Talk:Terrorist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't quite buy the bit about terrorists being hailed as freedom fighters in another country. ETA and IRA are considered terrorist organizations, and they perform bombings in the country they live. On the other hand, they don't agree with the government of the country they live in about the borders of the country they live in. --Pinkunicorn

I don't know about ETA but the IRA would certainly been seen as Freedom Fighters by many Irish Catholics in both the Republic of Ireland and here in Northern Ireland. They are fighting for freedom from Britain. -- JamieTheFoool

It is probably worth noting that Provisional IRA is currently one of the paramilitary groups causing a blockage in the peace process that both British and Irish governments support. It is a curious freedom that they are fighting for as they are opposed to an ally of the government in whose name they act. At least ETA is trying to create a completely new Basque state and they are not embarassing an existing government.

The terrorist entry should be merged into terrorism. Having two separate entries is just going to cause problems, and the terrorism entry is very good. --TheCunctator

Since terrorism can be committed by states as well as "individual" you should include states such as the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Russia, etc. All have exhibited examples of terrorism and have level violence against civilian population.

Redirect to terrorism

I redirected this article to terrorism and added a link to the movie at the top of the article. When people are searching or linking "terrorist", it they are probably not looking for the movie. Also, check the "what links here" page. -- Kjkolb 14:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge to terrorism

There is no reason to have two article for terrorism. We might as well create two seperate articles for carpentry and carpenter. --Descendall 07:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Terrorism is something you do. Other people can point there finger at it and say, see, that's terrorism. A terrorist is just something you call someone else. There isn't an anything you can point your finger at, so everybody just uses it to make the other team look bad. This article says that. --Coolerhead 14:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
You might as well have said, "Carpentry is something you do. Other people can point there finger at it and say, see, that's carpentry. A carpenter is just something you call someone else. There isn't an anything you can point your finger at." Would you want two different articles for carpentry and carpenter? --Descendall 06:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
What I mean is that you can't identify a terrorist by his actions, as you can with a Carpenter. A terrorist is identified by his intentions. --Coolerhead 04:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand. A carpenter is someone who uses carpentry in order to make a wooden product. A terrorist is someone who uses terror in order to advance his politics. I don't see any difference between the two. Just for the record, I'd like to note that:

--Descendall 05:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand your contention. Listing dozens of instances doesn't make it more true. I could also dig up dozens instances were the label of the person has a connotation different from its philosophy or action (i.e. Baptist-Baptism, Mormon-Mormonism, Bush-Bushism), but that wouldn't make my assertion more true either.
Instead of playing word games, I suggest that we talk about the real issue. You don't like the content of the article. That is why you tried to delete it and why you said it was the "most stupid article ever. Should be kept to redirect to terrorism." Your merge request and your obfuscations about redirects are just a way of Wikilawyering something that you haven't otherwise been able to control. If your merge request is voted down, I'm sure you'll find some other way of circumventing consensus in regard to this article, but I have an alternate suggestion: why not assume good faith on my part and explain your concerns? Before executing your heavy-handed approach, why don't we at least try to come to some sort of consensus? Our world views may not be the exactly same, but I'll bet we have some intersect, and cooler heads always prevail. --Coolerhead 21:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Coolerhead is yet another User:Zephram Stark sockpuppet, who has long disruptively edited articles related to terrorism, and insisted that this be a separate article. His latest half dozen sockpuppets have been blocked. Jayjg (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)