Talk:United States and state terrorism

El Salvador

In his analysis of the U.N. Truth Commision's Report on El Salvador, Frederick Garneau argued for significant culpability on the part of United States governments.

“ As is usually the case with truth commissions, the one for El Salvador did not focus on Washington's support for the government. .. That terror was committed in El Salvador is not disputed. Those who doubt this should reread the above and realize that an estimated 75,000 were killed in this small country in the period 1980 to 1991. The truth commission found that the terrorism that was committed in the country was overwhelmingly governmental terrorism, committed by the Salvadoran army, the National Guard, and their death squads and affiliated agencies. They were responsible for 95 percent of the deaths, the guerrillas for only five percent. These were the same institutions that were the concern and the favorites of Washington—receiving its indoctrination and training and profiting from its largess. El Salvador received six billion dollars in aid from Washington in the period 1979 to 1992. This subsidy to the tiny country during the government repression and terrorism came to average out at $100,000 for each member of its armed forces. This subsidy allowed the government to pay for the terrorist activities committed by the security forces. By virtue of this largess and the military training, notably in counterinsurgency warfare, Washington emerges in this chapter as an accessory before and during the fact.By covering up for San Salvador after it had committed terror, Washington was an accessory after the fact. It gave diplomatic support to state terrorism. ”

Comments on El Salvador

Great, I would be happy of this to be included in the article. Pexise 16:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Opposing views

Halperin et al. propose that one reason for the support, by the US and other Western nations, for certain right-wing dictatorships is that it is rare for democracy to exist in nations with low economic development. In these nations, the poor population without a middle class would vote for populist politics that would eventually fail, causing disappointment, and a return to dictatorship or even violent internal conflict. This, supporting a dictatorship that promotes economic growth and creates a solid middle class have often been seen as the best option available, anticipating that this will eventually lead to democratization. However, this view has been challenged recently by arguing that research shows that poor democracies perform better, including also on economic growth if excluding East Asia, than poor dictatorships.[1] Right-wing dictatorships in nations such as Portugal, Spain, Greece, Turkey, Chile, Brazil, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, and Indonesia eventually become democracies.

Research on the democratic peace theory has generally found that democracies, including the United States, have not made war on one another. There have been U.S. support for coups against some democracies, but for example Spencer R. Weart argues that part of the explanation was the perception, correct or not, that these states were turning into Communist dictatorships. Also important was the role of rarely transparent United States government agencies, who sometimes mislead or did not fully implement the decisions of elected civilian leaders.

Chomsky claims that the United States is a leading terrorist nation. However, actual empirical studies have found that democracies, including the United States, have killed much fewer civilians than dictatorships.[2][3][4] Media may falsely give the impression that Chomsky's claim is correct. Studies have found that New York Times coverage of worldwide human rights violations is biased, predominantly focusing on the human rights violations in nations where there is clear U.S. involvement, while having relatively little coverage of the human rights violations in other nations.[5][6] For example, the bloodiest war in recent time, involving eight nations and killing millions of civilians, was the Second Congo War, which was almost completely ignored by the media. Finally, those nations with military alliances with the US can spend less on the military and have a less active foreign policy since they can count on US protection. This may give a false impression that the US is less peaceful than those nations.[7][8]

That US soldiers have committed war crimes such as rapes and killing POWs is a fact. However, such acts are not approved or supported by the US government or the US military.[9] They are not the policy of the US government. The same applies even more to acts committed by to foreign groups supported but outside direct US control.

Niall Ferguson argues that the US is incorrectly blamed for many human rights violations in nations they have supported. For example, the US cannot credibly be blamed for all the 200,000 deaths during the long civil war in Guatemala.[10]. The US Intelligence Oversight Board points out that military aid was cut for long periods because of such violations, that the US helped stop a coup in 1993, and that efforts were made to improve the conduct of the security services.

