Talk:Counterterrorism

Comment 1

Hmm - that last edit seems to imply that counter-insurgency isn't a synonym for counter-terrorism. I think I would dispute that implication... -- Khendon

Terrorism isn't the same as insurgency--different methods, and different aims. An organized rebel army isn't a terrorist group, whereas pro-government forces kidnapping dissidents are terrorists but not insurgents. It is politically convenient for governments to paint the two as equivalent, but it's not accurate. Vicki Rosenzweig

I equate insurgency, protracted war, and guerilla warfare. Mao wrote On Protracted War, and a variety of authors from Right to Left wrote on guerilla warfare, so I don't consider either term to be caught up in the "War on Terror". I've also worked with the term "insurgency" since the late sixties. My point is that "terror" appears in much of such literature, often as the main operational method of Mao's Phase I. One can have terror without guerilla warfare, as in a government death squad, but I would argue that there has been no significant insurgency that did not practice terror. In addition to repressive governments, some of today's supranational movements do not seem to be embarking on guerilla warfare with the eventual goal of taking over a nation-state, but, rather in the anarchist tradition, to destabilize states that displease them. Hcberkowitz 23:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

on citation 8

i have read through the sources, mainly citation 8, many statements were made which used that citation as a source but the cite says nothing about the topic which cited it, can some more qualified person look into this? 75.67.14.31 (talk) 02:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Country by country list

I have completed A, and will begin work on ocuntries beginning with B whenever I next get a chance... feel free to add more countries - Factoid 03:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Should Alliance Base be included, and if so where?--ghost 20:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Tactical Assault Group

I changed some of the information about the Australian Counter-Terrorism units, the Tactical Assault Groups aren't civilian but part of the Australian Defence ForceEbglider91 (talk) 07:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Military counter-terrorism units

I edited some of the information about the Brazilian and New Zealand special forces, mostly just added links to their articles. Ebglider91 (talk) 10:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Counterterrorism vs. antiterrorism

Counterterrorism is different from antiterrorism, and should be kept as a seperate entry. While it is one of two major strategies in the fight against global terrorism, I would say it is the "first among equals". Since 9/11, more has been done for antiterrorism - that is, defensive measures against future terrorist attack. as “Antiterrorist defenses constitute a very large proportion of the U.S. fight against terrorism, certainly in resources but also in leadership attention” (Pillar, Paul R. Terrorism and U.S. Foreign Policy (Washington D.C., Brookings Institute Press, 2001), p. 38). A look at the FY 2006 budget for the Department of Homeland Security is one place to look; the budget includes $41.1 billion for the DHS, a seven-percent increase. Included in that budget is the establishment of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO), reflecting the Administrations' concerns that nuclear devices, fissile material or radiological material may fall into the hands of terrorists. In fact, “the budget includes $125 million to purchase Radiation Portal Monitors (RPMs)” (Department of Homeland Security: Press Room – Press Releases. Accessed online December 2005) to detect the smuggling of both gamma and neutron radiation over our borders.

Regards, A.T. Triola —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.121.59 (talk)

Here I am!

I've got some experience in the field of counter-terrorism. I'm taking it upon myself to clean up this page, as it absolutely reeks of kiddies playing too much Counter-strike.

ooops Swatjester 23:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

COCAINE CORRUPTION:... there is a hidden mainframe between the gherkin-building and canary wharf; ; it is the intercom-IDESATA which realises reception to office in cosmic reference in terms of these buildings are like secretary and manager; ; the chairman of the offices this way is a wealthy-russian projected to georgian russia where moscovia and siberia are neopolitan silences; ; his plan is to convince terrorist communism in a cat basket circumference of [death] viscious locality; ; when he is sure there is terrorist communism in a noman's situation of identity he will activate his power-meeting and become the convenient communist businessman; ; to veryfy this - has three parts, one is the fact that the BBC are unsure of olympic coverage-security; ; the second is the IDESAT relationships of the stolen identities 2007/8 to the wealth of the realationship the gherkin has in this way with the constabulary; ; the third is lines of tripwire corruption that come faillink of this planetarium into battleship potempkin scenario that otehrwise activate minfields of terrorist paranoia; ; an apocryphal verirfication is antidotal cocaine disrupted by ironmonger-cocaine into only the house of corruption's ignorance; ; once completely activated this terrorist felixstow will exist to buy and sell paratrooper terrorism from russian-georgia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.173.185 (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Rapid Action Battalion

