Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 June 12

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 12

What is the deadliest terrorist organization in history?

My question is this what terriost organization attacks have resulted in the most deaths of any terriost organization in history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.90.87 (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a difficult question to answer in part because it's poorly defined as to what a "terrorist organization" is. Whether a particular group of people are "terrorists" or "freedom fighters" depends largely on one's political perspective. The Definitions of terrorism article covers some of the difficulty and controversy involved. Red Act (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Or, heck, if you define terrorism as "committing atrocities against civilians with the goal of convincing a nation to enact certain political ends," it's hard to match the atomic or fire bombings of Japan. Not for nothing were they called "terror bombings." --Mr.98 (talk) 04:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

They were also called "let's end the war right now and not kill millions more Americans" bombings. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

...and the "Let's test the two different types of bombs we have on big cities" bombings, and the "Let's show the rest of the world what a mean mother of a bomb we have now" bombings. (An early version of Shock and awe.) HiLo48 (talk) 05:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

And it worked. :) This question, though, is like deja vu. Didn't someone asked this exact same question a couple of weeks ago? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not uncommon for the perpetrators of acts of terrorism to attempt to excuse them on account of having a noble aim. It doesn't make the the act itself less an act of terrorism, though. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Would you have argued for a land invasion, killing millions of both Americans and Japanese? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

False dichotomy alert. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You seem to confusing the basic facts of what happened with justifying doing them. It's something a lot of people do. Did the Americans kill those people? Yes. Was it designed to scare the Japanese into surrender, rather than take out a significant amount of military capability? Probably. Whether the decision was right or wrong, that's what happened. By some definitions – again, rightly or wrong – the act was terrorism. There would, accordingly, have been many more acts of "terrorism" by that definition during the World Wars. (This is a) of Definition_of_terrorism#The_sectoral_approach. However, it also mentions b) which is "actions by non-State actors"; the US was certainly a state. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Revisionists like to call it "terrorism", but it was an act of war against an aggressor that attacked us first, so they brought that disaster on themselves. We had the option of ending the war immediately, or killing millions in an invasion. The former looked like the better military option at that time. And it still does. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

False dichotomy alert. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Anti-American alert. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Huh? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The USA is not a "terrorist organization". Using such a label is highly offensive. Japan attacked us, we fought back, as we had the moral right to. The disasters that fell upon them were of their own making. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

If any state is, or is not, a terrorist organisation, is completely irrelevant (and, probably, a matter of definitions and philosophy), and something I have made no comment on. I pointed out that the argument "there was only the choice between (unsavoury) X and much worse Y, therefore X was justified" is broken in this particular instance (and, to be fair, in many other instances where it is used). There were many other options (off the top of my had: Simply blockade Japan, demonstrate the bombs on uninhabited or rural targets, consider a less-than-unconditional surrender, ...). If any of them would have a better or worse outcome in the long run is, of course, up for debate - but so is any historical what-if. That does not absolve us from rationally analysing history to learn from it. Also note that the fact that the argument is wrong does not imply that the conclusion is wrong (Compare "the moon is made of green cheese, therefore 2+2=4"). If you rate arguments not by their soundness, but by there outcome, you will be very wrong very often. Apparently you think that pointing out a wrong argument with a conclusion favourably to the US is "anti-American". To (slightly) misquote Charles Babbage: "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a state of mind." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, the Japanese engaged in their own "terror war" against us, with their incendiary-bomb attacks on civilian targets in the Pacific Northwest. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

