Talk:List of terrorist incidents in February 2019

Meta: uptick in attack counts

The number of documented attacks has increased significantly in recent months. I see three potential reasons:

1. There have, in fact, been more attacks 2. Source websites or Wikipedia contributors have taken a greater interest in documenting recent attacks 3. The set of Wikipedia contributors who only delete material from these pages due to "no proven terrorism links" has tuned it down

Has anybody worked out the most likely explanation yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.140.12.146 (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Attacks on military targets

I would like for someone to justify the inclusion of attacks that were exclusively directed at military targets. When I removed an attack that clearly does not classify as a terrorist incident, it was reverted with the explanation that "a lot of attacks here are guerilla raids on military targets". I find this odd, considering the article itself says that the incidents included in this list have to fit the criteria at the Tactics of terrorism page. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@RookerBowman: Perhaps you could elaborate, since you were the one who reverted? Best, Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I think I was clear when I said many of the attacks here are guerrilla. Terrorism can mean creating fear for ideological objectives (that's the definition on Wikipedia) or simply the use of violence in pursuit of any ideological goal. Some often attack pure military targets like checkpoints or patrols in guerrilla tactics to wear them down as they can't go toe-to-toe or take territory. Plus, assassinations to take out capable leaders. Then again they also attack civilians to create terror. They attack military targets for ideological reasons too and (likely often) do it to create terror among their enemies. But how do we definitely sift terrorism from purely guerrilla attacks with a military objective? That's only possible if the group spelled out its motive for every attack. RookerBowman (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@RookerBowman: By that definition - "the use of violence in pursuit of any goal" - all warfare is terrorism. I agree it's difficult to define terrorism in precise terms, but that's not really relevant here; the attack that I removed is not taken from the Tactics of terrorism page, which is the sole inclusion criteria of this article. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

A conventional firearm attack isn’t limited to one type, ambushes are carried out through them. You can also have a shoot-and-spray, targeting of a specific person or multiple people. The ADF fight for furthering their ethno-political goal. An ambush can’t discount any possible motive. That is common sense. RookerBowman (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@RookerBowman: That section specifically refers to killings of civilians, not attacks on military targets. There are plenty of examples of Ambazonian separatists targetting civilians, so there's no need to throw in attacks on military targets and label them as terrorism. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

No the first sentence spells out that terrorism is also carried out through shootings despite popular perception associating it with bombings. The only incidents listed are the ones where civilians were targeted, that doesn't exclusively confine the definition to civilians. You already know terrorism isn't restricted to civilians. RookerBowman (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@RookerBowman: That chapter deaks with shootings such as the Orlando nightclub shooting or the 2011 Norway attacks, not guerilla attacks on soldiers. By your definition, every armed engagement in history can be classified as terrorism. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

They are just there as examples, not as a claim that only civilian targets are counted under terrorism. There's nothing confusing. One cannot classify an attack as terrorism if it's motive was already known not to be ideological. Legal state forces are always excluded from the list. I will not be explaining every little thing to you. RookerBowman (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@RookerBowman: Look at the Definitions of terrorism article. While terrorism is hard to define in precise terms, attacks on military targets are specifically not defined as terrorism. Basically, right now this is not a list of terrorist attacks, but a list of armed actions carried out by non-state actors against any target. Either this list should be limited to incidents that fall into the generally accepted definition of terrorism, or this and all corresponding lists should be renamed. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes I understand that. But this will require removing more than just one attack. The problem here is even the media counts some attacks on military as terrorism. I suggest we remove all attacks against military targets unless their own stated motive was for specific ideological/political purposes. Even if they're fighting for a cause, retaining such attacks is an assumption that the cause is always the motive. It discounts other motives. Al-Shabaab attacking military targets for opposition to US’ decision on Jerusalem or attacks called terrorist by the media are the kind of attack that need to be kept. Agreed? RookerBowman (talk)

@RookerBowman: I think the best solution would have been to remove all attacks that were exclusively targetting enemy combatants in a wartime setting. That being said, your suggestion is a leap in the right direction and I am happy to agree to it. I really appreciate your patience. (As you might guess, my concern here is the erosion of the term 'terrorism' - especially in our times, I think it is important that terrorism remains as strictly defined as possible, and does not degenerate into an umbrella term for armed actions by people we don't like.) Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'll search later for news on the motives for some attacks and if they're called terrorist, including ADF's attack. If not, I'll remove them. RookerBowman (talk) 02:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC) Mikrobo, I've checked definitions of terrorism but it turns out it was only referring to killing enemy combatants in a war. Ambazonia crisis is not a full-blown war but an insurgency and insurgency is a terrorist tactic. Even the Cameroonian government refers to them as terrorists. So you can't remove the attack, sorry. RookerBowman (talk) 06:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC) I've removed attacks against enemies as part of a war and taking/retaking territory during it. Insurgent attacks won't be removed. RookerBowman (talk) 06:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@RookerBowman: Well, of course the Cameroonian government refers to them as terrorist attacks - they are at war. And where did you get the notion that insurgency is inherently a type of terrorism? Terrorism is a common tactic among insurgent groups, but actions by insurgents aren't terrorism by default. That's without touching the question of whether the Anglophone Crisis can be classified as a full-blown war; both sides have formally declared war at each other (which is rather rare nowadays), and there are plenty of media sources that describe it as such. 350,000 people have been internally displaced within Southern Cameroons, 86,000 have fled to other parts of Cameroon, and tens of thousands have fled to Nigeria. Archaic definitions don't mean much for the people affected. I'm sorry, but I think we might have some fundamental disagreements that can't be worked around between the two of us. I think we should open an RfC - what do you think? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

You don't need war for displacing people. All insurgency may not be terrorism, but a lot of it is. ADF is after all fighting for their cause, so we'll need a criteria for sorting all insurgent attacks into terrorism. Anything you do should be over a broad issue of criteria on which attack to include or not and shouldn't be about one attack. RookerBowman (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

My proposal is that we religiously stick to the exclusion criteria in the lead section of Definitions of terrorism. I'm not quite following your logic - are all ADF attacks acts of terrorism because you do not consider the Anglophone Crisis a war? If so, will the exact same actions cease to be acts of terrorism once the conflict crosses a subjective threshold and can be considered a war? This is also deeply problematic from an historical point of view; following your definition, the Danish resistance movement would be classified as terrorists, as Denmark was relatively peaceful throughout World War II. I think we'd do ourselves a favor by simply ruling out all attacks on combatants in an armed conflict unless there are compelling reasons for inclusion (such as al-Shabaab attacks over the US embassy move, like you mentioned). Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The ADF was actually throwing stones at them, not shooting. :) I could agree with you, but that will remove a whole lot of attacks from here and it won't be fair to just remove attacks from one month or of one group. Even I have doubts about my suggestion, it's not something two people can agree on and it's done. There'll be a lot of resistance if we start removing all such attacks without agreement of others on when to add an attack. RookerBowman (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you - this affects a lot of corresponding lists, so it would be a mistake to solve this "locally". I'll make a post at the talk page of List of terrorist incidents, and we'll see how it goes. Thanks again for your patience. Regards, Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

This was not just a "terrorist incident." This was a Rape: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Ori_Ansbacher

RfC: terrorist incidents list criteria

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of terrorist incidents#RfC: List criteria. – Levivich 18:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)