Talk:United States and state terrorism/Archive 9: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:21, 16 February 2011

This is an archive of past discussions about United States and state terrorism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

→

Fad

I find it sad, and disgusting, that civilized people would engage in this anti-Americanism fad. Every single person who is defending this article knows full-well that they are motivated by a political agenda, and that this article does not belong in a NEUTRAL encyclopedia. I hope one day, probably after GWB is out of office, most of you wake up from your blind fad. I guess the United States is the only nation that sponsors terrorism, right? Garric 05:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

<edit conflict>

You probably wanted to say:

removed pointless trolling

Wow, couldn't have said it better. Well done, Nescio.

1) Re "Anti-Amricanism": "The concept "anti-American" is an interesting one. The counterpart is used only in totalitarian states or military dictatorships [...] Thus, in the old Soviet Union, dissidents were condemned as "anti-Soviet." That's a natural usage among people with deeply rooted totalitarian instincts, which identify state policy with the society, the people, the culture. In contrast, people with even the slightest concept of democracy treat such notions with ridicule and contempt. Suppose someone in Italy who criticizes Italian state policy were condemned as "anti-Italian." It would be regarded as too ridiculous even to merit laughter. Maybe under Mussolini, but surely not otherwise." 2) Do you deny the events listed here occured? Do you deny that civilians were the targets? Do you deny that the intent of these actions was to persuade governments or populations to take a certain course of action or oust democratically elected governments when they persued policies not in line with the interests of Washington? 3) There are indeed pages for other state sponsors of terrorism and the acts they've committed LamontCranston 20:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Garric, this isnt really the place to discuss this in a forum like fashion, nor belittle those who subscribe to some of the theory presented. While I agree that the article has serious pov problems, and I have opinions about the very slanted pov pushing that goes on here, as well the original research and synthesis of materials present, the correct action is to edit the article and make it npov, or failing that put the article up for deletion. FWIW, I think this article COULD be useful and accurately describe some of the terrorist allegations against the US. In its current form though, its a piece of slop that has been shaped into an anti-american manifesto and is example of the worst of wiki(which is truly a shame). Dman727 10:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Pointing out brutal state policies is Anti-American? LamontCranston 20:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you asking me? I have not made such an assertion. The ARTICLE in its current form of being out of context, inaccurate, inventive and highly pov certainly is. As I referenced, there is a place in wiki(and beyond) for pointing "brutal state policies" of the US and other states. Indeed it could be done fairly and informatively in this very article. As it is however, , the article is highly radicalized and in the end betrays its purpose. Dman727 11:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You have not made such an assertion? Dude, wtf! You called it "an anti-american manifesto", are you now denying making such an assertion? As for context, do tell what is the right context for explaining state terrorism - negating it every step of the way with claims of doing it for a greater good? With the exception of the linking to Operation Northwood, these are solid facts presented in the article. LamontCranston 21:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Lamont, you very well know that this article is a crock, why blindly defend it like this? You have no one to convince except yourself. Garric 14:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What here is incorrect? School of the Americas? The actions of men like Orlando Bosch & Luis Posada Carriles? The findings of the Church Committee? The Nicaragua vs. United States of America ICJ trial? Operation Gladio? Operation Ajax? Operation PBSUCCESS? Operation Mongoose? Operation Phoenix? Operation Condor? The Strategy of Tension? Point it out man! Aside from Operation Northwood, what here is exaggerated? Point it out man!

Are you saying these things never happened, it's all an anti-American lie perpetrated by people who hate America because they can't understand its inherent decency & innate moral superiority?

Or are you saying they did happen but are exaggerated, justifiable and just how innocent were these so-called civilians anyway? [the people killed when Bosch & Carriles blew up Cubaba Flight 455 were all Cuban, so naturally they can't be all that innocent. Same goes when the USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655: Iranian Muslims – a contradiction to call them innocent civilians.]

LamontCranston 03:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to avoid this page like the plague as it is pointless to run a marathon in knee deep shit, but this has gone on too long.

Orlando Bosch & Luis Posada Carriles: Did Bosch or Carriles work for the CIA when he bombed Flight 455? Oh that’s right, they didn’t, in fact they were glad that the CIA was taking heat for it because it drew the attention off them.
Nicaragua vs. United States of America ICJ trial: Did the IJC mention the FSLN’s support of the FMLN and ELN who were involved in pretty much the same activities as the Contras? Of course not, because after all, the Sandinistas were only victims, never perpetrators of “State Supported Terrorism”
Operation Gladio: here’s a sweet one if you ask me, the rantings of “9/11 Scholar for Truth” Danielle “why did 4000 Jews stay home that day” Ganser. Yeah … real credible.
The Strategy of Tension: see above, pure, unadulterated Ganser bullshit.
Operation Ajax: The overthrow of an pro-Soviet Iranian dictator during the height of the cold war, what a freakin travesty.
Operation Condor: OMFG! How terrible of us to relay the communications of Latin American countries facing Cuban and Soviet sponsored insurgencies! The Humanity … Oh the HUMANITY!!!!
Operation Mongoose: WTF were we thinking! Attempting to undermine a communist dictatorship 90 miles from Florida that was letting the Soviets place short and medium range nuclear missles on its soil.. I blame the fascist AmeriKKKan government for allowing this insanity.
Operation Phoenix: fighting VC guerrillas with their own tactics? Sheer madness!
Operation PBSUCCESS: Well … that was pretty shitty I guess.
Carlos The Jackle: Oh ... wait ...The Cubans and Bulgarians were responsible for him ... move along ... nothing to see here ... just swallow the Red Pill and pretend you didn’t read this
Iran Air Flight 655: So right you are on this one, in fact I remember watching the video of the bridge after they found out it was a civilian airline the cheers and hoots were almost deafaning ... Oh wait ...they were all pretty stunned ... in fact sickened to realize they just killed a couple hundred people ... move along ... nothing to see here

So yes, we are saying that most of the content of this page is unadulterated garbage from equally dubious sources.Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The above section "Fad" does not belong on this talk page. I vote that we remove it as trolling.Giovanni33 22:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"Operation Gladio: here’s a sweet one if you ask me, the rantings of “9/11 Scholar for Truth” Danielle “why did 4000 Jews stay home that day”"

&

"The Strategy of Tension: see above, pure, unadulterated Ganser bullshit." - You don't actually know what they are, do you? Nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 or the conspiracy nonsense that has cropped up around it [nice way to attempt to smear by association btw], I've no idea why you've confused them, its something that occurred in Europe, Italy specifically, decades earlier. Please go and read.
"Operation Ajax: The overthrow of an pro-Soviet Iranian dictator during the height of the cold war, what a freakin travesty." - Check the facts, democratically elected, but speaking of dictatorships what was the Prime Minister & Parliament replaced with...A KING WITH ABSOLUTE POWER, you've no right to complain about anyone when that is what the US is going around putting in their stead. 'pro-Soviet': by that we mean he wished to pursue independent development rather than hand mineral resources [oil] over to Anglo-American corporations. So independence and use of resources for development is pro-Soviet, while a tyrannical Shah is pro-freedom and democracy and all that nice stuff?
"Operation Condor: OMFG! How terrible of us to relay the communications of Latin American countries facing Cuban and Soviet sponsored insurgencies!" - organising and coordinating not just relaying communications, you really need to research these things TDC. They kind of shot themselves in the foot with this one when they blew up out the front of the State Department building a dissident who was out of Chile at the time of the coup d'etat and was making trouble by speaking out in western nations, had to tone things down after that, they also tried to put out a contract on Congressman Edward Koch.
"Operation Mongoose: WTF were we thinking! Attempting to undermine a communist dictatorship 90 miles from Florida that was letting the Soviets place short and medium range nuclear missles on its soil.. I blame the fascist AmeriKKKan government for allowing this insanity." - They were doing this in response to US aggression, it's called a credible deterrent, there's no doubt about it being very insane but consider what drove them to it, at the 30th anniversary conference held in Havana, McNamara and the other Kennedy administration members who attended agreed that under the circumstances Cuba made the only choice available and they'd have done it too [at the conference it also came out the Cuban Missile Crisis brought the world to within a second of ultimate doom: American destroyers were attacking a Soviet submarine armed with nuclear torpedoes, 2 of the 3 officers on board capable of giving the launch order believed that war had started and they were required - as well as invoking national honour and all that baloney - to fire the nuclear torpedoes at those attacking them, had they done this what do you suppose the American response would have been?].
"Operation Phoenix: fighting VC guerrillas with their own tactics? Sheer madness!" - Well now here you are in agreement regarding the US targeting civilian population, to the tune of at least 6,000 people killed, no need to be a smartarse about it though.
"Operation PBSUCCESS: Well … that was pretty shitty I guess." - Why do you say that? You support all these other actions, no doubt plenty of others not listed here too. The official story for PBSUCCESS was the same as all the others here [in reality Guatemalas crime was agrarian reform modelled on the United States 1862 Homestead Act designed to improve the lot of individual farming families. Although extremely limited in scope, just check the wiki page for everything that was exempt, it was naturally something that annoyed folks like United Fruit], Operation Ajax was even used as a blueprint for PBSUCCESS. So why a problem with this when its the same as all the rest? Maybe you've somehow managed to do some serious reading on PBSUCCESS.
"Iran Air Flight 655: So right you are on this one, in fact I remember watching the video of the bridge after they found out it was a civilian airline the cheers and hoots were almost deafaning ... Oh wait ...they were all pretty stunned ... in fact sickened to realize they just killed a couple hundred people ... move along ... nothing to see here" - They didn't mind being in Iranian territorial waters at the time they did it, you didn't explain how other US ships in the area were able to clearly identify it as a civilian airliner - in a commercial corridor, they didn't mind the heroes welcome they got, they didn't mind the medals they got, they didn't mind the Navy Department cover-up that cleared them of any responsibility, they didn't mind Bush I declaring "I will never apologize for the United States of America—I don’t care what the facts are", did any of them speak up when Iran retaliated with Pan Am 103 later that year?

So we have one where you can't account for the treatment they receive, two cases of mistaken identity, three cases of severely negating what occurred, another where you wallow in a psychopath-esque admittance of what happened which I gotta say is a little creepy and its up their with al-Qaeda guys boasting and laughing about 9/11, another where you admit it was actually the wrong thing to do. The same TDC we've grown to know and love. LamontCranston 08:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Under Construction

Cold we return to the relevant portion of the debate. Please this is not a blog, soapbox or any other nice way to vent your oinions. Returning to this article can we debate the points raised and use arguments to explain why we think something is or is not terrorism. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The lastest edit conflict [1] was with this version, which was a compromised version that had gained some consensus:

"Some scholars, such as Noam Chomsky, argue that the U.S. has been legally found guilty of state terrorism based on the verdict by International Court of Justice condemning the United States Government for its "unlawful use of force."

"The claimants say the U.S. is hypocritical because Government regularly asserts a public image and agenda of anti-terrorism."

VS: This version:

"Noam Chomsky argues the U.S. is guilty of state terrorism because the International Court of Justice found it guilty of unlawful use of force."

"The claimants say this is hypocritical because the U.S. Government regularly asserts a public image and agenda of anti-terrorism."

I've asked that we talk about this conflict but the other side claims in the edit summary this has already been discussed. I don't see such discussion. Maybe he can point it out? For me there are two issues that makes the first version better. One is the issue is one of better phrasing. For examples, repeating the word guilty is poor English "US is guilty of...because found it guilty of...", and the use of "it" instead of naming the US, which makes the point clear. The other more important reason is accuracy. To claim that just Chomsky argues this is misleading and false. Its a POV articulated strongly by Chomsky, hence his being mentioned as a respresentative of this POV, but its just Chomsky.Giovanni33 16:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I still support the first sentence in the first version, but for it to say "Some scholars", we need to cite somebody else in addition to Chomsky. I think that's the main objection. I support the second sentence in the second version because it's written better, although the meaning is identical. - Merzbow 17:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I see that there is a typo for the second sentence in the first version.It should read, "The claimants say the U.S. Government is hypocritical because it regularly asserts a public image and agenda of anti-terrorism." I agree we should add more sources, but I wonder if that is the real basis or only objection. If we add another source, I suspect some editors will still oppose it. I guess I'd like to see the editors who opposed the edit state taht this is the issue, and thus we can have the article unprotceted by adding a source. If so that is easily remedied as there are multiple sources besides Chomsky that can be used. Giovanni33 18:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If there are other scholars who have made this claim, I would like to see who they are and exactly what they said. We might be glossing over a lot of varying opinion with 'some scholars say...' Also, the page needs be restored to the consensus-supported name, 'Allegations of...' Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well there are many writers to choose from. I'd say that Dr. Frederick H. Gareau who holds a Ph.D. in international relations and organizations from American University, Washington, DC, as well as in political science from the University of Geneva might be a good second to pick as a source. He is full professor at Florida State University and author of The United Nations and Other International Insitutions: A Critical Analysis as well as an extensive number of articles and conference reports. The book in particular that makes these claims supporting the Chomsky POV is entitled" STATE TERRORISM and the UNITED STATES. An abstract can be found here: [2]. Some other writers expressing this POV for example are: [3] Should the United States Renounce Terrorism? See: http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html; FROM WOUNDED KNEE TO IRAQ: A CENTURY OF U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTIONS, and http://www3.sympatico.ca/sr.gowans/foreign.html: Terrorism as Foreign Policy.Giovanni33 00:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to cite Dr. Seuss. MortonDevonshire Yo · 06:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't but I'm glad you are sharing your reading material with us. I'm not suprised.Giovanni33 09:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

So what exactly do they say? Do they in fact "argue the U.S. is guilty of state terrorism because the International Court of Justice found it guilty of unlawful use of force?" Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I never argue that, and that is not the wording that I support. The US is guilty of state terrorism because it commits acts that qualify as state terrorism per every definition that we have, and the instance of the ICJ ruling is a case where the US was found legally guilty of committing such acts, which these scholars identify as state terrorism (which the courts call "unlawful use of force,' and 'in violation of international law," etc.Giovanni33 09:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If you don't support that wording, why did you revert to it?[4] When you reverted there, you undid the reference formating I added to your own citations, and undid a spelling correction I made as well. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not revert to it. I reverted to "Some scholars, such as Noam Chomsky, argue that the U.S. has been legally found guilty of state terrorism based on the verdict by International Court of Justice condemning the United States Government for its "unlawful use of force." Although subtle, its quite different in meaning if you look at the wording you reverted to, which is simply not accurate, and not the wording I support, as explained above. Your spelling error, as fixed, btw, when I reverted you, since it was only introduced by you after you reverted all my changes, and added in only those references, but mispelled them. Since my revert included those references spelled correctly, this point is rather moot.Giovanni33 06:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That and that the U.S. is naughty. That sums it up I think.--MONGO 07:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Naughty is putting it mildly. Criminal is more like it.Giovanni33 09:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that Marshall Plan was pure terrorism.--MONGO 21:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have support for that claim? I think you are confusing terrorism with imperialism. There is some overlap but the two are quite distinct things, esp. for the kind of economic imperialism that you cite.Giovanni33 22:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It was an ~~imperialist~~ terrorist scheme to make them dependent, and sap their will to defend themselves, or even reproduce. Good thing that plan failed, huh? Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I see you changed your idea of the Marshal Plan from plain dollar imperialism to terrorism, so while its on topic (perhaps create another section for this), do you have any sources that make such a claim? I really think you have a fundamental confusion about the two very different subject matters. Remember this is not a place for OR. Of course, I am assuming good faith with the seriousness of your comments here.Giovanni33 23:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but this is a bit off topic since this article is not about imperialism, but terrorism. Can we stay on topic?Giovanni33 22:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, you have to prove terrorism first...all you have is the opinions of a few well know radicals...who cares. This reminds me of arguments with UFO believers, etc. Cherry picking "facts" to support an a priori premise.--MONGO 05:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. This is not for me to prove, as a matter of fact. That would be OR. It is only for me to prove this is a notable POV as articulated by scholars such as Noam Chomsky and others, and thus we can state such as a fact, as evidenced by the sources. And, who cares? I do, and as many others around the world, even if you call them "radicals." Maybe you dismiss their well grounded and scholary work, but many people, including myself, don't. Lets not impose our own biases here. If you dispute their allegations of fact, then please cite a reputable source of us to include as a balancing opinion in the body of the article. That would be fine. The conflict, again, is to state that just Chomsky says this, as opposed to "some scholars, such as Chomsky..." which implies this is a point of view not unique to Chomsky, which is accurate.Giovanni33 07:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Chomsky is a Linguistics expert...not a global terrorism expert. His opinions are no more noteworthy than anyone elses on this subject matter. That no unified group, the UN or other recognized governmental body has agreed with his and the very very few other's radical viewpoints such as his, puts the onus on you to come up with substantial evidence that isn't riddled with your a priori premises. I strongly recommend this article be restored to the correct title which is "Allegations of state terorism by the United States". Your strawman arguments won't work here.--MONGO 07:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with moving the article back to the original "Allegations..." name. - Merzbow 07:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no straw man argument, except on one your making now. I stated what the argument was, and its you who keeps shifting it away from the issue at hand. Now you are attacking Chomsky as a credible source. Sorry, wrong argument. That is the straw man. You were reverting to "Chomsky says,' if you don't think he has a right to be heard on this subject matter, then why revert to what he says? This is not an excuse to deny that other scholars such as Chomsky also have the POV that the "unlawful acts" in "violation of international law," etc. that the court found the US guilty of were in fact actions of state sponored terrorism. I've provided the sources, and its a vew that is rather noteable, and published in many books on the subject. You may want to exclude Chomsky's views to only linguistics, but he has written many well regarded and researched books on the subject of State Terrorism of the US, and he is recognized for his political commentary and analysis, as much as for his theories in linguistics. Moreover, I cited another scholar above, Dr. Gareau, whose academic area of research, is international relations and politics. Sorry, you don't get to say "so what," and dismiss these arguments, or change the issue. As you say, strawman arguments won't work here.Giovanni33 07:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Quick question: Do you also edit under the name Nomen Nescio? MortonDevonshire Yo · 16:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Since we keep encountering each other it is unfortunate your style of debating (ignoring facts that might sway your distorted view of reality) has matured into making allegations that are totally unwaranted. I find your repeated and unsupported accusations offensive and you are more than welcome to retract that allegation. After you have done that you might take some time to read WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Cheers Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't speaking to you, or was I? Did you lose track? MortonDevonshire Yo · 14:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's stop being clever, you clearly suggest I am a sockpuppet, or using one. That is a not-cool thing to do and I am waiting for your retracting. There is some space following this comment. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What about prof Frederick H. Gareau (PhD in international relations and organizations from American University, Washington, DC, as well as a licence in political science from the University of Geneva) and his book State Terrorism and the United States[5]? Or Michael Mandel (professor of Law at Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, Toronto, Canada) in How America Gets Away With Murder? // Liftarn

For what statement do you want to use them as sources? Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That there are other scholars who have made this claim. // Liftarn

What claim exactly? As I asked above, do they "argue the U.S. is guilty of state terrorism because the International Court of Justice found it guilty of unlawful use of force?" Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I answered that question above with sources of the claim by other scholars whose academic area of expertise is international relations and pol. sci.Giovanni33 00:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You avoided answering, said it wasn't wording you supported, and restated your position. Kind of like here. I have asked a couple of times now who these scholars are, what exactly they say. Who besides Chomsky argues "the U.S. is guilty of state terrorism because the International Court of Justice found it guilty of unlawful use of force?" I'm beginning to think the answer is just Giovanni33. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I did answer you, and your question's premise is wrong. Not even Chomsky argues that. its the wording that you put in the article, which is not acurate. The wording that I've tried to restore is an accurate reflection of the sources. Once again, the US is guilty of state terrorism because it commits acts that qualify as state terrorism per every definition that we have, and the instance of the ICJ ruling is a case where the US was found legally guilty of committing such acts, which these scholars identify as state terrorism (which the courts call "unlawful use of force,' and 'in violation of international law," etc Note how this is quite different than "Us is guilty of...because the ICJ found it guilty." That is too simplistic and finding guilty is not the reason for being guilty--its only a legal finding that establishes the factual basis and legitimacy of the charges presented for examination. Those actions examined fit the definition of state terrorism per the various authors cited above, and that is the point supported by the cited references. They are all there for you to read and verify for yourself.Giovanni33 03:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I look forward to seeing exactly what it is you want to put in the article, and what the citations are for it. There is clearly no point in asking you here, or else no point in you telling me, so I will wait and see what edit you make to the article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no mystery. The version I compromised with, is per talk, and which you reverted. I assume you reverted becaues it lacked a source other than Chomsky, which I'm happy to supply. The wording is: "Some scholars, such as Noam Chomsky, argue that the U.S. has been legally found guilty of state terrorism based on the verdict by International Court of Justice condemning the United States Government for its "unlawful use of force."Giovanni33 04:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course, Chomsky thinks that terrorism is justified if done by the right people. "In fact, Chomsky was well aware of the degree of violence that communist regimes had routinely directed at the people of their own countries. At the 1967 New York forum he acknowledged both 'the mass slaughter of landlords in China' and 'the slaughter of landlords in North Vietnam' that had taken place once the communists came to power. His main objective, however, was to provide a rationalization for this violence, especially that of the National Liberation Front then trying to take control of South Vietnam. Chomsky revealed he was no pacifist.

