Talk:State-sponsored terrorism

Pakistan, Taliban, and Osama

Pakistan is still being accused of sheltering Taliban, and recently Osama was killed there. I don't know why User:Multan47 wants to add 1990s as time when Pakistan sheltered Taliban and delete the sentence about Osama's killing.(Ironically He leaves references intact.) Akilan (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

US - Pakistan gave no proof of Indian involvement

Pak provided no evidence on India's role in Balochistan: US

Neither Pakistan, nor India, nor the United States have confirmed the existence of any such "dossier" on India's involvement in Balochistan. The entire allegation is based just on some unknown sources mentioned by the Dawn newspaper. Until the governments officially acknowledge, it can be said with utmost certainty that Pakistan has not yet shared any proof of Indian involvement. Therefore, Balochistan allegations cannot be taken seriously and do not deserved to be mentioned in an encyclopedia. --Nosedown (talk) 03:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes and the website you provided is by some Indian newspaper so it must be included in the article india always accuses so why are Indian allegations included? Indian terror acts in Baluchistan must be mentioned 86.162.71.49 (talk) 11:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan has confirmed again and again that they have provided the evidence. For this you may see the ref previously provided. India denies to due to their own complications, especially due to protest by some opposition parties.yousaf465'

Mughalnz (talk) additiional cridible information Mughalnz (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore info on Bal0cc infomtion from reuters said by expert from Jamestown University saying that U.S saying they got no info on indian involvement as they do not want look for info indian ionvlovemnt becasue they are india ally http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN18122957

Other instances of alleged collusion include the testimony of a former IRA man who claimed his unit had been aided by a soldier in the Irish Army, and Garda collusion in the IRA's murder of twelve people. Historically the four Presidents of the Dáil Éireann - Cathal Brugha, Éamon de Valera, W. T. Cosgrave, Arthur Griffith - had all been involved in the Easter Rising in which the Irish Republican Army was founded. Arthur Griffith was the founder of Sinn Fein, Cathal Brugha was the IRA's Chief of Staff, De Valera was a member of the Irish Republican Brotherhood, and W.T. Cosgrave had played a significant role in the Easter Rising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.129.72 (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

In the United Kingdom section there are allegations of State collusion between RUC members and Loyalist Paramilitaries, in fairness there is equal evidence to suggest that British Military intelligence prevented the murder of Gerry Adams, now leader of Sinn Fein, and actively supported or organised the INLA's murder of Billy Wright. Evidence for the former is pointed to by Henry McDonald in his book UDA: Inside the Heart of Loyalist Terror, and the latter by the substantial evidence in the book The Billy Boy: The Life and Death of LVF Leader Billy Wright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmloyal (talk • contribs) 00:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Mughalnz (talk)indian article Mughalnz (talk)

can any one make the article not WP:POVFORK and improve it so it can be added tot he section to give balanced overall activities of all countries we one section is not to small in comparison with other sections in the page

India's counter-intelligence unit, the Research & Analysis Wing (RAW) has been accused of supporting insurgent groups by Pakistan. It has also been accused of training and arming the Sri Lankan Tamil group, LTTE, during the 1970s before it withdrew its support when the LTTE increased its activities in the 1980s..India's counter-intelligence unit, the Research & Analysis Wing (RAW) has been accused of supporting insurgent groups throughout Pakistan by Pakistan and 'Experts'( in involvement in Baluchistan to be specific), as said by an article from Council on Foreign Relations additionally it also said RAW has "carrying out terrorist operations inside Pakistan' with Terror units in the 1980's ,and that they had that had used '"low-grade but steady campaign of bombings in major Pakistani cities, notably Karachi and Lahore'.An article written by BBC says that EX-General Pakistani Hamid Gul said that RAW was responsible for the Lahore Attacks but there were 'no evidence' to Prove the allegation' <

India's counter-intelligence unit, the Research & Analysis Wing (RAW) has been accused of supporting insurgent groups by Pakistan. It has also been accused of training and arming the Sri Lankan Tamil group, LTTE, during the 1970s before it withdrew its support when the LTTE increased its activities in the 1980s..India's counter-intelligence unit, the Research & Analysis Wing (RAW) has been accused of supporting insurgent groups throughout Pakistan by Pakistan and 'Experts'( in involvement in Baluchistan to be specific), as said by an article from Council on Foreign Relations additionally it also said RAW has "carrying out terrorist operations inside Pakistan' with Terror units in the 1980's ,and that they had that had used '"low-grade but steady campaign of bombings in major Pakistani cities, notably Karachi and Lahore'. <

