Talk:Terrorism in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Olberman

Some of these incidents (and those in the UK) are listed in Kieth Olberman's 2006-09-25 report entitled The Nexis of of Terror and Politics where he lists a 10 embarrassing political moments that were then followed by the most questionable of these terrorist incidents and threat level alerts. This is compelling. If this matching happens, how could it be linked? Goatchurch 05:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Attack on President Truman

Moved to failed attacks section 69.114.117.103 17:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Attack on 9/11 memorial

The attack on the 9/11 memorial/shrine for the police officer killed on 9/11 [1] was an act of terrorism not an act of vandalism. If some guy got drunk ollin)

By definition terrorist attacks must be violent with the intent to harm civilians. also the morality of what the terrorists are fighting for does not affect weather something is terrorism or not, so if this was an act of terrorism any time some one damaged a memorial, statue or grave stone, it would have to be considered terrorism. --Mathnsci 00:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess that this is one of those definition arguments that can’t be resolved. Attacks do not have to physically harm people or attempt to physically harm people to be terrorism just create fear which attacks on 9/11 memorials can do. “any time some one damaged a memorial, statue or grave stone, it would have to be considered terrorism”. This is not what I am arguing at all. In 99% of cases like this it is not terrorism. When the attacker says “this is political” it is 69.114.117.103 16:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Acid bombs in Maine Wall Mart

OWHEGAN, Maine (AP) - Authorities in Maine say they've charged two teenagers with setting off homemade bombs in a Wal-Mart yesterday(Nov 25).The store was filled with holiday shoppers. Authorities say hundreds were evacuated and about eight were treated for eye or throat irritation after the acid bombs went off.Police say they identified the boys with the help of security camera photos.Both teens have been charged with criminal use of explosives. Investigators say the boys also planted two other explosives on the lawn of a residence and one on top of a building in downtown Skowhegan. None of those bombs detonated.

99% probability this is not terrorism but teenage kicks but because Wall Mart is controversial and no motive has been given this story should be watched 69.114.117.103 08:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Casey Cutler ricin incident taken out

The arrests and detention section listed an incident in which Casey was convicted of making a Weapon of Mass Destruction. While this is true one cite quotes law enforcement as saying they do not think it was terrorism while the other cite claimed the weapon was for "personnel protection" 69.114.117.103 07:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Does Wilmington Insurrection of 1898 belong?

It is a borderline case as terrorist tactics were used but I would say no. This belongs under insurgency or rebellion. The difference is that a terrorist attack is done to create a climate of fear intended to make a political or social change possible. While being black in Wilmington was terrifying in 1898 the purpose was not to create a climate for eventual change but to make the change right at that moment. 69.114.117.103 06:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Unabomber?

Why isn't the Unabomber mentioned? Speciate 22:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Lynchings

While there are a few mentions of race-related attacks here, I think there should be a category for them, or more specifically for the "Nadir of American race relations". Estimates do vary, but the NAACP (http://uncpress.unc.edu/chapters/estes_i.html) estimates about 3,500 lynchings between 1889 & 1922. That accounts for a lynching about every 3.5 days. Also, the main reason for the lynching was being alive and black, I am pretty sure that amounts to terrorism. RhodyJim 09:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)24.60.84.143 02:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Jim

• Absolutely it was terrorism. The KKK may be the worlds oldest terrorist group. The problem as mentioned in the KKK cites in the article is distinguishing organized stuff from revenge motivated lynchings. Speaking of more recent race related terror I think the police from the parish across the bridge from New Orleans stopping at gunpoint Katrina evacuees from crossing that bridge might count. It was using intimidation for a social objective. 69.114.117.103 07:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
• Well, I guess my issue comes with the idea of revenge motivated lynchings. For example, if we say that a revenge motivated lynching is not terrorism, then we would have to say that all terrorism by Al-Qaeda is not terrorism beacause it is revenge for perceived atrocities committed by the US Government. Any lynching, be it revenge or not, was a public display working outside of the courts of the US to instill fear in the rest of the black community. If it was simply revenge, people would not have been publicly displayed, nor taken from jails prior to trial.

My meaning of "revenge lynchings" is a rumor starts in a small town a black man was seen "harassing" a white women and a lynching happened as a result. This motivation in a case like this is personal. If KKK got involved (most of the police department were members etc) a broader motivation to pronounce this terrorism can be argued. The problem for a Wikipedia article in cases like this s proper citing. As for Al Qaeda while revenge is one motive there are many that do fit the definition of political or social change. 69.114.117.103 22:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Cole Bombing taken out

The title clearly states Terrorism in the United States this attack happened in Yemen. 69.114.117.103 22:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Anti-Castro terrorism

This has the potential of bieng a very good addition to the Article. But as of now the link does not work. Also it would be a good idea with this many incidents to summerize the a la Earth Liberation Front 69.114.117.103 04:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Should hoaxes be included as acts of terrorism?

It does not fall into use of force, but it may fall into "threatened use of violence". For example, the "white powder" hoaxes were intentionally meant to deceive someone to think of a poison, such as anthrax. Generally, these were also sent to influence political, religious, or ideological change.

Yes if you can cite that it was used to influence political,religious or ideological change. I disagree with your second sentence in that in my POV the white powder and the vast majority of other hoaxes are done because the hoaxer gets off on making other people jump. An incident that does belong was my entry that was later taken out in which in 1968 Abbie Hoffman threatened to poison the water of Chicago with LSD where the Democratic Party's presidential nominating convention was being held 69.114.117.103 07:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Columbine massacre should be taken out

There are no political or social motives for the attack. The attack was not a statement against bullying in general. The attacks were not meant to scare a general population. The attacks were purely personal revenge. If anybody has any statements to the contrary I would be glad to hear it if not this should be taken out. 69.114.117.103 06:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Pipe bomb like device at Disneyworld

A small pipe bomb like device exploded at a remote parking lot at DisneyWorld[2]. It should not be put in at this time as officials are saying it is not terrorism but probably rowdy teenagers. 99% percent likely this interpretation is correct especially as this occurred a few day before the 4th of July but keep an eye out for later revisions Edkollin 18:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Black Tom explosion

Should the explosion on Black Tom island be included o the list as well? It was the destruction of an American shipping/munitions depot by German spies in 1916. Since the US was still neutral in 1916 it would seem to be more fitting as an act of terrorism rather than as an act of war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuuuuu (talk • contribs) 01:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed Edkollin 04:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Anti-Castro section

The Cuban-Exile.com website is not a credible reference and the article given (which supported every single alleged incident listed) is not even up. 129.71.73.243 (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Political assassinations aren't terrorism

Some of the incidents here just don't fit the definition that I was taught to use in the 1980s and 1990s. "Terrorism" was a random act of violence, civic disturbance, destruction of facilities, aimed at provoking armed or militant response from the authorities such that eventually, the authorities' martial efforts denigrated the general quality of life and assurance of freedom, resulting in greater public outcry and distress. There are variations, but often the classic attacks on civilians as well as government (OK City Federal Building), law enforcement, and the military results in "heightened response" from the armed services in power.

By that definition (which I'm sure is arguable), things like an assassination of Lincoln or McKinley, don't really qualify. Everyone's thoughts? -- David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 22:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No, no. Everything is terrorism. Haven't you heard? Seriously though, I tend to agree, I'd like to see some solid sources calling these acts, as well as the slavery related actions, terrorism. If these sources aren't presented, I say remove them. --IvoShandor (talk) 09:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this incident article worthy?