I don’t accept the view that we can just condemn the NLF terror, period, because it was so horrible. I think we really have to ask questions of comparative costs, ugly as that may sound. And if we are going to take a moral position on this—and I think we should—we have to ask both what the consequences were of using terror and not using terror. If it were true that the consequences of not using terror would be that the peasantry in Vietnam would continue to live in the state of the peasantry of the Philippines, then I think the use of terror would be justified."[6]

"Yet Chomsky’s moral perspective is completely one-sided. No matter how great the crimes of the regimes he has favored, such as China, Vietnam, and Cambodia under the communists, Chomsky has never demanded their leaders be captured and tried for war crimes. Instead, he has defended these regimes for many years to the best of his ability through the use of evidence he must have realized was selective, deceptive, and in some cases invented."[7]Ultramarine 15:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This is off topic as this is about your opinion regarding Chomsky being even handed with respect to his expose of crimes of other states. The US mainstream media already does a good job at that while turning a blind eye to US crimes, so its good we have scholars like Chomsky who can put some balance back in and hold the US accountble to the same standards it applies to others. Also, this charge contains a logical fallacy, as pointing out what others do, does not negate the validity of the argument against the US. Giovanni33 00:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Chomsky has been extremely biased as the above link shows, both regarding the states he favors and those he disapprove of. Regarding the US mainstream media, studies have found that it has a bias exactly opposite of what you describe. It reports too much from nations where the US is involved, and to little from other nations. For example, by far the bloodiest recent conflict was the Second Congo War, involving 8 nations and causing millions of civilian deaths, which was almost completely ignored by the media.Ultramarine 00:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Everyone has bias, including you and me. So what? US media report based on its own biases, too, which often serve the agendas and interests of the elites of which they are a part of. Your example serves my very point. The genocide in the Congo is off the radar, but not Darfur, for example. Asking why is important and the answer has to do with the kind of selective reporting that the US media has always done, reflecting those same very biases, you are accusing Chomsky of. Well, as I said, his reporting is a good corrective balance to the mainstream medias own ideological filters. In either case, none of this invalidates the factual basis of any particular story.Giovanni33 04:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly the article now give the misleading impression that the US does disproptionately much violence, while in fact empirical research on democide shows that the US government, as all democracies, do comparatively little external and internal violence. Also, much of the article is OR, with no backing in the sources that anyone has even claimed that these events were "state terrorism".Ultramarine 13:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"Cambodia under the communists" - As opposed to the United States favouring the Khmer Rouge following Communist Vietnam ousting them from power in 1979. LamontCranston 12:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Title

Restore to Allegations of state terrorism by the United States

Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Dchall1 13:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
(second choice) MortonDevonshire Yo · 00:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Merzbow 16:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
(second choice)--MONGO 20:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
(2nd choice) Dman727 20:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
(second choice) Tbeatty 02:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
(2nd choice) - JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 03:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
(Second Choice) -- Yaf 04:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
2nd choice (it's facts, not "allegations") // Liftarn
2nd Choice. Per Liftarn, this article is about facts, not just "allegations."Giovanni33 10:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Option b. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 12:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
No evidence has been presented that any international body has accused the United States of "state terrorism". It is only the allegations of some writers, Chomsky in particular.Ultramarine 15:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
2nd choice, see note below. --Leifern 15:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
2nd. Arkon 17:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
2nd choice. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Wandalstouring 08:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
(Second choice.) Horologium t-c 15:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
second choice. csloat 16:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
First choice because the change of name to accusation of .. or allegations of... will be more easily defended against the inevitable repeated attempts to remove the page. DGG 20:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
2nd choice - Crockspot 14:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
2nd choice I'd rather see this article eliminated, but if it continues to pollute Wikipedia with its garbage, this title violates NPOV a little bit less than the current one. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
2nd choice If we keep the POV title, Wikipedia is putting all it's (doubtful) authority behind the statement that the U.S. practices State Terrorism. <sarcasm>Yeah, spouting nonsense like this will really help Wikipedia's reputation.</sarcasm> Not! CWC 03:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
2nd choice --Strothra 18:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
First choice - per User:DGG. -- Petri Krohn 19:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
First choice Edison 22:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
--MichaelLinnear 03:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
This title is an obvious POV fork, as it implies that the United States government is a terrorist organization. None of the people making the allegation have the authority to declare the United States as a terrorist organization. They are only making allegations, so the article should be titled appropiately. —Sefringle^Talk 02:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
2nd choice, since I find it odd that groups like Hamas that have a far larger international consensus for being labelled "terrorist" cannot be (rightly so), and yet the far less accepted minority positions presented here allow for just that labelling. Tewfik^Talk

Keep State terrorism by the United States

Divestment 18:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)— Divestment (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
id keep it the name it is, cause its not about allegations ( leas the way it reads)Charred Feathers 04:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep (1st choice) I'm ok either way but have a preference for keeping the title as it is simply because allegations is a weaker term and most of the facts presented in this article go far beyong mere accusation, to established facts and legal court verdicts. Since this article does list actual acts of state terrorism--not simply those who make accusations--this title is best. If it were the latter, then this article would get much much larger. So far those additions of well known allegations have not been allowed in. I don't see this article is an allegations article, but a neutral description of established facts that no one denies.Giovanni33 09:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Which court or international body has used the term "state terrorism"?Ultramarine 15:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep (1st choice) // Liftarn
Keep name since it has been established the US took part in terrorism activities known today as Operation Condor, it is difficult to see why we are no allowed to call a spade a spade. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Who has established that it was "state terrorism"?Ultramarine 15:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering that it's been established that the School of the Americas was not terrorism and the U.S. involvement in Operation Condor was not terrorism, I suspect you will want to change your mind to Delete? --Tbeatty 06:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep. When something has been established in a court it is no longer "alleged". As Nescio says, whether we like it or not, we need to call it what it is. --John 15:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Which court has used the term "state terrorism"?Ultramarine 15:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The ICJ. What do you think they refered to when they found the US guilty of "unalwful use of force" and of actions that "violate international law? We don't have to guess since they talk about those accusations which were proven beyond a reasonable doubt to the court. In fact, the US has admitted to mining the harbors. If you don't think this is state terrorism, pretell, what do you call it? Verdict for these actions? Guilty.Giovanni33 20:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
No, the ICJ (with questionable jurisdiction) only found the US guilty of "unlawful use of force" and of actions that "violate international law". Equating this verdict to state terrorism would be equivalent to accusing Japan of state terrorism for hunting whales, although I suppose the whales might consider whale hunting to be state terrorism :-) Yaf 20:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

They never mention "state terrorism". It is like claiming that all persons found guilty in courts of breaking the law are terrorists.Ultramarine 20:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
No, the analogies are false. State terrorism is a controversial term, and not widely accepted which lacks the kind of legal clarity as a concept the court would use in its verdict. Thus it uses the established legal description of "violating international law," "unlawful force," etc. State terrorism is not the kind of wording a court would use to describe what this article describes as state terrorism. But, if you look at the kind of actions that US was found guilty of when it used "unlawful force" and broke "international law," you will see that those actions ARE classic and perfect examples of state terrorism. A correct analogy would be the court found the person guilty of "unlawfully and intentionally killing a person," and we report that the court found the US guilty of murder. The actions that the court looked at and found the US guilty of are specific and clear, so that there is no mistake that the criminal actions its condemned the US for was state-terrorism--as the definition is accepted and used in this article. That is why we have sources that state such is the case. Hence, its not merely an accusation, or allegation--its a verfict of guilty legally established as fact. We can report on these as facts, not merely allegations.Giovanni33 21:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
P.S. The ICJ's juristiction is not questionable. The US only refused to recognize it after it had lost its argument. But it is binding and juristiction was not in quesiton or contested prior. See: http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar05/Sanders0317.htm Giovanni33 22:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
If its not being recognized, then its questionable by definition. Dman727 22:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
For the guilty party to not recognize it after they lose, does not objectively make the issue questionable.Giovanni33 23:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Doesnt matter. This isnt small claims court. the ICJ gains it power only through voluntary recognition of its participants. If its being questioned by its participants, then its questionable regardless of whether you think its objective. Dman727 23:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Original research such as your own personal interpretation of what the court ruling means is not allowed in Wikipedia.Ultramarine 22:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
You need to review OR, then. Its not original, I'm not coming up with anything new; its NOT original research to report on what scholars say, and then fully cite this by reputable, reliable sources. Nor it is OR to make simple deductive inferences that are logical and follow from the premise. Such is the common usage of language on WP. But, even this is a moot point since we are reporting what sources say, connecting this obvious dots of FACT.Giovanni33 23:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
"Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research." -- WP:OR Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
This entire article is an exercise in WP:SYN. Most of the noteable incidents here already have their own articles and are covered there extensively. This is simply an extremist attempt to gather them all up and draw conclusions to fit one POV. Dman727 23:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Its interesting how you leave out the part of the policy that makes for an exception to this, and thus its NOT OR per policy. Policy goes on to explain: "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article." Because have reliable sources that has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article, it stands as acceptable. You may not agree with that perspective, and you are free to counter it by reporting another valid source that dispute it, however, all sources I've seen clearly identifies this "unlawful use of force" as in fact fitting with all accepted definitions of state sponorsed terrorism, and not one argues that this violation the US was found guilty of is something else other than state terrorism.Giovanni33 23:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
No judicial body has been presented which says that the court ruling means that the US committed state terrorism.Ultramarine 23:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

We have Chomsky saying that it is "international terrorism", but that is just his allegation, not a fact.Ultramarine 23:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

<outdent Giovanni33, do you want to say "Chomsky says..."? Reporting what Chomsky says is okay with me. I thought you wanted to say as a matter of fact that it was so. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I want to say "some scholars, such as Chomsky, say..."But, it is a fact that these actions did occur, by whatever name you want to call it. Thus, there rise above mere someone making allegations. These are various descriptions of undisputed facts, which according to the definition we use, are actions of state sponored terrorism--ofcourse according to sources. But to attribute these facts to sources does not make then any less facts. That fact that we don't have any other opinion about it per the sources, futher underscores the point.Giovanni33 00:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Not a fact that it was state terrorism, allegations, which is what this discussion is about.Ultramarine 00:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni33, I only care about what you want to put in the article. So far, I have seen no citations to other scholars making the argument you want to attribute to them. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I did cite several other sources above, with links. I think you have seen then, and if not, nothing is stopping you from reading for yourself.Giovanni33 03:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it qualifies as a fact, not opinion. Unless you can show me a counter argument that disputes this logical connection.Giovanni33 00:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, see the above argument regarding OR. Also regarding Chomsky, he is speaking outside his academic field. Regarding the quote in the article it is from a television interview. Just his personal opinion.Ultramarine 00:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Point is moot since we cite other scholars who are not speaking outside their academic field, not to say Chomsky is not qualified to speak on the matter given his extensive published material and reasearch. And, besides the court case, there are various other claims of a factual nature, that are not mere opinion. Again, no one disputes these facts or offers another "opinion." They are as factual as the claim that the US committed acts of genocide against the Native Americans. Not opinion. Fact.Giovanni33 00:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Many of Chomsky's political books are collections of interviews and similar material. While there were many atrocities against Native Americans, that the US government has a deliberate policy of genocide would be controversial Also genocide is not a controversial term, accpeted in the international justice system, state terrorism is an controversial term not accepted. That the US have supported various dictatorships and rebells is a fact, that this was "state terrorism" is allegations.Ultramarine 01:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Repeatedly stating that something is "fact" when you have ten other editors telling you it's not so will not advance the discussion. - Merzbow 01:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni33, unless it's something you want to put in the article, I don't care. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep Lawarees 03:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)— lawarees (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Strong Keep Stone put to sky 10:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep it as the most truthful description of the subject. Allegations my arse. The below votes for deletion are pointless as this isn't the procedure to get an article deleted. --Servant Saber 13:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep as is64.201.162.1 13:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep: I don't see much of a compelling argument to rename. It's just not enough. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 16:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep — IMO, no need to move —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 17:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I don't see much of an argument to rename either, but either this or the "allegations" name works for me.csloat 16:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep, Second choice, because the change of name to accusation of .. or allegations of... will be more easily defended against the inevitable repeated attempts to remove the page. DGG 19:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep as is I strongly oppose changing the name because of the ICJ ruling over the Nicaragua case. That's uncontroversial. Lixy 14:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep I am not a huge fan of these "polls."--Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 17:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep --Zache 21:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep VOTE CAST UNDER PROTEST.
- This vote is premature and unproductive at this stage. In keeping with WP rules, the editors should attempt to identify the specific issues that this name change presents under the WP rules, and try to resolve in good faith those specific issues one by one. Then, if an impass is reached about the meaning of one or more WP rules after good faith attempt to reach agreement, then a mediator or arbitrator should be called in to help resolve those issues. None of us are elected representatives of anyone. Our views and votes should count for nothing per se, except in so far as we are making good faith arguments about WP rules. Why should it matter that one more person who happens to take position x has stumbled across this page?--NYCJosh 22:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Second choice per per User:DGG. -- Petri Krohn 19:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
KEEP US is the biggest sponsor of state terrorism in the world, with the possible exception of Israel. InslnShock 14:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep as is - the title isn't saying that the US is a terrorist, but proclaiming that that is what the article will discuss. Sfacets 05:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Do something else

Delete, (first choice)--MONGO 20:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete (first choice) -- MortonDevonshire Yo · 00:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete (first choice) Tbeatty 02:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete (1st choice) - JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 03:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete (1st choice) - Most all of the actual verified events discussed here could be their own article. As it is, this is simply a collection intended to create a wp:syn pov. Dman727 04:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete (first choice) - All of the content is from highly suspect sources with POV agendas (communist propaganda websites, etc. Clearly WP:SYN issues. Yaf 04:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
What happened to normal process, i.e. AfD? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The normal AfD process has resulted in several clear keeps. The reasons stated for wanting to delete are clearly POV driven but I guess this makes people feel better. To me it amounts to advocating a type of virtual book burning. Shameful.Giovanni33 09:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd appreciate links to the AfDs if you have them. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Its right on this talk page at the very top.Giovanni33 20:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I see American terrorism closed as 'no consensus', and State terrorism by United States of America closed once as 'no consensus' and once as 'keep'; Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America closed once as 'keep' and once as 'speedy keep'. Are these what you choose to call 'several clear keeps'? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they are clear keeps, several times, including one speedy keep. After an article has survived so many keeps, subsequent ones should just be speedy keeps.Giovanni33 00:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
So what,Consensus can change. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete, indubitably. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 12:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete, first choice. Alleged crimes should be covered, but putting them under the blanket "terrorism" constitutes a double standard with respect to patently terrorist organizations such as Hamas, and actually dilutes the facts related to those crimes that have been alleged and/or committed. --Leifern 15:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete - 1st. Arkon 17:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete, 1st choice - Leifern said it well. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete This entire article pretty much hinges on three episodes: the Cuban flight, Nicaragua, and SOA. The first one does not demonstrate that the government ordered it, just that it might have ignored warnings. The second stems from peoples attempts to make "unlawful use of force"=terrorism based on Chomsky. The third might be true but actual evidence is lacking. CJK 23:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete (first choice). Without the writings of a linguist (discussing something far afield of his area of expertise), there is nothing here. Horologium t-c 15:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete (first choice). - Crockspot 14:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Lance this festering, diseased boil and cauterize with a white-hot branding-iron.--Mike18xx 07:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete this nonsense Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
First choice. Classic example of why POV forks should be deleted instantly. Just sucks up time and energy of editors who could be improving useful articles; see the debate in the "Keep" section above for an example. CWC 03:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete, (first choice)--Strothra 18:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello, this is not the process for deleting a page, and some of you well seasoned editors should know better. It is an attempted end-run around WP rules, unless you are simply venting your frustration by casting votes in a non-binding process with no effect.--NYCJosh 22:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The above "vote" is inappropriate. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 22:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure both the deletes and the keeps realise that this is not an AfD. This seems to me to be an attempt at clarifying where everyone stands so that some new consensus can perhaps be reached. Tewfik^Talk 05:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete first choice--Sefringle^Talk 02:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
That said, my first choice would be to delete the current presentation of information and rewrite to support a neutral thesis, though I suppose the inevitable removal of the large amounts of OR might have the same effect. Tewfik^Talk 05:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Rename to State terrorism and the United States per this book. Henrik 13:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Is this inappropriate canvassing? [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] I also object to the reference to "the nationalists on the page," which seems to use people's affiliations to discredit their views. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Tom harrison, weren't you accused by User:NuclearUmpf, along with MONGO, Morton, and Tbeatty of regularly e-mailing each other offline? 69.152.137.187 23:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I havent a clue about whether people email each other, but the above canvasing is certainly inappropriate. Dman727 01:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Need for a New Page

Actually, the problem here is simple: there are many, many more accusations of terrorism by the United States than are being presented here. I propose, therefore, that we create that page that so many here have been calling for: the one called "Allegations of State Terrorism by the United States", wherein we present all allegations against the United States -- regardless of their perceived validity, slant, or merit -- as opposed to those which appear herein, and have been clearly substantiated and verified.

For instance, there are many allegations against the U.S. by states such as Zimbabwe (Mugabe, IMO, is a simple thug), N Korea (an embattled and marginalized dictatorship), Libya, China, Russia, and other State governments that are widely viewed as mere propaganda, posturing, or openly hypocritical and irrelevant to serious debate. By creating a page that lists these, i think we'd be able to please everyone here: we could separate the chaff from the wheat and demonstrate the clear, unarguable difference between the events described here (which are based in fact, widely disparaged by citizens of the United States, and openly contrary to the established principles on which most citizens of the U.S. think their government does or should operate) and the rather silly allegations and charges that marginalized states often level.

It would allow us all to make a clear distinction between the objections of a group like, say, Amnesty International, when it condemns U.S. and British complicity or inaction in the 1970s Ugandan genocide, in contrast to the claims of someone like Idi Amin, who sought to divert blame from himself onto the handlers who brought him to power. Clearly, one source is much more believable and valuable than the other.

Regardless, the page as it currently stands is clearly based in fact; ALL of the various objections and complaints currently being aired have withstood the challenge of re-examination many, many times over. Many of these facts have been posted on this board for nearly half a decade. In that time they have survived unremitting, tendentious assaults, all the while receiving clear and unambiguous endorsement by hundreds -- if not thousands -- of conscientious and skilled wikipedia editors and *-ops.

Meanwhile, of the editors currently protesting the current manifestation of this article, Devonshire, TDC and MONGO have each been the recipients of equally clear and unambiguous disciplinary action for their political posturing and abuse of the wiki system. Several of their comrades have been summarily banned from the Wiki pages, most notably among them "NuclearUmpf", who was herein an earlier protagonist of similar behavior. Tom Harrison -- like a few of the others who pop in from time to time -- has never ceased to join this group in calling for the deletion of this page.

This is all very tragic, i think. The fact that this page has received the overwhelming endorsement from the International wiki community is lost on these few. They seem completely numb to the possibility that their own viewpoints are wildly skewed from mainstream, international opinion, and -- unfortunately for those of us who try to maintain this page -- are utterly incapable of reconsidering their own nationalist, partisan sentiments.

The arguments to remove or further water-down this article are vapid and without merit, nor is there any justification for the qualifiers and obsequies currently being promoted. Those who insist on these qualifiers have, many times over, confirmed their utter rejection of this article's very existence -- as they do once again, above, in what is apparently a cynical challenge to firmly established, uncontroversial wikipedia protocol.

The insistence upon "contextualizing" behavior which clearly runs against the agreed upon laws, principles and morality of the wider American people is absurd. The insistence that clearly defined words like "terrorism" may not be applied to widely reported events is absurd. Moreover, any objections that it is the duty of wiki readers to accept -- against all verifiable facts, interpretation, and recorded experience -- unsubstantiated suspicions, opinions and prejudices is absurd.

These last couple of weeks i have seen from this crew -- MONGO, Devonshire, TDC, Harrison, and the people who chime in with them -- nothing more than a series of weak rhetorical postures, not a single one of which is based in any form of fact or substantiation. There have been no challenges to the facts presented, only assertions that these widely reported and analyzed events are not "factual" enough. There have been no demonstrations of an error in research, only repeated accusation that the arguments are invalid. Nor has there been any serious challenge to the sources and archives of these facts and events, but instead a litany of misbegotten opinions that claim to a wide social omniscience.

Instead of solidly argued, fact-based challenges of the ideas, sources and events presented here, we are instead being treated to an energetic exercise in content-free medial "spin" by people who apparently think history was acted out and written by men and women who composed their ideas with an 8th grade vocabulary pruned to 20 second sound-bites. It's a shame that my fellow countrymen feel so fearful as to seek the constraint and limitation of soundly argued, free spirited reasoning, and no doubt a shame that has the true american patriots of bygone years spinning in their various graves. Stone put to sky 10:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the WP:NPA policy before you post again.--MONGO 10:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. That is an excellent idea which I fully support. We can have an allegations page that is much more expansive than this narrow list of verified and unrefuted acts of state terrorism. The page can be broader too, such as "Allegations of Crimes against Humanity by the United States?" Or, "Crimes against Peace," "War crimes," etc. If an allegations page is what is called for then lets create them. Certainly we have lots of allegations to report.Giovanni33 18:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There is not a single "verified and unrefuted acts of state terrorism" on this page, only allegations.Ultramarine 19:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, "Crime against the Peace", as I understand it, is a specific and very grave crime under the Nuremberg Principles: it is the crime of launching a war of aggression (a war that is not defensive in nature). It is generally considered worse than terrorism. I would support creation of a page about Wars of Aggression, limited to those launched by the US or more general. Obvious examples are the German attack on Poland in WWII.

