well this probaply only refers to states accepted by USA, excl. Palestine, Tibet.......? OliverR 02:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The intro is crap
It has also been argued by who that the political use of violent force and weapons that deliberately target or involve civilians, and do not focus mainly on military or government targets, is a common militant, terrorist, or guerrilla tactic, and a main defining feature of these kinds of people[citation needed] these kind of people? terrorism is behavior not identity. The criminal act is clear when babies, children, mothers, and the elderly are put in harms way mothers serve as members of the US military and are "put in harms way". All nations have distinct criminal laws that prohibit the predictable murder or severe injury of civilians not true. Even in times of war, there is an effort to avoid civilian casualties, unlike the intended use of civilian targets by terrorists.[who?] says who, what's the source?, in total war there are no functioning civilians who are uninvolved in supporting the war effort. children act as messangers. old ladies sew uniforms...
As terrorism ultimately involves the use or threat of violence with the aim of creating fear not only to the victims but among a wide audience, it is fear which distinguishes terrorism from both conventional and guerrilla warfare baloney. there is plenty of fear in all forms of war. While both conventional military forces may engage in psychological warfare and guerrilla forces may engage in acts of terror and other forms of propaganda, they both aim at military victory utter nonsense. war “is merely the continuation of policy by other means,”(Karl von Clausewitz) many policy objectives are other than military victory. Terrorism on the other hand aims to achieve political or other goals, when direct military victory is not possible.more nonsense. terrorism has also been used in cases where military victory was achieved This has resulted in some social scientists referring to guerrilla warfare as the "weapon of the weak" and terrorism as the "weapon of the weakest."[3] only using terror is a symptom of weakness, but that does not prevent the strong also using terror as a weapon
