Talk:Terrorism: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz
m (Text replacement - "open source intelligence" to "open source intelligence")
(78 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{subpages}}
{{subpages}}


== Images ==


Want any more for this? [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 00:21, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
::Yes this could use some more images. --[[User:Charles Sandberg|Charles Sandberg]] 05:45, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
:::Charles, about the AK-47 image caption.  "...low cost and high numbers."  I would recommend a chance to "...low cost and high availability."  Additionally, if the AK-47 is a highly reliable weapon, it's probably worthy of mention as a reason why it's popular.--[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 09:13, 28 June 2007 (CDT)
::::Done --[[User:Charles Sandberg|Charles Sandberg]] 15:46, 28 June 2007 (CDT)


== Definition ==


I've taught this topic before in philosophy classes and one of the most difficult aspects of the topic is, of course, the definition.  We must, therefore, get that topic right.  "Terrorism refers to any act, usually violent, meant to coerce behavior for political ends."  This will not do.  By this definition, all arrests by police officers are terrorism, given the "political end" of maintaining law and order.  I'm not sure we should begin with any particular definition at all, since there is no agreed definition.  Also, there are some who deny the existence of "state terrorism," or who find the concept problematic.  Therefore, to assert, without qualification, that "armies, police, and intelligence services" commit terrorism is to take a stand on that issue--which is contrary to [[CZ:Neutrality Policy]].  One last thing: I should think the obvious first example to give of a terrorist act would be the destruction of the World Trade Center, the most devasting and consequential single terrorist act ever--thus, we ought to have a picture of that at the top, before we have one of the OK City Federal Bldg bombing. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 17:34, 5 July 2007 (CDT)
== Added to the Core controversial articles page ==
::About 911, I was thinking about doing that and putting Oklahoma City down in the history section. --[[User:Charles Sandberg|Charles Sandberg]] 17:37, 5 July 2007 (CDT)
::The opening paragraph is a suitable encyclopedia-style definition; do not just read the first sentence! The article then does an unusually good job of discussing the definition issue, with citations and quotations from multiple authoritative sources. If someone has changes to make, please make them on the draft page. We need to get approvals moving along and changes in text or illustrations will just delay matters.[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 17:42, 5 July 2007 (CDT)
:::I agree with Richard; the fullest sense of the term is extremely difficult to capture in the first sentence, but the first ''several'' sentences do so, and quite well. As for the image of the Oklahoma City bombing, I actually would ''strongly'' prefer it over one of 9/11, as it is a reminder that, however egregious 9/11 was, that this article is '''not''' about that event only, but about a complex social phenomenon which is not easily generalized. [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 17:59, 5 July 2007 (CDT)
:::::I was thinking the same you were Russell, when I put the Oklahoma City pic in. I think we should keep it instead. --[[User:Charles Sandberg|Charles Sandberg]] 18:20, 5 July 2007 (CDT)


==Bad sentence in first paragraph==
This article is controversial if we agree that some states practice terrorism:
"Terrorists seek to obtain the influence among the population through the publicity of this violence" -- I don't know what, if anything, this means. It sounds like a very bad translation to me. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 19:04, 5 July 2007 (CDT)
<blockquote>Terrorism has been practiced by both left-wing and right-wing political organizations, religious and nationalistic groups, revolutionaries, as well as — to use the somewhat controversial notion of "state terrorism" — armies, police, and security forces.</blockquote>
I have put this article in the list of Core controversial articles (http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Core_controversial_articles) because it is clear to me that state terrorism is a type of terrorism (that deserves ample space in this article, in this day and age).


:Thanks for noticing this -- have had a try at fixing it. [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 19:13, 5 July 2007 (CDT)
[[User:Pierre-Alain Gouanvic|Pierre-Alain Gouanvic]] 00:28, 2 July 2008 (CDT)


==Infelicitous writing of first paragraph==
:First, then, we need a "mainstream" definition of state terror. There is, for example, a qualitative difference, no matter what one believes about the death penalty, between execution after a long judicial process, and "night and fog" disappearance and the night (the Nazi ''nacht und nebel'')
There are only six sentences, a couple of which are quite long and have a genuine cadence to them.  But of these six, four of them begin with the words "Terrorists" or "Terrorism". This is needlessly repetitious and grating to the eye and ear.  The first two sentences, I think, could be merged, perhaps along the lines of: "'''Terrorism''' refers to any act, usually overtly violent, meant to coerce behavior for political ends, generally by bringing fear to a civilian population in order to obtain a specific political goal." I *really* dislike those two sentences -- each of them as a stand-alone is OK, but together they're bad. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 19:20, 5 July 2007 (CDT)
::yes but let's approve it tomorrow and then make small changes. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 19:25, 5 July 2007 (CDT)
:::Larry says that this is a very important article for him and CZ and that it should be as good as possible.  Why not take a little time and polish it to perfection first?  Why approve something that we *know* needs improving? [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 19:36, 5 July 2007 (CDT)
::The new tag gives us 3 days.  I think that's fine.  Despite the headline I recently saw in the Weekly World News ('''Rome ''was'' built in a day!''') the whole philosophy of our Approval process is geared to the idea of continual improvement.  There's no "perfection" in this model, just the collective work of us all in (to quote Dr. Seuss) ''bettering and bettering'' the entry. [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 19:46, 5 July 2007 (CDT)


I think the first sentence of the article should say something true, or at least not obviously false, taken in itself. Before my recent addition, it said something obviously and straightforwardly false; now it's a little less so with "and usually against civilians."  Hayford, your addition might also be an improvement. The fact that other sentences are intended to qualify it does not make its falsehood less problematic, I think.
:I also revised some of the weapons-related material in the lead. Nuclear weapons do not fall into an utterly unique category, when considering such things as the genetic coding for Type A botulinum toxin spliced into normal enteric ''Eschericia coli'', or, rumored to have been a Soviet experiment, a chimeric virus with elements of smallpox and Ebola. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 11:55, 2 July 2008 (CDT)
::Regarding an eventual definition of state terrorism, I would follow the lead given by the former United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan:
:: ''"...regardless of the differences between governments on the question of definition of terrorism, what is clear and what we can all agree on is any deliberate attack on innocent civilians, regardless of one's cause, is unacceptable and fits into the definition of terrorism. And I think this we can all be clear on."'' (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_terrorism#Controversy)
:: This would be for the mainstream component. Then, I would state the following:
::'' (Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, described as pioneers in the concept of State Terrorism, have argued) that the distinction between state and non-state terror is morally relativist, and distracts from or justifies state terrorism perpetrated by favored states, typically those of wealthy and developed nations (Chomsky and Herman, 1979).''
::In other words, I would find evidence and theories suggesting that powers and super-powers can willfully decide to behave outside of the international rules, to inspire fear, deliberately. A canonical example would be the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, any doctrine that declares, with Macchiavelli, that the Prince, or the super-power, may act violently, without justifications that are acceptable to others, deliberately creates a sense of fear. The doctrine of pre-emptive strikes-wars could be compared to a terrorist doctrine. This is the kind of things that the Monde Diplomatique discusses, if I'm not mistaken. This seems logical, doesn'it?
::[[User:Pierre-Alain Gouanvic|Pierre-Alain Gouanvic]] 01:12, 5 July 2008 (CDT)


Also, as to the picture, I am not persuaded by the argument that the OK City bombing picture is better because, if we use a picture of the WTC, people might think the article is only about 9/11. I doubt anybody would draw that conclusion.  We should use a picture that is of either the most important, or else a representative act of terrorism--or else a montage. If representative, it should be Islamic terrorism, because most terrorism in recent years has been Islamic terrorism. This is true, even if it is not exactly PC to say it, and we do our readers a disservice by pretending that it is not. The OK City bombing was pretty unusual. Actually, for future reference, I think a montage would be best.
:::I have no problem in describing the practices of political police and the like, directed at individual groups of citizens or residents, as state terror. I do, however, have a serious problem with labeling efforts to break a national will, as long as both proportionality and knowledge of the consequences are understood, as state terror. Personally, I'd much rather have been at Hiroshima than in Tokyo during the fire raids. Based on the limited knowledge of nuclear weapons at the time, I am not going to accept the nuclear attacks as state terror. As opposed to the RAF "dehousing" campaigns, neither nuclear attack was deliberately directed at a civilian area; there were major military targets near the aiming point of each. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 01:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


Finally, if we ''can'' do a better job than [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism the Wikipedia article,] I think we should. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 20:02, 5 July 2007 (CDT)
::::Interesting discussion. But I wanted to point out that, as most people realize, that there is no commonly accepted definition of terrorism, and this whole subject serves as a flash point for all kinds of disagreements. I have a sense of the mainstream sense of terrorism, which is perhaps closer to the HB view, and which is listed below with an alternative definition of terrorism with references; this definition doesn't consider supposedly legitimate governments as being sponsors of "state terrorism", that is, doesn't put much emphasis on governments as terrorists. However, this mainstream view of terrorism is at odds with my personal view of terrorism, which I see as "violence against individual rights" and which does, in fact, include governments as being possible terrorists. In my book ''Common Sense'' on Amazon, I argue that there are three possible terrorists -- criminals (neighbors who violate our rights), tyrants (our own government if it violates our rights, detentions, torture, even perhaps frisking at airports) and foreign terrorists (Osama bin Laden et al). And my thesis is that it's not sensible to prevent only one type of terrorist, but that tackling all three types is necessary, and that the common theme underlying all successful prevention methods is what I call ''light'', that is, exposure. Light to prevent crime is identified movement in public (which people agree to); to prevent tyranny it's exposing what governments do; to prevent foreign terrorism it's exposure of treaties. My ultimate terrorist was Hitler, not bin Laden. But this is controversial stuff, and my sense is people are unwilling (for many reasons) to confront what terrorism is all about.--[[User:Thomas Wright Sulcer|Thomas Wright Sulcer]] 16:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


==APPROVED Version 1.0==  
==Defense Department-funded report on terrorism==
<div class="usermessage plainlinks">Discussion for [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Terrorism&direction=next&oldid=100130685 Version 1.0] stopped here. Please continue further discussion under this break. </div>
This report, '[http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG741 How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qa'ida]' covers hundreds of terrorist organisations worldwide, and includes various statistics and interesting points about the "war on terror". [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 04:24, 31 July 2008 (CDT)
==Some bold improvements==
I have tried to make the lead somewhat less emotional, as well as stating some of the issues in taxonomy.


==Omissions==
Fukuyama's argument that terrorism is a tactic resonates strongly with me. A [[biological weapon]] is a biological weapon; "bioterrorism" is no more than the use of biological weapons, against civilian populations, to achieve a political objective.  
There are some features of this article that to me seem surprising. There is no mention of the Irgun Zvai Leumi and related activities in 1931-1948, without which mention of the PLO seems overtly unbalanced. Nor is there any mention of the IRA, and its civilian bombing campaign.  


On the other hand it seems surprising to me that assasination of political leaders should be classed as terrorism; should the various abortive US plots against Fidel Castro be mentioned in this context?
An improvised explosive device (IED) or [[mine (land warfare)|land mine]] is a weapon, not terrorist or not. IEDs and mines were major causes of mortality and morbidity in the [[Vietnam War]], but if one military force used them as an "automatic ambush" against another, it would be hard to call them terrorism.


It seems to me naively that the "clean" line is to confine terrorism to meaning deliberate and indiscriminate attacks, outside the context of war, that target civilians in an attempt to achieve political change via the responses of that civilian population. This would exclude most actions of states against their own people, and would exclude for example the saturation bombing of cities.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 09:31, 9 July 2007 (CDT)
I propose, therefore, to start cutting back the weapons and tactics details, giving examples of how their use could be considered terroristic, but linking to the actual details in other articles. Unquestionably, there are blurred cases, such as the use of biological weapons by Japanese [[Unit 731]] against Chinese populations; there were indeed treaty violations and this could be a war crime, but the principal goal seemed to be assisting the advance of ground forces and "terrorism" doesn't easily fit. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 20:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


::Gareth Leng makes some very good points. I agree there should be coverage of Irgun activities and the IRA. The assassination of political leaders, I agree, is not what we mean by terrorism. Government action is more debatable. The original Terror of the French Revolution was government action, as was a lot of totalitarian activity in 20th century (Stalin, Hitler, Mao etc). but that is usually handled outside the contect of terrorism because the full state apparatus is used. Terrorism is the weapon of the weak--of people who do not have a state apparatus. (The question of terror bombing of cities in WW2 is still another matter, which is handled by mainline military history. The goal was not political but economic disruption.) We approved this so we could move forward and I hope Gareth proposes additional new material. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 15:16, 9 July 2007 (CDT)
:The Ganor link is dead. I'll look for other definitions.


:::It is important to note that this is an individual editor approval and, as Richard has eluded, he cannot participate much in the way of content on the actual article according to our current rules. He can, however, make suggestions here on the talk page and let others actually do the editing.  The other option is to wait for two new editors in the workgroup to sign on. --[[User:D. Matt Innis|Matt Innis]] [[User talk:D. Matt Innis|(Talk)]] 15:22, 9 July 2007 (CDT)
:Further, the History section should cut back to broad patterns; history of terrorism in individual places belongs in subarticles. It's not terribly practical, with large countries, to put their terrorism pattern under one motivation.  


== Nu ==
:Anyone else reading this? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 01:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


If this article is not changed soon, it shows to me that Citzendium does not work (yet).
::I'm reading this Howard. My sense is that the whole issue of "strategy" versus "tactic" is mostly ancillary to what terrorism is, but if you feel strongly about it, I'm not going to make a huge issue about it. But a general approach to this whole subject might be as follows -- since there are different ''types of terrorism'' and senses of it -- which depend on who the terrorist is and what their target is -- then maybe we could have the overall word ''terrorism'' be an umbrella term referring to the specific types, and we could have specific articles about each type of terrorism. And what could the specific types be? And here I'm less sure but let's try this:--[[User:Thomas Wright Sulcer|Thomas Wright Sulcer]] 11:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
:::*terrorism as a strategy in war (ie ''tactics'' like you say)
:::*terrorism by radical groups to achieve a political objective
:::*international terrorism
:::*terrorism as organized crime (drugs, intimidation of witnesses, bribing police)
:::*terrorism by governments (''state terrorism'')
:::*other types of terrorism
::What do you think?--[[User:Thomas Wright Sulcer|Thomas Wright Sulcer]] 11:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


Months ago two valid points were made, and nobody really disagreed with their substance.
::::Tom, I just have a minute; appropriately, I'm off to a seminar on Iran. I should be back between 4 and 5 Eastern. May I suggest that you look at [[military doctrine]], and let me know if we are using "strategy" and "tactic" in the same way?  I'm not sure what you mean by the first bullet above.  "Organized crime" is difficult with most definitions of terrorism, although the "narco-terrorism" where the drug industry is a quasi-state does fit with the inherently political definition of terrorism.


Irgun Tsvai Le'umi (Etsel) [and Lehi (aka Stern Gang)] is/are missing. Etsel invented -- or didn't they -- placing bombs on market places used by the ''enemy ethnicity.''
::::You see, I rarely will simply call someone a "terrorist" even though he practices "terror". There are huge differences among 9/11 and Lod Airport and Marks & Spencer and the Haymarket Riot and the Maccabees and the London Iranian embassy hostage situation -- to say nothing of the differences among Harris' dehousing, the fire attack on Tokyo and the nuclear attacks, Guernica and Rotterdam, [[Mutual Assured Destruction]], Lidice, and [[Operation Condor]]. The problem is that calling them all terrorism makes the term useless as a differentiator. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 18:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


Targeteing political leaders follows outside of terrorism as I see it.  
:::::I think we agree about the difference between ''strategy'' and ''tactics''; where I disagree with you is thinking that this distinction is that important to terrorism. If you conceive of strategy as a general plan for overpowering an opponent, then you could conceive of terrorism as one tactic which might accomplish this. But the whole ''strategy vs tactics'' assumes we're talking about a war situation, and terrorism may or may not involve being in a war situation.--[[User:Thomas Wright Sulcer|Thomas Wright Sulcer]] 23:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I guess rather than only not mention the CIA targeting Fidel and the Assassins, the first sentence has to be editid slightly.


:Terrorism refers to any act, nearly always violent, unpredictable, and chaotic in nature, often targeting XX civilians XX, intended to create an atmosphere of fear in order to obtain a political objective.
:::::I looked over the article [[military doctrine]] -- good article so far.--[[User:Thomas Wright Sulcer|Thomas Wright Sulcer]] 23:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


Maybe "randomly" after "civilians" or " "innocent" " before will do.
:::::The general problem with the word ''terrorism'' is that it's a big, confusing umbrella term, used by many people for many different purposes, with nasty connotations; even you and I can't agree what it means. What happens is that the more you try to specify the term and say ''exactly'' what it is, the more we lose people. I think the sensible approach (or strategy) is to keep it simple, and stick to what most people agree on -- and go into more specifics with specific senses of the term (eg ''international terrorism'', ''terrorism during war'', ''state terrorism'', ''media crime'', etc or whatever sub articles you think we should include.)--[[User:Thomas Wright Sulcer|Thomas Wright Sulcer]] 23:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
===Strategy vs. tactics===
It's not at all obvious to me that the great majority of people using terrorism don't consider themselves in war, and have strategies from the sophisticated to the trivial. [[al-Qaeda]], although not a nation-state, clearly operates at all four levels of military doctrine. A person blowing up abortion clinics still has a strategy of stopping abortion, which is a political and thus strategic concept. The leaders of [[Operation Condor]] thought they were conducting a defensive war strategy against Communism, but even more against the established order.


BTW, the first occurrence of the word the Academie Francaise has is 1852.
Try two assumptions to control the definition of terror: it has a political motivation and it targets civilians. I think you will find that clarifies a great many situations. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 00:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The quote in footnote 1 is "terror (terrorist, terrorize)". Since this statement is made twice in the article, there should be real prove, or the reference should be to the English word describing the French situation, not to the French word -- or it should be phrased more cautiously. Compare the phrase from wikipedia "The word "terrorism" was first used in reference to the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution".  ---- On rereading the to sentences in the article on French terorism I notice that I was to harsh. I got the impression, that the term was coined in French, whereas My impressions from the dictionaries is, that it was an English coinage. Maybe one could make this clearer in at leat one of the two sentences mentiong the same fact.
[[User:Arno Schmitt|Arno Schmitt]] 01:52, 16 November 2007 (CST)
:MY OED says that it was indeed first used to describe the *State* terrorism of the French government. On the other hand, it *also* cites 1793 as the first use of it in today's sense, "The causes of rebellion, insurrection....terrorism, massacres, and revolutionary murders." [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 11:17, 16 November 2007 (CST)


== nonsense ==
:I think some acts of terrorism don't have a ''political'' motivation. Serial killers, such as the Washington metro snipers, create terror on a massive scale, and they clearly have a political ''effect'', but in their minds, the serial killers don't see themselves as trying to accomplish some political purpose. And some acts of terrorism don't target civilians, but soldiers or governments -- consider the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 198? -- 240 US Marines died -- wasn't that terrorism? I think the sensible thing to do is not try to be too exact in any definition.--[[User:Thomas Wright Sulcer|Thomas Wright Sulcer]] 00:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


This approved article states: "The French government under Robespierre systematically used terrorism during the French Revolution". This is -- in my view -- nonsense. As is stated elsewhere, terrorism is the weapon of the weak, used against soft, i.e. innocent, targets. It is not "state terrorism" when Stalin or Robespierre frighten their "own" citizen, but when United States Soldiers or Contractors RANDOMLY kill Iraqi and Afghan civilians. It is not state terrorism when a country at war tries to destroy the infrastructure of its enemy and there is some collateral damage, but when -- in the view of the speaer -- the "collateral damage" is the main aim, it is (in his view, of course)
::No, I think the CZ value is to try to be exact, although I agree the creating of the emotion "terror" is not synonymous with "terrorism". Take the D.C. snipers -- I lived there at the time, and indeed shopped at one of the target stores. John Muhammad had some warped political agenda, which wasn't very clear but could qualify as self-radicalization. Practical events from the [[Oklahoma City bombing]] to [[Nidal Hasan]] mean that we do have to consider "lone-wolf" terrorism.