Another interesting possible article would be the pretexts used by countries to start wars to justify and sell the war. The Third Reich dressed up soldiers in Polish uniforms to stage an "attack" against Germany, which "justified" the German invasion. Similarly, the non-existent "Gulf of Tonkin incident" was the pretext to justify and sell the US war against Vietnam, the "threat" posed by non-existent Iraqi WMD was the pretext used for invading Iraq, the non-existent "horror" of the Iraqis pulling infants out of incubators and the "threat" posed by non-existent Iraqi tanks in the desert near the Saudi border in 1990 justified the first Gulf War, decades-long CIA asset Manuel Noriega's involvement in the drug trade was the justification for invading the sovereign country of Panama and hauling to courts in the US its head of state, etc. etc. In short, the pretexts offered would make for a very informative article and reveal an interesting pattern. The article could also highlight reasons for the wars proposed by analysts other than those officially offered.--NYCJosh 17:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait ... I have to know, for clarification’s sake. If the US’s sponsoring of Guatemalan “death squads” constitutes “state terrorism”, does Cuban sponsoring/training of the PFLP or the FARC constitute “state terrorism”? And how exactly would I work a narrative into an article on State terrorism by Cuba?

Comportment

I'd like to see some proof that I have been one of the "recipients of equally clear and unambiguous disciplinary action for their political posturing and abuse of the wiki system"--MONGO 10:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Were you not de-sysopped?

Further, i have read the WP:NPA. It states that "epithets...dismissing or discrediting [someone's] views [through attacking their affiliations]...Threats of legal action...violence...vandalism...[or] which expose editors to persecution...[or]...Insulting or disparaging an editor" qualify as a general outline of what a "personal attack" might be.

Please point out where my words above qualify under any of these measures -- or even something less obvious, unlisted by the WP:NPA but clearly in its spirit. As i have said: i will be happy to reconsider what i have written if you will simply point out to me where it is that i have erred.

I have no problem apologizing. It seems odd to me that i have had to ask four times, now, for clarification. If the offense is so clear as to warrant action, it seems to me that you could have merely stated it clearly and it would already be removed by now. Do you have some reason for not clarifying? Stone put to sky 11:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. I was not desysopped for political abuse...that is a lie. Yes, you did above and have several other times recently Insulted and disparaged an editor (more than one editor), naming others by name, and trying to discredit them instead of their arguments. This has been discussed with you now several times.--MONGO 11:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even know you were desysopped! Show you how much I've been following the internal politics of WP. So, what did you do wrong, Mongo, to get in trouble and lose your sys op status? I looked around but could not find it. Sorry if this is off topic (but a lot of this page is rather off topic, I think). I know that for an admin to de-sysoped another is very rare. I guess it must have been a serious violation?Giovanni33 18:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This conversation is not relevant here. - Merzbow 19:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Really? Then perhaps i'm wrong. Would you like to explain why you were de-sysopped? Please correct me if my assumption is wrong, but it seems to me that being de-sysopped quite clearly implies that your responsibilities were -- after repeated warnings, and in what was considered quite a rare action by the sys-op board (i'm sorry, but i don't know their official title) -- revoked because of mis-use.

Further, i would like to protest that i have not "insulted and disparaged" anyone personally. I am very scrupulous about that. There have been repeated threats made against me, by quite a few of the posters here -- TDC, you, and Devonshire in particular (and your friend from long ago, NuclearUmpf) -- but i have tried quite diligently to avoid making any sort of personal attack.

Finally, i would like to say how i think it very odd you have removed Devonshire's clear violation of Wikipedia policy -- and something which clearly qualified as a "personal attack" -- without a warning, while you repeatedly level warnings and threats against my own person. Is there a double-standard at work here, MONGO? Stone put to sky 11:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, you know i am not a sock account. My posts here are made in good faith. Would you please stop harassing me? Stone put to sky 11:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You keep readding this continued attack on several editors here. I guess there is nothing left to do since you don't seem to understand that you can't impune the integrity of others you are disagreement with.--MONGO 11:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, there is no way to justify removing the entire post; in fact, you have yet to point to even a small part of it that clearly qualifies as a personal attack. There are portions of the post that make only general statements about the direction this conflict would best move. Similarly, there are large portions of this post which clearly state that certain editors here are not interested in contributing-to or refining this article, but instead seek only to delete it. I have pointed out that the motivation of such editors when contributing to such a page are rightfully questionable, and that in fact many of the challenges that have been made to the page in its current state are simply pure rhetoric, with no content, analysis, or logic to back them up.

As i have said: please, point me to the specific portions of the entry where you feel i was making some sort of personal attack.

As for my suggestion to ban certain posters from this page: in the context of the informal AfD above, i hardly think that my views on this issue are misplaced or consitute an attack. Many of the people here are calling for deletion of this article, for which i have made cogent arguments in defense. My suggestion that these deletionists be banned from editing this particular article is a simple response to what seems an intransigent problem: how can we definitively protect this article from being defaced by people who consider it an affront?

I do not consider this article an affront. I consider it a work of quality research and long, hard negotiations. I do not want to see it deleted, and i do not want to see it constantly defaced by people who resent its existence. I am defending the article -- defending these facts from being covered up and hidden away -- and my suggestion reflects the importance in which i hold this work. Stone put to sky 11:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Your ongoing inciviliies are noted. That you don't see them as such is no surprise, since the last time you argue about this issue, you stated [17] "Anyone who might suggest that this topic be deleted is either a dumbshit fascist or a dumbshit dupe. In either case, they have no place here in wikiepedia." You are personally attacking people when you make these kinds of comments and when you continue to impune the integrity of those you disagree with by naming them and making accusations about them.--MONGO 11:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh. I'll admit that one was out of line - way out of line. I was posting-while-drunk. It is, however, an exceptional case and completely unrelated to the present circumstances.

In other words, MONGO -- i learned my lesson. I stayed away and regained my cool. I have returned, now, more level-headed and much more sober.

So, to say it once again: there is no reason for bringing up those words now, because in addition to having been written a long time ago, they also were not directed at you, nor anyone in particular. Stone put to sky 12:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, it sure would be nice if we could post to the page, wouldn't it?

Unfortunately, it appears that we are -- once again -- unable to continue editing this page in good faith because a few people are peeved at the facts and material presented here.

Whatever. Once we get around to editing again i may be too busy to be able to post; so i am including this stuff here, in hopes that some responsible soul will pick it up and place it where it needs to be:

U.S. State Department Definition of Terrorism:

The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant1 targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

The term "international terrorism" means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country.

The term "terrorist group" means any group practicing, or that has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.

The US Government has employed this definition of terrorism for statistical and analytical purposes since 1983.

From:

Patterns of Global Terrorism -2001/2/3

Released by the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism

May 21, 2002

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2001/html/10220.htm

I think these are very interesting definitions, and look forward to playing with them in the future. Stone put to sky 12:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No original research. Once unprotected, a massive cleaning will be necessary, most of the article is original research with no backing in the sources that these events have been labelled "state terrorism".Ultramarine 13:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No, no, ultramarine -- the article is not "original research". The article is a clearly ordered collection of facts about a few of the United States' actions abroad, and how many of these actions clearly meet established definitions of terrorism.

You see, Ultramarine -- you have not been around to witness the evolution of this article. I have. Once-upon-a-time, the article was a rather innocent and sparse entry describing a few ideas and instances that many people around the world recognized as instances of terrorism perpetrated or sponsored by the United States.

However, at some point the page was targeted by a few people who objected to the use of the word "terrorism" to describe any action of the United States, and these people began to make brash deletions. An edit-war sprung up.

That edit war has continued until today, now something close to five years gone. Back at the beginning, the entry looked something like this:

The United States of America, being an economically and militarily powerful nation, has gained numerous perennial critics, who tend to focus on its foreign policy. One of these is author Michael Moore. For his list of charges against the US, some of which would be considered by some to be examples of state terrorism, see Michael Moore and US foreign policy.

Many critics claim that various US policies have negative humanitarian consequences, and that in some cases that could be considered state terrorism. For instance, the UN sanctions on Iraq, actually created by the UN and not the US, are often charged with harming the people more than the government. However, the US responded that the sanctions were necessary to cut off the oil revenue that was funding Saddam Hussein's regime.

The US has also taken sides in various foreign civil wars, often working with organizations with questionable human rights practices in order to help fight an enemy perceived as worse. Some label support of such organizations state terrorism.

The nuclear bombing of Hiroshima is considered by many to be an example of state terrorism

Now, the page has undergone a radical transformation. That transformation has taken place under the watchful eyes of the cadre of deletionists, above, many of whom have been stumping around here as long as i have, some three years or so.

This transformation has, at every step of the way, been a chaotic and unprincipled thing. For some reason, the standards of truth by which we measure the quality of facts presented here keeps changing.

For instance, where it would elsewhere be satisfactory to simply state:

"The U.S. was convicted of the "unlawful use of force" by the ICJ. In the context of the Nicaraguan conflict, this has been widely interpreted by many commentators as a condemnation of U.S. State Terrorism" -- all of which is quite true, and easily demonstrable --

well, here, that's just not good enough. Instead of working with commonly accepted definitions and easily demonstrable facts, the editors of this page find their hands tied to constantly shifting and unpleasantly metamorphic standards. Nothing is ever good enough, see --

And it appears that you, too, wish to join in. Super! We welcome you! But there is very little in this article that can be easily deleted. Until now, too many people and too many editors have invested too much time into these entries for anyone to simply state "Most of the article is original research". Nothing could be farther from the truth! In fact, there is much substantiation on the page.

My suggestion is simple: If the collection of people here consider the article to be so poorly constructed that it deserves only deletion, then why don't we float another AfD?

Of course, that can only take place after we, the opposition editors, have been given the opportunity to re-instate the information which we feel has been unjustifiably removed. It is quite unfair, i think, to have an AfD after a cadre of editors to ride in like a herd, make a big stink to force a great many arbitrary edits, and then demand that the page be protected.

So no, ultramarine -- i do not think this page will be altered nearly as dramatically as you seem to think. There is no case for doing so, and certainly no easy way to argue away the collection of facts and reporting that has so far accumulated. Stone put to sky 14:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:OR. Everything that an external source has not claimed is "state terrorism" should be removed. When an external source claims this, it should be clearly stated that this is a claim and by which author.Ultramarine 14:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have read it, Ultramarine. My suggestion is that you go back and re-read it, because it appears you have yet to really fathom exactly what direction it seeks to encourage our development.

As of now, there is no "Original Research" in this article. To suggest that there is flies in the face of common sense. Stone put to sky 15:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of the article consists of incidents that certain anonymous Wikipedia editors personally thinks is "state terrorism". Everything that an external source has not claimed is "state terrorism" should be removed. When an external source claims this, it should be clearly stated that this is a claim and by which author. Not to mention containg numerous factual errors, including numerous fringe conspiracy theories, and being extremely biased in the description of events. Which will be corrected.Ultramarine 15:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have misapprehended the amount of scholarship and verification that has gone into these entries. You have completely mis-articulated the nature of this article. There is nothing "fringe" or "personal" about the facts presented. They all clearly use the term "state terrorism", they all clearly demonstrate U.S. involvement, and they all clearly follow from widely acknowledged internationally validated facts.

I'm sorry, but the facts presented in this article are all carefully validated according to internationally recognized authorities. I really think you need to go review Original Research and try to apprehend its spirit and intent. Stone put to sky 15:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That the Algiers putsch was caused by Glado is a fringe conspiracy theory. Mohammed Mossadegh was not electecd but appointed by the Shah. Stephen Kinzer never states that Iran having an alliance with the US was "state terrorism" by the US. The desciption of the coups are very biased, ignoring the fear at the time of these states becoming Communist dictatorships. The list goes on and on and will be corrected.Ultramarine 16:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The content regarding the Algiers Putsch is clearly sourced to a validated academic. There are no scholars -- and i mean absolutely nobody -- who contests that Mohammad Mossadegh was democratically elected. Your pointed -- and apparently purposeful -- misinterpretation of Kinzer's work is, frankly, frightening in its newspeak. Regarding the "coups", fears about "communism" are only relevant to the motives underlying the events in question; otherwise, they are utterly irrelevant to questions of the tactics and methods used to prosecute their practical effects. The list goes on and on, truly; but so far, it is all accurate, and will remain so. Stone put to sky 16:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The claim regarding Algiers is still a fringe conspiracy theory not accepted by most scholars. You duck the lack of support from Kinzer. That Mohammad Mossadegh was appointed by the Shah is a fact, he may or may not have had popular support. Mentioning oil nationalization but not the fear of a Communist coup violates NPOV.Ultramarine 16:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

From WIkipedia:No original research: "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article." Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Original Research?

".. synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" does not apply to situations in which there is only one possible outcome. How about changing mph into km/h. Or, what about the following: 1 four legged animals are quadrupeds, 2 dogs have four legs. Therefore dogs are quadrupeds. To insist we are not allowed to say this ignores "synthesis of published material serving to advance a position," which refers to a myriad of possibilities. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is more like "Four legged animals are quadrupeds. Dogs are quadrupeds. Elephants are quadrupeds. Therefore dogs are elephants." The current argument seems to be whether we should use this logic and title the article 'Dogs are elephants' or "Dogs are alleged to be elephants". But really, it should just be deleted as it's somewhat ridiculous proposition. --Tbeatty 06:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well spoken, Nomen, and i completely agree.

What fascinates me is how so many editors here feel that selectively quoting short phrases from wikipedia policy clarifications are equivalent to legalistic equivalences.

Fortunately, Wikipedia is neither a democracy, nor is it adjudicated.

To quote the most relevant passage of the Original Research entry:

Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.

And further down, it is clarified that "Original Research":

introduces original ideas;
defines new terms;
provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

None of the facts presented here can be disqualified by any of these criteria. All of the ideas presented here have solid sources underlying them. All of the terms here are clearly defined by entities which qualify as authoritative in the concerned field (and yes, that includes Chomsky, Chossudovsky, et al). None of the work presented here provides or presumes definitions which have not been agreed upon in advance, by all editors. None of the entries or facts herein presented engage in analysis or synthesis of "established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments" without first attributing that synthesis to reputable sources. And finally, none of the entries here utilize neologisms without proper attribution.

What i find particularly odd, however, is that the complete lack of relevance that the 4th point represents. Why is it that there have been no reputable sources presented disputing the facts as they are currently presented? Stone put to sky 16:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The personal claims of Wikipedia editors that many of these events were "state terrorism" is an "synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor".Ultramarine 16:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No, they do not. All of the events and facts presented on this page are clearly characterized as terrorism by third parties. Our vaunted NuclearUmpf -- who, i might add, was eventually banned for flagrant provocations that flaunted Wikipedia guidelines (and rightfully so, IMO, although it was sad to see such a shaggy and immature intellect purged from a place where he seemed to be learning so much) -- made certain that all entries brought to this page adhered to the clearly enunciated phrase, "State Terrorism". Stone put to sky 16:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Nomen Nescio, if Professor Gareau argues the School of the Americas was a training camp for state terrorism, and the Times reports that the Generalissimo attended, and the Globe reports his conviction for crimes against humanity, we cannot record that "the US commited state terrorism.<ref>Gareau</ref><ref>The Times</ref><ref>The Globe</ref>" That would be a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. I increasingly think that dealing in hypotheticals does more harm than good. We may have a better idea of each others' positions when we see each others' edits. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, unless we have a source that states that the specific act for which this general was convicted of, i.e. crimes against humanity, qualifies as examples of state sponored terrorism. If we do, then we can use it. I think this article does make such direct connections in its claims based on sources it uses. If not, then we should correct that.Giovanni33 22:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That is like stating that it is a fact that Castro is a terrrorist since he have supported rebells in other nations using violence and doing human rights violations. At the very least, an external source is required and attribution regarding the claim should be made.Ultramarine 01:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my word! Nescio was in no way making such an argument! Gareau himself presents the case in question; the following footnotes demonstrate the basis of Gareau's reasoning -- not Nescio's -- and thus in no way violate the Original Research guideline.

Moreover, Nescio's point - and it remains valid - is that if the United States pays latin-american military leaders to murder 400 civilians so that certain land may be both ethnically cleansed and to encourage local villagers to submit to local Jefe rule, then we can truly say that the U.S. has engaged in "State Terrorism". Stone put to sky 16:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No, that is an original synthesis. Could be put in article called "Criticisms of United States foreign policy" or something similar. But claiming that it is the vague and unclear concept of "state terrorism" is OR.Ultramarine 16:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nescio and Stone--these claims are not in any way OR, nor are they Syn violations since all we are doing is reporting on the 1. facts that are not disputed by anyone, and 2. the arguments that these undisputed facts constitute examples of state sponored terrorism. True, the concept is one whose basis is disputed but this article states as much, i.e. its controverisal, etc. That is no reason to reject reporting on these acts which are said to constitute examples of state terrorism. That you don't like the concept and term "state terrorism" is fine but its not for you to impose your POV by suppressing our reporting on what what reputable scholars have argued.Giovanni33 22:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Arguing that certain are "state terrorism" is OR unless there is a source stating this. It is like stating that it is a fact that Castro is a terrrorist since he has supported rebells using violence. At the very least, an external source is required and attribution regarding the claim should be made.Ultramarine 22:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me it would be the same for any of the "State terrorism by XXXX" articles. How do the other ones deal with it? --John 16:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible errors in other articles is not relevant for this one.Ultramarine 16:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it possible that the other articles are just fine (the standard all other article are using and they don't seem to have a problem with it), and that the error here is your interpretation and understanding of how policy is implemented on this question?Giovanni33 00:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it possible that the other articles have similar problems? No evidence have been presented either way. Regardless, I am discussing policy violations in this article, not possible ones in the others.Ultramarine 01:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, i wish it were so simple. Unfortunately, such rhetoric is clearly the consequence of linguistic competence, and nothing more. Stone put to sky 16:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. I will report continued attacks.Ultramarine 16:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no personal attack there. Please try to focus on improvements to the article rather than bickering with others. As to my question above, I made no reference to any errors. I asked how other articles of the "State terrorism by XXXX" deal with this problem. Maybe you thought it was a rhetorical question. It wasn't. --John 17:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You could try asking on the talk page of that article.Ultramarine 17:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop dodging the issue, Ultramarine. The question is valid and deserves to be answered.

With the impasse as it currently exists, it is obvious that this page could stand a bit of education at the knee of other groups. Stone put to sky 17:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, then go and ask on the other talk page. But again, what is important is following policy, which this page does not.Ultramarine 17:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to let John respond to this -- because i think he'll say it much better than i can -- but i'll attempt it, for now:

The point is that examples from other pages would be instructive. If it's good enough for other groups of wikipedians, then we should be able to learn something from it. That's what the definition of "community" is, and that's what wikipedia is founded on. Stone put to sky 17:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, then go and ask. However, the violations of policy on this page will be corrected.Ultramarine 17:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There are no violations of policy on this page. Apparently, you need to go read up on WP:OR, WP:AGF, and a few other policies. Stone put to sky 17:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Many have been pointed out above. There are many others. I will carefully document them when I correct them.Ultramarine 17:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. And I will back you up. Every single incident in this article must be backed by a reliable source that claims it represents state terrorism by the United States. Claims by editors here that we can infer something is state terrorism are WP:OR, because that is a position held only by analysts like Chomsky on the far side of the left political spectrum. - Merzbow 17:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree too, at least in principal, but I don't see the actual violations on this page. There seems to be a disagreement about what that looks like in practice, and I see the claims being made as unsupported. From my reading, the reported facts in this article are backed up by a reliable source, but that this is simply being ignored. And then the false claim is made that one is doing OR or Syn. I am also disturbed by the fact that it looks like those who are doing this are highly driven by a nationalist conservative ideology, which should not be the case. Chomsky is a valid source, as are the other sources given here that are cited to support the various claims made in this article. If there is disagreement about this, then I think we will all need to look at each specific example concretely.Giovanni33 22:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Spare me the Ad Hominem. I will carefully document everything when starting to correct the article.Ultramarine 22:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any ad hominem. But, why don't you state specifically what needs correction and your proposed text to "correct it" so we can see if it will be accepted or not by others? This seems like the way go forward given the contentious nature of this article and the editors.Giovanni33 00:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have already pointed out factual errors and NPOV violations above, like in regard to the Iranian coup. But the whole article is full of them. Some other quick examples. "The United States Government has also been accused of planning terrorism against its own citizens.[6] and fabricating false pretext" Never accepted, just a proposal, and not against its own citizens. "In 2000, a report from the Italian Left Democrat party," For NPOV, should added "former Communist party", and "the centrist Republican party said it was worthy of a 1970s Maoist group.", "To Aldo Giannuli, a historian who works as a consultant to the parliamentary terrorism commission, the release of the Left Democrats' report is a manoeuvre dictated primarily by domestic political considerations." And so on.Ultramarine 00:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you have failed to point out anything specifically that stands up as accurate and valid. What I have noticed is that you make grand, highly generalized and vague pronouncements with your claims, but you back away from demands that you support you claim by listing something specific that illustrates it’s validity. Now you have listed something, and it again turns out only to prove that your claim is false.

You say the source does not support this statement: "The United States Government has also been accused of planning terrorism against its own citizens.[6] and fabricating false pretext" Then you say “it was never accepted, just a proposal,” But this is quite irrelevant and does not refute the claim. You are creating a straw man fallacy. The accusation is simply that it was a plan--not that it was a plan that was eventually implemented. If it were, we would surely report that, as it would be very significant. You also claim that “not against its own citizens.” I suggest you go back and read the documents again because it clearly provides details supporting that accusation.

