Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9

AfD

FYI:

The User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard page is up for deletion right now. This article was listed on User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard during the last AfD. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Docg 18:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Some very good (and quite obvious) points were made by user A.B. Lovelight 18:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Who is A.B.? Travb (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2056 (UTC)

Abandoned sandbox page

Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America/Sandbox1 seems to have been an attempt to rework this page that went no-where; I've listed it for deletion as a housekeeping measure. If anyone wants to merge material in from there, please do so and redirect the page (to keep the history). Shimgray | talk | 13:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

Is the neutrality of this article still being disputed? If so, where? If not, can we remove the tag from the top of the page? SheffieldSteel 01:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Power to you. :-( WP:BB. Travb (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the neutrality disputed label should be removed.--NYCJosh 00:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the article has serious POV issues. For starters, the name of the article itself presumes guilt, it would be NPOV if it were named "Allegations of....". Furthermore, quotes from individuals that publicly express their desire to harm the US in any way are taken as reliable sources. Therefore, I believe that the POV tag should remain --Kimontalk 14:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree wih Kimon. Although I find the concept ludicrous, as a citizen of the US, I welcome the attention and examination but disagree with the contents factually, and with the article's intent. However, the author(s) have the right to question these activities allegedly made by the US, and there have been several questionable activities that are historical attempts to influence state affairs that were not done within the legal framework within which statecraft is usually accomplished.
First, there is no dispute with reference to Nicaragua. The International Court of Justice cites international terrorism as the very reason that it found in favor of Nicaragua in 1986. At the very least this case is perfectly neutral. Secondly, there is no question whatsoever that Posada is an international terrorist of the extreme order, and harboring him is an act of terrorism as defined by the United States. These should not only be included under the heading 'State Terrorism by the United States', they ought to be included under a subheader other than 'Allegations', for there is nothing alleged about them.

Sheldogg 4-17-2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.219.57.25 (talk) 04:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Title

Why is the title "State terrorism by United States of America" and not "State terrorism by theUnited States of America" (as it was originally?) Also whoever made the move from there didn't do it correctly, the talkpage from "State terrorism by United States of America" redirects here. Sfacets 04:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I just moved the Talk page to match the current article title (which is "State terrorism by United States of America" at the moment). I do not want to involve myself in the revert war regarding the title, that is why I simply matched the talk page to the current name. The redirects for the talk page are a mess, but that will have to be sorted out when there is a final title. Until then, I find double redirects (for talk pages) acceptable. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: Please see the village pump policy discussion regarding the title of this article

here. Thanks. --ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 20:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's time to put all of the "Allegations . . ." articles up for Afd, as they all violate our rules against WP:NOR#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position, codified at WP:SYNT.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 20:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how they are violations. It's not wikipedia editors making the allegations, it's all based on published material and information from news organizations. Heavy Metal Cellisttalkcontribs

NPOV on account of the title

Since it is a controversial question whether the US has committed terrorism, the title should not hijack the premise/beg the question by implicitly or explicitly assuming that there is such a thing as state terrorism by the U.S. Allegations of state terrorism of the United States should be the title, with everything else redirecting to it. --Leifern 21:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Woohoo, yeah. Let's implement even more systematic bias and comply to the U.S. propaganda. I have only one thing to say about this: if the title of this article is changed to Allegiations of state terrorism by the United States, then I demand Islamist terrorism be renamed to Allegiations of Islamist terrorism. Salaskan 23:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If you read the US's own definition of terrorism, it's pretty ridiculous to say that the the US doesn't commit such acts. the World Court agrees. Murderbike 00:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Change title to "American war crimes"?

--Arigato1 16:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No, because a "war crime" presupposes the existence of a war. (E.g. many events at Falujah as part of the war against Iraq; Mei Lay massacre.) However, if you wish to write a separate article about US War Crimes, it might be interesting. --NYCJosh 23:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --Kimontalk 14:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The Atomic bombs on Japan and use of chemical weapons in Vietnam war.

That is something that should be mentored to. --Arigato1 17:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Find some reliable sources that you think support your contention that these events constituted terrorism and we'll consider them.--NYCJosh 23:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If the Vietcong or Vietminh had used chemical weapons on the United States, than it would have been considered terrorism. Why is it now when we do it?

AfD (fifth nomination) recomended changes

The article is currently up at AfD, and if the closing admin looks only at the vote tally, it will probably not be deleted. But there are a lot of good points there, and I would like to help to address them. The reason for being up on AfD was WP:SYNT and WP:OR. This isn't necessarily a difficult charge to clear the article of. Right now, the article becomes at times a list of events, building a case that says the US is a state terrorist. This looks like OR/SYNT because all of the events are recorded without the context of how the allegations are made. It says "this happened, then this...". That is fine for a 'List of US government acts that have been called state terrorism article, but I think this article would be a lot nice if it was about the allegations themselves. That is, I'd like to go through and connect all of the events into a narrative discussing two groups making the allegations, (1) world leaders using anti-American sentiment as a part of their platform and (2) left-wing western political scientists and commentators using polemic language to incite anger about US foreign policy and advocate a change in the US (and beyond) publics feelings about US foreign policy.

So, in order to shake the SYNT claim, I think the article should seek to be more meta in its discussion of the events themselves. By this I mean that it should report on sources discussing what campaigns are like in Cuba, rather than simply repeating the words of Castro (or whomever). So instead of "Cuba points to the US's involvement in .... as proof that it is a terrorist state", we should say, "Commentators note that Cuban officials use examples such as the US's involvement in .... as proof that it is a terrorist statecitation here".

Thus, the tasks, as I see them, are drawing together the different sections into a connected narrative, trying to use different (more reputable, less POV, and more removed from the action) sources in a non-SYNT way, and expanding the lead a bit to give more context to the allegations and those making the allegations. Please feel free to stick in any other changes the article needs... Smmurphy(Talk) 23:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a lead to the allegations section as an attempt to put the allegations into context. I didn't source the second paragraph, but added it for balance from the first. My knowledge is more in political science than current events and foreign affairs, but I felt that it was important to note both sources of allegations. If I'm wrong, let me know, or go ahead and fix it. Thanks, Smmurphy(Talk) 23:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but what you have written on the article is entirely original research. Regarding your above comments;

  1. Fidel Castro is not mentioned in this article and Cuban officials are quoted sparsely only to add background to the claims reported in all mainstream forums and encyclopedias. This should be no more of an issue than the copious amounts articles which use the U.S. government as a source such as U.S. list of state sponsors of international terrorism, U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations etc. 95% of the world finds the U.S. government no more reliable a source than the Cuban government. And there is no policy stating that either government sources are non-notable and therefore not applicable in an article.
  2. The Cuba section should be about the events detailed - various U.S. governments sponsoring, supporting and sheltering terrorists, agreed by everyone including the U.S. justice department itself. If you want to discuss "anti-American" sentiment, there is an article called Anti Americanism.
  3. There is nothing "Anti American" or "platform seeking" about Cuban requests for public justice regarding events as disparate as the bombing of Cubana Flight 455, the terrorist bombings in Havana during the 1990s, assassinations and many more attacks dating back to before the Bay of Pigs invasion. Be aware that there were scores of terrorist attacks by CIA affiliated anti-Castro groups in the United States alone, that is before we begin to examine the ongoing situation in Cuba. Given that many of the perpetrators, confirmed CIA agents all, have confessed and been prosecuted, yet still walk free in the United States thanks to government pardons, as documented in numerous mainstream outlets, then I think you are barking up the wrong tree. At present, the Cuba section meets policies WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOR it uses sources from CNN, BBC, Washington Post, LA Times, Miami Herald etc and is in line with the Encyclopedia Britannica account of events. Attempts to remove or reshape well cited material to fit an agenda will not be appreciated. I know it's hard for some people to comprehend or face up to who might be new to this concept, but the links between their government and terrorism are no secret to those millions who have been following these incidents for many years, and have seen the results and heard the testimonies of the families of victims many times.
This is taken from Encylopedia Britannica [1], whose account is far more POV than ours, and doesn't have some analysis about how all these events are part of some "Anti-American platform".

The New York Times in July published a long interview with Luis Posada Carriles, a Cuban-born, CIA-trained terrorist who had been convicted of bombing a Cuban airliner off Barbados in 1976 and had served nine years in a Venezuelan prison. In the interview he admitted to more recent attacks against Cuban property, claiming to have organized the 1997 bombings in Havana hotels and to have had his activities financed by the late Jorge Mas Canosa and other leaders of the Cuban-American National Foundation (CANF). The Interior Ministry announced that three Guatemalans and two Salvadoreans were to be put on trial for their part in the bombings. Described as mercenaries, they admitted to working under the direction of Carriles and Arnaldo Monzón Plasencia, also of CANF. A CANF director, José Antonio Llama, and six other men were indicted in August by a U.S. federal grand jury in San Juan, P.R., on charges of plotting to kill President Castro. The charges related to a four-year period, but they specifically mentioned a plot discovered in 1997 when Castro visited Margarita Island, Venezuela, for a summit meeting.

-- Zleitzen(talk) 00:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Those voting delete at the AfD aren't voting that way because they doubt the events happened, but because of the way the events are presented. The claim is SYNT and OR, that is what I think this article needs to get beyond. The way I see it, the article reads as if Noam Chomsky wrote it (in fact, it reads very nicely), which feels like OR. I hope I haven't offended anyone, my suggestions are an attempt to deal with that. Part of my viewpoint might be because I've been thinking about an article called "Allegations of state...". This title is bolder, and in my mind leads itself to a more difficult article to write. If the article talks a little bit more about who is making the claims, and why, then I think it would feel more balanced. But I guess that only makes sense under the "allegations" title. I think this title is more difficult because the characterization of some of the events as terrorism is in dispute. In either case, this brings up another point. Should the article discuss the official (and often mainstream) view on these events or where it is claimed that the incidents are not "terrorism"? Smmurphy(Talk) 01:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there a mainstream view that believes the bombings of civilian airplanes, hotels, cars, assassinations etc for political capital is not terrorism? -- Zleitzen(talk) 08:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Consider, for instance, Luis Posada. The US trained him as he was anti-Castro. A US FBI anti-terrorism specialist claims that the plans to bomb Cubana flight 455 were made at the same time that plans to assassinate Orlando Letelier occurred, an assassination associated with Chilean secret police. Many US elected officials consider him a terrorist, and he is currently held by the DHS, and officials are not talking much about him. Extradition is politically difficult, as Cuba is a political enemy and Venezuela would likely send him to Cuba. Kucinich has talked about him many times on the public record, such as here. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Posada is currently being held in Texas (I think) for re-entering the U.S. illegally, not on terrorist charges. Though the U.S. justice department have requested that he be tried on these charges (he was convicted in Venezuela in 1976 but escaped from jail with the help of the CANF) - the Bush administration have refused to allow this (for obvious reasons due to Posada's hero status in Florida). Other convicted terrorists such as Orlando Bosch are free to paint murals at home in Florida, and are funded and feted by anti-Cuban congressmen in the state such as Ros-Lehtinen and the Diaz-Balart brothers. These convicted terrorists were employed by both the CIA and the Cuban-American national foundation for many years. The extradition story from the U.S. about enemy states is bogus given that Cuba/Venzuela have agreed that Posada could be tried in the U.S., and he is also sought by Barbados and other Caribbean states for extradition with no reply. -- Zleitzen(talk) 17:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
That is fine. Per AfD, this article is seen as pushing a cause, fails WP:NPOV, etc. Adding some cited discussion of other perspectives on the US's involvement is appropriate. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Smmurphy, when you said "1) world leaders using anti-American sentiment as a part of their platform and (2) left-wing western political scientists and commentators using polemic language to incite anger about US foreign policy and advocate a change in the US (and beyond) publics feelings about US foreign policy", do you mean that you believe that no one actually believes that the US has committed acts of terrorism, and all allegations thereof are just propaganda and spin? Because I know many people who honestly believe that the US has committed acts of terrorism. I think it is important that this article reflects that many people, not just commentators and dictators, believe that there is substantial evidence linking the US government to many terrorist actions. Heavy Metal Cellisttalkcontribs
Many people realize that the US is involved in these events, but not many in the west call the US a state terrorist because of them (the word terrorism is almost always used as propaganda, I think). So I think that an article about US state terrorism should discuss who uses that language and why. Outside of the west, it is perhaps more common to consider the US a terrorist state (or at least these events issues of state terrorism). If this is the case, it isn't discussed in the article either. Otherwise the article's title should involve non-UN sanctioned interventionism or something. Smmurphy(Talk) 20:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Z: my understanding of the Posada matter is a little different apparently he was held nine years in Venezuela even though a military court had found him not guilty. Then he escaped before a civil trial. The Chavez government is again trying to have him returned for trial; however, given the reputation of that government it is not likely he will be sent back. As to that airliner, it is near impossible to distinguish military Cuban Air Transport from a civilian transport. Analysis of the passenger list shows that even the fencing team were members of the Cuban military, there were North Korean agents, and directors of the Cuban trawling fleet which was used to spy, and apparently land agents, as well as fish. BTW way my non-existant vote would be to keep this page since it clearly demonstrates extreme leftwing bias and thus shows Wikipedia in the worst possible light, thus warning that Wikipedia is not the most reliable source. El Jigue 208.65.188.149 22:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello EJ, you pop up in the oddest places! Sorry, but I agree with you on some things we collaborate on in wikipedia, disagree on others, but you're way out of line on this one, I've heard your theories before about "the passenger list" "North Korean agents" and so on. There are relatives of the teenage fencing team that live in Florida, not Cuba, who you can contact to clear up your theories if you so need to. I've seen them speak about their relatives and have read Ann Bardach's interviews with them. Highly recommended. "Analysis of the passenger list..." tut.. "Cuban military"...indeed. There were 11 Guyanese and a pregnant woman on that plane as well as the fencing team, and what about the Venezuelans who hopped on the flight to plant the bomb before hopping off again? Were they all Cuban military personnel? Your vision is way too blurred on this one and you've gone of the edge. And there is nothing extreme or "leftwing" about reporting what has been reported in encyclopedias and newspapers around the world. -- Zleitzen(talk) 23:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Phoenix Program

Does it fit in this article? --Merat 13:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely -- LamontCranston 23:48, 16 May 2007

Cleanup Process

I would like to suggest that agree to clean up the regional sections to the following format:

  • Heading with the name of the claimant
  • Write out the allegation specifically, then spend no more than a paragraph outlining the allegation. Link to articles detailing the circumstances whenever possible and minimize the paragraph and quotes on this page.
  • Conclude the section with the outcome of the allegation

This format should provide the reader with a quicker way to read about the allegations and subsequently get details as they see fit. There should also be a section for groups and notable individuals from within America that have made such allegations. Again to reinforce the topic, we're talking about facts - facts that allegations have been made - not judging the allegations themselves. Amxt 19:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The material in the article is well sourced and well written; I don't think it should be removed without being merged into other articles about the incidents discussed. Also, much of this material isn't adequately covered elsewhere. Merging the material elsewhere would just disperse the material that is causing some editors to believe the article is NPOV or violates SYNT or whatever, so I think that before we move any sections we should try to bring in official US views and other dissenting views where applicable and notable. Smmurphy(Talk) 03:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, agreed with keeping the full text and not branching everything. I'll revise my suggestion to stating the allegation clearly, the details, then concluding each with 1) the respondents POV 2) the impact and result should there be one. Amxt 19:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your first suggestion because it would center the article on the sources making the allegations rather than on the substance. With respect to your third suggestion, providing the "outcome" and the "impact and result," good luck on researching additional material on this. For example, if you can somehow find information that quantifies the number of people killed or injured by US sponsored terrorism in Iraq in the early 1990s or in Cuba in the 1960s-1970s, by all means let us see it. --NYCJosh 02:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Josh that, given that at the most recent AfD there was no consensus to rename this article "allegations of..." (as I, myself, had mistakenly believed earlier), the first suggestion won't help the article. I read Amxt's third suggestion as saying that the article should discuss the US's (and other) more recent position on the event in question. For some of the events, the US has come public about its role, or at least it has made statements distancing itself from certain individuals, which should be noted, even if it is suspect. Smmurphy(Talk) 04:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Iran and Syria links in definition section

Unless folks disagree, I think the notes about Iran and Syria in the definition of state terrorism section should be removed, there is no context for the references, or explanations at all. Murderbike 22:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
They could be useful if they were wikilinked to the specific incident being referred (terrorism in Syria and terrorism in Iran have the relevant info, I believe). This might I think it might work better in the footnotes, though, something like "The United States considers event X an example of state terrorism of type Y, as cited in Z". Smmurphy(Talk) 22:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
It's referring to two different types of state terrorism, it seems redundant to have a def. for State terrorism, as there is already a link to that article two lines above, and a definition of terrorism by proxy would be better than just a link to syria's article, as that article doesn't clarify as easily what state terror "by proxy" actually mean. maybe the paragraph should just distinguish the two, instead of giving vague examples or links to other articles? Murderbike 23:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Words to avoid, I think that we should avoid basing this article on the definition of terrorism alone. It is factual that the US categorizes Iran and Syria as state terrorists of certain types, and the reasons why are relatively familiar to many readers, which is why I suggested keeping the link. You are right, however, that better would be the precise definitions as given by the state department in the US, as well as corresponding level institutions in other countries. What the dictionary says, IMHO, is a bit more troublesome for an article about terrorism. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The author's emotional feeling about the subject quite clear...

