Talk:Terrorism

From Campaigns Wikia

Please remember to sign your comments with ~~~~. Although people can view the article's history to determine who said something, it makes it easier for others if they're simply signed :). Anphanax 19:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki article style?

Being relatively new to Wiki-based contribution, is the current content of the Terrorism page reflective of a general style for beginning a new article? At the moment it looks like random discussions back and forth and is unusable as a resource to those looking for the political implications of terrorism in the country. Jdiggans 23:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree and concur. The current format is unusable. It just launches off into dialog. What's needed is some (a lot) additional structure like Wikipedia. How about establishing from the start a definition of the topic being discussed, even if it links back to Wikipedia. Then perhaps a series of sections on general views from the various political worldviews and/or parties. It would be nice to have something other than such a blatantly stupid comment as the very first thing one encounters on this highly complex and emotionally charged matter.--JamieWalker 03:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I propose we move all the content in the Talk page and start a new and clear structure (which might includes some points touched in the discussion) -- Blackdog 03:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've done it (partially), I moved all the discussion to the discussion page where it belongs, please add selectively to the article page and don't sign there (per this site rules) -- Blackdog 04:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the section "Terrorism (general)" needs revision. The five criteria are not clearly distinguishable and need a source by some organization with the authority to define terrorism. Also, the next paragraph presents contradictions with the five criteria. Waldsen 15:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Terrorism is nor bad or good - it is an instrument of power, but it can in no way destroy our way of life in the same way that overreaching, liberty-infringing state action to stop terrorist acts certainly can. 85.216.71.229 22:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Think of the respect the USA would have received from the rest of the world if we'd picked ourselves up, brushed ourselves off, and said, "No open society can guarantee perfect security. We have learned some lessons from this attack, but we will never give up the freedoms that make us great, even if it means we are attacked again. Instead, we will try our best to make sure that everyone in the world has the opportunity to share in our prosperity." Or something like that. --Kg6cvv 00:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting thought but are you saying we should've just ignored the 9/11 attacks? Such talk is irational in today's society. People wanted revenge after those attacks, even someone like me who doesn't approve of revenge recognizes that. This country has a bad history of going to war with little or no provocation so it's overly idealistic to think that America would've not been angered by these acts. Terrorism can not be crushed with force but ignoring it doesn't works On this subject both irational fear of our government and irational fear of terrorists can be dangerous. --Pacotheparrot 06:25, 6 July 2006

No, I'm saying we should have taken our time and learned from them instead of jerking our knees and overreacting to the point that we only made the problems worse and reduced the respect of the rest of the world for the USA. IMHO legislators and their staffers, each of whom have incentives only to "do something" and not to actually be effective, and who have a huge stake in politics, were the last people who should have been recommending solutions to the problem. I believe the best solution to problems like this is to take a clue from the jury system and appoint a civil grand jury with a narrow, well-defined mission that can call witnesses and make recommendations, and who have no stake whatsoever in the political process. Their having no stake in the political process is what makes a civil grand jury different from "appointing a commission to study the problem."--Kg6cvv 16:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism is the tool of the few to coerce the many. The strategy is centered around the response to attacks rather than the attack itself. While I would agree that not responding at all to the threat of terrorism is impractical, the point that is debatable is the response itself. If hijacking aircraft, bombing infrastructure, sneaking weapons through our ports, and crossing the border undetected were all made to be mostly impossible propositions then the threat of terrorism would have been addressed. Merely chasing ghosts around the globe would, at best, address this particular thread of terrorism and not the actual ability to conduct such attacks. I personally think we should be doing both but more defense than chasing. --Xageroth 16:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"This country has a bad history of going to war with little or no provocation" I don't quiet understand that statment? Do you mean to say that what happened on 9-11 was little or no provocation? By that standard Pearl Harbor would need to be considerd little or no provocation and I don't think any reasonable thinking person would think that. What happened on 9-11 was an act of war. War was officially declaired on the USA by these terrorist several years before so by any defination it was an act of war. We are still at war today and I just don't understand how this could be considered "little or no provocation". When war is declared against a country and then that country is attacked it is in a state of war. --Seashell 18:43, 6 July 2006