The quote details: "the National Security Agency entitled Body of Secrets…by the Joint Chiefs of Staff codenamed OPERATION NORTHWOODS. This document, titled “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba” was provided by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962, as the key component of Northwoods. Written in response to a request from the Chief of the Cuba Project, Col. Edward Lansdale, the Top Secret memorandum describes U.S. plans to covertly engineer various pretexts that would justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba. These proposals - part of a secret anti-Castro program known as Operation Mongoose - included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, developing a fake “Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,” including “sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated),” faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a “Remember the Maine” incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage. Bamford himself writes that Operation Northwoods “may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government.”

I'm off to bed. Goodnight, all. Sweet dreams, when they come. Stone put to sky 17:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Blowing up a US ship in an attempt to recreate a phony pretext along the lines of “Remember the Maine” incident is a terrorist attack against US citizens. Any attack on US public (citizen) property, is an attack on US citizens. Hence, the plan did exist. You may not like these allegations against the US govt. but they are real and supported by valid sources. Its not POV to reports on these facts, and it is POV to try to hide them. Can you list anything else? I'm hoping that at least one problem you find is a valid one so that is can be fixed. But so far I'm waiting to see what your talkign about.Giovanni33 19:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, just a proposal, never executed or accepted by the President. I am sure there is proposal (probably several different) for an attack on North Korea, but it is not accepted as policy. No explicit mention of a planned attack on US citizens, that is your own OR conclusion. You are ignoring my comments on NPOV violations and factual inaccuracy regarding Iran and Glado.Ultramarine 19:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was a plan, and thanfully never executed or accepted by the President. But so what? Why do you think stating that such a plan existed is equal to saying that the US actually committed the act of carrying it out? No one is making that claim, except you. Your real argument is that we should not report on this plan per the source because its just a plan? If that is your real argument then I think its very weak because 1. plans to commit terrorism on one's own citizens are NOT ordinary but extraordinary, and 2., all plans relevant to the subject should be reported on anyway, and esp. plans the form a spectrum of various actual implimented plans of terror against Cuba, directly and indirectly. I recommend that others read the sourced document directly here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/

As far as your comment about Iran, please be specific about your claim, and make your case.Giovanni33 19:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"The United States Government has also been accused of planning terrorism against its own citizens" That is like stating "The US government is planning a war with North Korea" if a such a possible proposal was found. Correct is "There was a rejected proposal...". Regarding Irana and Glado, see earlier my earlier comments above.Ultramarine 19:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

But I can repeat them. The article states: "In 2000, a report from the Italian Left Democrat party," For NPOV, should added "former Communist party", and "the centrist Republican party said it was worthy of a 1970s Maoist group.", "To Aldo Giannuli, a historian who works as a consultant to the parliamentary terrorism commission, the release of the Left Democrats' report is a manoeuvre dictated primarily by domestic political considerations."

Mohammed Mossadegh was not electecd but appointed by the Shah. Stephen Kinzer never states that Iran having an alliance with the US was "state terrorism" by the US. The desciption of the coups are very biased, ignoring the fear at the time of these states becoming Communist dictatorships. And so on, just some examples.Ultramarine 19:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I will also repeat earlier comment regarding stating as a fact that certain acts are "state terrorism". That is like stating that it is a fact that Castro is a terrrorist since he have supported rebells in other nations using violence and doing human rights violations. At the very least, an external source is required and attribution regarding which authoer has med the claim should be made.Ultramarine 20:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This article does use external souces for attribution regarding claims that are made. If there is something does lack then, please point it out so we can remedy it. As far as your point about Mossadegh not being elected, that is not quite true. I think you are confusing the fact that in Iran the appointment took place in the context of an election process, the two not being mutually exclusive. Here are sources that support the claims: This is an excellent interview about the kinds of terrorist activities the US committed in that country at that time: [18] "50 Years After the CIA’s First Overthrow of a Democratically Elected Foreign Government We Take a Look at the 1953 US Backed Coup in Iran." If that source is too "left" for you, here is the BBC: [19] Which states: "Document reveals the true extent of Britain 's involvement in the coup of 1953 which toppled Iran 's democratically elected government and replaced it with the tyranny of the Shah." And, if you one a more scholarly source, here is Harvard’s Human Rights Journal Volume 17, Spring 2004, ISSN 1057-5057. Copyright © 2004 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College, that states: "Any analysis of America’s position in the Middle East would be incomplete without a thorough understanding of the U.S. role in overthrowing Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh, the democratically elected and revered Prime Minister who nationalized Iran’s oil."See:http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss17/booknotes-All.shtml As far as your comment about "ignoring the fear of communism" that is POV, and not relevant. The fear is the same fear we have that is typical for all imperialist states bent on global conquest and domination: that people gain control their own natural resources (in this case oil, again), be it in the form of socialism, communism, or nationalism. What you call "communism" I'd call liberation from capitalist expoitation and plunder, etc. But these are POV's that are best left out of this article. If we want to present both sides, then that is ok, in the body of the article about this incident, provided you have a source. I have no objection to that--as long as its not the only pov. Your comment about adding that the plans the US made for some terrorist activies were rejected, is trivial since we only report the accusation of the plans they made. If they were not rejected but carried out, we'd report that fact. But, if you think we need to add in that these particular plans were ultimately rejected by such and such, then that is fine, but not stating that is not a problem either, as it is rather obvious. Plans are just that plans, they are not actions.Giovanni33 22:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, obviously there is a difference between stating "The United States is planning to attack North Korea" and "The United States has plan, if the United States so decide, to attack North Korea." The current article misleadingly implies the first alternative. As well the OR conclusion that plan explicitly targeted US citizens. Regarding Iran, the Iranian Constitution gave the Shah great powers, including appointing and dismissing the Prime Minister. Mossadeq was elected to the parliament and the parliament (initially) supported him. This and street riots forced the Shah to appoint him Prime Minister. The following events were complex, like Mossadeq dissolving the Parliament and taking on dictatorial powers when it didn't obey him but claiming popular support from a plebiscite. Exactly who to believe depend on who you ask, but he was not elected as Prime Minister and the degree of democracy in Iran is questionable (both from the great offical power wielded by the Shah and the great inofficial power taken by Mossadeq after dissolving the Parliament).[20][21] The article names the oil nationalization as the cause for the coup, so it is pov to not mention the very real fear of a Communist dictatorship at the time. Still no explanation how the Iran having an alliance with US or being "client state" after the coup is "state terrorism" by the US. You ignore the argumens regarding Glado and Castro.Ultramarine 23:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC) A quick check yields more problems. "According to the Asia Times, sponsoring terrorist activities inside Iran has been a consistent feature of U.S. regional policy over the past quarter-century. The paper cites The New Yorker Magazine's investigative reports which states that as of at least 1996 the United States has military commando units operating inside Iran." There is no citation of The New Yorker Magazine or claims regarding commandos. Seems completely fabricated. Regarding the first sentence, the opinion piece gives no sources, so only the personal opinion of the writer.Ultramarine 00:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Now you are doing OR. You have failed to come up with a single source that says his govt. was not democratic, or democratically elected. I showed you several. What you are doing is using your own analysis of complex facts to come to your own conclusion. That is like me saying George Bush, because he was appointed by his buddies on the Supreme Court, is not a democratically elected govt. but I cite no sources, except that events are complex, etc. Lets stick to what sources say and claim, and not do our own OR or Syn. If you have sources that plainly state as a statement of fact that this govt. was not "democratically elected" then produce them, otherwise, we do have sources that make this claim as a statement of fact with precisely such terms.

Your point about the US making plans, and your objection to the current wording is misleading because the example you give, while valid, does not fit into how the article puts it. It says the US has been accused of making plans against its own citizens, using clear past tense language, not like your example, "is planning" language, which I agree would be a problem, as it misleads the reader into thinking this is currently a plan under consideration. No, it planned it. This particular plan was not carried out, but need we say that? If it did carry it out, the accusation would not be about the US making plans, but actually committing the actions. So, I don't see your objection as valid. If the US devised a plan to attack Korea, then we should report on it, just like that: "the US has been accused of constructing a plan to attack North Korea"--not "the US is planning planning to attack..." This article does the former, NOT the latter.

Saying there was a "real fear of communist dictatorship" is also OR. One does not know about fear or motivations, but if there is a source that states then, then I dont object to quoting from it, but it must be properly attributed to a qualfied source. Then, for NPOV, we woudl have to also report with sources that will point out the US regularly and artifically created and used the anti-communist hysteria to undermine democratic governments and install Nazi-like dictatorships.Giovanni33 00:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree we should probably use a better source than the report by the Asia Times, but it is not "completely fabricated." The New Yorker article is real: The Iran Plans By Seymour M. Hersh, The New Yorker, 17 April 2006 Issue [22] If your argument is that we should add a better source, or add this New Yorker source, I'm fine with that. I would also like to add the informative sources on the coup, above, which also allege state terrorism. Regarding the claim of comandos in Iran see: "Seymour Hersh: U.S. Conducting Covert Operations in Iran For Possible Military Strike. We speak with investigative journalist Seymour Hersh who is reporting that the Pentagon has already secretly sent in forces to Iran to identify possible future military targets. According to Hersh, the president has authorized the Pentagon to send secret commando forces into as many as ten nations in the Middle East and South Asia. The secret forces could potentially carry out combat operations or even terrorist acts. [23]Giovanni33 00:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Still not elected, appointed as per sources. Still do not believe me? Read the 1906 Iranian Constitution, Section 4, Article 46. Democratically appointed? Maybe, we could state that some sources have said this but that they make an incorrect claim regarding being elected. See sources above for fear of a communsit overthrow. Regarding"planning terrorism against its own citizens", this is still not the same as a rejected proposal involving unspecified persons. I still see no support in the New Yorker for commandos in 1996 and also looks like an unsourced opinion piece. Regarding the Democracy Now statements, personal opinions that commandos may use terrorism in the future is conjecture. I have still not seen a response regarding to how being a "client state" is "state terrorism, Glado, or Castro. More problems. The article quotes extensivly from Danielle Ganser who has used Soviet forgeries, which must of course be mentioned, as must Chomsky's double standard regarding state terrorism and Communist regimes.Ultramarine 01:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You're jumping all around again. Stick to one issue at a time and be clear. What about Gladio, which were linked to domestic right-wing terror groups. See [24] What about Castro? As I said, I can claim Bush was not elected. He lost the majority of votes. If I make this claim on an article that the Bush regime, and therefore the US govt. currently does not have a democratically elected govt. that would be in violation of SYN and OR. But that is exactly what you want to do here. Your pulling out particular facts, out of context, and using that to push a POV, in opposition to what the sources say, although it does not counter what the sources say. Again, find a source that says, the govt. is NOT democratically elected, and then we can say its a disputed fact. Otherwise, we just have you own OR. I don't see sources above for fear of communism, but as I said, I'm fine with adding that POV as long as we have the other POV represented as well. And, even if the commandos is an opinion, as long as we properly attribute that to its author, what is the problem?Giovanni33 01:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ganser is a bit of a stove-piped rube. His work is amateur at best, synthesizing the tabloid press in Italy and elsewhere, taking it all at face-value, without checking the hyped-claims against primary research. For instance, he accepts the validity of FM 30-31B, which the legitimate press has found to be a Soviet forgery. His work reads like the sensationalist tomes of conspiracy theorists and crackpots. Coincidentally, he's a 9/11 conspiracy theory true believer. Big surprise. MortonDevonshire Yo · 14:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(NOTE: the last time Monty attacked Ganser he was forced to admit that he hadn't actually read Ganser's writing. Kafkaesque Seabhcan 17:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I said nothing of the sort – that was your assertion. Seab, you seem like an intelligent, educated person – I’m guessing an academic. Surely you can recognize poor scholarly work when you see it – Ganser’s work reads like a 7th-grade book report, making far-reaching conclusions based upon the wild assertions of tabloid journalists, with little to no citation to primary sources. Academics are supposed to synthesize, but first you need to examine the quality of sources, which he doesn’t. MortonDevonshire Yo · 18:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"Ganser’s work reads like a 7th-grade book report, making far-reaching conclusions based upon the wild assertions of tabloid journalists, with little to no citation to primary sources." It does no such thing. Unlike you, I have read the actual book, not merely secondary articles about it. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Your assumptions are incorrect. Please stop making things up. MortonDevonshire Yo · 14:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. From what I've read of him, it sounds nothing like the characterizations Morton makes about him. He is a qualified academic on these questions, agree with him or not.If you have other professional historians who make the kinds of wild claims you are making about Ganser, then please cite them. Otherwise, I dismiss it as POV ranting without substance.Giovanni33 09:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ganser has enough written about him that he is not a reliable source. Reading Ganser is not required to establish that he is not reliable as other thrid party sources have done that. I have read him though, and he is not reliable. --Tbeatty

Interesting, instead of attacking his claims, you attack him. This is a fallacy, you know, poisoning the well and ad hominin. But, its also factualy wrong. An "amateur at best?" No, he is a professional. Big difference. Your the amature, my friend. "Daniele Ganser is a is a historian who specializes in inter-national relations and international history from 1945 to today. His research interests are peace research, geostrategy, secret warfare, resource wars, globalization and human rights. He teaches at Swiss universities, including the history department of Basel University. His current research is focusing on the so called "war on terror" and peak oil." [25] And, your claim that he is a "true believer" also appears to be false. From what I've seen he simply raises questions regarding the official story, and says that alternative theories, including, the conspiracy theories, should also be examined against all the facts. But more to the topic, do you dispute the veracity or accuracy of any of the claims he makes in the source above on Gladio? If so I can provide other sources that support his claims. This is really the issue, btw.Giovanni33 16:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I dispute it. Ganser himself admits, in both the citation you provide, and in his book, that he did not have access to primary sources. MortonDevonshire Yo · 18:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As shown, numerous problems and it seems to be getting difficult to discuss them all on talk. Probably better to wait for the article to be unprotected so we can more easily see sources added and arguments made.Ultramarine 09:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is a mainstream source, ABC, to add the Operation Northwoods, claim, which clarifies the quesitons you raised regarding targetting US citizens (a claim this source makes clear is a true allegation and not OR), and the question of the plan being rejected. In connection with that point, if it is to be said the plan was rejected, then it should be made clear that this was only after the plan was also approved by the highest levels of Pantagon. As the report states, it had "the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara." It was only rejected by the Kennedy Administration, but this is what the US military leadership wanted the US govt. to carry out.[26]Giovanni33 16:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no mention of explicitly targeting citizens, most of the actions is clearly directed against non-citizens and the rest is unspecified. If you want to add at what stage the proposal was rejected, fine.Ultramarine 16:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then we see different things, so lets just directly quote from this ABC source, about the point in question. Agreed?Giovanni33 17:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What text do you propose? Ultramarine 17:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Text that I think makes the same point, but this time we would be quoting the ABC source, so there can be no possible issue of OR or SYN. Some examples to quote from the source that make this point are:

plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities
blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.
America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."''

Giovanni33 18:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Better to quote from the archieve itself: "These proposals - part of a secret anti-Castro program known as Operation Mongoose - included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, developing a fake “Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,” including “sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated),” faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a “Remember the Maine” incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage."Ultramarine 18:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The ABC source does quote the paper itself, which is more to the point: "*America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

The claim is that US citizens were targeted. You claim this is OR. Well, if we quote that, and now we can quote ABC that makes the argument, this connection, of targeting US citizens, then its no longer OR, as a reputable source advances that rather obvious, conclusion--and we don't have to. Either that or drop the claim that saying "US citizens" is OR, when its really not.Giovanni33 18:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the actual docement itself. It is much tamer than any of the sensational summaries. There is no evidence that any deaths at all were intended, at most "wounding". They talk about funerals for mock-victims and blowing up an unmanned drone.Ultramarine 18:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I did read it, and yes, they talk about wounding. Is not violence inflicting injury, even if not death, not still an issue of terrorism targeting US citizens? And, again, the ABC source, quotes the paper itself, which talks about blowing up a US ship and creating "casualty lists" to create anger among the US population. Again, US citizens are the targets of terrorism, which is to incite fear, feel under attack, etc. for political ends, and violence is used. This is not being sensationalistic, this is sticking to the the sources say. Now you have no basis to further claim this is OR, or SYN.Giovanni33 19:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The context is "The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters 'evacuate' remaining members of the non-existant crew. Causality lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."Ultramarine 19:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Moving material

Much of the material in the extremely long section on Luis Posada Carriles should be moved to that article and replaced with a summary. No need to repeat the entire article here.

The sections "Definition of the term terrorism" and "Application of United States Government's own definitions" should be merged, same topic.Ultramarine 12:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. When this article becomes too big, then we can look to trim and merge. Right now its fits in well with the article, and it does not go in great details as the main article does. It should cover enough information about the subject in this article. After this article is expanded and size/space becomes and issue, then we can do trimming/merging. The focus should be on expanding, and adding more and better sources.Giovanni33 16:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Unreassonable that a single person gets more than all other sections. Size has nothing to with the second merger.Ultramarine 18:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Then, expand the others. Not all sections need be the same size. It depends on the amount of information that is available. I'm flexible with cutting, but I'm saying this is not the time to do so. This article overall is rather small, given the subject matter.Giovanni33 18:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Changes

