Talk:State Sponsors of Terrorism (U.S. list): Difference between revisions
m rv self - never mind |
→the listed countries: new section |
||
Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
==North Korea== |
==North Korea== |
||
The US has removed North Korea from the list because of them stoppin gtheir nuclear program. [[User:Kermanshahi|The Honorable Kermanshahi]] <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|signed but undated]] comment was added at 17:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
The US has removed North Korea from the list because of them stoppin gtheir nuclear program. [[User:Kermanshahi|The Honorable Kermanshahi]] <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|signed but undated]] comment was added at 17:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
== the listed countries == |
|||
here are the currently listed terrorism sponsoring countries. theyre 6, and libya might be officially taken off, but usa immigration still wanted to keep it on the list. |
|||
Cuba - Havana - HAV |
|||
Iran - Tehran - THR |
|||
Libya - Tripoli - TIP |
|||
North Korea - P'Yong Yang - FNJ |
|||
Sudan - Khartoum - KRT |
|||
Syria - Damascus - DAM |
|||
The government of these countries supports terrorism. There are more suspicious countries (29 of them), but the government doesnt have anything to do with support, at least its not proven. |
Revision as of 16:09, 17 February 2008
![]() | International relations Unassessed | |||||||||
|
I must admit, it does seem a little silly to have an actual government document that is by and large arbitrary. Oh no, I'm on the United States's big scary terrorist list! What ever will I do! Randall00 10:29 11-4-2006
How is this at all neutral ? If a list of nations that the US accuses of 'sponsoring international terrorism', in the interests of neutrality we would either have to delete this page or create pages of nations that Cuba, North Korea and Iran accuse of 'sponsoring terrorism'. Hauser 1 October
The US opinion may be biased, but this is a faithful reproduction of an official and factual US government document, just as any other US federal departmental report. - Loweeel 05:13, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
O.K., It's a reproduction, but so what ? Why does this even need to be here ? If other nations don't have their lists of nations that 'sponsor terrorism' here, then it makes the inclusion of this article inherently biased Hauser 2 October 2004
Then start pages of other nations' lists, if you want them. Nobody's stopping you from doing the research or making the wikipedia articles. Loweeel 15:32, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
IMHO the article is a factual reporting of a list, albeit a subjective list. On those grounds it is certainly NPOV. And the list is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. The lack of similar lists from other countries might mean that the Wikipedia needs more articles but not that this article is biased. --Jll 14:21, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
true, but this page should be removed from the terrorism template. The terrorism template already has references to the FBI most wanted list and the US stat dept. list. The link to this page is presented like it contains a general overview of state sponsors of international terrorism, but this list is only about anti-american state sponsored terrorism --Mixcoatl 15:02, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Rather than a US govt. list of present state sponsors, lets rework it a bit and make a list of all past and present state sponsors of terrorism. That way we can include Israel and their backing of the stern gang and the contras. --Uncle Bungle 04:25, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Mixcoatl that this list is not appropriate for a definitive "State sponsors" link the Terrorism template. Either the link should be deleted or set to point to the new article listing all those states which have supported terrorism at some time which Uncle Bungle proposes. It will be a long list. I would not change this article into that one though as this is a specific notable list that people want to find out about. It just happens to be about one government's view of state sponsored terrorism. An equally notable list about, say fruit, would also deserve its own article. --Jll 23:44, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oh, for crying out loud, this is an official US government list with official US government ramifications regarding the law, especially regarding export controls and financial aid. To quote from the US State Department website:
State Sponsor: Implications
Designating countries that repeatedly support international terrorism (i.e., placing a country on the "terrorism list") imposes four main sets of US Government sanctions:
- A ban on arms-related exports and sales,
- Controls over exports of dual use items, requiring 30-day Congressional notification for goods or services that could significantly enhance the terrorist list country's military capability or ability to support terrorism,
- Prohibitions on economic assistance; and
- Imposition of miscellaneous financial and other restrictions, including
- Requiring the United States to oppose loans by the World Bank and other international financial institutions;
- Lifting the diplomatic immunity to allow families of terrorist victims to file civil lawsuits in US courts;
- Denying companies and individuals tax credits for income earned in terrorist list countries;
- Denial of duty-free treatment for goods exported to the United States;
- Authority to prohibit any US person from engaging in a financial transaction with terrorism list government without a Treasury Department license;
- Prohibition of Defense Department contracts above $100,000 with companies controlled by terrorist list states.
