Talk:Moshe Marzouk

Terrorist label

A lot of edit summaries, but nothing here. Would it help to discuss some of the disagreements? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Discuss with who? You have stated on my Talk page that you do not care about content, "I was not concerned with the content of the article" [1]. --Islamist 17:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. Islamist: note the difference between not being concerned with content on one occasion, and never being concerned with content.
   If you could just assume good faith once, and understand that it's possible for people to disagree with you without being evil bigots, you might find that your experience on Wikipedia was a lot pleasanter (it certainly would be for the rest of us).
2. Jayjg: with regard to the inclusion of "terrorist", I can't agree with you. A central issue in the part of just-war theory that deals with jus in bello is concerned with the possibility of justly bombing civilian targets (Berlin, London, Dresden, Hiroshima & Nagasaki, etc.), the claim being that under certain circumstances it does not count as terrorism. Many governments, including the U.K., the U.S., and many of those in the Middle East, have bombed and otherwise attacked civilian targets, claiming that it's not terrorism because it's justified. I don't accept any of those excuses, and I agree with you that bombing civilian targets in order to cause terror is never justified and always terrorism — but many don't agree, so I don't see that making clear that this case isn't claimed to be one of 'non-terrorist' bombing should be removed from the article. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:54, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Israel never claimed that the bombing of these targest was justified in any way, so the insertion is a somewhat bizarre countering of an argument that hasn't been made in the first place. Egypt and Israel were not actively at war at the time, so one can't compare various bombings (e.g. Berlin) to this one. Had this occured during the '67 war your point might have been stronger. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But, first, nothing that I said implied that Israel had claimed the bombings to be justified; I'm not sure what your point is here. Secondly, clarifying a point isn't the same as 'countering an argument that hasn't been made'; it's, well, clarifying a point. Thirdly, the article doesn't explain the relationship between the states at the time; it could, I suppose, go into all that, simply in order to make the point that the bombings were terrorism rather than acts of war — this seems a more straightforward approach. Fourthly, given that all you seem to be saying is that the qualification isn't needed, I'm unsure why you're so determined to remove it. Perhaps most importantly, every time that there's a suicide bomb or a missile attack in Israel it's described by the media and the politicians as a terrorist act; your argument commits you to objecting to that (they should simply say that a missile or bomb killed some civilians), yet it seems perfectly reasonable to me that it should be dubbed terrorism, just as this should be. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:51, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your most important argument is simply false; suicide bombs and missile attacks on Israel are rarely described as "terrorist"; in fact, when it comes to attacks on Israel the media studiously avoids that word in order to (as the claim) "not take sides". Here's a simple example: [2] Note how studiously the word "terrorist" is avoided; and that is for bombs that killed many civilians, not merely (as with Marzouk) firebombs that killed and injured no-one, and did little damage. This is the policy of most media outlets, BBC, CNN, etc. Of course, when it comes to their own ox being gored, they will use the word; thus the BBC will refer to IRA attacks as "terrorist", though not attacks on Israel.[3] Similarly, CNN has no trouble deciding that attacks on the U.S. are "terrorist",[4] just not attacks on Israeli civilians.[5] Reuters has a policy of never using the word "terrorist" in order to "protect its reporters". The New York Times, the Washington Post, etc., all refuse to use the word.[6] Of course, I have taken the word out of articles when it has been used to described Palestinian attacks; for example[7] [8] And that's why it should be out here as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It may be that the BBC and the Israeli government don't always use the word 'terrorist' in such cases, but [9] (""The Syrians should not be allowing armed terrorists to cross the border," an Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman said"), [10] ("heightening the sense that Gaza is effectively one huge prison breeding more people will to martyr themselves for the Palestinian cause and support those like Hamas who carry out terrorist acts against Israel"), [11] ("I mean there are terrible terrorist acts happening in Israel, as a result of suicide bombers and so on"), and [12] ("I wanted to get a range of voices to show that Jewish Israelis and Arabs both ride on the buses. For that reason I focus on a couple of Arab Israelis and find out what they feel about being under threat from their own people in a terrorist attack") indicate that your claim is too sweeping. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm increasingly thinking that the word "terrorist" rarely adds any meaning because there are so many definitions. According to the definition I use myself (the so-called UN academic definition), Marzouk would not be regarded as a terrorist, but perhaps according to other definitions he would, though the targeting of civilians does not in and of itself define terrorism. I'm currently doing a re-write of Abu Nidal and wondering whether to delete the word "terrorist" even though he organized attacks that killed 900 people in 20 countries, so to use it for Marzouk who, as I understand it, killed no one, seems odd, especially if it's causing a dispute. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:46, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

