Talk:United States and state terrorism

This article was nominated for deletion on August 9, 2006. The result of the discussion was No Consensus.

Please see Talk:American terrorism for an older discussion relevant to this topic.

Ganser and RS

It is insane to claim that Ganser's book fails WP:RS because he joined a club two years after it was published. The book was published and endorsed by ETH Zurich. If that isn't a reliable source then we're going to have to delete General relativity because they published that too. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 16:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not taking sides cause I am done with most interaction with this article, but I do not think the problem is the book was published by ETH, I don't think you actually believe that is the issue either. However as noted above the document the book is based on, the proof basically that it happened is refuted by the CIA and others as being a fake, that I believe is where the issue lies. The idea that RS simply implies a published book is kinda shallow, the basis of the book is what is being challenged, and has been challenged, so its Reliable Source tag is whats being debated on that merit, not the merit of ETH publishing it. SO while its WP:V, its not really WP:RS, cause it exists, doesnt mean its true. Apologies if I am mistating anyones case. --NuclearZer0 16:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that summary, but I think you ignore the passion some editors hold for Ganser. The issue for many of them is that he became a member of ST911.org after the book was published. Here is a sample of what editors have said about Ganser:

• "for the umteenth time Daniel "jewish hologranms took down the towers" Ganser is not an WP:RS" - TDC
• "removed unsourced conspiracy cruft -- disreputable source not meeting WP:RS requirements" and "removed unsubstantiated "Gladio" material -- complete fabrication" - Monty Devonshire
• "Ganser [is] a jew hating asshole pseudo-intellectual hack"[1] - TDC
• "Just more Striver-cruft 9/11 CT nonsense." -MONGO

etc... Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 16:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's some more anti-semitic bilge from Monty [2]. Very like TDC's previous comment [3]. Is there a connection? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 19:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You have confused the issue. I deplore Ganser's Anti-Semitism. Morton Devonshire^Yo 19:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What antisemitism? You and TDC invented this from your twisted imaginations. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 19:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ganser Declared Unreliable by Wiki Admin

With respect to the reliability of Daniele Ganser's work as a source in Wikipedia, Lord Seabhcan of Baloney asks Admin Fred Bauder for clarification as to whether Ganser meets WP:RS requirements:

Help on WP:RS dispute

Hi, I wonder if you could lend an outsiders opinion to a dispute that has been raging on articles related to Operation Gladio. The dispute is whether a book on the subject is an WP:RS or not. The book is by Dr. Daniele Ganser of the ETH Zurich university. The book was published by them and Ganser received a PhD from that University for this work. ETH Zurich is very prestigious, having been the university where Einstein worked and having 21 Nobel prize winners on their staff. It is one of the fore-most universities in Europe.

I and others say this makes the book notable. Another group of editors say that because Ganser joined a group called 9/11 Scholars for Truth two years after the book was published, Ganser's work becomes suspect and cannot be referenced.

What do you think? I'd prefer not to go through the trouble of arbitration for such a specific issue. Thanks. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 16:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[4]

Admin Fred Bauder's reply:

Help on WP:RS dispute

A source authored by a person engaged in a propaganda operation such as Scholars for 9/11 Truth would be considered unreliable. Fred Bauder 16:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[5]