In the interest of keeping the debate within the bounds of non-charged rational discourse, you might want to check the definition of "Declaring War" here: Wikipedia article. Exagerations have a tendency to escalate on both sides of an issue so it's better to nip it in the bud early. It's clear that the terrorists don't represent a "nation" so by definition cannot declare war or have war declared upon them. They are merely criminals who have killed more than most. Be careful not to legitimize their jihad by mischaracterizing and glorifying the conflict. This is a law enforcement action against antisocial criminals and inflating it in any way beyond that has only got the U.S. in trouble. --TheChin! 19:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I salute you for keeping the discussion civil, but I am forced to disagree with your premise. When a government, or those that embody it, commit criminal acts collectively and on government time, we are forced to deal with that government as a sovreign nation, not as individual criminals. This is clearly the case in places such as Afghanistan and Somalia. Compaqdrew 00:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

And I with your premise, firstly that the government of Afghanistan, which we had not recognized as it's governemnt at the time, namely the Taliban, may have harbored the terrorists responsible for 9-11 and recieved material goods from them, but were not terrorists themselves or actually were involved in the 9-11 attacks. At least that has been my impression, I may be wrong. Secondly, as far as I know we are not currently engaged in hostilities on the ground in Somalia. In fact, Somalia is another place, like Afghanistan was, where the term "government" is very loosely applied. Wandering clans and bands led by warlords and sheiks contantly feuding with each other violently is not a centralised government. In fact the transitional governemnt there, heavily beleagured, is actually fighting against the islamist faction that is led by a terrorist-tied sheik. That government, though not exactly a bunch of saints themselves, are allied against the terrorists with us, so they ar n ot a good example of a state we would fight or have an undeclared war on--TheChin! 19:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC).

What I meant by that statement was, note the word history here, in our past there have been several wars in which we've declared war with little or no ligitimate provocation. My examples would be the Spanish-American war and the Mexican-American war. But more importantly I think you're missing the point. My point was in response to the previous author who mentioned that it was the American people's reaction that the terrorists had hoped to invoke. I was merely stating that to expect people to act thoughtfully and correct after such attacks is too idealistic. Iraq was totally a revenge based war to the American people. It was only once the war had started that we realized that we had foolishly declared war on a country almost completely unrelated to the 9/11 attacks. I don't think an "act of war" can be committed by a few men who aren't associated with any country. If you've noticed Al Qaeda is not a nation or associated with any nation. In conclusion, I'm not even sure what point you were trying to make... Not trying to be mean just trying to explain my response.

Is it just the killing of civilians? No. It is possible to kill civilians without a goal of physical or psychological coercion of the entire civilian population. For example, when civilians were killed in Iraq, the coalition forces had neither the intent nor the expectation that these civilian casualties would coerce the Iraqi government into surrender. Also, the civilians were not deliberately targetted.
Is it just that *targeting* of civilians? Maybe, but if so then two out of the four airplanes on 9/11 do not count as terrorists, since they were targeting non-civilian targets. Does the fact that they knowingly killed civilians mean that they are? Well, I've got news - governments call that "collateral damage" when they do it, and they would admit that they do.
So what separates terrorists from governments? The *unlawful* use or threatened use of force is terrorism. The ONLY difference between these two camps is the law.
Does this make governments "terrorists"? No. Nothing so simple.
Instead it belies a fundamental truth - that the use of the word is for propaganda purposes ONLY. It merely serves to provide a way for governments to define an enemy, which is done strictly for political purposes. Your mere use of the word helps them with this cause.
Every time you use the word terrorist, you are helping them. Stop. 85.216.71.229 01:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

What is a terrorist? Is it "the systematic and organized use of violence and intimidation to force a government or community, etc to act in a certain way or accept certain demands."? Maybe so, but if so, then the invasion of Iraq is classed as terrorism. It forced the community to act in a certain way - whether that was to their benefit is another matter. It forced.