"In the late 19th century small groups of revolutionary anarchists were formed. These anarchists successfully assassinated heads of state from Russia, France, Spain, Italy, and the United States." --
::The [[1983 Beirut barracks bombings]] were emphatically political, and didn't just target U.S. Marines; there was a near-simultaneous bombing of a French barracks. Both were under UN auspices. Yes, it was a suicide attack, but on a military target; I have trouble calling it terrorism. Capture and torture of soldiers is much closer to terrorism, but bombing a theoretically (if far too lightly) defended target? The 9/11 attack on the Pentagon, but not the World Trade Center, still can qualify as terrorism because the passengers in [[American Airlines Flight 77]] were in no way combatants. Were the Japanese [[kamikaze]] terrorists?
This is true but belongs rather to the articles Tyrannicide and Propaganda-by-Deed.


The Black Hand was a group active before World War I that was involved in the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria which was considered an act of terrorism that started the First World War. -- repetition of precending quote.  
::Overly broad definitions of terrorism are causing much confusion in the public sphere. Now, I certainly don't object to the article explicitly discussing nonconventional attacks on military targets, or how a [[Ted Bundy]] differs from a Timothy McVeigh. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 01:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


After World War I terrorism became an official policy in states such as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. -- Nazi Germany called the partisans terrorists. If you don't use your judgment, but just write, what some people think. it's not worth the reading.
:::I agree CZ should try to be ''exact'', but the problem is the term ''terrorism'' is essentially abstract, blurry, inexact. So your efforts to try to be ''exact'' about something ''inexact'' essentially mean that instead of the "Mainstream view" of terrorism, you're writing about the "Howard Berkowitz" view of terrorism. For instance, I think most people would consider the [[1983 Beirut barracks bombings]] as terrorism -- I think this is the mainstream view whether we like this or not. I don't feel strongly enough about this to fuss with you endlessly about it Howard; my own personal view is that I have major problems with both the mainstream view AND your sense of what terrorism is; but I think this is one of those subject areas where ''nobody'' can agree.--[[User:Thomas Wright Sulcer|Thomas Wright Sulcer]] 13:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


If I am the only person finding the article unacceptable, I am clearly in bad company and leave you alone. [[User:Arno Schmitt|Arno Schmitt]] 12:25, 16 November 2007 (CST)
::::Not trying to be heavy-handed here, but I think we are running into a CZ model here. The idea is that definitions don't come from "most people", but from experts. In this case, I'm a military workgroup editor that has been doing professional work on terrorism since the late sixties. The definition I propose is a reasonable synthesis of the one used in professional literature, and, indeed, in quite a number of international organizations and governments.


You're not in bad company, I too see problems here of neutrality as well as accuracy and balance. One problem is no mention of the Jewish terrorist groups operating before and in the early days of the modern Israel. Another is neglect of the IRA and its terror campaign (quite extensively funded by American sympathisers).[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 11:34, 22 November 2007 (CST)
::::In all fairness, this has been a sensitive area. Larry Sanger has taken a more "most people" view on certain areas, terrorism being one of them. I disagree with him, but, at this point, the expert-vs.-common view needs to be resolved by a future Editorial Council.


::Well, this article looks very much like something from Wikipedia to me. There exists a substantial academic literature on terrorism and political violence [even a journal with that very title] and the article has not one reference to academic sources. Everything seems to be American state propaganda, with a little from the UN. In terms of content and definitions, these are very peculiar and do not reflect mainstream views at all. I do not know why this article was approved. --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 11:58, 22 November 2007 (CST)
::::What would seem appropriate is to have a section in terrorism on "Are all suicide attacks terrorism?", linking to and expanding the suicide attack article. The Beirut attack is especially difficult, as Lebanon was beyond failed state and into open civil war &mdash; and responsibility has never been completely clear for the barracks and embassy attacks, although there are some good ideas.  


I agree with Arno's point above that the Terror of the French revolution is not something commensurate with what is currently known as terrorism, and have inserted a quote from Robespierre that I hope clarifies that. I think this article needs rethinking according to a different plan. Perhaps it needs to address the cliche "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", needs to explain the arguments for terrorism - the rationale, and needs to discuss the moral issue of whether evil in the pursuit of good is justifiable, both in the contect of terrorist actions and in the context of anti-terrorist actions. Historically, Guy Fawkes?
::::In other words, have plenty of related articles on the non-core meaning of terrorism, have lots of links and redirects, but keep the definitions in main articles focused. [[Weapons of mass destruction]] have a quite specific professional definition, but there has been increasing use,  in U.S. prosecutions, of including "high explosives" in WMD terrorism indictments &mdash; and, while I hope I'm misreading it, a ''backpack'' in one current prosecution.
The reference to Communism supplying an ideological base seems just wrong. Some Communists certainly pursued terrorist tactics, but I don't know where the ideology comes from. You'll note I hope that the quote from Robespierre makes it clear that he used ''democracy'' as the ideological justification for his terrorism.


I don't mean to suggest that this article is not a good and honest start; I think it is, but it needs diverse fresh input to evolve.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 04:06, 23 November 2007 (CST)
::::Letting popular opinion drive definitions so they include everything means that they eventually exclude nothing, and new terms are needed to be specific.  


:I have modified some of the material on the French Revolution and added a paragraph about the late-19th/early-20th century Russian terrorists (as distinct from anarchists and propagandizers-by-the-deed). I'm not sure all this should go under "definition" but maybe the "History" section should be subdivided chronologically with a cross-reference from "Definition". [[User:Robert M. Cutler|Robert M. Cutler]] 04:07, 19 January 2008 (EST)
::::So, I'm going to make a working Military Editor ruling that a terrorist act must deliberately target civilians or civilian infrastructures, and must have some political goal. By all means have related things, but in separate, highly linked articles. This, incidentally, excludes neither state terrorism nor lone-wolf activities. It would exclude the kamikaze and other Japanese ''tokko'' (Special Attack) tactics. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 16:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
:::Robert, I just reverted your edit on the grounds that your username is illegal and non-existent. I did not even know it was you. Go to the History and see. You need to correct something in your setup. I have already emailed the Constabulary asking them to look into the illegal name. Sorry about this. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 03:12, 19 January 2008 (CST)
:::::I think I've been able to revert it. The problem stems from the fact that this is, yes, the very first time I have ever posted on any wiki, and don't have all the particular conventions down. (I had a devil of a time figuring out how to post a comment here on the discussion page; I expected there would be some kind of form.) Specifically, when I originally signed with four consecutive tildes, it inserted my username, which is "rmc". Fortunately I checked and discovered that was a problem, and subsequently had to change it manually to my real name, which links to the page showing I am legit. I don't know what to do about the Constabulary, but maybe the best is for you to write again saying it was a false alarm? [[User:Robert M. Cutler|Robert M. Cutler]] 04:31, 19 January 2008 (EST)
You are still appearing in all page history edits as Rmc. so the problem is not solved. I think you need to solve it before doing anymore, because the histories show an illegal and unidentifiable user with no link to a biog page. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 06:19, 19 January 2008 (CST)
::All should be fixed now, Robert, just make sure and sign in using the [[User:Robert M. Cutler|Robert M. Cutler]] account and edit away! --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 10:14, 19 January 2008 (CST)/constable


== Draft changes ==
(undent) Before doing much more on this article, I'm going to wait to hear if other Editors can agree with that working ruling or refine it, and if they are willing to work, even in a non-writing mode, on the article. There's the practical issue that if we pull Approval of V1 or Approve V2, two other editors (Military, History, Politics) will have to be involved. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 16:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
These are definite improvements, Gareth. I think the article also needs a much stronger [and less biased] theoretical base, which will come from academic literature: I will have to find time to look these up and make any necessary changes. --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 07:24, 23 November 2007 (CST)


== Revoking approval ==
== "Freedom fighter" vs. "Terrorist" ==
I was asked to weigh in on the question of how an approval might be revoked. Currently, [[CZ:Editor_Policy#Article_Approval|the rules on revoking approval]] are as follows:
:'''Cancellation of nomination for approval.'''  If another editor, who is also expert in the topic of the article, believes it does ''not'' meet the standards, he or she may either (1) discuss the problems on the talk page before the approval date, and try to have a consensus on a revised version (recommended), or (2) cancel the "nomination for approval" of the article by removing the template.  The second editor may take this action without consulting the first; but if the first insists, the issue of approval is resolved by the relevant editorial workgroup(s) as any editorial disputes are resolved (see [[CZ:Policy on resolving editorial disputes|policy on resolving editorial disputes]]).


In the absence of clearer rules about this, I would stipulate the following as rules that apply just to this article, until the Editorial Council has weighed in:
The article contains a common summary that I consider flawed:
# If the original approving editor declares that he or she wishes to revoke an approval, the approval is thereby revoked.  Constables should unprotect the main page and replace the currently approved version with the most recent draft version (using the move tab), and should delete the draft page.
<blockquote>It is often said, especially by critics of the West and of capitalism, that terrorism is merely a label ascribed by those in power to those who do not accept their authority, and resist it with violent and unlawful means. On this view, whether someone is better described as a "terrorist" or instead as a "freedom-fighter" depends on whether the state's power is thought to be wielded lawfully and fairly.</blockquote>
# To clarify item (2) in the above, in the absence of any clear workgroup dispute resolution mechanisms, if any two editors in the relevant workgroups declare that they wish an article's approval to be revoked, it is thereby revoked.
# The approval of an article can be revoked by a vote of the Editorial Council.
# The approval of an article can be revoked by the Editor-in-Chief.  The Editor-in-Chief may be overruled by any group of three editors who are qualified to approve the article.  (The Editor-in-Chief may ''not'' singlehandedly approve any article.)
I hope this helps.  Obviously, I regret that our rules on these matters are not better worked out.  It's one among many governance issues that I want to tackle as soon as possible. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 08:07, 23 November 2007 (CST)


::Thanks for that Larry. For others, I should add that it was not I who asked about revoking it. I support your provisional rules; my thinking was just to get this article into better shape and re-approve it. Obviously, this sort of subject is controversial but I think it is also worsened by the lack of expertise in the USA as terrorism is a new issue there. The older global literature can help with all of this. --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 08:13, 23 November 2007 (CST)
This loses sight that virtually all terrorism, save the nihilists, is a political act. I get very confused when a nation (let's say the Third Reich) launches a major conventional war, for political objectives, and the conventional wisdom is that there is collateral damage to civilians. The more proper question is proportionality of the act to the desired political response. To take an extreme example from warfare, the argument can be made that the nuclear attacks on Japan -- not that their effects were fully understood -- were intended to decrease civilian casualties that would result from a ground war.
:::I think people who want improvements should start making them in the new Draft version. If they pass muster the new version will replace the original. I note the original is VERY strong on the matter of definitions, and the historical section is a brief survey, with seldom more than a sentence or two on each instance. Let me add that unanalyzed quotations from terrorists justifying their work is unencyclopedic. Our job is to explain and interpret. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 09:09, 23 November 2007 (CST)
::::The definitions are not from independent academic sources and are in conflict with Neutrality Policy. They are detailed, but highly controversial and very slanted towards US interests. This is not acceptable. I do not see how you can explain  without proper definitions of what needs to be explained. Quotations from terrorist organisations can be used, but do need to be analysed, it is true. --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 09:24, 23 November 2007 (CST)
:::::Point of clarification.  Individual definitions ''cannot'' be in conflict with the Neutrality Policy.  What is neutral, or biased, is not individual claims, but rather the role they play in the article.  For example, if the article claims that such-and-such is ''the'' definition of "terrorism," then of course that would be biased, simply because it would endorse one definition, when there are many others that others would endorse.  In short, neutrality is violated when the article is made to endorse a point of view that some, particularly some experts, disagree with.  That is what our policy states, and that much isn't going to change. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 10:40, 23 November 2007 (CST)


I agree completely Richard that quotes generally need commentary and context, I added them as I found them, essentially to help to fill a gap in understanding how terrorist groups justify their actions. It seems best to see the words by which they justify their actions, rather than simply ascribe motives to them. It's good and right to both explain them and if necessary balance them. [[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 09:34, 23 November 2007 (CST)
The "critic" aspect seems emotional. We can recognize it, in the article, as emotional and propagandistic, but not part of the operational calculus of a strategist who uses terror as a tacticAs far as the material in the paragraph starting this, I'm sure Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler, and Foday Sankoh (Sierra Leone) would be surprised to be called Western capitalists. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 16:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::Propagandistic quotations are rarely used for politics articles in this encyclopedia in the first place. "balancing" hate speech with some opposite hate speech is not encyclkopedic either. We're in the role of analyst here. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 09:38, 23 November 2007 (CST)
::::::::I am sorry Richard, but you have allowed biased definitions which are essentially propaganda from the US government in this article, but insist on labelling statements from terrorist groups as being propaganda. Obviously, both are: but as one type is not labelled, and is privileged over the other, I am removing [again] the biased  comment. --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 09:49, 23 November 2007 (CST)
:::::::::And again, I have to insist that definitions per se ''cannot'' be biased, except in the context of our article(s).  Our ''article'' can be biased by presenting any one definition as ''the'' definitionMoreover, it constitutes bias if ''any'' view is labelled by the article as "propaganda" unless it is generally accepted by all sides that that is what it is.  In short, the question is obviously not who we should say is engaging in "propaganda."  By now, I should have thought, these sorts of matters are obvious. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 16:57, 23 November 2007 (CST)
I have reinstated the statements from Bin Laden, under a new section which requires some analysis. It is not irrelevant material, even if you think it is merely propaganda, Richard. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 10:09, 23 November 2007 (CST)
::The definitions come from a Dutch book (Schmid, A. & Jongman_ published a decade ago, not from the US government. Please re-read the CZ rules on neutrality.  If there are different definitions than the 100+ used by scholars across the world, what are they? [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 10:12, 23 November 2007 (CST)
What you have just written is an incorrect statement of facts. There are definitions from all over the place, especially a "legal definition" from the US government. I can hardly believe that you wrote the paragraph above. --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 11:28, 23 November 2007 (CST)


For one very different definition (from Islamic scholars), see [http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/definition-terrorism.htm].[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 12:03, 26 November 2007 (CST)
:"Freedom fighter" is about ends; "terrorist" is about means. They're not mutually exclusive. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 18:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
::that's a very bad definition indeed, --one person's rather odd views. '''". all dictatorial acts against peoples and all forms of protection of dictatorships, not to mention their imposition on nations;....all types of pollution of geographical, cultural and informational environment. Indeed, intellectual terrorism may be one of the most dangerous types of terrorism"''' [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 12:34, 23 November 2007 (CST)


::The ends are more properly in articles about insurgency or [[revolutionary warfare]]. By restricting the discussion of terrorism to be means (with qualifications), it makes the article more coherent. There's no reason not to crosslink between means and ends articles, but there's a serious problem to combine them.  [[Operation Condor]] had a political end, but preservation of the state rather than revolution. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 19:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


Are you reading the same document? The definition is this:
:::Still you shouldn't label a freedom fighter a terrorist. Maybe the freedom fighter committed an act that can be considered terrorism, but it doesn't make sense to label and exclusively characterize him as a terrorist. There is much negative connotation with someone being a terrorist, and it is flat out nonsensical and arrogant to characterize a freedom fighter as one. There was a Korean freedom fighter [[Ahn Jung-geun]] whom the Japanese & Japanophiles at Wikipedia are trying to label as a "terrorist," but I disagree with that completely. Citizendium should get this one straight. ([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 14:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC))


'''Terrorism is an act carried out to achieve an inhuman and corrupt ''(mufsid) ''objective, and involving threat to security of any kind, and violation of rights acknowledged by religion and mankind.'''
::::I disagree.  If one takes the core definition of terrorism as violence against civilians in order to achieve a political objective, the nobility of the objective doesn't qualify the act. Here's a parallel:  not all [[homicide]] is [[murder]]. There is [[justifiable homicide]] in self-defense or defense of others. There are forms of homicide, such as [[manslaughter]] in common law, where there may not have been an intention to kill, but there was negligence, or "depraved indifference to human life", that led to the death of an another person.  


''excluding:''
::::The only way to keep it straight is to deal with the nature of the target and the means of attack chosen. Now, there are not-unreasonable definitions of terrorism that include actions against civilian property. It's a bit ironic when people use the Boston Tea Party as a symbol of not doing enough about terrorism. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 14:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
#acts of national resistance exercised against occupying forces, colonizers and usurpers;
# resistance of peoples against cliques imposed on them by the force of arms;
# rejection of dictatorships and other forms of despotism and efforts to undermine their institutions;
#resistance against racial discrimination and attacks on the latter's strongholds;
#. retaliation against any aggression if there is no other alternative.


''The above definition, however, does apply to the following:''
:::::Would there be distinction between indiscriminate killing of civilians and destruction or assassination of political targets (i.e. soldiers, police station, and political leaders)?([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 15:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC))
# acts of piracy on land, air and sea;
:::::Oh you already said it. So Ahn wouldn't be described as a terrorist, since he never targeted civilians except for political leaders? ([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 15:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC))
# all colonialist operations including wars and military expeditions;
# all dictatorial acts against peoples and all forms of protection of dictatorships, not to mention their imposition on nations;
# all military methods contrary to human practice, such as the use of chemical weapons, the shelling of civilian populated areas, the blowing up of homes, the displacement of civilians, etc.;
#. all types of pollution of geographical, cultural and informational environment. Indeed, intellectual terrorism may be one of the most dangerous types of terrorism;
# all moves that undermine adversely affect the condition of international or national economy, adversely affect the condition of the poor and the deprived, deepen up nations with the shackles of socio-economic gaps, and chain up nations with the shackles of exorbitant debts;
# all conspiratorial acts aimed at crushing the determination of nations for liberation and independence, and imposing disgraceful pacts on them.