Result: Daniele Ganser is not a reputable source on Wikipedia, and his work may be removed. Morton Devonshire^Yo 18:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Although I stand by my opinion, it turns out that Ganser, while expressing similar conspiracy theories, had nothing to do with Scholars for 9/11 Truth. I am not pleased that my opinion is being held out as settling the issue. Fred Bauder 17:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It really depresses me, actually. Wikipedia seems to be dominated by a bunch of anti-free speach fascists, and I'm getting sick of it. The idea that if someone raises their voice about something the majority disagrees with then everything that person ever said or did becomes 'wrong'. I noticed that when the "Dixie Chicks" spoke against the Iraq War, US freedom of speech rights went out the window. As for science, I'd point out that Newton believed a bunch of crazy stuff about the occult and alchemy. Guess that must mean that gravity doesn't exist, eh? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 18:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It isn't disagreeing with the majority that is the issue. It is making stuff up that is the issue. Fred Bauder 17:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Just stumbled on this. Sorry, but this is total baloney. Even if Ganser's work on 9/11 were considered unreliable due to his support of this effort, it has no bearing whatsoever on his assessment of Operation Gladio. Ganser is, in fact, a well-respected academician who has repeatedly been called on by both the executive and the legislative branch of the swiss government as an expert on security policy. Ganser is, in fact, neither a full nor associate nor any other member of "Scholars for 9-11 truth". While he has contributed a chapter to the book "9/11 & American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out", it deals with the Cold War. Declaring Ganser as unreliable on this issue here could well be seen as unauthorized assumption of authority, given that he wants to trump an entire faculty. Since this is indeed Ganser's dissertation topic, if any of you has evidence that its conclusions are unreliable, they should be brought to the attention of the department of history of the University of Basel. If you don't, please desist from contaminating Wikipedia with jingoism just because you don't like his findings. --OliverH 19:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. A voice of sanity at last. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 19:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Being an active participant in a campaign of disinformation seriously damages a person's credibility. Fred Bauder 20:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC) -- Perhaps we should consider Bush administration as an unreliable source, then?(WMD anyone?) Why do you think 9/11 Truth movement is disinformation? They have more questions than answers, and official answers provided to this day have all signs of being disinformation. And don't forget - everyone makes mistakes sometimes.

Actually some statements made by the American government can reasonably be considered unreliable. I have no problem with that. But made up stuff like the 9/11 conspiracy theories is just no good. Fred Bauder 17:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

When Steven E. Jones published his paper there were wars on his article about his paper not being peer-reviewed(while it was peer-reviewed). Now, in this case, when peer-review is not a question, you try to belittle its meaning. I am looking at all of this with disgust - it wears all signs of censorship.SalvNaut 20:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Wasnt Jones the one removed from his university because they felt he wasn't getting his stuff peer-reviewed? Am I getting the professor wrong again? --NuclearZer0 04:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The version I heard was he was asked to retire because the University didn't like their name being mentioned in the same breath as the conspiracy theories. Nothing to do with peer reviewing. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 12:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe the University gave a different reason, which would be the official reason. I think that is the reason we should stick with. --NuclearZer0 15:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

From the article:

“ On September 7, 2006, he was placed on paid leave while his university reviewed the scientific basis of his work in this area.[5][6] Six weeks later, before the review would have been made, Jones elected to retire from BYU in order to devote more time to this line of research. On October 20, 2006 Steven Jones and BYU finalized a retirement package. ”

--NuclearZer0 15:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

On a related note

Fred Bauder stated:

"Being an active participant in a campaign of disinformation seriously damages a person's credibility."

and

"A source authored by a person engaged in a propaganda operation such as Scholars for 9/11 Truth would be considered unreliable"

and

"Just use common sense. If someone is promoting one phony thing, they can be expected to promote others."

The US Government unequivocally and unambiguously states that "the Earth is at least 4.3 billion years in age" [6], therefore anyone who publically contends that the earth is 1000's of years old, be that person a preacher or a creation 'scientist', politician or scholar, must be considered " an active participant in a campaign of disinformation" and esposing young age earth arguments can only be seen as "propaganda operations" and the arguments themselves as 'Conspiracy Theories'. Following Mr. Bauder's reasoning - all content from any person who believes the earth is 1000's of years old must be considered unreliable, and exclusionable from Wiki. I'll get to work editing.......... Maybe Morty will do us the favor of listing Young Earth Creation Science on the Conspiracy Noticeboard - F.A.A.F.A. 03:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Arguing on a tangent usually doesnt gain any points here. The book he wrote is based on a document that many professionals have said is fake and part of the Soviet disinformation campaigns. I really do not see why people just don't find someone else to support the ideas, if Ganser really is all there is then perhaps it is all a little paper thin. --NuclearZer0 11:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You show that you have not read the book. Ganser's book only mentions the questionable FM on three pages out of 315 and it represents only one reference out of 960. An informed person could not claim that "The book he wrote is based on a document that many professionals have said is fake". Only 1% is based on that document. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 12:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I have not and never claimed to have. I am simply reiterating other peoples points. From what has been said here and on the Gladio page, the document is what holds it all together. My apologies if you felt I was saying I read the book. --NuclearZer0 13:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