Is it just the killing of civilians? Again, if so then most governments are terrorists.
Is it just that *targeting* of civilians? Maybe, but if so then two out of the four airplanes on 9/11 do not count as terrorists, since they were targeting non-civilian targets. Does the fact that they knowingly killed civilians mean that they are? Well, I've got news - governments call that "collateral damage" when they do it, and they would admit that they do.
So what separates terrorists from governments? The *unlawful* use or threatened use of force is terrorism. The ONLY difference between these two camps is the law.
Does this make governments "terrorists"?

Terrorism is not always used as a propaganda tool. When a small group of people take hostages and demand prisoners in some jail be released, or they will kill their hostages, that is not propaganda. Anphanax 07:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You are correct about the usage of a terrorist act, but the grandparent was referring to the word itself.--62.255.32.14 12:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

85.216.71.229 said, "It merely serves to provide a way for governments to define an enemy, which is done strictly for political purposes." I disagree, as the word can be used by every-day citizens to describe what I described previously. It doesn't exist "merely" for government usage only. I understand the cynicism that it's all "politics", I just don't buy into it. Sure, some usage of the word Terrorist is political, but not all. --Anphanax 18:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is used by every-day citizens. That is the point - therein lies the power of the word. It is *defined* by government, however. That is obvious once you look at it, since governments *commit acts of violence that are equivalent*, but they are not labelled terrorism. It is implicit in our culture that the government *can* define a terrorist act, which is why the word is so dangerous - it gives the government far too much power.

Clausewitz: War is continuation of politics by other means. The islamic terrorists have a political agenda and they take other, violent means to achieve those goals and thus it is right to speak of a war, even though the opponent does not dress in uniforms and claim to be a government. As I see it, the blurry line between terrorists and armies in war comes from the fact that soldiers wear uniforms, which clearly denote them as soldiers and that they do not explicitly target civilian population (which does not mean that civilian casualties do not happen). --68.101.185.95 16:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I am going to have to disagree with your statement "War is [a] continuation of politics by other means" pretty strongly. While our friends in broadcast media enjoy viewing the war within the political prism (when was the last time there was a war story that didn't mention Bush's poll numbers?) I doubt either the troops on the ground or the majority of America look at it as "a continuation of politics." I certainly don't. Bush certainly doesn't. And you can love him or hate him, but he's been extremely clear regarding his feelings on the war, and I've never heard him mention politics. The only people that I've heard trying to politicise the war would be broadcast media and the political Left. Compaqdrew 00:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

What Clausewitz meant by the quote above was not that all wars were political, but that any war that ignores the political component is doomed to failure. Thus, "War is [a] continuation of politics by other means" is as much a prescription as a description. To the extent we ignore the political dimension of war, and engage in war as an end unto itself, we have failed before we began. It is by this measure that al-Zarqawi's terror war on Iraqi civilians (or if you prefer, the subset of Iraqi civilians that he considered apostates) failed so miserably. A war that targets civilians indiscriminately must subdue that population, or else it has failed in its political objective. Yet the Iraqi people work, vote, educate their children, watch satellite TV, and engage in all the daily activities of a free people. It is this inability to control the spirit of the Iraqi people that leads those who favor the war to believe that we are winning. For if the will of the Iraqi people will not be broken by deadly violence on a daily basis, the terrorists in Iraq must inevitably be defeated, for they have developed no other plan for victory.

Engineer from England, that might work if the terrorists were rational. There's no point in asking them why they did it. The terrorists are hellbent on establishing fundamentalist Muslim regimes throughout the region that restrict freedom and rights as John Locke has theorized as certain unalienable rights.

The terrorist main terrorist thread in England throughout the 80s and 90s was the IRA who were seeking to seperate Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom, they causes far more damage and loss of life than the Islamic Extremists have managed in the UK.