Please could any interested editors please view the new article about the Rapid Action Battalion, since it has been started from scratch. Cheers, Tompsci 15:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

ILEGAL TENURE:... then I was dead and I am still dead, I was dead because cowboys; now I'm dead because of the army; ; only now can I say for sure they had a logical legal right to do this - to rid themselves of me; ; it is perhaps odd how clean their hands are of involvement this way -- only that by incident of secondary occasion my father killed me by excellence of accident; ; only sometimes do I realise that smuggling will defy imprisonment completely one day; ; I was killed for smuggling -- the odd thing is the choice I had before this was probably what I would be killed for; ; the building of science stood before then like a lifechanging entity stretching all across the states with interest alone of prognosis that I suffer from schizophrenia; ; my interest alone in this realises that it is now constant a defeat of beautification - this building scientist , this insititution; ; but as you say and realise that I took not that path and took the path of more certain significances - it is not always deadly -- and so brings me to realise that I had by this crossroads alone worked out something in superprogonsis that utilised this crossroads in backward thinking to become my execution; ; what I knew from the point of my death was a cloak & dagger clock - that if electrified in first principle became immortal-tardisism in all of europe; ; for a moment I wondered it was science but then I realised the armageddon that involved where it became sanctuary as is whitehouse in architechture; ; in the discipline of the grave I only realised the intensity of the crossroads to dissolve this ability of unwanted discovery; ; in trying to realise the higher power this calendared [triangle] I realised only pre-emptive conspiracy from base values of attacking simplicity; ; it was as if the four horseman of the apocalypse were playing with an hourglass full of immortal tendencies (square) away from god but within the authority of humanity; ; this became a telling of a pre-emptive-terrorist-clock set into motion from the beginning of the cold war; ; realising at all that to know the articles of this mechanism was faltered by irregular-livlihood; ; disintergrating this livlihood became dictation and was the guillotine of my execution {oblong}; ; it is impossible to realise that this had a premeditation that discluded it's affectation into knowing that this was such dark truth on my part it was better to never explain this beyond good & evil 'has children' knows jurisdiction over such walls have ears; ; it is this tenth year of such a clock's existence with me has "hero dictators" involved with it's machinery, because of this day -- it becomes nessacary a warning from me to executive decision reveals this at the question; ; danse macabre?; ; is it wonder that such mousetraps exist apocrypha to decide hero-terrorist alone but only I am one of the few... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.209.42 (talk) 11:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

External links

Sorry, deleted the link to "Mockery on terrorist organizations", as it merely linked to a page containing materials poking fun at various terrorist-related issues. The thing is, it really doesn't relate to counter-terrorism. Again, sorry for bothering you. Nagyss 00:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

US Department of Defense "Antiterrorism Handbook, February 2004" www.dod.gov/pubs/foi/reading_room/947.pdf released under Freedom of Information Act, not to many redactions. 553 pages —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.185.96.57 (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Direction of article after merging in "response to terrorism"

There is much value to what Radagast83 added, but I suggest some thought about the article size, whether it should spin off specific subarticles (e.g., balancing privacy and counterterrorism, infrastructure hardening, money tracking), and if there can be better links to the hierarchy of intelligence articles that I've set up. I probably have the materials for a start on money transfer law and such in the US, but I'd really need a financial expert to help define analysis. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

A review (November 2007)

See the template {{Globalize}}

IHMO this article reads like a mid term essay by an American high school student. There is so much wrong with it I'll just highlight some points but his is not an comprehensive list by any means.