In all probability those other editors have also not read the book. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 13:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Since the complaint is about Ganser is there anyone else you can use for a reference to stick everythnig together? Considering the magnitude of this story and countries and people involved, I am sure others have written on the topic and you could just as easily piece it together through alternate sources. --NuclearZer0 13:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge there are no other books on this topic in English. [7] (Although several books have a chapter on Gladio and there is a book on Greek Gladio called "The rape of greece", but I haven't read it) However, we can write the article based on newspaper articles - but then we will be accused of having "joined the dots". Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 13:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there nothing like a feature pieces, kind of in the form like Time Magazine does that would allow a significant ammount of content to be drawn from it. The worry on connecting dots is that you take source and A and join it with B to make up C, however if something is covered greatly in A and not as much in B C and D, then its ok to use B C and D to support A, just not to make a new arguement. So if you have one concise source that everyone or a majority can agree on, then you should be able to build from that and use other sources to support it. --NuclearZer0 13:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Until someone can show that there is something actually wrong with Ganser, I'm going to stick to that. If I dump an academic because of the uninformed complaints of users (many of whom have not even read it) then what guarantee to I have that the next source I find won't be dismissed in the same flippant way? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 14:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess in the end that is your choice, continuing a revert war instead of just working around it. After a while enough admins will get tired and start pointing fingers at everyone, which in the end helps noone. Perhaps everyone should just lay out their Pro's & Cons and start a RfC to allow people to come here, examine the sides and give their opinions in a poll. --NuclearZer0 14:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll happily dump Ganser if someone can tell me why. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 14:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of non-Ganser material

Some editors are deleting vast amounts of referenced material which has no Ganser references and claiming it is based on the Ganser discussion. Really folks, come on now. This is childish. How are you supposed to be accepted as an editor if you show yourself unable to read before you delete? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 02:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This is nuts. The Ganser material is simply a reference to a reputable academician published by a reputable publisher who has provided information in support of the idea that the CIA -- and by extension the United States -- regularly engages in Terrorist activity. The article has already acceded to a very great many things; it's time that these hostile editors like TDC, Nuclear Zero and "Monty" grow up a bit and allow the page to develop in a reputable and even-handed fashion. Watching them systematically attack each and every reference and fact to the U.S. and British "terrorist" tools far more to damage their credibility than it does that of Ganser.

Not to mention that Monty is an obvious sock-puppet.Stone put to sky 13:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Refrain from your attacks, I havent contested anything that has to do with Gladio and your bias is now showing that you automatically lump everyone who isnt bowing down in support as your opposition. Further calling others hostile while making accusations doesn't look very good and especially when calling someone a sock. If you have a claim to make take it to RFCU and stop attacking people here. I personally have been trying to help Seabhcan come up with alternatives that would appease everyone and allow Gladio to stay, again, stop your accusations, they do not help anything here. --NuclearZer0 13:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Help Seabchan come up with alternatives that "appease" everyone here? I don't know if you ever bothered to read the Wikipedia Guidelines, but this is not a democracy. What you should be doing -- if you are genuinely committed to what you claim -- is banning the people who are responsible for continually defacing the page with lame character assassination, wholesale deletions, and incontrovertibly biased edits.Stone put to sky 14:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:CON A concensus is important in building a working environment. However the point still stands, I was not against Gladio and would like an apology for your rant above that included my name. I think you should also take a step back and examine your last 2 edits on this talk page as you are behaving quite hostile. --NuclearZer0 14:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Commentary in Introduction

Can we have some sources added soon for the commentary that was recently added to the introduction. I am going to put the citation needed tags up and give it about 10 days or so. Thanks. --NuclearZer0 14:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What facts were presented were sourced. The rest is general information that is freely available elsewhere on Wikipedia. I'll be happy to add the links, but must be given time to track them down. It's currently 10:30PM here where i live, and i'll be going to bed soon. So it'll need to wait until tomorrow.