It is a very wide definition, but in my opinion rather better than the US legal definition. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 13:01, 23 November 2007 (CST)
== Reorganizing ==


Martin, please--your views about what the best definition is are not relevant, and stating these views accomplishes nothing. The definition of "terrorism" is, obviously, a matter of some dispute.  It is not the role of either ''Citizendium'' articles ''or'' talk pages to settle what the correct definition is.  So, please, stop acting like you are trying to settle what the correct definition is.  It is the role of the article to give a broad overview of the different approaches to defining the term.  This is much harder. Surely seasoned scholars such as yourselves have no trouble grasping what I'm trying to say, here.
I propose to reorganize the History section on strictly chronological/geographic lines, with motivations as a subordinate level. Right now, it's organized more by ideology, so, for example, one doesn't see there is both Jihadist and anti-abortion terrorism concurrently in the U.S.  


I stipulate that ''anyone'' who insists that the article state any particular definition is ''the'' correct one, or that any other is definitely incorrect, is not welcome to work on an article that, obviously, requires collaborators with more fine-tuned ideas of what neutrality is.
This article really needs work. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 21:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


If in your opinion I am needed to ban someone from working on this article because he continues to insist upon (or against) any particular definition, and is not trying to represent all sides sympathetically, please let me know.  I simply refuse to let CZ be embarrassed by further debates between editors like this, which are, quite frankly, completely unnecessary and silly to boot.  Over and out. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 17:11, 23 November 2007 (CST)
==Alternative definition of terrorism (from earlier draft on WP) ==


::Larry, you misunderstand completely. I am not trying to identify "the" correct definition: my comment to Richard is that the Islamic definition pasted above is more acceptable to me personally than is the US state one. The problem with the article is that its choice of definitions is slanted or biased. I don't see that the debate is silly, because it is not easy to decide on what to include and what to exclude. This is our task.[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 17:34, 23 November 2007 (CST)
When at Wikipedia I worked out with several editors a kind of compromise (which got reverted by administrators) but I thought it was a good compromise definition (while allowing that there's MUCH disagreement over this whole subject.) I'll put it here in case anybody is interested, or possibly interested in using the references, but I'm not interested in fussing much over the definition here on CZ:----[[User:Thomas Wright Sulcer|Thomas Wright Sulcer]] 16:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


:::Would it be dumb or naif of me to suggest that *both* definitions could be included, with suitable commentary on each? [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 18:44, 23 November 2007 (CST)
:::'''Terrorism''', despite considerable disagreement about a precise definition,<ref>Angus Martyn, [http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/CIB/2001-02/02cib08.htm The Right of Self-Defence under International Law-the Response to the Terrorist Attacks of 11 September], Australian Law and Bills Digest Group, Parliament of Australia Web Site, 12 February 2002</ref><ref>Thalif Deen. [http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=29633 POLITICS: U.N. Member States Struggle to Define Terrorism], [[Inter Press Service]], 25 July 2005</ref><ref name="Abrahm"/><ref name=tws13jan23ab>{{cite news
|author= Jean Paul Laborde
|title= COUNTERING TERRORISM: NEW INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW PERSPECTIVES: 132ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
|quote= The UN is often criticized for its action (or more accurately lack of action) on terrorism. “Lack of the definition” of terrorism, not addressing its “root causes”, “victims” and other issues are often cited by the critics to highlight UN impotence in dealing with this gravest manifestation of crime.
|publisher= ''United Nations''
|date= 2007
|url= http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/PDF_rms/no71/07_p10-p13.pdf
|accessdate= 2010-01-13
}}</ref> is often considered to be [[Intention (criminal law)|deliberate]]<ref name=tws12jan35ab>{{cite news
|author= Fareed Zakaria
|title= The Only Thing We Have to Fear ... If you set aside the war in Iraq, terrorism has in fact gone way down over the past five years.
|quote= "Over the past 30 years, civil wars in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Uganda, Bosnia, Guatemala, and elsewhere have, like Iraq, been notorious for the number of civilians killed. But although the slaughter in these cases was intentional, politically motivated, and perpetrated by non-state groups—and thus constituted terrorism as conceived by MIPT, NCTC, and START—
|publisher= ''Newsweek''
|date= Jun 2, 2008
|url= http://www.newsweek.com/id/138508
|accessdate= 2010-01-12
}}</ref> [[violence]]<ref name=tws13janx23>{{cite news
|author= Francis Townsend, Bruce Hoffman, Steve Inskeep (host)
|title= Experts Explore How To Define Terrorism Act
|quote= Incidents like Fort Hood are forcing terrorism experts to refine what should count as a terrorist act. ... When you look at the just basic English dictionary definition of terror, which is the use of violence to instill fear and intimidation, I think it's hard to imagine this wasn't an act of terror. ... Professor BRUCE HOFFMAN (Georgetown University): For me, an act of violence becomes an act of terrorism when it has some political motive.
|publisher= ''NPR''
|date= November 25, 2009
|url= http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120809061
|accessdate= 2010-01-13
}}</ref> or the [[Intimidation|threat of violence]]<ref name=tws13jan43d>{{cite news
|title= What is terrorism?
|quote= One is Britain - the Terrorism Act 2000 is the largest piece of terrorist legislation in any member state. The Act says terrorism means the use or threat of action to influence a government or intimidate the public for a political, religious or ideological cause.
|publisher= ''BBC News''
|date= 20 September 2001
|url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1555265.stm
|accessdate= 2010-01-13
}}</ref> directed at [[innocent]]<ref name=tws13janfggf>{{cite news
|title= What is terrorism?
|quote= Hardly anyone disputes that flying an aircraft full of passengers into the World Trade Center was terrorism of the worst kind. But the outrage has tended to obscure the fact that there is still argument about what the word covers. In other contexts, the debate about who is a terrorist and who is a freedom-fighter is not dead. ... You would get wide agreement across the world that innocent civilians or bystanders should not be targeted - as opposed to being killed inadvertently in an attack on the military.
|publisher= ''BBC News''
|date= 20 September 2001
|url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1555265.stm
|accessdate= 2010-01-13
}}</ref><ref name=tws13jan25b>{{cite web
|author= Steven Monblatt
|title= Transatlantic Security
|quote= Most victims of terrorism are innocent bystanders who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
|publisher= ''British American Security Information Council''
|date= 2010-01-13
|url= http://www.basicint.org/transatlantic/counterr.htm
|accessdate= 2010-01-13
}}</ref> [[non-combatants]]<ref name=tws13janfggf/> and [[government|governments]]<ref name=tws13jan43d/> to cause [[fear]]<ref name=tws13janx23/> systematically<ref name=tws13jan7464>{{cite news
|author= James Poniewozik
|title= Is the Media Soft on White Male Terrorism?
|quote= The Webster definition of terrorism is "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion."
|publisher= ''Time Magazine''
|date= June 11, 2009
|url= http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2009/06/11/is-the-media-soft-on-white-male-terrorism/
|accessdate= 2010-01-13
}}</ref> to attract [[Mass media|media attention]]<ref>[http://www.asap-spssi.org/pdf/asap019.pdf "politically
motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant"]</ref> for causes which may be [[politics|political]]<ref name=tws12jan35ab/><ref name="Abrahm">{{cite journal| last = Abrahms| first = Max| title = What Terrorists Really Want: Terrorist Motives and Counterterrorism Strategy| journal = [[International Security]]| volume = 32| issue = 4| pages = 86–89| publisher = [[MIT Press]]| location = Cambridge, MA| date = March 2008| url = http://maxabrahms.com/pdfs/DC_250-1846.pdf| format = PDF 1933 [[KB]]| issn = 0162-2889| accessdate = 2008-11-04 }}</ref><ref name=tws13janx23/> or [[ideology|ideological]]<ref name=tws13jan43d/> or [[religion|religious]]<ref name=tws13jan43d/> and which are viewed as [[coercion|coercive]].<ref name=tws13jan43d/><ref name=tws13jan7464/><ref>{{cite web |title=Terrorism
|url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism
|publisher=Merriam-Webster's Dictionary
|year=1795}}</ref> An act which meets many or all of these criteria is often considered to be ''terrorism''. There is considerable disagreement about whether the term can describe government or religious leaders and whether the term should be extended to include wartime acts. Further, the distinction between ''terrorism'' and ''crime'' is hard to specify.<ref name=tws13janx23xxx>{{cite news
|author= Bruce Hoffman, Steve Inskeep (host)
|title= Experts Explore How To Define Terrorism Act
|quote= But Hoffman concedes he might not have viewed Fort Hood as terrorism a decade or two ago. Back then, he believed there had to be some sort of chain of command; that a terror network had to be involved for an incident to rank as a terrorist attack. But Hoffman was forced to revisit that view, in light of the Unabomber, the Oklahoma City bomber, and now his conviction that terrorist groups like al-Qaida have learned they don't need to finance or train would-be terrorists directly; instead, they can motivate them to commit terrorism on their own. In that sense, Hoffman sees the Fort Hood attack as a prime example of one of the major trends in 21st century terrorism.
|publisher= ''NPR''
|date= November 25, 2009
|url= http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120809061
|accessdate= 2010-01-13
}}</ref><ref name=tws13jan23ab1>{{cite news
|author= Jean Paul Laborde
|title= COUNTERING TERRORISM: NEW INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW PERSPECTIVES: 132ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
|quote= By defining terrorism as a crime rather than as an international security issue, the General Assembly has chosen a criminal law approach rather than a war model of fighting terrorism.
|publisher= ''United Nations''
|date= 2007
|url= http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/PDF_rms/no71/07_p10-p13.pdf
|accessdate= 2010-01-13
}}</ref>


:::::It would be fine by me. The quotation was found by Gareth Leng, and he is working on this article rather than me. I am simply trying to make helpful editorial remarks -- maybe not succeeding, from Larry's  terse remarks. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 20:17, 23 November 2007 (CST)
:::The term is charged politically and emotionally and has strong negative connotations.<ref name="Hoffman-1998-p31">Hoffman, Bruce "''Inside Terrorism''" Columbia University Press 1998 ISBN 0-231-11468-0. Page 32. See review in The [[New York Times]][http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/h/hoffman-terrorism.html Inside Terrorism]</ref> Its meaning often depends on the [[ideology]] of the user and the context of its use. Studies have found more than one hundred definitions of the term.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub207.pdf|title=BOUNDING THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM|last=Record|first=Jeffrey|date=December 2003|publisher=[[Strategic Studies Institute]] (SSI)|quote=The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. This report is cleared for public release; distribution is unlimited.|accessdate=2009-11-11}}</ref><ref>Schmid, Alex, and Jongman, Albert. Political Terrorism: A new guide to actors, authors, concepts, data bases, theories and literature. Amsterdam ; New York : North-Holland ; New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1988.</ref> At present, there is no internationally agreed-upon definition. Governments have described opponents as ''terrorists'' to delegitimize them.<ref name=tws11janx33225/><ref name=tws11jan757>{{cite news
|author= Elysa Gardner
|title= Harold Pinter: Theater's singular voice falls silent
|quote= In 2004, he earned the prestigious Wilfred Owen prize for a series of poems opposing the war in Iraq. In his acceptance speech, Pinter described the war as "a bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of international law."
|publisher= ''USA Today''
|date= 2008-12-25
|url= http://www.usatoday.com/life/theater/news/2008-12-25-pinter_N.htm
|accessdate= 2010-01-11
}}</ref> Some suggest that the term ''terrorist'' is so fraught with conceptual problems that a better term would be ''violent non-state actor''.<ref name=tws11jan4eer>{{cite news
|author= Barak Mendelsohn
|title= Sovereignty under attack: the international society meets the Al Qaeda network (abstract)
|quote= This article examines the complex relations between a violent non-state actor, the Al Qaeda network, and order in the international system. Al Qaeda poses a challenge to the sovereignty of specific states but it also challenges the international society as a whole.
|publisher= ''Cambridge Journals''
|date= 2005-01
|url= http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=14A39C376E92196BB12E57159E36C7DF.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=274626
|accessdate= 2010-01-11
}}</ref><ref name=tws12jan35ab/> Terrorism has a long history and has been practiced by both right-wing and left-wing [[Political party|political parties]], nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, criminals, and others.<ref name="britannica">{{cite web|url= http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9071797 |title=Terrorism |accessdate= 2006-08-11 |publisher= Encyclopædia Britannica|pages=3}}</ref>


==Hate speech?==
(end of section)----[[User:Thomas Wright Sulcer|Thomas Wright Sulcer]] 16:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I didn't read these as hate. There is a problem in presenting terrorists as merely evil people whose actions are inexplicably bad (and indeed a neutrality problem; even here we are not about making judgements). It is important to understand why people act in these ways, i.e. what are the causes of terrorism, and to understand what the terrorists hope to achieve (and why they think that these actions might indeed be effective). Terrorism requires a population that if it does not support the actions, at least shares their motivation and which endures a sufficient sense of injustice to shelter and protect the terrorists. It is I think important then to see directly the motivation as it is understood by the population that passively harbours terrorists.


The history of Jewish terrorism is an example of the success of terrorist actions.
== Approval issues ==


The challenge for Citizendium here is to keep a cool and objective tone; it is still for the readers to judge terrorist actions, not for us to do so on their behalf; we merely give relevant facts and information, analysed in a balanced and objective way.
While there is an Approved article, there was, in 2007, discussion about revoking the Approval. As a Military Workgroup Editor, I don't really consider Version 1 of Approved quality, but I'd rather work on extensive revisions and get a new Approved version.


I have no particular attachment to the particular quotes used; they seemed to display clearly bin Laden's rationale, and how else are we to do that?. I don't think we should avoid quoting terrorists, indeed I think it would be daft to do so. Quoting people at least allows the reader to see the terrorists own rationalisations, if we try to explain the motives of terrorists without quoting them, then it seems to me that it will be harder to avoid the impression that we in fact share those opinions.
Before spending extensive time on it, however, are there two other Editors (Military, History, Politics) that would, assuming a decent second version, who would work on a nomination? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 16:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 10:56, 23 November 2007 (CST)


::I support these views 100%, Gareth. And well done on finding the Mandela quote! --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 11:29, 23 November 2007 (CST)
:I agree with the sentiment that the "approved" article status of Version 1 should be revoked, and I think the current draft is better, although I still have major problems with the definition as it is. Basically I think issues of whether a supposed act of terrorism is ''political'' is tangential (although I think many acts of terrorism do have a so-called ''political motivation''). And, the issue of ''targeting civilians'' is tangential as well, although I agree that many instances of terrorism happen in which civilians are, indeed, targeted and killed. What I think the ''essence'' of terrorism is, is this: violence. That's the core ingredient. And, particularly, violence against ''individual rights''. In my view, that's what it's all about -- any definition that fails to put these criteria front and center is off the mark, in my view. Violence is human vs human aggression, hurting, maiming, killing, wounding, menacing. And rights are powers to act in the future that other people agree, beforehand, that people have clearance to do. These two concepts nail what terrorism means for me, but I realize this is not the mainstream view.--[[User:Thomas Wright Sulcer|Thomas Wright Sulcer]] 14:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


:I guess what I'm saying is that the current definition -- emphasizing "political objectives" and "civilians" -- I don't think this is the "mainstream view" or that it's even the accepted version by the so-called "expert community". In preparing articles about terrorism prevention, I read through many newspaper and journalist accounts, as well as books by experts such as Hoffman, and I got a sense of what people think this term is about. It's clearly not my sense about violence + individual rights. I think the "expert" view is that ''terrorism is hard to define precisely'' and that it's a ''pejorative or loaded term'' which describes something negative. And I think the definition I've posed above as the mainstream definition (with the numerous references) is better than the "political" and "civilian" one, since it more accurately reflects what both experts and publics think terrorism is.--[[User:Thomas Wright Sulcer|Thomas Wright Sulcer]] 14:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


==Keeping cool==
::There has been an overwhelming need, in government and military circles, to come up with a somewhat constrained definition. Otherwise, politicians and sound-bite journalists devalue the term by making ''everything'' terrorism.  
I don't think we should try to avoid differences of opinion - or be afraid of airing them. The test for Citizendium is not how well we avoid disputes but how well we engage in them - and while we can do so with good humour and respect for each other and different views, that's fine. I don't see any problem here yet, we're exchanging views (robustly but rationally), thinking about them, that's good. We have a draft article to work with after all, we can try things and see how they go.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 03:56, 24 November 2007 (CST)


Gareth, on the one hand, I agree that we should keep our cool.  On the other hand, I think we actually ''should'' avoid expressing ''irrelevant'' differences of opinion, particularly when doing so will only goad others into a pointless debate, otherwise known as a "pissing match"--something silly that accomplishes nothing except make a mess.  There is nothing wrong about expressing differences of opinion about how the article should read, as long as they are well-informed by the [[CZ:Neutrality Policy|Neutrality Policy]].  Arguing that a certain definition should not be included, because it is "biased," is an example of a remark that is totally ignorant of what our neutrality policy requires--not just that, but it actually encourages a completely wrong interpretation of the policy.  This is frustrating to me because we have been over this again and again, and by now, I should have thought that gentlemen as intelligent and well-educated as these would have glommed onto the concept, which is not particularly difficult.  Similarly, arguing that a certain definition is ''the'' correct one also reflects a misleading notion of neutrality.  Exchanging differences of opinion like ''that''--where what you are doing is essentially discussing about ''how'' an article should be biased--are strictly off-limits, as far as I'm concerned.  You may ''not'' continue what is, for all intents and purposes, a debate about ''what bias an article should reflect,'' because it may not reflect any bias, and so your continued debate in this fashion does nothing but upset the larger the community. Please stop it. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 07:49, 24 November 2007 (CST)
::I believe, and I think I can support, that the prevailing core expert view about terrorism is that it has a political goal, although not necessarily a clear or obvious one, and it is targeted against civilians or at least noncombatants. When I say noncombatants, I can include, for example, an off-duty soldier, not one under military security.
::Larry, as I keep on telling you, and you keep on refusing to see the point, your neutrality policy sounds very nice in theory. Putting it into practice is much more difficult, and you clearly have no idea how to do it. What we are doing on these pages is, through dialectic discussion, trying to work out how to reach a non-biased article. I am sorry that you do not see it, and I really do not accept instructions from people with less experience than me on how to conduct complex debates. Sorry to be so blunt, but I prefer to be straightforward about this. --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 08:47, 24 November 2007 (CST)


Actually Larry, I don't think that it was ever suggested by anyone here that the ''article'' should assert that any one definition was correct. I read Martin's comments as pointing out that there were other ideas of what constituted terrorism that should also be mentioned, and that interpretations of terrorism from the perspective of the USA and Britain were not always shared by other parts of the world (or even always shared by the USA and the UK). I read Richard's comments as questioning whether alternative views were in fact held by any significant and notable grouping, an important consideration, and one I'm not really equipped to answer. I ''think'' the answer is that, in the Islamic world especially, there are very different views on what terrorism means to those in the article, and by those definitions and understandings, the actions of the USA and Britain constitute state terrorism. Clearly and understandably this is not a mainstream view in the USA or Britain; by and large we define terrorism in such a way as to exclude what our countries do. The issues here are how to express these different understandings of terrorism in this article, and how to explain terrorist motivations in a neutral way without appearing to be apologists for terrorism. I think this is a serious debate in good faith - it is certainly not a debate about which definition we think is "best", and Martin expressed an opinion simply by way of stating that the very different definition from an Islamic source deserved to be treated seriously here - i.e. included in some way. The decision to include it or not needs us to think about not just neutrality, but also about academic notability - and indeed about coherence for the article.  I think that the article should properly refer to significant different understandings of what terrorism is, including those held in the Islamic world, and perhaps should mention that some actions of the USA and UK governments are themselves seen as state-sponsored terrorism elsewhere. Alternatively, and perhaps better for now, the whole issue of state sponsored terrorism should be separated from this article into a new article.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 12:30, 24 November 2007 (CST)
::It's gotten a more pejorative sense than in the way, for example, Lenin said "the purpose of terrorism is to terrorize", emphasizing the political and psychological. Some writers argue that Mao's Phase I is terrorism, but I believe most now recategorize it as small-unit or individual acts, such as non-random assassination, raids on government facilities, etc.
::Thank you, Gareth, for your cool exposition of the issues. I should add that there is a real academic dispute between many European scholars and those of the USA and UK about the issue of state terror. Although I do not work on these issues, I have been present at rather acrimonious disputes: on the whole, I am supportive of the typical European position which is that the activities of western governments or states in perpetuating terrorism are important and should be included in the general debate. I do not think there are many Americans (other than Chomsky) who support this position. --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 13:05, 24 November 2007 (CST)


It appears I am not going to be able to get away with relatively glib pronouncements, if I want to provide guidance on policy.  All right.
::Francis Fukuyama's comment that "war on terror" makes as much sense as "war on submarines" is widely accepted. Hoffman, I think, is very good on the internal organization of terrorist organizations, but less so on the basic definition.