India's counter-intelligence unit, the Research & Analysis Wing (RAW) has been accused of supporting insurgent groups throughout Pakistan by Pakistan and 'Experts'( in involvement in Baluchistan to be specific), as said by an article from Council on Foreign Relations additionally it also said RAW has "carrying out terrorist operations inside Pakistan' with Terror units in the 1980's ,and that they had that had used '"low-grade but steady campaign of bombings in major Pakistani cities, notably Karachi and Lahore'; Pakistan furthermore accuses the 'Indian intelligence agency RAW was behind several terrorist acts in Sindh,Punjab(Pakistan) and Islamabad' as written by Asian Survey in the 1990's . It has also been accused of training and arming the Sri Lankan Tamil group, LTTE, during the 1970s before it withdrew its support when the LTTE increased its activities in the 1980s.An article written by BBC says that EX-General Pakistani Hamid Gul said that RAW was responsible for the Lahore Attacks but there were 'no evidence' to Prove the allegation' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mughalnz (talk • contribs) 21:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Mughalnz (talk) additiional cridible information Mughalnz (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Mughalnz (talk) additiional cridible information Mughalnz (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore info on Bal0cc infomtion from reuters said by expert from Jamestown University saying that U.S saying they got no info on indian involvement as they do not want look for info indian ionvlovemnt becasue they are india ally http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN18122957 , http://www.nytimes.com/1998/06/08/world/train-blast-kills-23-and-pakistan-blames-india.html- alleged act of indian terroism by Raw ,http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/bomb-explosion-kills-two-people-in-pakistan-border-village-727182.html-alleged act of indian terroism by Raw ,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/feb/06/kashmir.india-alleged act of indian terroism by Raw ,http://www.cfr.org/publication/17707/raw.html RAW: India's External Intelligence Agency - Council on Foreign Relations

 alleged act of indian terroism by Raw 

Mughalnz (talk)similiar allegation written on other section in the should not be included pov —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mughalnz (talk • contribs) 01:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Mughalnz (talk) Mughalnz (talk) c Mughalnz (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

CIA and China/Tibet

I've removed that. CfR is not a reliable source (it is a think tank) and the article quotes "Swami" in making the CIA claim anyway so we have an opinion article quoting an opinion of a third party which is nowhere near what we want.

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards,

Holocaust

I'm surprised that there is no mention of Germany; I would have thought that the Holocaust would be the most obvious example of state-sponspored terrorism. Does state-conducted terrorism not count as state-sponsored terrorism? I have to assume that there's some rationale behind its absence, since people have clearly put a lot of thought into this page and it seems a pretty blatant oversight. - Darth Wombat (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The holocaust is mentioned under State Terrorism (as opposed to state sponsored terrorism). Essentially your rationale is correct, even if the exact phrases aren't the same as yours. Epeeist smudge (talk) 09:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Rainbow Warrior

Shouldn't this be State Terrorism rather than State Psonsored terrorism since it was caried out by French Intellegence directly, rather than "sub-contracted" to a terrorist NGO? Epeeist smudge (talk) 09:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Definitions

Some definitions with sources of what SST is would help. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Introduction is a disaster It should, at a minimum, attempt to state what state-sponsored terrorism is, per WP:MOS. Ray (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. However, it should be more than a definition (from something more than a dictionary) per WP:NOTDICDEF.VR talk 04:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

MP>>This is still not resolved. I would argue that the defintion of terrorism from the main Wikipedia article be quoted, with then a phrase or two indicating how this relates to state spondorsed terrorism. This important given the disagreements over whether the examples cited are within a definition or not. Perhaps each example cited should also provide a clear indication of what definition of terrorism is being used.

Also useful within the definition would be a reference, even perhaps quotation from the World Court Judgement:

"The Court has to determine whether the relationship of the contras to the United States Government was such that it would be right to equate the contras, for legal purposes, with an organ of the United States Government, or as acting on behalf of that Government. The Court considers that the evidence available to it is insufficient to demonstrate the total dependence of the contras on United States aid. A partial dependency, the exact extent of which the Court cannot establish, may be inferred from the fact that the leaders were selected by the United States, and from other factors such as the organisation, training and equipping of the force, planning of operations, the choosing of targets and the operational support provided. There is no clear evidence that the United States actually exercised such a degree of control as to justify treating the contras as acting on its behalf." "Having reached the above conclusion, the Court takes the view that the contras remain responsible for their acts, in particular the alleged violations by them of humanitarian law. For the United States to be legally responsible, it would have to be proved that that State had effective control of the operations in the course of which the alleged violations were committed."