Wow, without going into the validity of the content, it's quite clear the contributor(s) to the article feel strongly and emotionally about the content. That's fine, except it causes the content to lose credibility as it raises a big red flag signaling bias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.215.100.191 (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, I thought this was a joke page, at first. I followed the link from "The State terrorism series" box which is on Idi Amin (I just watched The Last King of Scotland). He uses Iran and Syria in the definition of state terrorism, and yet they aren't on this State Terrorism series list being put on a bunch of articles and yet the USA is? Quite inconsistent. And claiming a schoolbus was targeted by the CIA? And the quotes about the USA killing children which reminds me of Osama Bin laden's speeches where he claims the USA killed children? I can only say, this is an absurd article. People claiming their "enemies" are killing children is really pointless to repeat, it is obviously designed to rile people up and contains no factual information. (That fits with this article, even the title of which is designed to rile people up, but it doesn't fit with wikipedia.) It certainly needs a lot of work to become NPOV --Danny Rathjens 07:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
If you think there should be articles in State Terrorism by Iran and Syria, write them. Them not existing does nothing to discredit the claims of US State Terrorism. Murderbike 08:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Those articles do exist. In fact, they are linked a couple sentence above to another comment you replied to. Obviously their existence does nothing to counter the point of this section, though. Which is that the authors' bias clearly shows through with the way it is written(e.g. all the accusations of intentional child-killing with no evidence). The "state terrorism" series template listing the USA and not Iran or Syria and yet including Iran and Syria in the very definition of state terrorism in this article are just more symptoms of trying to advance a political viewpoint rather than present the facts. --Danny Rathjens 22:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The linked articles are for Terrorism in Iran and Syria, not specifically State terrorism, so it seems to me they shouldn't be included in the State Terrorism template. When I get some time tonight I'll do ya the favor of citing some "child-killing" evidence. Unfortunately my expertise is not in the State Terrorism of Iran or Syria, so can only hope that someone else could write those articles. Murderbike 03:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, after going through the whole article, I found three references to child killing. None of them specified "intentional" child-killing, and the first two are sourced, two the UN, and to the NYT, both reliable sources, right? the third, is in a quote from Hugo Chavez, that I don't personally care about. It's a quote, not an assertion by the article itself. Am I missing something? Murderbike 03:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

moved to talk

The following was moved to the talk page:

As well, the US maintained economic sanctions against Iraq from 1991 until the 2003 invasion. According the the UN, 500,000 children died as a direct result of the sanctions between 1991 and 1998. In 1996, Madeline Albright made highly controversial remarks in an interview with Lesley Stahl on CBS's 60 Minutes. Asked by Stahl with regards to the effect of sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?". Albright replied: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it."[1]

I don't think this fits in as terrorism. 69.150.209.15 14:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"`Terrorism', according to the FBI, `is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objective',"", This is the US's own definition of terrorism, and i'd say that intentionally/knowingly causing the deaths of half a million children (an inarguably "civilian" population in my mind) qualifies. Murderbike 17:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The first key word is "unlawful". Economic sanctions are not unlawful; the USA is not under any obligation to trade with any foreign state except when there is a valid treaty in place. Laws in the USA also allow the US government to seize assets, etc., and those same political techniques are used by foreign nations against the USA all the time. The second key word is "intentionally" from your comment. The USA did not impose sanctions to kill children or anyone else. The USA imposed sanctions as part of a political dispute with the regime in power at that time; the USA wanted IRAQ to comply with UN sanctions. Calling what the USA did "state terrorism" is a useless pursuit that is not supported by balanced evidence. The article is WP:POV because it cites proponents of one point of view and does not include the other. — John Cardinal 03:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

As to "intention", if you know something is happening, or going to happen, as a result of your actions, and you continue with your actions, I don't know how you can just say "oh, but we didn't MEAN to do it." and be absolved of resposibility for the outcome of your intentional actions. Murderbike 03:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Include in article:U.S. protects Iranian opposition group in Iraq

See: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/05/protected.terrorists/index.html

An Iranian opposition group based in Iraq, labeled a terrorist organization by the United States, gets protection from the U.S. military despite Iraqi pressure to leave the country. 68.92.159.96 05:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

US support for the MEK is not state terrorism. It is support for terrorism. It is a different topic. State terrorism, defined loosely, is terrorism committed by a state (I think). 74.14.226.11 19:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Afghanistan and the "Green Belt"

  • I'm not sure why this section is included in this article. According to the definition posted on this page, state terrorism requires the illegal use of force against civilians. The CIA-trained mujahideen in Afghanistan did not fight civilians, they fought invading Soviet troops.
  • Even if some of those fighters turned out to later fight the Russians in Chechnya, that was not the original intention of the CIA (at least not according to the cited article). At worst, this is the result of the law of unintended consequences. If you are going to call CIA training of Chechens state terrorism, then you should also list September 11th (because we funded Osama bin Laden, who later attacked the US).

If there are not objections, I will remove this section. --Dchall1 13:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Not that there's really THAT much difference, but it definitely sounds more like a proxy war. Murderbike 17:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Murderbike, I certainly won't argue that it's not a proxy war. I'm just saying that a proxy war doesn't fit the definition of terrorism as stated in this article. I think the defining characteristic is that violence has to be directed against civilians, and that did not occur in Afghanistan. Let me know what you think please... --Dchall1 17:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry for not being clearer. I was basically agreeing with you. It does become funny though, as I think the US gov't uses the term terrorism for acts against governments all the time. alas. Murderbike 18:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've removed that section. If anyone disagrees, I'd be happy to discuss it further. Thanks! --Dchall1 12:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Native American 'Wars' need mention?

I was reading through this article with the thought in my niaive head that the treatment, and alleged attempted genocide of certain sections of the Native American population in the US territories in the 19th century would be prevelant here, as most of the articles for other countries mention treatment of the civilian population (Cambodia, et al). I am not the man to write this segment, but would it not make sense for it to be here, especially considering the US governments official apology for the illegal overthrow of the valid Hawaiian government and the proposed apology to the Native American peoples for "unlawful depredations and ill-conceived policies" lending powerful credence to the segment? Also, it would rationalise the article somewhat, be an anchor of 'relativity' for the rest of these 'allegations' - something to measure the Cuban or Nicaraguan issues against, in the manner of "This has been officially admitted, This is an allegation" to help the NPOV issue.

Bassclef 09:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. Murderbike 18:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree. mitcho/芳貴 07:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a 'domestic' or 'internal' section: covering the Native American 'Wars', COINTELPRO and anything else I might have missed. LamontCranston 23:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Agree.Giovanni33 18:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not an allegation

Why the actions of the United States in Nicaragua are listed as "Allegation" since an International Court found the United States guilt. That should be listed as something like "List of Terrorism Activities". ClaudioMB 06:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Atomic bombing of Japan

I understand that some users have strong feelings about this topic, but we should be discussing the issue rather than adding adding and removing it every other week. Personally, I don't believe it belongs in this article because it was at worst a war crime (though there are arguments that it could be considered simply an act of war). Those of you who have been involved with this article longer than I have, what do you think? --Dchall1 12:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no doubt that as a war crime. Look the definition of War Crime here in Wikipedia, the item 2.1. says "Directing attacks against civilians". ClaudioMB 17:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that this isn't a war crime. I'm just saying that if we agree that it is a war crime, it doesn't belong in this article. War crimes and state terrorism are not the same thing. Dchall1 16:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. This was done under the color of war declared by both Japan and the US. The discussion of whether it belongs on a war crimes page is a debate best held there. Its definitely not a terrorist act however and wouldnt belong on this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dman727 (talkcontribs) 17:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
Simply because something is a war crime, does not make it any less of an act of terrorism. The two are not mutally exclusive. In fact, acts of terrorism have always been part of war; terroism is one of the tactics militaries have used against their oppoenents. The atomic bombing of Japan took place just as the war was coming to an end, to acheive, largly a political goal--not simply a military one. Thus, it is an act of terrorism carried out at the closing of the war.Giovanni33 19:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The war was not coming to an end. Rather, plans were being executed for implementing a full-scale invasion of the home island of Japan, with US troops being transported in large numbers by ship from Europe to Japan via the Panama Canal in June/July 1945. The estimated death toll was being estimated at being well over 1 million US soldiers to take the main island of Japan, with the death toll for civilians in Japan being estimated as being much, much higher. This all changed nearly overnight with the use of atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. From this point of view, the attack was not an act of terrorism, but rather an act of kindness, to end the madness before millions would have to die, the majority of which would have been civilians. The attack was neither a war crime, nor an act of terrorism, but was an act of kindness. Yaf 19:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Though it is debatable whether this was a war crime, personally I believe it was not, it definitely does not belong in an article on alleged state terrorism acts. --Kimontalk 20:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the war was coming to an end and Japan was actively looking for a way to surrender under favorable terms--in fact the very terms that were accepted ultimately anyway. This was no act of kindness, it a crime against humanity, a war crime, and an act of terrorism. Your citing the fact that a plan was drawn up for an invasion of Japan is completely irrelevant--it does nothign to change these facts about the nature of this act. But, btw, the estimate death toll from that invasion ranges. You give the high number but the low number was 20k. But, who said that an invasion was itself necessary, or jusitifed? Its well known from historians who have studied the diplomatic archives of the US, Japan and the USSR, that days before Hiroshima, Truman himself agreed at a meeting that Japan was “looking for peace”. Virtually all his senior generals and political advisers told him there was no need to use the A-bomb. But the bombs were dropped anyway. "Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war”, Profesor of history Selden writes. This makes it a political aim, not a military necessity.
Also, consider the choice of targets. A large civilian population to maximize the effect of the terror was a prime consideration. The Target Committee at Los Alamos on May 10–11, 1945, rejected the use of the weapon against a strictly military objective. After the Hiroshima bombing, President Truman announced, "If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the likes of which has never been seen on this earth." That is not terrorism? In fact, the psychological effects on Japan were of great importance to the committee members.
Again, Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb.
"Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan," says Selden. Truman was also worried that he would be accused of wasting money on the Manhattan Project to build the first nuclear bombs, if the bomb was not used, he adds.
Japan was already essentially defeated and ready to surrender. Even then-General Dwight D. Eisenhower, wrote in his memoir The White House Years:
"...Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives." Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General Douglas MacArthur (the highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater), Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), and Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials), and Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph A. Bard,[80] and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet. "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. "The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.
The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, reported:
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
Many, including General MacArthur, have contended that Japan would have surrendered before the bombings if the U.S. had notified Japan that it would accept a surrender that allowed Emperor Hirohito to keep his position as titular leader of Japan, a condition the U.S. did in fact allow after Japan surrendered. U.S. leadership knew this, through intercepts of encoded Japanese messages.
Therefore, my statements stand supported by the evidence: it was not militarily necessary to acheive the same results it would have anyway and was used purposefully agaisnt civilians basaed on acheiving a psychological effect and a political message to the cold war rival, the USSR, which was poised to move against an already badly defeated Japan--prior to the dropping of these bombs.
Lastly, it doesn't matter what we think, such as you don't agree with this analysis and POV. This is under the category of "Allegations." There is no reason not to report on these allegations of US terrorism--simply because you disagree with such an analysis. It doesnt matter. There is sufficient evidence to support these allegations and are a legitimate pov subject to legitimate debate.Giovanni33 20:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni33, sorry I reverted your edit, but I'd appreciate it if you could led this discussion continue until we come to a consensus. Even if we agree that this act was a war crime (I would argue it isn't), all war crimes are not acts of terrorism. If they were, we would have to expand the list of states accused of practicing state terrorism to include all states who were ever accused of war crimes.

