Talk:Terrorism

Dubious first sentence

This is a pretty weak first sentence:

"Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentional violence to achieve political aims."

This would make all war "terrorism", which might be a reasonable opinion, but does not at all reflect how the term is actually used.

Myself, I don't think backing up and explaining some context fixes the fact that the topic sentence doesn't work.

The lead sentence of the second paragraph should probably be the first sentence:

"There are various different definitions of terrorism, with no universal agreement about it."

Wikipedia should not be be endorsing a definition for a term that doesn't really have one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5b20:15a0:5ce3:c3d5:1326:c838 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

"XXX is a terrorist" is often used by states indiscriminately for political reasons to achieve that the organization or movement will not gain support by the public. Such strategy is called name calling, a form of a logical fallacy. For example it is used against Anarchists, even though their aim is to create a society that aims for mutual aid and is against oppressive hierarchy. They put them on the same level of right-wing extremist terrorist, which sole aim is to spread fear and destruction so their ideology full of hatred is a step closer to being fulfilled.

This is why I also think, that "Terrorism, in the broadest sense, the use of intentional violence to achieve political aims." is pretty much non-sense and non-objective (personal POV of whoever wrote that), because to them, state violence apparently does not exist or if that sentence is to be included, you would also need to list war crimes by states to make the claim more neutral.

By the way I condemn terrorism.

I've just looked at the re-written sentence "Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence and fear to achieve an ideological aim.", which still is kind of not neutral nor is technical correct, as state also calls Anarchists terrorist, which would make the definition inaccurate.

DefendingFree (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Causes section

"Ending perceived government oppression" can be changed to "Ending perceived government oppression (for example Suffragette bombing and arson campaign.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:d591:5f10:316e:b09b:a12a:56ad (talk • contribs) 17:58, 17 July 2021 (UCT) (UTC)

Submitted

Sub 185.69.186.49 (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2022

Request to add Government negotiation with terrorists under the section Terrorism#See_also. 223.25.74.34 (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Aidan9382 _(talk) 17:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Bias

The article shows an image of (the incredibly rare) Jewish-Israeli terror attacks, while mentioning no picture of the Palestinian terror, which is a thousand time more common. This creates the false view that these are equivalent, or even that the Israeli terror is worst. Please correct.

2A00:A040:197:1220:619A:96AC:E9D4:FB19 (talk) 2A00:A040:197:1220:619A:96AC:E9D4:FB19 (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any picture you recommend? TFD (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

No, the current selection is not biased. Palestinian resistance to the illegal and violent Israeli occupation of their lands is not "terrorism". And please include sources if you're going to claim that Palestinian terrorism is "a thousand time more common". --222.152.26.143 (talk) 10:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)