There is no analysis of why certain governments choose to use the term terrorist and counter-terrorism. It assumes that such labels are universally agreed too. But a read of the section Terrorism#Pejorative use will show that there are sound propaganda reasons for using the term. This should be mentioned early in the article to help create a WP:NPOV

Many section read as if terrorism only became a problem after 9/11 and that the American problems and solutions are the only ones that exist. For example until I changed it today the section Anti-terrorism implied that before London bombings of 7 July and 21 July 2005, the British did not have any problems with terrorism or any anti-terrorism legislation. The British have had problems with terrorism in its modern type since the middle of the 1800s (see The Fenians and the IRA) and The Metropolitan Police Service Historical Archives says

Protection of the Head of State from assassination was a serious issue in the nineteenth century. Queen Victoria was subjected to five attempts on her life. The Russian anarchist Bakunin preached a doctrine which resulted in the deaths of 25 Heads of State.

The history of Anarchists is illustrated by various incidents from the man Bourdin who blew himself up with his own bomb at Greenwich in 1894, the Sidney Street siege in 1911 and the Tottenham Outrage, a chase of two anarchists who commandeered a tram, during which incident many shots were exchanged with police

As another example take the section Counter-terrorism#Military intervention

Who says "Terrorism has often been used to justify military intervention in countries where terrorists are said to be based." Two examples do not justify such a statement and even if there were 50 examples a source is needed. This paragraph falls fouls of WP:PROVEIT and WP:OR.

"History has shown that military intervention has rarely been successful in stopping or preventing terrorism. is a very dubious statement what about the Malayan Emergency, the Mau Mau, All but the first IRA campaigns including the Irish Civil War, S-Plan, Border Campaign (IRA), the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

"Although military action can disrupt a terrorist group's operations temporarily, it rarely ends the threat (Pape, Robert A. (2005). Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. Random House. pp. 237–250.)." For example how many of the campaigns against the Soviet Union inside the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe did not end with a Soviet victory even if in some cases to quote Calgacus "atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant". Not heard of those campaigns? I'm not supprised but for example one of the more unpleasent jobs that the cambridgespy ring did was to shop to the soviets the British agents helping in Operation Jungle.

BTW what dos this mean? "However, new methods such as those taken in Iraq have yet to be seen as beneficial or ineffectual."

In the section "Non-military Intervention" there is a classic sentence from a First World POV assuming that "terrorists" (pronounced with a Rhodesian accent) are only fighting for "the provision of clean drinking water, education, vaccination programs, provision of food and shelter and protection from violence, military or otherwise. Successful human security campaigns have been characterised by the participation of a diverse group of actors including governments, NGOs, and citizens.". How likely is it that the Republicans in Ireland would have been swayed into renouncing the IRA campaign for "clean drinking water, education, vaccination programs, provision of food and shelter and protection from violence,"? AFAICT the British suicide bombers who took part in the attack on Israel 2003, 7/7 and the Glasgow attacks; and Yigal Amir and Timothy McVeigh would not have been put off their terrorist actions with the offer of a glass of clean water and nor would their supporters.

The two sections need to be combined with the mention that successful counter insurgency policies involve carrot, (hearts and minds) and stick, (soldiers on the ground). However although that is true for an insurgency, is it true for counter-terrorism? Could Northern Ireland ever have been solved without the stick and a political compromise. Further to counter young British Muslims launching suicide attacks, no one is suggesting paras on the streets of Bradford. Dources are needed for this type of analysis. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree that much is wrong with the substance. My first steps had been to try to pull together pieces from several superficially related articles and take inventory of what existed. Yes, this is not globalized. The question is whether or not it is retrievable or not, and I think we are in agreement that terrorism has to be defined before one can even begin on counterterrorism.

If one were to look at the theory of terrorism, there are some commonalities, but a unified look that considers the differing Marxist theories (e.g., Mao, Marighella, Guevara and, perhaps, trying to make sense of Guzman beyond a personality cult), assorted more nationalist motivations in the Middle East and Africa, to say nothing of the LTTE, possibly state terrorism in authoritarian regimes, and a host of others including economic terrorism going back several centuries, it is challenging to find common threads, but I believe they exist.

Much in intelligence, security, and related disciplines has had a certain comic book flair. I've spent more effort on what, in many cases, were total rewrites of intelligence articles. I have also done a fair bit on special operations missions that are not necessarily "counterterrorist", ranging from special reconnaissance to foreign internal defense to direct action (military), which are missions rather than strategy.