(e/c with below) Bugs, your fanatical defence of the US is quite irrelevant, and isn't mirrored by any sort of attack on America by the other contributors Whether or not the attacks were justified is irrelevant. Whatever the Japanese did, it would be included if the US were, but it would amount to smaller attacks, and probably fewer killed; this is irrelevant. We prefer to judge whether something is an act of terrorism without reference to the motive. As my previous post mentions, it is entirely correct to suggest that the bombings or firebombings or similar incidents during the war do not count as terrorism because the actors were states. That can be the only defence if you go by the criteria laid out in our article, and as adopted by the US and many other countries. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Calling acts of war terrorism is a little strange. But if that's the case (which is as I say, unlikely outside of fringe opinions), the atomic bombings aren't even close. The Germans killed millions during WWII including 6 million Jews, the Nanking Massacre killed more than the atomic bombings. In fact, as many women were raped in Nanking as were killed in the bombings. RxS (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe your figures are a little off; but that's not relevant here. The difference (and as I say about, the state as an actor normally rules out calling it "terrorism") is the intent of the attack, which was to scare rather than something else. That's not true for the Holocaust, and is only partly true for Nanking. Definitely state actors, though. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The numbers came from our own articles. I agree with you about the state being an actor, but I was just pointing out that the bombings were an act of war and once you allow acts of war to be called terrorism a lot more follow. RxS (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

"20,000–80,000 women were raped" ~ Nanking Massacre. "Within the first four months... the acute effects killed 90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki" ~ Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I think many terrorist organisations would like to defend their actions by merit of them being at war with whoever they perpetrated the act against. In other words, I agree with Grandiose here, state actor is the more relevant point. Nil Einne (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This is off-track anyway. The OP asked "What is the deadliest terrorist organization?" Even if you concede that Japan, Germany and the US committed "acts of terrorism" as part of their warfare, those countries are not "terrorist organizations". In contrast, al-qaeda is a terrorist organization, because that's all they do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair point, although you could of course argue over that as well. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeesh, guys. The entire point of my comment was to point out that if you play with the definition, you get lots of different results. And if you use a very base definition, all sorts of things can be counted as terrorism. It wasn't to argue that the US was a terrorist organization. They were called "terror bombings" by their own practitioners. Whether you think the ends justify the means doesn't change that. All people who commit atrocities think the ends justify the means. The entire point of discussing whether something is terrorist or not is because one actually cares about the means. If we didn't, we'd call terrorism "politics by other means" and not get so worked up about it. Either we think that blowing up civilians (for whatever reason) is an acceptable thing (and thus we only focus on the goals, not the means), or we think that it's a bad thing and make distinctions about how one wages political violence (e.g. must wear uniforms, must target other guys in uniforms, must not use poison gas, etc.). You can either pick one way or the other — you don't get to excuse "your side" when it does nasty things and still hold "other sides" accountable, unless you are fine with moral hypocrisy. The assertion that the firebombings/atomic bombings were "terrorism" is not revisionism — Churchhill himself originally referred to the firebombing campaign as "simply for the sake of increasing the terror", and the term "terror bombing" came from the same period. "He started it" is not usually considered a very strong moral excuse, especially if your response is disproportionate to the initial cause. To quote Robert McNamara (who worked on the strategic bombing campaign), "Killing 50% to 90% of the people of 67 Japanese cities [through firebombing] and then bombing them with two nuclear bombs is not proportional, in the minds of some people, to the objectives we were trying to achieve." You can, of course, arbitrarily restrict terrorism to non-state entities, but I'm not sure there's much of an argument to doing that, except for excusing away the inconvenient histories of states (which, lest our readers be worried, includes far, far, far more states than the USA and the Axis powers — the Italians, French, and British have a considerable amount of 20th century blood on their hands as well from "terror" style campaigns, to say nothing of the ghastly atrocities that third worlders inflicted upon their own kin). --Mr.98 (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The OP asked "What is the deadliest terrorist organization?" Generally speaking, nations do no qualify. Groups like al-qaeda and the IRA do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It depends, as with everything, how you define "terrorist organization." There have been designated terrorist organizations that have held significant state power (Hamas comes to mind, as does Libya), for example. There is no objective definition of terrorism that everybody agrees with. The real question to ask is why we favor certain definitions and not others. I suspect that too much of our race for non-state definitions (which are not supported by most dictionaries, incidentally) is because we get into rather uncomfortable moral spots when we start identifying states as terrorists. That's not a great reason to avoid such definitions in my opinion. But anyway, my point, initially and now, is about the definitions. There is little disputing the actions. It is just what we choose to call them, and why we resist certain labels. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The people who were defined as "the terrorists" in Apartheid South Africa are now "the state". Definitions can be tricky. HiLo48 (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

