Talk:List of designated terrorist groups/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Miscellaneous

I have not made the change, but question the phrasing of "non-white racist terrorists." This should simply be headed as "Racist terrorists." Racism is not inately a "white" thing. All violence purpotrated in the name of racial or ethnic "purity" should be condemned equally. The KKK etc should be added to this list.

Regarding "Earth Liberation Front - USA (extremist environmentalist) - avoids harming people or animals, but is considered by the FBI to be a terrorist group": the ELF claims credit for tree spiking, which is the equivalent to planting land mines in civilian places, so I think the "avoids harming people" is a bit of a stretch. I'm going to change it in 24 hours unless anyone has a compelling reason not to. 141.154.203.120

The main thing missing from this list is that there is no way to see if a group is active today or is something from history. Could we have a range of years after the name, for example? --Zero 01:22, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

On the list as it currently stands, defunct groups are listed in italics. --GCarty 08:32, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Category:Terrorist_organizations

What is the relationship betweent this page and Category:Terrorist organizations Philip Baird Shearer 08:27, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Religious groups

Why is the only religion Islam here? To name two, the KKK is certainly Christian and the JDL is definitely Jewish. If there are no objections within a few days, I'll redundantly add these groups (and others) to the religious section.

New Hindu Section Why is Tamil Tigers a Hindu group? They are a regional group based on ethnic lines not religious. There are muslims aswell as christians who are Tamil Tigers.

Also VHP is a religious group with many international chapters right-wing maybe but certainly not terrorist. Shiv Sena is a legitimate Maharashtrian Indian political party representing regional Marathi identity. Please be careful who you try to portray as terrorist organisations. I think we should stick to official government lists.

I changed militant to 'violent political' I don't think they should be called militant, they have no army and do not wage war against the people of India, mainly just religious fundamentalism and anti-westernism.

But which government list? Hizbullah is a terrorist group according to US, Israel, and UK, but it's not considered terrorist group by most other countries. Like Shiv Sena, Hizbullah is legitimate political party that won parliament seats in Lebanon. Moreover, many nationalist/reginal groups are listed under "Islamic" such as Lashkar-e-Toiba -- a group regionally involved in Kashmir dispute. OneGuy 16:44, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

winning seats in parliament does not mean they are not a terrorist group. The Irgun won seats in the first israeli parliament as well. The fact is that once a group harms or threatens to harm innocent civilians for the purposes of political coercion they are a terrorist group. Hezbollah have done so, therefor they are a terrorist group. Countries who do or do not list hezbollah may have political reasons for doing so. Wikipedia has no such reasons, and thats why these groups so be recognised for what they really are.

in that case should the Bush Administration also be listed in these groups? Admittedly both the Shiv Sena and VHP espouse a right wing ideology, but its nowhere even as extreme as those spouted by NeoCons or Christian/Islamic conservatives. They certainly have not been responsible for 100,000 civilian deaths either, [1], if "harming civilians" is any test for being labelled a militant organisation.

Wiki should be NPOV source, inclusion of RSS or VHP in that list is certainly not a NPOV.

- But Shiv Sena members do not wrap themselves with bombs and go around killing people in any country.

ERM.. VHP, Shiv Sena(regional language based political party) are blatantly not terrorists. By all means if you think that groups should not be under Islamic then edit so... doesn't mean you can make potentially defamatory accusations against other orgs. --The industrialist 11:16, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Tamil Tigers should be under nationalist, not religous, as they have a secular ideology.--Victim Of Fate 11:07, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

RE: VHP, Shiv Sena... These groups do not indulge in millitancy, geurilla warfare, shootings, kidnappings, bombings etc etc. As one would expect from millitant organisations.

Re: The Jewish Defense League (JDL) http://jdl.org.il The JDL is not listed by any agency as a Terrorist organization. Therefore, it should not be included in this section.--Bill Maniaci 18:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Nationalists & Right-Wing

There seems to be a lot of cross-over. Also, I'm not sure "fascist" really applies to the Zionist groups. —Ashley Y 10:02, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "fascist" as:

1) a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

2) a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality

The Zionist Terrorist groups (JDL, Kach, Kahani Chai) in no way advocate a dictatorial regime or "social regimentation." They believe in the right of The Jewish People to live in Israel, at the expense of all non-Jews, by way of forced removal or destruction. Racist? Yes. Fascist? No.

These are some comments on the discussion going on about inclusion of RSS,VHP and ShivSena in the list of terrorist orgnizations. Comments made above are highly misleading. Shivsena,RSS and VHP are terrorist orgnizations. They are into existance since more than 50 years, never shown any sign of terrorism as shown by other orgnizations listed in this article. RSS is known for training people with ideology of nationalism, but not through violance. Same with VHP and shivsena. Offcourse are "terrorist training camps" into existance which are run by above mentioned orgnizations. If anybody considers RSS,VHP and ShivSena as trrorist orgnization, it is just a sign of there illitracy.

Actually, you've misrepresnted JDL, though you're dead on about Kach and Kahane Chai. JDL hasn't been considered a terrorist group since around 1992. Please also remember to sign your comments with ~~~~⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 17:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC).

The Jewish Defense League is Not a Racist, Facist, or Terrorist Organization:

http://jdl.org.il (see mission statement) --Bill Maniaci 18:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Merely citing how the Jewish Defense League categorizes itself is insufficient to prove the point that it is not racist, fascist, or terrorist. Most 'terrorist' organizations do not prefer to refer to themselves as such, particularly in a mission statement as part of their face to the public, yet judge them by their actions and what they say to each other and you get a different picture. See http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/israel/ for a different perspective on Kahanism and see Wikipedia entry on Jewish Defense League for another view. 67.183.186.85 16:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The official JDL website is http://www.jdl.org/ not http://jdl.org.il

Does a group become terroist just because the USA say so

Many of the groups here are legitimate national liberation groups - For instance the PLO is recognised by the vast majority of countries and has observer status at the United Nations. There are many more examples - Does wikipedia only respresent the USA point of view or is it an effort of the global community. The terror group Hisbullah was created when Isreal aggressively invaded Lebonon.

In the eyes of wikipedia, the opinions of the average US citizen is the truth, and everything else is propaganda.

There is talk of changing this article to list of alleged terrorist groups (See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of terrorist groups). This article should aim for neutral point of view, but removing accused groups would not achieve that in my opinion. The accuser should be identified where possible and accused groups added from all sides of conflicts. The official US State Department list is at Foreign Terrorist Organizations and the official UK list is at Terrorism Act 2000. I am unaware of any other official lists.

As for your introduction that was removed, I agree with its removal. It shows only one point of view, being heavily apologetic for listing Islamic groups. Also terrorism is defined in that article - we should not redefine it here, and Wikipedia should try to be internally consistent. Thanks for your contributions, I personally appreciate that you are trying to be constructive. --ChrisRuvolo 16:11, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Obviously stating anything about the personal preference of one country or another should not be considered. Stating that the USA is saying so is just wrong.

Vfd debate

For the vfd debate related to this article see Talk:List of Militant Organizations/delete -- Graham ☺ | Talk 16:09, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why was this article moved to "List of Militant Organizations" when only 4 people in the discussion voted to move it there, out of 25 votes? --ChrisRuvolo 17:36, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Because the vast majority of votes to keep were on the condition that the name was changed, but no agreement was made (as it very rarely is in these cases) as to what it should be renamed to. Now, there are two options at this point for the admin clearing away the old vfd debates: first is to leave it on vfd/old until agreement is reached, second is to move it to one of the suggested locations. The first option, in my experience, is the least useful because we then end up ith a meaningless vfd/old page, much like the one we have now that is so chockabloxck full of old debates you might as well do away with vfd altogether for all the use it does. The second option at least starts the ball rolling with regard to what the article should be called, it can always be moved again at a later date. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 18:18, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

While I think the list may be controversial, calling it militant org's is a massive cop out. If there is a significant explanation that the list is controversial in the intro, then the list is not POV biased. The list is interesting precisly because the groups are alleged to be terrorist not militant! (Am I writing this in correct place, where exactly will the discussion now take place?)--JK the unwise 10:58, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

just b/c the U.S doesnt say that one is a terrorist doesnt mean one is not e.g. arafat, and this doesnt have to do with pov or not history proves itself

Introduction

I have changed the introduction because I think it is important that it is made very clear that the list does not claim to be objective/uncontrovercial. This should be esspecialy true if Wikipedia is seeking to be a world thing (not just a 'western' thing) as world opion is very divided.--JK the unwise 10:50, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Policy Statement

I am hoping to engage with this page a wee. Here's a policy statement to start with:

Frankly, I think that the statement that "One persons terrorist is the other persons' patriot." is a red herring that belongs in the statements of governments, activists, and opinion columnists not in an encyclopedia—unless we are to admit that the encyclopedia has a POV. Terrorism is a description of tactics. And being a terrorist is not mutually exclusive with being a patriot any more than being, say, a bomber pilot who flies planes that can carry nuclear bombs is. Or being a fanatic is mutually exclusive with being religious.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 00:21, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

The statment 'is one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter'. The point of putting it at the begining of the article is that 'terrorist' is not a nuetral term that refers only to tactics, it is a morally loaded term, in the same sence that freedom fighter is a morally loaded term. The sentence just plays the role of declaring that there is significant disagreement as to the moral status of the groups that are named in the list and that the article does not claim to be objective fact.--JK the unwise 09:35, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I fail to see why we should stop trying to be neutral and objective just because a term is disputed. It should be the target for an encyclopedia to be as neutral as possible. Also, its quite easy, in my opinion, to prove the statement wrong. As IFaqeer points out, there's a big difference between what you are and what you do. There are a broad agreement in the researh in this field that terrorism describes a certain method, while patriot or more specifically freedom fighter says something about your goal. Many freedom fighters use terrorist methods, but this does not make all terrorists freedom fighters.