Comments on Opposing views

I have just one objection: this crazy "the support, by the US and other Western nations, for certain right-wing dictatorships is that it is rare for democracy to exist in nations with low economic development," argument can't pass a simple universality test. Other arguments are debatable, like all in a discussion, but this is simply false. If this was really American foreign policy, then why are they so worried about democracy in Cuba and Iraq? They don't think that Cuba or Iraq are economically developed, do they? "Though this kind of policy only applies to pro-American dictators" or something of the sort should be added, for the sake of reality. --200.222.30.9 15:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have several objections to this section. 1) it's quite poorly written with several typos. 2) much of it isn't relevant to the subject matter. 3) it's poorly argued setting up straw-men and making spurios points e.g. No-one is attributing the 200,000 deaths in Guatemala to the US, but the US was backing regimes which carried out operations (Ronald Reagan referring to genocidal dictator Efrain Rios Montt as a 'man of great moral integrity') as was directly involved in various aspects, as meticulously detailed in the article; the argument against Chomsky using research by the democide guy (I forget his name) is massively oversimplified, morally relativistic and irrelevant to this article, which is about state terrorism not deaths attributed to governments. I suggest removal of the section. Pexise 16:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, though you have a couple of good points, I believe the less is deleted, and the more is added, the better. From both sides of the debate. Though, of course, arguments that insult the intelligence of even the most illiterate Latin American have to go. I'm talking about the hypocritical blabber that makes 50% Brazilians be disappointed the Iraqis didn't put up more of a fight (which is amazing, since it's not like Saddam was anything close to a good guy). Well, maybe CIA training given to military dictatorship torturers also had something to do with it. ;) --200.222.30.9 20:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I agree that an opposing views section is very necessary for this page, but one which is well written and well argued, pointing to opposing views about US state terrorism. This section as it is now talks about democratic peace theory and some other vague arguments generally trying to justify US foreign policy and realpolitik, not specifically defending the US against the charge of state terrorism. But then I suppose that US state terrorism is pretty undeniable, so I suppose there are no arguments against the charges. Pexise 07:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see, yeah, it makes sense, I guess the author figured that state terrorism is so integral to American foreign policy, that you can't really talk about one without talking about the other. Also, I just noticed that, but "However, such acts are not approved or supported by the US government or the US military," the source is a document of the United States government. I thought it was against Wikipedia policies' to have a group being a source to an article about itself, wasn't it? And if it is, whose opinion, besides the American government, do we have that American soldiers are discouraged to infringe Human Rights? And if it isn't, the article about Hitler doesn't mention how much he loved the German kids, this is a serious flaw! --200.222.30.9 16:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Japan

Main article: Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Some legal scholars, historians, other governments, and human rights organizations have accused the United States of having committed acts of State terrorism as a result of the nuclear attacks against the Empire of Japan at the end of World War II. The 'atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki', remain the only time a state has used nuclear weapons against concentrated civilian populated areas. Some critics hold that it represents the single greatest act of state terrorism in the 20th Century. Some academics also consider that these bombings represent a genocide.

The role of the bombings in Japan's surrender, as well as the effects and justification for them, has been subject to debate. In particular, the claims that these attacks were acts of state terrorism remain a matter of controversy. However, University of Chicago historian Bruce Cumings states there is a consensus among historians to Martin Sherwin's statement, that "the Nagasaki bomb was gratuitous at best and genocidal at worst."

The arguments center around the targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal. Specifically, the fact that the Target Committee on May 10–11, 1945, rejected the use of the weapons against a strictly military objective, choosing a large civilian population to create a psychological effect that would be felt around the world. They also center around claims that the attacks were militarily unnecessary, and transgressed moral barriers.

Historian Howard Zinn wrote, "if 'terrorism' has a useful meaning (and I believe it does, because it marks off an act as intolerable, since it involves the indiscriminate use of violence against human beings for some political purpose), then it applies exactly to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki."[11]

Zinn quoted the sociologist Kai Erikson:

“ The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not 'combat' in any of the ways that word is normally used. Nor were they primarily attempts to destroy military targets, for the two cities had been chosen not despite but because they had a high density of civilian housing. Whether the intended audience was Russian or Japanese or a combination of both, then the attacks were to be a show, a display, a demonstration. The question is: What kind of mood does a fundamentally decent people have to be in, what kind of moral arrangements must it make, before it is willing to annihilate as many as a quarter of a million human beings for the sake of making a point? ”

Similarly, Michael Walzer wrote of it as an example of "...war terrorism: the effort to kill civilians in such large numbers that their government is forced to surrender. Hiroshima seems to me the classic case."

