Talk:Counterterrorism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Counterterrorism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | On 20 July 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from Counterterrorism to Counterterrorism. The result of the discussion was moved. |
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)
The Terrorism Act 2000 does NOT have ' Insurgency ' in its definition. It defines terrorism thusly ~
Terrorism Act 2000
(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where -
- (a) the action falls within subsection (2),
- (b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
- (c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it -
- (a) involves serious violence against a person,
- (b) involves serious damage to property,
- (c) endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
- (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
- (e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.--JedOiKnight (talk) 08:15, 1 January 2026 (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)
- I concur completely. I've done both and they are not the same thing at all. 138.162.128.52 (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
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.
Perhaps the writer is confusing 'terrorism' with 'guerrilla warfare'. WWII Partisans, for example targeted occupation troops and perceived collaborators but it was the invaders that terrorized and massacred entire populations.64.193.69.169 (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
"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)