Being bold might mean an essentially new article on terrorism, and I hesitate to say that a single article on terrorism, as opposed to the wide range of disciplines that contribute to countering it, is viable. I especially would like to see lists of foo-organizations go into their own list-type articles, as they clutter any discussion of principles. Having a list of organizations does not preclude articles on specific organizations, their theory and operational doctrine, staffing and deployments.

The question is where best to begin. I have been putting serious rewrite or new article material elsewhere, since I frankly don't know where to start. Foreign internal defense is one set counterguerilla/counterterrorist (not identical) missions, which, at least, gives a historical framework for certain organizations and doctrines -- and no, it is not utterly comprehensive.

What suggestions do you have on restarting? What would you be willing to write? A very good starting point might be to outline the scope, and then see what articles, of varying quality, map to it. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Good luck to you. I have many pages on my watch list and I am not going to add this one so I will not be helping you. Just one parting thought: I think you should add to the introduction a sentence or two by saying that this article is about counter-terrorism and not about counter-insurgency although counter-terrorism may also form a part of a counter-insurgency stratagy. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sri Lanka

There has been some inclusion of Sri Lanka in this article. Namely the current Civil war is used in this article as "War on Terrorism" and "Counter terrorism". The citation that are given to back these statements do not represent these views. Since wikipedia policy asks users to add reference to such, controversial, claims I am removing the inclusion of Sri Lanka in this article. If reference can be provided, that too from WP:RS, then the removed text can be re-added. Watchdogb (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted your deletion, as I don't understand your objection. Do you claim that the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress is not WP:RS? The citation points to Tamil militancy. From Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, "The LTTE is currently proscribed as a terrorist organisation by 32 countries (see list)" I have updated some of the links to references about terrorism in Sri Lanka, including Human Rights Watch, the United Nations, the United States Department of State, the Academy of European Law, Jane's Information Group, and the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Each of these sources speak of suicide attacks in Sri Lanka, many as a form of targeted assassination, but all causing casualties among civilians. How are countermeasures to such attacks, meeting the usual definition of terrorism as spreading fear among neutrals, not anti- and counter-terrorism?

Some of your own articles speak of terrorism against Tamils, and I do not dispute that may well be happening, much as there are Tamil attacks. Whether or not there is a civil war is irrelevant to the tactics of both sides.

I have not used the term "War on Terrorism", which I consider semantically null; one cannot declare war on a tactic. Are you seriously suggesting that there is no terrorism, regardless of side, in Sri Lanka? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There has been some inclusion of Sri Lanka in this article. Namely the current Civil war is used in this article as "War on Terrorism" and "Counter terrorism". The citation that are given to back these statements do not represent these views. The first appearance of Sri Lanka is here. This sentence is highly POV. This sentence claim that the current war in Sri Lanka is a anti terrorism activity. The Sri Lanka part was removed because of the lack of citation for that claim. A citation was added and Sri Lanka was re-added. The problem is that the citation given does not claim that this is a war on Terrorism and not a civil war. While the citation claimed that the Tamil groups terrorized civilians it does not claim that the war in Sri Lanka is a anti terror actions. The article does not even claim that these groups were terrorists. So addition of Sri Lanka in the Anti-terrorism versus Counter-Terrorism section is a direct violation of WP:SYNT. Bottom line is you are violation WP:SYNT unless there is WP:RS that claim exactly what the section of the Article claim - Anti-terrorism versus Counter-Terrorism. Watchdogb (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I whole heartedly agree that there is Terrorism in Sri Lanka. Watchdogb (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we agree that there is both state and non-state terror, as stated by the the UN United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, Philip Alston,

The Government should not, however, interpret the widespread proscription of the LTTE as a terrorist organization as an endorsement of its own record. Indeed, it is an enduring scandal that convictions of government officials for killing Tamils are virtually non-existent, and many Tamils doubt that the rule of law will protect their lives.

A resolution of this conflict that would merit the international community's endorsement will require the Government, the LTTE, or both, to demonstrate genuine respect for human rights. The strategic importance of achieving and maintaining international legitimacy grounded in respect for human rights is not completely lost on either the Government or the LTTE. Indeed, the discourse of human rights is central to the parties' own understandings of the conflict's origins and conduct. However, by using proxies, the subversion of accountability mechanisms, and disinformation, both parties have been able to commit deniable human rights abuses. Effective monitoring would foreclose the possibility of employing a strategy of deniability, pressuring the Government and the LTTE to seek legitimacy through actual rather than simulated respect for human rights.