This is to discuss the latest changes and any on going disagreements. I kept most of the many changes, and attempted a compromise synthesis between Ultramarine's edits, and edits I wanted to incorporate. We can discuss disagreements here, hopefully, instead of edit waring again. One part that was reference, in which I removed was this: "Mossadeq's regime had become increasingly autocratic. When Mossadeq's support in the legislative body had dwindled..." I felt it was too off topic because thisis not about the nature of the regimes, or their internal politics. Its too off topic. I understand you want to make the argument that the US sent the CIA in to topple the govt because it allegedly feared a communist take over. That would be ok, stated alone, and then with a countering pov. The details about the nature of the government of Iran at that time are best left for the main article. This article should really just focus on US actions.Giovanni33 02:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Then the statements about oil nationalization should be removed, as well as claims of being democratically elected.Ultramarine 08:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Why was the false statement "The paper cites The New Yorker Magazine's investigative reports which states that as of at least 1996 the United States has military commando units operating inside Iran."? Ultramarine 08:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought that I provided that in talk earlier. The paper references Hersh S., work in the New Yorker, which did a series on the question. I provided that link above, and it does support these claims. I agree that the Asia Times does not adequately cite that work, and we should properly cite it by adding in the actual article it references in the Asia Times piece.Giovanni33 08:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not opposed to you stating the US line about fear of communism, etc., and I think oil nationalization and being democratically elected are both important facts that should be included. What I am opposed to is trying to get into details of the internal nature of the govt., which as you admit, is rather complex. The account you gave does not do that justice, is incomplete, and is just one pov. To treat the subject well, would require too much space and then it gets off the topic. There is a balance between too little info and too much info. I want to stick to the most important facts that are directly pertinent to the issue.Giovanni33 08:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No, your link above did not, there was no mentioning of this claim. There was no mention of the New Yorker at all in the Asian Times article. Regading Iran, it is a POV violation that only your side of story should be presenented. You make claims regarding the internal nature of the gov and the reasons for the coup, while simply deleting the sourced views you dislike. Unacceptable.Ultramarine 09:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little tired now to go back and look for it, but I recall finding that link that the article references (it does reference the New Yorker by means of the author's series of investigative pieces, which are published in the New Yorker). If I'm wrong, then we can correct that, and would have been able to if some editors here simply allowed us to have progress instead of edit waring on sight. About the reasons for the coup, as I said, I'm ok with presenting all claims as to the reasons, but going into the nature of the governments interal politics in the way you did with that source, is not appropriate for the reasons I've stated above. Instead, just find a source that says, something like "The US felt a need to intervene internally, and overthrow the regime because...." I'm fine with that. I hope you see the difference between that and what you put in there, and the reasons why that difference is important.Giovanni33 09:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the Asia Times never mentions the New Yorker. Please give a quote here if continuing this claim, otherwise it will be corrected as you propose. Regarding Iran, I have already given a source that mentions the fear of a communist overthrow. If for some reason the governments interal politics should be excluded, then the incorrect claim regarding democratically elected is also out. No double standard please.Ultramarine 09:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be talking pass each other now, and have a failture to communicate. I"m not sure if I should repeat myself here, or just wait a bit for you to re-read what I wrote above. There is no double standard. The source you gave said a lot more than just the fear of communism, which was what I objected to. The claim in the Asia Times is accurate, as it cites its author's work, which is in the New Yorker, as I showed before. So, maybe the text should be corrected to state that instead, and then link the article from the New Yorker. These things can be fixed, instead of completely deleted.Giovanni33 09:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the Asian Times never make any statement regarding New Yorker or Commandos in Iran in 1996. Again, give a quote if continuing this. Nor does the link you gave mention this. Again, give a quote here. Regarding Iran, deleting a source for having more info than what is quoted is just strange, all sources usually have much more info than what we quote them on. Explain why the article should state "democratically elected" but not opposing views. That is a double standard.Ultramarine 09:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, lets go back to the sources, again, and see what they say. Again, you keep saying it never makes a statment regarding the New Yorker, and I keep telling you that while it doesn't mention the New Yorker, it does so indirectly by mentioning the author of the New Yorker Seymore Hersh, who did a series of published works in the New Yorker about this, and those claims are supported there. This is like the 4th time I keep saying this, and you just keep repeating that it doesn't mention the New Yorker. Well, then, I agreed that we should modify the text accordingly. Lets stop beating this dead horse, and just look at the sources I provded and fix the text, instead of deleting the whole thing. About it being strange to delete "too much info," I see nothing strange. Its a question of giving undue weight. You had quoted a large section that presented a particular pov regarding several complex events taking place in the government. Again, two problems with doing that. The source did not make the argument that this interpretation was the reason the US orchestrated a coup there. So, not only does it give undue weight to this pov, it is misleading and a violation of Syn to use it to suggest a connection to the US actions. What would be valid, for balance, is a US govt. source that says its own reasons for taking this action, i.e. 'fear of communism, etc." That would be perfectly fine. The other stuff is best saved for the article about that other subject. I hope I make myself clear because I feel I keep repeating myself.Giovanni33 17:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, no none of your sources mention commandos in Iran in 1996. I quote from my source "As domestic conditions deteriorated, however, Mossadeq's populist style grew more autocratic. In August 1952, the Majlis acceded to his demand for full powers in all affairs of government for a six-month period. These special powers were subsequently extended for a further six-month term. He also obtained approval for a law to reduce, from six years to two years, the term of the Senate (established in 1950 as the upper house of the Majlis), and thus brought about the dissolution of that body. Mossadeq's support in the lower house of the Majlis (also called the Majlis) was dwindling, however, so on August 3, 1953, the prime minister organized a plebiscite for the dissolution of the Majlis, claimed a massive vote in favor of the proposal, and dissolved the legislative body. The administration of President Harry S Truman initially had been sympathetic to Iran's nationalist aspirations. Under the administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, however, the United States came to accept the view of the British government that no reasonable compromise with Mossadeq was possible and that, by working with the Tudeh, Mossadeq was making probable a communist-inspired takeover. Mossadeq's intransigence and inclination to accept Tudeh support, the Cold War atmosphere, and the fear of Soviet influence in Iran also shaped United States thinking."Ultramarine 17:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'll just keep copying and pasting, from above, since you keep denying, and I keep showing you. The New Yorker article is real: The Iran Plans By Seymour M. Hersh, The New Yorker, 17 April 2006 Issue [22] If your argument is that we should add a better source, or add this New Yorker source, I'm fine with that. I would also like to add the informative sources on the coup, above, which also allege state terrorism. Regarding the claim of comandos in Iran see: "Seymour Hersh: U.S. Conducting Covert Operations in Iran For Possible Military Strike. We speak with investigative journalist Seymour Hersh who is reporting that the Pentagon has already secretly sent in forces to Iran to identify possible future military targets. According to Hersh, the president has authorized the Pentagon to send secret commando forces into as many as ten nations in the Middle East and South Asia. The secret forces could potentially carry out combat operations or even terrorist acts." Source provided above.Giovanni33 04:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I take it that you now accept the description of the fear of communism in operation Ajax since you voice no opposition. Regarding commandos in Iran, we could state something like: "According to an interview with Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker in 2005, who quotes an anonynmous source, the US has commandos in Iran since 2004 conducting secret reconnaissance missions. An anonymous editor in Democracy Now! quotes this and and further states 'The secret forces could potentially carry out combat operations or even terrorist acts.'"Ultramarine 07:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The description of fear of communism, is fine, if its quoted with a source, and its kept to that point. Your attribution to the claims of comandos is almost ok, except that you overdo it with 'anonymous editor" which I think introduces bias. Saying, that this is decribed as...by Democracy in an interview with Seymore Hersh," is good enough. We want to be accurate but also careful about using certain words with a certain frequency that have the effect (intended or not) to convey through implication; Over doing the word "claims" is another example of things to avoid that introduce bias, as you will notice that our version differ on this account too. Hopefully, we can come to an agreement about these minor linguistic issues.Giovanni33 07:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The connection between this possible future action and "state terrorism" is extremely tenous. Exactly what text do you propose? Ultramarine 09:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ajax hardly merits classification as state sponsored terrorism. The Tudeh were a political party - it's completely absurd to call them a "right-wing terrorist organization." Yes, they were technically illegal in Iran, but the Iranian government was known to still cooperate with the party and no government had ever classified them as a terrorist organization, nor did anyone view them as a terrorist organization in spirit - they were an organization with political goals that the U.S. utilized against a political state entity and that Mossadegh at times used to quell dissent because he was clearly losing his control over the nation. Ajax was never intended to cause terror, but rather to encourage popular sentiment against the Mossadegh government leading to its downfall. Have you actually read the Kinzer book? Kinzer doesn't even come close to classifying the action as state terrorism. A more scholarly work on the subject is Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran edited by Mark J. Gasiorowski and Malcolm Byrne. Kinzer's research is okay, but not as accurate as what one gets from scholarly texts not directed toward popular consumption. --Strothra 04:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sudden influx of 'annon' users

Semi-protection is probably in order. I've requested it. Dman727 06:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed, on both sides of the fence, too. But what is also in order is to stop edit warring and discuss the changes. I note you are already at 3 reverts. I accepted most of the changes and worked to incorporate them with my own edits in good faith, yet, I'm completely reverted by a tag team of editors who seem to want no compromise, or discussion, and blindly revert only 2 minutes after have I have labored for over an hour to come up with a synthesis of both versions. That 2 mins of time proves that my edits were not even read or considered. This is not in the spirit of Wikipedia, and I protest this as a form of incivility.Giovanni33 06:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a pretty fast reader...and I understand your point, but it doesnt take to long to quickly identify that the same disputed material is being put into the article. FWIW, I'm noticing the same thing that some folks want to put only highly point of view material in, without compromise or discussion. We'll get there, but only when both sides start listening to each other.

I think there is a wiki-process to mediate this sort of thing, but I don't know how that works. Dman727 06:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Im not blaming you, becaues your not guilty of the above, just joining in, but I wish that there was more of a spirit of comromise and looking at others edits and seeing how to incorporate the changes, wihout reverting everything, giving in to some things you can live with but dont agree with, and then discussing the parts that one can't live with, etc. That is what I tried to do, and acted in good faith, yet I was met by nothing in return. Now, instead of getting anywhere, people are acting like children again reverting each other. That is completely unproductive and will only result in the page getting protected again. Sheesh, we have been editors here long enough to know better! If we can't act correctly, and decently towards other POV's then we should not be here.Giovanni33 06:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, I thought we came to an understanding that we couldn't say "some scholars" without also citing those scholars in addition to Chomsky. Surely this is a simple thing to do. - Merzbow 07:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I provided references in talk, and was working to put them in the article, but then the edit warring started, and I didn't get a chance. I wanted to format the reference correctly in line with the format that this article uses. But, I doubt if I did that, it would have made any difference to the outcome of the sorry sequence of events that transpired.Giovanni33 08:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This article shouldn't have been full-protected again; it was mostly the IPs that were stinking up the joint. - Merzbow 17:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

We could suggest semi-protection.Ultramarine 19:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I've asked the protecting admin. - Merzbow 21:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, its not just the IP's that continue to edit or, and do not want to discuss at talk, or more importantly, work towards a compromise. So, I think, full protection was the right thing to do, unfortunately, given the current circumstances. Otherwise, we'd just have more edit warring with the established accounts, which are split in an unresolved content dispute. At least this forces those to find a mutally agreedable solution and reach consensus.Giovanni33 06:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Is "compromise" even possible when the article exists solely to quote the contemporary equivalents of Goebbels?--Mike18xx 06:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That is a loaded question, and I don't accept your premise. The contemporary equivalent of Goebbels? You must be talking about someone on the George Bush team, I assume?Giovanni33 09:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There are liars in the Bush Administration, the Cuban Presidential Palace, the University where Noam Chomsky squats, various offices of CAIR not yet vacant because their particular occupants are not yet in jail with the rest, and assorted other bums and bagmen the world over. Obviously you think "the Bush team" is capable of lying--and you therefore do stipulate to the premise of my argument which you profess to not accept.--Mike18xx 10:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with this legitimate article about real established dejure facts regarding actual commited terrorist crimes by the US. Like it or not, its fact, and this important article stands by virtue of the reliable sources which verify these accepted facts, that is accepted by most people of the world.Giovanni33 09:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Should I consider the Blood libel verified as accepted fact if it should arise that "most of the people in the world" believe it? If, otoh, what "most of the people in the world" think is completely distinct from what is actually true, then why bother bringing it up?--Mike18xx 10:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You should consider the blood libels as facts because their occurence is well documented in reliable sources. Same for the facts listed in this article. You should consider the allegations made by most blood libels as religious superstitions and myths that helped support the perpetrators' feelings of religious superiority, and as not supported by reliable published sources.--NYCJosh 17:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This Shiny, Shiny, Shiny, Grinning, Glass-Eyed Koolade Kult

The problems with this preposterously stupid and POV'd-by-essence article begin with its very nose-leading title. What a hideous mess of hog-slop -- it should be flushed or merged post-haste.--Mike18xx 00:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You are making lots of strong claims but you fail to support your claims. Care to back that up and explain yourself, specifically? This article needs work, and expansion, but your comments are not helping.Giovanni33 02:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come on--it's not dawning on you that "State terrorism by the United States" implies by its wording that such events have or are actually occurring, rather than virtually the entire article consisting of prevaricating rubbish from repellent dictatorships, and the scrivenings of that notorious lying bum. Nobody on earth is going to enter "State terrorism by the United States" into a search-engine; this article's entire purpose is to be mounted as a plaque, er, link, on various and sundry crank websites.--Mike18xx 05:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, lots of smoke only. Name calling does not invalidate the facts or views expressed by these serious scholars we cite on the very real subject of US state terrorism. Yes, the title implies events that have or are actually occuring and as it should, as such an implication is quite accurate in today world. It is not rubbish, as you claim. If you have valid sources which dispute the sources claims we have listed in this article, then by all means list them to be included. But, you can not suppress the facts that we report on in this legitimate article, that we are striving to make neutral.Giovanni33 09:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because this horseflop can scrounge enough votes to barely keep dragging along on one good fingernail in RfD after RfD does not constitute prima facia evidence that it's "legitimate". As for your suggestion of what I ought to do with this article, if you really are a Chomskyite, you're going to be kicking yourself for ever asking it of me after protection drops on this thing. Criticism of Noam Chomsky has 39 references--it could easily be ten times that number. I won't even get into the laughable proposition of Cuba being considered even slightly credible.--Mike18xx 10:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about Noam Chomsky, and so the article about his critics is not relevant here. What would be relevant is citing counter claims to the claims being made here by Chomsky and other scholars regarding the subject matter of this article: terrorism by the US. That would be valid. And, I suggest you present your proposed additions, text, here in talk if you think it will be contentious, to avoid another edit war. Lets try to make change through consensus.Giovanni33 10:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Very few of the sources mention Chomsky's unclear term "state terrorism", that these events are state terrorism is an OR synthesis, not allowed in Wikipedia.Ultramarine 12:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Addendum to the above, directed to those who warn me about WP:BLP: The very first listed reference in Criticism of Noam Chomsky has, as its title, "Lying about History" I'd like to hear the logic involved in prohibiting, on a discussion page, a contention identical to one held by a notable source referenced, specifically for their contention, on an article page.--Mike18xx 06:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

As soon as unprotection expires, the article is being moved back to its original consensus name "Allegations of..." per the 22-14 poll above. It would have stayed there if a single-issue sockpuppet hadn't move-warred it less than two weeks ago. - Merzbow 06:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually your math is wrong. 15 votes out of the 22 your cite for changing to Allegations are 2nd choices, including my own vote (which is first for keeping as is). So if out of the 22, there are only really 7 votes to change to Allegations vs. 14 to keep. So if there is any consensus, its to keep, not change. But, I think there is really no consensus yet about this issue.Giovanni33 09:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Misleading, only 3 of those who voted for changing to allegations had keep as their first choice. Subtracting those still gives 19 in support of allegations.Ultramarine 11:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that there were more who voted for delete as their first choice than voted for keep as first or second choice combined.Ultramarine 11:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, folks, but straw polls are not meant to be "votes", and facts are simply facts -- just because you have 12 or 19 or 22 people who "vote" that lies are in fact true does not make the falsehoods any more accurate. Unless consensus can be reached -- and it obviously cannot -- then the title remains as it is, unchanged. Stone put to sky 14:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm, no, you do not understand what consensus means. The consensus was for the "Allegations" name, where the article was at for a long time. Recently, the article was protected under the new name after a move-war fueled by a sockpuppet. The article WILL return to its previous consensus name. - Merzbow 17:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hah! You really have no place trying to "educate" me here, because it's quite clear that it is you who do not understand "consensus" -- nor, indeed, the basics of research, commentary, and Wikipedia's guidelines. You can try to play this "consensus was originally for..." game all you like, but i was here when the name-game first started being played. Consensus was never reached; the name was changed whimsically, on the insistence of a vocal minority, who after losing the last AfD saw fit to --briefly -- do the honorable thing and allow the page to develop naturally. The consensus of those editors who actually contribute to the maintenance and scholarship on this page has always been to keep it as "State Terrorism by the United States". The term "State Terrorism" is, however much you may not like to admit it, sufficiently well-defined as to be a neutral, descriptive legal/military term. Insofar as it is thus defined, it is inherently NPOV.

What you and many the others here fail to recognize is that if John Smith is found guilty of murdering his wife, he becomes a convicted murderer. From that point on, it is in no way a "POV" slant to say that Mr. John Smith is a killer, a murderer, or a criminal. All of those words, however unpleasant they may be, nevertheless accurately describe Mr Smith and his actions, and from the perspective of Wikipedia they are NPOV.

So also for the United States. Insofar as it has been demonstrated that the United States has supported terrorist activities, protected terrorists, encouraged and financed terrorists, or engaged in illegal military actions that are classfied as "terrorist" by the international groups who are responsible for defining such things, then it is NPOV to say that the United States is responsible for State Terrorism.Stone put to sky 03:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

From a more neutral point of view I would just like to say that the title "Allegation of State Terrorism by the USA", can be misleading, because the title can be taken as meaning:

Allegation that the US has used terrorism

OR

Allegation by the USA, that other countries use State Terrorism

I think it could be misunderstood because, many people across the world accuse the USA of State Terrorism, and the USA has accused Iran and North Korean (and others) of funding terrorism.Jackaranga 07:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

- Well, "Allegation(s)" should be pluralized, for starters, *if* that term is selected. My prefered title for this, er, thing, is "Accusations of Terrorism committed by the United States" Insert "State" if you like, but I think it'd be superfluous. (I hate the word "allegations"; it makes me think of Florida swampland reptiles, not charges of criminality.)--Mike18xx 00:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not an expert on grammar but I think "Allegations of State Terrorism by the USA", means the USA is making the allegations. Also I would like to add that the USA is the defendant against these allegations, they are the ones denying them. If the title is indeed changed to "allegations of ..." then the title of many other articles such as Nanking Massacre, The Holocaust (etc...), could be changed to include "allegations", as Japan denies the massacre took place and Nazi Germany denied the Holocaust took place.

Furthermore, we all agree an article should be about what is in the title right ? Well if the title were to be changed to "allegations of ...", then it could no longer contain any opinions defending the USA against these allegations, as they would have to be in an article called "Denial of state terrorism by the US". I think most of the people supporting changing the title probably did not think of this, but some may also have been hoping for the change so they can tag the article NPOV and have it deleted. In a nutshell, the title "allegations of State terrorism" is unacceptable in my opinion because :

grammatically it does not have the intended meaning
it would essentially be like creating an article similar in function to List of terms used for Germans (i.e. there would be no place to deny the allegations)
it would create a precedent for other articlesJackaranga 07:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, bollocks. Nanking and the Holocaust are accepted as true by an overwhelming number of credible (i.e., not merely "notable") persons with expertise on the subject. (It's up there with the percentage of biologists who agree on evolution.) It is a grotesque equivalence fallacy to equate such mass-murders with offenses considerably lesser by orders and orders of magnitude. If you don't like "accusations", then "Allegations of Terrorism committed by the United States" is perfectly servicable.--Mike18xx 06:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting point, but the alternatives are generally worse. "Allegations of United States State Terrorism" is just ugly, and "Allegations of American State Terrorism" is idiomatic. - Merzbow 07:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There's always the alternative of deleting a blank, white page after chucking every source with a referenced record of lying at least eight inches long in their own Wikipedia articles.--Mike18xx 09:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You sir, should temper your language. Calling people liars is not the best way to make your point. Try real arguments instead of ad-hominems. Lixy 14:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

After protection is lifted, let's just nominate it for deletion and get this over with.--MONGO 11:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but did I not say "a referenced record of lying"?--Mike18xx 06:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Is the sixth nomination your lucky number? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 12:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if we nominate it once more, we'll be in a tie with Cleaveland Steamer. I suggest we nominate it twice more, and take the record for the most number of unsuccessful deletion nominations. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 12:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh...shows how much you get around...[27].--MONGO 14:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of the AfD's in the past had some trolling/socks [28][29]. Perhaps WP:RFCU needs to be cranked up and run a bit. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 21:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The only problem with this article is that certain people here are too cowardly to own up to openly established and uncontroversial facts. These facts paint an ugly picture of U.S. activities abroad. The page exists because it is an accurately and properly sourced presentation of unpleasant facts regarding certain aspects of U.S. foreign policy.

Also, i'd like to point out that the term "state terrorism" was not invented by Chomsky, nor even popularized by him. It is a term that has been used in international legal circles and in the UN now for over 25 years.

Finally, i'd like to ask if Wikipedia has some sort of policy about the owners of banned accounts returning under a different pseudonym. Is that allowed? Perhaps i'm mistaken, but i was under the impression that when the poster can be recognized, then their accounts are once again wiped. What's the story? Stone put to sky 14:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not American nor from a country supporting them in the invasion of Iraq, and even though I believe most of what is in the article, I think it is understandable if the people on wikipedia want to delete it. After all, wikipedia is mainly an American corporation as far as I understand. You will never get Americans to admit that the people they elected committed acts of terrorism, that's normal. If the same page were to exist on a Chinese website about the Chinese government, they would surely have it deleted, so I think deletion is understandable. It's basic politeness not to insult someone when you are in their house, and I think many here take this article as an insult. If people want an alternative view on things they can simply look on other sites made by different countries. It is a bit offensive to be honest to be shoving the faults of a nation into their face like this. Most Americans didn't mean any harm. Maybe next time someone puts this on AfD they should give as a reason that it is deliberately insulting them for no reason. If someone is mentally retarded, you don't go onto his blog and tell him he is a retard. So no need to go onto the American wikipedia and tell them they have committed acts of terrorism. Jackaranga 18:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Your reasoning is not valid, and I disagree with your premises. Many Americans are not nationalists. For instance, myself being a firm internationalist. I take a world perspective on matter, irrespective of what State I happen to be born and raised in. You wrongly assume that all Americans want to support whatever crimes their governments have committed, or want to hide the fact about these crimes. Not so. I want to expose it, and stand with the victimes, and the rest of the world in condeming injustices--ESP. when they are committed by my own countries government. That is our duty, in my view. Also, American people and the US govt. are not the same; the common, and majority of the people are not responsible for the crimes of their govt.--they are maniuplated, lied to, and kept ignorant. WP is not an organ of the US govt, WP is the FREE people's encylopedia. If it was a CIA/US Govt. propaganda website your point would be logical. But given that its not, it has crediblity, so it has both the freedom and a duty to counter any systematic bias relating to it being an English encylopedia, or mostly edited by US citizens. Indeed, its crediblity depends on it not taking any pro-US govt. view, and it means that articles just like this one should be allowed its place in the ocean of verifibable knowlege, which prove that its content is not controlled or censored by the Govt. or political groups who are State boot-lickers.Giovanni33 05:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered that possibility that the media you prefer is actually the biased one and that the mainstream media may actually be less biased?Ultramarine 19:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's think about this. We need an article called State terrorism by the French Army or just call it Alleged State terrorism by France . After all, the French army did drop their weapons and let the Germans roll through during WWII, putting all those civilians in harms way. That was just awful. We can combine text from French Army, WWII and this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkreig#France_1940 and create "Alleged State terrorism by France" (we'll remove the word alleged later on). And, it would be well sourced! Yes, and if someone wants to AfD it, we can just go vote and say stuff like "Keep, it's a well sourced article.", and "It's very informative." (see WP:ILIKEIT). Forget the fact that it would violate WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH like State terrorism by the United States does. Just food for thought, weren't most of the hijackers behind the events of 9/11 Saudi Arabian in background? Perhaps we need to create State terrorism by Saudi Arabia and a couple of other terrorism articles and we can use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizers_of_the_September_11%2C_2001_attacks#Suspected_hijackers to help build them. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 20:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You really believe this crap, don't you? MortonDevonshire Yo · 20:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I know this, Wikipedia is not a place for original reasearch. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 20:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

So why is it allowed in this article? For example, there is no evidence that the US was involved in the Cubana bombing. Another example, giving graphic emotional details regarding human rights violations by the Contras, yet if reading the International Court ruling it stated that the US did not have sufficent control over the Contras to be responsible for such actions.Ultramarine 21:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Check this out: [30] It is an original research, POV playground. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 21:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Not to mention that the allegations often have no relation to what the sources actully states. Before it was protected again, I managed the check some of them and the misrepresentations were amazing. Like this one, which stated that Posada has admitted bombing the plane![31] Or that the CIA knew he was going to bomb the plane.[32]Ultramarine 21:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Even though I think the contents of this article are correct, I agree it is original research and more like a collection of facts, made just to annoy Americans who are insecure about their history. It should be separated into separate articles on each precise point. Jackaranga 22:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

As noted above, when I checked a few sources, there many misrepresentations. Also, lots of things are excluded which does not fit the US bashing, like regarding the Iran coup the Prime minister had dissolved the Parliament when it did not obey him. Or that the School of Americas is now reorganized with obligatory human rights courses and screening of those who attend.Ultramarine 22:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine, there are no "misrepresentations" here whatsoever. One does not need to have "state terrorism" included in every document referenced; when presenting evidence that certain events occurred -- when verifying time-frames, showing how certain events occurred, or showing who was involved -- the documents only need to be valid records of the relevant issues. This is the very definition of "NPOV" scholarship: if every commentator admits that the U.S. was responsible for a coup in Iran in the 1950's -- and the CIA perpetrators come out and write a book describing how exactly they did it -- then it is perfectly reasonable to include the book on this page to bolster the arguments of those organizations and legal entities who describe those events as "State Terrorism". Stone put to sky 03:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You just announced that your intention is to add sources to specifically "bolster the arguments" of those who support calling this state terrorism. In what alternate Wikipedia is it OK to conduct original research to "bolster the arguments" of those whose arguments are insufficient to begin with (according to you)? - Merzbow 04:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I keep hearing claims of original research, yet I fail to see any OR, here. The claims are supported by 3rd party sources who makes these arguments. To show that the argument is notable, its a good thing to add as many valid, reputable sources as possible to boslter that case, per WP policies. This is not OR. If there are counter arguments being made about the claims presented, then its fine if we also include those, in proper weight. But, in all cases we should add several relevant sources to indeed bolster the claims (arguments) being made.Giovanni33 05:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If Chomsky says the U.S. conducted terrorism in country A, then it is original research to attempt to "bolster" his argument by presenting allegedly supporting material written by sources that do not say that the US conducted terrorism in country A—this is the purest form of original research possible. - Merzbow 06:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Its not OR if the claim (argument) has already been established, from a source. The test of OR or SYN is: is there a new (original) claim being made? One that is NOT found in a published source? The answer in this case is no, therefore its not OR. If the argument is alrady made connecting a certain event to a claim of state terrorism, then we do not introduce any new claims by providing other sources that describe in details those events--even if the other sources do not advance that particular claim. Its irrelevant, since we already have a 3rd party source making that connection, making that argument. This is, ofcourse, provided that the other sources we use to fill in details about the incident(s) in question, are not cited as making that particular claim/argument, but instead provided as filler info about the incidents in question. Again, no new claim is being made, and thus there is not OR.Giovanni33 19:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

See example with Cuba below, assuming one would use the same methodology used in the article now.Ultramarine 19:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I cannot find that Chomsky has stated that any of these conflicts were state terrorism except the support for the Contras. Do you have any more source labeling something "state terrorism"? Ultramarine 19:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Its funny how the u.s./european govt funds terorism, and is never held accountable, but when a few u.s./european funded lunatics (ie al qaeda, taliban) blow something up, the entire country of iraq and afganistan is held accountable and pays the price for the lunatics who were funded by the u.s. in the first place.

