Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::::: If they are genuine acts of terrorism it should not be difficult. ] (]) 07:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
::::: If they are genuine acts of terrorism it should not be difficult. ] (]) 07:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::: Reliable sources consider them "geniune" actions of terrorism. Whether you believe blowing up Jews is somehow consistent with legal conflict and not terrorism is your POV and does not reflect wikipedia policy. Please self-revert or I will get a 3rd-party. ] (]) 10:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
That attack was similar to university attacks in the States and in Europe and because those are not considered terrorist incidents, this one shouldn't be as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patty wack (talk • contribs) 12:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Turkey Wedding Attack
The turkey wedding attack occured between two tribal groups from several villages. This is a family or criminal dispute. Not a terrorist attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patty wack (talk • contribs) 00:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Edited Protection
{{Editprotected}} Since vandalism occured on this page at the middle of March, and resulted in editors having to step in and semi-protect this page, there has been no activity on this page since the 23rd of March. I was going to register on March 19 2009 but when this page was protected (rightfully) by editors to stop the ongoing vandalism, I waited for a week and have then found other interesting articles to edit. However, I believe this page has gone onto disrepair and I have saved terrorist incidents from March 20 to March 28 and will be willing to post those terrorist incidents.
First thread
Is it not possible that some of the incidents here don't need to be here.
There are many every day reporting over a bomb being thrown, whereas if you look at previous years, they are grouped.
Take a look at 9/11 for example.
Thats all under one bullet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.57.146 (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
What is criteria for inclusion in this list?
Does a source need to call an act terrorism or is this list based on judgement call according to the definition of terrorism? TIA --Tom21:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
For example: March 10
Mosul A bomb exploded in Mosul wounding nine civilians including a child.
What? "gunman threw a hand grenade at a house where a wedding party was taking place in al-Rashidiya area, northern Mosul,” the source told Aswat al-Iraq news agency. That fits the profile of a terrorist attack. Terrorist=gunman, target=civilians, result=dead/wounded/trauma, etc... It doesn't need to say "officials consider this a terrorist attack", or "militant group x", or "terrorist" to be such a thing. I think the real problem is the source and if it is reliable. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Did you miss the reports about the fiances estranged boy friend vowing to take revenge if she ever married? Tom 00:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)ps, so to answer my first question, how we base this as a terrorist attack is based on an editor's judgement? Tom00:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Where does it say that? If that were the case, then no it wouldn't terrorism. I'm assuming we're using the definition of terrorism, but then that too is difficult to identify accurately. I think a group/person/organization promoting an ideology and deliberately targeting non/legal-combatants to create a state of fear is a bare-bones profile for a terrorist act. Also, if the source identifies it as terrorism. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
The citation doesn't mention the angry ex boyfriend, but that was the word on the street. I guess as long as the citations provide all the components of the definition of terrorism, like you listed, that should sufice. I would probably just use caution when deciding what to add. Anyways, Tom05:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I see that a rocket attack occured in North-Western Pakistan in the community of Landi Kotal killing 10 people and wounding at least 40 people. It is believed that the target was a military camp.
A bomb exploded at a highway intersection in southern Iraq targeting a police patrol killing one police officer and injuring two other police officers. Colonel Sadiq al-Hulu, the commander of Misan province emergency regiment was the target for the attack.
January 1st, 2009 Mogadishu January 2nd, 2009 Mogadishu Somalia, March 11, 2009 Mogadishu Somalia and March 19, 2009 Lebanon
January 1st, 2009, January 2nd, 2009: (Somalia) Although tragic that a family of four was killed in a mortar attack in Mogadishu, they were not the intended targets. The Presidential palace was and their deaths have been posted in War in Somalia (2006-2009). There have been a number of mortar attacks that have killed civilians in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, and in Somalia. I believe it is a terrorist attack if a foreign organization, citizens, civilians are directly targetted and not in a battle between two opposing forces as occured on both January 1st and 2nd. If it is in a battle it is not a terrorist strike, however, if it is considered a terrorist strike there are at least 200 incidents in Iraq from 2008 to 2009 that need to be posted similarly as well no other shellings have been posted as a terrorist incident, even though they have occured in February targeting A.U. peacekeepers.
