Talk:Terrorism/Draft
I'd rather start from Marcusvox's proposed revision. If we're just going to work on this version, I don't see much point in spinning it off into a draft. My only problem with Marcus' version is that I don't know if there's a way to get his version here with its links. Isomorphic 08:03, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Fine. Move it here, that it be a starting point to "work on" -SV(talk) 08:16, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
OK, cool, thanks. I'll copy/paste. Best I can do as far as I know. Isomorphic 08:19, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Actually after a more careful reading, I've decided I'll just incorporate some of his changes rather than replacing. Here's to (hopefully) a better article... Isomorphic 22:32, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Alright, I've made a major revision. Rather than try to make a single definition, I gave some criteria that could be used, and the implications of using them. That way, the readers can make their own decision on what they consider to be "terrorism". I also moved some stuff around to improve the overal organization.
I think that the state terrorism and international agreements sections are too long. They should be summarized, and their contents moved to state terrorism and international law and terrorism. Isomorphic 03:31, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
There's already a section on politicization of the term - you didn't need to create one. I moved the content and tried to integrate it with what was already in that section. Also, Chomsky is not an expert on terrorism. Isomorphic 05:57, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- An "expert on terrorism" by definition, would be someone invested in a particular way of confining terrorism to established boundaries, would they not? Chomsky, unlike many so-called "experts," at the very least gives reasonable, in-context definitions—not because he's a terrorist, or an expert on violence in general, but because he's an expert with words, (which terrorism is) and explains quite nicely how they are used. Deal with it. -SV(talk) 13:16, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, he is an expert on linguistics. If you had inserted a quote in which Chomsky critiqued what the word meant or how it is used, I might consider it. The quote you did add was
- It has required considerable discipline on the part of the "specialized class" to maintain its own studied ignorance while denouncing the terrorism of others on command and cue.
- This is not about the meaning of the term or about how it is used. It's Chomsky's political POV. Isomorphic 13:28, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, he is an expert on linguistics. If you had inserted a quote in which Chomsky critiqued what the word meant or how it is used, I might consider it. The quote you did add was
- An "expert on terrorism" by definition, would be someone invested in a particular way of confining terrorism to established boundaries, would they not? Chomsky, unlike many so-called "experts," at the very least gives reasonable, in-context definitions—not because he's a terrorist, or an expert on violence in general, but because he's an expert with words, (which terrorism is) and explains quite nicely how they are used. Deal with it. -SV(talk) 13:16, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Ok. I'll Agree that that wasnt the best quote. This one is more appropriate. You can use it if its relevant. "The term "terrorism" is used, standardly, to refer to the terrorism that they carry out against us, whoever "we" happen to be. Even the worst mass murderers —the Nazis for example —adopted this practice." [...] "Since the rich and powerful set the terms for discussion, the term "terrorism" is restricted, in practice, to the terror that affects the US and its clients and allies." -SV(talk) 07:48, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Excellent progress ... my congrats to all involved! ----Marcusvox 08:12, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
Iso, there needs to be some looking at paramilitary, and guerilla, etc. to consolidate these. Terrorist, special forces, guerillas, and paramilitary seem to be just different words for the same thing - there needs to be an organized treatment of the differences between them. If there is no substantive difference between any two terms, then they need to be consolidated. -SV(talk) 22:31, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- In some cases more than one of those terms may apply, but they are certainly not the same.
- The terms don't specify the same trait. "Guerilla", for example, is used to describe the tactics of the group in question. "Paramilitary" as I understand it refers to a group's organization - the fact that the group is organized along quasi-military lines and performs semimilitary functions, but is not a professional military. And terrorist, well, I assume you've read my definition section. Depending on which criteria you apply, you can exclude plenty of groups that are considered guerilla or paramilitary, or both, from the definition of terrorist. Personally I think the "deliberate targeting of civilians" is the most broadly accepted, and you could find groups that fit any of the other three terms but do not target civilians.
- Special forces are the most obviously distinct. They are not, by definition, paramilitary, because special forces are formal military units, operating in uniform and under the laws of war. You may be confusing them with the paramilitary units of organizations like the CIA, but those are not "special forces". Actually, the paramilitary article needs to be broadened somewhat, since "paramilitary" is much broader than that article makes it out to be. Isomorphic 23:19, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I removed the reference to paramilitary in the intro. It seems to confuse the issue. First of all, were you meaning to imply that, by definition, a formal military cannot commit terrorism? That's what you were saying, and while I'd agree (as such actions when committed by a military are called war crime) it seems at odds with both your overall POV and with your comment above equating special forces with terrorists. Second, the word "terrorist" has been commonly applied to plenty of groups that wouldn't be considered paramilitary - for example, I don't think Al Qaida is generally called "paramilitary" and I don't think they really fit the term. Paramilitary is certainly not an appropriate term for any individual acting alone, like the Unabomber. Isomorphic 23:38, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
moved from article, motives section
the Washington Beltway sniper attacks (which were an attempt at extortion.)
- I don't think this is a good case to cite, because his motives are so debatable. From what I heard most recently, they wanted to use the $ to have 100 boys, and 100 girls go around the world teaching Islam, or something like that. I think his motive was to use the $ with political intent. Much like the robberies commited by The Order (group). Sam Spade 01:30, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I knew they were trying to extort money. I didn't know there was a political purpose behind it. If anyone knows of a similar case that would work better, put it in. Isomorphic 03:27, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I've actually heard suggestions that there were direct terrorist tie-ins in that case which have been suppressed to prevent hysteria, so I definitely think a different example would be in order. Which one to choose seems pretty broad, since there are so many non-terrorist incidents. I guess the best would be one where it is a close call, the deciding factor being motive. Sam Spade 03:41, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- It'll prob do fine w/o an example, others also lack them. Sam Spade 05:20, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- If I could think of one, I'd include it, but nothing comes to mind. Isomorphic 05:21, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I've actually heard suggestions that there were direct terrorist tie-ins in that case which have been suppressed to prevent hysteria, so I definitely think a different example would be in order. Which one to choose seems pretty broad, since there are so many non-terrorist incidents. I guess the best would be one where it is a close call, the deciding factor being motive. Sam Spade 03:41, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I knew they were trying to extort money. I didn't know there was a political purpose behind it. If anyone knows of a similar case that would work better, put it in. Isomorphic 03:27, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)