Mark Selden, a professor of sociology and history at Binghamton University and professorial associate in the East Asia Program at Cornell University, author of “War and State Terrorism: The United States, Japan, and the Asia-Pacific in the Long Twentieth Century (War and Peace Library),” writes, "This deployment of air power against civilians would become the centerpiece of all subsequent U.S. wars, a practice in direct contravention of the Geneva principles, and cumulatively 'the single most important example of the use of terror in twentieth century warfare."[12] He also wrote, "Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan."

Selden writes: “Over the next half century, the United States would destroy with impunity cities and rural populations throughout Asia, beginning in Japan and continuing in North Korea, Indochina, Iraq and Afghanistan, to mention only the most heavily bombed nations...if nuclear weapons defined important elements of the global balance of terror centered on U.S.-Soviet conflict, "conventional" bomb attacks defined the trajectory of the subsequent half century of warfare." (Selden, War and State Terrorism).

Heads of State have also repeated the claim. President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez paid tribute to the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, calling the dropping of the A-bomb, "the greatest act of terrorism in recorded history." [13]

Richard Falk, professor Emeritus of International Law and Practice at Princeton University has written in some detail about Hiroshima and Nagasaki as instances of state terrorism. He states that “The graveyards of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the number-one exhibits of state terrorism.” Falk discusses the public justifications for the attacks, as follows:

“ Undoubtedly the most extreme and permanently traumatizing instance of state terrorism, perhaps in the history of warfare, involved the use of atomic bombs against the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in military settings in which the explicit function of the attacks was to terrorize the population through mass slaughter and to confront its leaders with the prospect of national annihilation....the public justification for the attacks given by the U.S. government then and now was mainly to save lives that might otherwise might have been lost in a military campaign to conquer and occupy the Japanese home islands which was alleged as necessary to attain the war time goal of unconditional surrender..."But even accepting the rationale for the atomic attacks at face value, which means discounting both the geopolitical motivations and the pressures to show that the immense investment of the Manhatten Project had struck pay dirt, and disregarding the Japanese efforts to arrange their surrender prior to the attacks, the idea that massive death can be deliberately inflicted on a helpless civilian population as a tactic of war certainly qualifies as state terror of unprecedented magnitude, particularly as the United States stood on the edge of victory, which might well have been consummated by diplomacy. As Michael Walzer putis it, the United States owed the Japanese people "an experiment in negotiation," but even if such an intiative had failed there was no foundation in law or morality for atomic attacks on civilian targets (Falk, State Terrrorism versus Humanitarian Law in War and State Terrorism). ”

These claims have prompted historian Robert Newman, a supporter of the bombings, to argue that the practice of terrorism is justified in some cases.