By the standard, conventional, Western definition of "terrorist attack," the 9/11 attacks probably did do the most deaths in a single operation. They killed ~3000 people, which is quite a lot. The 2007 Yazidi communities bombings killed about 800, and that was quite a lot. Most other major terrorist attacks (e.g. Beirut bombing, Oklahoma City) are in the order of 100-400. As for organizations, though, I wouldn't be surprised if lots have killed more than al Qaeda, particularly the ones that have been around longer and been more continuously active (e.g. FARC, the Tamil Tigers, Hezbollah). On the other hand, if you consider deaths per year of existence, I think al Qaeda probably wins by a long measure. But hard numbers are hard to come by. This is of course just using modern, "conventional" definitions — if you start including things like Genghis Khan or Atilla the Hun or Stalin or whatever, you end up in more murky territory. --Mr.98 (talk) 04:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Just by the way, it's spelled Attila. Surprised me too. I always thought it was double-ell until my aunt wrote a book on him. --Trovatore (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam have existed since May 1976 (35 years). al-Qaeda since August 1988 to later 1989. Even if we take the later year that's still 22 years or only about 60% more for the LTTE. If LTTE does 'win' in total number of deaths I don't see any reason to think al-Qaeda is going to 'win' by a long measure in deaths per years of existence. Of course it also depends on what you count as deaths due to the organisation as terrorist organisations tend to be by nature made up of losely connected cells with the hierachy of leadership not always clear particularly to those of us who aren't part of the intelligence community or the top levels of government. al-Qaeda in particular has a lot of losely tied affliates which may have been partially founded by and have connections to the leadership of al-Qaeda and provide mutual support and funding but which tend to operate independently without really taking orders or informing the apparent upper hierachy of al-Qaeda of their plans, sometimes even doing things which they may disagree with. (And al-Qaeda is enough of a bogeyman on both sides that linking an attack to the organisation whatever the connection tends to be common.) At the extreme end you have organisations like al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb. Nil Einne (talk) 10:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

My looking at the numbers is that FARC and al Qaeda and the Tigers have at most 5,000 or so people each, depending how you calculate it. (Tamil and FARC are hard because they're insurrections/civil wars as well.) But if that's the case, then FARC is 100 p/yr, Tamil is 142 p/yr, and al Qaeda is 217 p/yr. These are just rough numbers of course. I'm not trying to make al Qaeda out to be more than it is. Even at those levels, terrorism is a statistically insignificant cause of death for most places. More people die of heart disease and diabetes in New York City each year than died from the 9/11 attacks. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well in that case it's not that clear that the LTTE have the most deaths on an overall basis. I guess what I'm getting at that while it's possible for both to be true, given that we agree the figures are rather difficult to calculate for a large variety of reasons, I think it's going to be difficult to say with a great degree of confidence that al Qaeda has the most kills per year but LTTE has the most deaths overall. If for example we say al-Qaeda is 3800 and LTTE is 5300 then we do end up with al Qaeda having more per year. But change those figures slightly, say LTTE 5600 and al Qaeda 3500 we have 160 per year for the LTTE and 159 for al Qaeda. If we think the figures are closer together say al-Qaeda 4300 and LTTE 4850, if we change the figures slightly to 4600 for al-Qaeda and 4550 for LTTE suddenly LTTE are no longer higher on an overall basis. Over time the difference in number of years active is going to become a smaller percentage although since al-Qaeda is still active and the LTTE seems to be dying al-Qaeda is likely to overtake the LTTE if they haven't already. Nil Einne (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