As for the statement, I've seen it as both "patriot" (Contemporary research on terrorism, Wilkinson) and "freedom fighter" (The Politics of Terrorism, Stohl). --09:29, 22. Sept 2005

Page name v's page content

While the page name has been changed from list of terrorist organisations to list of militant organisations or actualy with a crazy american z spelling in orrder to apparently be more neutral, the content seems still to be writtern as if the page were list of terrorists --> so why don't we just change it back?--JK the unwise 00:34, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:28, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since no one offered me a reason not to I have done this. I couldn't get it to go to the american spelling (as page allready existed) so have moved to UK spelling.--JK the unwise 15:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Hindu Organisations

Shiv Sena has been termed a terrorist organisation by Pakistan, because this Bombay based political party opposes the state terrorism of Pakistan, after Pakistan gave refuge to the terrorists involved in the Bombay serial bomb blasts of 1992.

Here's a description statement "The group has been involved in several religious riots that lead to the death of several thousands."

This is categorical nonsense. I would like anybody to substantiate this!

How about the attack on the Oriental Research Institute in Pune, as a minor but relatively well-documented case? http://www.complete-review.com/quarterly/vol5/issue1/laine0.htm That looks like terrorism to me. OTOH, that may fall into the "fringe elements of a larger group that are ambiguously encouraged/endorsed by the group" category - which is the problem that's going to arise with a lot of groups listed here. -- Danny Yee 22:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Protestant Supremacists?

I renamed the "Protestant Supremacists" section as "Northern Irish Loyalists" because "Protestant Supremacists" is a horribly inaccurate name. I'm no Loyalist or Unionist but I'm Irish and it's a really bad description.

But they do believe in protestant supremicism, and attack not only Catholics, but Non-Protestant immigrants too, in particular the Chinese. --Irishpunktom\^talk

Bold text

Headline text

this is disastrous that a political party which has voters all over the INDIA franchising their votes regardless of Hindus, Muslims and Christians. If Hindus be in religious mood then no one in this world can stop them, we are peace loving people, we dont want any jihad like our neighboring countries.After all we are human striving to live with peace and harmony, this is the only birth to be born as man dont create any havoc---gita

NpoV

Slapped the tag on, because the IRA did not exist in 1916, and the IRA of the war of independence were not terrorists by any definition I'm aware of. --Irishpunktom\^talk

Northern Irish groups

Hello all! How appropriate is it to classify the Northern Irish nationalist and loyalist groups as 'Religious Terrorists'? Without a doubt, religion is a significant factor in the conflict, and the targeting of individuals has often been based on their religious affiliation. But, to the best of my understanding, the principal issue of contention has been nationalistic, and the Catholic-Protestant distinction is less relevant to the conflict than the Nationalist-Loyalist difference.

I like to think of this way:

• The conflict is religious if Catholics target Protestants and vice versa irrespective of an individual's position on the Nationalist-Loyalist spectrum (including, a Catholic Loyalist would target a Protestant Loyalist and/or a Protestant Nationalist would target a Catholic Nationalist).
• The conflict is nationalistic if a Nationalists target Loyalists and vice versa, irrespective of religion (including, a Catholic Nationalist would target a Catholic Loyalist and/or a Protestant Loyalist would target a Protestant Nationalist).

Now, of course, neither of these extremes holds entirely, but I think the latter is a far better characterization of the Northern Ireland conflict than the former. Black Falcon 15:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Religeon is just another excuse. Its to do with civil rights based on three hundred years of land theft and bigotry on both sides. Like most conflits, its purely about one side suborning the other under its power, utterly. All other explanations, including religeon, are scenery. Fergananim 17:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Minutemen - "Militant" organization?

Somebody decided to include the "Minutemen" under the "Others" category. While I can understand some of the oppositions some may have towards this group, I would hardly believe it to be fair that they be classified as a "militant group". They are more akin to a community self-policing or para-policing type force than a "militant" group. I am aware that some do indeed carry arms for self-defense purposes, but calling men aiding the Border Patrol a "militant group" is far from justified.

The Minuteman Project is a racist, terrorist militia which attracts white supremacists and separatists. There is ample documentation on the Internet and elsewhere to support this assertion. —Seselwa 05:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

That might be so (btw, I've also seen documentation that Elvis was an alien on the internet too), but the criteria has set. It is the action of the group to deside the classification. Not every racist is militant and not every militant is racist. The group has broken no US laws and opperates within US borders. They may carry guns, but that doesn't make them militant. They are akin to the Neighborhood Watch program in US suburbs. JC

Double asterisks

Am I being blind, or are a lot of groups marked with "**" but with no explanation as to what that means? Tim 07:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Front

A humanitarian organisation or business that acts as a "front" for a terrorist organisation is not itself a terrorist organisation. Yodakii 16:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

So why isn't PETA concidered a terrorist org, concidering that they wire money to ALF?

Because they're not on a list. Swatjester 15:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Shiv Sena as a terrorist group

I think Shiv Sena should be removed from the hindu group, they are a right-wing political party comparable to the republicans in USA, that doesn't make them terrorists. I suggest that it should be removed. Shiv sena has not been implicated in any terror operation to date.... they have been accused of ransacking shops and cricket pitches but this surely doesnt qualify, if they are a terrorist org. then the republicans or the labour party would be fair game too.

Shiv Sena has, amongst other thing, been involved in murders and violent harrasment of political opponent. However, i can't see them as a terrorist group per se. Rather as a violent-prone political party. --Soman 08:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Operation Rescue

Although I can certainly see those fanatical yahoos who go and bomb abortion clinics being classified as "terrorists", I find it very difficult to see Operation Rescue as terrorist group.

OR's activity as a group itself was not "bombing abortion clinics, killing doctors and nurses" - that sounds like nothing more than the type of propaganda you would hear from a pro-abortion rights or hardcore feminist group. Rather it was at first (arguably) legal clinic blockades, and later the same thing through civil disobedience. I am aware that one of its members did indeed commit such a crime in Georgia, but this does NOT make the group itself a "terrorist group". This is like saying an anti-war group is "terroristic" because one of its members has engaged in uncondoned bombing of recruiting stations, etc. (just an example).

I do appreciate your cites, but none are substantial enough to classify OR as a terrorist group.

The first (CNN) merely describes NOW (a very much partisan feminist organization) accusing OR's leader of violence committed by the same errant members mentioned earlier, and of increased security requirements. As far as I know, OR did suffer under RICO, but racketeering does not classify an organization as "terrorist" by any means. Again, clinic blockades may result in heightened security requirements, but this hardly classifies a group as terrorist. The few violent crimes have not been proven to be committed as a part of the OR organization.

The second cite is quite complete (although appears to contain a minor bias), but only links OR directly to clinic blockades. Again, classifiyng abortion clinic blockades as terrorist activity is way out in left field. Perhaps you are confusing Operation Rescue with Army of God? There is a more compelling statement later in the text, that OR did not sign onto the anti-violence pro-life act, but again, I don't think this can classify the group as terroristic - it's rather scary, but does not necessarily mean they (as a group) can be implicated in terrorist acts and be classified as a "terrorist organization". This an omission - it may be because they believe that is too firm on violence offenses, opposes their blockades in some way, etc.

The third cite "Operation Rescue's Randal Terry publicly threatened federal judges during the national trauma over Terri Schiavo." leaves a few questions. How did he do this? Mentioned earlier is a call for assasination by Pat Robertson. Certainly a bad faux pas on his part, but does that qualify CBN as a terrorist group?

The relevant part of the fourth cite is:

"Operation Rescue has staged frequent protests at Birmingham clinics, but its Alabama leader publicly criticized the New Woman bombing. Ms. Crew said the Pro-Life Action League has not typically been active in Birmingham.