Similarly the Palestinians who could be perceived as terrorists by the Israelis are desperate people who may have tried other avenues to exercise their greivances but to no effect.

Furthermore, during the current crisis in Palestine, when the Foreign Minister called for a diplomatic solution to the crisis the Israeli army destroyed the Palestinian Foreign Ministry--194.128.160.113 08:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

High School student from NJ-I think that people need to reset and think in more than one dimention, and only the present. We cant only focus on terrorism because thats what the goverment says we shoud. If you think about it, penile cancer is killing more pus citizens now then terrorism. I fwe rationalize out thoughts, we can figure out that there are bigger proublems in this world, like cancer.

We can't give in to terrorism. Example: Do you have a house? Do you have a family? If yes, if you don't give me your house I will kill your family. That's how terrorism works.
- No, that's how theft works. Terrorism usually doesn't involve stealing things except maybe guns. A terrorist approach would be more along the lines of killing random people in houses to prevent people from going in houses. Giving people an irrational fear of something or someone. I don't know, I wouldn't make a very good terrorist.
- There is no need to "give in to terrorism". Just stop overreacting.

What constitutes "delibertely targets"? Example: An Israeli helicopter fires a missile at a car carrying Hamas militants, with the pilot knowing full-well that some civilians walking in the street will be killed. Are those civilians deliberately targetted? It can not be argued that their killing was accidental because there was prior knowledge that they would be in close proximity to the Hamas militants. Secondly, the video-tape examples are problematic. Very often the video tapes are made for the supporters of the so-called terrorist acts. It is usually the Western media who get hold of the material and terrorise Western audiences. The Wikipedia definition of terrorism is much more considered. Matamir 06:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

To the technician in California, I don't disagree with your sugestion that we should show that terrorism is ineffective. Where I differ is that I don't think terrorism will stop just because it is ineffective. That would require a strictly rational approach, unclouded by hatred, paranoia or religion. We must reduce the causes of terrorism which often lie in genuine injustices. Ian Baker 12:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The reaction of the media and US government since 9/11 have shown that the real people propagating the terror are not Islamic Fundamentalists, but those people that run our media and government. They alone have continually stirred the American people into an irrational mob while keeping them uninformed. Terrorism is not the threat that it is percieved as, and if broadcast media or the government were to display the realities truthfully and rationally this would not be the issue it is today. Nor would we be willing to give up our freedoms to fight an unstoppable idea. --Bobcobb 17:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism will never end, and I believe it is very important to make a distinction between terrorists and muslim fundamentalists. While some fundamentalists may engage in acts of terror, it is only receintly that this has been the norm (as reported by Fox News). Terrorism has existed ever since someone was willing to go to extreme measures to instill an irrantional fear in others. This may be a comment made for a religion article, but Christianity, Judaism and most other religions have fundamentalists as well, who also have engaged in "Terrorist" acts. While these religions are not typically tied as closely to the sate governments and whole populations as Islam in the Middle East, it is neevertheless important to understand that not all Muslims, even the zealous ones, condone terror. In fact, the majority of the suppport generated among the public in the Middle East for Terrorist and Extremist organizations is out of a perceived necessity; a lack of any other medium of communication to be heared in the Western World. If we were genuinely concerned with the wellbeing of the Middle-Eastern people, rather than their economic powers of state, there would be less support for such groups. These groups grow their ranks through dissent for our government. It has nothing to do with religion (well, almost nothing). I agree that we facilitate their movement by increasing our defense budgets, oppression, bigotry, and the media using propaganda to fulfil a personal agenda. --MWilhelm

I disagree with "1. Is a member of an association or individual not under the command of a recognized military force or nation/state" I think it is quite possible for a nation/state to engage in terrorism. While I disagree with the common misapplication that is merely terrifying warfare, e.g. US against Hiroshima. I think the term does apply where governments terrorize their owm populations. The difference is one of tactics. Which are (probably) adequately indicated by the other four criteria. It is when the fear of additional, possibly indiscriminate, acts is intended as the motivating priciple.