I've done a copy edit and removed that word until we find a consensus here. My suggestion is to expand the article and let the facts speak for themselves rather than adding a label. We don't say what he did, or what the purpose of the operation was, so the use of the word "terrorist" is certainly unjustified until we fill in some of those facts, and when we do, it will arguably be redundant. Is it still true that the Israeli government has not acknowledged him, by the way, because there's a picture of a stamp with his head on it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:58, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

As Jayjg has pointed out, all bombing of civilian targets is terrorism, although we disagree that inserting the label is redundant. I agree with Mel that not using the word is a equivalent to making a statement. If this were a Hamas operative we were talking about, would Jayjg and SlimVirgin dissemble about the terrorist label? --AladdinSE 23:55, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

I've pointed that out? I've said attacks on civilians with the intent to injure or kill, in order to terrorize people, are terrorism. Post office buildings aren't civilians. As for Hamas, they attempt to kill poeple, as many as possible, so the point is moot. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes you've implied in your edit summaries [13] [14] that it is terrorism because all bombings of civilian targets are terrorism. You were making, I believe, an argument for redundancy. No, post office buildings are not civilians, but they are civilian targets. If Hamas were to blow up a bus stop with no one in it, I would still call that a terrorist act. --AladdinSE 22:14, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Definitions of terrorism

Is this going to be the policy in all articles? For example, in Al-Qaeda and September 11, 2001, attacks ("The September 11, 2001 attacks were a series of coordinated terrorist attacks")? I don't understand the reluctance to call bombing civilians terrorism in this article. To omit it because it's causing a dispute would be a reason (though not, I think, a strong one), except that I find the dispute itself perplexing. Jayjg doesn't in fact deny that the bombings were terrorism, he just doesn't think that they should be described as such, because: "No need to bash people on the heads with this, it looks like POV". Why is it PoV to call these terrorist attacks terrorism but OK to call the 11th September attack terrorism? Isn't it even more obvious in the latter case, so there's even less need to 'bash people on the heads' with it? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My point wasn't that it was terrorism, but that even if it was, there's no need to bash people over the heads with it. Once you describe exactly what was done, there's little need for the word; people will decide on their own exactly what kind of act it was. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can't find a source that says when or whether he was ever acknowledged (he must have been to get a stamp), so I've just left it that they didn't acknowledge him at the time. Regarding the word, Mel, there is a tendency on WP (though no policy) not to add it where there is even the remotest doubt: you'll note that September 11, 2001 attacks does not have the word in the title, and it was included in the text only after extensive debate. So if there's a debate about labelling even that (the quintessential terrorist act), it's not at all clear it's appropriate to label the bombing of some post offices and two libraries (with, so far as I know, no injuries or loss of life) as acts of terrorism. Anyway, my point is simply: what does the word add? Would it not make sense to add facts (harder to do because it involves research) than sticking a label on it and leaving the facts out? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:25, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

My view, I suppose, has two sources. First, I think that whether or not an act is terrorist is a fact. It's a difficult fact to establish in many cases, and there are all sorts of political reasons for different groups to establish different definitions of 'terrorism' (just as we're seeing with 'torture'). I'm not clear, though, that that makes it different in kind from saying that it's a fact that astrophysics is scientific and creation geology not. Secondly, though, Wikipedia must not only be neutral, it must be seen to be neutral. If the decision has been made to use the word 'terrorism' in one article where it's applicable, then it should be used in any article where it's applicable. (And remember that the parties to the dispute here were all agreed that it is applicable.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The last point first: they're not, because I'm not. Which definition of terrorism are you using exactly? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:47, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I did use the past tense... I suppose that I thought that you were entering the field as a mediator rather than as a new combatant.