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09162007/news/regionalnews/muslim_biz_gal_beaten.htm

September 16, 2007 -- The Muslim owner of a high-end nail and facial salon that caters to the likes of Jennifer Lopez was beaten and robbed yesterday in what Long Island cops called a bias attack. The attack followed two weeks of phone calls in which Iranian-American Zohreh Assemi was called a "terrorist" and told to "get out of town," friends and family said. She was opening her store in Locust Valley at around 6:30 a.m. when two men came out of a public bathroom and forced her inside the salon. They smashed her hand with a hammer, sliced her with a boxcutter and kicked her before taking about $2,000 in cash and scrawling anti-Muslim slurs on her mirrors, sources said. She was treated at North Shore University Hospital at Manhasset. "I'm in pain. I can't talk," sobbed a shaken Assemi, 52, as she left her store late yesterday afternoon. "They said, 'Your kind isn't welcomed here. You don't belong here,' " said Ginny Russo, a friend and customer. "You don't do that to people. That's so wrong Edkollin 06:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is at all, and have never heard anyone call it terrorism. It's a crime of robbery, possibly combined with a hate crime, not an act of terrorism. --Mr. Stein (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Jewish Federation shooting

Hello.
I've removed the jewish federation shooting. There are different reasons that one could give (eg. his mental instability making his actual motives unclear, the possibility of it being a misguided attempt at revenge rather than terrorism, etc etc etc), but there's really only one argument that cannot be argued against, so that's the only one I'll say:

Disputed events can't be included on the list. Yeah, I know, I'm sure that lots of terrorists and nutjobs can be found to say that [i]any[/i] attack wasn't really terrorism, but... in this case, well, just look at the article for the shooting itself.
The FBI, prosecutor, and the jewish federation themselves all called it a "hate crime", rather than terrorism. (It was also covered as a 'hate crime' by news outlets, for what that's worth)
Anyways, even though I'm sure many people will probably still call it terrorism, it still can't be denied that honest sane people can call it a 'hate crime' and still be rational. And, in this case, when even the jewish federation called it a hate crime, I'd say the 'terrorism' tag is certainly disputed.
As such, it can't be included in a list of terrorist events. Bladestorm 17:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

For an exhaustive discussion of the pro's and cons of allowing this incident to be included see the talk pages for the List of terrorist incidents [3] Edkollin 00:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I disagree with this removal. I will go out on a limb and say that the US officials may have been politicized to avoid referring to violence by Muslims as terrorism. To me, however, the facts of this event fit the description of terrorism. The article in question cites the fact that "He also demanded that the US military get out of Iraq. He asked if he could be patched through to CNN. The dispatcher told Haq that wasn't possible, and informed him that talking with the media wouldn't alter U.S. policy." This proves he had a distinct political aim. To review, here's Random House's definition:

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Further, this act is extremely similar to other attacks that have been concluded to be terrorism associated with Islamic Jihad, for example Hesham_Mohamed_Hadayet.

Whether or not he is a whack-o is not at issue; frankly, I think most terrorists are not right in the mind.--Mr. Stein (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Robert F. Kennedy assassination

Why is this listed under the Islamic terrorism section? I cannot see any link to Islam. 213.112.75.122 (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no reliable sources cited to show this is an act of Islamic terrorism. I've removed those parts of the article, and invite anyone who disagrees to discuss it here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is the Dr. Tiller killing on here but not Ft. Hood??

I am confused at the fact that the killing of an abortion doctor is classified as a terrorist attack but not the Fort Hood massacre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 666rulerofclones (talk • contribs) 02:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Fort Hood shooting has not been classified as a terrorist act by... well, any reliable sources. The evidence at this point leans more towards a mental disturbance than any intent to intimidate the government/military personnel. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Anti Defamation League as a Source

An editor removed the all the edits that used them as a sole source because he/she is not "sure" about them. The incidents involved Jewish Defense League or suspected Jewish militant type incidents. This is inconsistent with citation practices in this article and in other articles. Of course many items in the list do not use any citations and most that do use one. The Anti Defamation League is obviously an organization with an agenda so that is probably the what is making the editor queasy. The Southern Poverty Law Center is another another organization has an agenda but they have not been deleted nor have the incidents based on them. The Jewish Defense League article used the same ADL list several times as cites. A look at the article on the Gaza War shows the Jerusalem Post, Al Jezzera, The Palestinian Center for Human rights used as sources, not exactly unbiased publications.

We could decide to delete all incidents not cited or based on "biased" cites. This would cause endless arguments over what is biased but it would be understandable. We could do what most articles do and base the list on "verifiable" sources. If we do that then the ADL stays in unless of course it can be demonstrated that there is some reason to believe that they have fabricated incidents in the past or their lists are inaccurate.

Here is the deal if in a week's time there is no more then one editors queasiness I will put the ADL cited incidents back Edkollin (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm the one who reverted the addition. Part of my concern is that ADL has an obvious POV and agenda; but I think my real concern was the sheer number of additions to the article, solely cited to ADL. I'm hesitant to add a bunch of events to the article, when the only source calling them terrorism is a single organization with a known agenda to push. I'd have no problem if there were sources in addition to ADL that called the acts terrorism, as that would show broader support for using the loaded term in that instance. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

New section needed on Christian nationalist terrorism

Under "attacks by type," a new section is needed, which I propose calling "Christian nationalist terrorism" or perhaps "Terrorism in the name of Christianity" or something similar.

A recent example is the Hutaree group, discussed in the recent news stories Militia members indicted on conspiracy, weapons charges, Los Angeles Times, March 30, 2010, and Michigan Militia Group Preparing for Antichrist, Web Site Says, FOX News, March 29, 2010.

I would further suggest that the section on terrorism in the name of Christianity and the section on terrorism in the name of Islam be given similar and parallel names, to avoid singling out Islam as if it were the world's sole source of terrorism justified in the name of religion. Christian supramacist terrorism is a rising trend worldwide, though it has not yet received nearly as much attention as Islamic supremacist terrorism. (Terrorism can be justified in the name other religions too, not just Islam and Christianity.)

Later I'll add documentation of other examples of Christian supremacist terrorism.

Diane Vera (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Another news story on the same incident mentioned above: Feds: 9th militia suspect to face charges in Mich, Associated Press, via Atlanta Journal-Constitution, March 30, 2010.

Diane Vera (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

A well-known example of terrorism in the name of Christianity that has been going on for many decades has been the fighting in Northern Ireland. (In this case, fighting between members of rival sects of Christianity.)

Diane Vera (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Another long-running example of terrorism in the name of Christianity has been the Lord's Resistance Army in Africa (primarily Uganda).

Diane Vera (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that this article is about terrorism in the United States, so terrorist activities in Ireland and Africa are off-topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

More examples of Christian supremacist terrorism in the United States, specifically: (1) Various anti-abortion terrorists. (2) Some of the militia movements of the 1990's, which have usually not been characterized by the media as having a religious motivation, but in fact religion did constitute a significant part of their ideology. See the article The Faith-Based Militia: When is Terrorism ‘Christian’? by Frederick Clarkson, April 8, 2010. (Of course, more appropriate sources should be found before moving this to the main page.)