I agree that the views about terrorism are many and varied, and all need to be fairly discussed--indeed, if you didn't notice, that was my point.  I have taught the topic of terrorism to philosophy students on multiple occasions and am (or used to be!) pretty familiar with many intricacies in the topic.  I agree that all major views on terrorism need to be included in the article; and those would, of course, include the views of militant Islamists and the European Left (well, the Left everwhere), which are hostile to the mainstream or traditional views of terrorism. Indeed, I think we need to have a better discussion of the rhetoric of "terror": competing definitions, or what many would call "redefinitions," of the term appear to amount to so much propaganda (like so much redefinition), and discussing them while clarifying their propaganda value is crucial. The concept of terrorism has been so much discussed and appropriated by various apologists for terrorism--especially by the opponents, of all sorts, of Western capitalism and hegemony--that it has been pressed into service to mean "violence of which I disapprove."  Anything like a consensus concept of terrorism has, thereby, become weakened and made to seem contentious.  This does not mean we should say the concept is meaningless.  Indeed, ''that too'' would be contentious: we should say that some (research would be required for examples...) believe the rhetoric behind the concept has rendered it meaningless.  Anyway, that whole dialectic must be made clear (and I notice that it is hinted at, but it could be made clearer in the article).
::This a sufficiently confused and emotional area that I don't think we can rely on public opinion, although it's certainly reasonable to have a section on charges and countercharges that an act was, or was not, terrorism. There's a deplorable tendency, in the U.S., to lean too far in calling Islamic things terrorism, but not things on the domestic extreme left or right.  


That said, I think we should have more detail about the history terrorism, and we need to add a section about acts of alleged state terrorism, with examples from around the world (not, of course, ''just'' the U.S.). In giving this history, of course, it should be made clear that some believe that there is an important difference between military actions by the state that have unintentional civilian casualties, and attempts to undermine a regime by deliberately killing civilians.  Clearly, the opponents of such military action will interpret the attacks as deliberate; their defenders will deny it; and it is incumbent upon CZ to explain that the difference of views about "state terrorism" often rests on propagandistic claims about whether groups and governments do things "deliberately" or not.
::Let's get more views in this.[[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 15:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


At the risk of belaboring the obvious, let me give you an example. Israel is often severely criticized for bombing targets in Palestinian areas, resulting in civilian (non-terrorist) casualties.  This is sometimes called "state terrorism."  On the view of most Israelis and Americans (among many others, no doubt), this does not constitute terrorism, because (it is said) Israel did not ''deliberately'' kill civilians.  That is a difference that is supposed to make a difference.  That was very unfortunate collateral damage, allegedly necessary to get at "the bad guys."  But the critics of such actions point out that they are taken in order to intimidate the general population into stopping further terrorist attacks (such as Qassam rockets), ''knowing'' civilians will be killed: so how could they not be deliberate?  The article had better make it clear, however, that most of us see a big difference between such attacks, on the one hand, and an attack where a Palestinian terrorist fires of a Qassam rocket, or blows himself up on a city bus, and thereby does quite deliberately kill as many civilians (non-combatants, non-governmental targets) as he can. The difference, I (I confess--not that I ''approve'' of this!) and many others believe, is that the government is not killing civilians for the sake of killing civilians, it's ''risking'' killing them for the sake of killing terrorists; while the terrorists are, of course, very deliberately killing civilians, period. But of course I realize that this is a controversial thing to say, and hence the view I express would have to be attributed somehow.
:::Fair enough. Just saying that every book on terrorism that I've come across ''usually'' has a chapter at the outset talking about how ''confused'' the definition of terrorism is; such as Hoffman's book. I think Jenkins book has something similar but it's been a while since I've read it. There is horrifically confused expert gobbledygook in the book by Alex Schmid called "Political Terrorism" which is a nightmare of confusion, over-intellectualizing, and essentially junk. But doesn't the title right there tell you something -- that some kinds of terrorism ''aren't'' political? And the ''civilians targeted'' aspect too I see as problematic; suppose a terrorist group kills the local police force of a town; clearly the police are "combatants", and it's a scary act; I think most people (even YOU) would think that such an act was terrorism, even though it didn't target "civilians".--[[User:Thomas Wright Sulcer|Thomas Wright Sulcer]] 15:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


I hope it is obvious, then, that I think the discussion in the article at present is not sophisticated enough (although I don't think it's bad, either; it's a good start, but it's leaving out a lot).  Now, in the midst of all of the above dialectical confusion, it merely muddies the water for anyone to say, "I think definition A is superior to definition B," or "There is a consensus concept of terrorism, which is X." I would ''even'' have a nit to pick with this: "There is a problem in presenting terrorists as merely evil people whose actions are inexplicably bad (and indeed a neutrality problem; even here we are not about making judgements).I agree with that as far as it goes.  But obviously, there are very many serious people who believe that terrorists ''are'' merely evil people whose actions are, if not inexplicably bad, then inexcusably bad. This is what radical leftists believe about U.S. state terrorism (it's inexcusably evil); it is also what most mainstream Americans and Brits believe about the terrorist bombings in their countries in the last six years. ''Those'' people must not be assumed by the article to be obviously wrong. Maybe they're right: CZ may not take a stand.
::::Police aren't necessarily combatants, which are usually defined by the [[Third Common Article]] of the Geneva Conventions. On the other hand, "civilian" tends to mean "not government". The language is a little circular here, since you are saying "terrorists" killed the police. I still can't easily think of something that is terrorism, but is not  political. Who does it? What the British call "ordinary decent criminals"?  Individual mass murderers? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 07:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


So what do we do?  We say (if it's true), "According to many Americans and Britons [I can't speak really for anyone outside of the English-speaking world, because I'm not familiar enough with their attitudes], what they call terrorism is inexcusably evil, so senseless and wrong that attempts to 'explain' and 'understand' terrorist acts amounts to sympathizing with the terrorists.  But according to the Left, which observes forceful government response to such 'terrorism' with alarm and dismay, the actual 'terrorism' appears to be the understandable reaction to the forces of creeping globalization and colonialism, and the more deadly government responses are more richly deserving of the harsh epithet 'terrorism.'"  I'm sorry if this sounds contrived, or obvious, and I'm sure that my wording can be vastly improved upon.  It also glibly summarizes a much more complicated debate.  But that does, I hope, get at the right tone: one that does not judge either side to be right, but which openly lays out, on a "meta" level, the details of the debate.
==Continuation: differing definitions of terrorism==
(note: some agree about "political motivation" others don't)--[[User:Thomas Wright Sulcer|Thomas Wright Sulcer]] 15:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


I'll leave my contribution to this discussion at that, if you'll let me--i.e., if you can avoid insulting me or attempting to undermine my authority;-) --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 20:36, 24 November 2007 (CST)
* A writer for ''The Atlantic'' wondered about the nebulousness of terrorism:
{{quote|"In other words, does terrorism have to have another agenda besides spreading terror? And is terrorism only an act that comes out of cold, calculating effort, with full knowledge, intent, and malice aforethought? If someone "snaps," does that mean their ensuing violence is, by definition, the act of a crazy person, not a terrorist? And is there a difference between people who "snap?" Is there a clear difference between someone who goes "postal" at their place of work or study, like Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter, and someone who goes "postal" at their place of work but has disturbing Islamic ties, like Major Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood? Ever since the attacks of 9/11, the word "terrorism" has been thrown around a lot by traumatized and worried Americans. A hundred people might have 100 different ideas of what the word means, and who is and isn't a "terrorist," in a 2010 world. But there are actually some very clear, and surprising, guidelines for what, at least officially, constitutes a "terrorist" act. First and foremost, the "Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act" of 1996 spelled out a very clear definition of what acts and crimes fall under the "Federal Definition of Terrorism" (a definition modified somewhat by the U.S.A Patriot Act). Section 2332 of U.S. Code 18C113B states that terrorism is an act that "is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct," and is also a violation of any number of prohibited acts, including: "killing or attempted killing during an attack on a Federal facility with a dangerous weapon," and "killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the United States." The list is actually quite long, and extends far beyond those two prohibitions. It does seem to disqualify the D.C. sniper as a terrorist, on the basis of his not having an agenda to retaliate against or change government policy or action (at least, that I know of). And I didn't find anything on the list of qualifying acts that seemed to cover a student or professor "snapping" and shooting their colleagues, as long as those colleagues weren't government employees. But what's interesting is that while the basic facts of Major Nidal Hasan's attack on his colleagues at Ft. Hood bears far more resemblance--at least on the surface--to the profile of both the Virginia Tech and the University of Alabama shootings than the attacks on the World Trade Center, what sets his case apart as a terrorist act--at least according to statute--isn't his Islamic ties. It may be that Maj. Hasan carried out his shooting spree not as a result of "snapping," but as a cold and deliberate act of political terrorism. I don't have enough information to make that call, one way or another. But consider this. If Maj. Hasan had been a Caucasian Christian but had disagreed with the war in Afghanistan and objected to being deployed there, and had, out of anger over those two items, blazed into the base at Ft. Hood and started shooting, he still would be guilty of a terrorist act, according to statute. His actions would still have been an effort to retaliate against, or influence, government action ... and they would have been directed against officers and employees of the U.S. government. Namely, other members of the U.S. Army... (the discussion goes on....) "<ref name=twsMar16x>{{cite news
  |author= [[Lane Wallace]]
|title= What Qualifies as Terrorism?
|publisher= The Atlantic
|date= Feb 23 2010
|url= http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/02/what-qualifies-as-terrorism/36410/
|accessdate= 2010-03-16
}}</ref>}}


:I've not seen it mentioned above so I'm just making a quick-drop here. Scholars on the left in Latin America have ideas about what constitutes State Terrorism, and point to certain U.S. actions in Latin America, especially during the Cold War, as examples.  A general definition in this vein might go, "Actions carried out by governmental, non-governmental, secret, or irregular units, generally organized by the United States, with the purpose of frightening communities, sometimes to incorporate use of deadly force, into "supporting" United States interests."  [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 00:33, 25 November 2007 (CST)
* DHS definition: "any activity that involves an act that is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources; and ... must also appear to be intended. (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping."<ref name=twsMar16y>{{cite news
|author= Bruce Hoffman
  |title= Inside Terrorism (see p. 31)
|publisher= Google books
|date= 2010-03-16
|url= http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=O6QTfAkk22AC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=definition+terrorism+hoffman&ots=CdDwDKfEce&sig=bdJG_UAwnUJ8RcJmVsJhuNzNhZg#v=onepage&q=definition&f=false
|accessdate= 2010-03-16
}}</ref>


Larry: I am pleased to see that you now recognise that it is not simple to implement the Neutrality Policy. The starting point should be -- at least in this case -- to identify the major competing positions and analyses. This is what Gareth started to do and I was supporting him in so doing. The common points of the definition in the article -- while a standard academic analysis -- actually '''conceal''' the wide range of competing positions. How then, is that compatible with the Neutrality Policy?
* FBI definition: "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."<ref name=twsMar16y>{{cite news
|author= Bruce Hoffman
|title= Inside Terrorism (see p. 31)
|publisher= Google books
|date= 2010-03-16
|url= http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=O6QTfAkk22AC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=definition+terrorism+hoffman&ots=CdDwDKfEce&sig=bdJG_UAwnUJ8RcJmVsJhuNzNhZg#v=onepage&q=definition&f=false
|accessdate= 2010-03-16
}}</ref>


You should also note, apropos your inappropriate condescending remarks about a "pissing contest", that I am not an author on this page, and was trying to bring some editorial oversight. The starting point was exactly that of a consensual defintion, which you seem to agree implicitly is not appropriate.
* US Dept of Defense definition: "the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimdate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological objectives."<ref name=twsMar16y>{{cite news
|author= Bruce Hoffman
|title= Inside Terrorism (see p. 31)
|publisher= Google books
|date= 2010-03-16
|url= http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=O6QTfAkk22AC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=definition+terrorism+hoffman&ots=CdDwDKfEce&sig=bdJG_UAwnUJ8RcJmVsJhuNzNhZg#v=onepage&q=definition&f=false
|accessdate= 2010-03-16
}}</ref>


Finally, I have no problem with the quality of what you have just written above. It would have been helpful to have done that in the first place, rather than threatening [in an unconstitutional fashion] to ban editors from pages on which they are subject editors. That threat alone did potentially more damage to CZ than anything Jensen or I have done. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 06:22, 25 November 2007 (CST)
* Netanyahu's (former Israeli PM) definition: Terrorism according to his definition is the "deliberate and systematic murder, maiming and menacing of the innocent to inspire fear for political ends." Netanyahu expands on the definition by explaining that the word "deliberate" necessarily excludes accidental civilian war casualties; that "systematic" implies a "methodical campaign of repeated outrages" (and not isolated occurrences) from guerillas (who wage war on regular military forces). Terrorists according to the definition are sparked and guided by political considerations. Netanyahu's definition is useful for separating the "common criminal" from the terrorist, for it infers that the terrorists are invariably concerned with items other than material goals or personal benefits. Terrorists, according to the definition, are sparked and guided by political considerations. An important point to note here is that "motivated by political considerations" is not synonymous with "espouses a particular political philosophy". <ref name=twsMar16z>{{cite news
|author= reviewer of Benjamin Netanyahu
|title= Terrorism 
|publisher= freepali.com
|date= 2010-03-16
|url= http://www.freepali.com/terrorism.aspx
|accessdate= 2010-03-16
}}</ref>


Martin asks: "The common points of the definition in the article -- while a standard academic analysis -- actually '''conceal''' the wide range of competing positions. How then, is that compatible with the Neutrality Policy?"  It's not. I'm not sure why you thought I was defending that point, or defending anything about the article, for that matter...I'm ready to remove its approval if necessary (see above).
What I'm trying to emphasize is how MUCH speculation there is about this subject, from different angles. My sense is that any effort on our part to state that "Terrorism is X" is like a flashing neon sign to terrorism experts everywhere that we don't know what we're talking about. Perhaps a better approach is to have an article dealing with the confusion surrounding the issue of how to define terrorism. And, after that, to try to fix up the "terrorism" article draft with a more toned down, humble approach at the definition.--[[User:Thomas Wright Sulcer|Thomas Wright Sulcer]] 15:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


As to "it is not simple to implement the Neutrality Policy": please.  I ''never'' said or implied that it is ''simple'' to implement the Neutrality Policy. The only thing simple about it is that it is simple to ''understand,'' and it is often simple to recognize ''violations'' of the policyBut actually producing a neutral text--as the policy itself says (!), and as I told people back in 2000 when writing & advocating Nupedia's "nonbias" policy, neutrality is a difficult art, one that is learned by practice.
::Let's back up. Would you disagree that terrorism is a means of waging asymmetrical war, or otherwise it's simply mass murder or mayhem?  If so, the classic Clausewitz definition of war is "the extension of national politics by military means." Hoffman does do good work, but, incidentally, if you want to cite a DoD definition, use the primary source, which would be the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dictionary. [[Lane Wallace]] is a general writer for The Atlantic, primarily in aviation.


We probably agree re a consensus definition, but let me be clear.  The notion of a consensus definition of terrorism isn't inappropriate per se--again, it depends on the context of the article.  What's inappropriate is to imply that, ''in fact,'' there either is or is not a consensus definition.  The article ought to report what some ''describe as'' a consensus definition. Failure to do this would be to disregard their important work. But it also ought to report other views, which reject the notion of a consensus.
:::My personal sense of terrorism is from the perspective of civil rights -- that is, terrorism is '''violence against individual rights''' so I think mass murder is definitely a form of terrorism, but so is a mugging. About the DoD definition -- I'm not trying to add new material here so the specific source isn't that important -- I think that IS the DoD definition. What I'm trying to do is make the point that even sources WITHIN THE US GOVERNMENT DISAGREE.--[[User:Thomas Wright Sulcer|Thomas Wright Sulcer]] 18:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)B


It is ''precisely'' constitutional to threaten to ban, and to ban, people for defiance of the neutrality policy and for rejection of other fundamental policies.  This has always been my practice, in case you hadn't noticed. Nothing personal.  It's one of the few ways in which I am at least going to pretend to be a "hard ass." And this practice of mine isn't going to change, either. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 08:12, 25 November 2007 (CST)
::My inclination would be to go much more to specialists, from [[Mao Zedong]] to David Kilcullen to [[James Eliot Cross]] (my first instructor in guerrilla warfare) to [[Andrew Exum]] to [[David Petraeus]] to Francis Fukuyama to [[Roger Trinquier]] to Michael Scheuer to [[Peter Bergen]] to [[Carlos Marighella]] to Robert Baer to [[Osama bin Laden]]. It's not clear to me why an expert-reviewed article needs to be "humble".


::I do not have any problem with the content of your last posting, but simply ask you to be more careful about jumping to conclusions from limited evidence. We all can make that error, so it's nothing personal, either. --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 08:29, 25 November 2007 (CST)
:::Mao Zedong is a specialist in terrorism? David Petraeus is a specialist in terrorism? Osama bin Laden is a specialist in terrorism? Generally I think your thinking is confused, and you're making the mistake that many make, which is this: that terrorism is an "expert-only" discipline; further, you compound the mistake by asserting that you can say, with some certainty, exactly what the consensus is among the experts about what terrorism precisely is. About being humble -- I think you could be a little more humble if you'd realize how complex the subject is, how much you don't know, how much disagreement there is. When established experts such as Bruce Hoffman spend a whole chapter talking about how difficult terrorism is to define, it makes sense that if you're trying to establish yourself as an '''''expert in terrorism''''' that you address the same kinds of concerns that Hoffman does.--[[User:Thomas Wright Sulcer|Thomas Wright Sulcer]] 18:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 08:58, 25 November 2007 (CST)


==Getting on track==
::Unfortunately, the references you are giving are variously general circulation magazines or the statements of political leaders/departments with an agenda. The quote of Netanyahu is coming, with an explanation, from a Palestinian site that educates about "the Palestinian conflict and the atrocities being committed against the Palestinian people by the brutal Zionist occupation." There are decent strategic analysts in the Middle East, but is this a reputable source?
If we can get past these interesting discussions that I hope have come to an end, and get back to the article.