I am not following your argument. There was a single reference, outside direct quotes on other areas, to the US term "war on terror", which is a nice sound bite but has no meaningful content. I removed that reference; please di not conflate the Bush Administration's slogan with the very real issue of terror taking place in Sri Lanka.

I will go back and delete the US references, since the Bush Administration terminology seems to disturb you. It disturbs me as well.

I am perfectly happy to use the quote from Human Rights Watch,

The monitoring mission is hamstrung by its connection to the peace process, limiting its willingness to speak out on human-rights violations for fear of disrupting peace talks. Its limited capacity was severely weakened when, on 1 August, Sweden, Finland and Denmark announced their withdrawal from the mission in response to a Tamil Tiger demand that all European Union nations pull out because the EU had named it (in May 2006) as a terrorist group. This hardly has anything to do with the US War on Terror.

Correct me if I misunderstand, but you seem intent on removing any reference to Sri Lanka no matter what additional material, material blaming both sides, is cited. The UN and HRW citations specifically speak of terror. I have not been doing any original synthesis. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course you are violating WP:SYNT. Where in any of your given article does it claim that the current war in Sri Lanka is counter terrorism. None of your given citation claim this. Unless you can provide citation for this you are indeed violating WP:SYNT. Watchdogb (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me answer your questions clearly

Do you claim that the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress is not WP:RS? The citation points to Tamil militancy. From Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, "The LTTE is currently proscribed as a terrorist organisation by 32 countries (see list)" I have updated some of the links to references about terrorism in Sri Lanka, including Human Rights Watch, the United Nations, the United States Department of State, the Academy of European Law, Jane's Information Group, and the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation.

No, I do not claim anything is WP:RS or not. LTTE's proscribed part is just that. They are proscribed. How does this relate to the current topic ? If you want to argue that because LTTE is proscribed as terrorists and because the Sri Lankan Government is fighting LTTE, then this can be considred counter terrorist. If so, then I direct you to WP:SYNT. You cannot put together published relaible material unless some WP:RS does this for you.

Each of these sources speak of suicide attacks in Sri Lanka, many as a form of targeted assassination, but all causing casualties among civilians. How are countermeasures to such attacks, meeting the usual definition of terrorism as spreading fear among neutrals, not anti- and counter-terrorism?

.

Same reason as above. You are clearly synthesizing material published by various WP:RS to advance a view. This is not allowed in wikipedia.

Are you seriously suggesting that there is no terrorism, regardless of side, in Sri Lanka?

I whole heartedly agree that there is Terrorism in Sri Lanka. Watchdogb (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

For your clarity let me make things simple and sweet. I am not against adding Sri Lanka to anything provided that there is RS that claim the position put forward by you. However, there is one catch to this agreement - do not violate WP:SYNT. If a realiable source claims "X and Y" and the same reliable source (or any other reliable source) claims "Z", then you cannot claim "X and Y = Z" unless this ("X and Y = Z") is not claimed by another reliable source. In our case you have citation that says "LTTE uses terror tactics" you claim to have reliable source that says "LTTE is terrorist" and then you say "prevention of LTTE attacks is counter terrorism". However, this is not allowed in wikipedia. If you can find citation for "prevention of LTTE attacks is counter terrorism" or something along those lines, then I welcome you to add Sri Lanka back to counter terrorism section of this article. Watchdogb (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that the disagreement revolves around the characterisation of the conflict in Sri Lanka as an example of "anti terrorism activity". In my view, part of the problem seems to be ambiguity regarding the meaning of "anti-terrorism" - none of the three sources currently given for Sri Lanka use the term. Could someone offer a clearer definition of "anti-terrorism"? Thank you, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

none of the three sources currently given for Sri Lanka use the term : This is exactly my problem. If none of the citation given use the term, then the addition of Sri Lanka in the anti-terrorism context is either WP:OR or WP:SYNT. Watchdogb (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it depends on what the term means. Counter-terrorism refers to a set of law enforcement and military tactic, and I do not think it would be controversial to state that counter-terrorist activity takes place in Sri Lanka or that the Sri Lankan government utilises counter-terrorist tactics. I'm not sure, however, what "anti-terrorism" means... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Black Falcon, if I may preface the direct answer, it is my professional experience that antiterrorism and counterterrorism are much more of a continuum than distinct categories. That said, a definition from the US Joint Chiefs of Staff JCS Pub 1-02 is:

Defensive measures used to reduce the vulnerability of individuals and property to terrorist acts, to include limited response and containment by local military and civilian forces.

