I respond below to some of the issues Mav and others have raised in recent
posts, arguing that labelling people like Bin Laden "terrorists" is
passing a moral judgement, and if we indiscriminantly do so, then others
can insist that the actions of our governments (US/UK for the sake of
argument) should also be labelled "terrorist". My conclusion is that it is
not in the interest of Wikipedia for the CIA to be labelled a "terrorist
network".
On 01/15/04 at 06:35 PM, Daniel Mayer <maveric149(a)yahoo.com> said:
Viajero wrote:
>"Terrorism" is a lot more than just a
technical term; it carries
>emotional baggage and implies a moral judgement (like calling
>someone a "vandal" in Wikipedia!).
Like the words 'racism', 'holocaust'
and 'massacre'? I guess the
articles on those topics will have to be renamed as well.
No, I would argue that "terrorism" is really sui generis. Given its highly
controversial nature, its strongly negative connotations, and its primacy
in current affairs, I don't think we should draw any general principles.
>Moreover, if we label Al Queda or Shining Path
terrorists, one can
>make the argument for labelling the US government a terrorist
>organization for mining the harbor of Managua in the 1980s, or
>destroying the Al Shifa pharmaceuticals plant in Sudan in 1998,
>or causing 500,000 Iraqi children to die of malnutrition during the
>1990s by means of sanctions. Passing moral judgements can go both ways.
Ok, here it is:
Toby Bartels wrote:
>Well, what /was/ the purpose? Given the NY
attacks, terror is likely.
>As for civilian deaths, remember the infamous Gulf War "collateral
>damage". Was that a terrorist attack by the United States armed
>forces?
No for three reasons: 1) the intent was not to
terrorize the civilian
population, 2) very few people call it that, and 3) by definition
governments cannot commit terrorism.
The Gulf War is not a good example, But I think we must acknowledge that
there are a lot of people in the Third World, using *their* definition of
"terrorism", who believe that the US has committed "terrorists acts"
against civilian targets. As others have already pointed out in this
lists, a "terrorist" or a "terrorist act" is largely in the eye of
the
beholder.
As for 3) "by definition governments cannot commit terrorism": It seems
to me that this qualification is selectively applied. "State terrorism" is
a contradiction in terms where Western governments are concerned but not
when it involves our "official enemies". Do a Google query on "libya +
support + terrorism" (190,000 hits) or "Iran + support + terrorism"
(476,000 hits) and you find documents containing such texts as:
Does Iran sponsor terrorism?
Yes. The State Department calls the Islamic Republic of Iran the world's
"most active state sponsor of terrorism."
(
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/sponsors/iran.html)
Over the past twenty years, Libya has been foremost on the list of
countries supporting terrorism.
(
http://www.ict.org.il/articles/article3.htm)
If "sponsoring" or "supporting" is a meaningful distinction (I think
not),
than someone could argue that bin Laden is not a "terrorist"; he only
supports it. In any case, it is beyond a doubt that the Reagan
adminstration "supported terrorism" (first legally, later illegally) by
its backing of the Contras whose goals were very much which Mav defines
above, ie "to terrorize the civilian population."
One reason why terrorism is often
seen as being worse than atrocities committed by governments, is that
there is no clear thing to retaliate against when it is committed.
I regard this is strictly a tactical problem -- not a moral issue!
At least in the Cold War we could rely on the concept
of mutually assured
destruction to keep the Soviets from nuking us (and vice versa). We
cannot rely on that for terrorist acts since the organizations the
perform terrorist acts do not have nearly as much to loose as a nation
performing the same act would.
This rationale does not hold water since countries like Libya and Iran.
which we can assume do have something to loose, still appear to support
it.
>On the Talk page of [[King David Hotel bombing]]
Zero wrote
>something awhile back to the effect that the word "terrorist"
>should be banned from every article except [[Terrorism]]. I
>am inclined to agree with him.
I'm sorry but this is an absurd position to have
and I do hope you
re-consider it. Not only would it result in [[Terrorism]] becoming an
orphan, but it would whitewash a great many articles. If and when it is
relevant to say that X said Y about Z then we should say it!
Again blacklisting terms is *very* bad idea
I take it back. "Banning" was too strong a word. No, you are quite right:
we do not want to "ban" words or ideas from Wikipedia. But I think we need
to look carefully at how the term is used.
To begin with, in recent days, two discussions have taken place on Talk
pages ([[Osama bin Laden]] and [[Shining Path]]) over the insertion of the
phrase
"... is considered by many people to be a [terrorist | terrorist
organization]"
I am opposed (along with several others) to the inclusion of this phrase.
I believe it uses weaselspeak to insert a moral judgement on the subject.
We should simply allow the facts to speak for themselves. In the case of
Shining Path, its atrocities were numerous, unambiguous, and
well-documented. The case, as it were, speaks for itself.
In [[Shining Path]], in response to the above, another user replaced it
with the following text at the end of the article:
Internationally, Shining Path is widely regarded as a terrorist group.
The organization is on the United States Department of State's list of
Foreign Terrorist Organizations, meaning (among other things) that it
is illegal for US citizens to provide any aid to the group. The United
Kingdom and European Union likewise list Shining Path as a terrorist
group and prohibit providing funding or other financial support,
although membership is not prohibited.
This is an improvement. However, the assessment of an organization as
"terrorist" is hardly just a technical, bureaucratic matter; it is not
like declaring it in arrears or something. It is a moral judgement, and
given that a state is not a moral agent (unlike say the Catholic Church) I
would question the appropriateness of any government taking the high moral
ground in this way, above all the US and the UK, given the fact they
recently launched an illegal war against Iraq. "Let he without blame cast
the first stone".
However, in another article, [[Binational solution]], which many of you
may have seen since it was one the Main page over Christmas, there is an
instance of the use of the word "terrorist" which is appropriate. It forms
an integral part of the historical narrative and is not included
essentially as a moral judgement:
The 1973 Yom Kippur War was both a military and a political disaster
for the Arabs and the Palestinians in particular. The crushing defeat
of the Arab armies prompted a fundamental political rethink among the
Palestinian leadership. It was realised that Israel's military strength
and, crucially, its alliance with the United States made it very
unlikely that it could be defeated militarily. In December 1974, Yasser
Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) -- regarded as a
terrorist group by the Israeli government - declared that a binational
state was the only viable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The change in policy was met with considerable confusion, as it was
official PLO policy to replace Israel with a secular state with a full
right of return for all displaced Palestinians.
As I said in an earlier message, passing moral judgements -- directly or
by means of weaselspeak -- goes both ways. If we insist on labelling Al
Queda "terrorist", others can do the same with the CIA for example. Aside
from whether I personally agree with this (an irrelevant matter), having
the CIA labelled a "terrorist network" in the interest of balance is, from
a strictly utilitarian point of view, counterproductive; it will only
alienate an important part of our audience. Hence, lets not go down the
slippery slope of labelling -- gratuitously at least -- bin Laden et al
with moralistic, emotionally-laden terms like "terrorist".
V.