March 11, 2009: A landmine detonated in Mogadishu killing three security officials. No group claimed responsibility for the attack and on AllAfrica it was claimed that the landmine was from the clan-warlord days of the early decade as Somalia remains a heavily armed nation.
March 19, 2009: (Lebanon): This is non-state terrorism lists. A cluster bomb released by Israeli forces does not constitute a war crime or a terrorist incident.(Canadian87 (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC))
Removed the Lebanon one, however the Somalia attacks qualify as terrorist incidents. The attacks are all non-state, the militant groups are not considered part of the sovereign country (i.e, they don't "officially" run the country.). Please add all the mortar and shelling incidents you can find them. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Landi Kotel
User Wikifan145 has posted about a rocket attack occuring in the Kyber Pass killing three people. This incident is a terrorist incident however it occured on the Community Landi Kotel (BBC News) and it struck the commercial district of this Pakistani community killing 10 people and injuring 40, not killing just three. The BBC news also reports it occured on March 20, not the 21. If this could be edited that would be appreciated (Canadian87 (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC))
There is no evidence to suggest that this was little more than a gunbattle between Taliban insurgents and Afghan police deserving to be in Afghan war but not a terrorist incident. (Canadian87 (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC))
March 19 gunbattle is a insurgent attack, battle in Chakdara which is in the Afghanistan war but not a terrorist incident.
It states that Taliban forces actually arrested 14 of the attackers in this attack. Therefore, criminal activity as it looks like it is is not a terrorist incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuesday2009 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
March 21, 2009 Afghanistan bombing
March 21, 2009
Afghanistan, Chaparhar district
7 killed
4 wounded
A suicide car bomber detonated his explosives at a police checkpoint in Nangahar province, Chaparhar district killing himself, six civilians and an Afghan police officer and injuring four other officers.
A bomb exploded on an overpass over a busy marketplace wounding seven people. The blast blew out windows of local shops and police officers and soldiers began stepped up patrols of the area.
Police conducting a raid in Saadiyah were the target of a booby-trap bomb as a massive explosion rocked the city when one of the houses they entered exploded. Two Iraqi police officers were killed and 8 others wounded.
Both attacks should be connected to the conflicts that are occuring in both regions. Afghanistan war, and Israeli Palestinian conflict. But should they be classified as terrorist incidents? I do not think so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuesday2009 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
User Tuesday, you continue to delete and add Bat Ayin's location from West Bank to Israel. It's extremely frustrating, and I've made it more than clear to you that Bat Ayin is located in the West Bank. The reason being, of course, is that Bat Ayin is situated in Bethlehem, a city governed by the Palestinians. Here, for your pleasure:
Bat Ayin is being governed by the Israeli government. Prove to me that Palestinian police officers are in Bat Ayin, they collect taxes from Bat Ayin and elected representatives come from Bat Ayin to the Palestinian Authority. The final say in the West Bank is Israel, Israel occupies West Bank and one of its settlements are Bat Ayin.
Ugh. This is good, you finally offer a clear rationale instead of viciously removing cited material with little reason while users like me get blocked for your habitual vandalism. First, sign your posts. Second, according to "international law", Israel occupies the West Bank militarily. But, the West Bank is technically governed by Fatah. Though much of it is "occupied" by Israel (i.e, outposts, bases, barriers, etc..), it is not part of Israel. It is not annexed and is not a claimed territory. For all intents and purposes, the West Bank is Palestinian. Here, a nice map detailing Israel/PNA control: Bethlehem firmly under Fatah control. Can you find Bethlehem on the map? Bat Ayin is an illegal settlement, technically. The settlement is not part of Israel. I really don't want to go to dispute resolution. That shit takes forever. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe you that Bat Ayin is an illegal settlement. Therefore I agree that Bethlehem (as closest legal settlement) is under Palestinian control. Therefore I will accept the attack as an attack on Palestinian territory.(Tuesday2009 (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC))
Basilan Hostage Kidnapping
This is connected to the Islamic Insurgency of Philippines but I do not see where it is a terrorist incident? No other kidnapping of large groups of people have been posted in the last few years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuesday2009 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Islamic Insurgency, Islamic terrorism. Same deal. A history of incidents is not necessary to consider an event a terrorist attack. Bad guys with guns inspired by dogma kidnap good guys without guns and kill a hostage. Terrorism. The kidnapping part isn't what qualifies the event as terrorism.
