Talk:Lone wolf attack

The imformation in here is factually incorrect. The Real IRA is a splinter group of the Provisional IRA, and not connected with the Provisionals. The two are separate groups, and the Real IRA is not a cover name for the Provisionals. A much better example would be the Red Hand Defenders (loyalist cover name) or the IRA's anti-dealer group, whose name escapes me at the minute... Will edit it to a higher standard as of tomorrow. - Supersheep

Personal essay

This article looks like a personal essay. Can anyone provide a citation that the term "independent terrorist actor" is used? A Google check seems to reveal mostly WP mirror sites. The term "lone wolf" is used more often.

Secondly, the section about Vietnam and the IRA was either false or incomprehensible. I've made it invisible; pasting it below in case others think there is some merit in it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:38, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

This was true in the case of Vietnam, where the US government undertook a large terrorist operation to exacerbate the pre-existing civil conflict in Vietnam, unbeknownst to the larger American public (the cause which the public was led to support was "anti-communism"). Also the Omagh bombing in Ireland, where the "Real IRA"—a splinter group from the more conciliatory IRA, killed 29 people in a bombing attack against Ulster Loyalist families—a completely radical action, according to the mainstream Republican view.

In the Palestinian territories, a similar (but more complex) situation exists where in addition to the large organizations there are several distinct factions (mostly based on clans and blood ties), under constant pressure by retaliatory actions from Israel, tend to be extremely divided about any immediate course of action—such that they can rarely or never act in a collective or controlled manner. Under stress, the choice between action and inaction tends to default to one between violence and protest. Violence, being far more decisive than moderation and discussion, tends to win out over discussion.

The other problem with this article is that it doesn't make it clear that the connection between the individuals and the groups are alleged; that is, that it is alleged that these individuals purposely break connection with the group so that the group can then claim they had no knowledge. A less conspiracy oriented view is that these people truly do act on their own, without the guidance or approval of anyone.

I've added all the people cited for now, but the problems with this article remain. Who has designated these individuals as "Independent terrorist actors", and who has documented their arming and training by various groups, then purposeful break of connectsions? The original research in this article needs to be fixed with careful citation. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

John Allen Muhammad, a terrorist?

While I know, and also partly understand different reasons for not agreeing on a definition on terrorism, I find it strange that John Allen Muhammad can be classified as one in this article. If one doesn't include a political goal or something along those lines, many criminals can be defined as terrorist, and thus only help to obscure an already difficult and complex concept. -- 09:00, 22. Sept 2005

No, he wasn't a "terrorist" in the way Americans think of the work (as bug-eyed foreigners wearing winter coats on a 90-degree day), but he did go out and shoot people in the vicinity of the nation's capital, and no one's going to argue that he didn't spread "terror" throughout the area. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.165.87.40 (talk • contribs) 02:29, January 31, 2006 (UTC)