I also think that acts by "terrorists" against military targets would be better classified as "guerilla warfare". --R.Giskard 00:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorism Overemphasized

Terrorism is by no means a leading cause of death in the U.S., however it recieves a disproportionate level of attention and funding. Maybe some cited statistics would be useful here on how terrorism is significantly less likely to affect you when compared to other common occurrences such as automobile accidents.

When compared to other leading issues on Google Trends, such as higher education, it appears as if people in Washington DC are disproportionatly interested in terrorism, and news coverage is disproportionate in relation to actual interest.

You're 3.9212 times more likely to be murdered on your vacation to Mexico than die due to American troop actions, insurgency, or crime combined (iraq deaths,mexico murders), yet there's not a day that goes by that you don't hear about terrorism in Iraq. And how many news stories are there about murders in Mexico?

The difference between a car accident and terrorism, for instance, is that people feel they have some control. A car accident couldn't happen to them because they're a good driver. Terrorism is about controlling fear.

Of course, even good drivers get into accidents. The level of comfort you feel in a car is largely due to ignoring the dangers you are facing every second on the road. If we felt the same way about driving as we felt about terrorism, we'd have fifteen feet tall concrete barriers between lanes and have checkpoints every five miles to make sure you have correct documentation. The fear of terrorism is irrational, fueled by shocking events broadcast in full-color TV. Furthermore, fear is a great thing--it means you're still free.

Terrorism is as old as anything else on this planet. Yet it is used to create fear (not only by those who commit it), and make people accept certain changes in their system, such as limiting your civil rights, or exceeding judicial powers.

Hurricans are also not the lead cause of death in US, but they got more attention than let's say car accidents. Also violent crimes get more attention than car accidents, all this is within the normal media coverage choices, it also depends on the demand from the public. There's no need to judge media when it is the public who wants to get info about the terrorism. -- Blackdog 19:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

According to Google Trends, the only city in which people care more about terrorism than hurricanes is Washington, DC. This may be because Washington itself is at high risk of an attack, or maybe because fear politics work so well for the people in charge there. --AndreyF 02:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorism as a symptom

Whenever I see or hear the words "Weapons of Mass Destruction", I remember Dennis Kucinich's statement that Hunger is a weapon of mass destruction, Ignorance is a weapon of mass destruction, and Poverty is a weapon of mass destruction. I hear on the news about this terrorist attack or that car bomb, and I recognize them for what they are, which is a symptom of a disease. People use terrorism as a 'Weapon of Mass Desparation, because every other way they have to demand a redress of grievences has been cut off.

When I was diagnosed with cancer in 2003, I had been experiencing small pains throughout my body that I couldn't find a cause for. A rash here, pain in my joints, being extremely tired all the time, etc. Then I was diagnosed, and started chemo and radiation therapy. Now I'm fine, and I'm focused on keeping myself healthy and active, and paying attention to strange pains and annoyances. Because I know now that they are symptoms of something larger, something that could have killed me.

When we hear about hunger, or a shortage of water, or political unrest, or terrorist attacks, what we are hearing about is the small pains in the human race that signal that something is wrong. We need to find the true cause, and fight it with everything we have. Fighting terrorism with armies and bombs is like treating a liver spot with acne cream.

Chadlupkes 02:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with terrorism as a symptom rather than a cause. I also agree that because people do not have the basics - food, shelter, water and clothing - this causes a lot of social stress. In the same way that sex is popular to do, and not to talk about, I think that ending poverty is popular to talk about and not to do. Charity - which is not just giving money to church - has never really been popular or cool, and I don't think it can be. What if the root cause of these problems was, say, greed? This might be too marxist for some people to swallow, but simply identifying the problem will not solve it. At the same time I think there needs to be a major theoretical groundwork laid so that people can understand these problems in a real context: as symptoms, rather than the cause themselves. But that understanding should push individuals towards actions, not philosophical debate.