It is suspected to be MILF terrorists. However, after the last step of the 2008 peace deal reached some turbulance late last year as stated " The peace talks between the government and the 12,000-strong MILF, which is brokered by Malaysia, collapsed last year after the two sides failed to sign an agreement on ancestral domain, prompting the MILF sub-commanders and their men to launch deadly attacks on mostly Christian communities in Mindanao.
Ancestral domain refers to the MILF's demand for territory that will constitute a Muslim homeland. It is the last remaining hurdle for a final political settlement that is expected to end the four decades of Muslim insurgency that has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives" it may possibly an attempt for ransom that resulted in one death, and not some terrorist, religious or ethnic situation. (Tuesday2009 (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC))
That is your POV. First paragraph is irrelevant, and "it may possibly" is an indication of your lack of understanding. A group of armed muslims raided a Christian village, kidnapped many and killed one. That's terrorism. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Not necessarily. If they were doing it for religion, or for their organization, most definately. However, if they were doing it for money, like a ransom, it is then like the pirate attacks on the Gulf of Aden where they target ships that are "Christian" but want money. (Tuesday2009 (talk) 04:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC))
I'm sorry Tuesday, but this is conjecture. It is clear neither of us our experts on the circumstances involved but your denial that this is not a terrorist attack is rather confusing. If you believe MILF's actions did not constitute terrorism can you please explain why? Also, some organizations consider Somalia pirates capture of civilian vessels as terrorism. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Restoring this incident, expunged sans explanation by User:Patty wack. It was a verified terror attempt. and this list includes verified attempts in addition to "successful" efforts.Historicist (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Abortion Doctor
Why isn't the murder of George Tiller on here? Is it not terrorism? What classifies as terrorism? The muslim that killed two soldiers only days within the Tiller murder is added and so is the old white supremacist that shot up the Holocaust museum. Is it not terrorism but murder? How are the other two incidents I mentioned different from this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.43.240 (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Interesting point. In this article terrorism is being defined by acts of violence motivated by political/ideological purposes that have been established through precedent. Pro-life/Pro-choice activists are not at war and do not conduct terrorist campaigns against one another. Over the last 40 years, less than 10 people have been killed in various bombings/assassinations. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting is considered a terrorist act because of the long-standing history of nazi/antisemitic warfare/plots that has existed in the US and elsewhere for centuries. The fact that the shooter infiltrated a federal building and went on a shooting spree certified the action as terrorism by government and media, even though it might be inaccurate assessment. See WP:V. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikifan nice to see you again. To avoid accusations of ownership you might want to avoid telling other editors what this article is about and what it isn't about. There are good reasons for including the George Tiller murder, and a long history of coordinated campaigns of intimidation and violence directed toward abortionists in the United States. RomaC (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