Diane Vera (talk) 05:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I fully support this. Or at least change the "Terrorism Related to Islamic Extremism" to "Terrorism" so non-Islamic terrorism can be included (eg. 2010 Austin plane crash, Centennial Olympic Park bombing, other recent attacks) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobertoq (talk • contribs) 01:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with the addition of a "Terrorism in the name of Christianity" section, but I don't really think any of the examples given so far would actually apply to an article talking about actual incidents in the US.

The Hutaree's may have been up to no good, but they never actually did anything. Militia movements, Christian or otherwise, that discuss but haven't actually committed terrorism don't fit the scope of the article.

The conflict in Northern Ireland is/was occurring in Ireland, not the US; and actually has more to do with unionist versus nationalist sentiments, than internecine conflict within Christianity.

The Lord's Resistance Army again is in Uganda, not the States, and has more in common with traditional African syncretism than traditional Christianity (During its brief alliance with the Muslim country of Sudan it also claimed to be Islamic .)

In order to have a section on Christian terrorism in the US, we need unambiguous and concrete examples of Christian terrorism in the US. Not speculative ones (like that article of Frederick Clarkson's mentioned).

"attacks by type" - what, no white supremacist/militia terrorism?

Funny. The Oklahoma City Murrah building bombing is recognized as a white supremacist/right wing militia related bombing. Why no section on white supremacist or right-wing terrorism? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Islamic extremists and radical Muslims involvement

Main article: Islamic terrorism

Islamic extremists or radical muslims account for very large portions of the terrorism carried out in United States. Specially some events such as World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the 9/11 event and futher much more events. Muslim popular opinion on the subject of attacks on civilians by Islamist groups varies. While most Muslims living in the West denounce the September 11th attacks on the US, Hezbollah's rocket attacks against Israeli civilian targets are widely supported in the Muslim world and regarded as defensive Jihad by a legitimate resistance movement rather than terrorism.

• Jamaat ul-Fuqra (alternatively Jamaat al-Fuqra) (Arabic: جماعة الفقراء, "Community of the Impoverished") is a paramilitary organization of mostly African-American Muslims (not connected to the Nation of Islam) based in Pakistan and the United States.
• The 1993 World Trade Center bombing occurred on February 26, 1993, when a car bomb was detonated below the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City.
• Ali Hassan Abu Kamal was a Palestinian teacher who went on a fatal shooting rampage atop the Empire State Building on Sunday 23 February 1997.
• The Buffalo Six (also known as Lackawanna Six, Lackawanna Cell, or Buffalo Cell) is a group of six Yemeni-Americans who were convicted of providing material support to al-Qaeda.The six are American citizens by birth.
• Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP) was an Islamist organization that raised money in the United States for Hamas.
• Notable event is the event 9/11 a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States on September 11, 2001.
• The Columbus Shopping Mall Bombing Plot was a plan to blow up an unnamed shopping mall in the city of Columbus in the American state of Ohio. The plot was disclosed by federal authorities on June 14, 2004 when an indictment against Nuradin Abdi was unsealed by the local United States district court. Abdi was part of a clandestine cell of al-Qaida which sought to bring "death and destruction" to Columbus".
• 2003, the Detroit Sleeper Cell is a group of men of Middle-Eastern descent who the United States Department of Justice believed were plotting an attack on Disneyland.
• 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot was carried out suspecting all the penetrators are British muslims.
• 2007, Hassan Abu-Jihaad (born Paul R. Hall in 1976) is a former sailor in the United States Navy convicted of supporting terrorism.
• The 2007 John F. Kennedy International Airport attack plot was an alleged Islamist terrorist plot to blow up a system of jet fuel supply tanks and pipelines that feed fuel to John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) in Queens, New York.
• Daniel Maldonado is a U.S. convert to a fundamentalist Islam who faces charges for an alleged association with terrorism.
• The Portland Seven was a group of American Muslims from the Portland, Oregon area arrested in October 2002 as part of an FBI operation attempting to close down a terrorist cell.
• Derrick Shareef, also known as Talib Abu Salam Ibn Shareef, is an accused Islamic terrorist who is charged with trying to trade stereo speakers for handgrenades and a handgun as part of plan to terrorize shoppers at CherryVale Mall in Rockford, Illinois.
• The Virginia Jihad Network was a network of jihadists centered in Northern Virginia.

Basically this is a good idea that has been done incorrectly. The style is s inconsistent with the listing style currently used and there is a lot of uncited material and original research . Uncited material and Original Research are the biggest no, no's in Wikipedia Edkollin (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"Islamic extremists or radical muslims account for very large portions of the terrorism carried out in United States","While most Muslims living in the West denounce the September 11th attacks"

Where is proof for these claims? My guess is that majority of attacks in the U.S. are domestic in nature done by individuals or small groups but if I am wrong find citations from reliable sources that verify above claims. Edkollin (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"Hezbollah's rocket attacks against Israeli civilian targets are widely supported in the Muslim world and regarded as defensive Jihad by a legitimate resistance movement rather than terrorism. "

This has nothing to do with the United States and thus does not belong in the article. Edkollin (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• The Buffalo Six (also known as Lackawanna Six, Lackawanna Cell, or Buffalo Cell) is a group of six Yemeni-Americans who were convicted of providing material support to al-Qaeda.The six are American citizens by birth.

• 2006 April 5 Buffalo Six: Six men of Yemini descent were etc. (Citations) Edkollin (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• The 1993 World Trade Center bombing occurred on February 26, 1993, when a car bomb was detonated below the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City."

• 1993 February 26 World Trade Center bombing: Six people were killed and over a thousand injured when a car bomb was detonated below the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City." (citations) Edkollin (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• The Portland Seven was a group of American Muslims from the Portland, Oregon area arrested in October 2002 as part of an FBI operation attempting to close down a terrorist cell.

• We have a section for failed and Proven Plots Edkollin (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Basically what I am saying is be consistent with the existing style. Edkollin (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• "Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP) was an Islamist organization that raised money in the United States for Hamas"

Separate groups from attacks plots etc. . Edkollin (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Should we break out a separate article on Islamic terror activities and attacks on US Soil? It appears that there is enough material. It would be interesting to put it into dbpedia. 71.126.132.116 (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems that this section starts off with a heavy bias which continues through the thread. The first line "Islamic extremists or radical Muslims account for very large portions of the terrorism in the United States." Part of this problem is this assertion and then the reassertion of an "Islamic Terror" construction which is built, not supported through this segment of the larger article. Specifically, The inclusion of "plots" under Islamic Terrorism rather than placed under the "plots" section makes the feeling of "Islamic Terror" far more prevalent than is supported. Similarly, the inclusion of attempted or threats of murder by individuals who are Muslim, even if described with Islamic sentiments, cannot be included when this distinction is being made simply on the basis of their faith. This section needs to be reworked to remove this bias starting with the introduction to the larger framing of this page, and with equal use of what counts as terrorism and is included in the article. More than anything the sentiment of "Islam is terror" should be carefully avoided even if the category remains for reference purposes in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treepears (talk • contribs) 07:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Aurora -- suggest deletion

