From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I am disappointed with this definition, which is faulty, of course. Whomever wrote it hopes to keep terrorism alive by passing false information about what the word really means. I went out to the web to look for the "true" definition, and Wikipedia misleads and helps to keep alive the fear that this word invokes.

From Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, Copyright 1972 by The World Publishing Co.;

terror - 1. intense fear 2. a) one that causes intense fear b) the quality of causing such fear

terrorism - the use of force or threats to intimidate, etc. esp. as a political policy - terrorist

Recently, "eco-terrorists" (a new phrase?) were arrested and will be spending time in prison for causing damage to various industries/organizations/companies that cause damage to the environment. These people were given the title, "terrorists" even though no one was ever killed or has died as a result of their activities. By the Wikipedia definition, these would be people who kill, maim, bomb and hurt people in order to achieve political ends, which of course, makes no sense.

In reality, the only people "ecoterrorists" are frightening are big business moguls who are frightened of losing profits from the consumption of non-renewable resources.

But terrorists don't achieve their political ends by killing people, as "ecoterrorists" certainly know. Terrorists achieve political ends by frightening people. Terrorism is generally used as an excuse by governments to acquire more power and limit freedom, although only cowardly people give governments this power.

The ultimate end of terrorism is extinction of humanity. Because people are frightened by acts of murder and destruction, these people (hardly defined as terrorists - more reasonably defined as murderers) will continue to use acts of mass violence to achieve political and philosophical goals, which typically tend to move toward power and control. The desire for power and control is a psychological disorder.

Eventually, superweapons will evolve out of scientific progress and military research, some powerful enough to destroy entire planets/worlds. While those at the heads of organizations that intend to gain political control through acts of violence (which creates terror) will not particularly have it in mind to cause the extinction of humanity, the followers they brainwash will not know any better, and eventually, one of these will destroy the last of humanity with a superweapon.

Our two greatest enemies, which allow political murderers to thrive, are ignorance and sensationalism. Terrorism is that which creates terror, and it need not be violence that does this. Another great threat to freedom and civil liberty will occur when governments expand the definition of the word, "terrorism" to include, "that which frightens people," which is the actual meaning of the word. This will be used as an excuse to bypass the civil rights of the accused in ordinary crimes. For example, if your frighten someone with a threat of violence, you can be literally called a terrorist. The general public will allow this, since they are mostly frightened from watching the daily news on television.

Again, the source of this is ignorance.

The outcome will be the complete loss of our civil rights. Eventually, very powerful people will come to be in control of everything, including how we live our lives and what we are allowed to believe.

The final outcome will be the extinction of humanity by a psychologically derranged religious fanatic.

There are at least two improtant keys to the survival of humanity. These are genetic diversity and human longevity. Genetic diversity ensures survival against biological extinction, which allows some of the human population to survive after a massive die-out, due to war, disease, famine, geological events, etc. Human longevity is important in maintaining high average ages of national populations. The older a population (on average), the more stable it is.

Wow, you might want to get that published! You are right, I'll label it for cleanup. Archer7 22:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
It mentions terrorist as a group or person who causes terror. Military forces invading other countries should be label terrorists?. Using military force to gain natural resources, that should be consider terrorism as well. The "final" outcome is the greed of a few men against the people who want a change.
The term is obviously disputed (just look at the EN wikipedia articles for terrorism and eco-terrorism). And militaries invading other countries is often refered to as state terrorism. Of course in politics, the word terrorist is just a buzz word to scare people (a form of terrorism itself perhaps?) into supporting or not supporting something. Terrorism is only officially labelled terrorism when it hurts the people in power, regardless of whether it is or isn't terrorism. I personally believe violence against people intended to created fear for a poltical or social purpose is needed to constitue terrorism, but not everyone will agree. The Ungovernable Force 08:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

In English we say what we mean surely the word terrorist means someone who causes terror. Any way shape or form?? Just because it is used derogatively does not mean it doesn't include government and military forces. Just because we believe them to be right does not mean they are right or that they aren't terrorists! Surely all terrorists believe they are right at the time?

Nelson Mandela is not a terrorist for NPOV?[change source]

Hi administrator Gwib,
thank you for participating in editing the simple english wikipedia!
I noticed that you have removed my following edit:

"(...) Another example of a well-known terrorist is Nelson Mandela which later became the South-Africa president.(...)"

in the terrorism simple english article with this revision that took place today, saturday 13th September 2008 at 9:21 GMT+1.
You motivated your revision with:

"(rv NPOV info)".

Please notice that in the english wikipedia article on terrorism at the "Pejorative use" section you will find this written:

"(...) There is the famous statement: 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.' But that is grossly misleading. It assesses the validity of the cause when terrorism is an act. One can have a perfectly beautiful cause and yet if one commits terrorist acts, it is terrorism regardless."[28] Some groups, when involved in a "liberation" struggle, have been called terrorists by the Western governments or media. Later, these same persons, as leaders of the liberated nations, are called statesmen by similar organizations. Two examples of this phenomenon are the Nobel Peace Prize laureates Menachem Begin and Nelson Mandela.[29][30][31][32][33][34][35] (...)

So Nelson Mandela was mentioned by the media as being a "terrorist" till 1990.
Maybe we should think about putting the word "terrorist" between inverted commas then, or not?
Please continue this conversation in the "terrorism" article talk page.
Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I reverted your contribution because of one key factor. It was not sourced. If you'll check out the quote above which you took from the ENWP article, you'll see "[29][30][31][32][33][34][35]". These all link to various websites and books confirming the information. If you want to include Nelson Mandela as a terrorist, please source appropriately based on WP:SOURCE.
Basically, I assumed that since it was not sourced, that it was your point of view (POV) and this isn't allowed per WP:POV. Sourcing appropriately cancels out this assumption.
Thanks for the message. --Gwib -(talk)- 16:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the basic idea there is that it indeed depends on the point of view, Jassir Arafat got a Nobel Peace Prize (together with Simon Perez for their efforts to bring peace to the Middle East; now look at how "common Israelis" and the Israeli Government saw this? - Pretty similar to Nelsion Mandela in the Apartheid era of South Africa I guess.- In very short words: the difficulty is to explain this in simple words, not to explain it in false words. --Eptalon (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)