If you don't like the US government actions or otherwise have an axe to grind, that's fine, but this list is an objective fact with real-world implications (NPOV, in other words), and wishing otherwise is plainly POV. --Calton 05:02, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have no problems with placing this list, but there shouldn't be linked to it in the terrorism template. --Mixcoatl 14:30, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree. The article is fine, but not the link from the terrorism template. That just labels the link as "State sponsors", as if this is the definitive list.
I would be happy with it in the template if it had a more accurate label.
ps. There was no real need to quote from the State Department website in full as the information is in the article anyway (I put it there) --Jll 21:32, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The U.S. obviously won't put itself on this list
Could someone create List of U.S sponsored international terrorism? Kingturtle 21:31, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, like that wouldn't be inherently POV.--KrossTalk 11:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- We sponsor terrorism? Well, I guess we did help out in the Bay of Pigs, and with that assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem (I don't even know if you can call them terrorists though). But, if we do "sponsor" terrorism (which I doubt), it would be classified, no wikipedian would know about it.--Porsche997SBS 21:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- The term to 'sponsor terrorism' is highly POV. If you ask those on the receiving end of these 'sponsorships', the survivors will almost certainly tell you that the supporters of those groups are sponsors of terrorism. The supporters of those groups will tell you they're supporting freedom fighters or training people to better defend themselves. Also consider the history of the School of the Americas, School of the Americas Watch, and of Osama bin Laden#Afghan_Jihad_resisting_the_Russia_invasion and the Mujahideen#Afghan_Mujahideen. And consider Operation Northwoods, described in Wikipedia as "a 1962 plan to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government of Fidel Castro as part of the U.S. government's Operation Mongoose anti-Castro initiative. The plan, which was not implemented, called for various false flag actions, including simulated or real state sponsored terrorism (such as hijacked planes) on U.S. and Cuban soil.", and also Operation Ajax, a 1953 covert operation by Great Britain and the United States that overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran (1951-53) Mohammed Mossadegh, and put the Shah (Pahlavi) back in power. In Nicaragua, consider the story of Sandinistas and the Contras. In the continental US, look at Native American history and read about the Indian Removal, the Trail of Tears, Chief Joseph, and the stopping of the fleeing of the Nez Perce to Canada. Per Wikipedia's Freedom fighters article, "Historically, people who are self-described "freedom fighters" tend to be called assassins, rebels, or terrorists by their foes. During the Cold War, the term 'freedom fighter' was widely used by the United States and other Western Bloc countries to describe rebels in countries controlled by communist states or otherwise under the influence of the Soviet Union, including rebels in Hungary, the anti-communist Contras in Nicaragua, UNITA in Angola and the multi-factional mujahideen in Afghanistan." (i.e. the USSR would have probably considered the US to be a state sponsor of terrorism in Afghanistan.) A lot depends upon the eye of the beholder; things are rarely black and white; viewing events from the other side's shoes can often be enlightening.--Kaze0010 08:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Why isn't there a link to the actual list included here?
And why aren't there more links to the relevant government documents? From a citations' standpoint, this page is a wreck needs to be cleaned up. Stone put to sky 13:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
North Korea
The US has removed North Korea from the list because of them stoppin gtheir nuclear program. The Honorable Kermanshahi —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
the listed countries
here are the currently listed terrorism sponsoring countries. theyre 6, and libya might be officially taken off, but usa immigration still wanted to keep it on the list.
Cuba - Havana - HAV Iran - Tehran - THR Libya - Tripoli - TIP North Korea - P'Yong Yang - FNJ Sudan - Khartoum - KRT Syria - Damascus - DAM
The government of these countries supports terrorism. There are more suspicious countries (29 of them), but the government doesnt have anything to do with support, at least its not proven.