While of course the trial has not yet run its course, I am not aware of any coherent terror motive behind this mass shooting. From all appearances, Holmes was/is a psychologically disturbed individual prone to general violent fantasies and urges, not an extremist bent on achieving any coherent social goal through his violence. This should be excluded for the same reason that, presumably, Jared_Lee_Loughner's Tucson shooting is excluded: even though that attack was directly against political figures, it seems generally understood that his violent fixation on Rep. Giffords was much more personal than political. I note also that the actions of the Manson Family are not included here, even though those individuals' arguable mental/social illness was expressed in terms of a socio-political motive much more directly than is the case with Aurora or Tucson. AdamColligan (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I see that user WikiSkeptic has now removed the Aurora reference. AdamColligan (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Editors should remember that the reason for most mass causality attacks in the U.S. are personal not political. They were bullied, believe they were falsely rejected etc. While the Boston Marathon bombings belongs on the list for now as reliable sources are calling it terrorism a realistic possibility is that the person applied for the marathon and was rejected, got tired of the disruption every year and was nuts enough but sophisticated enough to take it out on innocents. Making this difficult there are many instances where it is hard to know if the attacker(s) are coherent enough to have a real political or social issue or are confusing there personal issue with a political ones. Making it harder there have been plenty of instances where the genesis was personal but it evolved into legitimately political. Edkollin (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Charles Manson

I know most call him a serial or mass murderer, but don't his belief in helter skelter and the revolutionary intent behind his murders paint him as a terrorist? 216.41.16.82 (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Find reliable sources naming him as a terrorist. Edkollin (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with suggested inclusion. Source: [Hanley, Terrorism: The Newest Face of Warfare, p. 122-3]

Although the motives of Charles_Manson and his supporters are often culturally synonymous with the idea of being "crazy", WP's entries on this subject document the Manson Family's violence as intended to support an identifiable socio-political goal: the initiation of "Helter_Skelter_(Manson_scenario)". Manson's scenario of social violence was at least coherent enough to apparently support its adoption by a small group of adherents: i.e., it does not appear to be simply a forensic reconstruction of some disjointed internal psychosis within Manson alone.

In this way, I think that the Manson Family's use of public violence may be seen in a similar light to that of Aum_Shinrikyo, whose attacks are by apparent consensus considered terrorism and included in Category:Terrorism_in_Japan. Whether the motives behind that kind of cult violence make rational sense at a basic level would not be a good standard for WP to try to use in distinguishing terrorism from incoherent psychotic violence. Such a standard could easily devolve into debates about whether various religions or ethnic nationalist sentiments are "sane" or not. Rather, I think a better standard might be to check whether there is some kind of coherent narrative of a social/political/religious motive attached to an act of violence, in particular a narrative that has enough internal consistency and persuasive power that it is also held by others. (I.e., it is not simply the pseudo-random stream of consciousness sometimes called the "ravings of a madman", even though such "ravings" may often contain snippets of social anger, conspiracy theories, etc).

AdamColligan (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Motive to start a revolution, race war is similar to many Militia/supremacist instances we list here. Problem for editors is that post 9/11 hyper awareness has made us look back and say "Yeah that was terrorism" but at the time most of the material was being written about these events nobody would even come close to thinking of them as terrorist events. Edkollin (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

(Also in reply to your Aurora comment) I agree that it is very difficult to draw a separation on what is surely a continuum, with vaguely-directed psychotic rage at one end and state-directed military violence at the other end. Since even prominent and reliable sources commonly engage in political debate focused on the redefinition of disputed terrorist acts, "finding a source" is also a difficult standard of resolution. Perhaps this discussion needs to go somewhere else in the terrorism portal, but there is still an issue to resolve here on this page.

In the Manson discussion above, I have proposed one way of looking for a standard, which is to review sources for the presence of a coherent social/political/religious goal that is directly connected to the violence. Note that this is slightly different from saying that the motive is a larger political (etc) goal, since motive is often understood as genesis. Sometimes incoherence is evident from the total disorganization and consensus-backed psychiatric classification of the perpetrators' statements and behavior. Sometimes coherence is evident from meticulous strategy documents and statements generated by a perpetrating government or paramilitary organization. And then there is what lies in between. Three examples of ambiguous cases would be:

(1) violence the goal of which may be coherent but arguably is not connected to a desired larger social, political, or religious outcome. The Columbine shooters may have felt generally aggrieved or enraged and appear to have sought to gain notoriety while inflicting their pain on their peers. But there does not seem to be any evidence in the WP article of a particular change or impact sought by the violence. I think these should be excluded.

(2) violence when the evidence of motive may include fragments of political, social, or religious thought, but when those fragments do not make up any coherent social goal. This is especially when the expression of those views is professionally viewed as a manifestation of profound psychiatric dysfunction rather than mere extreme ideology. Jared Lee Loughner's views would seem to fit in this category: they appear to be a potpourri of political and conspiracy theory fragments that do not form a stable whole or underpin any coherent expression of a goal for his violence to accomplish. The Aurora shootings also likely fall into this category, and the political, social, or religious elements of that act are probably far more tenuous than they are even in Loughner's case. I think these should also be excluded.

(3) violence where the underlying cause or genesis may be psychiatric or psychological, but where the acts themselves are couched in goals that are coherent enough to be understood and even accepted by others. The Manson Family attacks would likely fit into this category. While Charles Manson may have been a psychopath, and even a disorganized psychopath, his Helter Skelter meme formed clear goals for the outcome of the violence that were social and political in nature -- the instigation of a race war. And Helter Skelter was coherent enough to be accepted by other individuals who lacked Manson's particular neurological condition; those individuals carried out the violence. This is also the case with Aum_Shinrikyo, the violence of which is generally understood to be terrorism. I think these types of actions should be included. To exclude them would open up an untenable standard where a person's mental weakness, or the mental state of his or her mentor, is seen as evidence that the action is not terrorism even when it is very clearly expressed as an attempt to further a political goal. That would likely throw into confusion whether any number of Qaeda suicide bombers were actually committing acts of terrorism.

(4) violence that is conducted by otherwise competent individuals in pursuit of coherent social, political, or religious goals, but where those goals themselves are irrational or the methods obviously counterproductive. Anders Breivik's attacks, along with much Islamist terrorism or KKK activity, could be characterized this way. I think these types of acts should be included. To exclude them would similarly open up an untenable standard, where the truth or rationality of an underlying ideology, like a religion or a commitment to ethnic nationalism, ends up being the object of debate over whether an act is one of terrorism or one of madness.

If we accept the inclusion of (4), which I think there is a very strong consensus for, then I also think that we should be accepting (3) as a consequence. If the principle of distinction is whether the violence is directed toward a coherently expressed or understood goal, then it should not matter whether the ideology behind that goal is rational or even whether the perpetrator is a strong, mentally competent individual whose rage and moral deviance do not stem from any other causes. AdamColligan (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course lists are supposed to be held to the same standards as "regular" articles but in practice it is quite the opposite. Editors deciding what is coherent and not sources is original research. In the music genre articles I edit you have to have a reliable source saying said group is of that genre or a reliably sourced subgenre. But with those list the notability rules are stretched to the limit if not ignored. Here the consensus has always been editors deciding if the motive fit into the terrorism definition because if we followed the rules precisely the list would be not useful. Edkollin (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Categories?

If there is to be a section for categories of attacks, then Islam-related attacks should be a category. Better yet, the category should be titled Religiously Motivated Attacks. This would cover Islam-related attacks, acts by the Jewish Defense League, women's center attacks, etc. If Puerto Rican Nationalists rate a category, then the religious nuts should too. Of course this list would include hate crimes against gays and would also swallow the KKK list as well.
Before you get all wound up, let me explain what i would rather see. No categories, or categorize everything.

