Talk:Terrorism

Types of terrorism section?
Have it include political types- Eco-terrorism, left-wing terrorism,right-wing terrorism, state terrorism, state sponsored terrorism and religious terrorism. Plus have it include terrorism methods- conventional terrorism (bombings and shootings), bioterrorism, nuclear terrorism, cyber terrorism and chemical terrorism.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Does not parse
"from fire-bombing air-campaigns air forces in national miltiaries"? what?

Hamas -- religious or nationalist
Chris, I really think Hamas belongs in both categories even tho I agree they're more nationalist than religious. It's not just their Charter. Their public statements remain heavily inflected with religious rhetoric.---Mona- (talk) 06:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As a reader it looked strange to have it listed twice. Just add "but also has strong religious overtones and could arguably also fit in the religious section", or something to that effect. Carpetsmoker (talk) 06:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's essentially how it stands now. I'm just sayin', I couldn't disagree if another editor thought it should also be in religious.---Mona- (talk) 06:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's accurate and I think it tends to be a propaganda weapon for Bibi. Hamas is not an international terrorist group that calls for overthrowing everyone in the MENA area to establish a caliphate as part of its end times prophecy. Even in their internal rule of Gaza, they haven't implemented sharia law. True, there are some elements of Islamization, but the group actually gets condemned by Salafist groups for not being truly Islam and not imposing sharia. Hamas restricts their terrorism to the area of Palestine. So I don't believe they fall in the same category of jihadist groups that want to eliminate borders. One is an anti-nationalist, pan-Islamic group while Hamas is a nationalist militant political party, albeit again with religious overtones. To my knowledge, the main leaders of Hamas want to emulate the Erdogan model with a mixturr of seculiarism and religion. You can take this to my talk page Mona if you wish. TL;DR Don't think nationalist groups should be put in same position as groups like ISIS or Al Qaeda that want to usher in end times. ChrisAmiss (talk) 07:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Mona's double label. Hamas may not be as apocalyptic as ISIS but that doesn't make Hamas non-religious, just like not being a fundamentlist inerrantist doesn't make a "cafeteria Christian" non-religious. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ill include it under religious. ChrisAmiss (talk) 09:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Lightning
Not sure how accurate this statistic is. According to the sources used to make the graph, from 1982-2009, 4298 Americans have been killed by terrorists, vs 1568 killed by lightning. Maybe because they're counting deaths *per flight* rather than deaths per year? They say "one in 500,000 chance each year of being struck by lightning", while the statistics I found are more like 1/200,000. Similar, I guess.