As the article stands now, all of the entries describe acts committed by the US against a state which we were not at war with. The bombings in Japan occurred during wartime. If we add this event, at the least we will then have to add all other instances in which the US was accused of war crimes. But if you take things that far, you will have diluted the message of the article and blurred the distinction between terrorism and war crimes even further than it already is. At the very least, can we please leave the allegation out of the article until we come to some kind of conclusion? --Dchall1 21:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not that the bombings were war crimes or not. This issue is if these war crimes also constitute acts of terror. Thus, we do not have to list all war crimes, simply all acts of terror by the US. The distinction between war crimes and terrorism is maintained, even if there is some cross over given that an act can be both a war crime, and an act of terrorism. Otherwise, we have to exclude all acts of terrorims that occured in the context of a war, simply because there was a war between the parties? That hardly seems justifiable because a war may or may not have terrorism, but having a war does not negate its use (and reality), no? I'll hold off on reverting to allow for more discussion to take place, but I thought that section was long standing already, which I restored.Giovanni33 21:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The argument could also be made that war in and of itself is an act of terror, as is the declaration of war, the bombing of cities, etc. etc. etc. My position is that if an act occurred during wartime, it should be judged whether it was a crime of war or an act compliant with the rules of engagement, the articles of war and the conventions related to war signed by the warring parties. Therefore, the discussion of this specific act should be moved to the relevant article's talk page and removed from here. As to the argument that it has been part of the article for long time, does not negate the fact that it does not belong here. --Kimontalk 21:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there are other arguments about other issues, however, I fail to see how this is related to this issue? The argument that all acts of war are itself an act of terror is done by broadening the established definition of terrorism (since not all acts of war fit in the most accepted and standard definition of the term). However, we are (and I am) sticking with the standard definition. Therefore, we have to look at which acts (be they done in war or not), fall under its scope.
Likewise, the question of an act of war being in compliance with established rules of warfare or not (war crimes), are good and fine but are also not relevant to this issue, on this topic. Why bring it up? I agree that discussion should be moved to the relevant articles talk page. The issue here is about this act accused of being an act of terror as a real POV that should be reported (it may also be an act of war, it may also be a war crime, a crime against humanity and many other things--but so what?). The only reason war crimes, etc, are being discussed at all is because that was the argument being made for not including this, i.e. the argument that its a war crime, or that because it occured in the context of a war, etc--but that does not logically follow to a conclusion that therefore the act is not an act of terror. Nowhere in the definition does it exclude acts of terror being committed during a war. The main elements that cause these atomic bombings fall within the category of an act of terror have been supplied in the arguments above which represent this POV, and thus, its fair to report on the allegation that these are specifically acts of terror by the United States. That they may also be acts of war and instances of war crimes, crimes against humanity, etc. are notwithstanding.
As to the argument that it has been part of the article for a long times, I agree, does not negate the question of it belonging here or not. That was not the point of the argument. The argument was about removing it UNTIL it has been discussed here vs. not removing it until it has been discussed here. Since it was the long standing version the argument that I should not replace it until we have consensus here, seems to be upside down. That person making that argument should himself not remove it until consensus is reached to remove it, given it was part of the article already. That was the point. The "fact" that it doesn't belong here is not fact, but the point of contention to be resolved. So far I don't see any good arguments. Saying that ones doesnt personally belive it is an act of terror is irrelevant. One does not have to agree with the allegation to report it as an allegation--unless its not a notable allegation? Clearly it is given the sources.Giovanni33 22:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The cited source for the claim of the atomic bombings being an act of terror were from the Green Left Weekly, hardly a source that meets WP:ATT. Are there any mainstream sources that make this claim, too? Yaf 23:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Thats easy since there is no shortage of sources that express this point of view, mostly, ofcourse among the new left or liberal political spectrum, but also in some libertarian POV's. For example, this is typical: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0815-06.htm which is a POV from the Hiroshima Alliance for Nuclear Weapons Abolition (HANWA). And, ofcourse Znet Mag: "The clear intent, both of the fire bombing and atomic bombing was the terrorizing and killing of civilians and the elimination of Japan's cities." [2] And to show its a POV that is widespread enough, take a look at this from Lewrockwell's article, entitled, "Targeting Civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki." It states, "Having Imperial Japan surrender, even if a worthy goal, was nevertheless a political one, and the targeting of innocents to achieve that goal was an act of terrorism." [3] Here is an academic paper that makes same argument: http://faculty.mckendree.edu/scholars/2003/randol.htm Another Zmag article: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2310 Even other politicians express this POV. For instance Presendient of Venezula, Hugo Chavez Calls Dropping of A-Bomb, 'Greatest Act of Terrorism in Recorded History' He was addressing the opening ceremonies for the World Festival of Students and Youth, the Venezuelan president paid tribute to the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: [4]
And we have books. Lots of books that express this POV. The best one that comes to mind is problably, "The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb" by historian Gar Alperovitz, a historian and political economist, is president of the National Center for Economic Alternatives. He is also Senior Research Scientist in the Department of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland, and a Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies, and formerly a Fellow of King's College, Cambridge, and of the Institute of Politics at Harvard; he has served as Legislative Assistant in the U.S. House of Representatives, Legislative Director in the U.S. Senate, and Special Assistant in the Department of State. His other books include Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam, and he has written numerous articles for The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, The Nation, Foreign Policy, The Atlantic Monthly, and many other academic and popular publications. Other books that acknowlege and mention this POV, and some argue for it:
"Hiroshima in America: Fifty Years of Denial" by R.J. Lifton and G. Mitchell Putnam. This book offers a truthful portrayal of how Truman and other American war criminals perpetuated the lie that we had no choice but to drop the bomb.
"Saving Private Power: The Hidden History of "The Good War" by Michael Zezima
A People's History of the United States: 1492 — Present by Howard Zinn
Against Empire by Michael Parenti, Ph.D.
The Sword and the Dollar: Imperialism, Revolution and the Arms Race by Michael Parenti, Ph.D.
Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower by William Blum
Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism by Michael Parenti
The Culture of Terrorism by Noam Chomsky
The Habits of Highly Deceptive Media: Decoding Spin and Lies in Mainstream News by Norman Solomon
Inventing Reality: The Politics of News Media by Michael Parenti, Ph.D.
The Hidden Persuaders: What makes us buy, believe — and even vote — the way we do? by Vance Packard
There are many more, but the point is made: this is a legitimate and real POV, even if you don't agree with it.Giovanni33 00:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
And that's exactly the problem: it's POV. Are there any neutral sources? In any case, this is not a topic for discussion here. BTW, perhaps you should read this. --Kimontalk 00:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a "neutral" source. Nuetrality is utopian. You can achieve nuetrality by reporting on all points of view in correct porportion, give both sides their repsective voice, and proper qualification. Ofcourse this view is a point of view. That does not mean we suppress it under the guise of nuetrality. If we did that we would not be able to represent any controversial issue. The sources above are listed only to demonstrate this is a widely held allegation and thus should be reported on. And, notice that we don't report it as a fact but as an allegation. This is in keeping with NPOV language. Don't take sides, just report the issues and let the reader decide. Lastly, I did read your link, but so what? It talks about the controversial nature of the concept of State Terrorism, since States that engage in terrorism want to make it a term that applies only to tactics that the poor use. Since this article is about State terrorism, i.e. acts of terrorism committed by the US, then this is not an issue. Giovanni33 07:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
By the listing there, "Generally, the definition of terrorism does not extend to states in direct and open military conflict, if the actions of their armed forces are within the laws of war." Clearly, there was direct and open military conflict after December 7, 1941 between Japan and the United States. (BTW, wouldn't the attack on December 7th 1941 by Japan be a terroristic attack, since a state of war did not exist prior to the attack?) But, continuing with the atomic attack, by this line of thought, the atomic attack would not have been terrorism, since it was clearly within the laws of war, albeit with more collateral damage extending to civilian populations than for some attacks, although the firebombing of Dresden would be another case that resulted in considerable civilian collateral casualties during wartime. Likewise, the sources listed above, although numerous, are definitely rather leftist sources, and hardly neutral. They don't appear to be in accordance with WP:ATT, being both suspect and generally not reliable. It doesn't appear that there is a neutral set of sources that makes a case for the atomic attack being terrorism. I don't see how we can take leftist sources, for an act committed under the laws of war during wartime, and make a reasonable case for the atomic attack being a terrorist act. Yaf 02:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, generally, that is true. But so what? We are talking about a specific case where it is being said to apply. Saying something is generally true, is not an argument that its always true. This is a case in point. Off topic but the attack on Pearl Harbor was not a terror attack, but a rather typical act of war: attacking a the military base on a colony of the United States, and yes, a state of war existed, and was announced prior to the attack (even if the US claims to have lost and delayed receipt of the message---it was known that Japan was going to attack). Again, this is a bit off topic. As far as your argument about neutral sources, as I said above, there is no such thing, and it's absurd for you to think a POV needs to be from some such magical, non-existent source for it to be a valid POV worth reporting. The sources I listed respresnt a range of the political spectrum, including a rather conservative libertarian publication. What do you consider "neutral" anyway? The US govt. itself? hehe! And, don't confuse the reliable, published source requirement with a POV source. The two have nothing to do with each other (btw, the source you are citing, another WP article, is not a reliable source itself per WP policy). As far a reasonable case not being made, that is your POV. But why do you want to imopose your POV to suppress reporting the case that may seem very reasonable to others such as myself and various academics and experts I cited above who feel that such a case is indeed reasonable? Report the allegation and let the reader decide what is reasonable or not.Giovanni33 07:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Giovanni33, here's the problem the way I see it. We've set up a definition of terrorism, both on this page and on others. If we want Wikipedia to be internally consistent, we need to hold to that definition and not make special cases. I admit I haven't read the sources that you've listed to back up your argument, but I imagine that they are using their own defintions of "terrorism" and "war crimes" to make their determination. For the sake of consistency though, we need to measure events by the standards that we have set out. So either we change the definitions of terrorism to include war crimes, or we can't include this event. When we're dealing with such a controversial page as this one, it's vital that we are objectively documenting allegations of state terrorism and not POV-pushing. When we bend our definitions to include certain events, we lose our objectivity. Dchall1 13:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Why do you see that this is the problem? I've repeatedly said that this act conforms and fits the standard definition and that it doesn't matter if it also happens to fit into the category of a war crime. The two are not mutually exclusive. Where in the definition does it say that if its a state that commits in in the context of a war that its excluded from possibily being an act of terror? So its not me, but you who are bending the definition to exclude an act that by all criteria fits. If you say it doesn't fit, then please show how. The sources I've given above use the same standard definition and on this basis conclude that it was an act of terror: it was not military, it was political to have a major psychological impact on political events outside of Japan, and that large concentrations of civillians were selected for this purpose (not a military target).Giovanni33 17:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Giovanni33, the agreed definition of terrorism, while being wooly, is specifically written to EXCLUDE this type of act. The line "does not extend to states in direct and open military conflict", although softened by the following phrase, is quite clear. This section needs to remain somewhere else. The atomic bombing being exluded from this page does not lessen its importance, but adding it lessens the impact of this page, making it appear even more of a soapbox than it already does. Bassclef 14:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy website used as ref

The statement "by carrying out false flag operations" in the intro paragraph is referenced by a conspiracy website. The website is something about how Pearl Harbor was intentionally allowed to be carried out, despite prior knowledge of the pending attack by the US. The last section of the website states:

"Pearl Harbour: History Whitewashed?". Centre for Research on Globalisation(CRG). 05-03-2002. Retrieved 27-04-2007.  Check date values in: |access-date=, |date= (help)

Frankly, a conspiracy website does not qualify as an adequate source. The US also never carried "out false flag operations", but only planned them. Planning and implementing are entirely different. I removed the statement and ref. I also changed "perpetrating terrorism against its own citizens" to "planning"...since Northwoods was rejected for obvious reasons. Revert if you like, but please explain. Jumping cheese Cont@ct 07:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your edit but I'm not happy with globalresearch.ca being wholly dismissed as a `conspiracy website'. There are many worthwhile and well researched articles there. You might as well dismiss the New York Times as a conspiracy newspaper. After all it supported the outlandish conspiracy theory that Iraq had secret WMD. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 08:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well...connecting Pearl Harbor, Northwoods, and 9/11 together does sound a bit like a conspiracy theory. Thanxs for the response. Jumping cheese Cont@ct 19:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
If you go to the website of the Project for the New American Century, a thinktank in which several important people in and related to the Bush Administration are a part of, they proposed in the late 1990's that a "new Pearl Harbor" would have a favorable effect. This is something that lends some credibility to the the theories around 9-11 that would otherwise be dismissed as baseless. Heavy Metal Cellisttalkcontribs
A little vague there. How would a "new Pearl Harbor" be beneficial during the 1990's?!? Having Canada attack the US or something? Jumping cheese Cont@ct 05:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Totally disputed tagline

Have tagged this article as being totally disputed, because as written, it is totally a propaganda piece for cited leftist sources. The factual accuracy of the article is tilting way to the left, with no balance from mainstream sources. Yaf 22:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you try to improve it then? --Guinnog 22:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Your comments are not helpful unless you can be specific. What problem specifically do you see, and what is your proposed solution to address it?Giovanni33 03:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Am going through the sources; for example, the claim of harming US citizens was not covered in the cited source given for it in the lede. The plan being considered was to assassinate Cubans living in the US, which incidentally appears never to have been done. There appears to be a lot of POV pushing, well beyond what the facts of the sources can validate, that permeate this entire article. Yaf 06:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Giovanni33, can you please discuss edits like this before you made them? Thanxs. Jumping cheese Cont@ct 05:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Nevermind...seems like there was a huge discussion in top of this section. Sorry about that. ;) Jumping cheese Cont@ct 05:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
For the record those were not my edits. I simply restored them since I felt the arguments presented for their removal were lacking. The section about these particular accusations needs to be expanded, I think, with some proper qualification about this particular allegation, followed by more than those sources provided. I've held off on retoring this to avoid edit warring, but will definitely be restoring the section pending further discussion above. I'm open to be convinced it doesn't belong, but so far I don't see any valid arguments.Giovanni33 06:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed paragraph

The following paragraph was removed:

In 2001, Cuban Ambassador to the UN Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla called for UN General Assembly to address all forms and manifestations of terrorism in every corner of the world, including - without exception - State terrorism. He alleged to the UN General Assembly that 3,478 Cubans have died as a result of aggressions and terrorist acts.[2] The Cuban government also asserted that in the 1990s, a total of 68 acts of terrorism were perpetrated against Cuba.[2]