I take it that a terrorist is someone who attempts to further a political (reasonably broadly defined) aim by performing acts designed to cause fear. Such acts will usually be violent, and aimed at civilians, though it's possible for a terrorist to use the mere threat of violence, or to attack military targets. This is even more rushed than my last message, so I'll try to get back to this tomorrow, in order to refine this definition. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:57, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It would be helpful to have your precise definition and a source. Operation Suzannah was not aimed at civilians (as I understand it) but at buildings used by civilians. No one was injured or (again, as I understand it) intended to be. In fact, there are stories that the Egyptians had advance warning of all the bombings from the inside too, but that's another story. The acts were not intended to cause fear among civilians. They were intended to persuade the British that the Eyptians were unfit to govern. So this is very much a borderline example of terrorism, if it's an example at all. Regardless, my point above still stands. Wouldn't it make more sense to add some facts about the case first, and then decide, because we may find the facts speaking for themselves? Adding the word "terrorist" without a description of what actually happened is a bit like going out with lipstick but no clothes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:33, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Exactly so; the intent, as I understand it, was to convince the British that the Egyptian government was inept, and that they should therefore not give up control of the Suez Canal. There doesn't seem to have been any intent to harm civilians or cause terror that I can tell. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just to add: this is what most governments would call a false-flag operation or PSYOPS. It's definitely an example of the first, and my understanding is that Israeli academics have also called it the latter. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:33, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Back again, after my beauty sleep. The following comes close to my view (better than my trying to formulate my definition, because as a philosopher I talk about this only in tutorials and classes on just-war theory and terrorism, and giving a neat definition isn't my aim...):

"terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives. (JCS Pub 1-02)" [15]

The British government's definition looks about right to me, too.

The two agree in not limiting terrorism to violence against people, and in not limiting it to the actual production of fear, but extending it to attacks on property, and for the purpose of influencing governments. For other interesting discussions or attempts at definition, see: Oxford Today and Army Technology. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why do you think this was an attempt "to coerce or intimidate governments or societies"? Jayjg ^(talk)

I'm disappointed anyone here is disputing the label. It's not the Mossad being called terrorist, it's the specific bombings in Egypt that are mentioned in this article. All these arguments against its use are mind boggling. If a Hamas suicide bomber blows up a bus stop, it's terrorist. When Moshe Mazrouk blew up libraries and civilian installations, it was terrorist. He was a terrorist. --AladdinSE 11:13, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

(posted to SlimVirgin's Talk page, but I'll put it here too)

The problem is in part, I think, that there's a disagreement over whether the term 'terrorist' is a judgement or a description. I take it to be a description, though it's true that I don't think that any instance of terrorism can be morally defended. The initial problem, in fact, was that no-one involved in the debate did deny that 'terrorism' was an accurate description; Jayjg simply said that it shouldn't be used anyway.