How about the Black Hand, which killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in Sarajevo, leading to WW1, WW2, and arguably the communist revolutions in Russia and China, and the subsequent Cold War. That's in the hundreds of millions killed, right ? Of course, much of that was unintentional, if that matters. StuRat (talk) 06:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The chain of causality is a bit unconvincing. --Trovatore (talk) 06:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Which part ? Even if you only attribute WW1 to them, that's still over 10 million dead. StuRat (talk) 06:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Certainly anything past the end of WWI is severely speculative; you're getting to the edges of butterfly effect territory. But even for WWI itself, they were only the spark. I don't think you can debit all those people killing each other, who were really really ready to kill each other, to the account of one incident. --Trovatore (talk) 06:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed! It's the Continental Congress! Without the illegal revolt, we would not have had the copy-cats in France, and the world would still be ruled by benign kings looking out for their people! No Napoleonic Wars, no US Civil War, no Crimean War, no Franco-Prussian War, and so on! Or maybe it was the Platonic Academy. Without that group of radicals, we would not have Christianity as we know it, hence no Islam either, no Crusades, no European wars of religion,... ;-)

More seriously, it's hard to nail down even if one "only" counts direct deaths. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The Crimean War — didn't Crystal Gayle live through that one? She kept singing something about the Crimea River. --Trovatore (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure you're not thinking of Alma Cogan? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.121 (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

No, that's a different event. Just ask Julie London about the Crimea River. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Another option that falls into the same problem as the US/Japan etc. above is Genghis' Khanate, or similar. Killed hundreds of thousands of people for terror almost alone, but cannot really be described as a "terrorist" organisation.Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I vote for RAF Bomber Command in World War 2, directed by Bomber Harris. Harris said "the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives, the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale, and the breakdown of morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing, are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy." Terrorism per sé. They admittedly engaged in terror bombing, with night time bombing of cities intended to kill and demoralize civilians, and killed more folks in Germany that the atomic bombs killed in Japan. Harris opposed US daytime bombing efforts directed against military and industrial Axis targets, and preferred to kill civilians in their homes. Edison (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I think a different Bomber Harris quote does an even better job of making it clear that it was specifically civilians who were intentionally being targeted: "the aim of the Combined Bomber Offensive...should be unambiguously stated [as] the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers, and the disruption of civilised life throughout Germany." Interestingly, even Winston Churchill used the phrase "acts of terror" in referring to the bombing of Dresden. Red Act (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

We have the non-state actors clause most commonly used. I'm not convinced German casulties in RAF bombing (separating other actors) amount to more than those in the firebombing of Japan. Clearly, we'd have to analyse the whol category, which would only be valid if we consider the British, American or indeed other governments "terrorist organisations" which is doubtful. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't let's be beastly to the Germans week is it? In a total war, the total economic life of the enemy is a legitimate target. DuncanHill (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Even when the war is practically over, you're basically assured victory anyway, and the killing of many thousands of civilians will almost certainly not affect the outcome of the war? Red Act (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Germany was still fighting tooth and nail. DuncanHill (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

All the debate above is interesting, but doesn't actually answer the question. Rather than debate what is and isn't a terrorist organization, I'll just use List of designated terrorist organizations to decide, and gather what data I can from the linked articles. There are too many for me to do, so I will skip those that are unlikely to compete for a high ranking, don't have good info, or I don't feel like researching. Even so, I might not make it all the way through.

• Abu Nidal Organization: Killed or wounded over 900.
• Abu Sayyaf: 234 killed, 202 wounded (the wounded figure is likely low).
• al-Qaeda: 3500+ killed, many wounded (numbers hard to get from article).
• Hezbollah: 783 killed in bombings, also engaged in more traditional military conflict with Israel.
• Provisional IRA: 1800 killed
• Hamas: 400 killed (2000 to 2004 timeframe only), 2000 injured (same)
• Shining Path: 235+ killed caused 31,331 deaths and disappearances