68.93.143.57 04:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

And the reason for the removal was that the cited source says nothing about the United States being responsible for any of the 3,478 dead Cubans. Please keep the content of the article in line with what the cited sources actually say. It is original research in violation of WP:NOR to assume the United States is automatically responsible for the 3,478 dead Cubans that died from terrorism worldwide when the cited source does not link the United States with any of these deaths. Thank you. Yaf 05:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Yaf, you just posted on my talk page that my edits were "vandalism" please review wikipedia policy before posting irrelevant warnings.
I simply posted this information here which was deleted. I am not advocating that it stay in the article. 68.93.143.57 16:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The cited source for the statement of actions against its own citizens for the United States is not substantianted by the cited source. If there is a source that makes this claim, fine, but it is original research to claim that Cubans are US citizens. Have removed this again. Yaf 17:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with you removing this sourced material. The claim is not that they are US citizens. The claims is that, according to the source, "In Miami, safe shelter was offered to those who funded, planned and carried out terrorist acts with absolute impunity, tolerated by the United States Government." That is the relevent context implicating the US in these acts of terrorism. I'll add that to make this point clear. The other sections you've removed need to be discussed here before you remove them. So, until then I'm restoring it to allow for the discussion. Lets discuss the sections you plan to delete before deleting them. In many cases a good or better source can be found, if the existing one is inadequate. Or, the existing language can be modified to reflect the source. In reverting, I do not oppose some of your minor grammar tweaks, which you can restore (or I will later today).Giovanni33 18:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Have reverted to what the cited sources support. Please read the sources before reverting, as the sources do not support your edits to include "The United States government has also been accused of planning terrorism against its own citizens" among other POV pushing statements. Thank you. Yaf 18:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, discuss first, then remove if there is consensus to do so. As to this point you raise in particular (although you deleted a lot of other stuff in whole), I did look at what the source said, and find it does support the statement. The statement in particular from the source is the plan of, "concocting a “Remember the Maine” incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage."Blowing up a U.S. ship is an act of terror against its own citizens since its a US ship (propery of US citizens).Giovanni33 19:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The reference given, for "The United States government has also been accused of planning terrorism against its own citizens [4] "[3] and fabricating false pretexts." says nothing about the Maine relative to events that occurred in 1962. The cited source does not support the statement in the lede, of the US Government committing terrorism against its own citizens. Where is the reference for the Maine, and how is ancient history from 1898 germane to a modern article on state terrorism in discussing events from 1962? Sinking a ship is not the same as commiting terrorism against American citizens. Yaf 19:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
You are wrong. Go back to the article and look again. The reference given for the claim is:"Pentagon Proposed Pretexts for Cuba Invasion in 1962", The Nation Security Archives, 04-30-2001. Retrieved on 27-04-2007." The incident captured by the pro-war slogan, "Remembering the Maine" of 1898 is NOT the issue. You misunderstand the statment. The claims is that there was a plan to concoct a new "Remember the Maine' incident by means of a terrorist attack on a US ship which would be blamed on Cuba to spark an invasion IN 1962. And, as I said, blowing up a US ship or other public property belonging to US citizens is an act of terrorism against them. And, this is esp. true given that a US ship would logically have US passengers aboard as the Maine did. In that incident 266 people lost their lives, and since this plan was supposed to be a recreation of that incident, the passages language is accurate per what the source reports.Giovanni33 19:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The source does validate the statements made in the paragraph, so the paragraph should not be removed. This appears to be the general consensus. Yaf, please do not try to take out the paragraph. Heavy Metal Cellisttalkcontribs
So lets make sure I understand what you guys are saying. You are accusing the United States of committing terrorism solely on the basis of one plan of probably hundreds that were considered, for one plan that was never executed, for then assuming US citizen fatalities that never occurred, for a US ship that was never sunk, and for this presupposition you are stating that the US, by considering this plan, but which was never executed, is somehow guilty of terrorism against individuals that happen to be US citizens. I don't see how you can make a valid case for terrorism against US citizens when no terrorism act occured against US citizens. Hundreds if not thousands of plans are always considered by US military planners; consideration of military plans is not considered terrorism by any sources that I have seen. It is a violation of WP:NOT to speculate what might have happened in an alternative history timeline that never occurred, and to then put this statement in the lede of an article on Wikipedia, accusing the United States of committing terrorism. It appears to be POV pushing without any substance, and a violation in citing what the citation actually said. Yaf 19:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
You are creating a strawman fallacy here. The argument isn't an accusation that the US carried out its plan for terrorism against its own citizens, but that it made a plan to committ terrorism against its own citizens as detailed by the source. A plan is just a plan. That is what the source says, and that is what we reported. The claim does not say more than that, for this point. 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? Of course a plan itself does not sink a ship! No one is making that claim, except you. Do you think we should not report on this plan per the source because plans are always being made? If that is your real argument then I think its weak because 1. plans to committ terrorism on one's own citizens are NOT ordinary but extraordinary, and 2., all plans relevent to the subject should be reported on anyway. If there are many other such plans, then by all means, lets list them, or say there are more. Can you tell me what other plans along these lines exist by the US govt?Giovanni33 19:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
No strawmen, here, just a little bright light shining on collection of warts in a very ugly article. It is a sophistry to title an article as "State terrorism by the United States", and then to lead gentle readers astray by stating the United States commits its terrorism by considering plan(s), that are never executed, which kill no US Citizens, and which sink no US ships, but, because of a war college exercise, the United States is somehow then branded "guilty" of committing terrorism on paper, and hence is guilty of committing terrorism in general, ergo sum, supporting the false title of the article itself, pushing the POV of the article even further from reality. This whole article reeks of sophistry and lies, that violate WP:SYN, WP:NOT, and a whole host of other policy violations, contrary to what the cited sources support. No wonder this article keeps coming up for AfD. Plans to commit terrorism on one's own citizens are commonplace among governments, and are valuable in assessing one's weaknesses, assuming one actually wishes to protect one's own citizens. They are very ordinary. Returning to the point at hand, the article is about "State terrorism by the United States." It is not about unexecuted plans that appear to taint the United States through POV pushing. Considering the sinking of a ship, that is never sunk, is not the same as "planning terrorism against its own citizens." Stating "planning terrorism against its own citizens", and putting this in the lede, is just POV pushing at its worst. Yaf 20:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. You are merely repeating the same straw man fallacy, which are based upon fabrications; setting up a straw man that you can knock down is easy, but how about you quote the section instead, and deal with what it really says. If you do this, then you will see the claims are supported by the sources, pure and simple, clear and objective, with nuetral language. Your wanting to suppress these real allegations is what amounts to POV pushing by exclusion. Yes, they are ugly warts on the face of US imperialism, and this article shines a bright light on them. I notice you also like to make a lot of sweeping generalizations (accusations of "lies" etc), however, when you are pressed to list specifics, they fail to support your rhetoric.
Lets look at the actual claims, what we have in the article. It says, "The United States of America has been accused by various governments, groups and individuals[1][2][3] of sponsoring state terrorism by funding, training and harboring terrorists and also for other similar activities which are interpreted as terrorism according to international law and even US definitions." These are all cited and supported in the body of the article. But, it then says another fact, another claim, that is separate from the above. It says:
"The United States government has also been accused of planning terrorism against its own citizens [4] and fabricating false pretexts [4][5]. This is perceived by the claimants as hypocritical since the American government has regularly asserted a public image and agenda of anti-terrorism.[6][7]." This is where you are engaing in sophistry and a straw man. You act as if the examples of plans for terrorism are stated as facts supporting a claim of actual terrorism, when these are two separate and perfectly valid points that are made.
Again, the source, which is NOT war plans/games as you state, suports the claim clearly: "the National Security Agency entitled Body of Secrets, author James Bamford highlights a set of proposals on Cuba 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.” 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.Giovanni33 20:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Proposals, though, are precisely war plans/games, as anyone who has either written one or read one would readily attest. They are not the execution of same. If executed, they then become known as the war plans that established the course of history of the xxx war or the xxx incident. Returning to the point at hand. The article is titled "State terrorism by the United States". It is not titled something about proposals that were never carried out, which killed no US Citizens, and which sank no ships. It is sophistry to insert these plans, no matter how corrupt, within the article on "State terrorism by the United States." Using the construct of "The United States government has also been accused of planning terrorism against its own citizens" leads a reader to believe (erroneously) that the terror was unleashed; after all, the article is titled State terrorism by the United States". It is only if the reader actually reads through the myriad sources that the reader (eventually) learns that the US considered a whole host of rather unpalatable horrors, which, SURPRISE, were never executed. Oops. Why was the article entitled "State terrorism by the United States"... Hmmm. Just more POV pushing, I guess. Meanwhile, the average reader will never stay with the article long enough to arrive at the truth of the matter, that the US has not committed any significant amounts of state terrorism, especially not during recent history. It is POV to insert any of the myriad plans, all of which were never executed, to try and taint the United States. On the other hand, were the truth told, it would actually be rather enlightening to read in the article and realize that the US Government actually had the courage of its convictions to do the right thing and did not commit terrorism. But, that would not meet the POV pushing that seems to be getting advocated. Yaf 20:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
So your real argument is not that the sources don't support the claim, etc. Your argument is that because the title of the article, the article can not mention plans of terrorist acts by the US, even if it clearly states them as such, i.e."also accused of plannning..." Well, I disagree. I think mentioning such plans is important, as planning and carrying out are a spectrum. Terrorist make many plans, only some of which are eventually carried out. The fact that they make plans is part and parcel of their terrorist nature. They also point the the nature of the organziation that is one of the biggest international terrorists organizations of the world (my POV) Again, this is my POV, which doesn't matter--as yours doesn't. What matters here is that we report all the facts according to legitimate sources relevant to this article's subject-- and then let the reader decide. I disagree the article misleads the reader in any way , or creates any surprises about "plans" not really being plans but actual occurances. No reasonable person makes such an assumption. If they were actual acts of terror carried that, that would be made very clear, and we would not be under the subtopic sentence of "also planning, etc."Giovanni33 21:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
So you are now advocating thought crimes, i.e., since the US didn't actually commit these acts of terrorism, then it must be guilty of thinking about them, in the course of considering all alternative plans of action, and preparing war plans among a myriad of possible responses, even though the US didn't actually commit state terrorism. Perhaps we should change the article title to Allegations of thought crimes to commit state terrorism by the United States. Your hatred toward the United States is the POV that is getting in the way of making this a factual article. Meanwhile, the cited sources do not support the statement(s) that you propose keeping. If we now address using only legitimate sources, then Granma and other propaganda services of dictatorships should probably not be used at all; they are certainly not considered reliable nor mainstream. Ditto for the leftist newspapers (Green Left Weekly, etc.) with little or no mainstream circulations and reputation. An RfC, executed topic by topic, would take too long, and would likely simply run out of momentum in a matter of weeks, long before all the issues were resolved. Perhaps the best course of action would simply be to delete this whole mess in an AfD, as it doesn't appear salvageable as it currently exists. Since, as you say, "If they were actual acts of terror carried that, that would be made very clear, and we would not be under the subtopic sentence of "also planning, etc." (sic), you are not actually advocating fixing the article to make it factual, but instead are proposing to continue pushing your anti-US POV. For that reason, I think an AfD might be the appropriate course of action. Yaf 21:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Nope, there is no such thing as "thought crimes." There is such a thing as planning to carry out a terrorist attack, which itself is a crime, btw. And, these plans are all the more important considering that terrorist actions have been carried out in practice--not just planned. But, to report on the scopes of the plans adds value to understanding the nature of terrorism by the US. The sources listed are legitimate sources. We do not descriminate based on having a left pov of its authors. If you have conservative sources which dispute these reported facts then you are free to list them and state that such sources dispute these allegations. But you would prefer to delete everything. At least that is clear as you suggest a AfD. Well, you are free to try, but I am sure it will fail with a speedy keep just like it has before as this article and its subject are legitimate. I agree, though, this article can be improved and I will work on it this week, abiding by consensus.Giovanni33 21:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Yaf, please don't make this article a political soapbox. You have added nothing to the article, instead you waste everyones time by deleting referenced sections which you don't personally agree with.
You immediatly start removing sections then claim their has been discussion on it, you also called my edits "vandalism". Please remember WP:BATTLE
You are probbly not famliar with the rich history of this page. It has gone through numerous AfDs and it has survived. Also there is always a couple of editors with agendas of their own, who don't actually add anything to the article, but decide to delete referenced sections they dont personally agree with. Then they tweek the words to match their own POV. You may think that your arguments are novel, but all of your arguments have been argued here before. Always by the same people with the same ultra conservative view points. Please stop disrupting the article. 68.91.90.10 01:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks anon User:68.91.90.10 for this revert. It is only the "tip of the iceberg" though. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Latest changes by Yaf

I reverted because of NPOV violations. An example is the current paragraphs which reads:

"...of sponsoring state terrorism by funding, training and harboring terrorists and also for other similar activities which are interpreted as terrorism according to international law and even US definitions. The United States government has also been accused of planning terrorism against its own citizens." These statements are supported by the sources, and the article defines these terms according to their usage by the sources.

It is being replaced by this:

"...of sponsoring state terrorism by funding, training, and harboring freedom fighters that some Governments consider terrorists. The United States Government has also been accused of preparing plans of terrorism against its own ships, which were never implemented."

There are several problems with this change. First of all it introduces the concept of "freedom fighters" which is a POV term and is not supported by any source. This article is about terrorism as the term is defined. If you have a source that calls the kind of terrorism the article talks about as "freedom fighters" then you need to supply that for it to be considered. The POV pushing is blatent as after you state this POV as a fact, you then say that "some government" call them terrorists. What are some govternments, which implies that most governments don't regard them as terrorists? That is not only not supported by any source you provide, but its not accurate and its POV pushing. Also, you remove the basis of the defintion by removing "under international law, and US definitions. Why remove that essential piece of information? Lastly, you mention one particular incident of the US planning terrorism against its own citizens, the sinking of ships---but that is just one example given by the source, not the only one. And you change the meaning in doing so.

If you disagree, then at least please get community consensus for the change first before making it again, or other such controverisal major edits affecting the crafting of the current languge. Your minor tweaks, as before, I don't have a problem with.Giovanni33 22:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason for the removal of the portion "according to international law and even US definitions." is that I tagged it several days ago as needing a citation. None were provided, and, worse yet, the needing citation tag was removed by you. I simply deleted the uncited POV. On the other hand, if there are items that need to be cited, then by all means, please tag them, rather than doing a wholesale reversion to remove all contributions, to restore it to the original, flawed, state, as you have been insisting on doing. Let's make this a better, balanced article, and not a propaganda piece for dictatorships and communistic fringe governments. Thank you. Yaf 05:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I did not see such a tag, but that is not a convincing reason since the source is clearly provided in the article, which goes in to supporting details and greater depth. Here is a source that rendered a verdict per international law making the US the only state to be found by the international court as guility of terrorism: http://www.gwu.edu/~jaysmith/nicus3.html. The source references the applicable laws that define the governments activities as such. The US law statement is also supported in the article with its own section that is very clear. But, if you felt it needed to be linked to the source at the top as well, then why not do so instead deleting it completely? That doesnt make the article better.Giovanni33 05:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps instead of freedom fighters it could say revolutionaries instead. It is a generally accurate descriptor of what some consider to be a freedom fighter, and it avoids taking a specific POV.--LWF 00:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
If we have a good source that says that, and then it should be presented to the specific cases that the articles discuss. However, the two words mean diferent things and are not synonymous. Since the title and subject of the article is about terrorism, we should not substitute that terminology in the opening by using other terms that carry other meanings. Terrorism has a very specific meaning; it's a tactic, and it's not synonymous with revolution or revolutionaries (although the tactic can and has been employed by all groups). The terrorists that are used as examples of agents or facillitators of state sponored terrorism (esp. of the US), I think, are not generallly regarded as revolutionaries (but reactionaries), but I'm willing to include such alternative descriptions provided its attributed to a proper source, and with the understanding that being a revolutionary does not rule out one also being a terrorist, nor vise-versa: being a revolutionary does not necessarily make one a terrorist. In anycase, all POV's (except real fringe views) should be properly presented with proper weight, wihout taking sides.Giovanni33 00:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Have added s source for Pres. Reagan calling "terrorists" freedom fighters, that provides a cite for using the language of freedom fighters in place of revolutionaries. Freedom fighters is probably a more accurate description, as the groups supported by the US usually represent a faction that is trying to counter a dictatorship or a repressive human rights regime, but which are considered terrorists in these regimes. As there are only such Governments mentioned in the article later (i.e., Cuba, et al) this seems more factually accurate. Yaf 05:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, you have not address the problems I raised above, but you are also not accurate. The US govt. has supported terrorism of factions fighting democratically elected governments, supporting coups against them to install right wing dictatorships. But more to the point, the source doesn't call "terrorists" freedom fighters. What it does do, is simply state that Reagan called the Mujahedin "freedom fighters." So what? Now, if we have a section or sentence in this article that deals with the Mujahedin, then you are free to state that they are viewed by some conservative US politicians, such as Regan, as "freedom fighters." That would be acceptable. However, this is not what you have done, as shown above. Simply citing that Regan called this particular group by that term does not logically follow that one should change the language of the introduction of an article that does not even deal with that subject. This article is about the most powerful State conducting terrorism, i.e. against civilians, directly and indirectly--not about "freedom fighters" fighting against oppressive regimes. So, besides bing a bit off topic, it doesnt belong in the introduction, but only maybe in specifics if you have sources that give this description to those agents that the article labels as terrorists.Giovanni33 05:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The Mujahedin were called terrorists by the governments that were in place at the time that had allied with the Soviets. This is precisely the topic of the article. As for the examples extant in the article at this point in time (e.g., the Governments that are listed later) all are rather well known as being dictatorships and/or communist governments and/or oppressive regimes. Intellectual honesty is all that I am asking for here, to balance the decidedly WP:SYN that is tilting rather to the left as the article still stands. It is still "totallydisputed" worthy at this point, for the later unbalanced content. Yaf 05:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Afganistand and the Mujahedin are not even mentioned int his article. You are making a false jump in logic, applying one concept to another based on a false premise, and this is a true violation of WP:SYN--so even if it were true, has to be rejected. However, the premise itself of your argument--a point you've made several times--that because the only governments mentioned are oppressive, therefore those "terrorist" activities against them are properly deemed "feedom fighters" per the logic of the Regan quote (which itself is an actual and real WP:SYN violation) itself does not stand as even true. The point itself is false. The Sandinista government was democratic, and established democratic elections. They overthrew the Somoza dictatorship which was installed by the US, after the US assasinating the independence leader Sandino earlier. A similar story goes for Guatamala, as it does for the democratically-elected Iranian government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, mentioned by the article. So what are you talking about? Your claim is simply false, and thus your point is not supported by it.Giovanni33 06:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't classify Cuba as being a bastion of liberty, and it makes up the bulk of the later content. Neither would I classify (historically, not necessary currently) the countries of Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Turkey, Vietnam, or Cambodia, all of which are mentioned later in the article. As for the Sandinista government, well that depends on an interpretation of just who was reading the ballots :-) Much the same issue could have been made for Guatamala. As some are fond of pointing out, even Hitler was democratically elected, and the US certainly supported the underground in Europe to counter him. No doubt, these underground forces were all considered terrorists by the German officers charged with suppressing the "freedom fighters" of WW II, as well as by the French Vichy government. Leaving out the balance of "freedom fighter" in the lede is not being intellectually honest in an article as charged as this one. Yaf 06:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The the consistency of your arguments is evolving again. You claimed consistently that, the "Governments that are listed.. are all well known as being dictatorships... repressive human rights regimes...only such Governments mentioned in the article (i.e., Cuba, et al) this seems more factually accurate." However, I point out this is not the case, and therefore, your conclusion should be now be that its therefore "not a factually accurate" description. But, instead your POV pushign comes out even more, when you further stretch logic by saying, "well that depends on an interpretation of just who was reading the ballots." Is this your own personal POV based on your own original research, or are you just making up any excuse you can think of? I know of no such study that disputed the election results of these governments, which were attacked and funded by terrorism stemming from the United States. Reality doesnt fit into your POV, it would seem, so you want to distort the reporting of this article to try to make it fit something that is fundamentally not applicable across the board. Intellectual honesty, indeed! Btw, Hitler did not support elections or the democratic process by any means. I don't think that history lesson is needed here, besides this is all off topic again, and an example of your own OR and SYN violations, which your edits have been based on--even IF they were accurate. Again, the solution is to apply the alternate description to the particular section(s) in question-- if its supported by a good source.Giovanni33 06:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"harboring freedom fighters that some Governments consider terrorists" - show of hands from everyone who considers someone who blows up a civilian airliner killing 73 civilians to be a freedom figher? LamontCranston 20:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Article needs cleanup