A further problem is that the word 'terorism' is used in Wikipedia articles to describe events, not merely in reports of what people have said about them. Not to use it in an article like Moshe Marzouk, therefore, appears to make a statement. If the word were never used, I'd not complain, but we can't look at each article in isolation — readers will see the discrepancy, and draw conclusions about our neutrality. I'd rather that didn't happen. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They already make that accusation regularly, and generally without cause; there's no point in pandering to perception, rather than Encyclopedic integrity. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg It's a bit naughty to revert as a minor edit. Could the article be left alone until the discussion is over? Is your position still that, while the actions were terrorism, the article shouldn't say so, or do you now say that it wasn't really terrorism, or what? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reverts are by definition minor; that is how Wikipedia classifies them. And you're free to leave it alone until the discussion is over. As for my position, it has always been that it is not clear whether it is terrorism, but in any event there's no point in trying to bash people with this, it just looks like political editorializing, and there's already far too much of that going on in Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, then my argument that it's not evaluative but descriptive comes into play, as does my other arguments. What are your responses to them? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's descriptive; it seems to, at best, skirt the commonly accepted definitions of terrorist acts. It doesn't appear to have been intended to incite terror among civilians, or to "coerce or intimidate governments or societies"; rather, it appears to have been an attempt to convince the British government that the Egyptian government was inept. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the point that authorities may have been given advance warning of the bombings, let us remember that the IRA frequently gave such warnings to British and Irish authorities before blowing up civilian targets, the world still overwhelmingly classified the acts as terrorism. --AladdinSE 23:59, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

The IRA was trying to terrorize people and coerce governments; the intent here appears to be different. Plus all the other good reasons not to include the word. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism is terrorism. No "intent," political ideology or international covert intrigue can mitigate it. --AladdinSE 22:16, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Reply to Aladdin and Mel

AladdinSE, if you want the word "terrorist" in there, you'll have to supply a third-party, authoritative definition.

Mel, your def: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."

You have a problem with the word "unlawful": the invasion of Iraq was domestically lawful within the invading countries; internationally it was not. Therefore, the invasion of Iraq could be described as an act of terrorism, which means the term has lost all meaning.

1. Domestic law doesn't cover international actions.
2. There are, however, clear distinctions drawn between definitions of war and of terrorism, one of the important ones going right back to Aquinas, with his condition that war be declared by a properly constituted authority; Iraq was a war, whether one takes it to have been just or unjust. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I based what I wrote on your definition and only your definition. You wrote "unlawful": if you want to expand it to cover only domestic law (of the country that is the aggressor or victim?), that's fine, but you'll find it will lead to further problems. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:21, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

According to the British def you offered [16]:

1 (1) (b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and 1 (1) (c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

Mazouk fits (c) but not necessarily (b), as he was trying to influence an overseas government, not the government of the country he attacked, and he was not trying to intimidate the public.

That sounds a bit sophistic, to be honest. Are you really saying that the same action would be terrorism if it tried to influence one government but not if it tried to influence another? So the 11th September attacks wouldn't have been terrorism if they were aimed at the British government, and suicide bombers in Israel wouldn't be terrorists if they were trying to influence the U.S.? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again, I'm responding only to the words in the definition, which says "the government," not "governments" or "any government". What I'm saying is that it's a poor definition. Read the one below, which avoids these problems. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:21, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Also, I'd say it's inappropriate to use a definition drawn up by a government for a piece of anti-terrorist legislation, the intention of which is arguably that it be used as a political weapon to curtail civil liberties. This means that the British govt (and any other governments with similar aims) don't come to the debate with clean hands, as you can see from the definition's point (3): that any act falling within subsection 2 (serious violence against a person or damage to property) that involves the use of a firearm or explosives is an act of terrorism even if it fails to fall within subsection 1 (b) (the intention to influence the government or intimidate the public). Therefore, it seems that anyone who uses or threatens to use a gun in an act of violence is a terrorist if a prosecutor decides to define them as such.

The following is a more precise definition with none of the political baggage inherent in legislative definitions. I've often seen this referred to as the UN academic definition, and I believe it's popular with social scientists (note that I've seen more than one version of this definition, perhaps from different editions of the original text it came from):

An anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from the target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion or propaganda is primarily sought. (Schmid & Jongman, Political Terrorism, 1988)

This definition as applied to Marzouk:

1. He was a clandestine individual acting on behalf of a state;
2. He acted for political reasons;
3. There were no human victims of the violence, unless you count the people who couldn't use the post offices and library he blew up;
4. The post offices and library were arguably chosen as symbolic targets, though that would be stretching it;
5. There were no threat- or violence-based communication processes between the terrorists, victims, and target audience;
6. The target audience did not become a target of demands, though arguably it was the target of attention, as the operation was a propaganda exercise.