Comments on Japan

This should definitely be included in the article - there are quotes from prominent academics referring to the acts as state terrorism. Regardless of whether it was ultimately justified or not, this is an important addition to the debate. Pexise 08:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Bombing of Japan terrorism?? American intelligence reports indicated (correctly) that, although Japan could no longer meaningfully project its power overseas, it retained an army of two million soldiers and about 10,000 aircraft -- half of them kamikazes -- for the final defense of the homeland. (During postwar studies the United States learned that the Japanese had correctly anticipated where in Kyushu the initial landings would have taken place.) [14] Giving undue weight to questionable sources to advance positions, and to use Wikipedia as a soapbox is against policy. Wikipedia policy is literally the "glue" that keeps the project together. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 03:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes Junglecat, but the United States government didn't nuke Japan's military they nuked two cities full of completely defenceless civilians. The same way that they firestormed Tokio, before. So, if Japan could defend itself from an American invasion is irrelevant. --200.222.30.9 16:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, that questions of US invasion, and other issue, are not releavent to the fact that various scholars who are experts in the field label these bombings as instances of state terrorism. That is what we report here, with no undue weight, since this is an article that focuse in great deal on precisely this question, and information is presented in NPOV and with respect to the larger consensus among academia. What your doing is asserting your POV (which is disputed among experts, btw), and making a synthesis about the truth of the claim that this is state terrorism (when that claim doesn't impact those allegations). We are not allowed to do that here on WP.Giovanni33 18:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Then we must disagree. Using some fringe opinion and giving it undue weight is calling actions of a declared war as terrorism is POV pushing, as by definition it is not terrorism. Was WWII terrorism by the Axis powers then? Certainly not - it was a war. Criticism of the bombings are in the Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article. Here, by definition of terrorism it doesn't belong, and it is undue weight. Synthesis to advance the bombings as terrorism is not allowed per WP:OR. Therefore, you do not have consensus to add this. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 23:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You may want to read the sources, of the ones I previously supplied. It is not "synthesis" since the sources call it state terrorism. I found 10 sources that use the exact term, or allege worse. --SevenOfDiamonds 00:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Junglecat on this. I fully support criticism of the bombings in the relevant article - Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Efforts to include this material in this article does not have consensus (as evidenced by the constant back and forth over it) and really amount to POV pushing. Dman727 23:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There was concensus to add at the time. If you wish to remove, seek a concensus to remove it. --SevenOfDiamonds 00:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. We've covered this ground before.Dman727 00:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"Here, by definition of terrorism it doesn't belong," uh...which definition of terrorism there is that doesn't plainly call "terrorism" nuking two cities, deliberately killing lotsa civilians, in order to achieve the political goal of making another country surrender? But even that's beside the point, various scholars, including legal scholars, think it is, and it's very well sourced, so it deserves space at wikipedia. There's even an entire article about the "Flat Earth Society", and if that isn't fringe, then I'm living in the wrong planet. --200.222.30.9 23:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Theres also an article called Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Thats where it belongs. Dman727 23:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Content can be in more then once place, if anything you should have added a {{main|Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki}} tag to the top, not removed the section. --SevenOfDiamonds 00:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this article explores in detail only one part of the debate regarding the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a novel one: the question of it being considered an act of State Terror. Note this is not a "should it have been dropped/used or not debate. Its not a pro and con. Its about scholars who are experts in the field relevant to State Terrorism , i.e. pol. sci, international relations, historians, etc, who argue that this constitutes State Terrorism. To present this information in the main article would be undue weight. Here it fits perfectly. Check the talk history. This has already been discussed and all editors (over 17 vs 1) agreed to add it. Thus, it has been added by consensus. Please do not remove unless you have consensus to do so. Thanks.Giovanni33 00:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Then you do not understand consensus on Wikipedia. When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. Even a majority of a limited group of editors will almost never outweigh community consensus on a wider scale, as documented within policies. [15] JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 00:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Except that a "wider community concensus" does not exist to remove the material. Yourself and Dman fall a tad bit short of wide community concensus. Especially when you have not given a policy reason for the material, other then we do not like it. --SevenOfDiamonds 00:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Edits

1. Remove the uncited paragraph in the lead.

2. Add El Salvador

3. Add Japan

4. Replace Opposing views

5. Rename the article to State terrorism by the United States

Protection?

Where's the debate causing protection? It needs work. The intro reads like a right-wing whitewash (because of all the weasel words..it's like, "Some mathematicians allege that the sum of two and two may be four"). --Tothebarricades 03:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It's just as obvious as 2+2=4 to others that the allegations are hogwash. Your comment is not helpful. - Merzbow 05:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Tothebarricades, unfortunately, the heading is the result of satisfying the demands of the numerous "faith-based" editors on wikipedia: those who believe that America is their god. ... Seabhcan 09:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems as if this article is only here to satisfy the demands of numerous "faith-based" editors on wikipedia: those who believe that America is their Antichrist. Please explain to us how this particular section is even remotely NPOV

"Defenders of the United States[Who?] point out the US has rarely used violence against another democracy. However, the U.S. has toppled many democratically-elected governments, including those of Iran, Guatemala, Haiti, and Chile when it suited its interests, showing a lack of real concern about whether or not countries in the developing world are democratic, but very real commitment, like most great powers in history, to furthering its own political and economic objectives."