That's all for now. I may do more later. If anyone else wishes to try some, feel free. gnfnrf (talk) 01:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Where do you get only 235 for the Shining Path? Shining Path#Government response and abuses says around 31,331. Red Act (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I got 235 by reading the historical timeline section of the article and adding up the casualties. I got the + because many events with casualties were mentioned, but no figures listed. (I should have been more clear. + meant "more, possibly a lot more", not "a little bit more") You are correct about the 31,000 figure being present in the article; I just missed it. It's not clear to me if that number is directly comparable, or if a significant portion of those casualties were in a more traditional military context. But, I'm just trying to gather info from the articles, not make judgments like that, so I'll add it above. gnfnrf (talk) 03:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

What a pathetically sad thread... a country that wanted nothing to do with Europe's wars... was attacked unprovoked by the Japanese and drawn into the second world war, used a weapon the germans or japanese would have used in an instant... to forestall an invasion that would have killed thousands, conservatively. The more naive somebody is about World War 2 the more they recoil at the admittedly horrific bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And look at the position of both of those enemies now, in relation to the U.S. and the other allied powers. Can anyone honestly say the same mirror image would be the case had the axis prevailed? Shadowjams (talk) 10:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Kollywood

This isn't really a question but I think that kollywood means Nepali movies not Tamil..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.61.118.14 (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reason for telling us this, even, then? The article Kollywood appears to disambiguate between Tamil cinema and Cinema of Nepal. A brief glance at those two indicates that it seems to mean both. 128.232.241.211 (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Property assessment

In checking a given property in New Rochelle, NY (Westchester County) online, I found myself on Realtor.com, at which the house was listed as having last been sold for $807,500 in 2001 and last assessed in 2009 at $23,100, and it listed previous assessments ($33,250 in 2008, etc.) -- my question is: to what does this assessment refer and why would it be decreasing? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

My first four thoughts were:

(1) fire, though it is usually land where the significant part of the value rests;

(2) flip, that fell apart after the recorded sale;

(3) failure (on the part of the municipal taxing authorities) to keep up with sale prices, but that's an awfully big change in value for them to miss;

(4) forfeiture, and the mortgagee has let the property lapse into gradually increasing decrepitude.

I can't say as any of them strike me as very likely. Perhaps the sale information is an error. Bielle (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Fifth thought: perhaps the area is not under market-value assessment, but has a defined depreciating base for tax purposes. The compensation would then have to be in the mill rates. Bielle (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried looking at the property thorough Google or Bing or whatever satellite or aerial photography? It probably won't be good enough to see the condition of the property but you could at least see there's still a building there or if there's something odd about the location. (If the location has a Google Street View or Bing Bird's Eye view or whatever all the better.) Nil Einne (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible the land is agricultural (whether used for much farming or not)? I have heard of cases like these in the US [1] [2]. I had thought the lower property tax due on agricultural land would be from difference in the rates rather than the assessed value but it seems from [3] that often what's done is valuation based on current use rather than market value (Property tax in the United States mentions this briefly in regards to urban sprawl). I don't know whether this is the way things are handled in that location but perhaps it's part of the story. Nil Einne (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Sometimes, when several properties are sold together, you'll see strange numbers in the Realtor database or in the local government files. So that might be another possible explanation for what's going on. --M@rēino 20:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

looking for goverment office at remote places

Does Indian_Cabins,_Alberta or Sachs Harbour, Northwest Territories have a government office or post office? Neptunekh2 (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Sachs Harbour has the following in or within 89 miles of the place, but Indian Cabins is an unincorporated community. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks like Indian Cabins is served by the post office in Meander River, about 130 kms away. That can't be very convenient. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Sachs has a hamlet office and there will be at least one GNWT worker in the community who probably has an office in the hamlet building. The post office is either a contractor operated service or run by Canada Post. I'm not sure on that. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Just thought, you may have been asking about a federal government office rather than a local or territorial government office. If so it is very unlikely that there is a Government of Canada office. The closest would be in Inuvik unless you count the RCMP. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Although to be fair, according to [4] the population of Indian Cabins is 11 people so they're probably used to inconvience. Nil Einne (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)