From the above, we see that some of this case fits the definition, some not, which is why I argued earlier that it's a borderline case and that the word ought not to be used. One the other hand, it precisely fits the definition of a false-flag operation, and slightly less precisely fits the definition of PSYOPS, so if we have to label it (and I think we shouldn't), we should use the more precise label, not the one we can't agree on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:36, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Mel, I reverted the change you made from 14 to fourteen, as numbers over 9 or 10 (depending on which style guide you're using) are written as numerals. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:41, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I must admit that I didn't check the Wikipedia MoS — I was going on the normal rules of typography (e.g Rees, §§202–205). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm — having checked the obvious place (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)) I can find no mention of Wikipedia policy; am I just going blind, or is it somewhere else? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know where it is, but it's definitely in there somewhere; anyway, any style guide that I've seen (I have here AP, CP, Globe&Mail, Chicago, and Bill Walsh) recommends numerals for higher numbers. They differ only in where they begin: some at 10, some at 11 (so you write eight, nine, 10). Check with Maureen: she's very familiar with the MoS. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:10, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Bombing civilian targets, whether people were killed or not, is terrorism. No political ideology or foreign intelligence operation attempting to achieve a covert international goal can mitigate this definition. --AladdinSE 15:05, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

Good edits, Jayjg. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:10, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't help myself, I edited it some more; please let me know what you think. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It reads much better thanks to your edits, as does Lavon Affair. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:59, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. There's more work to be done still at the Lavon Affair, the aftermath section is still skimpy and it overlaps other articles, but it will have to wait till next week. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The NPOV principle

Just stop. --Dissembler 01:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your user page doesn't exactly inspire confidence in your good faith, Dissembler. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:16, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Could you please focus on the edits in this article? What are your objections? If you have problems with me or Jayjg and our biases, we have User pages for you to post your comments. --Dissembler 01:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I love you too Dissembler, but be that as it may, we've agreed to call this a false-flag operation, not terrorism, for the reasons argued above. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:35, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Who agreed?--Dissembler 01:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you read the page, you'll see. If you want to call it terrorism, please supply an authoritative academic definition. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:56, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

The false flag thing is a bit of a red herring. It would be "state-sponsored terrorism" by most definitions. It was violence directed at a civilian target by a non-state actor with the aim of influencing political actions. You show the definition it does not fit. While I don't support the use of the word "terrorist" in any of our articles in this sphere (or any sphere, given its contentiousness), I find your argument rather weak, Slim. Grace Note 02:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What I mean to say is that digging out definitions that it does not quite fit in your view is rather unconvincing when those definitions become as involved as the one you used!Grace Note 02:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All the good definitions are somewhat involved, because it's a difficult thing to define. Any simple definition will tend to act as a catch-all, and these benefit only governments wanting to use them to curtail civil liberties. The precise description of Operation Suzannah is a false-flag operation: that would be the technical term. It might also be called PSYOPS or a black operation. To call it terrorism is like adding in brackets (and we didn't like it). It fails to denote. In this case, he blew up a couple of post offices; no one was hurt or killed and no one was intended to be. I thought you were one of the editors who agreed with this, or am I thinking of another page? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:19, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

All the good definitions are somewhat involved, because it's a difficult thing to define. I disagree. It's only difficult for those whose agenda requires a complicated definition. I've always been happy with "violence against civilians for political ends" with the understanding that the direct targets are not the actual targets of the violence.