First, I rarely edit this article so claims of ownership is rather moot (not to mention uncivil). Second, this article is about terrorist attacks. The editor was awfully confused about what can and cannot be put in the article so I felt it was necessary to expand on the core of what constitutes terrorism. Third, no there are no good reasons to include the murder of Tiller. Just as there are no good reasons to include Robert F. Kennedy assassination or the murder of Bob Crane. The same logic must be applied to George Tiller, with the subject matter being 100% irrelevant. Also, there is not a long history of coordinated campaigns of violence directed at abortionists - there have been maybe 7 deaths since Roe V. Wade. Intimidation does not = terrorism. Christian groups have been sent death threats for promoting traditionalist beliefs...does that mean they are victim to a perpetual state of terror? No, it just means people are intolerant d-bags who can't respect the rule of law. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm awfully confused. True, the firebombing of abortion clinics and shooting of doctors does not always cause deaths. So what is your death-count threshold for terrorism? And JFK, what's up with that randomness? RomaC (talk) 03:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
You are missing the point. Acts of murder does not equate to terrorism. When RFK was assassinated by a Palestinian it was not considered terrorism. When Bob Crane was murdered it was not considered terrorism. When an abortionist is assassinated by a lunatic it is not terrorism. Fire bombing abortionist clinics may be considered non-state terrorism from a certain perspective, but unless reliable refer to the act as terrorism then little can be done. Are serial killers terrorists? No, they are serial killers. There has to be some sort of precedent or background to confirm a terrorist campaign. I'm not the one who decides the threshold for inclusion, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability does that. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks WF I know that page, still looks authoritative you putting it into a link and all. By the way I won a wager with myself that you would bring up Sirhan Sirhan's Palestinian background, yup. In a discussion about anti-abortionists! Anyway, I'll do what the Anon editor above should have: Here is the word "terror" applied to Tiller in Mother Jones. And a book called Anti-Abortion Terrorism which runs 416 pages. You suggest dismissing Roeder as a "lunatic." This Washington Post bio has him as a member of the Montana Freemen group with a prior conviction for explosives. Of course it could be argued that any cold-blooded killer, like say, Yigal Amir, is crazy, but you know, in our wacky day and age they are heroes to some. RomaC (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The consensus is that Tiller's murder was not a terrorist attack but an act of murder. Both are not mutual. Yea I'd imagine Yigal Amir is a hero to some 350 million people in a certain part of the world. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Regarding Urumqi, Xinjiang terrorist attack
Please do not blank it until it is sorted out. As far as I can see, the Chinese government was right to call it as terrorism.
As for calling Chinese state media as propaganda, I can say the same for the western media. So unless you have something that proves the news as fake, you can pretty much shut up since that would constitute your original research. In fact, during last year's Tibet incident, western media has shown plenty of mis-inform mis-represent information (see anti-cnn.com for plenty of hard facts) to support their bias.
At the same time, it is also ridiculous (and insulting) to consider it as propaganda. Should 9/11 report by the U.S. government as propaganda? given its statements on WMD in Iraq are all lies? You can cite western media with DIRECT evidence (rather than quotes or unaccountable statements) to dispute it, but removing the item simply because you think it is "propaganda" is POV. Coconut99 99 (talk) 05:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
It is part of a more general topic area ( http://www.chinaview.cn/urumqiriot/index.htm ). In there, ( http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-07/13/content_11700955.htm ) mentioned "would it have been balanced and fair for them, had any Chinese media commented on the Sept. 11 terrorist attack against New York and Washington in 2001,saying "New York Revenge -- Muslim minorities fight U.S. hegemonism? Please keep in mind: those mobs, who wouldn't even let pass children, are terrorists by the standards of all nations governed by law."