In the mean time, the additions to the article should stand simply because they help to clarify a lot of the fear, uncertainty and doubt that has been swirling around this article. ZeroFaults // NuclearZero (the same person?) left a message on my page saying that my additions are "inappropriate". I would like to hear from the other editors for this page -- Zerofaults, you should choose *one* persona, because we're all sick and tired of hearing you lob in three comments for each of our one,one under Monty, and the other under your self-admitted Sockpuppet self -- and see how my edit is viewed. Stone put to sky 14:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't find them to be general information and so they should be sourced. As I said I wouldnt even touch the additions for 10 days or so, that is plenty time I would think to produce sources for comments such as:

"Unfortunately, this definition makes reference to "unlawful", and thus tacitly references the law codes of the United States. Because state-sponsored acts are, by definition, judgable only according to international standards, the FBI definition is is inadequate for usage as an international standard"

The rest of the sections added should also be fully source dback to a WP:RS and WP:V source that argues those points. Thank you. If you have any accusatiosn you can make them on RFCU instead of wasting my time and others here. If you continue I will seek admin assistance at what I see to be harrassment. Please do not attack people and instead just add the sources. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 14:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

In defence of NuclearZero - He is one of the more reasonable editors around these pages, and I doubt he is the same person as Monty Devonshire. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 14:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't find them to be general information??? They are direct references to the citations and quotes already presented!!!!

Unfortunately, this definition makes reference to "unlawful", and thus tacitly references the law codes of the United States. Because state-sponsored acts are, by definition, judgable only according to international standards, the FBI definition is is inadequate for usage as an international standard.[citation needed]

This is basic-english-101, back from the eighth grade. I need a citation to validate the assertion that if the FBI says something's illegal they must be referring to the Federal Statutes and the local criminal codes of the United States? What else would they be using as their standard? And what sort of "authoritative" person do you think would actually deign to waste three sentences explaining such a basic and obvious conclusion? Asking for a citation here is ridiculous. Stone put to sky 15:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You need a citation whenever you are arguing law because its not common knowledge, you are not stating there is carbon in carbon dioxide, you are stating that the FBI definition isnt compatible with international law, you need a lawyer to argue this in a WP:RS source. --NuclearZer0 15:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not "arguing law". I have simply pointed out that what the U.S. FBI says is illegal is not the same as what other countries say is illegal because the FBI is an organization of the U.S. government. That's like saying that the corporate rules at Coca-Cola aren't the same as they are at Microsoft; you wouldn't think to ask me to get a citation there, and there's no need for one here.Stone put to sky 16:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, here:

Because there is no higher authority to which either body can appeal, the discrepancies between the claims remain unresolved. [citation needed]