Again emphasizing it is a continuum, counterterrorism is more offensive/preemptive. There are suicide bombers in many parts of the world and in many terrorist campaigns. It is clearly preemptive to use national intelligence to locate a remote training base and attack it. Putting a blast shield in front of a person, in a public place, who is at high risk of such attack is clearly defensive. Now, in the real world, consider a public area where observers and snipers attempt to identify suicide attackers approaching an area, and shoot them at long range. Is this offensive or defensive? What if the observer used an unmanned aerial vehicle to detect and engage a suspect vehicle several miles/kilometers away? When does defense become offense?

I do not believe it original synthesis of any sort to say there is a spectrum of countermeasures used against terrorists. If both sides of a conflict use the techniques of terror, generally defined as attacks that solely or partially try to injure noncombatants to increase fear, it is artificial to demand that the exact word counterterror or antiterror must be used. Just for clarity's sake, the Japanese kamikaze were not considered terrorists, because they exclusively engaged military targets.

With respect to the objections that the exact word counterrorism must be used, or the reference must be thrown out, I might find this credible if the objection were the general usage, but not solely when Sri Lanka is involved. This is suggestive of WP:POV. Further, wikilawyering. If all editing must be restricted to an exact wording rather than a reasonable English-language synonym, there would be no point to having editors with any ability to read for content rather than rote words. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. The conceptualisations of the two terms as referring to different sides of a spectrum makes sense.

I do not insist that any one particular word be used, but I would like to highlight a potential issue that accompanies the use of "anti-terrorism activity". As you have defined it above, anti-terrorism is (like counter-terrorism) a tactic and, thus, refers to the actions being taken by a government; however, I think the term could also easily be (mis)interpreted as meaning "action against terrorists", which would refer to the nature of anti-government groups. Perhaps this is the basis of the disagreement (Watchdogb could confirm or disconfirm this), and it might help to clarify the meaning of the term in the section where it is discussed.

Another issue is related to the specific wording of the sentence in question. The current phrasing ("Examples of anti terrorism activity include the ongoing conflicts in Israel, Sri Lanka, and Colombia.") seems to characterise the conflicts in their entirety as anti-terrorism activity. Perhaps the meaning could be clarified by rephrasing to something like "Examples of conflicts that involve anti-terrorism activity include the ongoing conflicts in Israel, Sri Lanka, and Colombia" or "Examples of countries that practice anti-terrorism activity include Israel, Sri Lanka, and Colombia". Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To clarify my comment regarding why "action against terrorists" would be controversial when applied to the LTTE, an organisation that arguably has utilised terrorist tactics (though the question of whether it is a terrorist group is disputed, as discussed at LTTE and noted by Watchdogb below), I wish to link to the lengthy discussion here. The result of the discussion is that, at least for Sri Lanka-related articles, the label of "terrorism" should rarely be applied without explicit attribution. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Black Falcon is correct. The sentence could appear to readers, as it did for me, as action of a Government (Government of Sri Lanka) taking action against a "Terrorist" group. While it is acceptable to call LTTE terrorist in American and Canada and other countries it is also perfectly legal to call LTTE as Freedom Fighters. If this ambiguity and misinterpretation can be resolved along with Black Falcon's other concern I am all for the inclusion. Watchdogb (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

If I may be permitted a bit of perspective, the idea of a "terrorist" seems to be a reasonably recent one, with various sides, the US government not the least, turning it into a categorization of a movement, or even an individual, rather than as a tactic. I first worked with materials on "terrorism" in the mid- to late-1960s, from authors as diverse as Lenin, George Grivas (Greek Cypriot), Japanese Army reprisals against Chinese citizens, etc. Forgive me for making assumptions here, but you may be more familiar with the relatively recent usage of characterizing groups as "terrorist", which really is something of the last few decades, than has been the usage in a much longer period of professional writings about unconventional warfare.