The director of Operation Rescue Alabama, David Lackey, did not immediately return phone calls seeking comment. He has said his organization was not involved in the bombing. "

So he criticized the action? What does this have to do with anything? If a vegetarian group's member, as an individual, kills a rancher, and the group's authority condemns it, does this make that group a terrorist organization?

The fifth comes from the radical (by the standards of most Americans, at least) feminist group NOW. In the "NOW v. Scheidler" paragraph (the relevant one), they describe "clinic blockades" as "terrorist tactics". Knowing something about these, I would have to say that very few could be even hyperbolized to such an extent, as most blockaders talk to the women, not act in violence against them. A strongly pro-abortion organization calling protesters "anti-abortion terrorists" is not credible. If a strongly pro-life organization referred to abortion supporters as "terrorists" themselves, would we include that within our classification?

The sixth comes from a similar organization. There still is no example that could qualify OR as a terrorist organization. There is an unsupported claim of serious roughhousing by the leader, but not to the extent that could be called, with agreement, terrorist activity. The example of a single member attacking a pregnant woman is also worrisome, but this is again of a single member. There is no evidence that OR itself encouraged the man to do this. Punching a pregnant woman in the stomach would kind of be ironic for an anti-abortion group to do anyway, wouldn't it? One must take caution with highly partisan sources such as "Feminista".

The seventh source is the best, but still very questionable.

"He adds, "Soon after I entered the secret command post of Operation Rescue, I was given books on dozens of not-so-peaceful activities, including a book by Rev. Michael Bray advocating the bombing of abortion clinics."

By who? Operation Rescue itself, or a member?

I cannot find substantial evidence to back your statement up. As far as I can tell, it reflects your own point-of-view and those of the many pro-abortion rights Wikipedians, and therefore could be said to be in bad faith. I will continue to delete it. (unsigned comment by Jakes18)

I agree it may well be possible to improve on the list of citations given. I put them together slightly hastily in response to the removal of a longstanding listing; the ones I gave were ones the jumped out from the thousands of hits I found in a google search. I would welcome help in providing a better collection of external references.

If we impose that standard that any organization that "officially" disclaims violence, despite the widespread activity of its members and founders, we need to remove almost every listed group. For example, I adopted the caveat language from the Hezbollah entry (adjusted for appropriate details), since they likewise officially disclaim violence against civilian targets.

Hopefully, a 3RR block will encourage Jakes18 to work on finding citations rather than POV reversion/deletion. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

But it IS NOT widespread nor have you given evidence that it is. Please do not insert your POV (I see that you are a "feminist" member of Wikipedia) into the article.

--Jakes18 19:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)Jakes18 14:56 CST

Obviously, Lulu of the Lotus Eaters, does not wish to respond to my comment. There is no evidence to suggest that violence is widespread among Operation Rescue members. I could find only one example of violence committed by such members that is classifiable as "terroristic", and the bombing was condemned by the OR of Alabama, and there is again no evidence to support its connection to the group itself.

As I have stated, if you wish to spread your propaganda, there are many sites available for that purpose. However, there is no reason to prolong an edit war because you and your buddies feel you feel obliged to call organizations that you oppose "terroristic" with no good justification. If you would respond to the above points, or at least give me some kind of definitive reason to believe as you do, I will stop deleting your inclusion. --Jakes18 01:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Everything needs to be discussed

Everything is subject to discussion. Even removing the PLO, which to you appears to be obviously correct. To me, I believe that they previously declared themselves a terrorist orginization and then renounced such. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The PLO is an internationally respected organization whose chairman have received the Nobel Peace Prize. Listing them as "terrorist" is exactly as controversial as the listing of IDF as "terrorist" would be. ThompsJohn 21:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

In your broad removal, you deleted the Al Aqsa Marytrs Brigade. Do you deny they are "terrorists?" Perhaps instead of just deleting things you could have mentioned that the PLO renounced terrorism? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd recommend some compromise on this. I think blanket listing of the PLO is indeed wrong. And also the sublisting of Fatah generally. But listing the Al Aqsa Marytrs Brigade or the Abu Nidal organization seems fairly well supported. Actually, I'd frankly support listing the IDF as terrorist, or at least the Mossad, too; but that's a slightly different issue (state-sponsored vs. non-governmental, in part). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I would consider Al Aqsa to be a terrorist organization, mainly because insurgents claiming allegiance to AAMB were arrested by myself and my unit in Iraq in the middle of trying to plant a bomb. And its been widely known that the PLO gives approval to terrorist organizations. Looks like we have some NPOV violators in theh ouse.

Quick poll on Operation Rescue inclusion

In my perception, Jakes18 has taken it on himself to remove OR from this list out of political motives that are not really influenced by citation, clarification, or explanation. Of course it is always possible, on any topic, to declare by fiat that your conversant has not sufficiently refuted some given point (or some new point)... but that's not a game that ever ends.

So as a hoped-for resolution to this, I suggest the following quick poll to see where editorial opinion lies. Of course, I'm sure political partisans could be recruited on pro- or anti-abortion rights pages to put a thumb on the scale. That's sort of pointless. I'm interested in how editors who have actually edited this page, or closely related ones, feel about the inclusion of OR on the list (given roughly the explanation and citations that are now provided—they might be tweaked after the page is unprotected, but something like the general pattern would be there is the item is to be kept).

Should list Operation Rescue

1. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC) Qualifications: have previously worked on this page, on Category:Terrorists, and on discussion pages of a number of articles proposed for inclusion in Category:Terrorists (all unrelated to abortion issues)

Should not list Operation Resuce

1. --Jakes18 05:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC) (do not see any reason to list an organization, which focuses almost wholly on non-violent clinic blockades which has demonstrated very little violence over the years of its existence, except for likely unconnected cases involving individual members - see my comments above in response to Lulu's citations)

Borderline case

• I haven't found any information indicating that Eric Robert Rudolph was a member of Operation Rescue, and http://www.operationsaveamerica.org/wwworn/legal/alabama.htm indicates otherwise. If there were any such information, it should be added to his article and Operation Rescue, in addition to this article. I have removed this claim from the article.
• I agree that the citations by Lulu do not successfully establish that Operation Rescue has advocated violence. Mostly they just establish the existance of the lawsuit. I have created the NOW v. Scheidler article, which includes the lawsuits against Operation Rescue and its founder. It now gives a relatively good overview of the case, and has much better citations to actual court decisions. I have removed the now-unneeded citations from the article, but retained some that have extra details beyond the lawsuit article - those have been moved to either Operation Rescue or Randall Terry.
• A Chicago jury seems to have found Operation Rescue guilty of racketeering. Though the racketeering charges were overturned because there was no economic benefit for the organization, this does not refute the charge that there were underlying acts of violence or threats of violence. For details on exactly who did what on behalf of which organization, the best place to look is probably the court documents for that trial. (Which might even be available online?) See NOW v. Scheidler for references. Based on what I've read so far, it seems the Operation Rescue founder, Randall Terry, was personally involved in these and other acts of abortion-clinic-related violence. I don't know whether he was still active with the organization. Unlawful violence committed by a non-state actor against non-combatants for religious reasons and with political goal seems to meet the common definition given in terrorism. NOW is a prominent national civil rights organization, and in publicity materials, it consistently uses terms like "abortion terrorists" to describe the defendants in its lawsuit. Certainly I wouldn't personally use that term - it's provocative and propagandic, and I think of such actions as "violent protests" rather than "acts of terrorism". But if it's established that Operation Rescue has taken part in "violent protests", it would seem to qualify for inclusion under the given criteria. So, I would support including the organization on this list for references purposes, but marking it as disputed (at least until more details from the court cases can be established). Given that I seem to be the tie-breaking vote here, I will implement my own suggestion.
• Given the previous revert war, I would recommend not adding any claims to the article that aren't supported by details in a properly-referenced Wikipedia article, nor removing the listing without discussion on the talk page. Proper documentation will also help skeptical readers understand that the material in the article has not been inserted by partisans, or mistakenly. -- Beland 05:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

We need an agreed definition of "terrorism" to construct a list of "terrorist" organizations

IMHO, we need to make clear what definition we're using for "terrorist". This is obviously the basis for all the other sub-issues we're encountering (e.g. "Does a group become terroist just because the USA say so"). I agree with other wikipedians that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is a red herring, and believe it is only a result of not having a clear definition. Without an agreed definition, we cannot reach NPOV.

If we adopt a broad definition, such as, "Terrorism is the use or threatened use of force designed to bring about political change", then the United States MUST be considered to be a Terrorist Organization (many times over). Even on narrower definitions, the US would most certainly be considered to be a terrorist organisation, based on past actions. The World Court, for instance, found that the US involvement in Nicuragua during the Reagan admin. was a terrorist crime.