1) The discussion about definitions highlights one neglected issue - the issue of to what extent labelling particular actions as "terrorism" can be regarded as propaganda by the State; i.e. to what extent the label is used by States to conveniently justify actions in furtherance of broader policy objectives. This question could be raised in the context of how Russia characterises the Chechen resistance, how apartheid South Africa characterised the ANC, how the British characterised the liberation fighters in Kenya, as well as in the context of the Middle East. In general, the issue is that characterising the opposition as not merely wrong but as deeply evil can be used as an justification by a State for actions that would otherwise be regarded as wholly unacceptable (i.e. justification for torture; detention without trial (e.g. internment in Northern Ireland); political assasination; suspension of democracy and human rights).
:::You're missing the point. Regardless of the source or reputability of the Netanyahu quote, I KNOW the Netanyahu definition is accurate -- I read his book years back and it's exactly the same -- regardless of subsequent commentary on it. You've failed to address my point about how there's a huge lack of consensus within the expert community about this definition.--[[User:Thomas Wright Sulcer|Thomas Wright Sulcer]] 18:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Do we even get into this, and if so how?


2) the article at present sees the West as the primary target of terrorism in the world. The Russians might disagree, so might those in Sri Lanka (Tamil tigers), Turkey (Kurdish terrorism), Pakistan, and some countries in South America. - should we worry about this, should we try to be broad in our coverage, or be content with just selected exemplars. By being selective are we missing some important issues?
I have not thought this through at all but it reminds me of similar discussions that break out between scientists and non-scientists, namely, what is the meaning and correct usage of the word theory. These arguments are rarely resolved and, in my opinion, people should not try to resolve them, just too time consuming.  The easiest approach is to define the word in the context of the article. As long as the definition is clear from the beginning, that other definitions exist does not have to be resolved. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 19:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


3) Should we deal with internal terrorism - for example, animal rights extremism and anti-abortion movements?  
So which definition to use? Presumably the most well defined and most common usage among people who work in this area. Is that a debatable issue? Not rhetorical question, I have no clue.  How much space should be allocated to far more general definitions? For reference, I don't see isolated incidents of terror to be terrorism, even if politically motivated. I think that violence is an important aspect but this needs to be combined with a who and a why. If i'm understanding this discussion correctly there are far broader definitions out there. But are they really legitimate enough for any in-depth disccussion in this article? [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 19:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


I'm not pretending I'm equipped to deal with these issues, I'm not. I'm just raising them as issues to think about in the context of neutrality and balance.
:As far as establishing myself as an expert, I am a Military Workgroup Editor, but a few brief mentions &mdash; I first did analytical support to [[United States Army Special Forces]] in 1966, at the Center for Research in Social Systems at [[American University]]. While it certainly hasn't been my only area of military research, I have done a reasonable amount of open source intelligence consulting since 9/11 (and, for that matter, was 3 miles from the Pentagon on 9/11). Without getting into inappropriate detail, I have worked on C3I systems for dealing with terrorist information.  Articles here, such as insurgency, [[al-Qaeda]], [[Taliban]], [[al-Shabab (insurgency)]], [[Foreign Internal Defense]], etc., I think, show some familiarity.


[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 05:52, 26 November 2007 (CST)
:CZ just doesn't operate on a consensus basis, but eventually comes back to expertise. I'm puzzled, for example, why [[Osama bin Laden]], [[Mao Zedong]] and [[David Petraeus]] would not be considered authoritative, Mao obviously not on jihadist motivations.  [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 20:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


::These are all central issues. Clearly, within one national territory, state violence is generally seen as legitimate, whereas opposition to the state's monopoly of violence is described as terrorism. This changes, if the legitimacy of the state is sufficiently challenged. It also should apply when the state violence goes outside its territorial-legal jurisdiction -- e.g. if the USA without international mandate or a declaration of war, interferes in another country's domestic affairs with violent activities. [The extent to which the label of terrorism is used for internal political debates is of some interest, but in my view should not be emphasised.] But see point (2) below, as well.
==Continuation of discussion: differing definitions of terrorism==
(break for editing)


::(2) The emphasis on the West is clear bias, because it casts one part of the world as victim and another as aggressor. There are also structural differences, in the sense that the terrorism directed at the USA and some of Europe is about global issues, whereas most of the other cases you mention are about specific claims of minority groups -- i.e. they can be seen as challenges to the legitimacy of the national state. These two types of case seem to be completely different both causally and in terms of objectives.
Howard I think you're smart, well-read, intelligent, and are an expert in other areas such as WANs, VPNs, and network computing. If you think of yourself as an "expert" on terrorism because of projects you've worked on, or your affiliations with the military, and as a result, you can dismiss my "non-expert" thinking because I didn't have such experiences -- this strikes me as narrow-minded, with a bias of seeing things like a horse with blinders, such as looking at terrorism through government-type lenses. Authors I've read and respect (but still disagree with) like Graham Allison or Bruce Hoffman or Brian Michael Jenkins who ARE considered as "experts" by different communities, and appear on TV and such -- there is a mainstream view that people like this are the experts on terrorism, and I don't get any sense that you've come to terms with their thinking, but rather that you're on a tangent here. That would be the first thing I'd expect if I was to say "HB is an expert on terrorism" -- that you'd have at least some commentary on their thinking.--[[User:Thomas Wright Sulcer|Thomas Wright Sulcer]] 21:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


::(3) I never thought of these as terrorism. Perhpas they are; perhpas they are just labelled as such for propaganda purposes. I guess we could express some ambiguity about these cases, unless someone knows any literature on the topics.--[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 07:22, 26 November 2007 (CST)
When you mention people like Mao Zedong (a Chinese military dictator) or David Petraeus (a US military commander), I'm thinking we're not on the same wavelength here. It fits in with your bias -- of seeing terrorism as a military/government problem -- but differs radically from my perspective (which considers crime as a subset of terrorism), or from the mainstream perspective which is available with intelligent reading of newspapers which you seem to dismiss out of hand. Most people would see Osama bin Laden AS A terrorist, not an "expert" on terrorism.--[[User:Thomas Wright Sulcer|Thomas Wright Sulcer]] 21:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


It's not our job to attach blame or make judgements about rights or wrongs, just to report (sparingly) relevant and notable views. It's not bias to report the West as a target for terrorism, it obviously is, but to suggest that it is the main target may be misleading.
There is somewhat of a consensus among people seen as terrorism experts (Hoffman etc) about what terrorism is, but it's more open and encompassing that the narrower definition you espouse; and still they disagree; if there's any consensus, it's that terrorism is a HARD thing to define, that it's pejorative, that there's considerable disagreement about what the term means. I'm trying to help here, Howard; I'm not an expert, but I've read widely, have done original thinking on this subject, and wrote a book about terrorism prevention which YOU haven't read. In general, I think my strategy to prevent terrorism is the only one that's any good, since it would prevent smuggled nuclear bombs; but it has not been subject to serious review, and time will tell; I realize it's not the mainstream view here, but my writing here in CZ is trying to say what the mainstream view is.--[[User:Thomas Wright Sulcer|Thomas Wright Sulcer]] 21:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
::It has notjhing to do with moral judgements. The point is that there was plenty of terrorism around long before the USA was a target, and that type of terrorism continues unabated across the world. And as i have pointed out, the international literature considers many western countries to be sponsors of state terror across international boundaries also over an extended period of time. So to focus on terrorism in the West is a distortion in geographical, historical and also cultural terms. --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 08:46, 26 November 2007 (CST)
:: Yes, well I agree that the article needs broadening; I don't think there's any deliberate distortion and I don't think you're saying that. It's a weakness that can be addressed.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 09:06, 26 November 2007 (CST)


Obviously I have a personal concern about animal rights terrorism[http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1463/]; I wouldn't pretend it's an issue of comparable significance to others, but in terms of actual number of incidents (as opposed to their lethality) it's probably much more significant in both the USA and UK than Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. [[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 08:24, 26 November 2007 (CST)
It's too bad, because I think the subject of terrorism is one area where we could compete effectively with WP. There's a know-it-all there on WP who won't permit intelligent discussion about terrorism, who sees it one way, and won't allow for differing views, and the result is lackluster.--[[User:Thomas Wright Sulcer|Thomas Wright Sulcer]] 21:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


==Bug alert!==
:Actually, Tom, you sent me your book and I did read it.
Just encountered a bug. I found Ganor's article online, so tried to add that link. The reference was in the bibliography page, so I went into that and thought it better that this reference be in the main body, but when I went from the bbliography back I was in the Approved page not the Draft page and mistakenly edited that instead....[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 06:32, 26 November 2007 (CST)
::The approved page should be locked and obviously is not, if you could edit it. --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 07:05, 26 November 2007 (CST)
:::I reverted the edit back from the article page.  I assume Gareth, that you still have Sysop priviledges from when you were a constable? or because you are on the executive? --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 08:05, 26 November 2007 (CST)
Thanks Matt. I guess I am just a very priviledged person (perhaps because I try never to use them :-) )
But the bug I was concerned about was re-entry to the Approved page rather than the Draft page. I guess it's a minor one if the Approved page is locked.
[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 08:25, 26 November 2007 (CST)
:Ahh, I see.  Yes, most people won't have to worry, but you (and anyone else with Sysop rights) will have to watch at least until I see if it can be changed.  Thanks for the heads up. --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 08:53, 26 November 2007 (CST)
::It looks like as long as you use the "draft" link on the template, it will bring you to the draft.  If you use the 'terrorism' link at the top of the page it brings you to the main article (so don't do that :-) Meanwhile. I'll check with Chris. --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 08:57, 26 November 2007 (CST)
I'm not sure how Gareth tried to re-enter the draft page, options seem to be hitting draft tab link, or using back option on the browser.  I can't see anything wrong with either at present unless I'm misunderstanding something.  [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]] 09:14, 26 November 2007 (CST)
:I'm thinking he hit the little <Terrorism button under the main title Terrorism>Bibliography. --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 09:21, 26 November 2007 (CST)
::The media wiki developers would have to remove that option.  But do we want to remove it? For example, it lets you know you got to a page from a redirect. Another thought, is it even possible to remove it?  [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]] 09:24, 26 November 2007 (CST)
:::Okay, I don't think there is a need to go that far. So Gareth, just be careful! :-)  And remember, we can always revert your edits, so no big deal.  --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 09:59, 26 November 2007 (CST)


==Balance==
:How can the best-known terrorist in the world not be an expert on the subject?  Indeed, I have found a substantial number of people have never read his statements about his goals and tactics. They exist. They are even cited here.  
For anyone interested, I found an interesting article on the difficulties of balanced reporting of terrorism here[http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/T/htmlT/terrorism/terrorism.htm] - I've added it to the external links. :-) [[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 09:01, 26 November 2007 (CST)


OK, I've thrown in the second definition as it appears it comes from a very reputable source. I think it needs editing for conciseness though. Think I'm done here for now, leaving this article free for others to edit/cut/revise/extend anything I've added with impunity.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 07:58, 27 November 2007 (CST)
::I think bin Laden is excellent at not getting caught, and the scheme to topple the twin towers was creative and brilliant. But I think there are serious flaws in his thinking overall. I've read some of his writings too. Still, I think of these people as experts: Graham Allison, Bruce Hoffman, and yes I have problems with their thinking too. Sorry Howard I don't see you as an expert. You don't have a book out there with the word "terrorism" on it and your name on it. But I think you're very smart and knowledgeable about many things.--[[User:Thomas Wright Sulcer|Thomas Wright Sulcer]] 22:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


== Tone and definitions ==
:::Tom, not all credentials are in book form. When I applied as a Military Editor, I provided a good deal more of my background to Editorial Personnel Administrators; some is work experience and other things I don't necessarily publicize. CZ, however, does have a means of recognizing expertise, and it's the Editor process.


It can be hard to do, but any effective discussion of terrorism has to avoid morality. One way to move to a more neutral position is to remember that with the exception of rare anarchists and personal grudges, terrorism is ''always'' a '''political act'''.  Terrorism is not a political goal, but one of the tactics in service of [[insurgency]], the attempt to dislodge a government by means considered illegal by that government.
:::If there are serious flaws with Bin Laden's thinking, then I encourage you to present them within the [[Osama bin Laden]] article. While I don't always agree with Michael Scheuer, I was always impressed with Scheuer's assignment to kill or capture bin Laden, but also to write the book ''Through Our Enemies Eyes'', and describe how, in certain cultural contexts, bin Laden has the impact of a Thomas Paine.  


Keeping the political emphasis changes the controversial "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter" into "one man's insurgent is another's freedom fighter." (Terrorist claims and statements) This allows the separation of definitions of insurgency and terrorism, as well as the history of both. IMHO, the current draft blurs between insurgency and terrorism. It would also be well to think very carefully about the ordering and content of "history", "definition", "terrorist claims and statements".
:::By all accounts, incidentally, the attack on the Twin Towers was initially Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's idea, which he convinced bin Laden to accept as a variant on his original Operation Bojinka. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 23:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


While there is no universal definition of terrorism, I question the use of one from the International Progress Organisation. That definition includes moral judgments such as "corrupt". It also uses the more technical term "inhuman", which, perhaps, should be considered in the legal context of ''jus cogens'' (generally accepted principle of international law) and ''[[Hostis humani generis]]'' (enemies of mankind). I suggest, rather than the IPO definition, one from a working group of the more notable United Nations, one drafted by [[Alex P. Schmid]] for the Policy Working Group on the United Nations and Terrorism. Reporting to the Secretary-General in 2002, the Working Group stated the following:
:One of the problems is when the definition of terrorism becomes so broad as to encompass virtually any violence, what, then, how is it then actionable? Sorry, I can't accept a definition of crime as a subset of terrorism. Now, if you were to consider them both a subset of [[compellence]], that would, in fact, make some sense in social and military science thinking. If you look, for example, at self-radicalization, there's quite a bit of history that deals with terrorism as other than Islamic.  
<blockquote>Without attempting a comprehensive definition of terrorism, it would be useful to
delineate some broad characteristics of the phenomenon. Terrorism is, in most cases,
essentially a political act. It is meant to inflict dramatic and deadly injury on civilians
and to create an atmosphere of fear, generally for a political or ideological (whether
secular or religious) purpose. Terrorism is a criminal act, but it is more than mere
criminality. To overcome the problem of terrorism it is necessary to understand its
political nature as well as its basic criminality and psychology. The United Nations
needs to address both sides of this equation.”<ref name=UNterr>{{citation
| author = Secretary General's Policy Working Group on the United Nations and Terrorism
| journal = Focus on Crime and Society
| volume = 4
| issues = 1 & 2
| date = December  2004
| id = (A/57/273-S/2002/875, annex)
| url = http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/Forum/V05-81059_EBOOK.pdf
| title = Preface }}</ref></blockquote>


I also question the use of "terrorism" when the attack is on (especially) a pure military target, or at least a government installation. The Japanese ''[[kamikaze]]'' and other ''tokko'' suicide attackers have not been considered terrorists; they considered themselves warriors fighting other warriors -- certain underwater attackers were literally designated as warships.
::The purpose of a definition is to define something -- you can't rewrite a definition because by choosing a particular definition, it will render something "unable to be acted upon".--[[User:Thomas Wright Sulcer|Thomas Wright Sulcer]] 22:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


While the motivations of terrorists is relevant, discussing it is even more fraught with danger of emotion and POV. It might be a good idea to make this a separate, advanced article; there is considerable reputable literature on the subject. The Koestler quote, while dramatic, is probably inappropriate when the most important thing is to understand the terrorist's own perspective. Again, there is substantial literature on the most committed terrorists, those that use suicide attack.
::I agree crime as a subset of terrorism is not a mainstream view. It's my view.--[[User:Thomas Wright Sulcer|Thomas Wright Sulcer]] 22:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


In the history, it might be well to separate the French revolutionary use, except perhaps in a section on etymology, since the actions of the French "Terror" do not fit the modern definition of insurgent terrorism, and is marginal even for state terrorism. The Russian revolutionary terrorism, described as different than modern terrorism, also confuses more than illuminates.
:I think it's a fairly basic CZ principle that newspapers are not, in the absence of other materials, the principal sources to define mainstream opinion in anything. Are you saying that your definition is the mainstream view and be accepted here? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 21:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


I'd also be careful about POV in state terrorism. It might be more NPOV to focus on the acts of past totalitarian regimes rather than recent or ongoing situations with multiple POVs. There is little accident that Robert Conquest's book on Stalinist internal activities is titled ''The Great Terror''. Also see Sudoplatov's ''Special Tasks'' for the assassination of Leon Trotsky at orders of the state. Assassination, however, gets very blurry as the target is considered military. Shooting down Japanese Admiral Yamamoto was a targeted killing, but not usually considered terrorism. The assassination of Reinhard Heydrich is more complex, in that the planners knew it would trigger intense Nazi response against civilians. Some current legal theorists believe that when a national leader wears military uniform, he becomes a legal military target.
::I disagree about your claim about newspapers. Newspapers, media generally have smart people who are accountable for getting the facts right. When they goof, it undermines their integrity, and they can quickly lose readers if they fail to tell the truth or cover stories adequately. When I was writing for WP about problems with different branches of government, I found that most reporters had it JUST RIGHT and called most of the problems in just the right way; I quoted them extensively. My sense is sources like the NY Times & Washington Post & BBC News are invaluable for helping us get a handle on nebulous concepts such as "terrorism". I respect them. I'd choose a NY Times or WP or BBC News definition of ''terrorism'' over yours.--[[User:Thomas Wright Sulcer|Thomas Wright Sulcer]] 22:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