Where exactly is the proof that U.S. leaders are all liars who don't actually care about the thing they claim to spend much of their life doing, democratizing the third world.Squishes 10:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The proof is that while they claim to support democracies, they have regularly attacked them, replacing them with dictatorships. All nations claim to support democracy: Even North Korea describes its self as a democracy. In the case of that country, we don't take their claims at face value. Why should we blindly accept the claims of US politicians, when the evidence contradicts them? ... Seabhcan 11:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it so undeniably curious that the scores of Americans getting their knickers in a torrid twist over this article share not the same zeal and fervent obsession over any other articles along similar lines; ie allegations of state terrorism by other countries? They too contain allegations just as this article does, so why is there absolutely no problem in the other cases? It is thus blindingly obvious that those who are really acting in bad faith with regard to this article are they who remain completely unwilling to accept some ugly truths contained herein; not out of a utopian belief of what Wikipedia is or how to make a good article, or how this may, in an encyclopaedic view, be a bad one - it is purely out of personal reasons that this discomfort is created (ie. undying pandering to national egotism in the face of supposed threat/opposition). 86.135.58.115 18:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• As an uninvolved editor, it's my opinion that User:Squishes is correct; this paragraph is quite POV. However, I think this is mostly in "...when it suited its interest, showing a lack of real concern...", and "...furthering its own political blah blah". Who is this hypothetical "United States" we're talking about here? Not me; none of the listed acts have in any way "suited my interests", as far as I know - had they, I suppose I'd not be so poor. Also, the assertion "has toppled" is questionable, at best (for an encyclopedia); in some of the listed countries, at least, this has not been proven, merely alleged. Personally, I find an article like this one dangerous -- not because it offends me that my government be accused thusly, but rather, that I be accused, by extension, or explicitly (as here). Whether or not I myself supported the Iraq invasion is irrelevant; I assure you I had very little input on the matter. Articles like this must be very careful to distinguish precisely who is being accused. Eaglizard 07:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I partly agree. This article used to be called "American Terrorism" and I lobbied for it to be changed as I thought "American" focused too much on ordinary citizens rather than the state. However, the part I disagree is that the current title is "State Terrorism". I think this is clear enough. Ordinary citizens don't do 'state terrorism' by definition.

The same arguments about 'who benefits' can and are made for every act of a large organization. If a corporation acts illegally, it is understood that the management were to blame, not the low level employees. No-one thinks that the average American benefits from these acts. However, if you were to write a section explaining this, I'd support this. I just fear that the super-patriot editors would object.

I think your objection is part of the same issue the super-patriots have with the article. American citizens identify with their government and national identity to an unusual degree when it comes to international events. There is an interesting dichotomy here. Why is it that when a US citizen sues the federal government over some internal domestic dispute, they are not considered 'anti-american'. However, if someone speaks up against an act of the federal government on the international level, Americans feel they are being personally criticized, and frequently label the objection 'anti-american'. ... Seabhcan 08:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

First sentence-dubious?

Regarding: The United States of America has been accused of funding, training, and harboring individuals and groups who engage in terrorism by some legal scholars, other governments, and human rights organizations,[dubious – discuss] among others.

What is dubious about this? Anyone who has studied historic American foreign policy knows this statement is entirely true. In fact, I think 'accused' should be removed because using 'accused' makes it seem like there is no proof the U.S. has funded, trained, and harbored terrorists. There are countless examples of terrorism by the U.S.; both today and in the past.

Recently, the U.S. has been supporting terrorism against Shi'ites in Iraq. Teaming with and arming the Sunni tribes in Anbar to fight al-Qa'ida, when those same U.S. supported Sunni tribes have preivously (before the tribe agreement) killed U.S. troops, and have used their U.S. issued weapons to murder some and force 15,000+ Shi‘ites to leave Anbar to go to refugee camps with no clean water or electricity. The U.S. has armed and trained the Sunni tribes, who will use terrorism even more against Shi'ites after the U.S. forces al Qa'ida out. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 23:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The contention was with the "human rights organizations" part of the sentence.  east.718 at 01:59, September 13, 2007 

I think that someone found a reference for two human rights organizations, no? The question was really whether it should be plural, I think. Can someone provide those references? Also, is everyone ok with the text in the above three blocks? (El Salvador, Opposing views, and Japan) 199.125.109.25 14:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The PPT [16] The groups listed are: Hustisya, SELDA, Desaparecidos, Bagong Alyansang Makabayan. The indictment is located here --SevenOfDiamonds 14:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, those count. And, I included several major human rights organizations, below, in the case of state terror in El Salvador. So, that claim of being "dubious" should be removed.Giovanni33 01:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Gronky 11:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I see you're unfamiliar with WP:NPOV. - Merzbow 00:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

For anyone not familiar with NPOV, it states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." 199.125.109.118 04:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Material to work on and add to the El Salvador Section