But, i'm sure if i put the good ol' USA on the list as a terrorist organization, an edit-war will result.... 130.126.220.138 03:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• I have apapted the definition from List of terrorists. As it happens, this excludes state actors. However, the United States is listed on state terrorism, and indeed it has its own article, American terrorism (term). Feel free to add information to those as you please. -- Beland 00:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Christian terrorists?

The Nagas are fighting on the basis of nationality and race, and not on the basis of religion. At the same time, the Meiteis, Asom, Bodos, Tripurans and Kamptans, all predominantly Hindu nations, are fighting on the basis of nationality and race, not religion.

The claim that the Nagas seek to "annex parts of India and Burma with Christian majority" is a deliberate and conscious lie and an exercise in Goebbelsianism; the Nagas merely demand the union of Naga majority areas adjacent to Nagalim.

Jogendra "Joshua" Debbarma was s general secretary of the NLFT in Tripura; he converted to Evangelical Protestantism, sought to foist a Protestant agenda on the NLFT and was rejected, leading to a split, with only a very small number following him. Debbarma hates Catholics as much as he hates Bengalis, the staple hate-objects of the NLFT cadres, and has murdered Catholics.

The "Tripura Ressurection Army" never had any connection with Christianity; confusion may have arisen due to the identification of "Resurrection" with the "Resurrection of Christ Jesus".

Jogendra Debbarma's faction later changed its name to "Borok National Council of Tripura" (BNCT) [2] This is no longer active. The three Hindu factions of NLFT are, however, active.

The KKK is also Protestant and anti-Catholic, which is itself recorded in the entry.

The US has always been an anti-Catholic state as a whole, see Know-Nothing, Saint Patrick's Battalion; attacking Spain, it declared that it wished to take over the Phillipines to "Christianize" the Phillipines, which had been Catholic for about four centuries before.

KKK and Joshua Debbarma's rump faction of the NLFT must be recorded as Protestant Terrorists, along with the Ulster and Orangemen, and not as "Christian".

Lastly, why is there no mention of the Chechens?

Regards,

WikiSceptic 19:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Are protestants not christian? 213.218.242.6 13:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

JKLF

The Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front of Amanullah Khan is, like the National Conference, a secularist and Kashmiri nationalist organization and is NOT an Islamic terrorist organization. JKLF seeks a Kashmir independent of both India and Pakistan, which is why it is suppressed in Pakistan. Why do most Indians lack compunction passing off their crass prejudices and libels as certitudes? WikiSceptic 07:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

"Why do most Indians lack compunction passing off their crass prejudices and libels as certitudes? WikiSceptic 07:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)"

- And why do you judge an entire nation of over a billion by the actions of less than 100 people?

Stern gang and Irgun

If the list includes defunct groups - then how back do we go? Stern gang and possibly Irgun were terrorist groups. If the list goes back to the 1940s then they should be included to give a balanced perspective.

Agree with Stern gang (at least) being added. 70.30.56.128 08:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

"Why do most Indians lack compunction passing off their crass prejudices and libels as certitudes? WikiSceptic 07:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)"

- Why do you judge an entire nation made up of over a billion people on the actions of about a 100?

Definition of Terrorism

I think that terrorism can be defined. It is a tactic, not a race or an ideology. How about "Intentional acts of violence or destruction perpetrated by non-state actors against civilian targets with the goal of inducing terror to further political or ideological objectives". Perhaps someone could word it better than me but you get the idea. A definition needs to be precise, and defining it this way makes a difference between "resistance" against military forces and blowing up women and children in pizza parlors. Also, defining terrorism this way does not excuse nations from their actions, it just doesn't have to be called terrorism, intentional killing of civilians by a nation's armed forces would be a war crime, right?

One can disagree with Israeli or American of Sri Lankan policy without supporting the tactic of randomly murdering civilians to get attention.

- Why only non-state actors, why not include state actors aswell? I find no compelling reason to differentiate between the two.

JDF and Kahane

I've removed JDF from the list as per [3] and Jewish Defense League both stating

"The National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT) says in its knowledge base that the last known attack by JDL was on February 26, 1992 and that "(t)oday, JDL is not actively engaged in terrorist actions.""

I've also fixed the link on Kahane, both Kach and Kahane Chai both now redirect to the Kahane Chai page. Both groups are now defunct and there is a challenge to the Department of State's listing of Kahane as a terrorist organization being made in federal court. At this time I'm not listing anything about the challenge here: it can be read on the kahane page, and might be misconstrued as POV. I did however, note that both groups are now defunct as parties.

• • Corrections**

Kahane Chai is currently active near Qiryat Arba and in Northern Israel. In August 2005 Kahane Chai recruited an IDF soldier who then took his government issues M-16 and shot and killed Palestinians on a commuter bus in Northern Israel.

Furthermore, although the last known attack by the JDL was in 1992, in 2000 JDL officials were arrested for conspiring to blow up the Culver City Mosque in California and Lebanese Congressman Darrel Issa's home.

African National Congress

I know that this is controversial, but many groups such as the ANC were considered to be terrorist groups by the apartheid government and by US administrations to name but a few. They are no longer considered to be such and are in power in South Africa.

Should the ANC be included in the list of terrorist groups (historical)? This comes back to the definition of terrorist, since their cause was just, but their methods not always so.

• agree with ANC being included. Certainly their cause was just, but blowing up a café full of innocent civilians (just one example) strikes me as being a pretty prototypical terrorist action. nsandwich 09:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I also agree fully with this. The ANC and the PAC were both definitely terrorist organisations (defined by Amnesty International as such). I live in South Africa and it's funny how yesterday's terrorists who you were afraid of are now running your country. Shizzel 19:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Al-Quaeda

The spelling is inconsistent in this artice. I have no idea what is the more appropriate spelling, but it should be the same throughout.Nunn08 23:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

anti abortion terrorists?

Why is this under religion? Furthermore, this is not a group, there is no organization called anti-abortion terrorists. It should either be a category of it's own, or not exist. Therefore if nobody adds specific examples of anti-abortion terrorist groups, I'll be removing it from the article. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC) george bush is likely to support this because he is anti abortion so it probably will not be seen as terrorist group anyway

OAS

Hello, OAS was not a racist terrorist organization. Surely considered as a terrorist organization by french legal government but surely not racist. A lot of arab volunteers, later called 'harkis', fight with these men during the ' Algeria "War"' and the essence of the conflict was beetwen french legal government and OAS, not with the terrorist organization FLN. The slogan was "French Algeria", as Algeria a "département" of France, so we may consider that it was a nationalistic terrorist organisation... ?Oe kintaro 09:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

RSS, a terrorist organisation?!

Well, so how do my fellow Wikipedians define a terrorist organisation? If I take a laathi (Hindi: long stick) in my hand (like most RSS workers do), do I become a terrorist? I agree RSS is a Right-Wing organistaion, but that doesn't mean they are terrorist or Fascist. For God's sake, RSS supports BJP, one of India's largest democratic political parties. The last thing I wanna hear is BJP being called a Fascist organisation. Please look into your dictionaries before using terms like Fascist and Terrorist! and how about gathering some information on the concerned organistaion's history and activities --Spartian 11:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The Hindu organizations most responsible for violence against Christians are the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (World Hindu Council, VHP), the Bajrang Dal, and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (National Volunteer Corps, RSS)."

Human Rights Watch

Basawala 22:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

RSS, VHP, Bajrang Dal, Shiv Sena should be removed from the list

These groups do not fit into the description of Terrorists in any way or form. None of these groups are blacklisted by any governments, none of them have taken part in any activities involving the murder of civilians, none of these have illegally procured any sort of weaponry, and none have done anything like bombings, kidnappings, mass attacks etc. The Shiv Sena is a political party in the Maharashtra state government! The RSS, VHP, and Bajrang Dal are a family of organizations who operate charities in the name Hinduism. If you call these guys terrorist, it would be only fair to list the American Republican party, and Christian Children's Fund as terrorist organizations too. They are definately NOT Fascist, they follow a Libertarian or sometimes, Neo Libertarian agenda. I strongly believe these groups do not belong in the list. The only Hindu group up there should be the Ranvir Sena.

These organisations were involved in MANY riots, including those that killed thousands of people (2002 Gujarat violence), and they will be considered terrorist groups.

Basawala 22:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Who gives you to the arbitrary right to say "they will be considered terrorist groups?" Please explain without ambiguity. Yukon guy 20:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

But the first sentence of the article says The list is of organizations that have been proscribed as terrorist organizations by approporiate authorities, including the United Nations and national governments.

Can you quote from the appropriate authorities? Please provide links from the UN, national govts(no links from arab countries and pakistan accepted.) And then we'll talk. Yukon guy 18:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

None of the 'appropriate authorities' regard either RSS or VHP as a terrorist org. The hrw reports linked do not even mention the word 'terrorist'. What's with the bias? Either change the first sentence to "list of orgs believed to be terrorist orgs, not necessarily by any governing body" or put a big-*** Totally-Disputed Tag in the section.