::Which definition of mine? The one above with all the footnotes -- that's a composite mainstream definition with many compromises which (I think) does a better job than the draft article definition in saying what the mainstream sense of terrorism is. But it's not perfect. It's kind of a hedge. But the '''violence against individual rights''' is not mainstream -- that's my personal definition which I think is right, but I realize it's not accepted.--[[User:Thomas Wright Sulcer|Thomas Wright Sulcer]] 22:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
:::The CZ approach is to synthesize,so there isn't a "Howard definition" here. Nevertheless, sources that go into the usage include the UN Working Group, Francis Fukuyama/[[Brookings Institution]], [[Carlos Marighella]], [[V.I. Lenin]], [[Jack Cloonan]], [[Mao Zedong]], David Kilcullen, Brian Drinkwine, and others. There are people such as [[Peter Bergen]] and [[Thomas Ricks]] that left journalism and now write and work with think tanks. Of course, the terrorists' own doctrinal manuals are informative, be they the ''Green Book'' of the IRA, the Minimanual of the Urban Guerrilla'', or the ''Manchester Manual''.  [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 23:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
::::I have no problem with including those sources. But I think the idea of an encyclopedia article on a subject like "terrorism" is to reflect what people think it is -- ie the mainstream view -- not the view of a few experts or something we craft up. Diverging too far from the mainstream view risks us losing our credibility, in my view.--[[User:Thomas Wright Sulcer|Thomas Wright Sulcer]] 01:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::CZ policy is that the expert consensus is emphasized, and, in cases of dispute, that is determined by Editor(s). [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 01:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
::::OK, here's my take on the current definition. Generally it isn't that bad but could use improvements:[[User:Thomas Wright Sulcer|Thomas Wright Sulcer]] 01:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
::::'''Terrorism refers to''' (comment: I don't like the construction "refers to"; why not just say "is"?) '''any violent act,''' (comment: there's also a sense of terrorism as a phenomenon or pattern of activity, not just an act.) '''intended to cause civilian casualties''' (comment: government officials? mayors? police? militia? military officers? if they're attacked isn't this terrorism as well?) ''' or massive''' (comment: what is "massive"?) '''disruption''' (comment: what constitutes "disruption") '''committed''' (comment: this gets into a fuzzy area; the general idea is violent acts that were deliberately done, on purpose, as opposed to accidental) '''to create an atmosphere of fear''' (comment: agree) '''in order to obtain a political objective''' (comment: tough defining "political"; what if its ideological or religious; what if objective is economic, such as a bank robbery, but a big one that disrupts a whole section of a city -- is that terrorism?) '''The act may be intended to cause direct casualties''' (comment: repetition of casualties idea in first sentence) '''or to disrupt critical infrastructure.''' (comment: again, this is from the perspective of a government trying to fight terrorism) [[User:Thomas Wright Sulcer|Thomas Wright Sulcer]] 01:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::Civilian means not-military, and can reasonably be extended to security forces such as police and intelligence. I don't see why [[critical infrastructure]] is particularly governmental. It includes utilities such as electrical power, health care, transportation, etc. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 01:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
::::I think the core idea should be '''violence'''. So I'd prefer using that word rather than "violent act". Violence is what it's about. I think there is widespread agreement about this. Also, the idea of intended violence can be terrorism too -- but which doesn't emerge in casualties. For example, if police catch a terrorist before detonating something, it's still "terrorism"; or when the Unabomber shut down LA airport by pretending an attack was imminent there -- that would qualify as terrorism to many. Some definitions instead of "civilian casualties" think in terms of "innocent" versus "guilty" -- and terrorists primarily attack the ''innocent'' (although what does "innocent" mean? A dubious concept in my view.)[[User:Thomas Wright Sulcer|Thomas Wright Sulcer]] 01:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::"Violence or disruption"?  Shutting down financial systems would be immensely disrupted. I'll also agree with intended as well as completed.
:::::"Innocent vs. guilty" is not especially mainstream, at least in the developed world. It's not, in my opinion, a meaningful term.  It's really needful to look at terrorism without moralizing. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 01:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
::::What if an insane man who doesn't know right from wrong but who is a technical genius, builds a nuclear bomb in a Manhattan basement, detonates it, millions die. Terrorism? No political objective. He wasn't TRYING to cause fear. Not deliberate. But I'd surely say it was terrorism, bigtime.[[User:Thomas Wright Sulcer|Thomas Wright Sulcer]] 01:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::I would disagree. Not political. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 01:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
::::::I wouldn't think of this as terrorism either. Would you define murders in a high school such as Columbine terrorism?  That too I would not.  Even the Oklahoma bombing I find hard to define as terrorism since the political agenda, while anti-government was not really part of an organised group. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 01:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
::::::::Oklahoma City is hard to call, Chris, but see self-radicalization. We're going to be seeing more "lone wolf" attacks from all sorts of political directions. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 02:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
::::What if government becomes the terrorist? The murder of Aquino by Marcos' bodyguards on the tarmac of Manila airport, for example. Government did it. It wasn't intended to cause civilian casualties or massive disruption. It WAS trying to cause a political objective. Terrorism? Was Hitler a terrorist? Stalin?[[User:Thomas Wright Sulcer|Thomas Wright Sulcer]] 01:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::This example is not terrorism, as it was targeted to specific opposition. [[Operation Condor]], however, is a decent example of state terror, since it was intended to create a climate of intimidating civilians. See also [[Great Terror]]. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 01:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
::::::I wouldn't call this terrorism either. State sponsored murder or assassination. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 01:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
::::What if government security guards frisk an extra-beautiful model multiple times through airport security because they like feeling her body and seeing her fume. Is that terrorism? Or just abuse? Is frisking in general terrorism? It ASSUMES beforehand (without any specific evidence) that EVERY PASSENGER is a terrorist planning a bombing. It violates personal space and privacy. Is that terrorism? In my personal view, it's a form of mild form of tyranny, but it's legitimate because people consent to it because they think there is no better way to prevent skyjackings or mid-air bombings.[[User:Thomas Wright Sulcer|Thomas Wright Sulcer]] 01:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::I'd tend to call it "security theater", but not terror. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 01:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
::::::Howard I'm realizing how many different articles you've worked on regarding the whole subject of [[terrorism]] -- so with all that work, you're definitely becoming an [[expert]] and I think your approach is the way to do CZ. Like a thicket of wikilinks.--[[User:Thomas Wright Sulcer|Thomas Wright Sulcer]] 15:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Some time ago I looked up the definition in the relevant Act of Parliament. So far as I could make out, it would cover all military operations, lawful or not, by anyone other than the British crown. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 15:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Who exactly are civilians? This came up in Gaza, with different statistics for civilian deaths depending whether you counted police. Was Dr Mengele a civilian? Whether or not he was, would assassinating him have counted as terrorism? If Nazi death camps had been run by "civilians" rather than Waffen SS, would bombing them have been terrorism? Anti-abortion "terrorists" would claim that their targets are exact moral analogues of Mengele and death camps. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 15:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::::[[Josef Mengele]] was a uniformed [[Hauptsturmfuhrer]] in the Waffen SS, under a chain of command, and carried arms openly when he carried them. He would be a legitimate military target.
::::::::If "civilians" ran the camps, but were part of the government, they would be military targets. It's actually blurred, because the camp administration was under the [[WVHA]], part of the [[SS]], and the SS was a Party, not State, organization.  I would claim that the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon was terrorism not because there were civilian workers in the building, but because there were clearly uninvolved civilians in the aircraft.
::::::::For your abortion example, the targets are not acting under color of government authority, further excluding them from a "military" defense -- if one goes down that road, they also fail the tests of [[lawful combatant]].[[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 15:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::The SS, apart from Hitler's personal bodyguards, were under the authority of the RSHA, making them effectively state operatives.
:::::::::I agree with you about the Pentagon.
:::::::::The abortion issue can get quite complicated when you take into account as you just did the fact that the US health service is private, not governmental. I suppose one would have to describe the relevant point of view something like this:
:::::::::"A group of private individuals (doctors &c) is carrying out mass murder of other private individuals (unborn children). The government has been forbidden by its own courts to prevent this, and is obeying this order. A third group of private individuals ('terrorists'?) therefore use violence against the first group."
:::::::::I'm not sure how or whether the concept of terrorism aplies in such quasi-anarchistic contexts. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 17:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
(undent) There would be several ways to consider terrorism in the abortion context. First, much as village leaders were messily killed by the Viet Cong for "collaboration", a sense of terror among abortion providers dissuades them from performing the acts in question.  Second, acts unchecked by government can encourage the recruiting of the third group. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 18:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
:Some further thoughts:
:#What's the conceptual difference between de''terr''ence (e.g. capital punishment) and state ''terr''or(ism)?
:#The Mafia etc. terrorize people too.
:[[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 09:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
::I'm not quite sure where to go here; this is becoming a discussion of ideologies. Capital punishment is not necessarily viewed as deterrence; I would say a minority do have that opinion.  If one views the Mafia as a quasi-state attempting to change politics, it qualifies; if it is viewed as preventing interference by Ordinary Decent Criminals, it is not.
::If you want to argue about the ''terr'' root, please provide references that this is an actual area of discussion, not coincidence. 
::With the Mafia, it would vary significantly if the target is a merchant made an example of what happens to those who do not pay extortion, and a magistrate or police officer whose murder is intended to change state policy. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 13:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
===References===
{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}
[[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 12:52, 10 May 2008 (CDT)

Revision as of 11:39, 16 June 2024

This article has a Citable Version.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 



Added to the Core controversial articles page

This article is controversial if we agree that some states practice terrorism:

Terrorism has been practiced by both left-wing and right-wing political organizations, religious and nationalistic groups, revolutionaries, as well as — to use the somewhat controversial notion of "state terrorism" — armies, police, and security forces.

I have put this article in the list of Core controversial articles (http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Core_controversial_articles) because it is clear to me that state terrorism is a type of terrorism (that deserves ample space in this article, in this day and age).

Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 00:28, 2 July 2008 (CDT)

First, then, we need a "mainstream" definition of state terror. There is, for example, a qualitative difference, no matter what one believes about the death penalty, between execution after a long judicial process, and "night and fog" disappearance and the night (the Nazi nacht und nebel)
I also revised some of the weapons-related material in the lead. Nuclear weapons do not fall into an utterly unique category, when considering such things as the genetic coding for Type A botulinum toxin spliced into normal enteric Eschericia coli, or, rumored to have been a Soviet experiment, a chimeric virus with elements of smallpox and Ebola. Howard C. Berkowitz 11:55, 2 July 2008 (CDT)
Regarding an eventual definition of state terrorism, I would follow the lead given by the former United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan:
"...regardless of the differences between governments on the question of definition of terrorism, what is clear and what we can all agree on is any deliberate attack on innocent civilians, regardless of one's cause, is unacceptable and fits into the definition of terrorism. And I think this we can all be clear on." (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_terrorism#Controversy)
This would be for the mainstream component. Then, I would state the following:
(Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, described as pioneers in the concept of State Terrorism, have argued) that the distinction between state and non-state terror is morally relativist, and distracts from or justifies state terrorism perpetrated by favored states, typically those of wealthy and developed nations (Chomsky and Herman, 1979).
In other words, I would find evidence and theories suggesting that powers and super-powers can willfully decide to behave outside of the international rules, to inspire fear, deliberately. A canonical example would be the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, any doctrine that declares, with Macchiavelli, that the Prince, or the super-power, may act violently, without justifications that are acceptable to others, deliberately creates a sense of fear. The doctrine of pre-emptive strikes-wars could be compared to a terrorist doctrine. This is the kind of things that the Monde Diplomatique discusses, if I'm not mistaken. This seems logical, doesn'it?
Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 01:12, 5 July 2008 (CDT)
I have no problem in describing the practices of political police and the like, directed at individual groups of citizens or residents, as state terror. I do, however, have a serious problem with labeling efforts to break a national will, as long as both proportionality and knowledge of the consequences are understood, as state terror. Personally, I'd much rather have been at Hiroshima than in Tokyo during the fire raids. Based on the limited knowledge of nuclear weapons at the time, I am not going to accept the nuclear attacks as state terror. As opposed to the RAF "dehousing" campaigns, neither nuclear attack was deliberately directed at a civilian area; there were major military targets near the aiming point of each. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Interesting discussion. But I wanted to point out that, as most people realize, that there is no commonly accepted definition of terrorism, and this whole subject serves as a flash point for all kinds of disagreements. I have a sense of the mainstream sense of terrorism, which is perhaps closer to the HB view, and which is listed below with an alternative definition of terrorism with references; this definition doesn't consider supposedly legitimate governments as being sponsors of "state terrorism", that is, doesn't put much emphasis on governments as terrorists. However, this mainstream view of terrorism is at odds with my personal view of terrorism, which I see as "violence against individual rights" and which does, in fact, include governments as being possible terrorists. In my book Common Sense on Amazon, I argue that there are three possible terrorists -- criminals (neighbors who violate our rights), tyrants (our own government if it violates our rights, detentions, torture, even perhaps frisking at airports) and foreign terrorists (Osama bin Laden et al). And my thesis is that it's not sensible to prevent only one type of terrorist, but that tackling all three types is necessary, and that the common theme underlying all successful prevention methods is what I call light, that is, exposure. Light to prevent crime is identified movement in public (which people agree to); to prevent tyranny it's exposing what governments do; to prevent foreign terrorism it's exposure of treaties. My ultimate terrorist was Hitler, not bin Laden. But this is controversial stuff, and my sense is people are unwilling (for many reasons) to confront what terrorism is all about.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 16:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Defense Department-funded report on terrorism

This report, 'How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qa'ida' covers hundreds of terrorist organisations worldwide, and includes various statistics and interesting points about the "war on terror". John Stephenson 04:24, 31 July 2008 (CDT)

Some bold improvements

I have tried to make the lead somewhat less emotional, as well as stating some of the issues in taxonomy.

Fukuyama's argument that terrorism is a tactic resonates strongly with me. A biological weapon is a biological weapon; "bioterrorism" is no more than the use of biological weapons, against civilian populations, to achieve a political objective.

An improvised explosive device (IED) or land mine is a weapon, not terrorist or not. IEDs and mines were major causes of mortality and morbidity in the Vietnam War, but if one military force used them as an "automatic ambush" against another, it would be hard to call them terrorism.

I propose, therefore, to start cutting back the weapons and tactics details, giving examples of how their use could be considered terroristic, but linking to the actual details in other articles. Unquestionably, there are blurred cases, such as the use of biological weapons by Japanese Unit 731 against Chinese populations; there were indeed treaty violations and this could be a war crime, but the principal goal seemed to be assisting the advance of ground forces and "terrorism" doesn't easily fit. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The Ganor link is dead. I'll look for other definitions.
Further, the History section should cut back to broad patterns; history of terrorism in individual places belongs in subarticles. It's not terribly practical, with large countries, to put their terrorism pattern under one motivation.
Anyone else reading this? Howard C. Berkowitz 01:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm reading this Howard. My sense is that the whole issue of "strategy" versus "tactic" is mostly ancillary to what terrorism is, but if you feel strongly about it, I'm not going to make a huge issue about it. But a general approach to this whole subject might be as follows -- since there are different types of terrorism and senses of it -- which depend on who the terrorist is and what their target is -- then maybe we could have the overall word terrorism be an umbrella term referring to the specific types, and we could have specific articles about each type of terrorism. And what could the specific types be? And here I'm less sure but let's try this:--Thomas Wright Sulcer 11:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • terrorism as a strategy in war (ie tactics like you say)
  • terrorism by radical groups to achieve a political objective
  • international terrorism
  • terrorism as organized crime (drugs, intimidation of witnesses, bribing police)
  • terrorism by governments (state terrorism)
  • other types of terrorism
What do you think?--Thomas Wright Sulcer 11:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Tom, I just have a minute; appropriately, I'm off to a seminar on Iran. I should be back between 4 and 5 Eastern. May I suggest that you look at military doctrine, and let me know if we are using "strategy" and "tactic" in the same way? I'm not sure what you mean by the first bullet above. "Organized crime" is difficult with most definitions of terrorism, although the "narco-terrorism" where the drug industry is a quasi-state does fit with the inherently political definition of terrorism.
You see, I rarely will simply call someone a "terrorist" even though he practices "terror". There are huge differences among 9/11 and Lod Airport and Marks & Spencer and the Haymarket Riot and the Maccabees and the London Iranian embassy hostage situation -- to say nothing of the differences among Harris' dehousing, the fire attack on Tokyo and the nuclear attacks, Guernica and Rotterdam, Mutual Assured Destruction, Lidice, and Operation Condor. The problem is that calling them all terrorism makes the term useless as a differentiator. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I think we agree about the difference between strategy and tactics; where I disagree with you is thinking that this distinction is that important to terrorism. If you conceive of strategy as a general plan for overpowering an opponent, then you could conceive of terrorism as one tactic which might accomplish this. But the whole strategy vs tactics assumes we're talking about a war situation, and terrorism may or may not involve being in a war situation.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 23:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I looked over the article military doctrine -- good article so far.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 23:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The general problem with the word terrorism is that it's a big, confusing umbrella term, used by many people for many different purposes, with nasty connotations; even you and I can't agree what it means. What happens is that the more you try to specify the term and say exactly what it is, the more we lose people. I think the sensible approach (or strategy) is to keep it simple, and stick to what most people agree on -- and go into more specifics with specific senses of the term (eg international terrorism, terrorism during war, state terrorism, media crime, etc or whatever sub articles you think we should include.)--Thomas Wright Sulcer 23:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Strategy vs. tactics

It's not at all obvious to me that the great majority of people using terrorism don't consider themselves in war, and have strategies from the sophisticated to the trivial. al-Qaeda, although not a nation-state, clearly operates at all four levels of military doctrine. A person blowing up abortion clinics still has a strategy of stopping abortion, which is a political and thus strategic concept. The leaders of Operation Condor thought they were conducting a defensive war strategy against Communism, but even more against the established order.

Try two assumptions to control the definition of terror: it has a political motivation and it targets civilians. I think you will find that clarifies a great many situations. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think some acts of terrorism don't have a political motivation. Serial killers, such as the Washington metro snipers, create terror on a massive scale, and they clearly have a political effect, but in their minds, the serial killers don't see themselves as trying to accomplish some political purpose. And some acts of terrorism don't target civilians, but soldiers or governments -- consider the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 198? -- 240 US Marines died -- wasn't that terrorism? I think the sensible thing to do is not try to be too exact in any definition.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 00:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
No, I think the CZ value is to try to be exact, although I agree the creating of the emotion "terror" is not synonymous with "terrorism". Take the D.C. snipers -- I lived there at the time, and indeed shopped at one of the target stores. John Muhammad had some warped political agenda, which wasn't very clear but could qualify as self-radicalization. Practical events from the Oklahoma City bombing to Nidal Hasan mean that we do have to consider "lone-wolf" terrorism.
The 1983 Beirut barracks bombings were emphatically political, and didn't just target U.S. Marines; there was a near-simultaneous bombing of a French barracks. Both were under UN auspices. Yes, it was a suicide attack, but on a military target; I have trouble calling it terrorism. Capture and torture of soldiers is much closer to terrorism, but bombing a theoretically (if far too lightly) defended target? The 9/11 attack on the Pentagon, but not the World Trade Center, still can qualify as terrorism because the passengers in American Airlines Flight 77 were in no way combatants. Were the Japanese kamikaze terrorists?
Overly broad definitions of terrorism are causing much confusion in the public sphere. Now, I certainly don't object to the article explicitly discussing nonconventional attacks on military targets, or how a Ted Bundy differs from a Timothy McVeigh. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree CZ should try to be exact, but the problem is the term terrorism is essentially abstract, blurry, inexact. So your efforts to try to be exact about something inexact essentially mean that instead of the "Mainstream view" of terrorism, you're writing about the "Howard Berkowitz" view of terrorism. For instance, I think most people would consider the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings as terrorism -- I think this is the mainstream view whether we like this or not. I don't feel strongly enough about this to fuss with you endlessly about it Howard; my own personal view is that I have major problems with both the mainstream view AND your sense of what terrorism is; but I think this is one of those subject areas where nobody can agree.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 13:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Not trying to be heavy-handed here, but I think we are running into a CZ model here. The idea is that definitions don't come from "most people", but from experts. In this case, I'm a military workgroup editor that has been doing professional work on terrorism since the late sixties. The definition I propose is a reasonable synthesis of the one used in professional literature, and, indeed, in quite a number of international organizations and governments.
In all fairness, this has been a sensitive area. Larry Sanger has taken a more "most people" view on certain areas, terrorism being one of them. I disagree with him, but, at this point, the expert-vs.-common view needs to be resolved by a future Editorial Council.
What would seem appropriate is to have a section in terrorism on "Are all suicide attacks terrorism?", linking to and expanding the suicide attack article. The Beirut attack is especially difficult, as Lebanon was beyond failed state and into open civil war — and responsibility has never been completely clear for the barracks and embassy attacks, although there are some good ideas.
In other words, have plenty of related articles on the non-core meaning of terrorism, have lots of links and redirects, but keep the definitions in main articles focused. Weapons of mass destruction have a quite specific professional definition, but there has been increasing use, in U.S. prosecutions, of including "high explosives" in WMD terrorism indictments — and, while I hope I'm misreading it, a backpack in one current prosecution.
Letting popular opinion drive definitions so they include everything means that they eventually exclude nothing, and new terms are needed to be specific.
So, I'm going to make a working Military Editor ruling that a terrorist act must deliberately target civilians or civilian infrastructures, and must have some political goal. By all means have related things, but in separate, highly linked articles. This, incidentally, excludes neither state terrorism nor lone-wolf activities. It would exclude the kamikaze and other Japanese tokko (Special Attack) tactics. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Before doing much more on this article, I'm going to wait to hear if other Editors can agree with that working ruling or refine it, and if they are willing to work, even in a non-writing mode, on the article. There's the practical issue that if we pull Approval of V1 or Approve V2, two other editors (Military, History, Politics) will have to be involved. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"Freedom fighter" vs. "Terrorist"

The article contains a common summary that I consider flawed:

It is often said, especially by critics of the West and of capitalism, that terrorism is merely a label ascribed by those in power to those who do not accept their authority, and resist it with violent and unlawful means. On this view, whether someone is better described as a "terrorist" or instead as a "freedom-fighter" depends on whether the state's power is thought to be wielded lawfully and fairly.