Certain Users Badly Misinformed Re: Original Research

No, Merzbow / Ultramarine, you have it wrong yet again. If a certain set of events were declaimed as state terrorism -- by whomever (i think it's quite entertaining the way you and others here try so hard to pin all identified instances of U.S. sponsored terrorist acts upon Chomsky alone) --

As i was saying, if a certain set of events is declaimed as an instance of U.S.-sponsored terrorism, then it is perfectly legitimate to introduce sources that validate the events as described in the judgment. If multiple human rights, foreign government, legal and media sources declare the U.S.-sponsored war against Nicaragua as "state terrorism", then it is perfectly legitimate to quote the New York Times, U.S. State Department, and other sources to fully flesh out how the events transpired.

Ah, good ol' Latin America, where communist propaganda clings with the tenacity of griffnuts long, long after the initially promulgating entity has departed the scene. It only took 35 years to rediscover that the Chilean legislature had *asked* the military to overthrow the odious tyrant Allende.--Mike18xx 11:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the good ol' right-wing ad hominem attack, where lies, half-truths, and anything devoid of truth-value is paraded as insight. Stone put to sky 15:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the good ol' false-dichotomy logical-fallacy wallowing. Here you go.--Mike18xx 19:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing illegitimate there; we're talking junior high school position-paper-assignment 101, here. This is really basic stuff and absolutely non-controversial. Ultramarine and others are saying that certain sources cannot be included because the sources themselves do not use the words "state terrorism", but that's a straw-man argument. These sources that Ultramarine is "challenging" (more like a mosquito batting around the ankles of a rhino, if you ask me) have not been introduced to the article as definitive judgments about the nature of the violence, but instead are included ONLY to show that the description of events as presented here is uncontroversial and openly admitted by the United States and its defenders.

That in no way approaches "original research". WP::OR is intended to defend against people who appear on Wikipedia and say stuff like "I have recently completed an unpublished scientific experiment using dna evidence to show that everyone who voted for George Bush is descended from a pre-neanderthal society that mated with marsupial swine." Or, in an example closer to home, to protect against people who might say something like "These unpublished documents here show that G.W. Bush's great-granddaddy worked for the Nazis, and this interview i did with Herr Scheissekopf von Wyoming validates the accusation."

WP::OR, however, is not intended to prevent people who already agree on what a word like "murder" means -- even when events obviously meet the definition -- from stating that "X is a murderer" unless someone else said it first. Or to put it another way: if i go to the article on John Wayne Gacy and post up "John Wayne Gacy is one of the U.S.'s most notable serial killers", it is enough for me to simply show that he's been convicted and/or admitted to multiple homicides, and there's a general agreement that he's not lying and/or the conviction was properly obtained. Regardless of how fond you might be of John Wayne Gacy, you would have no leg to stand on if you insisted that he wasn't a serial killer simply because no journalist you trusted had ever used the phrase.

In other words, just as it is not necessary for me to find a prosecutor, detective on the case, or journalist who can be quoted as saying that "John Wayne Gacy is a serial killer," so also it is not necessary for me to find a person who says that an the official U.S. policy of supplying the Contras with weapons and then teaching them to avoid conflict with military targets to instead murder only unarmed farmers was terrorism. Such activity clearly meets all definitions of "terrorism" as recognized by the U.S. government itself -- both the FBI and the U.S. Dep't of State -- and is as uncontroversial as any statement could be.

This is an artificial hurdle that has been introduced to this page by a fellow back-a-ways called "NuclearUmpf". It was my opinion at the time that this guy was someone who rarely got out of the house, watched too much t.v, and had never graduated from High School; his arguments were precisely that weak and uninformed. Eventually he got banned, both because of the outrageous demands he forced upon various threads as well as his inability to deal with his interlocutors in a socially acceptable fashion.

I mention this because it was he who originally made the assertion that "Any reference back to a commonly accepted definition is Original Research". Of course, for anyone who takes any form of research seriously such a position is laughable. Taken to its extreme -- as it is here -- none of us would ever be able to make any statements regarding anything; but of course the rest of Wikipedia is thriving, while this page bickers away because of the insistence by a few upon a double- or triple-standard to which no other pages must adhere.

For the moment, Merzbow, the conscientious and legitimate editors here are willing to abide by some of these artificial restrictions you and others here seek to impose. We will be happy to limit all entries here to widely recognized instances where international experts from legal, human rights, and widely recognized journalistic backgrounds clearly qualify the words "State Terrorism" with "United States". We will not, however, allow you to make up the rules as you go along. Regardless of how you protest, there are indeed Wiki guidelines on the legitimate uses of research, and you are currently attempting to badly abuse them. Stone put to sky 08:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course, there are no "multiple human rights, foreign government, legal and media sources" who have declarted that"the U.S.-sponsored war against Nicaragua as 'state terrorism'" There is no evidence that the US was involved in the Cubana bombing. As noted above, when I checked a few sources, there many misrepresentations. Also, lots of things are excluded which does not fit the US bashing, like regarding the Iran coup the Prime minister had dissolved the Parliament when it did not obey him. Or that the School of Americas is now reorganized with obligatory human rights courses and screening of those who attend.

Using this argument, one could create an article "State terrorism by Cuba" and state that Cuban support of various rebels and overthrows of governments in Latin America and Africa were state terrorism. Furthermore, one will quote rumors on websites by anti-Castro groups as further evidence of state terrorism. When quoting, be sure to state something much worse than the source states. To spice it up, one will add several graphic decriptions of rape and murder by some rebel group that Cuba has supported. Various UN resolutions condemning human rights abuses in Cuba will be added to show that Cuba has been condemned by international community for state terrrism.Ultramarine 09:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If Cuba were conducting wars in which rebel groups targeted unarmed civilians or in which they were acting as an invading country -- which, incidentally, there is no evidence whatsoever supporting such an assertion -- then yes, you would be correct. If you would like to start a page alleging these acts, then be my guest: i will happily play the devil's advocate and see how things develop. Who knows -- perhaps i'll even learn something new (although i seriously doubt it).

However, there is nothing in what i said that suggests "quoting rumors by anti-Castro groups" (or anyone, for that matter) would be acceptable. if you look over this page you will find that none of the events here are merely rumored to be true; they are incontrovertibly validated as having occurred, and as being either propagated or promoted by the United States. Which of course is the point of those sources which you are currently declaiming as "invalid": they clearly validate that events occurred, they occurred in a certain way, and that either the U.S. itself admits to responsibility, or other International organizations / informed commentators believe it shares.

Nor is there any need to "spice things up" with hearsay evidence (and we have not done so here). If you can show clearly documented evidence from reliable sources that validate the description of events you offer, then of course your words will stand. Yet remember that "reliable sources" are not inclusive of anti-Castro groups, nor their fronts.

Re: Nicaragua and U.S. State Terrorism: I have here multiple sources, in French, Spanish, Danish, Italian, from various groups such as UN officials, international legal experts, widely recognized media commentators, political science professors, and countries such as Costa Rica, Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua itself -- and the list does not end there; there are statements by Amnesty International, Redress, and other human rights groups. Yes, indeed - there are more than "multiple" sources which identify the U.S. war against the Nicaragua people as "State Terrorism"; there is a veritable forest of them.

Re: Cubana: Posada was under contract with the CIA at the time of the bombing, and has since been routinely protected by the U.S. government. That's all that's needed to qualify as "state sponsored terrorism", even by the most loose of definitions; for instance, Osama bin Laden had less of a relationship to the Afghani Taliban than did Posada and the U.S. government, but i am sure that you and others here consider him a tool of "Afghani State Terrorism" (you must, else that war you support against the Afghani people would be merely criminal).

Re: School of Americas: we are not concerned here with unverifiable and hidden present events, but only with verified past ones. It is irrelevant to the Central Americans who lived through Operation Condor if the School of Americas is currently reformed. It was an instrument of terror and torture throughout the fifties, sixties, seventies and eighties, and that is all we are concerned with here.

Re: Purported "misrepresentations" -- unless you can coherently articulate something more than vague generalizations, you have no right to demand reform.

Re: Purported omissions: Fine. Include them. We have no problem with that. That's what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. We will not, however, allow you to delete the entry. Stone put to sky 09:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Cuba massively supported the rebels in Angola and Mozambique and later also sent many thousands of troops there. The large scale human rights violations by Marxist movements there are documented in for example The Black Book of Communism. So yes, I could document everything I said in an article called "State terrorism by Cuba", using the methodology of this article.

So you have no English source by some offical organization stating that the support for the Contras was "state terrorism". Strange.

Posada had stopped being a CIA agent at the time of the bombing. A "contact", which could be nothing more than a chat or he seeking employment, months earlier is not evidence for US involvement. He certainly was not "under contract," despite the rumours that may be spread on pro-Cuba websites.

The Talibans allowed large scale terrorist training camps. Comparing this to Posada, a former CIA agent that (allegedly) bombed the plance with a few associates acting on their own, is strange.

Regarding the School of Americas, read NPOV. Only presenting US bashing is not allowed. Their current policy regarding human rights is documented for example here:[33]Ultramarine 09:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you see? I knew you would lose. All one needs is a quick glance at Wikipedia to find that the MPLA -- with whom the Cubans were allied -- was the legitimate government of Angola from the beginning of its independence from Portugal. Almost immediately, it came under attack by South African and U.S. backed forces, in the form of the FNLA and Unitas. Finally, the vast majority of the atrocities committed in that war were orchestrated by Unitas -- not the MPLA. Now if you think i'm in error and you can document that, then feel free! Please -- start the page! Obviously this is something you are passionate about, so get to work!

Re: English sources: Believe it or not, most of the world doesn't speak English (i know that's hard for some folks to accept, but it's true; don't take your friends' words for it, though -- i suggest you get on a plane and go someplace like, oh, the Iraqi Parliament, and see how they do things there); thus, when dealing with international matters, it is commonplace to make reference to other languages. Do you think that all cases which come before the UN, ICJ or ICC are conducted in English? Of course not! But be that as it may, i think you need to learn how to read a bit more carefully. Besides making reference to several groups whose articles are typically written in English, i also added that it was incomplete.

Re: Posada: CIA payroll before and after the bombing is a bit much of a coincidence, and too convenient not to suspect. Further, the primary issue here is that the U.S. continues to protect him; do i need to remind you that the United States invaded not one, but TWO countries because it claimed that they were "hiding terrorists"?

Re: The Taliban: the Taliban "allowed" nothing. I don't know if you've noticed or not, but by your own logic the United States is currently "allowing" a resurgence of the Taliban and large-scale "Taliban Bases" (for, indeed, the United States controls virtually no part of Afghanistan outside of Kabul and its immediate region). Thus -- by your own logic -- the U.S, under the leadership of George W. Bush, is allied with the Taliban and supporting extremist Islamic militarism.

If this seems a bit hard for you to accept, i suggest you go back and read the press-releases of the Taliban government just after 911. They said, in effect: We have no evidence that demonstrates Osama bin Laden's involvement. We also have no reason to protect him. We will be happy to cooperate with the United States in bringing this man to justice, but insist that the evidence against him first be shown to us.

We all know what happened then: the United States said "Turn him over or else!" But now, we find that the United States itself -- the most powerful military in the world -- hasn't been able to capture the guy. So it does make one wonder, doesn't it: if it's so difficult for the U.S. to achieve, then doesn't it make sense that it would have been at least as difficult for the Taliban to achieve? Which in turn begs a great many more questions that do call your nationalist religious fervor into question.

Your arguments are ill-conceived and do not stand up under scrutiny. It is obvious that you feel the rest of the world should be held to a different, higher, and more vicious standard than the United States. While that is certainly something you are entitled to in your private life, when dealing with facts and scholarly articles it such prejudice is inadmissible. Stone put to sky 10:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Cuba supported these Marxist movements when they were rebels and committed numerous human rights violations, thus "state terrorism" by Cuba as the term is used in this article. Again, strange that you have no English source by some offical organization stating that the support for the Contras was "state terrorism". And yes, international organization publish at least a translation of important documents in English. Regarding Posada, OR. Not a CIA agent at the time and no evidence that the US was involved in the bombing. The US does not protect him, a judge did. The US and its allies contols much of Afghanistan, the Taliban is losing all the battles. Even if the Talibans has terrorist camps on the territory they control, that is certainly not support by the US for this. I repeat, using the OR and misquotations used in this article, it would be easy to create an article called "State terrorism by Cuba" or "State terrorism by the Sandinistas" (remember their support for rebels in El Salvador).Ultramarine 10:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue this here, because it's irrelevant to this page. I shall simply leave it at this: you are wrong, very wrong, totally wrong, absolutely wrong, and in no way whatsoever right, correct, accurate, or knowledgeable of the facts surrounding these incidents.

Having said that, i suggest that we take this to a different page. Feel free to start one: "State Terrorism by Cuba". Perhaps i'll even stop by and join in the discussion. I'm sure that, with your passion, dedication and tenacity, the page will turn into a paragon of virtue and quality scholarship, and i am sincerely interested in reading something that i no doubt would learn so much from.

Re: Posada :: "The US does not protect him, a judge did." ==> I don't know if you were aware of this, but that "judge" who protected him was acting as an agent of the United States' Government. I am surprised that such a basic and fundamental tenet of international law would escape such a weighty and vociferous intellectual man as yourself. Nothing you have said so far qualifies the Posada section as original research.

And yes, international organizations publish at least a translation of important documents in English."

No, they don't. Why is it you keep making these really fundamental mistakes about issues that are very simple and obvious to anyone who has ever dealt in international law, or even just international trade? The only thing i can figure is that you must be testing me, or something, because these statements you are making are just too fundamentally and blatantly inaccurate to be coming from someone who is obviously as passionate and knowledgeable about foreign affairs as you claim to be.

Re: "The US and its allies contols much of Afghanistan, the Taliban is losing all the battles."

Hahahahahha! You are so funny! Where do you come up with these one-liners? Do you spend time thinking them up, or does it just come naturally? My guess is the latter; i cannot imagine that someone would be able to hone their intellect to such obliquion.

But let us leave the laughter aside, and address the point (which you seem, once again, to have missed): there is no evidence -- NONE -- that directly links the Taliban to Osama bin Laden and his network. No money trail, no weapons' trail, no sharing of personnel, nothing. In fact, the relationship between the Taliban and ObL was less substantial than the links between the CIA and ObL: the CIA trained ObL and cooperated with him for many years, the whole time providing him with logistical and financial support. With that in mind, i don't understand how someone could believe that the Taliban -- whose forces were basically a bunch of sidewinder-missile and AK-47 wielding infantry with no air-support, no satellite communications, and no mechanized armaments -- would quickly respond to ultimatums demanding blood and money in what would have certainly been a costly chase after a hostile ObL. Of course they wanted evidence and money -- ObL was, after all, the CIA's creation -- and i think it remarkable they were even willing to help out.

Currently the United States' position in Afghanistan is quite similar; they haven't gotten ObL, and haven't eliminated the Taliban. The U.S. and it's Afghan "allies" control nothing outside of Kabul and its surrounding province. Elsewhere, the Taliban operates with virtual impunity, so long as one doesn't count the odd bombing campaign the U.S. runs on weddings, hospitals, and orphanages and such. Since this is, essentially, the situation that the Taliban faced when the U.S. started its invasion of Afghanistan, by your own logic the U.S. is "harboring" the Taliban and, by extension, whatever remnants of "Al Qaeda" might still be around.

In other words: if we go by your logic, the U.S. is currently allied with Osama bin Laden and the Taliban.

Is that what you're suggesting? Because frankly, such an assertion seems patently absurd to me, and i can't imagine how you would ever suggest such a thing. Stone put to sky 11:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless if you want to discuss it, I will continue to make comparisons to Cuba and other nations. Again, Posada was not a CIA agent at the time and there is no evidence that the US was involved. No, a judge stopping him being extradited on fear of torture is not the same as the policy of the Bush administration, they have often ruled against him. Again, international organization publish at least a translation of important documents in English, so it is very strange that you have not managed to find any that state that the US support of the Contras was "state terrorism". The Talibans allowed terrorist camps on territory rhey controlled in Afghanistan, the US does not. Spare me the personal attacks and the ad hominem, that is last resort of those who have lost the factual discussion.Ultramarine 11:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Compare away. The issue is not if the CIA helped plant the bomb; the issue is that the CIA helped finance and support his activities, and that the U.S. government has protected him from punishment for his acts of terrorism against other peoples.

It is irrelevant what the "policy of the Bush administration" is. What is relevant is whether or not the U.S. government enabled Posada (i.e. -- trained, financed, or advised him) and whether it is protecting Posada from punishment. The answer to both of those questions is yes.

What you apparently have failed to grasp is that by harboring a known terrorist who is in flight from punishment for convictions of terrorist acts, the United States is protecting and enabling a known terrorist. By the definitions used by the U.S. and most international legal assemblies, that is incontrovertibly an act of terrorism in itself. Indeed, it was precisely this logic -- based upon the lies and purposeful deceit of the Bush administration -- that formed part of the justification for the invasion of Iraq. There is no "original research" at work here, and you are simply wrong about the facts surrounding this issue.

"Again, international organization publish at least a translation of important documents in English,"

Again: no, they usually don't, and particularly not in the area of international law. There's no gentle way to say this: you are just utterly and completely wrong.

"it is very strange that you have not managed to find any that state that the US support of the Contras was "state terrorism"."

Again: Yes, i do. And even so, it's not necessary.

The Talibans allowed terrorist camps on territory rhey controlled in Afghanistan, the US does not.

Again: I doubt you even knew who the Taliban was until after 911 happened. I've been studying them now for 12 years. Once again, there's no gentle way to say this: You're so badly misinformed that you are just completely and totally wrong.

Spare me the personal attacks and the ad hominem, that is last resort of those who have lost the factual discussion.

What attacks, and what ad hominem? Show me where i have attacked you and i will be quite happy to edit my words. As it is, i only see sincere commendations of your obvious passion and understanding of those events you have studied and followed, along with a few giggles at what were obviously cute exaggerations. Where you are wrong, however: what do you expect me to say? That you're right?