• If a person references this page to learn what attacks occurred in the 1970's, they should only need look at the section titled 1970's. As it is now, there are 4 sections containing events occurring in that decade. Eliminate the categories and list all by date. Any categorized lists can be their own page if necessary, or a section of the article about the group performing the actions.
• Alternatively, it could all be categorized. Religious incidents (sub-categorized by sect), environmentalist incidents, animal rights incidents, civil rights incidents, hate crimes (which would include acts by the KKK ... still religiously motivated, but most hate crimes are.), etc. Assassinations would have their own category if they remain on this list. (For the record, I believe they shouldn't be here) The same for acts of unknown motivation. (If the investigating body doesn't know who or why, then either it is not a terrorist act or the terrorist group in question needs a new PR representative. Terrorist groups claim their actions and attach calls for a change in policy to them, otherwise it is just a random act of violence.)
  

Personally, I'd prefer the first option. (but i still think political assassinations and acts of unknown motivation don't belong here.)Carnydog (talk) 06:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree on the need for recategorization. As the recent move-edit of "Anarchism" shows, the Right-Left dichotomy is simply unsuitable for describing many of the viewpoints and goals being expressed through this violence. Moreover, they are often dependent on one unstable national context (such as one that views black separatist nationalism as left-wing and white separatist nationalism as right-wing). When you have Islamist ideology that might be described as far-right in one country exporting violence to the U.S., does it become "Left-wing"? Try classifying something like the assassination of Pim_Fortuyn to see how untenable this can become.

I think that the best classification system would simply be to take the current subheadings (Anarchism, Jewish extremism, KKK, Environmental, etc.) and list them alphabetically as main headings under the "by type" superheading.

If we really must classify, I think that a better system might be to divide attacks by primary goal. Very crudely, it could have categories that look more like:

-Religious goal

-Racial/ethnic goal

-Economic or environmental policy goal

-Spillover from external conflict

Another idea could simply be to separate the incidents between foreign and domestic perpetrators or between international conflict and domestic political conflict as the context.

I think that any indermediate classification layer here is bound to be very awkward, however, and isn't really necessary given the relatively modest number of subheadings currently in use.

AdamColligan (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy/ Conspiracism as motivator in Right-Wing Terror

I am just thinking that with a lot of the examples we have here, there is very much a prima ficia case to be made that conspiracy theories are a main motivator in right-wing terror. This notion that "rights are dissapearing," that government is often seen as the enemy by people as well as some of the more wierd theories that infiltrate this crowd... "The Bilderberg Group really runs the world." the Trilateral Commission etc, etc... Cannot conpiracy be seen as one of the main motivating factors for Right-Wing Terrorism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadaman1 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It is more then that, it involves patriotism, constitutionalism, and "taking back" those things. Conspiracy theories is to broad a label. Although "Libertarian" is too broad also they call themselves the "liberty movement"."Jewish" , "Muslim" etc is also too broad in my view. "Fighting perceived takeover of US government by outsiders" or by "perceived malevolent forces" a bit long but more accurate. You could put the 90's militia instances here. I can only think of once instance offhand where a person was said to be an Alex Jones listener. They mostly argue with "debunkers" on Youtube comments section etc from what I see. Edkollin (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note the Boston Marathon bombings might be a candidate for the "Muslim" section based on this [4] But lets not move it until things are cleared up. Edkollin (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources for Description of 9/11/01 Attack

The description of the 9/11/01 attack does not currently include any sources, and some of the information contained within it may not meet the standard for verifiability. I think if we are to include the theory that America was behind the attacks, then we should also include the theory that Al-Qaeda was responsible and we should provide reliable sources for both theories. What does everyone think? GBK415 (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Incidents that possibly should not in the article

Assassinations of President Lincoln and McKinley. While the acts were for political reasons they were "loner" and revenge in nature more then terrorist and were meant to be a one time thing and not involve the general population. Examples of terrorist assassinations are shooting as many policemen in Iraq as possible or the Ku Klux Klan assassinations in the U.S. If we accept a "loner" acting for political reasons the assassinations of Robert Kennedy,Martin Luther King and possibly John Kennedy must be included.

Black Tom explosion. This was taken out of the main terrorist incident article because suspected reason was the stopping of munitions not terror. An argument for article worthiness the U.S. was not at war with Germany at the time.

Bath School bombings. Although no reason is given Columbine is mentioned. Columbine was for personal revenge not political or social change.

The big problem with this list is the lack of cites in a majority of incidents listed so we do not know the motivation for these incidents therefore can not know if these are terrorist attacks. 69.114.117.103 07:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

If we "can not know if these are terrorist attacks", than those incidents should not be called "terrorist incidents" on Wikipedia as that would be speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.121.35.45 (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Does ALL mass murder qualify as "terrorism" so long as there is a KABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM to go along with it? That seems to be the belief of those who assembled this list. (I forgot to sign in--comment by "Dogface"." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.71.90.195 (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Where is the line drawn between terrorism and murder?

Some of these appear to myself as murders, rather than acts of terrorism? What are people's stances on where murder ends and terrorism begins? Someone could argue that a school shooting is terrorism depending on the circumstances/motives due to the large casualties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.221.215 (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Some attacks are both murder and terrorism. Few school or workplace shootings are terrorism; most of them are motivated by revenge and hatred. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 08:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, if it GOES BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!, it is automatically terrorism, no matter what. Just look at what's included. Insurance fraud, serial killers with rifles and no political agenda, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.71.90.195 (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Islamic Extremism Attack List

Islamic extremism is the only list (via link) that contains non-successful attacks ("Attacks or failed attacks by date"), and the list itself offers no clue about which they are. This inflates the Islamic extremism list compared to the others, and is clearly massive POV pushing. I therefore removed the link, please add to the inline list I started.91.10.33.194 (talk) 10:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Attacks by type

Reorganizing this section according to date/ era in which the particular type of terror violence began. I am willing to discuss what the most proper order is, but the current section has no order at all.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Picking up on a previous thread

I am inclined to remove both of these as not fitting our oun description of terrorism:

• May 31, 1921: During the Tulsa race riot, there were reports that whites dropped dynamite from airplanes onto a black neighborhood in Tulsa known as the Black Wall Street. The riot killed 39–300 people and destroyed more than 1,100 homes and hundreds of businesses.
• May 18, 1927: The Bath School disaster (bombings) killed 45 people and injured 58. Most of the victims were children in the second to sixth grades (7–12 years of age) attending the Bath Consolidated School. Their deaths constitute the deadliest act of mass murder in a school in U.S. history. The perpetrator was school board member Andrew Kehoe.
  

Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 02:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC) Also:

• October 10, 1933: A Boeing 247 was destroyed in mid-flight over Indiana by a nitroglycerin bomb. All seven people aboard were killed. This incident was the first proven case of air sabotage in the history of aviation. The identity of the perpetrator and the motive for the attack are unknown.
  