As for the government and my country, I love the place. I / You / We have to realize that there are places in the world that you can't practice your own religion, you are not safe at night, businesses aren't run by "fair" practices and much more. But I do not use patriotism to rubber stamp everything my country does. I love my country too much to see it's errors continue. And this is where I think the left and the right (if these labels even mean anything) get it wrong. I believe that people don't fanatically attack others for no reason, and if my country's army is the hammer, then every problem looks like a nail. Maybe I'm skipping around too much, but is foolish to wish that all the money spent on war could / will be spent on humanitarian aid - for their country or ours? I simultaneously realize how awesome and unrealistic this would be, and maybe my reality is based on the fact that I don't like the idea of other people dying. And I think that is the crux of the issue: killing is so much more than just shooting someone. You can kill someone by allowing terrible living conditions to exist, by forcing an economic situation that doesn't allow people to eat, by producing products that are unsafe... Regardless of religion, I think that people can come together around the idea that human life is sacred. Terrorist, who in another time or place would be soldiers, have such a warped reality that it is truly sad they can just end life on a whim, be it their's or other's. I think these people need help, and that definitly does not come in the shape of a bullet. --Bubaflub 09:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorism Probably Does Not Exist

At least not as we are lead to "know" it. There are no large terrorist organisations looking to do great harm in the U.S. Or, if there are, they are utterly incompetent and can be disregarded. Where does this logic come from? Here is the way the concept works:

There have been just many perfect opportunities in recent memory (katrina aftermath, for example) whereby a properly executed terrorist campaign could have devistating effects, even a very small one, like a handful of letter bombings in the right direction.

Considering that two barely educated men and a rifle could so completely terrorize the Washington DC area for weeks just a few years ago, clearly the "cost" of being a terrorist is as low the price of a hunting rifle, and box of ammo, and a beat up car...

And - most of all - who gains benefit from "terrorist" actions ? The terrorist or the country / state / organization that is barely legalized by media industries to put up massive actions against economical enimies ? Short past showed up that U.S. can do anything they like to friend or foe. 9/11 was perfect to prove this fact. The only real prize of last years worldwide terrorist actions goes to -> United States !

Putting this all together, we see a pattern, or a lack of one. Logically, this does not make sense. If it's cheap to pull off a terror campaign, if it requires essentially no resources whatsoever more than a couple of guys, if there are tons of great opportunities, and you aren't jumping at them, then you aren't a terrorist group with any ambition or competence.

The end result is simply that 9/11 was a fluke at best. --Gnovos 18:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't make any sense, there are always going to be people that will try to influence states that are more powerful than them by threatening, frightening and attacking unarmed civilians of those states. There are enough examples in history, I won't bother to list them. Besides, the term terrorism doesn't refer only to US and 9/11 events. US is not all the world, try to get rid of your geocentric views. -- Blackdog 18:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This is liberal nonsense. According to the US Department of Defense, terrorism is defined as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives." Al Qaeda and other groups continue to threaten America and other targets in order to achieve their ideological objectives. Therefore, Gnovos' argument is flawed because terrorism isn't predicated alone on actual terrorist events; but the threat thereof. -- digistic 14:22, 6 July 2006 (CST)

Although I don't agree that Terrorism doesn't exist, because it so obviously does, I need to comment about this definition. The United States invaded a sovereign country without exhausting all diplomatic means, and on false information. This was declared as unlawful by the Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan. The US also launched the invasion with a stated "shock and awe" campaign designed specifically to intimidate the Iraqi government and military forces. And regardless of whether we believe the invasion was justified or not, we have to agree that it was done for political ends. In addition, President Bush gave several Freudian slips during the run up to the war, including calling this a "crusade" and using ideologically charged language. By that reckoning, the United States is conducting terrorist operations in Iraq. Wars are fought between sovereign nations. Iraq ceased to be a sovereign nation in May of 2001.