This discussion is informative to me, as it drives home how much a word has become overloaded to the point of being meaningless. Churchill commented that history would be kind to him, because he intended to write it. I think you may well find that for people not invested in a particular side or ideology of a conflict, terrorism is simply one more tactic. One can speak of defense against artillery, and one can speak of defense against terrorism. In each case, the side defending can act while the threat is far away, as by bombing a cannon factory, or when it is near, such as camouflaging artillery targets (passive defense) and "counterbattery", which links radar and other sensors to track a shell back to its firing point and tries to have return fire heading back before the shell lands.

If both sides in Sri Lanka use terror, than both sides presumably defend against it. When I say I am taking action against terror, it has to be individualized for a tactical situation, not against an ideology; a "War against terror" is a rather ludicrous concept. One could equally well have a "war against tanks". In some conflict, only one side may use terrorist techniques, and in multipolar situations such as Iraq, there may literally be tens of groups using terror and defending themselves from terror.

It literally had not occurred to me that the conflicts here would be characterized as wars of terror alone. While I am not intimately familiar with the conflict in Sri Lanka, I believe there have been reasonably straightforward military-on-military actions, especially at sea, where there are few innocent bystanders. I am open to saying that terrorism and counter/anti-terrorism, as well as conventional military actions, are part of a conflict, and I hope we can avoid the absurdity of a "war against terror."

Since we do live in the present I am going to make a little deal. We can have Sri Lanka on this article as long as the current revision of the article stays. I have added that both sides of the Sri Lankan war uses anti-terrorism. Does this fit? Watchdogb (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with saying both sides use antiterrorism, or, for that matter, counterterrorism might fit better because that is the title of the article. My suggestion, and it is a suggestion, that it would be simpler to say that both sides use terror, and not get into the complexities of antiterrorism versus counterterrorism. I would also observe that "Wars against Terror" are the artificial creation of certain US politicians and the media who seize on their sound bites. Civil wars can contain terror, just as a T-54 tank knocked down the gates of the South Vietnamese Presidential Palace. If terror is regarded as one of many tactics, and anti-/counter-terror as countertactics, words and phrases become much less emotionally charged. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "terrorism" should be understood to refer to a specific set of tactics of violence, rather than to a mindset or ideology, and that the development of the latter meaning was due to politicians rather than scholars. That said, it is an unfortunate reality that the second meaning tends to predominate in common conversation, and it is likely that some readers will interpret it in that context. I have partly modified the paragraph in question in an effort to add clarity to the matter. (Please revert or modify the change if it does not accomplish it's intended purpose.) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Good start. I added formal definitions of anti- and counter-terrorism, but also tried to illustrate that to a military analyst, rather than to a politician or sound bite journalist, terror is a tactic just as aerial bombing is a tactic. I'd welcome your opinion if the analogy to the equally formal terms of offensive counter-air and defensive counter-air/antiaircraft helps separate the idea of tactic versus ideology. Neither missiles nor hand-emplaced explosives are ideologies.

As you point out, the political meaning is seen by some readers. For that reason, I cited formal definitions of the first set of meanings. It does not seem reasonable to redefine terms of art, used by authorities in the field, because the second and incorrect set have gained news media appeal. There is a demonstration of how fruitless a political interpretation may be, since the dispute here really had very little to do with the general subject of the article, but a sensitivity to having any implication of "terrorist ideology" applied to one side in one conflict.

Unfortunately, many definitions are nuanced. Is assassination of a leader an act of terrorism? Without additional information, there is no way to say. To take a Second World War example, the assassination of Admiral Yamamoto, commanding the Mobile Fleet, in uniform and flying in a bomber attacked by fighters over international waters, would rarely be considered terrorism because no noncombatants were even present. If, in another assassination, the weapons and tactics were chosen to kill as many people in a public place as possible, with the death of the target almost incidental, that would qualify as use of terrorist tactics.

