Jump to content

Talk:Dirty War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AV3000 (talk | contribs) at 03:11, 28 May 2012 (→‎It's Time We Got Rid of the POV Message). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

New article?

The bulk of the article should definitely be transferred into a new "Dirty War(Argentina)" section. --—This unsigned comment was added by Valenciano (talkcontribs) 18:21, 27 February 2006.

It's Time We Got Rid of the POV Message

The term Dirty War may well have been coined by the junta in an effort to cloak systematic political assassination in the mantle of civil war, but it is now the consensus term for the historical period. It is clear from disagreements over whether Dirty War should apply to opposition tactics (as well as the junta's conduct) that any original propaganda value is long lost. I propose we not fail to credit Wikipedians with the ability to discriminate between prevailing usage and original intentions.

It has never been in dispute that the Argentine junta used the country's military resources in order to kill its own citizens. While Infobox Miliary Conflict does nothing to legitimise genocide, the box is gone, and rightly so--one would never apply Infobox Miliary Conflict to the Kent State Massacre.
Patronanejo (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; in any case it's stale, as there's no ongoing discussion. AV3000 (talk) 03:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism

Why is it even called "terrorism". It was an official war agaisnt left wingers and communist scum. Is every right wing politician and supporter considered a "terrorist"? Truly sad. Norum 00:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]