I will agree that Al Qaeda does exist, and that it is made up of people who follow an ideology that says the ends justifies the means, that everyone else is wrong, but that they are right. Who believe that discussions have failed, and that only violent action can ever achieve the goals and mission of their organization. However, I don't believe that there were more than a few hundred members in 2001. I do believe that the total number of radicalized individuals is significantly higher now.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. This is what I was taught as a child. That as long as we are in a dialogue and not hitting each other, there is still a way out of an argument without resorting to violence. Don't hit was such a basic and core value. But now the very threat of violence against us has us willing to ignore international treaties and international law. We declare that anyone who disagrees with us within our country is a traitor, while anyone who disagrees outside of our borders is part of the terrorists, or at least "sympathetic" to their cause.

I believe that the Israeli people have the right to live in peace. I also believe that the Palestinian people have that same right. And Iraq, and Iran, and Afghanistan. I don't believe that threatening those who disagree with us is the way to make friends and allies. But I believe that criminals like Osama Bin Laden need to be brought to justice and tried publicly in the World Court. Violence, death and destruction are the products of insanity, especially now that we have the power to destroy the planet that our children should inherit. We can't react to threats alone without living scared of our own shadow for the rest of our lives. We have to react to terrorism by finding those responsible, and bringing them to justice. That, much more than "bring it on", is the American way. Chadlupkes 04:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism does exist. No question. But a terrorist network, like the government says, doesn't exist at all. There are a few guys who are so convinced of their idear, that they even kill a lot of people to realize this idear. If you have no fear to die, you could kill anyone you want - nobody could prevent this. In fact you are never realy safe. But do you want to give up your freedom for the fake safty that the politicans promise? If you spent your whole life in a prison build out of fears, your life wasn't a life. --217.226.97.19 19:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Than I propose the change the heading to say what it means, probably something like this: "There's no Al-Qaida network that threatens US" Which by the way is pretty obvious false. -- Blackdog 19:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You'd think, given what the administration says, wouldn't you? But you'd be wrong, and you'd be a fool for trusting what they said. They have a vested interest in creating and pushing a bogeyman (worked in the cold war). In reality there is no "terrorist network". There are a set of terrorist groups that are barely linked by anything apart from a very weak shared ideology. That's not a network.

I guess it's how you define "is". What is a network? How many terrorists do you need to say there's a network of terrorists? -- Blackdog 21:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does terrorism work?

[edit] Terrorism works

Terrorism exists exactly because it works and it is efficient. A terrorist act can change the course of actions of a state or group by using asymmetric means (the terrorists have less power than the part they want to influence). -- Blackdog 19:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

9/11 certainly did work, it made the USA attack Iraq. Let's see if Al-Qaida can make them attack Iran, too.

I disagree- while terrorism can change a countries actions, there is little way to predict the actions. I was only because of our president that we invaded Iraq. -Patrick (acprkit@gmail.com)

In the eys of Al-Qaeda 9/11 was a huge success. It killed thousands of people, it got the worlds attention, inflicted economic punishment of the western world and it has forced the US into a knee jerk reaction of invading Afghanistan and Iraq which has created huge anti-US sentiment throughout the Islamic World.

Osama Bin Laden has recently said that he hoped the US would find a quagmire in Afghanistan, and was happy that we had invaded Iraq since Afghanistan was a pushover. The fact of the matter is, what makes terrorism work on 9/11 was the US government's stubborn reaction. We cannot deal with terrorism in the way we have dealt with enemies of the state in the past, but I'm afraid the next attack will succeed as well. --Bobcobb 23:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorism doesn't work

The response to an act of terrorism determines its usefulness as an act. Historically, terrorism has only perpetuated violence and needless retaliations, instead of solving the original issue by which terrorism was contracted. See: World War I, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, War On Terror.