Terrorism is, among things, motive driven, so when we state that the motives are unknown we don't really know if it is terrorism and thus it should be off the list. Carptrash (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Terrorism in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080523194921/http://abcnews.go.com:80/US/wireStory?id=3781289 to http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3781289
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120814100156/http://www.secularnewsdaily.com:80/2011/07/christian-terrorism-exposed/ to http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2011/07/christian-terrorism-exposed/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081104225336/http://www.cnn.com:80/2007/US/06/02/jfk.terror.plot/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/02/jfk.terror.plot/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Validity of the Islamic Extremism Section

Was reading through the Islamic Terrorism section on this page and noticed a few problems that I think someone should look into. First of all, there are no hyperlinks to point to other articles of any of these events. Second, the only source given (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/american-attacks.aspx) is clearly anti-Islamic and also gives no footnotes as to where it obtained its sources. Thirdly, it uses the word "homosexual" as a noun, rather than saying two gay men or women, again bringing into question it's basis and validity. Can anyone find evidence of the claims this section is making? There are obviously events of Islamic terrorism in the United States but I seriously question the validity of this source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.41.73.188 (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Zebra Murders, Nation of Islam shootings & stabbings, Marxist terrorism is thin--too much effort going into listing American anti-abortion attacks

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Zebra_murders I'll list more as I find more. Hopefully we can make this page more balanced, less weight toward listing American anti-abortion attacks, à la NPOV. Leftist, radical, terrorism certainly has dominated the USA's history, and certainly the concept of Left here should be an international one and not an American social liberal one. Anything anti-authoritarian or radically different such as Marxism, separatism, or non-nationalistic rebellion is Left. Anything pro-authoritarian or pro-tradition is Right. W124l29 (talk) 10:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the editor

who removed, "August 1, 1966: Charles Whitman, the "Texas Tower Sniper", killed 16 and wounded 32 at the University of Texas before being killed by police." from the list on the grounds that it was not a terrorist attack. What do you think? Carptrash (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorting the table of deadliest attacks

The table does not sort well by date, number of fatalities, or number injured. Would someone who knows how please fix this? 𝕃eegrc (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Deadliest attacks

Mountain Meadows massacre is mentioned as the third deadliest terrorist attack in the history of the United States of America. How can this be? The words "terror" or "terrorist" are not even mentioned in the Mountain Meadows massacre article. What am I missing? ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 22:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this event is not really a terrorist attack. And should be removed from the list. Carptrash (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Attacks by type: tense

The tenses in the lists move from present to past to present. Examples:

• September 6, 1901: President William McKinley assassinated by Michigan born Russian-Polish anarchist, Leon Czolgosz, in Buffalo, New York.
• November 24, 1917: A bomb explodes in a Milwaukee police station, killing nine officers and a civilian. Anarchists were suspected.

What is the style supposed to be and should this be corrected? Thank you. KamelTebaast 22:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Eco-terrorism

Trying to come up with a list of the motivations of the various terrorist attacks, and then list the attacks by those motivations, is difficult at best. But the article takes a pretty good swing at the problem. Except in one case. For some reason, eco-terrorism is listed separately than all of the other motivations. Is there a good reason for this, or should I move that section into the terrorism by type list? Fredrik Coulter (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it should go into terrorism by type. Even more helpful would be if the entire article were in a table like the "Deadliest" section. Then we wouldn't need two separate sections for "by date" and "by type", people could sort it by different things, and it would be much more useful as data. Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 14:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Political Neutrality?

"Right-wing extremism" and "Left-wing extremism" should be separated from "Anti-government". Also, I'd like the types alphabetized or in a better order. I'd do it with a go ahead. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Not terrorism

I deleted some items that didn't seem to count as terrorism (except maybe in a casual, figurative sense):

• Bath School disaster - no apparent ideological goal
• Charles Whitman - no apparent ideological goal
• Harvey's Resort Hotel bombing - would extortion and personal revenge count as a goal of terrorism?
• Harlem Nights theater shooting - seems more like a street fight that went from bad to worse
• Ohio highway sniper attacks - no apparent ideological goal
• 2012 Aurora shooting - no apparent ideological goal
• Washington Navy Yard shooting - no apparent ideological goal

Additionally, I wonder whether the Assassination of John F. Kennedy should be added. I guess it's not established that Oswald had any larger motive, but might his anti-American leanings count as ideology? Lusanaherandraton (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I like these out, but respectively suggest avoiding the Kennedy tar baby. Carptrash (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Entire section on Islamic violence copied wholesale with no changes from a dubious website; contains non-terrorist incidents

The entire section on Islamic violence is copied from a dubious website. It contains robberies, prison guard stabbings, and honor killings, none of which are terrorist attacks. It also contains a bunch of stuff that should be (is in?) the Palestinian militant section. I removed the ones that seemed the most obvious but there's a bunch I wasn't sure on.

It's also formatted weirdly and has some language that seems a little out-of-place.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.190.213 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Where are the sources?

Where are the sources listing all of these events are terrorism? Some of the sources for these events don't even call them terrorism. We can't just go labeling every shooting or threat as terrorism. We need sources.--v/r - TP 23:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

there is some controversy

As to whether this is terrorism or not.

"* June 17, 2015: Charleston church shooting: Suspect Dylann Roof carried out a mass shooting at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in downtown Charleston, South Carolina, United States. The church is one of the United States' oldest black churches and has long been a site for community organization around civil rights. Nine people were killed, including the senior pastor, Clementa C. Pinckney, a state senator. A tenth victim was also shot, but survived. The FBI has not classified the act as terrorism, which was met with controversy."
Carptrash (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

If there is controversy over that, then it would be WP:UNDUE to take one side or the other. Therefore, we should exclude it from all appropriate lists until we get official confirmation. Parsley Man (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

And what exactly would "official confirmation" consist of? Carptrash (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

FBI saying this was clearly a terrorist attack. Parsley Man (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

FBI might help, but they are not who decides what goes in wikipedia and what does not. Carptrash (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Especially in a case like this where WP:BLPCRIME is in effect. It would be original research to draw conclusions based on one side of a very conflicted standpoint. Parsley Man (talk) 01:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

A "Hate Crime" committed with intent to cause mass casualties at a public landmark is definitely terrorism. This meets all three criteria. I don't see a reason for why it does not fit the definition of terrorism. Coriantumr15 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

lawrence massacre and other civil war massacres

Should really be classed as a wartime atrocities, not terrorism 217.44.231.239 (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

appears biased

I noticed a number of attacks being labeled as "left-wing" but not a single one as "right-wing." Rather, those which could be attributed to the right were left as individual actions. Either be consistent or don't involve political sides at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:420:C0C4:1002:0:0:0:55 (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Terrorism in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070118103246/http://www.squeakyfromme.org/media/keerdoja.htm to http://www.squeakyfromme.org/media/keerdoja.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081129082856/http://www.thememoryhole.org/terror/tyler-terror.htm to http://www.thememoryhole.org/terror/tyler-terror.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.filmjournal.com/filmjournal/content_display/news-and-features/features/movies/e3ie40903ba76038c2e61b4fadc966e89ed

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 October 2017

Adding the 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting Ayushenoy (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: Not yet determined to be terrorism related. This is why the page is protected. Objective3000 (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Non-Terrorist Attacks Included

A terrorist attack has as its goal changing policy. There are lots of attacks on this list that were for the purpose of exterminating people with no policy goal outside the goal of killing those people. Those aren't terror attacks. The Armenian genocide, for example, was not a terror attack. It wasn't meant to achieve a change of government policy, it was just to get rid of the Armenians. The same is true of lots of attacks you list, like the Gnadenhutten massacre, various other Indian war massacres (by whites or reds), and so forth.107.77.207.176 (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

There Never Was Such a Thing

This is complete hysteria:

"After some skirmishing, the Mormon Extermination Order was passed, and the murder of Mormons was legalized in the state of Missouri. Eventually, Mormons were almost completely driven from the state of Missouri."