RSS, VHP... are terrorist groups?

The people who added RSS, VHP, Bajrang Dal and Shiv Sena have a vendetta in mind rather than a valid rational reason in adding them to the list. None of these organizations are fugitive. They do not maintain private guerilla armies or go conduct suicide bombings, nor do they harm the populace. The flimsy reason being offered for this group is that they go to shops and disrupt valentine day sales? Who in their right mind uses this as a criteria for a terrorist group? This section has to be disputed. User Basawala has taken it upon himself to maintain these groups in the terrorists list. He is misguided and has absurd reasoning behind the logic to add them to the list. Yukon guy 20:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Definition

This list is inherently problematic because the word "terrorist" itself is ill-defined. I suggest this list should be exclusively for those organisations that are designated as terrorist organisations by the UN, EU, US or other governments. AndrewRT 20:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The current definition is indeed completely arbitrarily. I can find myself in listing only those deemed to be terrorist organizations by bodies of law, like the UN, EU or national governments (since they are the 'ultimate law monopolists'). A reference can be included for each organization for who deems it to as such. Intangible 17:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Further more, this left-right dichotomy here clearly does not work. Better would be something along the lines of "Maoist Terrorist Groups" or "Royalist Terrorist Groups" or "Republican Terrorist Groups". Intangible 17:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The name in itself is problematic. Instead of using words such as "Terrorist", why not just group all militant, military groups together? MarkCutshall 19:11, 8 June 2006 (EST)

IDF should be included on this list.

The IDF has a long history of targeting civilians and should be included in this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.75.51.162 (talk • contribs)

That is just your biased opinion (WP:NPOV). Intangible 19:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it is a fact, and your opinion that the fact is biased, is your biased opinion.

Wether the IDF should or should not be considered a terrorist organisation is irrelevant to the article as that would constitute original research. What matters here is wether it generally is or isn't considered a terrorist organisation by other authorities, and it generally isn't considered as such by the international community, at least the UN does not at present consider the IDF a terrorist organisation. If you want to you can add a line saying many Arab leaders consider the IDF a terrorist organisation, even tho the UN and most other countries do not. Just make sure you keep it NPOV, that you reference reliable sources, and that you make sure it is clear that it is the opinion of many Arab leaders and not a generally accepted view in the international community. J.Ring 02:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

No actually he can't. See the introduction paragraph: "This listing does not include States or governmental organisations which are considered under State terrorism." which would include the IDF. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

thats a baised and anti-semitic--69.114.174.131 01:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all: the word you were trying to type is probably "biased". A fact is neither anti-semitic or pro-semitic.

List Copy

I'll try make a copy of this list, so that terrorist organizations per continent / country can be listed. Intangible 02:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Article name

I've suggested this article to be renamed to List of terrorist organizations at WP:RM. Intangible 02:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Disagree. Organisation is the UK/Canadian spelling of the word. I believe policy is something like "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" in this regard. - BalthCat 02:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Agree. Perhaps (since I caught it myself!) my gaffe won't look too bad.  :) I've just checked the body of the article, and the majority of instances of "organis/zation" (including the categories) are already spelled with a Z. The article name and s-instances should be changed for consistency. - BalthCat 05:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose in the absence of a rationale for this proposal. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  Comment The rational is spelling (although consistency might play a factor too). Intangible 05:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  Then the rational is wrong - it's correctly spelt. That you're not as familiar with the spelling does not make it mis-spelt. James F. (talk) 09:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  "Spelling", unqualified, could be used equally to support keeping the title at "organizations" and is therefore a poor rationale. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  Switched to support. Further investigation reveals a page move from "List of militant organizations" to "List of terrorist organisations" on August 2, 2005; the change was apparently made because the organizations page already had a history. Unless someone can show that the article was originally at an "s" spelling, it should be moved back to the "z" spelling. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy-oppose; we don't generally move for AE/BE issues. James F. (talk) 09:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Neutral; as has been noted, this - or rather, a prior incarnation that has turned into this page - was (back in the mists of time) moved from American to British English spelling, so policy suggests that it should have remained at that spelling set. However, there seems little to no point in the disruption (especially as terrorism is primarily a non-US thing, very recent history aside), so a more international bent to the article, in title at least, is probably preferable in light of our efforts to avoid systematic bias. James F. (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly agree Not even sure why this is being discussed. The original article (Terrorist groups) was written using -ize English (Canadian or Oxford or US). Then it was redirected to List of Militant Organizations. Then someone made what seems like a clear policy-violating change here [[4]]. The s-spelling is not an incorrect spelling, but it violates policy. Cultural Freedom talk 11:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - just make a redirect from the spelling you like. Neither AE nor BE spelling is official at Wikipedia -- it is a waste of time to try and fit the battle one article at a time. --Ben Houston 01:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Proteus (Talk) 18:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Agree. The 's'-spelling is a violation of policy, as others have explained. Can't this just be moved without a vote? It's a violation! KellyMin 21:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Can't you just leave those little articles in peace with whatever spelling they are at? sighs —Nightstallion (?) 12:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI: new related category

After some discussion with others I have created a new category related to this list. It is Category:Organizations accused of Terrorism. I think a Category:Terrorist organizations is needed as well (which together with the other list could eventually render this list unnecessary) there are so many arguments usually when trying to classify an organization as terrorist or not I decided to make the former category first to put of the headaches. --Ben Houston 05:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree on the Category:Terrorist organizations, not so sure though about the one you've just added, because that will soon run into a NPOV debacle. Intangible 09:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't like this new category as I think it will only create arguments. See the Hamas article for a dispute with some saying it should be in one cat and others saying it should be in another. Categories should be factual. I propose both cats are merged into a single cat called "Designated Terrorist Organisations" AndrewRT 22:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Category:Terrorist organizations is a good idea. As for AndrewRT's comments, I don't see why there wouldn't be similiar problems with "Designated Terrorist Organizations": who does the designating? (etc). There will be arguments either way. --Cultural Freedom talk 06:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Designated Terrorist Organizations are those that have been designated by national and supra-national institutions that have the power to designate them, e.g. the UNSC Committee of Terrorism, the US Government, the EU etc etc. Sourcing and definitions for this is much more clear cut than a definition based on an interpretation of actions. I've created Category:Designated terrorist organizations and we'll see how it develops.AndrewRT 23:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

eoka is surely not a terrorist organization

how can u list eoka into terrorists organizations? if someone have occupied your land and you fought (as natives) to liberate your homes from the foreign forces you are a terrorist? when in fact the former members are being paid for serving ethnic resistance? read the eoka article written in wikipedia. im deleting this.

NPOV template

I have removed the NPOV template, since there is a new definition. There probably are still groups on this list that should not be there. But that does not make the page POV, only inaccurate. Intangible 19:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Designated

Not all orgs in the list are designated TOs. I sugegsted one of two sols: Either, remove all non-DTOs and rename article. Or, separate out the DTOs at the top and then other TOs further down. DTOs should have more prominence than non-D TOs. AndrewRT 13:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll see if I can come up with a table format, with information on country of origin, designator etc. Intangible 18:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not interested

In the general fate of this article. It is basically one giant NPOV violation, and people are moving sluggishly to do anything about it. But it is particularly egregious to have several Latin American paramilitary organizations all slurred in the same instance of a poorly edited section in a poorly edited article. There is nothing cited at all either about these groups or those that "accuse" them or "desigate" them as terrorists. It is basically an accumulation of anti-Castro groups (probably put here by the POV warrior Comandante) as well as vague references to Salvadorean "death squads". Death squads are terrorists? Really? How about a group name to start with? 141.153.114.88 00:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Omega 7 is/was not a terrorist group? Intangible 21:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not for you or I to determine. That is the problem with this article. 72.65.69.157 01:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

A quick search shows that Omega 7 was listed in a 1999 terrorist report by the FBI. Probably there is even more info about this group beyond the Internet, so I find the deletions premature. Intangible 01:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Added buddhist group and made list alphabetical.

I added the budhist group after reading several articles on the sacking of the CWC centre. I know that budhists claim non violence however so do most religous groups. Googling the name will reveal more. http://www.peace-srilanka.org/media_statements/1998/12_11_98.htm

I made the list alphabetical to avoid claims of biasSchnizzle 14:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the passage on NMAT. Little to indicate that it would be a terrorist group. It might have been involved in violent incidents and vandalism, but if thuggery is a criteria for terrorism then all major political parties in Sri Lanka are terrorists. --Soman 08:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"Terrorism refers to a strategy of using violence, social threats, or coordinated attacks, in order to generate fear, cause disruption, and ultimately, bring about compliance with specified political, religious, or ideological demands" If you feel other major factors in Sri Lanka are using similar methods then feel free to add them. I added the NMAT because both their name and the fact they are Buddhist makes them of specific interest. Others such as the Tamil Tigers and the SVV probably should also be included but they are not claiming a religous background to there movement. -- Schnizzle 09:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, by that criteria, I'm not sure NMAT qualifies.