When a term becomes all-encompassing, it ceases to have meaning. Your definition would make no distinction between some criminal acts, acts of war (whether aggressive or defensive), and acts of what most people would agree was terrorism e.g. bombing of PA 103. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:38, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Any simple definition will tend to act as a catch-all, and these benefit only governments wanting to use them to curtail civil liberties. I disagree again. Simple definitions tend to benefit the civilians who are generally the victims of terror. Simple definitions don't allow state actors to claim that their acts of terror are "war" and everyone else's "terror".

Here's a simple definition from the British government [17] and if you read it, or read the discussion above, you'll see that it reduces to anyone who uses or threatens to use a firearm or explosive, so the distinction between criminal and terrorist acts has disappeared, if a prosecutor so wishes. This has implications in terms of the time police are allowed to hold suspects without legal representation, and for non-nationals, it can mean ending up in Belmarsh for as long as the government wants to hold you. Simple definitions of terrorism can be dangerous. The reason I like the one I've posted above is that it was developed by social scientists, not governments with an agenda. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:38, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

The precise description of Operation Suzannah is a false-flag operation: that would be the technical term. This is entirely a red herring. What type of operation it was has no bearing at all on whether it was aimed at civilians etc. If it turned out that the 9/11 hijackers were agents of fill in who fits this role in your favourite conspiracy theory, what they did would nonetheless be an act of terror. It would not change into a "false flag operation" with a wave of the wand. IOW, they are not actually different things.

True, but to call it a false-flag operation tells the reader something about it. To call it terrorism doesn't. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:38, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

To call it terrorism is like adding in brackets (and we didn't like it). It fails to denote. I'm afraid I'm not smart enough to understand this. I think it denotes that it was an operation designed to terrorise the population and polity of Egypt with the aim of changing its political standpoints.

No, it wasn't. It was designed only to make the Egyptian govt look incompetent so that the British wouldn't pull out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:38, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

In this case, he blew up a couple of post offices; no one was hurt or killed and no one was intended to be. So terrorism must involve physical harm? I'm not aware that it does. If my neighbour was noisy, say, and would not turn down his stereo when I politely asked him, my smashing his front window would, in the broadest sense, be "terrorism". Its aim would without question be to terrorise him. I could do a great deal of damage to both his home and his sense of security without ever hurting him.

I thought you were one of the editors who agreed with this, or am I thinking of another page? I have stated my opinion, which is that the POV term "terrorist" should not be used on any page connected with the Arab-Israeli conflict at the very least. But you don't seem to agree with that, so I am discussing this with you on your terms. I think I've said all I have to say though, and I try to avoid endlessly disputing pages. I'm happy for you to reply on my talkpage if you feel there's merit in doing so, or not if you don't.Grace Note 03:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it shouldn't be used where there's ambiguity or where it clearly adds no information, and I'm increasingly coming to think it shouldn't be used at all, because in cases where it clearly is what everyone would regard as terrorist, there's no point in saying it; and in cases where it's ambiguous, it's hard to find a definition everyone can agree on, and without a definition (and it would probably have to be a Wikipedia-wide one), it lacks meaning. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:38, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

No need to respond to Dissembler any more, although I have no doubt another sockpuppet will be along soon enough. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to mention my concern when section titles are used to attack other editors. Dissembler, please use neutral-sounding titles like "NPOV principle" and do not accuse other editors by name. --AladdinSE 14:59, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Ignoring abusive sockuppets, three editors here agree that using the word "terrorist" is a bad idea in these kinds of articles in general, and two strongly question whether it even applies in this particular case. You seem to be the odd man out Aladdin. As for the removal of the word "terrorist" or "terrorism", please see these edits for examples: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] Jayjg ^(talk) 16:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment about section headers, Aladdin. Regarding the word "terrorist," what do you see as the difference in meaning between these sentences?

In 1954, the group carried out a series of bombings of civilian targets.

In 1954, the group carried out a series of terrorist bombings of civilian targets.