We need a citation that demonstrates that there is no higher International body that can adjudicate the dispute about whether or not the latest invasion of Iraq was legal? Heck, just quoting the "citation" would take a longer and more involved digression than the actual statement itself -- which, again, is so patently obvious that it's a no-brainer. And what would this citation consist of, exactly -- the complete compilation of all current legal documents of every country on the planet, analyzed in detail, eventually leading to the conclusion that there actually does not exist an international consensus on an international court, international law, and international terrorism? All assembled into one nice single-sentence summarization? Stone put to sky 15:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes of coruse you need a citation to say this. Oddly enough this is already international criminal courts and wars that have been deamed illegal. There have been military actions cited as illegal in this very article, so of course you need a citation to assert something completely opposite of the points presented later. Maybe there is maybe there isnt a concensus on international terrorism, I know people have been tried for terrorism in their owncountries as well as others and we had milosovic tried recently in international court, and according to documents here the US was found guilty of engagnig in illegal acts and terrorism. So yes please provide a citation in the next 10 days. Also your sarcasm doesnt really help, if what you are saying is so obvious then plenty others would have said it in WP:RS and WP:V sources, so just source it back to someplace. --NuclearZer0 15:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You need to learn how to read. I said nothing about the illegality or legality of the Iraq war, only that it was in dispute and that there is no body of law around that can adjudicate it. If you think there needs to be a citation about the dispute over the legality of the Iraq war, then i'll be happy to oblige. But saying that a citation is needed to demonstrate that there is no universally recognized international adjudication body that can resolve this matter is something i'll leave for you or your brethren; this very fact is referenced in several other areas of this article and others, and nobody has ever saddled it with a demand for a citation. That's like asking for a citation to demonstrate that there exists something in the United States called a Supreme Court. If somebody references that the Supreme Court is the highest adjudicative body in the U.S, people don't demand a citation. If someone says that they don't have jurisdiction outside the U.S, people don't demand a citation. You are out of line here, and so far as i can tell merely because it entertains you.Stone put to sky 16:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

And here:

Looking at the problem from another angle, government definitions of international legality can often be at odds with their defitions of internal legality.[citation needed]

Why is another citation necessary? We already have one by Ganser, and all I'm doing is paraphrasing his words. Why isn't quoting the documents directly and pointing out that a responsible researcher and specialist in international relations unequivocally supports this rather obvious interpretation enough? The two quotes are themselves simple and unambiguous: the FBI says that any illegal use of violence to coerce governments is terrorism, and the CIA mandate specifically says that it was created to use insurgencies, guerillas, subversion, sabotage, and "economic warfare" to conduct its operations. Are you suggesting that those words have some sort of ambiguity, and that we need to appeal to a higher source to resolve the confusion? Are you seriously suggesting that worldwide, most governments and people consider subversion, guerilla war, insurgency, sabotage and "economic warfare" to be legal and patriotic activities in the service of one's country? If not, then asking for a citation here is rather silly. Stone put to sky 15:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

If this is Gansers opinion then cite it as that. Ganser feels the problem is governments definitions of international legality ... and cite a page in the book that he says that. So if you indeed feel Ganser said this you can provide a direct source to when he said it. Also its best not paraphrase and instead quote Ganser, if you have the quote you don;t need the paraphrase, you are being redundant. As for what I am suggesting ... I am simply saying you need a source. --NuclearZer0 15:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you try reading the article? The sentence in question is a segue into Ganser's opinion, and is a direct explanation preparing the reader for what follows. In other words: Ganser is cited, and his opinion is provided, and the sentence is there to elucidate even further what is being restated directly beneath.Stone put to sky 16:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

And here:

In this article, there will be no attempt to judge the validity or invalidity of the accusations as published, but only an attempt to describe what these accusations are and how they are perceived internationally.[citation needed] Stone put to sky 15:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This isnt a school essay, for get citation this just shouldnt be there. You are not writing an arguementative essay for AP English. --NuclearZer0 15:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

If this was a student essay, i wouldn't need to make allowances for malicious vandals marking up my paper with red crayons. While from an informative standpoint this may not "need" to be there, realistically -- after having watched the ineptitude with which you've managed these last three edit wars -- i assert that from a compositional standpoint it's long overdue.

It would do us all good to remember that what we're trying to do here is reach a copascetic solution. That sentence is my caveat to the other editors, and one which i hope they'll honor me with, as well. It provides us all with a clear reference about how the page should develop. While you might like to pretend like it's useless and inappropriate fluff, watching the abysmal, Bush-magnitude failure with which you've managed this page now these last few months, i really don't think you are in any position to pass such a judgement.Stone put to sky 16:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I need to find a *citation* that will verify how we all agree to behave here? Upon my word, whoever put these things in here wasn't really concerned with what was being written, but only with...lord, i have no idea what they were thinking about, but it certainly had nothing to do with manufacturing a legitimate and useful article.Stone put to sky 15:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for more accusations, I will await the rewriting of the Ganser sourced items to Ganser appropriately and sourced as they are suppose to be and citations for the other items. I find it odd you said you can find sources and would have them tomorrow then basically argue they do not need sources ... Anyway you have plenty of time to provide the sources.