U.S State Terrorism in El Salvador

Between 1970 and 1991 the country of El Salvador became embroiled in a civil conflict characterized by massive human rights abuses and political terror. (Arnson, Cynthia J. Window on the Past: A Declassified History of Death Squads in El Salvador in Death Squads in Global Perspective: Murder with Deniability, Campbell and Brenner,eds, St. Martin’s Press, 2000, p.85). In their retrospective assessments, human rights organizations and truth commissions have attributed the great majority of the violence to the actions of government forces. (From Madness to Hope: the 12-year war in El Salvador: Report of the Commission on the Truth for El Salvador, http://www.usip.org/library/tc/doc/reports/el_salvador/tc_es_03151993_toc.html, "El Salvador: 'Death Squads' -A Government Strategy," Amnesty International AMR 29/21/88,October 1988 (pp.l-6, 15-21). A report of an Amnesty International investigative mission made public in 1984 stated that “many of the 40,000 people killed in the preceding five years had been murdered by government forces who openly dumped mutilated corpses in an apparent effort to terrorize the population.” (Amnesty International Annual Report, 1985)

The state terror took several forms. On December 11, 1981, the U.S.-trained elite Atlacatl Battalion of the Salvadoran army killed hundreds of men, women, and children in he village of El Mozote. Actions included decapitation, raping of young girls before killing them, and massacring men, women, and children in separate groups with U.S.-supplied M-16 rifles. (Menjivar and Rodriquez, State Terror in the U.S.-Latin American Interstate Regime.) Death squads worked in conjunction with Salvadoran Security services to eliminate opponents, leftist rebels and their supporters. (Martin, Gus, Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives and Issues, Sage Publications, 2003,p.110). Cynthia Arnson, a long-time writers on Latin America for Human Rights Watch, argues that “the objective of death squad terror seemed not only elimination of opponents, but also, through torture and the gruesome disfiguration of bodies, the terrorization of the population.” (Arnson, Cynthia J. Window on the Past: A Declassified History of Death Squads in El Salvador in Death Squads in Global Perspective: Murder with Deniability, Campbell and Brenner,eds, St. Martin’s Press, 2000, p.86). ORDEN was a paramilitary and intelligence service “that used terror against rural civilians. Another death squad, The White Hand, committed numerous atrocities against civilians. ” (Martin, Gus, Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives and Issues, Sage Publications, 2003,p.110).

Long-time Amnesty International researcher Michael McClintock has correlated the imprint of a “White Hand on the door of potential “death squad” victims in El Salvador and Guatemala” with precedents in Vietnam, suggesting that they had access to “the same unclassified manual, through more detailed classified instructional material or through personal contact with American training personnel. (McClintock, M, American Doctrine and State Terror in Western State Terrorism, Alexander George, ed. Polity-Blackwell, 1991, p.133) In the mid-1980’s state terror in El Salvador increasingly took the form of indiscriminate air forces bombing, the planting of mines and harassment of national and international medical personnel- “all indicate that although death rates attributable to death squads have declined in El Salvador since 1983, non-combatant victims of the civil war have increased dramatically. (Lopez, George A. Terrorism in Latin America in The Politics of Terrorism, Michael Stohl, ed., p.514)

U.S. foreign policy critics have charged that the U.S. is complicit in Salvadoran state terror, in part, due to the extensive training to the Salvadoran forces who were directly responsible, together with the extensive military aid that was provided--both at time when facts concerning its state terrorism were known. An additional factor has been the US role in denying the killings and human rights abuses despite the relevant facts being known and made publicly available.