Shiv Sena was discussed earlier, and although I have zero sympathy for them, they cannot be considered as terrorists. All forms of political violence is not terrorism. Terrorism aims to push the society as a whole in a specific direction through the use of violence. Vendettas between political parties does not serve that purpose. Also, I question the 'Buddhist' character of this organization (as opposed to viewing the group as a Sinhala nationalist outfit). --Soman 11:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I can understand the point that they are a nationalist outfit but they are carrying out their activities under the flag of Buddhism. NMAT claim to be fighting for Buddhism rather than nationalism. As opposed to the Catholic separatists in Northern Ireland who are catholics fighting for separatism as opposed to separatist fighting for catholicism. My main aim was to show that all Religions even Buddhism (the most peaceful of all religions from my POV)are capable of terrorism and add a little balance to the list that is predominately Muslim and Christian. How about these guys? http://www.tkb.org/Incident.jsp?incID=10098 http://www.tkb.org/Group.jsp?groupID=3583Schnizzle 11:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Change in the section titled "Anarchist, Communist, Socialist, Maoist and Marxist"

None of the organizations listed in the section "Anarchist, Communist, Socialist, Maoist and Marxist" is anarchist, so I removed the term "Anarchist" Maziotis 13:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

There have been Anarchist terrorist groups in the past; they should be documented in that section. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

But there isn't none right now! And why should they be in the same section in the first place?! Most anarchists are anti-left wing, anyway. I can see why a section should hold both communist and marxist, since they are close references, and socialist too, because sometimes it is hard to distinguish that with communism, in terms of group ideology. But to put "anarchist" in the same section, you might as well add "nationalist", "christian" etc... Did you know, for example, that most anarchists support nationalist struggles like the zapatistas and some indigenous movements? Why not putting those two in the same section, following that same logic? To associate Anarchist with Communist reveals a very particular political point of view (POV) that should be avoided.Maziotis 21:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong statment

In the ecologist section is stated "These groups are active on environmental issues. Some of these groups attempt to limit their actions to property damage only, and avoid harming humans (or in some cases, humans and animals)." Please name one ELF or ALF attack that has resulted in the harm of an human being or animal. I don't mean to dispute that this organizations are terrorists, at this point, but simply to point out an error on this particular reference. In fact, some of those who accuse this organizations of being terrorist claim that it is only a matter of time till someone gets hurt, which means that there isn't an account of someone getting hurt.

The problem concerning this groups is that they are not exactly groups, as in a phisical organization with an hierarchy following the orders of specific leaders. They are more the definition of ideological movements than of groups per se. This is how it works: Anyone that follows the publicly declared principles of ELF or ALF (no harm to inoccent life, actions against economical exploration of the environment or animals, propaganda to raise this issues) may call himself or herself an ELF or ALF. Well, till this day there hasn't been an action that was meant to follow this principles that hurt somebody. In other words, there hasn't been any "accident". Those that with full awarness target people for ecological issues cannot be considered are part of the ELF/ALF movment.

Neverthless, it should always be clear that these organizations are not violent int their porpuse. ELF and ALF movment are no more dedicated to hurting people than your local political party.The fact that they are illegal doesn't change this, even if something "goes wrong".Maziotis 13:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I have change the setence for one that I think is more correct "These groups are active on environmental issues, using sabotage (monkeywrenching) as their means of struggle. They have a commitment for property damage only, and not harming life (human or animal)."Maziotis 14:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If you dig up someone's corpse and hide it away, is that property damage or does it harm humans? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The Communist Combatant Cells did not seek to attack humans, still people got killed by their actions. Intangible 17:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Who dug up bodies?! As for as I know, none of these organizations. Do you know of any? Anyway, it is misleading to say that "some of these groups avoid harming humans", because that means that some of those groups have in fact gone out of there way to use violent methods against (living) people. If they did any action of the sort you point out, it should be specified.

Again, I did not say that they weren't terrorist or that they didn't cause any type of harm, but it must be clear that they do not use violent methods against people. I have read intensily about this subject and there is not one case that involves hurting anyone (neither digging up bodies). Check for facts.Maziotis 21:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

As for the remark, "The Communist Combatant Cells did not seek to attack humans, still people got killed by their actions.", ELF and ALF both didn't targeted people nor did they get people killed, so what is your point? Some experts on economy explain how Madre Teresa's charity constituted a disaster, which have perpetuated hunger and death. Do you consider her a terrorist? Anyway, when I say that "They have a commitment for property damage only, and not harming life (human or animal)", I am not ruling out the possibility of some point in the future that someone might get hurt. So, I don't see what is your problem. This statement is very much correct as long as they are able to hold that commitment. They are in fact a peaceful organization, both ELF and ALF.Maziotis 21:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are some facts: Jail for animal rights extremists who stole body of elderly woman from her grave (from The Guardian). Sub-heading: "Threats to kill owner's friends and employees". It made worldwide headlines for days; why did your "intense reading on the subject" not turn this up? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"ALF" is not the same as "Ecological Activist"! There are, of course, people from every ideological faction that use violence. The group or movement "ALF" is founded on peaceful principles! Only those that respect these principles might consider themselves as part of "ALF". So this group can't be any more responsible for those actions than the church for the abortion clinics bombists that claim to be Christians.

So, again, no ALF has ever been violent or has dug up graves! ALF cannot be responsible for everyone who claims to fight for the environment. Just like Christians can't be responsible, as a religion and a movement, for everyone who claims to kill in the name of Jehovah god.Maziotis 23:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Bottom line, if you can’t accept this sort of protection that puts ALF under the banner of “they can’t be responsible, they are just a movement based on principles and not a physical organization”, then maybe you should consider the possibility of them not belonging in this article, since indeed ALF is just the name for the following of those peaceful principles.Maziotis 23:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The ALF was listed on the FBI's domestic terrorist list in 1987, so it can definitely be included in this article, as do other ecologist militant groups. Intangible 01:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The source I provided specifically mentions the ALF. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

"They have a commitment for property damage only, and not harming life (human or animal)" So when the IRa blew up Manchester they were aiming not to hurt anyone was that not a terrorist act? Since when was terrorism defined purely to hurting people. I came home and my house was smashed up I would feel pretty terrorised! Schnizzle 12:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

At what point did I claim that ALF should not be considered terrorist? Not that I think that they should, but that was not my point. The fact that all ALF actions are unjustified, doesn't mean that it is ok to lie in here and say that ALF is an organization dedicated to stealing bodies.

There is no real organization! When can you get that trough your heads?! It is just a movement. There is no group identified as the "ALF" gang, to associate specific action with. Anyone can claim to be ALF (even people who hate the environment).

Jayjg, again, I don´t care if the activist himself claimed to be ALF (which is not even the case). You missed my point entirely. Aperently you still don't understand the history of the term "ALF" and you haven't read what i wrote since you are not replyng to my arguments. I never said that ALF wasn't mentioned on that source.Maziotis 20:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. A lot of 'organisations' are working in the same way as the ALF. They are movements with no control over the actions of their so called members. If they have a website (ALF do) and factions (ALF do) and A headquarters (ALF do) they are pretty organised.

And to quote their website

"By the mid-1980's economic sabotage bad become a common tactic for the ALF, from smashing windows of butchers' shops to the sustained campaign of arson attacks against department stores that sold furs." "Meanwhile, lets continue the fight for animal liberation, by whatever means necessary." Robin Webb ALF Press Officer

Wayne Pacelle, senior vice president of the Humane Society of the United States is quoted: "There's sympathy for the motive but increasing antipathy for the means. It's clearly counterproductive. We believe you lose your moral authority when you resort to vandalism, threats of violence and other means of illegal conduct."

http://animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/Premise_History/RodCSinkingWhalers.htm

'I don't think you'd have to kill too many [researchers]. I think for five lives, ten lives, fifteen human lives, we could save a million, two million, non-human lives.' Jerry Vlasak

That is terrorism, organised terrorism. How much more citation do you need? All that was taken from ALF's own website. It would appear that it is you that doesn't know ALF's history. Why not read up on it here http://animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/Premise_History/alf_summary.htm They specifically promote volence against, as they put it, "blood junkies"

You said "The group or movement "ALF" is founded on peaceful principles!"  That is rubbish their motto is "by any means neccessary"!

Schnizzle 13:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Lets not get out of context here. When I spoke of "peaceful principles" i was arguing against the implication made in the text written by another user, that suggested that ALF was an organization dedicated to stealing bodies and putting in danger the pshicial integrity of human beings or animals. I understand all your arguments that point out ALF as being terrorist and dangerous, but they don't concern the topic that I opened.