Although I disagree with this judgement as the US Government was clearly aware of the Contra's terroristic activities but continued to fund them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacificbiblio (talk • contribs) 22:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Clandestine Organisations

Is the sponsorship of clandestine organisations behind enemy lines in a war or armed conflict "state sponsored terrorism"? --Philip Baird Shearer 12:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

MP>>Where the intention is to create a state of terror in civilian population by deliberately targeting them (as opposed to 'collateral damage') I would argue YES.Pacificbiblio (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

UK Section

Perhaps the UK SAS training of the Khmer Rouge in mine laying after the 'killing fields' (source = BBC News & others) should also be included here ?Pacificbiblio (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

India

• The expand section tag was wrongly removed from the section since the section is too small and needs expansion as compared to a few other sections in the same article. I think that should be restored to start with.

• The second edit; removal of "but so far it has remained an allegation only" seems to be making up the mind of a reader which is done in editorials, encyclopedia's leave the decisions to the readers giving facts and sources to which they can follow up.

• A third edit removed was the last line about Kashmir which is an unobjectionable claim (whether right or not, the claim being there is not disputed). --lTopGunl (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You my not make a statement of fact if it is just an allegation, hence a disclaimer is required. If the section needs expanding then do so, why add large ugly tags to an article? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a reason the tag exists. One being I plan to improve it later and want other interested editors to notice the tag and help. A disclaimer itself is given by the word allegation. If I say "Pakistan accuses India of so and so", or that "India is alleged with so and so" the disclaimer is already there in the clear words used that it is that country's allegation. Mentioning at the end that it is an allegation only is not only redundant but also unduely emphasizes the POV of the allegation being wrong, which is called an editorial. The last point is also not in any dispute. Restore the first and last, while we conclude the 2nd one. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No, the last was uncited, the first is not needed, the second is necessary. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The first is necessary unless you are going to improve it right now? See WP:EDITORIAL for second point, you should not make it so "inappropriately undermining the first or giving undue precedence to the credibility of the second." The last is unobjectionable, unchallengeable content inherently doesn't need a citation, but if you still object I can provide. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Let us see your source for the third, as explained in my edit summary I did not see any editorializing in the content removed, if they are allegations only and not proven then it needs to be stated that they are such. And I see no reason for the expand tag, either expand the section or leave it be. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll add the source for third. The word accusation means allegation, had they been openly 'proven' I would rather have had removed the word accused as well. Your repetition of this is undue and I just quoted you the policy for that. If you still don't see it you need to read WP:HEAR. You have to let go when you don't have a case. For the expansion tag, you can see that an expansion is needed (for that's why you are telling me to do it my self instead of tagging), and there is much broader consensus on validity of this tag since it is a listed template on the wikipedia. If you feel its not right, go and challenge the tag and get it removed, this is not the right place for that conflict. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You quoted a policy, well done you. But as I said, there are no editorializing there that I can see, perhaps you ought get a consensus to remove the content. Can I see an expansion is needed? I see a rewrite is needed perhaps, currently it is a bit POV. I am aware what accusation means, as I am also aware that when an accusation is made then it is normal to also have the response that the allegation was denied. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You are not adding that India denied it at all. You are adding the editorial phrase 'so far its an allegation only' when it has been told in the first place that its an accusation. So you are wrong. You are just reverting me on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Since you agreed on the section's problems as a rewrite and expansion both, The expansion tag is completely valid. About me doing it myself, there is no compulsion on me while the tag has a broad consensus to be used. And I did show you consensus about removing the content. The policy I quoted has been made through consensus, and it clearly states emphasizing one statement repeatedly is editorializing. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

By combining multiple issues you want to confuse discussion. Your wish to add Kashmir to the list is a complete misuse of the term 'state-sponsored terrorism'. Why would any country want to sponsor terrorists in the area that it controls? If anyone is sponsoring terrorism in Kashmir it is Pakistan. If you think may be Indian Army is committing human rights violation, then take your discussion to human rights violation article and convince people there with your citations. This is not a place for that. Akilan (talk) 09:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

By no way am I confusing things here. See that I carefully mentioned my three edits in separate points as I'm discussing with the editor above. So that is not the case. About Kashmir, I'll give due citations when I add again so that you can't object to that, what ever the reasons being (probably to counter insurgents). For now the problem is that the editor above is bent on repeating twice that Pakistan has accused India of this. That is clear repetition as the first sentence tells that anyway and is subject to WP:OPED. If he wanted to add that India denies this, that is another thing, but here he just wants to repeat the first. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The sources used to support that the major claim of SST against India are obviously not reliable for statements of fact. Please find better sources, preferably from the academic press. The Last Angry Man (talk) 13:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)