This article has some serious POV issues. I removed this link: Overseas expansion of the United States here, and someone has restored it. By definition, it is a violation of NPOV. This whole article is borderline (and I am giving benefit of the doubt) violating synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. This whole article needs to be cleaned up. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 23:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that link doesn't belong here, and I will remove it, unless anyone has any objection. I'm not sure who restored it. Over seas expansion, US imperialism, is not the same thing as terrorism, although the latter is often used as a tactic of the former.Giovanni33 23:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks like you restored it, along with removing all the other edits that have been made to try and improve this article. The entire article still needs some serious editing to insert balance and to remove the WP:SYN that currently permeates it. Have been trying to make this a better article, but it is hard when POV warriors keep removing all attempts to fix the problems and restoring the original, flawed content. Please assume good faith, in accordance with WP:AGF, rather than deleting all attempts at improving the article. Thank you. Yaf 04:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I removed that link because there was a valid reason for removing it. However, your removals were not valid as explained above. Yes, there needs to be improvement here, howevetr, your edits have been to make the article worse, and violates NPOV. We don't need POV pushing here of any sort. Please review NPOV policies, and stick to claims that sources support. Also, rather than edit waring, please read above which states that major edits that are controversial and opposed, such as yours, need to be discussed here first to gain some kind of consensus. Please do that if you are serious about improving this article.Giovanni33 05:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The edits are entirely valid, and are factual. They are not major edits, either, except perhaps in San Francisco :-) Lets make this a better article, and one that is balanced, and that is not so far out on the left wing political spectrum. Thank you. Yaf 05:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Your major edits are not valid and are a SYN, OR, and POV violation, as explained above. They are also not factual, and can not stand as you are making them. I offered a solution for how to incorporate your POV in a nuetral manner, but if you insist on deleting sourced material and substituting your own OR, then you will be reverted.Giovanni33 17:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I took some time and looked into the edit history on this article, and I noticed that one user took it upon himself to remove the word "Allegations" from the title of the article here. This looks as it was done without consensus and the edit summary described the basis for the change as "weasel wording". There was no discussion prior to the name change at the end of February on the talk page, and an apparent no consensus to perform the move. The article is not NPOV as it is titled now which looks to fail WP:SYNTH. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 23:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do change it back. It's horribly POVish the way the title reads now. And "freedom fighters" has been so overused and misapplied that it's nearly worthless as a description. In my mind, there are insurgents (who follow the rules of war) and terrorists (who don't). Dchall1 23:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The title is still terribly POVish and presupposes that the US is guilty of all allegations, as well as of the one "proven" case that is by a court with questionable jurisdiction. Yaf 00:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem as I see it is that this article contains a combinations of allegations of state terrorism, but also state terrorism that is established fact as adjudicated by the international court, so its some of these claims of state terrorism are no longer merely allegations but proven and established dejuro events. I corrected the Syn problem that Yaf keeps inserting. If there are more of such violations, please point them out.Giovanni33 23:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I made a lot of changes, mostly to the introduction. They incorporate elements of both versions that are currently being reverted. Also, I removed the paragraph on who makes allegations and why. It assumes a lot, and doesn't say much that isn't self-evident. Going forward, instead of wholesale reverts, can we work off the article the way it stands now? Thanks --Dchall1 00:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll work with that, and accept the framework of a compromise, which I think can lead to some progress. I appreciate your willingness to compromise. I tweaked your change a bit to included the metion of US defintion as well, since that is an important part of the article, in its section below. Also, the mention of the terrorism plots, I restored, since those are valid references that support its inclusion. I agree to leave your changes about removing who makes the allegations, as that is elaborated on specifically in the article.Giovanni33 01:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Likewise, I can work with that as well. Have started with the current state and cleaned up some of the minor grammar tweaks that kept getting reverted, as well, during the last several days. Surely we can agree on these :-) Yaf 01:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the input from others on the neutrality issues. However, the collection of separate articles here produce an undue weight to sources when combined here to advance a position. They could stand on their own which is why the article is in conflict with WP:SYNTH. At the least I would recommend changing the title back to include allegations as it was prior to February. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 17:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It might be possible to write a good article on notable notable allegations of state terrorism. As State terrorism by the United States this is an editorial essay. The content reflects this: a selective collection of allegations and factoids chosen to advance a thesis. At a minimum, it should be renamed to 'allegations.' Tom Harrison Talk 18:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Others earlier on expressed concerns on the title. If there are no major objections, I'll correct it to what it was previously. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 19:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and did the move. Tom Harrison Talk 20:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Much appreciated. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 20:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Northwoods

Aside from the debate on whether plans for terrorism should be included in the lede, I have a problem with the Northwoods document. If you read it closely, it really just argues for covert actions and propaganda; only one scenario comes close to terrorism, and that is the proposed "wounding" of Cuban exiles. Even for that plan, the source leaves open the possibility that the victims are willing participants. In fact, most of the scenarios are specific that no Americans or even Cubans be killed in process of the plan. I think we would be hard-pressed to define covert action as terrorism, for that would implicate all states that operate foreign intelligence services as sponsors of state terrorism. This is the reason that I removed the source from my edit. Devious and unethical maybe, but not terrorism. Still, I'll leave it up until I get feedback. Dchall1 03:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Plans for terrorism don't really seem germane for the lede. Of course, if one follows the cited article for the claimed plans of terrorism against citizens, one sees it is about a plan that was never executed for creating a new Maine type event, attacking a US ship in Cuban waters. I don't consider this to be a plan of terrorism against US citizens, as first, it dealt with a plan for attacking a US ship and not harming any US citizens, and second, it was a plan that was never ever executed. It is POV to have this in the lede as a condemnation of the United States, misleading the reader into believing something that is patently not true. Although it is illegal for private citizens to prepare plans that some might consider terrorism, US law is very clear that it is not illegal for US Government agencies and their employees and contractors to prepare precisely such plans. Rather, it is done all the time, often with the intent of being the preparation of contengency plans precisely intended to avoid potential terrorism threats through thought-gaming possible terroristic attack scenarios. (Much the same analogy as it being legal for the U.S. Government to buy any newly-manufactured Class III machine gun, whereas private U.S. citizens can only buy 1986 and earlier machine guns by law. The rules are different for private citizens vs. Government agencies.) It is POV to treat planning as being somehow inherently evil, when it often is done to serve entirely honorable purposes. Yaf 05:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I will have a look at what the source says. I agree covert action is not the same thing as terrorism. But, covert action can certainly entail terrorism. It all depends on what the secret action is. If what you say is true, I'll support taking that out. Just need some time take a close look at the claims and nature of the actions planned.
Now regarding the argument by Yaf re the plan for terrorism, I disagree. The plan to recreate the Maine incident by blowing up a ship is universally regarded as a terrrorist attack. Look at the USS Cole incident. You say that its not because its "only attacking a ship, and not harming any US citizens." How do you know that? The source does not say that. The source says they wanted another 'Maine" incident. Where does one draw from that a conclusion that no citizens were to be harmed? As I pointed out that incident (Maine) involved a ship full of people, and full of people who died. So any plan to recreate any such similar would almost necessarily entail considerable harm. The wording you had, "terrorism against ships," also didn't make sense, since one can not inflict terror on ships. Ships don't have feelings and can't feel fear: pepole do. The object was to incide fear and terror into US citizens by creating the illusion that the US was under attack, and incite a war on such false pretext. So terror attacks are always directed at people, not things. Things are mearly the means to the end. Also, the source reports other plans (not just the Maine incident). For example, creating a "terror campaign in the Miami area , in other Florida cities and even in Washington,” "faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner...",
As to the POV saying this is evil as opposed to "honorable" etc, I agree with you that we should not say either. Some pepole think these terrorist plots as honorable, good, etc. but we need not concern ourselves with taking sides. Also, the issue the legality of planning terrorist attacks is also one we need not entertain. Its not at issue. We can report on the actual terrorist attacks carried about by the US as illegal because we have international law, that says its unlawful. As for just planning them, maybe you are right about it not being illegal for govts to do this. If you want to add that in, supported by a source, then I'm fine with that (in the body of the article), but make sure its specific to this operation in question.Giovanni33 05:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I read the document, and I have to say, its clear to me that its about terrorism, and causing a great deal of harm, if necessary. True, the attitude is not one that cares if harm is done or not, just that terror is acheived. In fact, its clearly states as one of its tactics to "develop a terror campaign." and make it look like the Cuban Govt. was behind the terror in the US. That is their own words, and that alone is enough to validate the relevancy of this source to the subject matter. I note that the proposed "sinking of a boatload of people could be real or simluted", and “ “wounding in instances to be widely publicized.” No where say that those harmed by this "terror campaign" would be voluntary. In addition it lists other activities that all fall under standard acts of terror: “Blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires. Burn aircraft on air base; Lob mortor shells; Capture assult teams; Capture militia;Sabotage ship harbor; Commence large scale military operations.So, I see no problem with this valid source.Giovanni33 06:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

Chomsky and Chossudovsky do not meet Wikipedia's reliability standards. Please see WP:RS.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 14:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course they do. Prof. Chomsky is an academic, scholar, and public intellectual of the highest caliber. The many volumes of his publications on these very subjects speak for themselves. But, if you have some better souces you'd like to add that present the facts under examination, I'd welcome looking at that. So far your POV edits on this article have been rather ridiculous, btw.Giovanni33 17:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Please re-read our policies on reliable sources. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources -- see WP:REDFLAG. Our policies (WP:SPS)also provide that "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field." The problem here, is that Chomsky is a linguist, not a foreign policy expert, so books he's written about foreign policy are not reliable under the WP:SPS standard. WP:Verifiability requires that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Further, the same policy provides that "sources of questionable reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of questionable reliability should only be used in articles about themselves." Chomsky and Chossudovsky's books are not fact-checked and there is no objective editorial oversight of their work, as there would be for spaded academic works in a particular academic discipline. As a comparison, Chomsky's works are probably subject to such editorial oversight in his field of expertise, which is linguistics, and could be relied upon here as authority for matter discussing linguistics. Lastly, WP:Verifiability provides that: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." So, the burden is on you to prove that Chomsky and Chossudovsky's works meet our policy requirements, not me. Simply put, they don't meet our standards.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 20:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Devonshire. Of course you'd attempt such a blatantly weak attack on this page's sources. Your dismissals of the facts presented here are well documented, as well as your insistence that these widely available international sources are all somehow politically skewed. Each time an AfD has been held on this page you have vociferously insisted that there is no justification for keeping it. This bit about Chomksy not qualifying as a valid source is transparent and weak. Chomsky is a highly respected academic whose books are all sourced from publicly available documents, typically the NYT, WaPo, UN, US State Department, and the foreign services of foreign governments like Britain, Nicaragua, and Cuba, among others. The burden of evidence is upon you to demonstrate for us why Chomsky is an improper source; moreover, you should not be doing it on this page, but on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky page, where it states:

He is generally considered to be a key intellectual figure within the left wing of United States politics. Chomsky is widely known for his political activism, and for his criticism of the foreign policy of the United States and other governments.

If you can get that statement deleted from that article then the editors of this page shall consider whether or not we should delete the Chomsky sources from this one. Otherwise, there is simply no reason to consider your assertion, here. Googling "Noam Chomsky" returns such a huge array of hits from top-tier sources all over the planet that there is just no argument you can advance to justify this latest suggestion of yours. Stone put to sky 09:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The same goes for Chossudovsky:

Chossudovsky is past president of the Canadian Association of Latin American and Caribbean Studies. He is a member of research organisations that include the Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform (COMER), the Geopolitical Drug Watch (OGD) (Paris)and the International People's Health Council (IPHC).

Clearly, this is a widely published and active Academic who is well-informed about the international activities of the U.S. Chossudovsky has already published books critical of the U.S. "War on Terrorism", and the sources provided there are not controversial. His academic and public appointments and publishing status are already weighty qualifications in and of themselves. Unless you can provide some sort of clear justification for excising his work from the article, then the WP you cite provide e no justification for removing it. Stone put to sky 09:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Finally, Chossudovsky and Chomsky's books most certainly are fact-checked. More rigorously, in fact, than most major media outlets like the WaPo or NYT. Unless you can provide demonstrable evidence otherwise, there is no reason in the world we should believe your assertions in this regard. Stone put to sky 09:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You yammer on and on, but you still didn't address the Wikipedia policy issues I've described above.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 01:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, i have addressed them. As has Giovanni. As my post points out, your challenges against Chomsky do not meet WP:CON. The consensus on Wikipedia is clearly that Chomsky and Chossudovsky qualify as reliable sources. As i have pointed out, the place for this debate is not here, but instead on their respective wiki-pages, which clearly state that these two men are qualified academics who are active in addressing issues under which this page clearly falls.

I would also like to point out that your last comment violates WP:CIV. I would appreciate it if, in the future, you would endeavor to abide by the guidelines. Stone put to sky 02:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Chomsky is a professor of linguistics, not foreign policy. He's an expert in linguistics. Quit pretending otherwise.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 06:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be badly misinformed. I suggest you do a bit more research. My suggestion would be to start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_chomsky.

Also, i would like to point out that your last post violates WP:AGF. This is the second time today that i have felt the need to remind you of wiki guidelines. Please, reconsider your current rhetorical habits.Stone put to sky 06:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, he's a Professor in the Department of Linguistics -- he can be relied upon as a reputable source for matters pertaining to Linguistics. With respect to other areas, he's merely a commentator, not an expert, and can't be relied upon as an objective source. In fact, he's a partisan, not an academic, in areas outside of Linguistics. That's like saying we should rely upon the head of the RNC for factual data about WMDs in Iraq -- can't do it under WP:RS and WP:Verify standards.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 15:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Move protected