In my country there is a communist political party called PCP. They have a website, an headquarter and a phisical hierachical structure. Does that make them communism incarnated? Do they represent the communist ideology itself? Of course not. In ideological terms, they are part of a movement, and as such, they might make decisions that others feel wrong, even insulting to their principles.

ALF does not have an official headquarter. Check your facts. I understand that people have organized under the banner of ALF with many intents. Either way, there is no link, even by the authorities, of the term ALF to incidents envolving the death and injury of innocent people. I suggest you read about ALF in official government documents.Maziotis 09:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well link to them then so I can. I set you up with enough citation to look at. Show me some literature that backs up your argument. Otherwise your just stating your opinion where as I have shown you verifiable facts.Schnizzle 08:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can use your own sources!

Check out the animalliberatonfront.com You have a link "What is ALF?" there: http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/WhatisALF.htm

In the credo section you can find:

The Animal Liberation Front consists of small autonomous groups of people all over the world who carry out direct action according to the ALF guidelines. Any group of people who are vegetarians or vegans and who carry out actions according to ALF guidelines have the right to regard themselves as part of the ALF.

The ALF guidelines are:

1. TO liberate animals from places of abuse, i.e. laboratories, factory farms, fur farms, etc, and place them in good homes where they may live out their natural lives, free from suffering.

2. TO inflict economic damage to those who profit from the misery and exploitation of animals.

3. TO reveal the horror and atrocities committed against animals behind locked doors, by performing non-violent direct actions and liberations.

4. TO take all necessary precautions against harming any animal, human and non-human.

5. To analyze the ramifications of all proposed actions, and never apply generalizations when specific information is available. See Mission Statement.

Maziotis 10:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, this quote is consistent with what I have said. If you look all over the web, you will find many sources, some of them very well considered, talking about the history of the ALF and how they are "people all over the world who carry out direct action according to the ALF guidelines" and that "any group of people who carry out actions according to ALF guidelines have the right to regard themselves as part of the ALF."

This was my point from the start. There is no membership whatsoever. These "autonomous groups all over the world" are not being coordinated within an organization. If you follow these guidelines, or principles, you can call yourself part of the ALF. And you cannot murder people as part of the ALF, as it is part of the ALF not to use "violent" methods. Of course, you can claim to be ALF and kill someone, as you can claim to be chrstian, democrat and non-smoker, and kill someone. These groups will still not be associated with violence as part of their way of existence.

Being that said, I have never heard of someone associated with ALF or claiming to be ALF that as commited a violent crime, anyway. (Again, by "violent crime" I am referring to those crimes that pose a direct threat to physical integrity. All crimes might be considered "violent". Usually people use the term "violent crime" when people or animals are physically harmed.)

For more sources, just go google.Maziotis 10:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

So the Ira blowing up Manchester wasn't a terrorist act? Schnizzle 12:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

what is your point? That ALF and ELF should be categorized as "terrorist"? If you want to discuss that, you should open another section in this discussion forum. The argument of "Wrong statment" concerns a point made in the "ecologist" section of the article, that was presenting ALF and ELF has bombers in the ETA and IRA style. Indeed IRA and ALF are very different in every way. Not only in terms of methods but also in the terms of its nature as a group, as I have discussed in this discussion section.

I really don't understand what is the point you are trying to make, bringing an episode of Ira.Maziotis 19:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"Indeed IRA and ALF are very different in every way." No. they are very similar in many ways. they both attempt to scare people through violence against people or property to achieve their goals. You have shown time and time again that you know very little about the subject. ALFs motto is "any means neccersary" this speaks volumes in itself. Its not getting changed and I'm not discussing it further. Take it up through the arbitrition methods if you like but you won't win. You have failed to make any significant points and are now just repeating yourself. Schnizzle 14:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I repeat myself because you repeat the same mistakes. I have tried to show you in every angle my single point. I have respond to every one of your arguments and I do not feel intelllectually challenged by your cheap comments.

"ALFs motto is any means neccersary"

Says who? you?! That guy you found on that website?! ...he is not ALF! I would tell you how can that be, but I don't want to repeat myself. It has become evident that your are not honest in your discussions. You simply ignore my arguments as if they were not there and never give a straight answer to any of the points i raise.

You see, you wanted quotes to back up my description on ALF, I gave them to you, and now you come with these random empty non-arguments about me not saying anything good.Maziotis 18:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hindu Terrorism

I found that there was an entire section on Hindu terrorism, but was deleted by User:69.158.187.183, without anyone noticing and without any reason on the talk page. Because of this vandalism, I will bring the section back. Also, User:Spartian had filled the section with tons of citation needed's, so I would appreciate any help in filling these citations. Thank you. Basawala 20:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Another user deleted the section without giving ANY explanation anywhere, so naturally I have put it back. Basawala 22:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you can cite a source on those organizations? A national government or so... Intangible 17:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Baswala,

RSS,SS,BD,VHP have not been designated as terror organisations by any credible international source. Vioent yes but terrorists no. They stay off the list. 61.1.71.47 18:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

RSS, VHP are off the list. They are not listed as terrorists by anyone anywhere. Even if nsome internet sources say they are terrorists, it doesn't make them so (internet sources also say Elvis is living on the moon). Put them on the list only when an accredited agency says that they are terrorists (al-Qaeda sympathisers don't count). I did add Ranvir Sena, though. They're classified as terrorists by Indian govt.Netaji 04:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Currently, the sources listed do not describe the Hindu organisations as terrorists. In this context, I'll remove these organisations tomorrow, unless suitable references are included. Addhoc 18:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the EZLN an anarchist group?

I have put the "Zapatista Army of National Liberation" as an anarchist group, but I am not sure if they are. The reason why I decided to give them this category was because I have read that the EZLN is ideologically based on the political principles set by the man Zapata, and he is classified as being a mexican anarchist, here in wikipedia.

I hope some of you can help me in answering this question and making the decison. In the wikisource there is six declarations that constitute a sort of Zapatista manifesto. I don't have much time now, but i will try to read some of it in the near future. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:EZLN

The "Sixth Declaration" seems to be the most ideological in nature.

It is possible that anarchism has a strong influence in their ideology, but that they are not strictly anarchist. there are other groups in other sections in this article that are in similiar conditions.Maziotis 14:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the Mexican government has a "terrorist" list, But if EZLN or its members have been convicted under a specific statute of Mexican law that deems them to be "terrorist" it can stay on the list. Otherwise it should be removed. I do not know enough about this group to make this call. Intangible 15:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

My question was more concerning the ideological nature of the group; if they were anarchist or not. But I am glad you point that out.Maziotis 15:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

MIPT has described the group here: [5]. Intangible 15:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I will take it out of the anarchist section - at least for now. I think that this group defenitly belongs in the nationalist section, even if also besides any other.Maziotis 18:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

LRA

Why is the LRA listed as Christian/Pagan/Muslim? I can't find any reference to links with any religion other than Christianity. --AndrewRT 23:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The pages should be better linked

Each individual T-org page should be linked to this page.

This page has a forward navigation but doesn't have a backward one—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.65.227 (talk • contribs)

They are linked via "What links here" on the left hand side and also via Category:Designated terrorist organizations where they have been added. --AndrewRT 18:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

How reliable?

The introductory statement in this article states that some of these organisations are considered as terrorist organisations by the UN. However, all of the 6 sources provided do not support this statement! I have searched for a UN list of terrorist organisations and haven't found one. I wonder if the UN does have such a list?

The UN has a very small list which only includes orgs linked to Al-Qaeda. Attempts to get a consensus on other orgs have so far failed although a committee is working on it.

The US, EU and other individual governments have longer lists. --AndrewRT 21:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You probably mean the UN has a list with people/orgs linked to the Taliban/al-Qaeda - at least that is the only one i found.

Since I've been updating the german version - there is a more recent document available for the list of terror organisations of the EU from 29. Mai 2006. --Mandavi 23:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate Authorities?

The introduction says, "The list is of organizations , many (not all) of whom have been proscribed as terrorist organizations by approporiate authorities, including the United Nations and national governments."

By saying "appropriate authorities," this article seems to contradict the wikipedia article "Definition of terrorism" because it suggests that there are appropriate authorities. The article I mentioned seems to suggest that due to the nature of the term, there are no "authorities" on the subject. In other words, an organization labeled as a terrorist organization by some might be viewed by others as a legitimate organization. Thus, I propose that this sentence be changed such that it states something along the lines that the list is of organizations that have been accused of terrorist activities by some groups. I just think that it's important for two wikipedia articles to be consistent, and so it seems that this should be changed.--172.146.150.149 08:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

They are "appropriate" because these national government and supernational bodies ultimately define the law. They are monopolists at that. Intangible 19:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that wikipedia should try to be consistent. However this is an area where the consensus is still forming. There were recently debates about Category:Designated terrorist organizations Category:Organisations accused of terrorism and Category:Terrorist organisations which were nominated for deletion. In the end the latter two were deleted as being inherently WP:NPOV but the first kept - although there was significant support for deleting this one too.