I am quite sincere in my admiration for your tenacity and energy. You are a man with a strong will and an unflinching loyalty. I really don't understand how you would take away from all this that i have somehow attacked you personally, with ad hominem improprieties. Please be assured that i will happily edit my remarks to be less offensive, if only you'll point it out to me. Stone put to sky 11:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No, there is no evidence that US was involved in the bombing, and it did not finance it. No, a judge stopping Posada being extradited on fear of torture is not the same as the policy of the Bush administration, judges have often ruled against him. I will just repeat, again, international organization publish at least a translation of important documents in English, so it is very strange that you have not managed to find any that state that the US support of the Contras was "state terrorism". Not even the Nicaragua case states this and even explicitly states that the US was no responsible for human rights violations due to their lack of control of the Contras, although there may have been some enouragement by manuals.Ultramarine 12:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Never edit my talk page comments, that is vandalism. You had stated you did not intend to discuss them, so I created a new section and added more info.Ultramarine 12:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

How to write a "state terrorism" article

Note that beginning of this section down to the "Cuba" section is some material copied by "Stone put to sky" from the section above.Ultramarine 12:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Material removed by me because of antagonistic editing ;-) Cheers! Stone put to sky 12:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Cuba

This article massively violates OR. To illustrate, using the methodlogy of this article, one could create an article called "State terrorism by Cuba"

One points to Cuban support of various rebels committing numerous human rights violations in Latin America and Africa (as documented for example in the Black Book of Communism) and labels this "state terrorism"
One points to the reports by Cuba defectors, who were close to Castro, of support for terrorist and criminal activites in numerous nations as evidence of Cuban state terrorism.[34]
In order to not miss anything, one will quote rumors on websites by anti-Castro groups as further evidence of state terrorism.
When quoting, be sure to state something much worse than the source states. (Like these in this article: [35][36])
To spice it up, one will add several graphic decriptions of a few especially viscous cases of rape and torture by some rebel group that Cuba has supported.
Various UN resolutions condemning human rights abuses in Cuba will be added to show that Cuba has been condemned by the international community for state terrorism and that it is doing this against its own people.
When one is finished, one goes on to a "state terror" article about the Sandinistas, pointing out their support for reberls in El Salvador who committed numerous human rights violations as well as their terror against their own population.[37]Ultramarine 11:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you consider it vandalism i shall allow you to restore them. However, i have had many of my comments "vandalized" here, on less firm grounds, so i thought it appropriate. I am sorry for the minor inconvenience. Stone put to sky 12:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Do not put material out of context. Last added material last please.Ultramarine 12:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Not material out of context; you are merely re-posting the arguments you added above. You object to removing them -- which i think is most appropriate -- but i object to letting them stand without comment. Since we have already had a full commentary above, i shall simply re-post the discussion that followed.

And i will remind you: do not remove my posts from the talk-page again. That is vandalism. Stone put to sky 12:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The response to the above is as follows:

If Cuba were conducting wars in which rebel groups targeted unarmed civilians or in which they were acting as an invading country -- which, incidentally, there is no evidence whatsoever supporting such an assertion -- then yes, you would be correct. If you would like to start a page alleging these acts, then be my guest: i will happily play the devil's advocate and see how things develop. Who knows -- perhaps i'll even learn something new (although i seriously doubt it).

However, "quoting reports by anti-Castro groups" would be unacceptable simply because these reports are notoriously inept fabrications. Only reliable sources are allowed. If you look over this page you will find that none of the events here are merely rumored to be true and all are incontrovertibly validated as having occurred, and as being either propagated or promoted by the United States.

The sources you offer are sadly inadequate. The Werlau article is essentially a business expose that shows how Castro maintains Cuba's economy in a world where the United States is trying to isolate it. There is nothing in there about Terrorist acts, unless you want to count extremely questionable claims about drug deals by Miami-based "journalists" who work for anti-castro groups. Bank robberies do not count as terrorist acts; while a bank-robbery may be perpetrated by a terrorist group, it is not done so for the purpose of spreading fear or forcing political concessions. So we have some claims about drug-deals from people who are working for Miami-based organizations which are themselves considered to be the root of the Miami-based drug syndicates, and stories about bank robberies and money-laundering, which have nothing to do with terrorism.

Similarly, "FrontPageMag" is inadmissible as a Wikipedia source;....

Horsecrap.--Mike18xx 06:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...quick search on Google under " 'FrontPage Magazine' lies distortions half-truths quotes quotations " turned up 20 sites out of the first thirty (out of a total of ~60,000) that had verified, documented, realio-trulio lies and/or unretracted mistakes in major FrontPage Magazine stories, all within the last three years. In addition, the magazine is openly acknowledged as the publication arm of a far-right-wing activist group. If that doesn't qualify as an unreliable source, i don't know what does. Stone put to sky 07:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

...the publication is notoriously inept at fact-checking, and widely dismissed for its regular distortions and fabrications.

<snicker> The Wikipedia article Criticism of Noam Chomsky has 40 references, the very first one of which includes the word "Lying" in its title. And, it being a Wikipedia article, one presumes it is free of the massive duplication of mirrored blogs entries inherent in Google returns, as well as not counting of cases in which, e.g., Frontpage, et al, is making an accusation that someone else is lying, distorting (etc).--Mike18xx 08:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Snicker away. I have read a great many criticisms of Chomsky by a great many people, and have yet to find anyone who is capable of challenging his facts or reasoning without fabricating sources, making false attributions to him, or purposefully misrepresenting his past publications. But that's neither here nor there; Chomsky's attributions on this page are largely statements of his personal position, and nothing more. Such facts as Chomsky presents are easily corroborated by multiple sources, and have been many times over.

Essentially, the criticisms of Chomsky that you mention are merely the Limbaugh-OReilly-Gingrich echo-chamber doing what it does best: fabricating and distorting an otherwise clearly documented and factually uncontroversial commentary because it (and the lazy, moronic cowards who serve it) cannot reconcile reality with the fantasy they wish were true.

When all is said and done, Chomsky is a university professor whose studies in linguistics revolutionized the way computer languages and computer technology have developed; whose contacts among disparate foreign intellectuals have formed the foundation of a non-aligned internationalist movement that stands against war in all its forms; whose words and articles clearly promote a libertarian ethic that emphasizes human rights and the freedom of all peoples and nations to self-govern. In these endeavors, he has operated individually and independently of any political parties. He hasn't received any donations from interested political actors, and his activities have been entirely financed by the sales of his own books, speaking fees, and whatever cost you would like to put on his own spare time.

That is in dramatic contrast to Horowitz and his "FrontPage Magazine" (and all of its sister organizations/publications), which is directly financed as a partisan political group, which gets most of its donations from corporate sources; which operates in close collusion with the GOP and corporate media outlets; and which, were it not for these donations from organized political and government sources, would be unable to subsist.

Claiming a likeness between the two is like saying Truth and Falsehood are the same thing because they're both nouns. Stone put to sky 10:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Chomsky, who has criticized tax havens and concentration of wealth, has himself (with a net worth of $2,000,000) used a trust to avoid taxation. "Chomsky favors the estate tax and massive income redistribution—just not the redistribution of his income." He has also criticized intellectual property, but himself insists on this for his own works, which has earned him considerable wealth.Noam Chomsky, Closet Capitalist Regarding his writings, see [38][39].Ultramarine 10:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Rumors by anyone are simply inadmissible, and there are none in this article.

Nor is there any need to "spice things up" with hearsay evidence (and we have not done so here). If you can show clearly documented evidence from reliable sources that validate the description of events you offer, then of course your words will stand. Yet remember that "reliable sources" are not inclusive of anti-Castro groups, nor their fronts.

UN condemnations are allowable.

To clarify: you are simply re-stating the arguments presented above. Since we have had a good back-and-forth over these claims already, i thought it appropriate to make sure the other readers here got a chance to look at them. I think it is bad faith on your part to simply attempt to re-start the argument and completely bypass the considerable effort we have already spent going over the issues involved. Your post presents nothing that is not already presented above. But since you insist on re-posting your initial claims, i see no reason not to re-post my response, and all that followed. Stone put to sky 12:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have already given sources, including academic research such as the Black Book of Communism, above showing that rebels Cuba supported, and Cuba itself, has done such acts. Regarding unreliable sources such as webisites, this page quotes such sources. Frontpagemag quotes reliable sources and is itself no worse than many of the sources in this article. The Werlau article mentions much more than you claim, like this regarding assassinations.

"Cuba has been a sort of clearinghouse for international terrorist and subversive activities, for which Castro seems to have considerable funding discretion. Subversive groups from Latin America and the Middle East have routinely delivered funds for Castro’s reserves with the proceeds of bank robberies, kidnappings, robberies, contraband, and other criminal activities that Cuba has planned, coordinated or in which Cuba had some participation.70 These, together with operations to eliminate opponents overseas by way of assassination, were carried out under the command of Antonio and Patricio de la Guardia."Ultramarine 12:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Great. Start the page, then. (for those of you interested in seeing how this exchange eventually turns out, simply read the section above, ending "Re: Original Research") Stone put to sky 12:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That is not my point, it would be an OR synthesis to call these acts "state terrorism" unless a source does so. (They could be in an article called "Criticisms of Cuba's foreign policy" or something similar.) My point is that the same applies to this article. More generally, since the definition of state terrorism is unclear and since OR is tolerated in this article, in principle any act that someone dislikes could be called "state terrorism". For example, some opponents of the death penalty could argue that it is terror against the civilian population and add it to this article. Or some supporter of far right-wing groups could decide that the US government is subjecting such groups to "state terrorism".Ultramarine 13:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I see your point quite clearly, just as i see its utter lack of relevance. There is no original research in this article, and the sources used are considerably more solid and legitimate than anything you present or suggest (not rumors, nor simply anti-american fringe groups funded by foreign agencies). Your analogy is quite specious. (for those of you interested in seeing how this exchange eventually turns out, simply read the section above, ending "Re: Original Research") Stone put to sky 13:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect description of my sources, as stated above, as well as the sources this article uses. For example, many of the sources are the Cuban government or its controlled agencies, such as Granma or Radio Habana Cuba.Ultramarine 13:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Government sources are acceptable. Books published by acknowledged anti-Castro front groups are not. You have yet to accept the fact that Cuba is a sovereign nation, and receives full credit as such in the international arena. Furthermore, the rest of the world -- U.S. excluded, of course -- readily accepts Cuban media reports of what goes on within its borders. This, in contrast to states like Libya or Zimbabwe.

Sounds like a load of ambiguous-collective rubbish to me. Others agree.--Mike18xx 06:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, the "rest of the world" is quickly coming to view the United States' media as something not too far off from Libyan or Soviet "news" sources. Fox News, for instance, is categorically dismissed as a valid news source everywhere in the world except for the United States.

You'll never see the BBC quoting Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity as a source on anything;

Of course not! They're busy paying Hezbollah "stringers" to fake photos and stage propaganda.--Mike18xx 06:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

...Granma and Radio Habana will, however. Stone put to sky 14:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

So state published material from Communist Cuba is a reliable soruce, but not academic books it they criticize Cuba? The rest if the world certainly do not accept Cuba's state-controlled media as reliable. Except maybe North Korea and similar states.Ultramarine 14:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is a statement by the EU condemning the deteriorating state of human rights in Cuba: [40].Ultramarine 14:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This is yet another straw man, set up by you and -- like the rest of this exchange -- completely irrelevant to our current task.

Nobody has argued that "academic books [that] criticize Cuba" are less reliable than "published material from Communist Cuba".

The rest of the world certainly does accept Cuban news sources as valid; i suggest you go read a few Canadian, French, and British newspapers and magazines. Check out their international sections, and you'll find Cuban sources aplenty.

If you are so interested in this hypothetical page you are currently ranting over, then please - go create it. You may add the EU article you are interested in there. Here, however, it is irrelevant. This is not a page about Cuba's acts of State Terrorism, but about acts of State Terrorism by the United States. (for those of you interested in seeing how this exchange eventually turns out, simply read the section above, ending "Re: Original Research") Stone put to sky 14:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Your personal claims are not a reliable source in Wikipedia. In democratic nations Cuba's state-controlled media are not seen as reliable, except maybe in more orthodox Communist circles. Again, as stated above, it is not may intention to start such an article, as it would be original research, as much of this article is.Ultramarine 14:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

These are not personal claims, but facts. I read the BBC regularly. When reporting on Cuban events, they typically quote Cuban media sources (which are, by definition, state owned and operated). This is not opinion, but fact.

Further, i seriously doubt you can read French, Spanish, or German. Of those three, i've got two, plus Chinese. I can guarantee you: other nations certainly do take Cuban media seriously, and in addition they take it far more seriously than they do Fox News.

Finally, if you have no intention of starting that article then fine, let's be done with it. Because this entire line of reasoning is based upon a phantasy you have created from your own imagination, and is utterly irrelevant to anything posted in this article. Nothing you have written these last six hours has had the slightest relationship to anything that is posted in this article. It has all been an utterly futile exercise in day-dreaming and posturing, nothing else. It has proven nothing, and demonstrated nothing.

You have not shown any evidence of Original Research, only reiterated your claims that it has taken place -- despite the clearly documented sources and clearly footnoted arguments that prove you wrong. Once again: simply taking a vote on what is and isn't true doesn't change its value, and neither does faith or repetition.(for those of you interested in seeing how this exchange eventually turns out, simply read the section above, ending "Re: Original Research") Stone put to sky 14:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Still personal claims. I read many foreign newspaper and never seen these media considered reliable. As my example with Cuba shows, much of this article is OR, quoting dubious sources such as Cuba's state-controlled media. The "Original Research" section above does not support your case, quote the opposite. Furthermore, I detected numerous factual inaccuracies the last time it was unprotected and corrected some. I will do the same when it gets unprotected again, as well as presenting the opposing views regarding these incidents, if the article does not get deleted outright.Ultramarine 14:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If you read "many foreign newspaper" then you know that what i am saying is accurate.

Your "example with Cuba" shows nothing. It is a straw-man, and completely irrelevant. You are attempting to draw conclusions about this article from a fictitious argument out of your own imagination. The only thing you have "shown" by it is your complete inability to recognize the difference between legal documents, human rights organizations, and governmental organizations on the one hand, and paid front groups working in the service of organized criminal organizations and/or secret police groups on the other.

You have "detected" nothing, because -- as your fictitious "example with Cuba" shows -- you have yet to understand the difference between relevant facts and sentimental desire.

You may go ahead and attempt to delete the article, and sections of the article. As for me, i am going to recommend that it remain on protected status, simply because so long as you continue to resist reaching a consensus on the page, no more edits should take place. Stone put to sky 14:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect, as can be seen by reading this section. The consensus, or at least the majority opinion, seems clear from the vote above, your view is the minority view.Ultramarine 15:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, you are simply wrong.

Wiki-policy clearly states that "Consensus" does not reduce to a vote. Similarly, it clearly explains that regardless of what the majority says, all questions reduce to the relevant facts.

It does not matter if i am "in the minority". What matters is that the information presented here is relevant to the page, properly sourced, and does not violate wikipedia guidelines.

What the majority demands is irrelevant, and the reason it is irrelevant is to protect against groups of dis-satisfied ideologues working together to purge the Wiki of facts they consider unpleasant or inconvenient.

That seems to be precisely what is happening here; in the absence of effective arguments or protests against the quality of the sources, relevance of the facts, or transparency of the reasoning, a group of people are coming together on this page to simply vote portions of it away.

The Wiki's policy on consensus and straw polls is clearly set up to protect against precisely this sort of vandalism. So once again --

You are wrong, utterly wrong, and completely wrong. In no way right, correct, or accurate, and there is no justification for continuing this line of reasoning any longer. Stone put to sky 15:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

But majority opinions does decide the outcome in Wikipedia for the deletion and the name of a page. As shown, this an OR synthesis, in many cases quoting dubious sources, only presenting the issue from one side, and when I checked a few of the sources, there were many serious misrepresentations.Ultramarine 15:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have already referenced Wiki guidelines to show that you are wrong. While it is quite apparent that you wish you were not wrong, i am here to inform you that nothing has changed: you are still wrong.

I have already shown that your recent posts have nothing to do with this article, but are instead merely straw-men arguments referencing phantasies of your own invention. Nothing has changed: your fantasies are still irrelevant.

As yet, you have been unable to show how any sources were inaccurate or misrepresented. Until you do, nothing will change. Stone put to sky 15:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately, in Wikipedia the deletion and the name of an article is decided by voting. As can be seen in the history of the article, I found numerous misrepresentations the last time it was unprotected. Like this one, which stated that Posada has admitted bombing the plane![41] Or that the CIA knew he was going to bomb the plane.[42] There were many others. I am sure I will find many more the next time.Ultramarine 15:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for those sources. They shore up the article quite nicely, and are a welcome addition to the already copious material we have presented here.

Rest assured, you will be seeing more from those pages. Stone put to sky 03:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Unclear what you mean, I only corrected the misrepresemtations.Ultramarine 08:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope Stone and Ultramarine have managed to amuse themselves by repeating several times the points they shot back and forth to each other. I would like remind editors to attempt to come to this project in a spirit of cooperation in an open-minded fashion. Just to correct one thing each of you said: 1. Stone--with regard to Posada, the term used by the Administration to justify invading Afghanistan is "harboring" terrorists. 2. Ultramarine, conflicts on WP are resolved not by "voting" but by attempting to reach consensus based on WP rules, in a spirit of fair-mindedness and attempted objectivity in looking at the facts available. Mediation and arbitration are available as last resort. Majority rule is not ideal because the truth and WP policies might suffer. --NYCJosh 21:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In general, yes. But see, Wikipedia:Deletion policy, all non-controversial deletions involve a poll. As does name changes. Not to mention that this article was renamed to the current title from the former "Allegations of..." without any discussion or consensus.Ultramarine 21:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't help when one side of the argument ignores the rules so it can push its POV. Pablo Talk | Contributions 03:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This would hardly be a "non-controversial" deletion, which is what you cited to. Also, the rule you cite states that "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Did you read the WP rule you were citing or were you too focused on winning your point to learn anything? --NYCJosh 17:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Which is why there is a poll above regarding name/deletion.Ultramarine 17:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

As I state there, I think voting is premature because first we need to identify the issues under WP rules that we think are involved in the name change, and then try to resolve those issues with an open mind to hearing all sides. That's part of the reason I voted under protest to keep--the process is flawed and inappropriate.--NYCJosh 22:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again: No, Ultramarine, you are wrong. I suspect that you were around when the name of this article was changed from the current "State Terrorism By..." to "Allegations...."; regardless, when that change took place it was done despite the vocal and energetic protests of close to half of the posters who took part in that straw poll. Moreover, of the posters who voted to change the name in that poll, something like two thirds of them have turned out to be one-time logins, sock puppets, or posters whose accounts were eventually banned because of wiki-abuse.

I remember this clearly, because it was the first time i really got involved in Wikipedia conflict resolution process. I requested a mentor, and he and several other folks in the "Wiki-guides" agreed that the straw poll was badly flawed and that the name should not have been changed. Fortunately, the conscientious and sincere editors here got the name returned to the original.

As usual, your representation of events on this page is one-sided and guilty of significant omissions. Coincidentally, all these omissions favor an interpretation that would aid you in achieving your ends; in other words, just like our own beloved Alberto Gonzales, you seem to not care about the intent, spirit, or processes of the Wikipedia protocols except insofar as they can be manipulated and abused for your immediate convenience.

Yes, there has been a name-change. But changing the article to "Allegations of State Terrorism by the United States" was never a consensual agreement; in fact, of those posters here who are not calling for the full deletion of the article, only a tiny minority ever even expressed a mild assent for the idea. Stone put to sky 06:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Lots of unsourced and incorrect claims. As can be seen, the name changes have been done by a single-purpose account.[43]Ultramarine 10:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism vs Act of War

Is there a clear definition that differentiates terrorism and acts of war? For example, a Palestinian terrorist that targets Israeli civillians is rightfully called so, but if the Palestinian attacks an Israeli soldier or military outpost shouldn't it be classified as an Act of War and not terrorism?Arnabdas 19:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There are no clear definitions of what constitutes terrorism at all. For example, the British government defines terrorism in 1974 as as "the use of violence for political ends", a definition which would include all war. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 16:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Nicaragua v. US

RE:

However, regarding possible human rights violations by the contras, "The Court does not consider that the assistance given by the United States to the contras warrants the conclusion that these forces are subject to the United States to such an extent that any acts they have committed are imputable to that State." Therefore, "It is for this reason that the Court does not have to determine whether the violations of humanitarian law attributed to the contras were in fact committed by them."^[1]

The full text of the decision is here with the highlighted portions being the portions which were cut and paste to this site:

The Court does not consider that the assistance given by the United States to the contras warrants the conclusion that these forces are subject to the United States to such an extent that any acts they have committed are imputable to that State. It takes the view that the contras remain responsible for their acts, and that the United States is not responsible for the acts of the contras, but for its own conduct vis-a-vis Nicaragua, including conduct related to the acts of the contras. What the Court has to investigate is not the complaints relating to alleged violations of humanitarian law by the contras, regarded by Nicaragua as imputable to the United States, but rather unlawful acts for which the United States may be responsible directly in connection with the activities of the contras. The lawfulness or otherwise of such acts of the United States is a question different from the violations of humanitarian law of which the contras may or may not have been guilty. It is for this reason that the Court does not have to determine whether the violations of humanitarian law attributed to the contras were in fact committed by them. At the same time, the question whether the United States Government was, or must have been, aware at the relevant time that allegations of breaches of humanitarian law were being made against the contras is relevant to an assessment of the lawfulness of the action of the United States. In this respect, the material facts are primarily those connected with the issue in 1983 of a manual of psychological operations.