... per request on WP:RPP. Can folks please agree on a name for the article as repeatedly moving it about creates a lot of work. I'm not endorsing the current title or anything, just that you should agree here before moving again - Alison 15:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The last move really screwed up the article links again...Gurch and I already went and fioxed most of the double redirects and then obvious sockpuppet Divestment (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) moved the page again. The International Court of Justice determination has been interpreted by the radical left to be an indictment that the U.S. did act out terror...it hasn't been recognized by any other legislative body that isn't already hostile to the U.S. and are themselves less than credible sources. This entire article is a POV pushers dream come true and I recommend it be deleted entirely if it can't accurately and neutrally discuss the subject.--MONGO 20:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Was there a consensus to move this page from Allegations of... to State terrorism by...? Tom Harrison Talk 20:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Ugh! Mess, and no easy solution in sight here. The prot. is still valid in this case as there's nothing less productive than a movewar. Frankly, AfD beckons at this stage ... - Alison 20:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, protection was the right call. I knew there had been another name change when I saw my watchlist full of Gurch fixing the double redirects yet again (for which, thanks.) Whether or not we can have a neutral, encyclopedic article that meets our standards is an open question. Tom Harrison Talk 20:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:RM, guys. While naturally some nut jobs will try to opppose this common sense move, it's the best hope. The Evil Spartan 00:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm ok with the name change move, although I see both point of views. I tend to prefer without the "allegations" since in the case of the US, its more than allegations, but I won't edit war over the change, but go with consensus on it, since the article is mostly about allegations--and in keeping with other States articles on the subject. We perhaps needs a clearer consensus on the question. The part that is not mere allegation but legal and established fact per court of law, though, should not be in question. In this connection, I must take issue with the statment Mongo made about it, in regards to the International Court being hostile to the US, and that this decision is only an interpretation by the "radical left." Likewise by Yaf who wanted to add a qualifer about its juristiction over the US. Comments along these lines are simply not true.
To go over a few facts about the World Court in the Hague, it is the judicial organ of the United Nations, as established in 1945 by the UN Charter, of which the US is a charter member, and has global jurisdiction. As stated in Article 93 of the UN Charter, all 192 UN members are automatically parties to the Court's statute. In fact, the United States had signed the treaty accepting the Court's decision as binding, and only withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction in 1986 (meaning that it now accepts the court's jurisdiction on only a case-to-case basis.) But the question of juristiction, is not a matter of legal dispute: the court had the legal right to assume at that time in respect to this issue as is clear by article 36, paragraph 6, of the Statute of the Court provides that "in the event of a dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the matter shall be settled by the decision of the Court.” The court did settle that question ruling that it did have it. And, in 1986 the United Nations General Assembly passed resolution upholding the courts decision and the fine that the U.S. was bound to pay, legally. I note that only El Salvador, which also had disputes with Nicaragua, and Israel voted with the U.S. See: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/41/a41r031.htm
As well, article 94 establishes the duty of all UN members to comply with decisions of the Court involving them. If parties do not comply, the issue can be taken before the Security Council for enforcement action. The only reason why there was no enforcement was because the judgment was against one of the permanent five members of the Security Council, so of course the criminal entity itself would simply veto the enformement. This is what occurred when Nicaragua brought the issue of the U.S.'s non-compliance with the Court's decision before the Security Council. But because there was no method of forcing the rogue state to comply, doesnt change the established legal findings of this legitimate and recognized legal body, of which the US upon signing a treating becoming a member of the UN, per the US constitution, makes it also the "law of the land" in the US.
There is nothing wrong with this article's subject matter. Its appropriate to have an article on this subject, just as we have for other States involved in State Terrorism, and while there is room for expansion and improvement, I see no basis for AfD. This can be a neutral and encyclopedic article, even if it does report on an issue that brings up strong POV and emotions for the issues it reports on, esp. for those who have any inklings of US nationalism. Giovanni33 00:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This seems pretty crazy. The article cites numerous, undisputed facts about the United States' activities abroad. These activities clearly involve, in each case, acts of violence that the United States either condoned, initiated, or enabled through direct or indirect support of the instigators. Thus, these acts clearly meet every definition of Terrorism that exists -- and there are many legal definitions out there. I, for one, provided the article with a great load of many links that demonstrated this beyond any shadow of a doubt, but they were unfortunately deleted. I allowed these deletions to take place in the interest of moving the article forward, but if MONGO and Harrison continue to insist that these facts about United States foreign policy are somehow in dispute because they somehow do not qualify as "terrorism", then i will be quite happy to re-instate them.

Is it necessary for us to have this discussion once again? The article has already withstood many, many AfD's. Moreover, those nominations consistently come from and are supported by the same few people. Their arguments have been rebutted time and again. There is a large elephant blocking the door to this room, and it's doing its best to quash well-researched facts and uncontroversial commentary from being seen. That is simply not in the spirit of Wikipedia.

Once again, i will request -- as i can do nothing else -- that if Harrison, MONGO, Devonshire and "the others" do not like what they see on this page, then might they kindly add content to it, to express counter-balancing opinions -- rather than trying to delete what are already well-established facts and commentary that have been agreed upon by a wide array of editors and participants?

There is no justification for changing the title to "Allegations....". So long as "terrorism" is an internationally defined legal term -- and, however weakly, it currently is -- then the usage of this term relative to widely established facts will remain uncontroversial, objective, and NPOV. Stone put to sky 09:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, outside of the USA it is widely recognised the US funded terrorism in South America and Afghanistan. Do not solely rely upon American government sources. It's a similar situation as the one with the Armenian genocide. The alleged perpetrators strongly deny it, and most Turks believe their government, even though the genocide is widely recognised in almost all other countries. I live in France which is hardly a hostile country to the US and I did learn about State terrorism by the US at school. Other subjects like the massacre of Algerians in Paris by Papon (and why he was still head of the police after having sent thousands of Jews to concentration camps), the collaboration of the French with the Nazis etc... are overlooked, or not included in the curriculum. I think for a neutral point of view on this article, it is important, to get sources from other countries aside from the USA. I know it is always hard for people to believe that their government may have done something bad and be hiding it, but unfortunately all countries do. Please don't censor wikipedia, it is an unique opportunity for people to read about facts that are hidden to the population of their own country. And remember when you hear about atrocities and crimes committed by foreign countries that your own country is absolutely no better, this goes no matter what your nationality is. With internet it is possible to get sources from all around the world, so why not use them? Jackaranga 09:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Good points. I support exanding this article with more international sources provided they meet WP's standards for reliability and verification. I can think of three obvious cases of acts of terrorism by the US, which this article does not mention yet: genocide against the Native Americans (which incorporated many instances of state terrorism), the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan (argued above, and supported by many valid sources but despite it being part of the article originally has been removed), and the sanctions against Iraq (which I can provide sources for and argue the point).Giovanni33 17:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

of course the americans deny thier use of terrorism, just as they deny thier use of cultural genocide against the native populace, why would anyone admit to that? very very few natzis admitted to the extermination of jewish and others in the camps until they were forced to look it in the eye.Charred Feathers 10:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Stone put to Sky and Jackaranga, if you are sittig on additional documenation that show US terrorism, please add it. Same for Giovanni33, why not let us see your facts and your sources for the one or more of the three examples you provide. Stone, your explanation of the US acceptance of the jurisdiction of the World Court of Justice is quite clear and more than sufficient. But in our educational system, basic civics and facts are often not taught in US high schools. One can graduate college majoring in history and never learn about the binding effect on the US of the UN Charter or the World Court. Americans often think of the UN Sec Council as an instrument to be used by the US government when desirable, but are typically woefully ignorant of the obligations undertaken by the US in ratifying the UN Charter, for example.--NYCJosh 22:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to add more to the article, but frankly i don't have the time right now to enter into the weeks and weeks of debate it would require to muscle past the many vandals (a few of whom masquerade as legitimate editors, apparently) who seek to deface this page. I'll support what i can, as i can.
And thank you for the compliment, but i don't think the part about the World Court wasn't written by me.
Finally, i'm sure Giovanni will be happy to provide his sources -- and there are quite a few more historical sources, as well, back in Central America during the 1800's, or the Mexico-US border even up until 80 years ago -- but resolving the current impasse is rather important, don't you think? Stone put to sky 02:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What are the facts?

Seeing the debate here I am reminded of similar non-discussions I had. Let's focus on the important things.

1 Are the facts in dispute? In other words, is anybody denying US involvement in overthrowing democratically elected Governments, terrorist attacks against Russians in Afghanistan, et cetera? Regarding OBL, because I know somebody is going to introduce this logical fallacy, is there any reason to claim that when he was supported by the US he was a freedom fighter while today he is a terrorist? More to the point: when did he become a terrorist and why, since his actions have not changed (only his target)?

2 The debate seems to be: what is the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. Clearly, the entities are difficult to seperate. My view on the matter is that any hostile act by the loser of a conflict is terrorism, while any hostile act by the winner is counterinsurgency/anti-terrorism/freedomfighting/liberating, et cetera. Note the perspective! For some reason people adhere to the notion that the US by definition is incapable of terrorist activity. Sounds like the infamous "when the President does it it is not illegal."

3 Regarding the sources I would like to stress the importance of not inventing interpretations. Having had numerous debates on this I prepared some pertinent citations from policy so people are reminded of policy as opposed to their opinion.Regarding wikipedia policy on the use of sources:

  • OR Original research refers to material that is not attributable to a reliable, published source. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, ideas, statements, and neologisms; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources.
  • NPOV The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.
  • Controversy An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?" It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy.
  • Scholars Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world. Items that fit this criterion are usually considered reliable.
  • Experts of law When discussing legal texts, it is more reliable to quote from the text, appropriately qualified jurists or textbooks than from newspaper reporting.
  • Self-published When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications.
  • Opinion Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone.
  • Opinion from reputable source we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.
  • Identify opinion But it is not enough, to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.
  • Biased source The websites, print media, and other publications of political parties, companies, organizations and religious groups should be treated with caution, since they may be used to advance particular political, corporate, institutional or religious viewpoints. Of course such political, corporate, institutional or religious affiliation is not in itself a reason to exclude a source.
  • Attribute bias When characterizing people, events, or actions, assertions should likewise be attributed to an acceptable source. A regular news story from a mainstream media organization is best, but don't rely on the journalist to report the bias of its sources accurately. Alternatively, a text from conservative or liberal alternative media or a focus group may be cited, provided the source is accurately labeled in neutral terms.
  • Biased statement Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into an NPOV statement by attributing or substantiating it.

4 With the above in mind I am interested to hear what sentence in the article is incorrect.

5 And, do I understand correctly that some allege international law does not apply to the US?

6Please, remember this is not about right or wrong, left or right, US or anti-American. Wikipedia is about verifiable facts. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that intelligent comment. I would just like to add, especially after having read a comment further up, that the American Population doesn't necessarily support everything their government did (especially if only certain members of the government did something illegally), much like how most of the German population does not support what the Nazi regime did, even if they elected it democratically. Also it's important the article does not look like it was written as an attack on Americans, especially as at the moment many seem to think they are disliked in the world, which is probably largely untrue, as American culture is still very widely circulated. This may be why some are attempting to censure or demean the information, in particular I'm thinking of some people who are constantly adding phrases such "allegations have been made", so that next time the page is put on AfD, they can state it is an allegations page. It is ashame some people can't see further than what their government is telling them, but this is unlikely to ever change, as it happens all over the world all the time. In France for example many do still not believe the stories about Algerians being made to copulate with dogs or drink petrol, even though such actions are widely recognised now. I think patience is the key. And I advise anyone who does not read the article with an open mind, to not attempt to change it. This should go for both sides, if you can't be bothered to try and understand the opposite opinion, then do not try to push your own. --Jackaranga 13:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If a notable person says something was an act of state terrorism by the US, we have an allegation of state terrorism by the United States. If someone says the US did X, and someone else says something very much like X was an act of terrorism, and if we then list X as an act of state terrorism by the US, then we have original research. Tom Harrison Talk 14:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, however, if legal decision on the matter then its no longer merely an allegation its an established dejuro fact. The Nazi's committed war crimes--that is a fact. Its not simply "allegations of war crimes." If the US did X, and we have experts who we relay on to provide a definition for X, then we can say it, and that is not OR. The act can be match up to the definition without any interpretations. For example, we have a definition of violence. Then, its established that I came up to you and punched you in the face, and that is an etablished fact. Well, then we can say I committed an act of violence. Is it OR to say that? No. Now, if you have sources that wish to interpret the action as not violence, then we can report on that (provided the source meets the standards of WP). But if an action is established with verifabible facts that meet the established and accepted defintion, then it fits in this article about the subject (again, provided sources are provided to support the claims--which this article does).Giovanni33 17:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Really. and if Tom Harrison wants to use this standard, than I hope he wants to use it to all references to terrorism in wikipedia, and not just those concerning the US. If i say the US made war, and someone else says something very much like X was a war, then we list X as a war, is it OR? Murderbike 18:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


Giovanni33, your example reminds me of the one at Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, right after it says "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 18:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Understood, but we do have reliable sources that has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. In connection with the atomic bombing of Japan, for instance, I cited many valid published sources above, that makes this argument. Do I take it then, that you will accept its addition as a section? Likewise with the argument that the sanctions against Iraq were terrorism, and the treatment of the Native Americans?Giovanni33 18:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
If you want to record that Chomsky said the Iraq sanctions were an act of state terrorism by the US, go ahead. If you want to say they were an act of state terrorism and cite Chomsky in support, that is problematic. If you want to say the US killed civilians in Dresden (History Book, 1995); that there was a cafe in Dresden (Baedeker); that Hamas firebombed a cafe in Tel Aviv (per BBC); that Hamas is a terrorist organization (Washington Post); therefore the US committed state terrorism by friebombing Dresden - that would be original research. Tom Harrison Talk 18:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
No, it is utterly unnecessary to qualify a sourced fact from a book authored by Horowitz with a "Horowitz said". That is the entire purpose of footnotes. If a sourced fact occurs within a reliably sourced book, then it is adequate to simply state the fact and reference it with a footnote.
There is no justification for tagging such statements in advance with qualifiers like "Chomsky said", "The left wing said", or "The government said" unless the fact presented is being challenged as untrue, invented, or otherwise false. In the case of the facts presented here, nobody is challenging that they didn't occur, nor that they weren't committed by the U.S. Thus there is no reason to tag them with qualifiers like you are suggesting.
No doubt, Harrison, you feel that such facts and sources should not be allowed to stand unchallenged and unqualified. We have no problem with that. The proper response is not to insinuate rhetoric into the article that undermines established facts, but instead to present a counter-interpretation of those same facts to demonstrate that there is a competing and equally valid ethic at work.Stone put to sky 03:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, you're running in unneccesary circles. It is really easy to use the US gov't's own definition of terrorism, apply it to known actions (treatment of natives, Dresden, Iraq sanctions, etc.), and *bling*! have acts of state terrorism, much the way we can use the dictionary's def of an apple, apply it to the fruit of an apple tree, and have an apple! Murderbike 19:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Basically, i agree with you. In cases where the U.S. clearly violates its own legal definitions, there should be no more discussion: said activity is a terrorist act.
However, with this topic it's not always that easy. The U.S.Gov'ts definition is a legal definition. Legal definitions are typically conservative -- in other words, usually (PATRIOT act and Bush's Signing Statements excluded, of course) laws are based on a clear public consensus of what is and is not condemnable, and as a consequence of that clarity many widely condemned actions nevertheless fall into a poorly enforced "grey area". The idea of State Terrorism is not new, nor is it controversial. But even today there are many acts which fall ouside the purview of all accepted legal definitions -- even in some cases that have an overwhelming public consensus.
To go back to Harrison's contention, above: i would be very surprised if there were any widely accepted legal sources that currently classify the 10 years of sanctions against Iraq as "State Terrorism". There are, however, many people -- among them secular, religious, governmental, academic, and charity figures and groups -- who do consider them so. These opinions are in no way negligible or irrelevant to this article; nevertheless, they fall well outside the purview of all legal definitions currently available. In order to have a properly informed encyclopedia entry it is necessary to include them.
Further, i'll add that in such instances where widely accepted definitions arrive at different conclusions i have no problem with tagging the opinions with a qualifying phrase. In fact, i have advocated from the very beginning that the editors of this article reach a general consensus on the political (legal), military (tactical), and ethical definitions of terrorism, moving on from there to qualify each assertion with the appropriate viewpoint. Unfortunately, that process made it obtrusively apparent that several editors here believe that any definition of "terrorism" can only imply "Activities Conducted Only by Enemies of the United States, Great Britain and Israel", and so the effort was stymied. Stone put to sky 03:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe that using the official US definition for terrorism is the one that is accepted by consensus on this article. The US Code for defining an "act of terrorism" is an activity that -- (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.
Two good reasons for accepting and applying this definition (US offical definitions) are:(1) they are reasonable and close to common usage, and (2) they are appropriate, because the government that offers these definitions cannot claim that it is exempt from their consequences. I know there was some controversy never the less with actually applying this definition in a real world conditions consistently, i.e. to both "enemies" and ones own actoins (the US actions), because when done so it was easily recognized that an immediate consequence is that the US is a leading terrorist state. But, this is the correct thing to do, as a double stanard is non-tenable.Giovanni33 05:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh...Dresden was during wartime, so it is not a Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime [5]. The Iraq Sanctions were UN resolutions, Iraq violated vitually everyone of them. The Internatioanl Court of Justice claimed in Nicaragua v. United States that the U.S. had been involved in "unlawful use of force", not terrorism, which is the radical left's opinion...there is a big difference. Article 94 of the International Court of Justice has no enforcement ability, sort of like the U.S. Supreme Court, and instead relys on the UN Security Council to uphold the enforcement of their determinations. In the case of Nicaragua v. United States, Nicaragua was unsuccessful in getting the Courts determination that the U.S. pay war reparations since the Security Council will almost always veto any action against one of its five permanent members. The International Court of Justice also believes it does not usually have the jurisdictional right to hear cases involving the use of force..this is why the U.S. did not recognize the finds of the court. If the naming of this article is going to remain as it is, then we need to eliminate the POV from this article and keep only what is here inn regards to Nicaragua v. United States...but, hey, lookie...we already have an article on that.--MONGO 06:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