This loses sight that virtually all terrorism, save the nihilists, is a political act. I get very confused when a nation (let's say the Third Reich) launches a major conventional war, for political objectives, and the conventional wisdom is that there is collateral damage to civilians. The more proper question is proportionality of the act to the desired political response. To take an extreme example from warfare, the argument can be made that the nuclear attacks on Japan -- not that their effects were fully understood -- were intended to decrease civilian casualties that would result from a ground war.

The "critic" aspect seems emotional. We can recognize it, in the article, as emotional and propagandistic, but not part of the operational calculus of a strategist who uses terror as a tactic. As far as the material in the paragraph starting this, I'm sure Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler, and Foday Sankoh (Sierra Leone) would be surprised to be called Western capitalists. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"Freedom fighter" is about ends; "terrorist" is about means. They're not mutually exclusive. Peter Jackson 18:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The ends are more properly in articles about insurgency or revolutionary warfare. By restricting the discussion of terrorism to be means (with qualifications), it makes the article more coherent. There's no reason not to crosslink between means and ends articles, but there's a serious problem to combine them. Operation Condor had a political end, but preservation of the state rather than revolution. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Still you shouldn't label a freedom fighter a terrorist. Maybe the freedom fighter committed an act that can be considered terrorism, but it doesn't make sense to label and exclusively characterize him as a terrorist. There is much negative connotation with someone being a terrorist, and it is flat out nonsensical and arrogant to characterize a freedom fighter as one. There was a Korean freedom fighter Ahn Jung-geun whom the Japanese & Japanophiles at Wikipedia are trying to label as a "terrorist," but I disagree with that completely. Citizendium should get this one straight. (Chunbum Park 14:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC))
I disagree. If one takes the core definition of terrorism as violence against civilians in order to achieve a political objective, the nobility of the objective doesn't qualify the act. Here's a parallel: not all homicide is murder. There is justifiable homicide in self-defense or defense of others. There are forms of homicide, such as manslaughter in common law, where there may not have been an intention to kill, but there was negligence, or "depraved indifference to human life", that led to the death of an another person.
The only way to keep it straight is to deal with the nature of the target and the means of attack chosen. Now, there are not-unreasonable definitions of terrorism that include actions against civilian property. It's a bit ironic when people use the Boston Tea Party as a symbol of not doing enough about terrorism. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Would there be distinction between indiscriminate killing of civilians and destruction or assassination of political targets (i.e. soldiers, police station, and political leaders)?(Chunbum Park 15:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC))
Oh you already said it. So Ahn wouldn't be described as a terrorist, since he never targeted civilians except for political leaders? (Chunbum Park 15:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC))

Reorganizing

I propose to reorganize the History section on strictly chronological/geographic lines, with motivations as a subordinate level. Right now, it's organized more by ideology, so, for example, one doesn't see there is both Jihadist and anti-abortion terrorism concurrently in the U.S.

This article really needs work. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Alternative definition of terrorism (from earlier draft on WP)

When at Wikipedia I worked out with several editors a kind of compromise (which got reverted by administrators) but I thought it was a good compromise definition (while allowing that there's MUCH disagreement over this whole subject.) I'll put it here in case anybody is interested, or possibly interested in using the references, but I'm not interested in fussing much over the definition here on CZ:----Thomas Wright Sulcer 16:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Terrorism, despite considerable disagreement about a precise definition,[1][2][3][4] is often considered to be deliberate[5] violence[6] or the threat of violence[7] directed at innocent[8][9] non-combatants[8] and governments[7] to cause fear[6] systematically[10] to attract media attention[11] for causes which may be political[5][3][6] or ideological[7] or religious[7] and which are viewed as coercive.[7][10][12] An act which meets many or all of these criteria is often considered to be terrorism. There is considerable disagreement about whether the term can describe government or religious leaders and whether the term should be extended to include wartime acts. Further, the distinction between terrorism and crime is hard to specify.[13][14]
The term is charged politically and emotionally and has strong negative connotations.[15] Its meaning often depends on the ideology of the user and the context of its use. Studies have found more than one hundred definitions of the term.[16][17] At present, there is no internationally agreed-upon definition. Governments have described opponents as terrorists to delegitimize them.[18][19] Some suggest that the term terrorist is so fraught with conceptual problems that a better term would be violent non-state actor.[20][5] Terrorism has a long history and has been practiced by both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, criminals, and others.[21]

(end of section)----Thomas Wright Sulcer 16:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Approval issues

While there is an Approved article, there was, in 2007, discussion about revoking the Approval. As a Military Workgroup Editor, I don't really consider Version 1 of Approved quality, but I'd rather work on extensive revisions and get a new Approved version.

Before spending extensive time on it, however, are there two other Editors (Military, History, Politics) that would, assuming a decent second version, who would work on a nomination? Howard C. Berkowitz 16:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment that the "approved" article status of Version 1 should be revoked, and I think the current draft is better, although I still have major problems with the definition as it is. Basically I think issues of whether a supposed act of terrorism is political is tangential (although I think many acts of terrorism do have a so-called political motivation). And, the issue of targeting civilians is tangential as well, although I agree that many instances of terrorism happen in which civilians are, indeed, targeted and killed. What I think the essence of terrorism is, is this: violence. That's the core ingredient. And, particularly, violence against individual rights. In my view, that's what it's all about -- any definition that fails to put these criteria front and center is off the mark, in my view. Violence is human vs human aggression, hurting, maiming, killing, wounding, menacing. And rights are powers to act in the future that other people agree, beforehand, that people have clearance to do. These two concepts nail what terrorism means for me, but I realize this is not the mainstream view.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 14:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I guess what I'm saying is that the current definition -- emphasizing "political objectives" and "civilians" -- I don't think this is the "mainstream view" or that it's even the accepted version by the so-called "expert community". In preparing articles about terrorism prevention, I read through many newspaper and journalist accounts, as well as books by experts such as Hoffman, and I got a sense of what people think this term is about. It's clearly not my sense about violence + individual rights. I think the "expert" view is that terrorism is hard to define precisely and that it's a pejorative or loaded term which describes something negative. And I think the definition I've posed above as the mainstream definition (with the numerous references) is better than the "political" and "civilian" one, since it more accurately reflects what both experts and publics think terrorism is.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 14:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
There has been an overwhelming need, in government and military circles, to come up with a somewhat constrained definition. Otherwise, politicians and sound-bite journalists devalue the term by making everything terrorism.
I believe, and I think I can support, that the prevailing core expert view about terrorism is that it has a political goal, although not necessarily a clear or obvious one, and it is targeted against civilians or at least noncombatants. When I say noncombatants, I can include, for example, an off-duty soldier, not one under military security.
It's gotten a more pejorative sense than in the way, for example, Lenin said "the purpose of terrorism is to terrorize", emphasizing the political and psychological. Some writers argue that Mao's Phase I is terrorism, but I believe most now recategorize it as small-unit or individual acts, such as non-random assassination, raids on government facilities, etc.
Francis Fukuyama's comment that "war on terror" makes as much sense as "war on submarines" is widely accepted. Hoffman, I think, is very good on the internal organization of terrorist organizations, but less so on the basic definition.
This a sufficiently confused and emotional area that I don't think we can rely on public opinion, although it's certainly reasonable to have a section on charges and countercharges that an act was, or was not, terrorism. There's a deplorable tendency, in the U.S., to lean too far in calling Islamic things terrorism, but not things on the domestic extreme left or right.
Let's get more views in this.Howard C. Berkowitz 15:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. Just saying that every book on terrorism that I've come across usually has a chapter at the outset talking about how confused the definition of terrorism is; such as Hoffman's book. I think Jenkins book has something similar but it's been a while since I've read it. There is horrifically confused expert gobbledygook in the book by Alex Schmid called "Political Terrorism" which is a nightmare of confusion, over-intellectualizing, and essentially junk. But doesn't the title right there tell you something -- that some kinds of terrorism aren't political? And the civilians targeted aspect too I see as problematic; suppose a terrorist group kills the local police force of a town; clearly the police are "combatants", and it's a scary act; I think most people (even YOU) would think that such an act was terrorism, even though it didn't target "civilians".--Thomas Wright Sulcer 15:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Police aren't necessarily combatants, which are usually defined by the Third Common Article of the Geneva Conventions. On the other hand, "civilian" tends to mean "not government". The language is a little circular here, since you are saying "terrorists" killed the police. I still can't easily think of something that is terrorism, but is not political. Who does it? What the British call "ordinary decent criminals"? Individual mass murderers? Howard C. Berkowitz 07:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Continuation: differing definitions of terrorism

(note: some agree about "political motivation" others don't)--Thomas Wright Sulcer 15:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

  • A writer for The Atlantic wondered about the nebulousness of terrorism:
"In other words, does terrorism have to have another agenda besides spreading terror? And is terrorism only an act that comes out of cold, calculating effort, with full knowledge, intent, and malice aforethought? If someone "snaps," does that mean their ensuing violence is, by definition, the act of a crazy person, not a terrorist? And is there a difference between people who "snap?" Is there a clear difference between someone who goes "postal" at their place of work or study, like Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter, and someone who goes "postal" at their place of work but has disturbing Islamic ties, like Major Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood? Ever since the attacks of 9/11, the word "terrorism" has been thrown around a lot by traumatized and worried Americans. A hundred people might have 100 different ideas of what the word means, and who is and isn't a "terrorist," in a 2010 world. But there are actually some very clear, and surprising, guidelines for what, at least officially, constitutes a "terrorist" act. First and foremost, the "Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act" of 1996 spelled out a very clear definition of what acts and crimes fall under the "Federal Definition of Terrorism" (a definition modified somewhat by the U.S.A Patriot Act). Section 2332 of U.S. Code 18C113B states that terrorism is an act that "is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct," and is also a violation of any number of prohibited acts, including: "killing or attempted killing during an attack on a Federal facility with a dangerous weapon," and "killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the United States." The list is actually quite long, and extends far beyond those two prohibitions. It does seem to disqualify the D.C. sniper as a terrorist, on the basis of his not having an agenda to retaliate against or change government policy or action (at least, that I know of). And I didn't find anything on the list of qualifying acts that seemed to cover a student or professor "snapping" and shooting their colleagues, as long as those colleagues weren't government employees. But what's interesting is that while the basic facts of Major Nidal Hasan's attack on his colleagues at Ft. Hood bears far more resemblance--at least on the surface--to the profile of both the Virginia Tech and the University of Alabama shootings than the attacks on the World Trade Center, what sets his case apart as a terrorist act--at least according to statute--isn't his Islamic ties. It may be that Maj. Hasan carried out his shooting spree not as a result of "snapping," but as a cold and deliberate act of political terrorism. I don't have enough information to make that call, one way or another. But consider this. If Maj. Hasan had been a Caucasian Christian but had disagreed with the war in Afghanistan and objected to being deployed there, and had, out of anger over those two items, blazed into the base at Ft. Hood and started shooting, he still would be guilty of a terrorist act, according to statute. His actions would still have been an effort to retaliate against, or influence, government action ... and they would have been directed against officers and employees of the U.S. government. Namely, other members of the U.S. Army... (the discussion goes on....) "[22]
  • DHS definition: "any activity that involves an act that is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources; and ... must also appear to be intended. (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping."[23]
  • FBI definition: "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."[23]
  • US Dept of Defense definition: "the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimdate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological objectives."[23]
  • Netanyahu's (former Israeli PM) definition: Terrorism according to his definition is the "deliberate and systematic murder, maiming and menacing of the innocent to inspire fear for political ends." Netanyahu expands on the definition by explaining that the word "deliberate" necessarily excludes accidental civilian war casualties; that "systematic" implies a "methodical campaign of repeated outrages" (and not isolated occurrences) from guerillas (who wage war on regular military forces). Terrorists according to the definition are sparked and guided by political considerations. Netanyahu's definition is useful for separating the "common criminal" from the terrorist, for it infers that the terrorists are invariably concerned with items other than material goals or personal benefits. Terrorists, according to the definition, are sparked and guided by political considerations. An important point to note here is that "motivated by political considerations" is not synonymous with "espouses a particular political philosophy". [24]

What I'm trying to emphasize is how MUCH speculation there is about this subject, from different angles. My sense is that any effort on our part to state that "Terrorism is X" is like a flashing neon sign to terrorism experts everywhere that we don't know what we're talking about. Perhaps a better approach is to have an article dealing with the confusion surrounding the issue of how to define terrorism. And, after that, to try to fix up the "terrorism" article draft with a more toned down, humble approach at the definition.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 15:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's back up. Would you disagree that terrorism is a means of waging asymmetrical war, or otherwise it's simply mass murder or mayhem? If so, the classic Clausewitz definition of war is "the extension of national politics by military means." Hoffman does do good work, but, incidentally, if you want to cite a DoD definition, use the primary source, which would be the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dictionary. Lane Wallace is a general writer for The Atlantic, primarily in aviation.
My personal sense of terrorism is from the perspective of civil rights -- that is, terrorism is violence against individual rights so I think mass murder is definitely a form of terrorism, but so is a mugging. About the DoD definition -- I'm not trying to add new material here so the specific source isn't that important -- I think that IS the DoD definition. What I'm trying to do is make the point that even sources WITHIN THE US GOVERNMENT DISAGREE.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 18:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)B
My inclination would be to go much more to specialists, from Mao Zedong to David Kilcullen to James Eliot Cross (my first instructor in guerrilla warfare) to Andrew Exum to David Petraeus to Francis Fukuyama to Roger Trinquier to Michael Scheuer to Peter Bergen to Carlos Marighella to Robert Baer to Osama bin Laden. It's not clear to me why an expert-reviewed article needs to be "humble".
Mao Zedong is a specialist in terrorism? David Petraeus is a specialist in terrorism? Osama bin Laden is a specialist in terrorism? Generally I think your thinking is confused, and you're making the mistake that many make, which is this: that terrorism is an "expert-only" discipline; further, you compound the mistake by asserting that you can say, with some certainty, exactly what the consensus is among the experts about what terrorism precisely is. About being humble -- I think you could be a little more humble if you'd realize how complex the subject is, how much you don't know, how much disagreement there is. When established experts such as Bruce Hoffman spend a whole chapter talking about how difficult terrorism is to define, it makes sense that if you're trying to establish yourself as an expert in terrorism that you address the same kinds of concerns that Hoffman does.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 18:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the references you are giving are variously general circulation magazines or the statements of political leaders/departments with an agenda. The quote of Netanyahu is coming, with an explanation, from a Palestinian site that educates about "the Palestinian conflict and the atrocities being committed against the Palestinian people by the brutal Zionist occupation." There are decent strategic analysts in the Middle East, but is this a reputable source?
You're missing the point. Regardless of the source or reputability of the Netanyahu quote, I KNOW the Netanyahu definition is accurate -- I read his book years back and it's exactly the same -- regardless of subsequent commentary on it. You've failed to address my point about how there's a huge lack of consensus within the expert community about this definition.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 18:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not thought this through at all but it reminds me of similar discussions that break out between scientists and non-scientists, namely, what is the meaning and correct usage of the word theory. These arguments are rarely resolved and, in my opinion, people should not try to resolve them, just too time consuming. The easiest approach is to define the word in the context of the article. As long as the definition is clear from the beginning, that other definitions exist does not have to be resolved. Chris Day 19:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

So which definition to use? Presumably the most well defined and most common usage among people who work in this area. Is that a debatable issue? Not rhetorical question, I have no clue. How much space should be allocated to far more general definitions? For reference, I don't see isolated incidents of terror to be terrorism, even if politically motivated. I think that violence is an important aspect but this needs to be combined with a who and a why. If i'm understanding this discussion correctly there are far broader definitions out there. But are they really legitimate enough for any in-depth disccussion in this article? Chris Day 19:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as establishing myself as an expert, I am a Military Workgroup Editor, but a few brief mentions — I first did analytical support to United States Army Special Forces in 1966, at the Center for Research in Social Systems at American University. While it certainly hasn't been my only area of military research, I have done a reasonable amount of open source intelligence consulting since 9/11 (and, for that matter, was 3 miles from the Pentagon on 9/11). Without getting into inappropriate detail, I have worked on C3I systems for dealing with terrorist information. Articles here, such as insurgency, al-Qaeda, Taliban, al-Shabab (insurgency), Foreign Internal Defense, etc., I think, show some familiarity.
CZ just doesn't operate on a consensus basis, but eventually comes back to expertise. I'm puzzled, for example, why Osama bin Laden, Mao Zedong and David Petraeus would not be considered authoritative, Mao obviously not on jihadist motivations. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Continuation of discussion: differing definitions of terrorism

(break for editing)