My view is that the description "terrorist" can best be use in an NPOV way to define non-governmental organisations that have been specifically designated as terrorists by governmental or supra-governmental authorities like the UNSC and EU. This is factual, so is less subject to dispute. Which authorities? Those governments whre the designation would have a significant impact on the operation of those organisations. If North Korea declared the Conservative Party of the United Kingdom to be "terrorist" I wouldn't care less as it would have no impact whatsover. On the other hand, the government of Burundi has declared a local rebel group, Palipehutu-FNL, to be a "terrorist" organisations which means it should be included here. This way dual standards are avoided whilst maintaining perspective. --AndrewRT 19:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

PLO

The PLO should remain on this list because it WAS a terrorist organization at one time, even though they have renounced terrorism as of 1988. This list includes organizations that no longer exist, so organizations that used to be terrorist belong in the list for historical record. I have included a note next to the entry to alert the reader that the PLO has renounced terrorism for fairness. --Britcom 19:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution on this highly contentious topic. I am keen to build up this article - which is highly subject to NPOV disputes - in a sustainable way and I think the best way is to provide sources as much as possible so that people don't remove entries where they shouldn't. Many constituent components of the PLO have been designated as terrorist organisations, which is why they are listed here. However I am not aware of any source which confirms a government listing the PLO, as distinct from a component of the PLO, as terrorist - even in the past. If you are aware of a source that does this it would be most helpful. Thanks. --AndrewRT 19:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Former PLO member source is in footnote, and others. --Britcom 22:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I vaguely remember this Shoebat fellow visiting campus back when I was in college. We already have a link to the CFR's description of the PLO as an ex-terrorist group; I don't see that we need to legitimize this dingbat by linking to his pet Wikipedia article, never mind the fact that he's about as contentious a source as you'll find regarding the categorization of terrorist organizations.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 05:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I can remedy the problem you see here. My understanding is that you doubt that the PLO is "proscribed" by a governmental body (other than Israel I take it) and you doubt that Shoebat is telling the truth, even though Fox and CNN both have reported his story. Okay, lets go with verifiable hard facts that indicate that the PLO was "proscribed" as a "terrorist organisation" at one time, if not now. Lets start with the United States government. I will place references to the appropriate documents. --Britcom 08:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Being familiar with Shoebat and a little of his history, it's my opinion that he's an attention-whoring shitbag whose only change has been from hatred of all Jews (not just militant Zionists) to hatred of all Arabs and Muslims (not just violent extremists). Nice work on the sourcing otherwise, however. BTW, what makes you think the Israeli government still views the PLO as terrorist? Last I knew, Israel had recognized the PLO as a legitimate political organization since 1993.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 14:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What makes you say that I believe that the PLO is still a terrorist organisation? I only stated that the PLO was a terrorist organisation in the past. I don't know what Israel thinks about it now, but at this point it doesn't really matter. I just want to set the record straight about the PLO's history. --Britcom 16:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent sources thanks for sorting that out. I've also added the info into the PLO article too. Now it's much easier to argue for its retention if anyone comes and tries to delete it. --AndrewRT 20:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

list of former terrorist organisations

Maybe it is best to start such a list as well? Intangible 23:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Map of Terrorist organisations

I think it would be nice to have a map of the world on this page showing the locations of terrorist organisations. The dots could be colour coded for type of organisation. Perhaps nations known to sponsor terrorist organisations could be shaded. If that would be too small, then perhaps maps of each continent with dots as explained above. Anyone care to comment on this idea? --Britcom 10:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

/* Definition of Terrorism, or lack thereof. */

(I repost this as i feel its not going to be noticed where it was)

In fact there is a pretty simple and obvious Definition of 'Terrorism'. As the '- ism' Indicates its the Ideology/Idea to use Terror to achieve ones goal. Terror on the other hand can be defined as mortal fear and panic.

Thats all Terrorism really is. The deliberate inducement of panic and mortal fear to further ones (Ideological) goals. Or, even shorter: Terrorism= scare tactics.

Of course, while that definition would be as NPOV as they get, it is too broad, atleast too broad to use it as a propaganda buzzword, wich seems to be its sole purpose. (Which is, btw, the reason why the whole category should be deleted from wikipedia as inherently POV, but ofc thats not going to happen since so many Wikipedians share the POV) So, to narrow it down one might add: [...] by violent means. [as to exclude _purely_ psychological terror] (I personally see no reason to, but that i consider debateable) [...] by non-governmental actors [as to exclude Soldiers and Intelligence Assets] (pure Whitewash Imho, and esp. given the secretive nature of the latter would render the definition useless again since no one can really know for example if the CIA and Bin Ladin have or havent severed their ties. That would make the same thing terrorism or not terrorism simply on the grounds of who's footing the bill - Its called a Double Standard. Additionally there you run into the complex issue of what is or isnt a *legitimate* government. e.g. are the chechens a legitimate government of the territory they control? how can legimacy be ascertained in the first place [de facto power? a democratic vote? by what percentage of the given territories population? ) [...] by criminal means. [same as above] (this is essentially the same as above as the distinction between legal and illegal is made by governments. furthermore, they seem to not be very coherent of what they regard as legal :) One should keep in mind that the UN's Human Rights explicitly declare Resistance to a 'foreign' Oppressor/invader as legitimate. AFAIR it makes no such claim with regard to domestic opressors. and, btw, domestic/foreign by what standards again? would Isreali soldier be foreign or domestic to the gaza strip? would the Wehrmacht have been domestic in those parts of poland that were integrated into the Reich? in those that were populated by German majorities? ... catch my drift? [...] to further POLITICAL goals [as to exclude the Use of Terror to achieve more mundane goals like making a fortune with airline stock put options] (again that might be good for Propaganda but makes classification difficult and blurry. Do we really know the motivation of the alleged terrorist? Would 9/11 not have been Terrorism if it was just for the money?[note that religous goals are a subgroup of political goals, as are military goals.)

To sum it all up: You can choose between defining it in a propagandistic, double-standards way and thereby violating the NPOV policy on the one hand and defining it as scare tactics (throu violent means) and would have to include not only the US, UK Isreal, Soviet, Chinese Governments; in fact *ALL* governments rely on the plausible threat of violence to coerce its people. Granted, to different extents. Western Democracies rely mainly on the power of propaganda and only secondly on the plausible threat tactics, exactly the opposite of, for example China. however, especially said Western Democracies use violent means on foreign Territory to achieve their political Goals on a daily Basis, which evens out any advantage they might have had with regard to their internal power structure. Of course, this is all being a total waste of my precious time, since nothing is going to change and Wikipedia will continue to reflect a pretty Biased POV on the world, like it does with a number of issues. (Anybody ready to define 'War Crime' for me?. It cannot be helped as Wikipedia can always be only as neutral as the people that make it. And those are only human and therefore have a POV which is influenced by a lot of highly paid specialists.

The definition i like best btw is: Terrorism is the organised use of shocking people with acts of overwhelming violence, in order to influence their state of mind in a way that promotes a certain goal.

The only thing thats wrong with my perfect little definition is that it suits Bin Laden as well as Bush or Blair.

---

--Macho-a-Velli 11:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand your objection to the apparent definition of terrorism. I think terrorism should be understood to mean acts by organizations that use illegal and violent tactics to induce fear in a civilian population other than legitimate use of accepted military tactics in time of war. By accepted, I mean the Geneva conventions and other treaties of war that the warring nations have ratified. I think this also defines a war crime. Now a crime against humanity is different. This is a somewhat grey area that attempts to compare itself to natural law, but I think natural law is a much better forum for such crimes as natural law is somewhat more of a science of understanding the nature of human morality than is some corrupt UN bureaucrats idea of what should be a crime against humanity. I think generally speaking, international terrorist organizations are akin to international mafia organizations, and should be dealt with in a likewise manner if possible, if not possible, then the rules of war are applicable, if that is not possible, then any means of eradication of the organization is warranted, since the world cannot allow these organizations to grow to a size that would enable them to take the whole population of the globe hostage. Ultimately that is the goal of all mafia organizations, to control and enslave the populace using fear and death. --Britcom 12:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotection

Can we get semi-protection for this page to stop vandalism by anon editors? AndrewRT 22:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

order or religions

Probably we can order them in alphabetical order.

Weasal words

I'll remove the sentences that appear to be weasal words tomorrow, unless anyone provides citations or appropriately rewords. Also, I'll remove the dubious statement that witch burning (that was certainly a crime against humanity) constituted terorism, unless someone provides a citation. Addhoc 18:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)