MONGO has a point, Giovanni. If we restrict ourselves to only legal definitions, then the sanctions against Iraq, the wars of genocide committed against the native American tribes, and the bombing of Hiroshima cannot possibly qualify. In the first case, the sanctions were legally obtained and processed. In the second, there were no laws regarding terrorism or genocide in place at the time. In the last, the instance took place during wartime, as an act of war, and so also does not qualify.
With that qualification acknowledged, however, we should not feel constrained to exclude them from the article. Certainly, the Japanese consider the bombing of Hiroshima to be an act of state terrorism, and the last twenty years of research into the decision to bomb supports their view in a rather unequivocal manner. Likewise, we can easily say that many of the actions carried out against the native American tribes were terrorist in nature based both upon the means by which the U.S. violated virtually all of its treaties with them as well as by describing the military tactics and social attitudes of the time.
At one time i scrounged up multiple legal sources that state unequivocally that the legal concept of "terrorism" is still evolving, and it is an easy enough thing to find historical tracts that used the word "terrorism" long before there was a legal definition of the idea. The use of terror as a military tactic -- and the condemnation of such by the public -- is an ancient and well-documented dilemma. Finally, most of the legal posturing around the word "terrorism" has been affected by the United States and its allies. On the basis of those facts, there is no justification for limiting this article to the evaluation of legal criteria alone. Stone put to sky 06:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
These are good and convincing points. Thanks.Giovanni33 06:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with Tom and MONGO here. Saying the ICJ found the US "guilty" of "state terrorism" is the purest form of original research because it involves an unjustified equivalence between the term "unlawful use of force" (which was what the ICJ apparently found the US guilty of) and the term "state sponsored terrorism". Thus I have removed this from the lead. - Merzbow 07:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well not so fast. We should come to some consensus before instigating another edit war. But, instead of reverting, I made the change which should address your main concern. It now reads:

"The United States of America has been accused[1][2][3] and found guilty by the International Court of Justice of unlawful use of force by funding, training, and harboring individuals whose activities have been interpreted by scholars as state terrorism according to international law and US definitions."Giovanni33 07:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That's still OR, because by deciding that the "unlawful use of force" guilty verdict should be placed in the lead right next to actual accusations of terrorism you are de-facto equating it to a verdict of terrorism. I dispute any attempt to equate the two, and if the ICJ had meant to find the US guilty of terrorism, they would have said so. - Merzbow 07:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
You may dispute equating the two, but its not OR, and perefectly valid. If you review Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, we are not commiting the error of: "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." 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.Giovanni33 07:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
It's poisoning the well. Let's assume that somebody is equating the ICJ's verdict with a verdict of terrorism. (As an aside, you have as yet pointed to no cites that show somebody doing this, but I will assume that you will quickly remedy this in talk). What that allows you to do is write "Mr. Smith claims that the ICJ's verdict of unlawful use of force means that the US has been found guilty of state terrorism". It doesn't allow you to lift out a specific fact from Smith's claim - the ICJ verdict of unlawful use of force - and place it in the lead directly implying that Smith's claim of equivalence is true. It's like I go out tomorrow and assault somebody on the street. The court convicts me of "unlawful use of force". However, some newspaper columnist claims that I'm now a terrorist. Then somebody opens up the Wikipedia article on Terrorism and adds, to the lead, a statement that "Merzbow was convicted of unlawful use of force". Quite obviously, this is directly implying that the columnist's opinion is true. - Merzbow 08:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Clearly wp:or. Dman727 07:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Can we agree to at least hold off on making these contested changes and allow for some consensus about them first? Or else the article will just end up getting protected.Giovanni33 07:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm out of reverts for now, so I can't restore the proper text. But, I hope someone does because currently the text that your insisting to, makes no sense from even a gramatical point of view. It reads: "The United States of America has been accused[1][2][3] by funding, training, and harboring individuals whose activities have been interpreted by scholars as state sponsored terrorism according to international law and US definitions." How can a state by accused by an activity such as funding, etc?Giovanni33 08:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Typo has been fixed. And please bear in mind that 3RR does not entitle you to 3 reverts per day (and fixing this typo would not have been a revert anyways). - Merzbow 08:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

For some reason people get distracted by legalities and other stuff. Let's focus on what this is about. Can we establish the US has committed or supported terrorist acts?

  1. Does anybody deny Operation Condor was state terrorism?
  2. Does anybody deny OBL is a terrorist?
  3. Does anybody deny the US sponsored, supported, aided, et cetera both OC and OBL?

If everybody accepts these as facts it is difficult to understand the objection to saying the US is involved in terrorism. Of course people cry OR. But they fail to understand OR is not meant to remove common sense from editing. Example: a source says four legged animals are called quadrupeds, another source says dogs have four legs. Suppose we want to write dogs are quadrupeds that is totally acceptable and does not violate OR. To object to that is being overly strict and ignores the fact that logic dictates that dogs are quadrupeds. Just like objecting to replacing 4/5 of voters with the majority of voters. Even though it does not say majority but common sense tells us that 4/5 is a majorty. Objecting to such interpretations is beyond my comprehension.

As to Dresden, maybe it does not qualify as terrorism, but it certainly is a war crime. For obvious reasons those responsible were never placed before a court of law. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Many people just can't accept their country has committed acts of terrorism, it's the same everywhere, look at the Turks, everyone knows Turkey committed genocide against the Armenians, yet most still deny it. Even in Paris where I live there have been demonstrations by Turkish people condemning the fact the French Parliament gave official recognition to the genocide. Yet in all school history books in France, and loads of publications there are huge amounts of proof, but still Turks won't believe it. It's just how it is, some people can't be convinced, they have a mental block, the more you accuse them, the more they will enter into denial, so giving more and more sources won't convince the Americans who disagree with this article. Jackaranga 11:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
You are free to cite the opinions of reliable sources who claim the US supports terrorism. You are not allowed to draw inductive conclusions based on your "common sense", which as many editors have pointed out is not in fact so common; that is the definition of OR. - Merzbow 17:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
It's a simple question: was the US involved in Operation Condor which was state terrorism? Second, OR is about preventing advocating one interpretation when multiple are available. It is impossible to advance another interpretaion of the quadruped example, so in that case OR is not applicable. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 18:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Your analogy is fatally flawed. "Unlawful use of force" does not necessarily imply "terrorism", as my example of the hypothetical street assault above demonstrated. - Merzbow 19:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
And to whoever used that sockpuppet last night (whose history contains no prior edits), I HIGHLY suggest you refrain from doing so in the future. - Merzbow 17:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr Merzbow, you are in blatant violation of WP:AGF ("whoever used that sockpuppet") and WP:CIVILITY ("I HIGHLY suggest you refrain from doing so"). I suggest that you take a break from editing until you can approach this issue with a cooler, more civil and even-minded head. Stone put to sky 18:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Pointing out that an obvious sockpuppet was in fact used is in no way a violation of anything, and I will continue to note when policy is broken in such a way. You expect me to believe that a brand-new IP editor coincidentally dropped in exactly at the end of an edit conflict and made a series of well-formed edits that just happened to correspond to one of the two competing POVs, and then disappeared without comment? - Merzbow 19:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Plus I note that your protestations about civility are highly ironic in light of this: [6]. Alrighty then... - Merzbow 20:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to go back to more relevant issues. That is, the inclusion of a number of acts of terror by the US as falling within the definition. I know the point was made that we need not stick to a stric legal definition, but that definition alone is broad enough to encompass several other actions the US is guilty of perpetrating. Please show me where I'm wrong here.
Again, what is terrorism? Dictionary definitions indicate it is creating terror, employing fear for political purposes. More aptly, terrorism is attacking and terrifying civilian populations in order to force the civilians' governments to comply with demands. So Hitler's bombing of London was terror bombing, unlike his attacks on British military bases. The issue isn't what weapon is used, but who is the target and what is the motive. For terrorism the target is innocent civilians. The motive is political, impacting their government's behavior. Attacks on the public for private gain are not terrorism, but crime. Attacks on a military for political purposes are not terrorism, but acts of war. These are the distincions. Terrorism is part of social conflict, just like war is, but the tactics and forms are distinct, yet one can take place in the context of the other.
So, when the U.S. government targets civilians with the intention of pressuring their governments, yes, it is engaging in terrorism. Regrettably, this is not uncommon in our history. The imposing a food and drug embargo on Iraq with the intention of making conditions so difficult for the population that they will rebel against their government, is terrorism (with food and medicine as the weapons, not bombs). Bombing civilian centers and the society's public infrastructure, again with the intent of coercing political outcomes, was terrorism. When the US attacks civilians with the aim of attaining political goals unrelated to them we have acts of state terrorism. This is why the atomic bombings of Japan fit. Just because this is disputed is no reason not to present this argument, its only a reason to present both arguments--pro and counter.Giovanni33 00:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not disputing your right to present the arguments of reliable soruces. I am disputing the attempt to poison the well (this is a technical term, I mean no incivility by it) by presenting a fact—the ICJ's verdict of "unlawful use of force"—in isolation in the lead in such as a way as to imply the truth of certain opinions. The clear compromise here is to introduce the ICJ material in such a way that it is clear that it is opinion that the verdict is equivalent to terrorism; in the same sentence would do fine. So say that "The ICJ found the US guilty of the unlawful use of force in year blah, and Chomsky believes that this is effectively a conviction for state terrorism". It would really help if you could provide the link to Chomsky or whoever it is that is providing this opinion. - Merzbow 00:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
try watching some of Noam's lectures... i think one was called " at what p[rice freedom" or somesuchCharred Feathers 05:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I actually dug up Chomsky's opinion on this myself, and have articles where he gives this opinion. We can end this conflict right now with the compromise I suggested above: "The International Court of Justice found the US guilty of the unlawful use of force in Nicaragua, an outcome which critics claim is equivalent to a verdict of state terrorism". - Merzbow 06:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm ok with this compromise but I don't want to make the changes without getting imput from the other editors here. I think we can all come to some kind of conensus. I'm not sure about the wording 'critics claim." Who are the critics and what are they critizing? I'm not sure that is clear, and may be adding bias. Instead, what is wrong with something more along these lines: "whose activities have been interpreted by various scholars as constituting acts of state sponorored terrorism?"Giovanni33 17:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
What about this for the first two sentences: "The United States of America has been accused of funding, training, and harboring individuals and groups who engage in terrorism. Some scholars say that the U.S. should be legally considered a sponsor of state terrorism because the International Court of Justice has found it guilty of the unlawful use of force." - Merzbow 17:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a valid compromise without compromising the content of what we all agree it should say. It sufficiently deals with the problems other editors have and I hope that it can be the basis for ending the edit conflict, at least on this point.Giovanni33 18:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
A minor change. I simply added the qualifier so that instead of simply saying "who engage in terrorism" we have "whose activities qualify as terrorism according to both international law and the US' own internal definitions."Giovanni33 18:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
That last bit is wordy and mostly redundant, I think, and still has a POV issue - it can be read to imply that we're stating that clause as a fact, and not as an accusation. The follow-on sentence about the ICJ is a sufficient example of why the accusers think the US is guilty of terrorism, and then the article itself can go into more detail. - Merzbow 20:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Support. On the second, less wordy edit that is. Bassclef 14:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

disremovals by yours truely

just because you dont like someones political stance, doesnt make them not credible. " left" and " right" are still credible, and i see no reason to disincude these remarks i re added. this is a POLITICAL issue, why would you destroy references to a POLITICAL pov? unless your trying to push a POV of your own?Charred Feathers 05:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the references. Its amazing that one editor keeps taking it out against consensus, when Chomsky and the other authors are well recognized published writers on these exact topics. Their work is well referenced and fact checked, and stands unrefuted. No one has made a case why its not reliable, other than the weak excuse that Chomsky is a linguist, as if that somehow undermines his well considered and researched arguments. As a sign of good faith, I'd hope that other editors who are on the other side of the fence, POV wise, would restore these references when they are removed by this one editor, going against consensus.
As to the current dispute about mentioning the court verdict regarding unlawful use of force and the connection to authors who state this as a case of being found guilty of acts of state sponored terrorism, I'd welcome to see a sample of the proposed text here that would be acceptable to you. I think we do agree in principal about what it is supposed to say but simply disagree that what it currently says, says what we want it to say, clearly enough. I think it does so well, but I'd consider alternative wordings.Giovanni33 05:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
would it help if i said the truth, im not american, so i have what might be an outsiders POV in this issue, and my belief is that since its true, why not say it loud and proudly " yes this is what happened" I believe that anyone who tries otherwise is into revisionist history. is that fair? as it stands i think it should remain Charred Feathers 05:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Precisely. We have been over this a number of times. The ICJ did not find the U.S. guilty of terrorism...that is the radical left wing slant on the issue. Terrorism wasn't even a word they used in any way, fashion or form when they made their verdict in Nicaragua vs. United States.--MONGO 08:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
How can you have an "outsiders view" on something that is deemed a "world court". There are no outsiders, just different points of view. Points of view are ok, but it has no place in the article. I support an encourge the recent attempts to remove the extreme POV, wp:OR, wp:syn, revisionist history (and many other issues) from this article. Frankly this article is proably a good example of the worst that Wiki has to offer. Any improvment is welcome. Dman727 08:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


wings , left or right, dont make thier point s of view any more or less valid, please weasle not.Charred Feathers 08:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, welcome to Wikipedia. We don't rely on opinions when we have precise wording as to what the verdict was.--MONGO 08:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's get back to what we know is true:

  1. Operation Condor stands for terrorism
  2. Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist
  3. The US supported, aided, funded and trained military leaders for Operation Condor and OBL
  4. Following these three verifiable, published and not disputed facts we have established US involvement in terrorism! QED!