A better example would be something we don't generally worry about, like tuberculosis, which killed 35,235 (8 times as many) Americans in the same time period, or, if you want to trigger conservatives, gun accidents killed 31,732 Americans in the same time period (7 times as many). For something most people have only a mild fear of, drunk driving killed 536,721 Americans in the same time period, or 125 times as many as terrorism. Hmmph (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Also this graph: https://pix-media.priceonomics-media.com/blog/1270/image01.png Hmmph (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The US government is a terrorist organization?
What? How does it make sense for the US to be singled out as a terrorist organization while at the same time leaving out the governments of China (suppression of minorities in Xinjiang), Russia (state sponsored assassinations, bombing campaign in Syria), etc? 76.198.195.103 (talk) 05:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * no respectable group considers the US a terrorist organization EK (talk) 12:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The definition of "terrorist group" is subjective and beholden to the whims of state actors, whom often aren't much better than their non-state opponents. — Oxyaena Harass  13:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter comes to mind here. The Crow (talk) 13:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add those other governments. I pose no objections to such.As to "respectable group", highly respected scholars do in fact claim so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state-sponsored_terrorism https://monthlyreview.org/2001/11/01/the-united-states-is-a-leading-terrorist-state/Codefuser (talk) 13:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The definition of terrorism is generally set in international law so unless you can show me evidence from a reliable source that the US is a recognised terrorist organisation then it does not belong on the page. EK (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Already gave you a bunch of sources, reputable academics who rightly points out how the US operates no different from a typical terrorist group, albeit on a far larger scale. Until you demonstrate otherwise, I don't see how the US wouldn't be considered a terror group.
 * Should point out that the definition of terrorism isn't universally agreed upon. See on Wikipedia for details on that. I'll also say that I hold reservations on putting the United States under the terrorist groups as is (so under the Nationalism place where it currently resides), since the Nationalism section is used for separatist movements and autonomy movements. My suggestion would be to instead add a section about the US in more detail (and for other countries as well such as China and Russia) in how they fund terrorist activity or what terrorist activity they engage in. The Crow (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I will accept citations from bodies like the UN, and possibly reports from NGOs like Amnesty International as sources, but not scholars or media. To be clear, this isn't an article on theory. If you can't show internationally and lawfully recognised terrorist activity directly carried out by the US then it's not a terrorist organization. If you want to write about their support of other terrorist groups that is another matter but again there has to be credible sources, and remember, working off Wikipedia may be useful but Wikipedia isn't a reliable source itself. EK (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Cool, so funding Bin Laden doesn't make the US a terrorist, and you will only accept citations from a body where the US has veto power. But alas, if you would accept citations from the United States government, then could I perhaps point out that the Department of State has for long designated the PKK as a terrorist group, and the Director of National Intelligence considers the YPJ/YPG the "the Syrian militia of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party", which the US has been backing and funding, ergo by the United States' standards they do in fact engage in terrorism? Let's throw in a Turkish citation as well since you enjoy deepthroating the boot of governments so much, Erdogan's government directly considers the YPJ/YPG terrorist. So here we have the United States government and the Turkish government agreeing that the United States finance and participate in terrorist activities, what more do we need? Codefuser (talk) 05:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If the US government is a terrorist organization, than basically any government that has used their military in the last ten years is a terrorist organization. There's plenty of room for criticism of the US and of the term "terrorism", but it's clear that you are not interested in any of that. You just want to be edgy and indulge in your anti-US grudges. That's why I'm not taking you seriously, and that's why your edit will not be added to the page. 06:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Damn pointing out how a government has sytematically funded genocides and terrorized population, all while backing groups that they themselves consider terrorist makes me edgy? And depends on how you define "using their military", I imagine that there are quite a few countries that have used their military without accidentally backing the Guatemalan genocide. Codefuser (talk) 12:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You're not "edgy" because of you saying that the US government has some seriously questionable foreign policy. You're edgy because you use that as an argument to designate the government as an organization on the same degree of awfulness as ISIS, the SA or Hamas (just picking a couple from the list of terrorist organizations list). Which is just flatly not the case because those organizations have as their primary means to stage and commit terror attacks. The United States does not commit terror attacks as their primary purpose. They are a government, their primary goal is to manage and take care of their citizens (their actual success at doing that is definetly questionable, but that's neither here nor there), not killing civilians and non-combatants. That isn't to say that we shouldn't examine the US's foreign policy and how it has led to them funding or sometimes staging terrorist attacks, we totally should, but they're not a "terrorist organization" in the way that the KKK or the Freikorps are/were and to suggest as such is inane. The Crow (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * How are Hamas that terrible again? They're not as bad as Israel is, they're merely fighting back against Israeli apartheid. Remember that Israel is still subjecting Gaza to an illegal blockade, and is actively crushing Gazan infrastructure in general to make life a living hell for the average Gazan. What does drone striking hospitals and greenhouses have to do with fighting terrorism? — Oxyaena Harass  10:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

the basic cycle is that hamas fires a rocket at Israel, iron dome destroys the rocket, the IDF fire a missile back at where the rocket was launched from. This repeats. Occasionally a rocket gets past iron dome and kills someone, so the IDF get angry and target hamas leaders and/or fighters in a larger operation. The conflict has been going on for a while now so there are multiple incidents like this. EK (talk) 10:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a self reinforcing cycle, and there's evidence that Hamas and Israel are actively perpetuating the conflict because it helps their political goals, an "iron law of institutions" type situation, I guess. To single out Hamas but not Israel kind of furthers my point. — Oxyaena Harass  12:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I picked Hamas because it's on the list we already have. My take on the Israel situation is that there's nobody in the right there, both Hamas and Israel are godawful groups in that entire debacle and any veneer either could have had for being in the right has been long gone by now, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. If you take so much issue with me saying Hamas, just pretend I said Al-Qaeda instead (which isn't actually on the list I think, but that's a pretty clear terrorist group). Seriously, it is irrelevant to my primary point and you seem to be trying to logic chop the discussion here rather than engage with my primary argument, which is that the US government is not a terrorist organization because their primary goal isn't committing terrorist acts. The Crow (talk) 12:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Both may be "godawful" as you so eloquently put it, but the actions of Israel clearly make it the aggressor here. Palestinians are only fighting against oppression, remember they were the original inhabitants of the land now called "Israel," and Israel resorted to a hell of a lot of ethnic cleansing to make Palestine their Zionist paradise. — Oxyaena Harass  14:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes

 * 1) Yes. There is no consistent standard under which the US government is not a terrorist organization, unless that standard is one where you make an exclusion for the United States. Codefuser (talk) 12:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) The definition of "terrorist" by all measures is inherently murky and is biased in favor of state over non-state actors to begin with. — Oxyaena Harass  16:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes. (What am I doing agreeing with Oxy?) Scream!! (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

No

 * 1) Starting the party. 07:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Not as a bullet point with no further explanation. See Goat for some more. The Crow (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) The U.S. government might have funded terrorist activity, terrorized or otherwise used fear and violence to politically manipulate other countries, but its primary purposes, means, and goals are not terrorism-related. The "U.S. government" refers to an extremely broad coalition of multiple, organized governing bodies (with varying degrees of independence) divided between interacting state and federal governments which is in stark contrast with the recognized terrorist organizations, which are far smaller and have more specific means and scopes. To apply the relatively specific label "terrorist organization" to a very general concept is not very well-thought out to me. On top of this, no official body recognizes the United States as a terrorist organization, and arguments for the label focus too much on the foreign policy disasters rather than the reasons for them as well as casting way too broad of a net. 17:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) the US is not seriously recognised by anyone that matters as a terrorist organisation, and furthermore very few internationally recognised governments are terrorist organisations by the generally accepted definition. EK (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Now there is Iran https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/07/irans-parliament-designates-pentagon-official-terrorist-organization Codefuser (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Said "anyone that matters" being pro-state actors like the goddamn UN and Amnesty International. — Oxyaena Harass  18:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "Anyone that matters", of course, being the people who the US can veto, like the UN security council which the US has a permanent seat on..., and I just provided you with how the US recognizes itself as terrorist so that should meet your standard, no?Codefuser (talk) 03:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's absurd argument to assume that the UN and Amnesty International didn't designate the U.S. government as a terrorist organization not because they think the U.S. government disqualifies as a terrorist organization, but it must be because the United States somehow influenced them and that the UN and Amnesty International are just pro-state sympathizers. 06:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it is absurd to think that it is one-or-another rather than something that can be both. Recall how courts that criticizes the United States (such as the ICC) are withdrawn from by the United States, and then the United States drafted up a lil law commonly known as the Hague Invasion Act? And then, the ICJ rules against the United States (not even by that much tbh, their recommendations were pretty mild) and the US vetoes and stopped the resolution calling for compliance with the ICJ judgement. This is the more out-right stuff. On the less-obvious side, there is this thing called hegemony, which Gramsci described better than me, and works from Chomsky are also good. And yes the UN is quite obviously pro-state sympathizer, do you even know what the UN is and what they are composed of? An organization by states and for states is quite clearly pro-state, and I wish it was prostate instead of pro-state because then the world would be a much better place. Codefuser (talk) 04:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) On a theoretical level, yes. On a more realistic and practical level, no. 14:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Obviously not. Has the US Government done some things over the past fifty years or so which could be regarded as terrorist actions under some definitions? Sure. Does that mean that the entire internal and external structure of the US government  past present is dedicated to a terrorist cause?  Obviously not.   Unless you want to regard capitalism as terrorism, but in that case the whole of western society is terrorist and the word loses any meaning. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Goat
Whilst I voted no, I do think it's important to have a paragraph that explains how the United States has funded terrorist activity (which is something that they did do, mainly during the cold war era). Just casually mentioning a government is going to raise some eyebrows and no amount of references on a simple bullet point is going to change that. This goes for any government that would engage in terrorist activity or funds terrorist activity for what it's worth. I also don't think that it's accurate to call them a terrorist group since to me, the primary means of a terrorist group is to stage and commit terror attacks, possibly in the service of a larger goal. The Crow (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Parts of the Kremlin?
I must say it’s a bit amusing that some users are insistent on adding the US government and military to the list of terrorist organizations while ignoring certain other regimes. Not to say that the US hasn’t engaged in war crimes, but if we want to talk about a systematic or institutional commitment of war crimes, I’d think that certain other regimes would better apply.

But given how the Ukraine war has unfolded, would certain parts of the Russian government, like the FSB or the army (maybe even specific units like the 64th Motor Rifle Brigade likely responsible for perpetrating the Bucha massacre) qualify as terrorist? Also consider that right now, Russia is actively using the threat of nuclear weapons to support their war of conquest and annexation, which as far as I know is unprecedented in human history. 98.186.205.221 (talk) 02:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking at the criteria, I guess it doesn’t really apply. It’s obviously not a non-state actor, and it’s arguably not even clandestine. Never mind then. 98.186.205.221 (talk) 02:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)