My argument is that they have exactly the same meaning (as in detonation). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:18, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Oops, slight Freudian slip there: I meant denotation, not detonation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:53, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg: I am not cowed by three editors disagreeing with me, and it's not in the best spirit of Wikipedia to try and intimidate me in this fashion. I have compromised and conceded on various topics and articles when I have been rationally dissuaded, so I am not "sticking to my guns" out of childish obstinacy. In any case you're wrong, I am not alone. Mel Etitis has taken the position that "terrorist" applies. You've dismissed others as sockpuppets. Well, I have no knowledge or interest of your reasoning for dismissing their opinions. If it makes you feel better, I'll put in a request for review in some editors' Talk pages and "even up the odds" by introducing more opinions like my own. If they also disagree with me, and have new arguments that actually dissuade me, I will concede immediately. By the way, regarding your DFLP edit [30], for the record I think that was a clear terrorist act and would not have made that revert. --AladdinSE 22:36, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

When I point out that a number of editors disagree with you, it's not to "cow" you, but to note that your position is a minority one. Consensus, as Wikipedia understands it, is built via majorities; I find your response to be highly personal and combative. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You may want to reevaluate your choice of words in the future, then. You by no means have an overwhelming majority (or anywhere near it). Coincidentally, I find your manner to be highly personal and appears to be indicative of attempted intimidation. --AladdinSE 22:11, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my manner comes across to you like that; I certainly don't intend it in that way. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Slim: Yes, detonation is described with or without the terrorist descrption. Detonation is hardly the point however. Both you and Jayjg may have a point for redundancy, after all what bombing of civilian targets isn't terrorism? It's important that these acts are described as what they are, terrorist acts. Otherwise it's a shameful whitewash where we have one standard for Arab terrorists and another for Israeli ones. Since the targets themselves are listed directly afterwards in the article, I'll remove "civilian targets" since that aslo is redundant since post office buildings, libraries and cinemas need no such classification. --AladdinSE 22:36, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Aladdin, sorry, I meant to write denotation, not detonation. ;-) Now I see you've changed it to terrorist bombings minus civilian, even though the latter is the description that's not disputed. Is your point that you actively want the word "terrorist" in here or that you don't want it in other articles, because if it's the latter, adding it here is almost disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, though I can understand being frustrated by inconsistency. Perhaps you could say which articles you object to the use of "terrorist" in, because it might make sense to look at deleting it from those, rather than adding it to this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:53, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

I see, I was wondering how detonation was relevant :-) Yes, it does seem to denote a redundancy, because, as I've said before, and as Jayjg seems to have also implied, what bombing of civilian buildings is not terrorist? No, I don't think it should be taken out elsewhere where it is relevant. As I said above in my reply to Jay, one of his removals of the word terrorist, regarding the DFLP, was not something I would have done myself. When an act is clearly terrorist it should be stated clearly as such. I trust I have been very communicative in Talk discussions, and strongly deny any attempt to be deliberately disruptive. Nevertheless, I read the disrupting Wikipedia to make a point link you provided above, and it gave me pause. The policy particularly mentions the terrorist label controversy. Although it starts out with "If you feel that a particular attack should not be called "terrorist"..., whereas I believe the opposite, I now have doubts. Not about the Lavon affair bombings being terrorist, to my mind they clearly were, but concerns regarding breaking policy. The policy says if you believe terrorist does not apply, argue on Talk how you htink it is POV, and do not add it to dozens of other articles to illustrate a point. As you know, in this case, I believe that its omission was a POV statement, and I included it as a stand-alone edit, not in response to any other dispute in other articles. Now, you say adding it here is almost disruptive. Do you think it crosses the line? If you honestly do, I will concede, albeit on a technicality. --AladdinSE 08:03, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

It's very decent of you to offer to concede the point, Aladdin, but no, I don't believe you've crossed the line, as your concern is with this article and not to make a point about others, and you're clearly editing in good faith. We'll just have to continue arguing, I'm afraid. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:29, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)