There never was a "Mormon Extermination Order." Executive Order 44 referred to extermination, if the Mormons could not be driven from the state. This was in the context of a Mormon massacre of citizens. In any case, it wasn't terrorism by any stretch of the imagination.107.77.207.176 (talk) 13:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Unite the Right

What was the goal to change policy in the automobile accident that took place in Charlottesville, VA on August 12, 2017? Wikipedia should not be used as a political forum to label events with loaded language like "terrorism" when they are anything but. Calling that event a "terrorist attack" cheapens the term and does this page a disservice. The page will be improved by removing it from the list.47.137.183.192 (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects reliable sources, not your personal opinion. This is not the place to prop-up extremist WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories about it being an "accident". Grayfell (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Video footage of the incident shows Field's car being attacked by the mob before he hit the gas pedal in an attempt to escape. The propaganda by the mainstream media has gone too far to effectively clean up the main article if adherence to the sources (even when they are misguided) is to be observed, but it does no harm to remove it from this list. Your personal opinion that this was a terrorist attack holds no weight. Wikipedia should strive for truth, not be turned into a propaganda outlet. 47.137.183.192 (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The article text is based on reliable sources. O3000 (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Why are there a bunch of random attacks listed here?

There are several attacks by men with muslim sounding names in the list which are specifically said by police to have been random. Any attack by a muslim is not automatically a terrorist attack, and if we listed every random attack where people were killed or maimed then this list would be chock full christian "terrorist" attacks.

Specific incidents would be helpful O3000 (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Why "acting without approval of state actors"?

By excluding this last clause we could be excluding most of the terrorism against black people and native Americans. During the civil rights movement, often protesters were beaten by mobs while the police looked on and then protesters were arrested for causing a riot. When the rioters were not arrested. Many of the "Indian wars" occurred with United States army protecting or avenging white "settlers" and doing nothing to stop attacks by the white "settlers". Maybe we don't want to include the attacks by the army on civilian populations. Do we also want to exclude the attacks by white "illegal immigrants"? Chaimslife (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Defining terrorism in a manner that satisfies everyone is an impossible task. Fortunately, Wikipedia relies on reliable sources (WP:IRS), making our task somewhat easier. Inside the U.S., the definition most in use is the legal definition. See: [5]. The main difference between terrorism and a hate crime appears to be an attempt to affect the conduct of a government in the former. A hate crime is more likely an act of revenge against perceived enemies or just plain ignorant bigotry. And then there are just plain nutcases that kill random people. At least that’s how it looks to me. O3000 (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Terrorism in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140923155849/http://darrow.law.umn.edu/documents/Prendergast_letters_combined.pdf to http://darrow.law.umn.edu/documents/Prendergast_letters_combined.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081009075014/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USACbombing.htm to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USACbombing.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081218043435/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/notabledays/chap4.pdf to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/notabledays/chap4.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216125724/http://beatl.barnard.columbia.edu/columbia68/time2.htm to http://beatl.barnard.columbia.edu/columbia68/time2.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2013/0516/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081123021316/http://www.nypost.com/seven/01012008/news/regionalnews/three_cops_honored_for_82_bomb_heroics_24842.htm to http://www.nypost.com/seven/01012008/news/regionalnews/three_cops_honored_for_82_bomb_heroics_24842.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100621092125/http://photo.newsweek.com/2010/5/history-of-bombs.html to http://photo.newsweek.com/2010/5/history-of-bombs.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Alleged left wing incident terrorist not mentioned

There was a fire bombing of the Republican headquaters in North Carolia a year ago. Doesn't that count as left wing extremism? http://www.businessinsider.com/hillsborough-orange-county-nc-gop-headquarters-2016-10

Graylandertagger (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Do you know something the press and police don't? If there are no suspects, how can you claim this is "left wing" or anything? Could be, or could be a drunk, or an ex of someone in the office. We have no idea. No one even noticed the event until the next day. Could be a terrible crime. But, we can't put a label on it with no information. O3000 (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

A message was left at the scene of the fire. 'Nazi Republicans leave town or else' The fire was ideologically influenced obviously. Graylandertagger (talk) 02:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

That really doesn't prove anything. You'll need to find a reliable source. O3000 (talk) 11:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

An official source in fact. In any case it could have been a right-winger trying to blame the left. No one died and that may have been deliberate. Doug Weller talk 13:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It is possible that it is not what it seems. We don't know who did it. I think we should include it as what it seems. An attack on property meant to convey a political message. Until we have some evidence that it is not what it seems I think we should include it as what it seems. This is similar to the many cross burnings that are not included here yet included here but should be. I think this is better source to cite http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/16/politics/north-carolina-gop-office-vandalized/index.html . I think it is better because the language is not as inflammatory. I does not stress the risk to life in a property crime. I say go ahead and add it.Chaimslife (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Sure thing. Let me know if anyone objects. Graylandertagger (talk) 03:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Chaimslife: Please read WP:NOR for a start. We don't include things for "what it seems". We need reliable sources for anything we add to the encyclopedia, and in this case we'd need official sources. We don't get to decide what is terrorism. @Graylandertagger:, that's why I reverted you. Both of you are new so it's not surprising that you don't know our policies and guidelines, but you've both ignored the advice of more experienced editors. Doug Weller talk 14:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thank you for your interest. I have now read the WP:NOR. The citation I suggested using was http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/16/politics/north-carolina-gop-office-vandalized/index.html. CNN seems to be cited in other Wikipedia articles. That CNN story establishes the fire and graffiti. Previous comments argued that without knowing who did it we don't know if the graffiti accurately represents their motives. When I was talking about what it seemed like I mean was the graffiti and fire to be taken at face value. For the fire and what the graffiti said I am relying on CNN. What other citation or sourcing would you like to see? Chaimslife (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is about terrorism. The CNN article doesn’t say it was a terrorist act. Neither the police nor the FBI have provided suspects or a motive in the five weeks since. And, there is no evidence that the perpetrator(s) were "left-wing". Article text must be verifiable. O3000 (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I was going to say. Doug Weller talk 12:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I am surprised (references)

at how many of the items listed in the chart do not have references. Even the Oklahoma City bombing does not cite anything. Looking at the 1990s section (a non-mathmatical count shows) probably more than half the entries don't have any reference. I am NOT about to tag them all, but is this okay? Am I missing something? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Ahh, better check to see if they really happened. (Sorry, couldn't resist.) This is a summary article. It appears the individual acts have links to WP articles about the acts or the perpetrators. Even though WP is not RS, I would think this would be better than using normal cites as each article contains many such cites. O3000 (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I did not get a bad feeling about these events (I often edit by feeling) and am comfortable with the arrangement, esp. since there are now two of us. Carptrash (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Dead link

In the 1960-69 section, there is a part that says widespread violence and talks about 8200 bombings. The link for the source is dead, but I found the new link. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED083899.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.3.71.240 (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Massacres by US troops

I just removed Sand Creek Massacre an an act by a state actor, thus not qualifying here. The same seems to be true for at least one other entry, perhaps more. Before I do more, comments? Doug Weller talk 10:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems quite a few of the items listed don't really fit the definition of terrorism. Some because they were done through 'an act by a state actor'. Included in these would be ones with the 'Perpetrator' labeled as U.S. Troops, and possibly Volunteer Militia (which are sometimes 'state' troops). The 1838 Mormon war was a declared war by the state of Missouri, so it also employed state actors. The act of Imperial German Agents in 1915 and 1916 would be acts by state actors. I would agree with their removal. Re34646 (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

BLP concerns

Should an incident be listed here if the accused is still alive and has not been convicted of terrorism in association with it? I don't think the fact that notable people have referred to incidents as being terrorism should take precedence over BLP protection for those accused of crime. 70.51.193.44 (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

RE: Volunteer_Marek's Chart

@Volunteer Marek: Revision You're correct that the chart is based on hard data, but I'm concerned that it misrepresents that data significantly.