Terrorists definitely have an effective way of getting their point across but the cost is so high it does not really matter. I'd say the majority of terrorist's demands are left unmet and that means it doesn't work. Chris Barna 22:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Perspectives

- The suggestion that Western nations must have done something unreasonable and unwarranted to provoke Eastern terrorism would seem both ethically and geopolitically backwards. Speaking ethically, it suggests that violence is a reasonable means to an end, and that (absent the initiation of force) one can deliberately invite ones own suffering. If it is a given that no person WANTS to suffer or be punished, how can it be that the West has provoked punishment and suffering from the East? No rational collective would do such a thing; it would be anatural. Much like walking on broken glass, or jumping off the Brooklyn bridge. If you would argue instead that Western provocation was unintentional, then how can you justify its punishment? Speaking geopolitically, the Middle Eastern region was inwardly violent for centuries before Western intervention, during the 19th and early 20th centuries, brokered a forced peace between the various factions. Only recently has this violence turned outward, towards the West. Acts of terrorism are neither a recent innovation of nor uniquely applied to the West by the Moslem world. 70.170.22.192 01:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

- A state, by definition, cannot execute an act of terrorism. States are given a monopoly on the use of force, including the use of force to influence the conduct of other nations. This is called foreign policy, not terrorism, and it is governed by a different set of rules and ethics. 70.170.22.192 01:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the accepted definition of terrorism in this article, and I deliberately omitted the idea that state power exonerates one from charges of terrorism, as I felt that is a bit too convenient to nation states. To use an extreme example, take Saddam Hussein's gassing of the Kurds. What was an act of genocide against one race could have also been an act of terrorism against the rest of his nation, presuming that Hussein's intent was not only to wipe out the Kurds but to dissuade the Shia from resisting his rule. Likewise, one might argue that public executions are an act of terrorism against citizens who might otherwise consider capital crimes, as is implied by the argument for the death penalty as means of "deterrence" rather than a means of "punishment". I'd like to hear more from others on this point: can a state perform acts of terrorism, or does the definition of terrorism preclude state action?

Whether "terrorism" can be carried out by a conventional nation-state is a question of semantics. As long as we understand what we're talking about, we can use either definition. There's no problem with the conventional definition of terrorism that restricts it to non-state combatants, but it would be mere semantic sleight-of-hand to argue that ethical arguments applying to such "terrorists" aren't equally applicable to governments engaged in similar activities.

The use of air power to "send a message" is one form of war-making with obvious similarities to non-state terrorism. Examples include much of the bombing in Vietnam, the "shock and awe" overture in Iraq, the NATO air campaign in the 1999 Kosovo conflict, and probably the current Israeli campaign in Lebanon. With modern guided weapons, these attacks can target important individuals, or inflict great material damage while keeping casualties relatively low. They're used not to support ground troops or destroy military forces, but to change enemy leaders' behavior and/or to break public support for those leaders. Deadplanet 10:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a comment about format. I didn't realize that we were going to do a tit-for-tat response on the main page of this article. I suggest any responses be done here on this page. I also suggest that having a flame war here over terrorism (or any other issue) is a bit pointless, and really degrades the supposed mission of this Wikia to raise the level of debate to "intelligent" levels and create a NEW politics in which these peeing contests become elevated. - Nhprman 06:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 9-11 image

The image of the two towers was added by a user uploading and posting copyvio and offensive images. This image is not necessarily copyvio, but I question whether it belongs. Feel free to remove it or discuss its removal here. Should you wish, leave me a note on my talk page and I'll delete it. --Keitei 10:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This is clearly an act of terrorism. It fits. Unless you have a picture of an individual Hezbollah terrorist or an Al Quaeda terrorist, this is probably the best and best known example. - Nhprman 18:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] maybe we need a new section

If we're going to use the talk pages as a place to discuss the article, and the actual articles to discuss the subject, maybe we need a debate section. This talk page has some good discussion that really should be part of the content. Chadlupkes 13:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Create a new article Upload a new image
Recent changes Help	Random page Special pages Recent changes Random page