Howard I think you're smart, well-read, intelligent, and are an expert in other areas such as WANs, VPNs, and network computing. If you think of yourself as an "expert" on terrorism because of projects you've worked on, or your affiliations with the military, and as a result, you can dismiss my "non-expert" thinking because I didn't have such experiences -- this strikes me as narrow-minded, with a bias of seeing things like a horse with blinders, such as looking at terrorism through government-type lenses. Authors I've read and respect (but still disagree with) like Graham Allison or Bruce Hoffman or Brian Michael Jenkins who ARE considered as "experts" by different communities, and appear on TV and such -- there is a mainstream view that people like this are the experts on terrorism, and I don't get any sense that you've come to terms with their thinking, but rather that you're on a tangent here. That would be the first thing I'd expect if I was to say "HB is an expert on terrorism" -- that you'd have at least some commentary on their thinking.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 21:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

When you mention people like Mao Zedong (a Chinese military dictator) or David Petraeus (a US military commander), I'm thinking we're not on the same wavelength here. It fits in with your bias -- of seeing terrorism as a military/government problem -- but differs radically from my perspective (which considers crime as a subset of terrorism), or from the mainstream perspective which is available with intelligent reading of newspapers which you seem to dismiss out of hand. Most people would see Osama bin Laden AS A terrorist, not an "expert" on terrorism.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 21:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There is somewhat of a consensus among people seen as terrorism experts (Hoffman etc) about what terrorism is, but it's more open and encompassing that the narrower definition you espouse; and still they disagree; if there's any consensus, it's that terrorism is a HARD thing to define, that it's pejorative, that there's considerable disagreement about what the term means. I'm trying to help here, Howard; I'm not an expert, but I've read widely, have done original thinking on this subject, and wrote a book about terrorism prevention which YOU haven't read. In general, I think my strategy to prevent terrorism is the only one that's any good, since it would prevent smuggled nuclear bombs; but it has not been subject to serious review, and time will tell; I realize it's not the mainstream view here, but my writing here in CZ is trying to say what the mainstream view is.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 21:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It's too bad, because I think the subject of terrorism is one area where we could compete effectively with WP. There's a know-it-all there on WP who won't permit intelligent discussion about terrorism, who sees it one way, and won't allow for differing views, and the result is lackluster.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 21:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Tom, you sent me your book and I did read it.
How can the best-known terrorist in the world not be an expert on the subject? Indeed, I have found a substantial number of people have never read his statements about his goals and tactics. They exist. They are even cited here.
I think bin Laden is excellent at not getting caught, and the scheme to topple the twin towers was creative and brilliant. But I think there are serious flaws in his thinking overall. I've read some of his writings too. Still, I think of these people as experts: Graham Allison, Bruce Hoffman, and yes I have problems with their thinking too. Sorry Howard I don't see you as an expert. You don't have a book out there with the word "terrorism" on it and your name on it. But I think you're very smart and knowledgeable about many things.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 22:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Tom, not all credentials are in book form. When I applied as a Military Editor, I provided a good deal more of my background to Editorial Personnel Administrators; some is work experience and other things I don't necessarily publicize. CZ, however, does have a means of recognizing expertise, and it's the Editor process.
If there are serious flaws with Bin Laden's thinking, then I encourage you to present them within the Osama bin Laden article. While I don't always agree with Michael Scheuer, I was always impressed with Scheuer's assignment to kill or capture bin Laden, but also to write the book Through Our Enemies Eyes, and describe how, in certain cultural contexts, bin Laden has the impact of a Thomas Paine.
By all accounts, incidentally, the attack on the Twin Towers was initially Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's idea, which he convinced bin Laden to accept as a variant on his original Operation Bojinka. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
One of the problems is when the definition of terrorism becomes so broad as to encompass virtually any violence, what, then, how is it then actionable? Sorry, I can't accept a definition of crime as a subset of terrorism. Now, if you were to consider them both a subset of compellence, that would, in fact, make some sense in social and military science thinking. If you look, for example, at self-radicalization, there's quite a bit of history that deals with terrorism as other than Islamic.
The purpose of a definition is to define something -- you can't rewrite a definition because by choosing a particular definition, it will render something "unable to be acted upon".--Thomas Wright Sulcer 22:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree crime as a subset of terrorism is not a mainstream view. It's my view.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 22:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it's a fairly basic CZ principle that newspapers are not, in the absence of other materials, the principal sources to define mainstream opinion in anything. Are you saying that your definition is the mainstream view and be accepted here? Howard C. Berkowitz 21:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I disagree about your claim about newspapers. Newspapers, media generally have smart people who are accountable for getting the facts right. When they goof, it undermines their integrity, and they can quickly lose readers if they fail to tell the truth or cover stories adequately. When I was writing for WP about problems with different branches of government, I found that most reporters had it JUST RIGHT and called most of the problems in just the right way; I quoted them extensively. My sense is sources like the NY Times & Washington Post & BBC News are invaluable for helping us get a handle on nebulous concepts such as "terrorism". I respect them. I'd choose a NY Times or WP or BBC News definition of terrorism over yours.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 22:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Which definition of mine? The one above with all the footnotes -- that's a composite mainstream definition with many compromises which (I think) does a better job than the draft article definition in saying what the mainstream sense of terrorism is. But it's not perfect. It's kind of a hedge. But the violence against individual rights is not mainstream -- that's my personal definition which I think is right, but I realize it's not accepted.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 22:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
The CZ approach is to synthesize,so there isn't a "Howard definition" here. Nevertheless, sources that go into the usage include the UN Working Group, Francis Fukuyama/Brookings Institution, Carlos Marighella, V.I. Lenin, Jack Cloonan, Mao Zedong, David Kilcullen, Brian Drinkwine, and others. There are people such as Peter Bergen and Thomas Ricks that left journalism and now write and work with think tanks. Of course, the terrorists' own doctrinal manuals are informative, be they the Green Book of the IRA, the Minimanual of the Urban Guerrilla, or the Manchester Manual. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with including those sources. But I think the idea of an encyclopedia article on a subject like "terrorism" is to reflect what people think it is -- ie the mainstream view -- not the view of a few experts or something we craft up. Diverging too far from the mainstream view risks us losing our credibility, in my view.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 01:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
CZ policy is that the expert consensus is emphasized, and, in cases of dispute, that is determined by Editor(s). Howard C. Berkowitz 01:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, here's my take on the current definition. Generally it isn't that bad but could use improvements:Thomas Wright Sulcer 01:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Terrorism refers to (comment: I don't like the construction "refers to"; why not just say "is"?) any violent act, (comment: there's also a sense of terrorism as a phenomenon or pattern of activity, not just an act.) intended to cause civilian casualties (comment: government officials? mayors? police? militia? military officers? if they're attacked isn't this terrorism as well?) or massive (comment: what is "massive"?) disruption (comment: what constitutes "disruption") committed (comment: this gets into a fuzzy area; the general idea is violent acts that were deliberately done, on purpose, as opposed to accidental) to create an atmosphere of fear (comment: agree) in order to obtain a political objective (comment: tough defining "political"; what if its ideological or religious; what if objective is economic, such as a bank robbery, but a big one that disrupts a whole section of a city -- is that terrorism?) The act may be intended to cause direct casualties (comment: repetition of casualties idea in first sentence) or to disrupt critical infrastructure. (comment: again, this is from the perspective of a government trying to fight terrorism) Thomas Wright Sulcer 01:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Civilian means not-military, and can reasonably be extended to security forces such as police and intelligence. I don't see why critical infrastructure is particularly governmental. It includes utilities such as electrical power, health care, transportation, etc. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the core idea should be violence. So I'd prefer using that word rather than "violent act". Violence is what it's about. I think there is widespread agreement about this. Also, the idea of intended violence can be terrorism too -- but which doesn't emerge in casualties. For example, if police catch a terrorist before detonating something, it's still "terrorism"; or when the Unabomber shut down LA airport by pretending an attack was imminent there -- that would qualify as terrorism to many. Some definitions instead of "civilian casualties" think in terms of "innocent" versus "guilty" -- and terrorists primarily attack the innocent (although what does "innocent" mean? A dubious concept in my view.)Thomas Wright Sulcer 01:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
"Violence or disruption"? Shutting down financial systems would be immensely disrupted. I'll also agree with intended as well as completed.
"Innocent vs. guilty" is not especially mainstream, at least in the developed world. It's not, in my opinion, a meaningful term. It's really needful to look at terrorism without moralizing. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
What if an insane man who doesn't know right from wrong but who is a technical genius, builds a nuclear bomb in a Manhattan basement, detonates it, millions die. Terrorism? No political objective. He wasn't TRYING to cause fear. Not deliberate. But I'd surely say it was terrorism, bigtime.Thomas Wright Sulcer 01:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I would disagree. Not political. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't think of this as terrorism either. Would you define murders in a high school such as Columbine terrorism? That too I would not. Even the Oklahoma bombing I find hard to define as terrorism since the political agenda, while anti-government was not really part of an organised group. Chris Day 01:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Oklahoma City is hard to call, Chris, but see self-radicalization. We're going to be seeing more "lone wolf" attacks from all sorts of political directions. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
What if government becomes the terrorist? The murder of Aquino by Marcos' bodyguards on the tarmac of Manila airport, for example. Government did it. It wasn't intended to cause civilian casualties or massive disruption. It WAS trying to cause a political objective. Terrorism? Was Hitler a terrorist? Stalin?Thomas Wright Sulcer 01:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
This example is not terrorism, as it was targeted to specific opposition. Operation Condor, however, is a decent example of state terror, since it was intended to create a climate of intimidating civilians. See also Great Terror. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't call this terrorism either. State sponsored murder or assassination. Chris Day 01:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
What if government security guards frisk an extra-beautiful model multiple times through airport security because they like feeling her body and seeing her fume. Is that terrorism? Or just abuse? Is frisking in general terrorism? It ASSUMES beforehand (without any specific evidence) that EVERY PASSENGER is a terrorist planning a bombing. It violates personal space and privacy. Is that terrorism? In my personal view, it's a form of mild form of tyranny, but it's legitimate because people consent to it because they think there is no better way to prevent skyjackings or mid-air bombings.Thomas Wright Sulcer 01:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd tend to call it "security theater", but not terror. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Howard I'm realizing how many different articles you've worked on regarding the whole subject of terrorism -- so with all that work, you're definitely becoming an expert and I think your approach is the way to do CZ. Like a thicket of wikilinks.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 15:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Some time ago I looked up the definition in the relevant Act of Parliament. So far as I could make out, it would cover all military operations, lawful or not, by anyone other than the British crown. Peter Jackson 15:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Who exactly are civilians? This came up in Gaza, with different statistics for civilian deaths depending whether you counted police. Was Dr Mengele a civilian? Whether or not he was, would assassinating him have counted as terrorism? If Nazi death camps had been run by "civilians" rather than Waffen SS, would bombing them have been terrorism? Anti-abortion "terrorists" would claim that their targets are exact moral analogues of Mengele and death camps. Peter Jackson 15:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Josef Mengele was a uniformed Hauptsturmfuhrer in the Waffen SS, under a chain of command, and carried arms openly when he carried them. He would be a legitimate military target.
If "civilians" ran the camps, but were part of the government, they would be military targets. It's actually blurred, because the camp administration was under the WVHA, part of the SS, and the SS was a Party, not State, organization. I would claim that the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon was terrorism not because there were civilian workers in the building, but because there were clearly uninvolved civilians in the aircraft.
For your abortion example, the targets are not acting under color of government authority, further excluding them from a "military" defense -- if one goes down that road, they also fail the tests of lawful combatant.Howard C. Berkowitz 15:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
The SS, apart from Hitler's personal bodyguards, were under the authority of the RSHA, making them effectively state operatives.
I agree with you about the Pentagon.
The abortion issue can get quite complicated when you take into account as you just did the fact that the US health service is private, not governmental. I suppose one would have to describe the relevant point of view something like this:
"A group of private individuals (doctors &c) is carrying out mass murder of other private individuals (unborn children). The government has been forbidden by its own courts to prevent this, and is obeying this order. A third group of private individuals ('terrorists'?) therefore use violence against the first group."
I'm not sure how or whether the concept of terrorism aplies in such quasi-anarchistic contexts. Peter Jackson 17:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(undent) There would be several ways to consider terrorism in the abortion context. First, much as village leaders were messily killed by the Viet Cong for "collaboration", a sense of terror among abortion providers dissuades them from performing the acts in question. Second, acts unchecked by government can encourage the recruiting of the third group. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Some further thoughts:
  1. What's the conceptual difference between deterrence (e.g. capital punishment) and state terror(ism)?
  2. The Mafia etc. terrorize people too.
Peter Jackson 09:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


I'm not quite sure where to go here; this is becoming a discussion of ideologies. Capital punishment is not necessarily viewed as deterrence; I would say a minority do have that opinion. If one views the Mafia as a quasi-state attempting to change politics, it qualifies; if it is viewed as preventing interference by Ordinary Decent Criminals, it is not.
If you want to argue about the terr root, please provide references that this is an actual area of discussion, not coincidence.
With the Mafia, it would vary significantly if the target is a merchant made an example of what happens to those who do not pay extortion, and a magistrate or police officer whose murder is intended to change state policy. Howard C. Berkowitz 13:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

References

  1. Angus Martyn, The Right of Self-Defence under International Law-the Response to the Terrorist Attacks of 11 September, Australian Law and Bills Digest Group, Parliament of Australia Web Site, 12 February 2002
  2. Thalif Deen. POLITICS: U.N. Member States Struggle to Define Terrorism, Inter Press Service, 25 July 2005
  3. 3.0 3.1 Abrahms, Max (March 2008). "What Terrorists Really Want: Terrorist Motives and Counterterrorism Strategy" (PDF 1933 KB). International Security 32 (4): 86–89. ISSN 0162-2889. Retrieved on 2008-11-04.
  4. Jean Paul Laborde. COUNTERING TERRORISM: NEW INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW PERSPECTIVES: 132ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS, 'United Nations', 2007. Retrieved on 2010-01-13. “The UN is often criticized for its action (or more accurately lack of action) on terrorism. “Lack of the definition” of terrorism, not addressing its “root causes”, “victims” and other issues are often cited by the critics to highlight UN impotence in dealing with this gravest manifestation of crime.”
  5. 5.0 5.1 5.2 Fareed Zakaria. The Only Thing We Have to Fear ... If you set aside the war in Iraq, terrorism has in fact gone way down over the past five years., 'Newsweek', Jun 2, 2008. Retrieved on 2010-01-12. “"Over the past 30 years, civil wars in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Uganda, Bosnia, Guatemala, and elsewhere have, like Iraq, been notorious for the number of civilians killed. But although the slaughter in these cases was intentional, politically motivated, and perpetrated by non-state groups—and thus constituted terrorism as conceived by MIPT, NCTC, and START—”
  6. 6.0 6.1 6.2 Francis Townsend, Bruce Hoffman, Steve Inskeep (host). Experts Explore How To Define Terrorism Act, 'NPR', November 25, 2009. Retrieved on 2010-01-13. “Incidents like Fort Hood are forcing terrorism experts to refine what should count as a terrorist act. ... When you look at the just basic English dictionary definition of terror, which is the use of violence to instill fear and intimidation, I think it's hard to imagine this wasn't an act of terror. ... Professor BRUCE HOFFMAN (Georgetown University): For me, an act of violence becomes an act of terrorism when it has some political motive.”
  7. 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 What is terrorism?, 'BBC News', 20 September 2001. Retrieved on 2010-01-13. “One is Britain - the Terrorism Act 2000 is the largest piece of terrorist legislation in any member state. The Act says terrorism means the use or threat of action to influence a government or intimidate the public for a political, religious or ideological cause.”
  8. 8.0 8.1 What is terrorism?, 'BBC News', 20 September 2001. Retrieved on 2010-01-13. “Hardly anyone disputes that flying an aircraft full of passengers into the World Trade Center was terrorism of the worst kind. But the outrage has tended to obscure the fact that there is still argument about what the word covers. In other contexts, the debate about who is a terrorist and who is a freedom-fighter is not dead. ... You would get wide agreement across the world that innocent civilians or bystanders should not be targeted - as opposed to being killed inadvertently in an attack on the military.”
  9. Steven Monblatt (2010-01-13). Transatlantic Security. British American Security Information Council. Retrieved on 2010-01-13. “Most victims of terrorism are innocent bystanders who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.”
  10. 10.0 10.1 James Poniewozik. Is the Media Soft on White Male Terrorism?, 'Time Magazine', June 11, 2009. Retrieved on 2010-01-13. “The Webster definition of terrorism is "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion."”
  11. [http://www.asap-spssi.org/pdf/asap019.pdf "politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant"]
  12. Terrorism. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary (1795).
  13. Bruce Hoffman, Steve Inskeep (host). Experts Explore How To Define Terrorism Act, 'NPR', November 25, 2009. Retrieved on 2010-01-13. “But Hoffman concedes he might not have viewed Fort Hood as terrorism a decade or two ago. Back then, he believed there had to be some sort of chain of command; that a terror network had to be involved for an incident to rank as a terrorist attack. But Hoffman was forced to revisit that view, in light of the Unabomber, the Oklahoma City bomber, and now his conviction that terrorist groups like al-Qaida have learned they don't need to finance or train would-be terrorists directly; instead, they can motivate them to commit terrorism on their own. In that sense, Hoffman sees the Fort Hood attack as a prime example of one of the major trends in 21st century terrorism.”
  14. Jean Paul Laborde. COUNTERING TERRORISM: NEW INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW PERSPECTIVES: 132ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS, 'United Nations', 2007. Retrieved on 2010-01-13. “By defining terrorism as a crime rather than as an international security issue, the General Assembly has chosen a criminal law approach rather than a war model of fighting terrorism.”
  15. Hoffman, Bruce "Inside Terrorism" Columbia University Press 1998 ISBN 0-231-11468-0. Page 32. See review in The New York TimesInside Terrorism
  16. Record, Jeffrey (December 2003). BOUNDING THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM. Strategic Studies Institute (SSI). Retrieved on 2009-11-11. “The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. This report is cleared for public release; distribution is unlimited.”
  17. Schmid, Alex, and Jongman, Albert. Political Terrorism: A new guide to actors, authors, concepts, data bases, theories and literature. Amsterdam ; New York : North-Holland ; New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1988.
  18. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named tws11janx33225
  19. Elysa Gardner. Harold Pinter: Theater's singular voice falls silent, 'USA Today', 2008-12-25. Retrieved on 2010-01-11. “In 2004, he earned the prestigious Wilfred Owen prize for a series of poems opposing the war in Iraq. In his acceptance speech, Pinter described the war as "a bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of international law."”
  20. Barak Mendelsohn. Sovereignty under attack: the international society meets the Al Qaeda network (abstract), 'Cambridge Journals', 2005-01. Retrieved on 2010-01-11. “This article examines the complex relations between a violent non-state actor, the Al Qaeda network, and order in the international system. Al Qaeda poses a challenge to the sovereignty of specific states but it also challenges the international society as a whole.”
  21. Terrorism 3. Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved on 2006-08-11.
  22. Lane Wallace. What Qualifies as Terrorism?, The Atlantic, Feb 23 2010. Retrieved on 2010-03-16.
  23. 23.0 23.1 23.2 Bruce Hoffman. Inside Terrorism (see p. 31), Google books, 2010-03-16. Retrieved on 2010-03-16.
  24. reviewer of Benjamin Netanyahu. Terrorism, freepali.com, 2010-03-16. Retrieved on 2010-03-16.