What is left out?

Sentence 2: It takes the view that the contras remain responsible for their acts, and that the United States is not responsible for the acts of the contras, but for its own conduct vis-a-vis Nicaragua, including conduct related to the acts of the contras.

i.e. The US is responsible for its acts in Nicaragua, including the acts related to the contras.

Sentence 3: "What the Court has to investigate is not the complaints relating to alleged violations of humanitarian law by the contras, regarded by Nicaragua as imputable to the United States, but rather unlawful acts for which the United States may be responsible directly in connection with the activities of the contras."

i.e. The court should investigate the unlawful acts of the United States which are connected to the contras.

Sentence 4: "The lawfulness or otherwise of such acts of the United States is a question different from the violations of humanitarian law of which the contras may or may not have been guilty. "

i.e. The lawfulness of the US acts is a different than the humanitarian violations that the contracts may have committed.

Sentence 6: "At the same time, the question whether the United States Government was, or must have been, aware at the relevant time that allegations of breaches of humanitarian law were being made against the contras is relevant to an assessment of the lawfulness of the action of the United States."

i.e. It is important to know if the United States is breaking humanitarian law, because this can show if the US actions are lawful.

Sentence 7: "In this respect, the material facts are primarily those connected with the issue in 1983 of a manual of psychological operations. "

i.e. The facts showing that the US was aware of humanitarian crimes can be found in the 1983 of a manual of psychological operations.

This manual is a torture manual, teaching students how to torture. 69.150.212.214 09:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The court never found the US guilty of "state terrorism", "terrorism", or that it was responsible for the human rights violations by the Contras. If you want to dispute this per above, then add to article. But do not simply just delete sourced material you do not like.Ultramarine 09:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not talking about state terrorism in this paragraph, which the ICJ talks a lot about.

My point is that the previous paragraph is completly out of context and was cut and pasted in such a disingenuous way so that a casual reader would think the court found the US innocent of all humanitarian war crimes . This is patently false.

The last two sentences which were excluded, shows that the court says just the opposite: that the US was aware of the humantarian war crimes in Nicaragua. (Sentence 6 and 7). Anyone can read the Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare.

69.150.212.214 10:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the ICJ never mentions "state terrorism". In its final voting, "Finds that the United States of America, by producing in 1983 a manual entitled Operaciones sicologicas en guerra de guerrillas, and disseminating it to contra forces, has encouraged the commission by them of acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law; but does not find a basis for concluding that any such acts which may have been committed are imputable to the United States of America as acts of the United States of America." Again, if you want expand the material and discussion in the article, fine. But do not simply delete this sourced material.Ultramarine 10:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

We discussed this previously, so I'm wondering why you seem not to understand the point being raised. Saying that the court does not use the words "state terrorism" is a red-herring, and off point, since that is not and has never been a claim anyone made, in the article, or on talk. The claim is that the some scholars such as Chomsky, claim the US is guilty of state terrorism, and cite this verdict, who they interpret the findings of the court (unlawful use of force) as state terrorism.

The section you lifted from the article on the case the US vs. Nicaragua doesn't belong in this article, and never out of context like that in any article. The point it makes is a rather trivial point: that the US can not be said to be guilty to the extent that ANY and ALL actions committed by the Contras could be said to be actions of the US itself. Duh. However, the court found the US guilty of unlawful use of force (lots of specific acts of terrorism, such as mining harbors, etc), and it found the US guilty of encouraging the human rights violations of the Contras. Your find legal point belongs not in this artible but in the article you selectively lifted it from--in full context. This article should just link to that article.Giovanni33 16:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The court never voted on "unlawful use of force", that is a few random words from the extremely long preamble before the voted on statements. The court never mentions "terrorism", that is an OR interpretation. Obviously there a difference between encouraging and doing, which should be pointed out.Ultramarine 16:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before. We do not cite that the court uses the word terorism. It uses more precise legal terms, i.e. violating the norms of international law, norms of humanitarian law, breaching the norms of the use of force, etc. Again, we cite scholars interpreation of these legalistic terms and the incidents that they refer to, to make the claim of terrorism, with proper attribution. So to bring up that the court does not say this is still a red-herring as its irrelevant. And, its NOT OR for us to cite a 3rd party source that makes these arguments.

The court does say the US was guilty of using unlawful force. Saying that the US has "breached its obligations under international law not to use force" is the same as saying the US used unlawful force. Do you disagree with that? If you do, what is the difference? What is important is that scholarhip on the question says this is a verdict against the US for its "unlawful use of force." That wording is perfectly in keeping with the verdict, which I quote below:

"Decides that, by laying mines in the internal or territorial waters of the Republic of Nicaragua during the first months of 1984, the United States of America has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State, not to intervene in its affairs, not to violate its sovereignty and not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce;

Finds that the United States of America, by producing in 1983 a manual entitled Operaciones sicologicas en guerra de guerrillas, and disseminating it to contra forces, has encouraged the commission by them of acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law; but does not find a basis for concluding that any such acts which may have been committed are imputable to the United States of America as acts of the United States of America;"

"Thus the assistance to the contras, as well as the direct attacks on Nicaraguan ports, oil installations, etc., referred to in paragraphs 81 to 86 above, not only amount to an unlawful use of force, but also constitute infringements of the territorial sovereignty of Nicaragua, and incursions into its territorial and internal waters. Similarly, the mining operations in the Nicaraguan ports not only constitute breaches of the principle of the non-use of force, but also affect Nicaragua's sovereignty over certain maritime expanses. The Court has in fact found that these operations were carried on in Nicaragua's territorial or internal waters or both (paragraph 80), and accordingly they constitute a violation of Nicaragua's sovereignty. The principle of respect for territorial sovereignty is also directly infringed by the unauthorized overflight of a State's territory by aircraft belonging to or under the control of the government of another State. The Court has found above that such overflights were in fact made (paragraph 91 above)."

To be clear, Court only says that its can't impute all human rights violations committed by the Contras, except those that the US is connected with, and it found in its verdict that the US encouraged these human rights violations, and awarded reparations to Nic. Chomsky and other scholars use the analysis and findings of the court to argue that the US committed international terrorism, based on the courts verdict. This is not OR, and this is the relevant point for this article (not other points that belong on the article on the case itself).Giovanni33 17:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I repeat again from the voted on statements "Finds that the United States of America, by producing in 1983 a manual entitled Operaciones sicologicas en guerra de guerrillas, and disseminating it to contra forces, has encouraged the commission by them of acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law; but does not find a basis for concluding that any such acts which may have been committed are imputable to the United States of America as acts of the United States of America." The US was thus not deemed imputable for any of these acts. Is encouraging such acts state terrorism? Is laying mines and sabotage by US personnel "state terrorism"? Obviously anyone can clam that, since there no agreement on what "state terorism" is, so anyone can make up a definition to fit their claims. Regarding the sabotage and the mines, arguing that this is "state terrorism" means that many wars have involved "state terrorism" Regardless, we should point out that the court did not find the US guilty of HR violations, although of encouraging them.Ultramarine 17:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

And I repeat again. Its not our job to use our own analysis about what the court verdict means or does not mean, even if we quote selected parts of it out of context. That is either POV pushing or boarders on OR. What we do want, in relation to the verdict, is report on the verdict to the extent necessary for reporting on what our 3rd party sources have argued in relation to the verdict on the subject of this article: state terrorism. The details of the verdict beyond that belong in its own article, not this one. This article does not deal with the fact that all the acts of the contras are not imputed to be the acts of the US, which is why the court said it did not even investigate the acts of the contras, since the contras are not the same as the US. This is all rather off topic. The claims are sourced and attributed to the argument that the US has been found guilty of committing state terrorism. Again, it doesnt matter if YOU feel that mining the harbors, sabotauge, and other acts of unlawful force constitute acts of state terror or not (the US was not at war with Nicauraga btw). This is not about what we think, or else there would be no rule against OR.Giovanni33 18:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

So you are arguing that this article should remove all the material that does not have sources mentioning "state terrorism"?Ultramarine 18:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Close but no cigar. I said we should mention facts and details (relevant back ground info) on the issues to the extent that they are necessary in relation to the the sources have argued about the US being guilty of state terrorism. That means, we have to mention the court case since its their argument that its ruling about unlawful use of force involves actions that are argued to be acts of international terrorism by the US. However, to go into details about court case, does not belong on this article as it goes beyond this scope to present a particular POV (that is yours in disagreement with the cited 3rd party sources)--and that is what is not appropriate.Giovanni33 18:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hm, there seem to be a double standard here. Regarding the court, we should only include sources mentioning "state terrorism" But most of the rest of the article has no such sources, only being sources describing acts that anonynmous Wikipedia editors themselves think are "state terrorism".Ultramarine 18:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you give an example of this? Then we can look at it and see if its really a double standard. I agree there should be no double standards.Giovanni33 19:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. "In 2006, a former board member of CANF, Jose Antonio Llama testified that leaders of the foundation had created a paramilitary group to carry out destabilizing acts in Cuba. The foundation’s general board of directors didn’t know the details of the paramilitary group, which acted autonomously, Llama said. He added that current CANF board chairman Jorge Mas Santos was never told of the plan. The plans failed after Llama and four other exiles were arrested in the United States territory of Puerto Rico in 1997 on charges of conspiracy to assassinate Castro." Does not involve the US government, does not involve CANF, and the it was the US who stopped the deed and protected Castro.Ultramarine 19:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I never said anything about the court ruling that the US committed state terrorism. This seems to have been ignored, repeatedly. In this section, I am only concerned with the way that the paragraph has been manipulated to say something it does not. I have directly addressed this issue, whereas you have not Ultra.
This exact issue came up before in the archives. The court actually does mention terrorism, several times. I will find the exact quotes. 68.89.128.6 19:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Restoration of factual inaccruacy and unsourced text

Giovanni33 has restored a factually incorrect text containing many details not in the claimed source and also deleted much sourced information and restored this with an unsourced text.[44] Explain why.Ultramarine 18:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If you would be a little more pacient you would have seen I was working on it, and had restored the update on Posadas. That section is already longer than other sections and it has its own articles. We don't need to expand that section needlessly.[45]Giovanni33 18:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the source of the first paragraph you reverted. The text you restored has no relationship to the source and is longer than the corrected text.Ultramarine 18:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm if I'm wrong about that my apologies. Please restore that part then, and I'll look at it later. Just please keep it to essential details. Thanks.Giovanni33 18:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer that you restore it to avoid any false impressions regarding 3RR.Ultramarine 18:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked and you are fine to restore that. I'm a bit busy at work now. I don't want it to appear that this is not a colaborative effort, and with you restoring it, I feel better that this will be seen as the case, and therefore others will model it.Giovanni33 19:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I will restore it tommorrow when I make other edits consecutively to avoid any false impression to outside editors.Ultramarine 19:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Nicaragua v US part 2

This was added:

However, regarding human rights violations by the Contras, the Court in its voted on statements "Finds that the United States of America, by producing in 1983 a manual entitled Operaciones sicologicas en guerra de guerrillas, and disseminating it to contra forces, has encouraged the commission by them of acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law; but does not find a basis for concluding that any such acts which may have been committed are imputable to the United States of America as acts of the United States of America"^[2]

Can someone tell me where in the article it says this quote? I can't find it. (the article is split into three). There were several articles posted about the Operaciones sicologicas en guerra de guerrillas, some more favorable to the US, this one doesnt appear to be very favorable.

Here is a couple of sentences, which are similar:

n105...The I.C.J. held that the manual encouraged the commission of acts that were illegal under international law, but did "not find a basis for concluding that any such acts which may have been committed as imputable to the United States of America as acts of the United States of America." Id. at 148. As discussed in Part IV, this Comment does not claim that the acts committed by the SOA graduates are imputable to the United States, but claims that the United States is directly liable for the atrocities and torture committed by SOA graduates because of improper training.

Update: I found the actual quote, and updated the link69.153.81.232 01:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Guatemala, Final Two Paragraphs

I'd like to know what the purpose of the final two paragraphs are? I can't tell. As they are written, they are extremely sloppy and seem to have little -- if any -- connection to the rest of the entry. They need cleaning up, but unless someone can tell me what they're supposed to be saying then i am afraid i'll delete too much.

Similarly, the next-to-last paragraph should be deleted outright. The SOA has always had "ethics", "law" and "human rights" training. However, when these classes are juxtaposed back-to-back with training in torture and terror tactics, then they become nothing more than training of future terrorists in how to masquerade before the public media as legal and/or ethical regimes.

The inclusion of that sentence is therefore utterly irrelevant, since A) the classes have always existed, and B) the coursework during the time period in question (up through the early '90s) was quite focused on military- and government-sponsored terror tactics.

Some would argue that it still is; i personally don't know enough about that to say one way or the other, nor do i care. The SOA fails basic transparency tests, and it is unethical for Wikipedia to include statements by that school without several second-party sources to back it up. Stone put to sky 04:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Finally, the "citation" provided is, in my opinion, invalid; it is an unofficial article on the SOA by an official who has made his career in the military, state department, and now the "Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management", where he heads up a division called "Dean of Academics and International Affairs at the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security".

In short: this man teaches at the SOA, gets his salary by promoting it, and is in no way a disinterested or neutral source, nor is his article an official release by the school. DISAM's goals, from the DISAM website:

Develop a professional security cooperation workforce and build partner capacity....
Provide research and consultation services to the security cooperation community and international partners
Conduct a public information program for the security cooperation community and international partners

While i am sure that this man is sincere and more or less honorable in his convictions and efforts, his single word on what the SOA is currently doing and how well he considers it to be succeeding -- but with no second-hand evidence nor concrete testimony to its veracity provided -- is not sufficient to establish the assertion made in the article. Stone put to sky 04:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The statements regarding Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation are sourced. Similar statements could also be sourced to the Institute itself, which if Cuba's government is allowed as a source, also qualify as a source. If you want to dispute them, add to the article. Note that the SOA no longer exists. Regarding Guatemala, these statements are needed to give some background and for describing when the aid ended. But we do need to discuss the Diana Ortiz material, what is the relationship of this rape to United States "state terrorism"? That she states that one of the persons spoke American English is hardly proof of anything, there are lots of Americans, or people educated in America, not connected to the US government.Ultramarine 07:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. This is not an official statement by the United States Government, nor is it an official statement by anyone -- it is clearly marked as an unofficial opinion piece by a teacher at the WHISC.

Get an official statement -- or a legal statement -- by the U.S. government and it will be o.k. As it is, however, the source is inadequate to support what you are using it to claim. Stone put to sky 12:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As already stated we can quote WHISC if you prefer. Again, But we do need to discuss the Diana Ortiz material, what is the relationship of this rape to United States "state terrorism"? That she states that one of the persons spoke American English is hardly proof of anything, there are lots of Americans, or people educated in America, not connected to the US government.Ultramarine 12:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine; but the source you have provided is inadequate. The Dana Ortiz material gives clear, first-hand, court-approved evidence of the presence of a "white North American" who could not speak spanish and who clearly had the authority to over-rule the cabal of police engaged in the torture sessions. This material has been reference by several of the commentators quoted, so it is appropriate to include it in the context of the other material and the unambiguous judgments of the several commentators, experts, and specialists herein cited.

There is no "discussion" that needs to take place. The material stands, and your op-ed by some WHISC "educator" doesn't. Stone put to sky 13:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Since I have actually read her testimony, yes, "Alejandro" could speak Spanish. No, again, there is no connection to the United States in any quoted source. Or any mention of a connection in the ruling by the IACOHR, which I have also read, by the way.Ultramarine 14:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding WHINSEC, we can quote them directly.Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. "FAQ".Ultramarine 14:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Another problem is the statement "The United States of America has been accused of funding, training, and harboring individuals and groups who engage in terrorism by numerous specialists in international law, including human rights groups, international legal research organizations, and other governments" Most of this is not in the sources given, especially not the claim of "numerous".Ultramarine 11:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is in the sources given.

It's not my problem if you don't bother to read the information given; however, the sources provided consist of two widely respected and widely influential international law associations, Redress (a large and well-known human rights organization), and a Danish political activist organization. That's enough to show that there are multiple, influential organizations from around the world who have made the claim, and that's enough to support the statement "numerous".

If you do not feel like the citations provided are enough of a sample, i will be happy to link to each and every independent organization or group cited in the article. That, of course, would amount to some thirty or forty citations in total. I think that would be excessive and rather silly, but if you insist on pursuing this point please rest assured -- i have no compunction about filling up three sentence-spaces-worth with citations.

i have removed the "citation needed" flags because the citations are already provided. Stone put to sky 12:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I have read the Danish source and fails to see any criticism of state terrorism by the United States. Exact quote please. I have also looked at the Redress source. While it mentions "state terrorism" a few times, I fail to see any criticisms of the US regarding this. Again, exact quote please. Furthermore, it is dubious that these are "specialists in international law" and where are the "international legal research organizations" Ultramarine 12:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"International Law" Research Organizations: CETIM, The American Association of Jurists (via Marjorie Cohn, of its executive committee)
Danish page clearly lists Hiroshima, My Lai, and the Nicaraguan war as terrorist acts of the United States. Stone put to sky 13:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, exact quotes please. The Danish page, which is a web dictionary created by various far left Danish groups, does not mention the term "state terrorism", Please check your claimed sources before quoting them.Ultramarine 14:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Again: the Danish page clearly lists Hiroshima, My Lai, and the Nicaraguan War as examples of state terrorism. If you can read the page like you claim then it is an easy enough thing for you to find for yourself (hint: read the page, and look for the words "hiroshima", "my lai", and "Nicaragua"!). If you can't, then i suggest you get to work figuring out some way to it, because i get paid a minimum of US $85.00 an hour to teach foreign languages and unless you're willing to pony up the cash that just ain't my job.

Further, unless you can provide some sort of justification or re-write of the last two paragraphs in the Guatemalan section i am going to simply delete them. As stated before: the source you have provided is inadequate, and the next-to-last paragraph -- besides being virtually unintelligible -- is unverifiable and has little to no relationship to what comes above it. Stone put to sky 15:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, the Danish page does not mention "state terrorism". Futhermore, it is equivalent to a Wiki by various far left groups, and thus not a reliable source. I will add a source for WHINSEC. Obviously the report of the Intelligence Oversight Board on CIA's actions is relevant, even if you do not like the descriptions.Ultramarine 15:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Again: Yes, it does, and quite clearly. Since you have told me you have read the original page, perhaps you would like to explain to me what -- exactly -- do you think "USA's terrorkrig" stands for?

No, the page is not a "wiki for various far left groups". It is the homepage for a single organization that coordinates left-wing and labor groups. It has over 273 different Danish organizations linking back to it, including universities and law firms. It is in no way a "wiki", but rather a "political encyclopedia" that invites people to make entries to it. Stone put to sky 16:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That is equivalent to a Wiki. It openly states that it is not neutral.Ultramarine 16:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced material by Stone put to sky

User:Stone put to sky has deleted without explanation sourced counter-criticisms regarding WHINSEC. Please read WP:SOAP, respect the arguments of the other side.[46]Ultramarine 16:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. I clearly explained the deletions in the history; you put an entire section on the School of the Americas under the "Guatemala" heading.

This article isn't about the School of Americas, and the material you provided doesn't address the issues that are being articulated here. This is an article about acts of State Terrorism by the United States; you put in an entire section on what people who "defend the School of the Americas" have to say about its renaming.

If you can explain to me how this topic -- which is acts of state terrorism by the Untied States -- could reasonably digress into an explanation of what the School of the Americas is and isn't, was and wasn't, then i'll be happy to let the material stand. As it is, the material you have added belongs in an article on the School of the Americas.

As far as i can see, there is NO place for any mention of the School of Americas' reorganization; it's clearly beyond the scope of this article and irrelevant to what is being presented here. Because of your obstinate insistence upon including so much clearly irrelevant material -- and the open threats you made upon my talk page -- i'm now going to insist that it all be removed.

There is no place for it here. Get it off the page, because this simply isn't the place for a debate on the SOA. Stone put to sky 09:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

^ "International Court of Justice Year 1986, 27 June 1986, General list No. 70, paragraphs 251, 252, 157, 158, 233". International Court of Justice. Retrieved 2006-07-30. Large PDF file from the ICJ website
^ Kepner, Timothy J. (2001). "Torture 101: The Case Against the United States for Atrocities Committed by School of the Americas Alumni". Dickinson Journal of International Law (19 Dick. J. Int'l L. 475). 19: 487. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

[icj-1] "International Court of Justice Year 1986, 27 June 1986, General list No. 70, paragraphs 251, 252, 157, 158, 233". International Court of Justice. Retrieved 2006-07-30. Large PDF file from the ICJ website

[2] Kepner, Timothy J. (2001). "Torture 101: The Case Against the United States for Atrocities Committed by School of the Americas Alumni". Dickinson Journal of International Law (19 Dick. J. Int'l L. 475). 19: 487. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 615: / Line 615: @@
 :::::See example with Cuba below, assuming one would use the same methodology used in the article now.[[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] 19:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 :::::Also, I cannot find that Chomsky has stated that any of these conflicts were state terrorism except the support for the Contras. Do you have any more source labeling something "state terrorism"? [[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] 19:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
+Its funny how the u.s./european govt funds terorism, and is never held accountable, but when a few u.s./european funded lunatics (ie al qaeda, taliban) blow something up, the entire country of iraq and afganistan is held accountable and pays the price for the lunatics who were funded by the u.s. in the first place.
 == Certain Users Badly Misinformed Re: Original Research  ==