The overwhelming majority of coverage describes it as riots, civil unrest or ethnic unrest. It would be undue weight to claim the riots were "terrorist incidents" based on what the overwhelming majority of secondary sources say. O Fenian (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Note terrorism doesn't conflict with "civil unrest" or "ethnic unrest". If we use standard like O Fenian is insisting, at least 50% of the entries on this page should be removed, and 911 should be described as: "The word trade center and two airplane were destroyed and thousand were killed in a ethnic unrest between Muslins and Americans "(Dumamdtalk)
If you have multiple, neutral, independent reliable sources saying the riots were terrorism provide them now, until then it is a fringe view. Your comparison is incorrect, offensive, and suggests your motives are not compatible with those of a neutral encyclopedia. O Fenian (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I know the comparison is not that correct, but it follows from your logic that "civil unrest or ethnic unrest means NOT terrorism". All the statement above are just your own personal point of view. And now tell me which sources are neutral, independent, and reliable ? and which of the entries on this page cited multiple sources ? ( Dumamd talk)
I am not talking about any other incidents on this page, I am talking about this incident which you are trying to add against policy. Please stop adding it unless there is consensus for it to be added. O Fenian (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
If you would like to discuss the removal of any other items, please start a new section and we will discuss them there. They are not relevant to whether this incident being a terrorist attack is a fringe view or not. O Fenian (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
We have discussed this topic at length on the Urumqi Riots page and the consensus is that there is not a reliable neutral source confirming any connection between the riots and terrorist activity. A riot, terrifying though it may be, is not the same as a terrorist attack. Please consult the talk page of this event for additional details as it has been discussed there at some length.Simonm223 (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The incident will not be included here, and that's the final word on that right now. No matter how many arguments you invent, there is currently no definitive proof that this incident meets the definition of terrorism, and there is overwhelming consensus at Talk:July 2009 Ürümqi riots not to label it as such (by "overwhelming consensus" I mean that every editor in good standing who has commented there agrees with this). This consensus will not change unless there are major changes in the outside world. rʨanaɢ /contribs17:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Israel/Palestine
Attacks, and attempted attacks, on Israeli soldiers by Palestinian militants are part of the conflict and not terrorism as civilians are not targeted or effected. Additionaly, why is there no inclusion of attacks on Palestinian civilians by settlers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.82.195.134 (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Anon editor, I think your first point is going to be hard to sell either here or at the 2008 terrorist incidents article. As for attacks by Israeli settlers on Palestinians, are this and this and this the sort of things you mean? Again, as an editor with a pro-wikipedia bias who has visited Israeli-Palestinian articles a fair bit over the last years I'd say you're likely to encounter coordinated opposition. But perhaps if sourced well and argued strongly, information on politically-motivated violence by Israeli settlers could make it as far as edit-war status. Let's see shall we? RomaC (talk) 03:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Suicide bombings against Israeli civilians and attacks against patrolling Israeli soldiers are considered terrorist attacks by the media and most people. However, Israeli soldiers killed in acts of war is not considered terrorism. There is not a documented history of Jewish settlers invading Arab cities and ambushing civilian towns. However, there have been many confrontations between settlers and Palestinians but deaths as a result tend to not be considered a part of a terrorist campaign. Does that make sense? Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Sourcing
Because the word "terrorist" is such a loaded term with highly negative connotations that is often used for propaganda purposes (see WP:TERRORIST), it's essential that items in this list be adequately sourced, with the source directly categorizing the incident as a terrorist act.
Hi, you removed thoroughly cited information that explicitly referred to the attacks as acts of terrorism, or as part of an on-going campaign of terrorism. This is especially true in your mass removal of practically all the events in the Palestinian territories. Please consult talk before doing such major revisions with inaccurate summaries. All the incidents are accompanied with reliable sources, so your claim of OR is rather dubious. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Far from the information being "thoroughly cited" the entries that I deleted had at most 1 cite and two had zero working cites.
On that matter, why are you reverting these edits ? The links are broken.
Do you understand Misplaced Pages's original research policy? Do you understand why classifying incidents as terrorism _yourself_ is original research? Do you understand why we must defer to reliable sources to make that classification?
Hello again. A) Many of the diffs you removed explicitly referred to the acts as terrorism (coincidentally, most of them revolved around Israel). Deleting an incident because the source is broken is simply retarded, just find a new source or add a citation - removing it is not kosher and violates policy. Yahoo often kills their news archives after a couple of months to save money and space, so you could have easily just googled the event and switched out the references. This has nothing to do with original research, all the information comes straight from the references. Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
You just wiped out all the references again under "original research" claim. I am asking you to self-revert or I'll seek a moderator because your edits (reverting 5+ events) constitutes major vandalism and goes beyond content discussion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Did you read my comment? The incidents I removed are not described as terrorism by their sources. Thus listing them here constitutes original research.
If you want to restore the items I removed, simply find reliable sources that describe the incidents as terrorism.
Reliable sources consider them "geniune" actions of terrorism. Whether you believe blowing up Jews is somehow consistent with legal conflict and not terrorism is your POV and does not reflect wikipedia policy. Please self-revert or I will get a 3rd-party. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