Thanks.Giovanni33 18:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I see no allegation the US committed state terrorism. An allegation of being complicit in someone else's alleged state terror is not an allegation of state terrorism on one's own behalf. - Merzbow 00:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The scope of this article, per its lead includes: accussations of..."funding, training, and harboring individuals and groups who engage in terrorism..." The many allegations I present above, fit this exactly.Giovanni33 00:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Then we need to change that because that's not what the title of the article says. Right now it's being used as a dump for long laundry lists of every atrocity committed by every tin-pot dictatorship in history, interspersed with a couple lines about how somebody from the US might have trained somebody there. The Japanese bombing material is relevant; stuff like this isn't. - Merzbow 02:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That is something that we would need consensus on to change, I think. The title is short, so it may not always explain what the article is about. That is what the lead really does. I think the scope of the article is good as it is. I believe any allegations of state terrorism (not just any atrocity, as you say), but actual claims of terror by the State, is valid--provided that its cited by reputable scholars in the field, and that the accusations implicate the US govt. I think the section can be improved to make that link even better, per BernardL, below. I won't put this in the article until consensus, though. And, thanks for agreeing that the Japan Atomic Bombings section is relevant. I think that section had overwheming consensus and I hope that its not blanked again.Giovanni33 16:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The Atomic bombing section does not belong in this article. There is still no consensus for addition.Dman727 22:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good start. The structure is sound. It's a good idea to start by letting people know what kind of state terror happened, using good sources. It is the last paragraph above all that requires more substantiation. I am confident that the last paragraph can be the most compelling of all because I am quite familiar with the scholarly work that can substantiate it. I will try to flesh this part out in the next several days. Cynthia J. Arnson's Window on the Past: A Declassified History of Death Squads in El Salvador is a particularly rich source for substantiating links between Salvadoran death squads and the U.S. political and military establishments, as well as a revealing analysis of U.S. denials. Here is one useful excerpt...."Throughout the decade, and particularly during the years 1980-1983 when the killing was at its height, assigning responsibility for the violence and human rights abuses was a product of intense ideological polarization in the United States. The Reagan administration downplayed the scale of abuse as well as the involvement of state actors. Because of the level of denial, as well as the extent of U.S. involvement with the Salvadoran military and security forces, the U.S. role in El Salvador-what was known about death squads, when it was known, and what actions the United States did or did not take to curb their abuses- becomes an important part of El Salvador's death squad story." (Cynthia J. Arnson, p.88) BernardL 03:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"Here is another quote substantiating claims that material military aid and financial aid to the Salvadoran regime while the crimes were being committed. (Note that Cynthia J. Arnson updated the $4.6 billion figure cited here to $6 billion.) ...."Our support for the terror extends far beyond misleading and false statements by government spokesmen. The Salvador government and army survive only through a massive influx of aid from Washington, totaling $4.6 billion dollars over the past decade. U.S. military aid (by now some $1 billion dollars) is essential for keeping in power military and security forces largely responsible for the deaths of 70,000 civilians in the past ten years. The U.S. has unfailingly supplied the tools of terror and repression to the Salvadoran military , as well as training in their use." (George, Alexander, Western State Terrorism, 5)BernardL 10:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"Since it is immediately at hand we should not forget the testimony of Frederick Gareau which was part of the previous El Salvador section...In his analysis of the U.N. Truth Commision's Report on El Salvador, Frederick Garneau argued for significant culpability on the part of United States governments.

“ As is usually the case with truth commissions, the one for El Salvador did not focus on Washington's support for the government. .. That terror was committed in El Salvador is not disputed. Those who doubt this should reread the above and realize that an estimated 75,000 were killed in this small country in the period 1980 to 1991. The truth commission found that the terrorism that was committed in the country was overwhelmingly governmental terrorism, committed by the Salvadoran army, the National Guard, and their death squads and affiliated agencies. They were responsible for 95 percent of the deaths, the guerrillas for only five percent. These were the same institutions that were the concern and the favorites of Washington—receiving its indoctrination and training and profiting from its largess. El Salvador received six billion dollars in aid from Washington in the period 1979 to 1992. This subsidy to the tiny country during the government repression and terrorism came to average out at $100,000 for each member of its armed forces. This subsidy allowed the government to pay for the terrorist activities committed by the security forces. By virtue of this largess and the military training, notably in counterinsurgency warfare, Washington emerges in this chapter as an accessory before and during the fact.By covering up for San Salvador after it had committed terror, Washington was an accessory after the fact. It gave diplomatic support to state terrorism.[1]" BernardL 11:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, theoretically, unless there's proof the United States was directly involved, and not just sponsored and supported terrorism they would be just accessories to terrorism, but some anti-American fellas like the CIA and Bush II think Bin Laden is responsible for the 11/9 terrorist attacks, even though he never actually stepped on those planes. So the matter is debatable. --200.222.30.9 16:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And in case I didn't make myself clear, it's my personal understanding (and, if I'm correct, most of the world's, the CIA and Bush II were only the first experts on the matter I could think of) that Bin Laden does share the blame on those crimes, so, following the same rationale, the United States share the blame for El Salvador, due to their fundamental role in providing massive assistance to the Salvadoran government (if I recall, without American support, the terror would not happen, at least not in the scale that it did). Therefore this section does belong to the article. --200.222.30.9 23:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)