If someone was convicted of a crime, we can say so. "The district court of (blank) found Mr. X guilty of murder in the first degree. He was executed on (this date)."
The Wikipedia doesn't say there is no such thing as terrorism. Rather, it acknowledges that different sides have conflicting ideas about what constitutes terrorism. Some people use the word to mean "unjustifiable violence". Naturally, in a war or similar conflict there will be sharp disagreements on what is justified or unjustified.
Ed Poor
Right now, HectorRodgriguez is taking the word "terrorist" out of every article about September 11. You tell me that Wikipedia doesn't say there is no such thing as terrorism. Calling the people who killed over 3000 innocent people "militants", and refusing to allow them to be labeled as "terrorists" is a POV.
RIckK
"Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote: If someone was convicted of a crime, we can say so. "The district court of (blank) found Mr. X guilty of murder in the first degree. He was executed on (this date)."
The Wikipedia doesn't say there is no such thing as terrorism. Rather, it acknowledges that different sides have conflicting ideas about what constitutes terrorism. Some people use the word to mean "unjustifiable violence". Naturally, in a war or similar conflict there will be sharp disagreements on what is justified or unjustified.
Ed Poor
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online
Rick wrote:
Right now, HectorRodgriguez is taking the word "terrorist" out of every article about September 11. You tell me that Wikipedia doesn't say there is no such thing as terrorism. Calling the people who killed over 3000 innocent people "militants", and refusing to allow them to be labeled as "terrorists" is a POV.
I guess I don't see what's necessary about that. If you describe someone as "hijacking a commercial airliner and flying it into a building, killing over 3000 civilians," doesn't that give the reader all they need to know? Not very many people would conclude from that description that the action was okay.
-Mark
Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com writes:
Calling the people who killed over 3000 innocent people "militants", and refusing to allow them to be labeled as "terrorists"
So terrorism = "taking thousands of innocent lives"
What about the pilot of the Enola Gay? or the RAF bombers who levelled Dresden.
Should we call them terrorists, too?
Gareth Owen wrote:
Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com writes:
Calling the people who killed over 3000 innocent people "militants", and refusing to allow them to be labeled as "terrorists"
So terrorism = "taking thousands of innocent lives"
What about the pilot of the Enola Gay? or the RAF bombers who levelled Dresden.
Should we call them terrorists, too?
Of course! Truman's stated intention with bombing Hiroshima was to bring the war to a quicker end by demonstrating to the Jaoanese just what he was capable of. The threat that Tokyo would be next was always there. Thus he terrorized them into submission. Through some chain of command the pilot of the Enola Gay was following Truman's orders, just as the hijackers were following bin Laden's.
Ec
We could say that in war sometimes the tactic of terrorizing the civilian population or governmental authorities is used. See [[Shock and awe]] which is, I guess, intended to terrorize military forces. It would seem by this operational definition that the 911 attack had that intent, at least the Trade Center Towers portion with respect to the American population. One can say further that the purpose was partially effected with some small part of the population now willing to give the terrorists free rein.
Fred
From: Gareth Owen wiki@gwowen.freeserve.co.uk Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: 13 Feb 2004 10:45:14 +0000 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: The integrity of Wikipedia
Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com writes:
Calling the people who killed over 3000 innocent people "militants", and refusing to allow them to be labeled as "terrorists"
So terrorism = "taking thousands of innocent lives"
What about the pilot of the Enola Gay? or the RAF bombers who levelled Dresden.
Should we call them terrorists, too?
Gareth Owen
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder wrote
We could say that in war sometimes the tactic of terrorizing the civilian population or governmental authorities is used. See [[Shock and awe]]
which
is, I guess, intended to terrorize military forces. It would seem by this operational definition that the 911 attack had that intent, at least the Trade Center Towers portion with respect to the American population.
In writing history on the basis of intention, one is stuck with trying to justify inference of that intention. That's a general problem, though. Even to call someone a 'reformer' moves from the idea of change to the supposed purpose; even to say a government introduces drugs legisation in order to deal with a social problem assumes something.
I'm not one who has any great problem with the 'terrorist' term. The inference that the 9/11 attacks were by terrorists seems stronger than that Osama wanted to take credit for ordering them; the inference that Osama wanted to take that credit seems stronger than the inference that the attacks were by or on behalf of Al-Qaida; and the evidence that the attacks were (in some way) Al-Qaida seems very strong, by now. The inference that the subsequent anthrax attacks in the USA were also terrorist in intention also seems quite strong; no one I think can say just what those were intended to do, though, with any degree of certainty. I mention this contrast to keep a perspective - could 'just' have been a deranged person.
To return to the integrity issue - I wouldn't use the Wikipedia articles as reference for contemporary history, except as casual reading. That's because 'caveat emptor' applies here. I don't think that the arguments brought forward really argue a lack of integrity, as things stand. Which is not to say that there aren't too many POV edits.
Charles