--NuclearZer0 15:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Accusations? My *accusation* is that you are inept and incapable of managing this page. Good-day. Stone put to sky 16:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No source forthcoming. My responses stand. If someone else wants to take up that task, that's fine with me. In the meantime, i'm reporting you to the editorial board. See ya in the negotiation room, buddy.Stone put to sky 15:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

That is fine, hopefully someone else will in 10 days. Take care. --NuclearZer0 15:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I am going to state the obvious here, as it seems that in the heat of the argument, it may have been forgotten: 1) Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. 2) Any edit lacking a source may be removed. 3) The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. 4) Be careful not to err too far on the side of not upsetting editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long. All per WP:V Brimba 16:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

O.k. i'm going to state the obvious here: I challenge the idea that you or NuclearUmpf are Wikipedia moderators. I challenge the idea that the material i presented are "facts" that can be referenced in the first place. I challenge that the sentences referenced present any "facts" to speak of beyond those that are already explicitly presented and cited in the article elsewhere.

I can go on: I challenge that the wikiedia guidelines you are citing were ever actually agreed upon, but in fact are the invention of a malicious, all-powerful hacker who has altered the page for you just now, so you can play games with me. i challenge the idea that people breathe quicker when they get excited; i challenge the fact that coffee keeps you awake; i challenge the idea that women generally have smoother skin then men; i challenge the fact that the sky is most often blue; and so on --

The point is simple: anyone can challenge anything, no matter how obvious and absurd. If this NuclearZero person wants to actually get this page in some sort of reasonable order, then he better start paying attention to his own glaring failure to manage this place. In the meantime, i've lodged a complaint. Goodnight.Stone put to sky 18:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not own this place so its not mine to manage, if you are gonig to make fun of WP:V then please do it elsewhere like off wiki. Its a policy and is to be followed. Considering this little outburst I doubt you will provide the sources, however I will err on the side of caution that someone else might and wait out the 10 days. --NuclearZer0 18:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

al jazira, white phosphorous

we can add to this the al jazira bombing and american use of white phosphorous on civilians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_bombing_memo http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4440664.stm

White phosphorous is a legal weapon unless purposely used on civilians, if you can prove it was then fine, however there never was proof it was. --NuclearZer0 11:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

WP is legal for the US to use because they haven't signed the international treaty banning it. It is generally illegal for any other country. An example of American exceptionalism. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 01:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That is not entirely accurate. See White phosphorus (weapon)#Arms control status. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

A) It was used on an area that had many civilians in it, and the U.S. military had foreknowledge both of the fact that civilians were there and that "Whiskey Pete" would be used. Therefore it was purposefully used against civilians. B) This is all the evidence that one needs to assert that the act was in violation of the Geneva Conventions and thus classifiable as an act of State Terrorism.

It's "Willy Pete" BTW. Morton Devonshire^Yo 20:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah the navy used to shell Vieques with that stuff, it would glow in the sand along the beach all night. --NuclearZer0 21:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The point is there is no proof the US did it to target civilians, it really doesn tmatter what you or I think and noone has reffered to it as a terrorist attack. --NuclearZer0 11:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

All one needs is a citation showing that al Jazeera said "The US commited an act of terrorism by using white phosphorus." That is an allegation of state terrorism by the US, cited to a notable source. If you have a report in al Jazeera that white phosphorus was used against civilians, and an editorial in an Italian newspaper that says using WP to burn people is contrary to the Geneva convention, and an opinion of an emminent scholar about what constitutes state terrorism, then all you have is a steaming handful of original research. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Our troops have used weapons in areas where our other units or allies were (accidentally of course), hence the term friendly fire. There is no proof US troops were aiming at the innocent. JungleCat talk/contrib 21:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but if you have an Italian documentary that shows clear photographic evidence that White Phosphorous was used, shows that the bodies in question are clearly those of ex-women and ex-children, and shows the relevant documents from the Geneva Conventions that the use of white phosphorous and other chemical weapons on areas of civilian population is a war-crime, and then the documentary goes on to equate the act with the behavior of terrorists, then what you've got is a valid source.

