Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:58, 12 June 2006

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.

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. Misplaced Pages 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, , 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.

RSS and VHP are terrorist organizations; they setup camps to train youth in armed operations to systematically kill mainly the muslims and christians in India. They follow a different path than the conventional terrorist organizations, instead of bombing or shooting, they unleashing a wave of terror by burning people alive and raping women in an act to subdue the muslim and christian community. They killed over a thousand people in the Indian state of Gujarat in a very organized way under the pretext of mob violence. RSS was banned in India for a short period but came back to existance because of the massive political influence. RSS is also infamous for killing Mahatma Gandhi. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.64.185.103 (talk • contribs) .

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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages is seeking to be a world thing (not just a 'western' thing) as world opion is very dived.--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 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\

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\

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 Misplaced Pages) 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 Misplaced Pages 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) 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)

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 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 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)

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.

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)

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)

• Speedy-oppose; we don't generally move for AE/BE issues. James F. (talk) 09:34, 10 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 ]. The s-spelling is not an incorrect spelling, but it violates policy. Cultural Freedom talk 11:01, 10 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)