The title of the graph explicitly says that the attacks are ideologically motivated, however the data collects murderous incidents on any extremist, regardless of context. For example, this case.

The title of the graph explicitly uses "murders" as a variable, however the graph clearly is counting murderous events and not individual murders. For example, the data states, "Omar Mateen, 29, murdered 49 people and wounded 53 more during a shooting spree at Pulse, a gay nightclub. During a 911 call, Mateen swore allegiance to ISIS. Mateen was shot dead by police. One officer was injured in the attack.", however the graph displays 1 murder motivated by Islamic extremism in 2016.

Kluball (talk) 01:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The source explicitly refers to "Ideology" so I have no idea what your objection is suppose to be. Volunteer Marek 04:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

And I updated the caption to note that these are murder incidents not a tally of murders. Volunteer Marek 04:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Thank you for addressing the second point. The issue with ideology is the data does not concern motivation. Take for example, "Anti-government extremist Jeff Conrad shot and killed a man he caught stealing from his storage unit." That description does not imply the killing was motivated by his extremist ideology, it merely says the actor was an anti-government extremist. I take issue with the status quo because a significant chunk of the data represents murders likely not motivated by ideology. This doesn't imply the graph is bad, but I do believe the graph title should be changed on inclusion. If you are able to change it, may I suggest replacing "Ideologically motivated murders by category" with "Extremist Murder Incidents by Ideology"? Kluball (talk) 06:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Definition of Terrorism

Based on recent revisions, I feel it is necessary to address and define in explicit terms the accepted definition of terrorism used in this article. Given this is a US Article, I believe it should use the definition defined in US Law. That is,

“terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents

I will make some changes to this article to address this in hopes that the contributors will participate in this discussion. Kluball (talk) 12:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Same content appears in multiple parts of the article

Another issue with this article is that the same content appears in multiple parts of the article. Some examples:

1) ″According to a 2017 report by the United States Government Accountability Office, "of the 85 violent extremist incidents that resulted in death since September 12, 2001, far right wing violent extremist groups were responsible for 62 (73 percent) while radical Islamist violent extremists were responsible for 23 (27 percent).″

2) ″An April 2017 analysis prepared for Congress by the Government Accountability Office found that between September 12, 2001 and December 31, 2016, 73% of violent extremist incidents resulting in deaths were perpetrated by far right wing violent extremist groups, while 27% were perpetrated by radical Islamist violent extremists.″

Both comments discuss very recent trends. But while the second statement is under U.S Totals / Recent Trends section (where it belongs), the first statement has been added at the top of the page. This is repetitive and redundant. Furthermore, the first statement has been added right next to the definition of terrorism in US. Any reason to give such undue weight to a few fragments extracted from one report over other and more recent reports that have been listed under the "U.S Totals / Recent Trends section"? Mcrt007 (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Important terrorism data from United States Government Accountability Office removed from the summary

On violent extremists in the United States, the report from the United States Government Accountability Office states the following (among other things): While the September 11, 2001, attacks were perpetrated by foreign violent extremists, from September 12, 2001 through December 31, 2016, attacks by domestic or homegrown violent extremists in the United States resulted in 225 fatalities, according to the ECDB. Of these, 106 were killed by far right violent extremists in 62 separate incidents, and 119 were victims of radical Islamist violent extremists in 23 separate incidents. (Page-3 of the document)

The above part has recently been reverted and replaced with a less informative and non-neutral: According to a 2017 report by the United States Government Accountability Office, of the 85 violent extremist incidents that resulted in death since September 12, 2001, far right wing violent extremist groups were responsible for 62 (73 percent) while radical Islamist violent extremists were responsible for 23 (27 percent).

Why isn't information from a reliable source presented: "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias" as per WP:NPOV ? Just because an editor does not like or does not want to see what the official data says, it should not mean the data should be deleted. Mcrt007 (talk) 09:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

It is. The second version is the one which is NPOV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

You have cherry-picked some of the information in the official report while deleting very important details. This is partisan editing and it violates WP:NPOV. It also gives undue weight to a viewpoint that is not neutral yet you favor, and it's completely ignoring other verifiable and well sourced statements. Just present what is being reported by a reliable source, without cutting relevant information from it. Mcrt007 (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Many incidents listed do not fall under the definition of terrorism and need to be separated into other categories, such as Violent Extremism, criminal activity, etc.

See Definitions of terrorism and the definition of terrorism used on List of terrorist incidents.

I am a student seeking a BA in Homeland Security. My current class is Mind of a Terrorist.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.161.116 (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC) Uniformity is important, the definition of Terrorism is defined at the root of this topic inside the more general List of terrorist incidents. All less general, more specific, incident location pages must follow the same definition.

Well, "Many incidents..." -Which ones? "...need to be separated into other categories..." -not here, lets deal with this article. "Definitions of terrorism"; -the first sentence reads:

"There is no universal agreement on the definition of terrorism."

So there's that.

Ok, "...Uniformity is important..." -Is it though? next in the Definitions article is:

"... Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions. Moreover, governments have been reluctant to formulate an agreed upon and legally binding definition. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term is politically and emotionally charged ..."

One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter dontcha know. I say uniformity is a red herring, consistency is important. We need to be clear about not only why an act may be considered terrorism but also who is calling it so, so rigorous citing of sources is vital. I have acted on the three incidents noted in the thread above. Captainllama (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Missing sources or missing classification for terrorist events

Some of the listed terrorist events have no citations attached to them. In other cases, the sources don't seem to indicate the attacks were ideologically/politically/religiously motivated (thus terrorism). A few examples for now:

- 1960 -New York City - "The Sunday Bomber detonated a series of bombs in the New York City Subway and ferries during Sundays and holidays, killing one woman and injuring 51 other commuters".

- October 10, 1933 - Indiana Chesterton, Indiana - "A Boeing 247 was destroyed in mid-flight over Indiana by a nitroglycerin bomb. All seven people aboard were killed. This incident was the first proven case of air sabotage in the history of aviation. The identity of the perpetrator and the motive for the attack are unknown."

- July 4, 1940 - New York City - "Two New York City policemen were killed and two critically wounded while examining a bomb they had found at the British Pavilion at the World's Fair." Mcrt007 (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, good call. I have acted on the three you noted though not yet looked further at the moment. See my comments below, be bold. Captainllama (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)