Needs to have an intent of murdering Jews on a ethnic/religious basis
Has to be reported as a terrorist attack by at least two mainstream media sources.
Can't have happened before the market started.
Attacks in the West Bank and other territories that are controlled by Israel but not internationally recognized do not count for this market.
Related questions
@traders I don't think the police investigation on this will be closed any time soon. I read in one of the articles about this that there was another blast years ago that it still technically under investigation. I don't intend to keep this market open for years. What do you think I should do?
Resolve YES, since the police found a letter from a terrorist organization, and I think we can agree that this is almost certainly done for terrorism purposes.
Resolve N/A because it's ambiguous or because the police investigation won't be finished anytime soon?
Resolve NO because afaik this wasn't actually reported as a definitive terrorist attack (it was mostly reported as suspected terrorist attack). There haven't been many reports outside of Indian newspapers after the letter was found though, so this might just be due to lack of attention.
I put in the clauses about media reports mostly because I wanted to rely on consensus views of what is terrorism, not because media attention was meant to be crucial. Now it seems like it both didn't save me from ambiguity and made it about how much attention this gets which is weird.
I don't actually feel that strongly about resolving this market in a way that is favorable to me (I managed to mostly stop caring about Manifold recently) but I would also appreciate feedback about whether it's even appropriate for me to be making a decision, since I hold a lot of YES, and what to do if it is inappropriate.
@Shump An argument for resolving No is that this market isn’t about this specific incident. If it was about whether this specific incident is a terrorist attack then it should resolve NA if there isn’t a clear Yes or No. However this market asks broadly if there will be a general event with a defined location and time range which should only bear a burden of proof for Yes, since the No case only exists in the absence of a Yes.
@zaperrer Also the first two criteria have definitely not been met. Those criteria are strongly worded as hard requirements: “Needs to have”, “Has to be”
@Shump How will this resolve based on the investigation? If it is deemed a terrorist act but there isn’t clear “intent of murdering Jews” as opposed to just intimidation, threat, or terror would that meet the second criteria but not the first?
@zaperrer That would be a tough one, because that would definitely fit the spirit but not the letter. Since I have a large stake, I will make sure to consult with other people and perhaps even hand off the decision to someone else if that happens. I don't think it's likely though.
The investigation on the 2021 blast was never closed and no suspect was ever found.
So you need to resolve this on the data we have now. Is the note found near the explosion enough to make it count or not.
https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/delhi-news/month-after-blast-area-around-israel-embassy-made-a-fortress-101706119139378.html
Investigation is now handled by the anti-terrorism police unit.
This market will only resolve after the police concludes that it was or wasn't a terrorist attack. I don't expect this to happen this year. I plan on extending the close time to next year. From what I understand, traders don't like for markets to stay closed. If there's any objections to keep this market open, please voice them. To be clear - no attacks in 2024 will qualify.
The letter was apparently written by a terrorist organization. Still waiting for police to say that there is a link between the letter and tbe explosion, but this is looking like a YES.
There was an explosion in India next to the Israeli embassy. If this is confirmed as a terrorist attack this will resolve yes. We need to wait for the results of the Indian investigation. Note that if we need to wait a bit longer for the investigation to conclude, resolution might be delayed. https://www.ynetnews.com/article/hkzwddddp
Hm. This article is saying that whilst an explosion was reported, there wasn't evidence of a blast found (at time of writing, anyway):
https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/delhi-police-call-blast-israel-embassy-probe-9083766/
Other articles are stating without caveat that there was an explosion:
https://www.reuters.com/world/india/new-delhi-police-investigate-reported-blast-near-israel-embassy-ndtv-citing-pti-2023-12-26/
I wonder if it actually in question whether there was an explosion or not. The explosion was reported by an on-duty cop, and it sounds like there are quotes from embassy staff who heard it.
If there was a small explosion but it was just to get attention in order to deliver a threatening letter, it might not count for this market. Guess we'll find out. Kudos for not resolving immediately @Shump.
@chrisjbillington Agreed. Definitely will need more evidence to resolve this. Currently, I think all we know is from eyewitness accounts. It's even possible that this is something even more boring like an accidental gas explosion. We need to see.
@Shump If it was an attack, it seems unlikely to have succeeded in killing anyone. Difficult to establish intent though: ill-meaning terrorists sometimes have infeasible plans, but that doesn't mean they lacked intent, just that they are incompetent. Or as some argue: that they were optimising for something other than killing their enemy, such as getting publicity.
It's sounding like maybe the "blast" might have been a threat or intended to draw attention to the letter, rather than being an attack in its own right. I'm not going to try to argue the case for that too strongly though, definitely not clear. Good luck!
@chrisjbillington The part about intent to kill was put there to distinguish some events that in the common definition, were attacks on racial background but not terrorist attacks. I will not require very solid proof for that. It's more to prevent brawls and stuff like that from counting. It does have to be motivated by religion/ethnicity though
@DanPowell Doesn't satisfy 1 or 3 below, he was firing blanks and it happened a long time ago.
Needs to have an intent of murdering Jews on a ethnic/religious basis
Has to be reported as a terrorist attack by at least two mainstream media sources.
Can't have happened before the market started.
A terroristic attack is completed as soon as the target is aware of it; being arrested prior to the consummation of the attack doesn’t eliminate the terrorism.
@DanPowell A stopped attack is not an attack. Would you also call it a terrorist attack if she just posted something on social media and got arrested?
@Lion An attack with the intent of killing civilians. Verbal abuse or assault without intent of murder don't count.
@Lion I'm not sure either of these have an intent of murder. What do you say about clarifying the question in this way?
Has to be reported as a terrorist attack by at least two mainstream media sources.
Can't have happened before the market started.
I'm just trying to find some consistent criteria and avoid ambiguity, so feel free to suggest other things.
@Shump That's why I'm asking. In my eyes i. e. it would be an obvious terrorist attack if someone took a bomb to a synagogue. But most scenarios won't be as clear as this one. So I would suggest just write down a few criteria and then everyone can adjust their bets. There is not one correct definition of terrorism, everyone has a different take.