I don't want to overuse analogies, but Herman Kahn posed three scenarios in nuclear war:

1. Counterforce with avoidance, where the weapons to attack a military objective are chosen to minimize risk to noncombatants, even if that lowers the probability of successful attack,
2. Unmodified counterforce, where weapon selection is made purely on the basis of the best way to destroy the target,
3. Counterforce with bonus, where the weapon is selected to maximize damage beyond the military target proper.

These may help illustrate that an act cannot be deemed terrorist or not without having more context, and that, to any rational military analyst, "War against terror" makes absolutely no sense unless, I suppose, the acts are conducted by nihilists who have no goal other than mass murder.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think your edits do an excellent job of clarifying the section and addressing the potential for confusion. The consideration of "terrorism" as an ideology or movement, along with the notion of a "war against terror", defines the term in terms of a wholly subjective Manichean dichotomy of good versus evil, just versus unjust, and legitimate versus illegitimate. To have any chance of being at least partly objective, a definition of terrorism must focus on the event itself (that is, the tactics used, the context of the incident, and its particular purpose) rather than on subjective evaluations of the moral character of the attacker or the target, or on the legitimacy of their general aims. To quote a sentence from Global Terrorism (Lutz & Lutz, 2004):

"[A] definition of terrorism needs to be separated as much as possible from evaluations of the groups using violence and their targets."

I think that your modifications succeed in emphasising that point. I've made this modification to the section, replacing the country links with links to the articles about the conflicts themselves (explained in the edit summary); feel free to revert it if you feel it unnecessarily removes information from the section, as I have no problem with the "14:48, March 16, 2008 (UTC)" version. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have converged on something that improves the counterterrorism article, and perhaps educates a bit about how words are hijacked for the needs of sound-bite journalism and sound-bite politics. I hope it is reasonably apparent that I wasn't attempting to take sides in any of the conflicts used as examples. When the first deletions were made of those examples, the editors were talking past one another. At first, it appeared to me that the sources I cited in the case of Sri Lanka were being challenged, so there are now a disproportionate three references versus one for the other conflict examples. It would not offend me at all to cut back to one reference to the civil war in Sri Lanka; the UN one seems to make clear there is terror on both sides (and consequently counterterror), but I will leave it to someone more familiar with the situation to pick the most representative -- or leave the citations.

I fondly hope this has been a learning experience for all. On the Military History Project pages, there are some essays addressing problems in encyclopedic military writing. Some are mechanical, focused on finding sources, but I think there is something reasonable here for dealing with terrorism/counterterrorism, as well as some related topics of insurgency/counterinsurgency, etc. Perhaps I can extract some material from the talk page and produce a essay of guidance for editors. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcberkowitz (talk • contribs) 17:56, March 16, 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that there is or was any basis to believe that you were taking sides, and any such perception (if it existed) was surely a misunderstanding only. As for the citations, I've gone ahead and removed the ones by Ganguly and Clapham per your reasoning – the presence of multiple citations for one entry may suggest the existence of substantial controversy when there really isn't much. I'll try to find a Sri Lanka-related article for which they could be used.

Anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed our extended conversation on this page, and wish you the best. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC) (P.S. I've left a note on Watchdogb's page asking whether he'd like to comment on the current state of the article and the discussion.)

(edit conflict) To be honest I have never really seen "Terrorism" outside of the definition that is used by politicians - the good versus the bad scenario. Now I can see the reality of this word. It was a good discussion that was had here. I am happy with the current state of the article and the inclusion of Sri Lanka. Thanks to the two of you the article seems a lot more NPOV and even more educational ! Watchdogb (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

international definition & jurislation

I think there is now a definition of "terrorism" agreed by more than one nation state. If i'm right then the statement near the begining of that article stating that there is not at present any "internationally agreed definition" of the word is out of date; is it not? I think the definition relates to an international treaty that can lead to legislation being automatically co-opted from one jurisdiction to another depending on what purpose the legislation was made for. 79.72.136.68 (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Planning for response to terrorism

As there is a section in this article called Planning for response to terrorism, regular editors of this article may like to take part in a requested move I have just initiated to move a new article called Terrorism prevention strategies to Terrorism prevention strategies for the United States see Talk:Terrorism prevention strategies#Requested move -- PBS (talk) 10:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)