And yes, the documentary exists; it's about forty minutes long, and I've got a copy of it on my hard-drive here. If someone would like to look up exactly where and when it was shown, it'd be nice. If not, gimme a few weeks and i can probably figure it out. Regardless, taking the citation down was a premature act, especially in light of the overwhelming evidence that supports the conclusions. Stone put to sky 14:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Upload it to YouTube or provide some information like an english review link that says the documentary accuses the US of terrorism, so it fits WP:RS. Also make sure the documentary is from a good source, one that isnt bias, has a record of good film making etc, as WP:RS doesnt mean it just exists but that its reliable of a source for the claim. --NuclearZer0 15:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. The documentary is posted here; by RAI News 24, Italy, in cooperation with the BBC.

http://www.chris-floyd.com/fallujah/

Stone put to sky 15:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The accusations of terrorism is from Chris Floyd, its a blog. Do you have something that meets WP:RS? Perhaps BBC saying it or something. --NuclearZer0 15:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

NSC 10/2

I think the quote from NSC 10/2 is relevant to the article. I put it back in, with a source from the U.S. Department of State. See U.S. Department of State, Note on U.S. Covert Actions for background info.

The quote had been removed in this edit. Chrisahn 23:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The link cited does not mention terrorism. What would be needed is a notable person who says operations conducted under NSC 10/2 may constitute terrorism. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I originally put NSC 10/2 in because Dr Ganser said just that. But of course, now that the wikipedia 'community' has flushed Ganser down the memory hole, NSC 10/2 is also now unmentionable. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 01:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ganser seems pretty heavily cited to support our Gladio collection. And of course, if NSC 10/2 were unmentionable, I would not have been able to write about it here. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The citation as last posted did not mention Gladio, and was relevant to the article. Ganser is a respected academic from a military educational institute founded and administered by the Swiss government. His specialty is research on intelligence agencies, covert operations, and the world's developing terrorist networks. As far as credentials go, his are beyond dispute in this matter. The citation that was removed was an explicit assertion that, through the CIA, the U.S. government sanctions and promotes activities that are widely regarded as terrorism. There is just no reasonable justification for removing it. Stone put to sky 14:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

More editorializing removed

Considering the nature of this article can the person who added the recent edits that I reverted please source them first before adding. Items like "Critics have long accused the United States government of selectively editing the list, sometimes adding enemy states on the basis of flimsy evidence while purging it to favor allies for whom evidence of wrongdoing is much stronger." need sources are they are accusations against an entire nation of wrong-doing, multiple sources is needed to support such a claim. The revision of the state terrorism explanation should also be documented as to why, please use edit summaries also as they help others understand why you made such edits and what you are using as a basis. There was also additions to what acts may be considered terrorist acts, can we please have this sourced as well. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 15:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

That is not editorializing. This page is about "Allegations of State Terrorism" against the United States. The statement is presented as the position of many of the critics of U.S. foreign policy, thus helping to explain the divide between how the United States can perceive its actions as legitimate while others simultaneously accuse it of acts of terrorism. It is more than appropriate to include it in the article -- it's in fact a necessity. Moreover, such assertions are commonplace among organizations like Amnesty International, HRW, and others. If you have a problem with the assertion, or think it needs a citation, then you should state so; in this case, we have a fact presented as an assertion, and a request for a citation of some sort is apropos. Thus, i am replacing the comment and will come back at a later time with an appropriate citation. Stone put to sky 15:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Who? Just post sources of who those critics are, I will add the fact tags again per the requirements here and then remove the items in 10 days if no sources are presented. --NuclearZer0 15:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)