To ignore these points simply to keep editors from saying the US is a sponsor of terrorism is evidence of the POV-induced comments of certain contributors. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 09:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats the very definition of "synthesis of published materials in order to advance a position", prohibited under our rules against original research, and embodied in WP:SYNTH, which you should read.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 12:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Please state which of the four bulletpoints is not based in fact. In other words, elaborate on the inaccuracy of the statements as opposed to voicing your POV. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 13:31, 26 May 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:SYN, Tom Harrison Talk 13:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
What you are saying is that allthough Operation Condor was a terrorist campaign, and although the US was part of that campaign we may not say the US is involved in terrorism? Please answer the bulletpoints and explain which of them is incorrect and not verifiable. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 13:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
It is not me saying it, but our policy on original research. We are not allowed to join A and B to advance position C. Tom Harrison Talk 13:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
What exactly is joining together? How can the US participate in Operation Condor, a well-known campaign of state terrorism but not be involved in Terrorism? This is silly and I think we need some RFC or ArbCom on the interpretation of OR as voiced here and on other pages. OR claims when used to get rid of common sense is utterly ridiculous. See my quadruped example above or take thise one:
  1. Pete goes to Moscow
  2. Moscow is in Russia
My view is Pete went to Russia. No you say, that is OR. Then of course you can explain how Pete can go to Moscow without going to Russia. In other words, you OR interpretation defies logic, ignores common sense and is simply silly. It serves only one purpose and that is to keep terrorism and US from being linkede. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 13:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
You listed three bullet points and a conclusion, and ended with QED. That is a synthesis of material to advance a position. The example used at WP:SYN involves plagiarism. Tom Harrison Talk 14:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Still could you explain why the US did not take part in terorist activity although we have the verifiable fact the US was involved in Operation Condor? In other words, how can the US be involved in a terrorist campaign but we are not allowed to say that.
I have another example to show your flawed interpretation. An article says Pete stole 100 dollars and the next day 300 dollars. Your position is we cannot say Pete stole 400 dollars since that is not supported by the facts. Hopefully you recognise the exceedingly unreasonable position you take. Can we say 400 or do you insist on 100 plus 300? Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
By our policy on original research you have to find a source who has made the connection - find a source who says so and we can record that George Monbiot or whoever says Operation Whazzat was state terrorism, like the plagiarism example at WP:SYN. Since it is not useful for each of us to repeat ourselves, I will read your replies but hold off for a while on my own. Tom Harrison Talk 14:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
This is about your interpretation of policy and that it leads to unreasonable things. According to your analysis we cannot replace 100 and 300 by 400, since adding (100+300=400) by defintion is synthesising and that is not allowed. Evidently you think that is a reasonable and logical position. I think it is overly strict and simply defies common sense. Again, maybe we need ArbCom to identify if your rigid interpretaion of policy is accurate and if so whether the extreme result is acceptable. Or, whether certain forms of synthesis/OR are not in fact violating that policy because they are about situations in which there is only one conclusion possible: 400! and not 1300, or 77, or 85.897. And as such there is no risk of any POV, inaccuracy, et cetera. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, policy does allow this. I've responded to the arguments above, but the salient point that refuts it is ignored. Policy says: "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. See the proposed compromised wording above. Lets move pass this impase and come up with a compromise that everyone can live with.Giovanni33 17:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, everyone take a look at the end of the preceding section and agree/disagree with the proposed compromises. - Merzbow 17:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

OBL and State Terrorism

In regards to the allegation that the US funded OBL, I've raised this earlier on the talk page. Actions by the Mujahideen in AF were not terrorism but insurgency, as they were directed at military forces. Terrorism requires that the targets of attacks be civilians, and this was not the case in AF for the most part. As to OBL himself, even if some CIA money found its way to him (and I haven't seen any specific evidence for this ), that doesn't mean the US sponsored terrorism. To engage in State Terrorism, a state has to have intent. If you want to argue that the US funded OBL 20 years ago so some day he could attack the towers and give us another excuse to invade AF, you can take it up at this page. Otherwise, just because someone we funded turned against us doesn't make us sponsors of terrorism. That's like arguing that Israel supports terrorism because it enabled Hamas. Poor foresight and bad decision-making, yes; terrorism, no. I don't know enough about Operation Condor to argue about that, but please take OBL out of the discussion. Thanks --Dchall1 13:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Interesting position. Do I understand correctly that if Hamas only attacks Israeli soldiers it is not a terrorist organisation? Also, the attacks against US forces in Iraq are by your definition insurgency and not terrorism ("Terrorism requires that the targets of attacks be civilians"). As to the Mujahedeen they received weapons, money, intelligence, training et cetera. The US was deeply involved. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
That's right. If you look at a lot of government and academic definitions of terrorism (Bruce Hoffman, Jessica Stern, Robert Pape), they make a distinction between the targets. So when someone attacks a market in Iraq, it's terrorism; when an IED hits a convoy, it's insurgency. And if you want to have any kind of moral high ground, you can't blur the distinction between the two. Otherwise you open yourself up the the charge we're seeing here, that if it's against us it's terrorism, and if we support them it's insurgency (sorry if that's not clear, its early). If you keep the distinction, you can say "Anytime you attack civilians, it's a bad thing. We don't like insurgencies, but they don't have the same moral repugnancy as terrorists." Anyway, I'm not denying that the Mujahideen received aid from the US, I'm just saying that they weren't terrorists. --Dchall1 14:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Would you agree the US have attacked and killed numerous civilians in Iraq, Vietnam, et cetera? Yes, that was the intention, although collateral damage suggests otherwise, it is difficult to maintain that when you drop thousands of bombs on cities you are shocked and amazed (and never meant to!) that civilians get hurt. Collateral damage says it all: it is a calculated risk. You are right that we must apply the same definition to all parties. So if OBL is a terrorist for 9/11 then let's call the US a terrorist state for bombing civilians, Iraq or otherwise. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 15:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know nearly as much about Vietnam as I should, so I won't get into that. You're right that collateral damage is a calculated risk, but again, intent matters. The US military does not drop bombs with the intent of killing civilians. Yes, civilians sometimes die, but then that's the consequence of living under a government that places military installations in civilan areas. The US goes to enormous efforts to ensure that civilian casualties are kept to a minimum. There's no way you can establish equivalency between that and groups that intentionally target civilans for a high death count (bombing mosques, market places, etc.). Agian, OBL (and al-Qaeda in general) intended to kill civilians on 9/11, and one of the characteristics that sets AQ apart from other terrorist groups is its focus on high body counts. I think you'll be hard pressed to find evidence that the US (at least in modern wars) kills civilians on purpose. --Dchall1 15:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Well even in modern war, the way the US does it, its hard to make that argument, when the US still uses such indescriminate weaspons against populated areas full of civillians, such as cluster bombs. Doing something with full knowlege of the outcome, but still doing it, at best shows a complete indifference to the lives of civillians. However, civilians were targeted, per policy, such as the sanctions and the atomic bombing of Japan. Its these types of actions that I say belong in this article.Giovanni33 17:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Heh...exactly where did the U.S. use a clusterbomb near a populated area recently? The only examples of terrorism that the U.S. Government is fairly clearly to have sanctioned terrorism are during it's wars with the Native Americans.--MONGO 18:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
...And we already have an article about that here--MONGO 18:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Then we should havd a brief mention of that under this article, pointing to that larger article.Giovanni33 18:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
When? How about when they not? This is a widely reported issue, and explains why the civilian death toll is so high. See this report by AI: [7] "Iraq: Use of cluster bombs -- Civilians pay the price. Amnesty International is deeply concerned about the high toll of civilian casualties and the use of cluster bombs in US military attacks in heavily populated areas.
On 1 April, at least 33 civilians including many children were reportedly killed and around 300 injured in US attacks on the town of al-Hilla. Amnesty International is particularly disturbed by reports that cluster bombs were used in the attacks and may have been responsible for some of the civilian deaths.
"The use of cluster bombs in an attack on a civilian area of al-Hilla constitutes an indiscriminate attack and a grave violation of international humanitarian law," Amnesty International emphasized today.
"If the US is serious about protecting civilians, it must publicly commit to a moratorium on the use of cluster weapons. Using cluster munitions will lead to indiscriminate killing and injuring of civilians," the organization added.
According to reports, the type of cluster bomblets used in al-Hilla was BLU97 A/B. Each cannister contains 202 small bomblets -- BLU97 -- the size of a soft drink can. These cluster bomblets scatter over a large area approximately the size of two football fields. At least 5% of these 'dud' bomblets do not explode upon impact, turning them into de facto anti-personnel mines because they continue to pose a threat to people, including civilians, who come into contact with them. Public Document"Giovanni33 18:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni33...it's called war. In war, bad things happen unfortunately. If you're insinuating that the U.S. was deliberately targeting civilians you're gravely mistaken. Iraq was such a garden when Saddam was in power...the 600,000 dead due to his genocide in that country have been found in dozens of mass graves. Amnesty International has some valid points, but simply put, bombs, no matter what variety, kill innocent people sometimes. I'm certainly not arguing that the U.S. is some perfect country, on the contrary, I do believe it is not. But I have yet to see one shred of evidence that any organization of any repute (aside from Chomsky, Chavez and Castro of course) has found the U.S. guilty of terrorism. To have an article that tries to advance this lie is a complete sham. I think this thing needs to be deleted.--MONGO 19:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, its called war, but within war there are war crimes, and acts of terrorism that many States are guilty of. Civilizations have forumulated rules of warfare--for better or worse--and thus tactics and actions that violate such legal norms are not just a matter of "oh well, bad things happen," its a matter of criminal conduct deserving of prosecution like the world did with the Nazis. I'm not insinuating anything. I'm saying its irrefutable that the US has shown indifference to civilians, such as the example of contintued use of cluster bombs against populated areas See: [8], and: [9] Also, its an established fact that the US has purposely targed civilians for political purposes and to install terror as it did with the atomic bombings of Japan. This article shoudl be allowed to reports on the established facts and the arguments made that link these facts to charges of state sponored terrorism. This is not a lie, not a sham but cold reality. Wanting to delete this article is uncalled for, and not acceptable simply because you have your opinion that these many organizations are not of "repute." Well, that is the US establishment view, and that view is fine to be incorporated in the article with sources, but not a reason to suppress the charges.Giovanni33 19:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
What has that got to do with terroism, Giovanni33? Nothing. Unexploded ordinance is still being uncovered in Europe, left behind from WWII and WWI. Afghanistan has thousands of mines left behind from their war with the USSR in the 1980's. Shall we say that French land mines left behind from WWII are terroristic since they have killed people recently?--MONGO 19:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Who said that it did have something to do with terrorism? I was answering your question you asked about when the US has used cluster bombs around populated areas. Well, all the time! And, I was responding to the claim that the US avoids killing civilians--which is simply not true. There is great indifference shown to civilians lifes in countries we bomb as evidenced by the type of indescriminate weapons we rain down on populated areas, i.e. cluster bombs. I did not claim this as terrorism per say, they are war crimes. However, if civilians are killed for the purpose of some other end, then it would also be terrorism.
Unexploded ordiance is not the issue, either. The issue is the indescriminate nature of the bombs scattered about near populated areas which proves a indifference to the lives of civilians. That is the case in point. These acts may violate international laws, but are themselves not necessarily acts of terror. Creating terror is employing fear for political purposes, i.e. attacking and terrifying civilian populations in order to force the civilians' governments to comply with demands. Case in point: Hitler's bombing of London was terror bombing, unlike his attacks on British military bases. The issue isn't what weapon is used, but who is the target and what is the motive. For terrorism the target is innocent civilians. The motive is political, impacting their government's behavior. Attacks on the public for private gain are not terrorism, but crime. Attacks on a military for political purposes are not terrorism, but acts of war. These are the distincions. Terrorism is part of social conflict, just like war is, but the tactics and forms are distinct, yet one can take place in the context of the other.
Now, when the U.S. government targets civilians with the intention of pressuring their governments, yes, it is engaging in terrorism. And the US does and has done this repeatedly in its history. Recently, the imposing a food and drug embargo on Iraq with the intention of making conditions so difficult for the population that they will rebel against their government, is terrorism (with food and medicine as the weapons, not bombs). Bombing civilian centers and the society's public infrastructure, again with the intent of coercing political outcomes, was terrorism. When the US attacks civilians with the aim of attaining political goals unrelated to them, we have acts of state terrorism. The atomic bombings of Japan fit into terrorism, as well as a war crime, and are also acts of war. I understand we can have disputes about the nature of these State actions, but that is not a valid reason not to present the arguments, reporting on what the sources say--it is only an argumen to present all points of view on it. And, it is valid to simply call those sources you don't agree with as not reputable, when they clearly are.Giovanni33 05:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Wow. You really do have an axe to grind here, don't you. Well, that's not what Wikipedia is for. Start a blog, write a letter to an editor, attend a protest, but don't use WP as a soapbox.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 19:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, my axe to grind is in helping to create a comprehensive encyclopedia along the lines of WP's policies--no more, no less. I don't see how you have come to any other conclusion based on my argument above for differentiating act of war, acts of terror, and acts of crime, for the purpose of determining what particular State actions are valid for inclusion into this article, and what types of actions don't fall within its scope. And, that IS what this WP talk discussion page is precisely for. Now, do you have an argument for why we should not include the Atomic Bombing of Japan into this article in accords with what several sources I have provided above argue is the case, i.e. an act of state terror?Giovanni33 22:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Giovanni33, we've been through this several times. IF the bombings of Japan were anything at all, they were war crimes, and that's not what this article is about. Cluster bombs are not intended to harm civilians. And if you are going to accuse the US of war crimes and terrorism for the Iraq sanctions, then you'll have to list the UN as a sponser of state terror as well. On the other hand, if you want to write an article that won't be attacked quite as often for being POV, stick to the cases where there is clear evidence of US wrongdoing. Dchall1 22:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually you have not "been through this' even once, if that means providing an argument for your stance. Yes, they are war crimes, but why do you think that a war crime can also not be an act of state terrorism? If you reivew the standard definitions, you will see that it fits. I agree using cluster bombs in populated areas may be only war crimes (not terror, unless the motive was to inflict terror for political pressure, etc), but the dropping of the atomic bomb clearly was, and there are serveral valid source that make this case. Why are you against reporting on valid sources claims regarding this incident? Why are you imposing your own POV (that its only a war crime), and not an act of terror? If you have a source that makes that counter claim, then shouldn't your argument be to present both sides?
And about the Sanctions against Iraq, they were imposed at the urging of the U.S., the UN was simply the tool. Without the US, the UN would not have enacted the Sanctions. Do you dispute this fact? What is relevant is that they were implimented though the UN by the US for the express purpose to remove Saddam Hussein from power. The New York Times stated the reasoning: "By making life uncomfortable for the Iraqi people, [sanctions] would eventually encourage them to remove President Saddam Hussein from power" (Seattle-Post Intelligencer August 7, 2003, archived at: [10]). The sanctions caused the death of between 400 000 and 800 000 Iraqi children (Seatlle-Post Intelligencer August 7, 2003, archived at: [11]; Hartford Courant, October 23, 2000, [12]).And it was not just sanctions but some of the attacks on Iraq fall in the scope of state terror. I quote, "the United States' deliberate destruction of Iraq's civilian infrastructure during the first Gulf War. As the New England Journal of Medicine put it, "The destruction of the country's power plants had brought its entire system of water purification and distribution to a halt, leading to epidemics of cholera, typhoid fever, and gastroenteritis, particularly among children.... Although the allied bombing had caused few civilian casualties, the destruction of the infrastructure resulted in devastating long-term effects on health.""...statements by Pentagon strategists of their intention to cause just these results. In a 1991 interview with The Washington Post, one of the planners candidly admitted: "People say, 'You didn't recognize that it was going to have an effect on water or sewage.' What were we trying to do with [United Nations-approved economic] sanctions -- help out the Iraqi people? No. What we were doing with the attacks on infrastructure was to accelerate the effect of sanctions."[13]Giovanni33 23:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I have provided sources showing that war crimes and terrorism are specific things. I'll come back to why I don't think war crimes should be in this article. In the meantime though, I'm sorry, but sanctions were not terrorism. Sanctions are an accepted tool of international diplomacy, and have been for some time. Yes, the US instigated the sanctions, but nobody vetoed it, so the rest of the Security Council and the UN are just as culpable (if anything was done wrong). Even more culpable would be Saddam, as he could have provided sufficient access to the IAEA to prove that he had disarmed (instead of stonewalling and making everyone think he still had nukes).
In any case, the main point I'm trying to make is that if you want this article to be taken seriously, you need to limit it to concrete examples of state terrorism. If you add just any allegation and slanted interpretation, your article will be a piece of rot. You'll feel better and anyone else who already agrees with you will have a good read. But anyone who's looking for objective information about the subject will look at it and say "Someone with an axe to grind wrote this." It's like Michael Moore - he does a great job of preaching to the choir, but he just makes everyone else mad (and those are the people he wants to reach). So you need to make up your mind on whether you want to educate people or express your personal views. If you choose the latter, let me know and we can go add genocide by depleted uranium and some 9/11 conspiracy theories. Dchall1 23:38, 28 May 2007

(UTC)

You seem to still misunderstand. I agree that war crimes and terrorism are specific things. That is one of my main points. I agree this article is not about war crimes, its about State Terrorism by the US, and therefore ALL acts of state terrorism the US had a hand in are fair game for inclusion in this article, including those particular war crimes that fall under the definition of state terrorism. Simply declaring a state of war does not magically undo the fact of an action being an act of terror. I gave examples above and the sources support that. It’s not as clear-cut, white and black as you paint. The source you provided before did not undermine my point at all. It says that generally acts of war are not terrorism, and vise versa. That is true. But some are. Again, examples provided above. To repeat, creating terror is employing fear for political purposes, i.e. attacking and terrifying civilian populations in order to force the civilians' governments to comply with demands. Case in point: Hitler's bombing of London was terror bombing, unlike his attacks on British military bases. The issue isn't what weapon is used, but who is the target and what is the motive. For terrorism the target are innocent civilians. The motive is political, impacting their government's behavior. Thus, actions can be state terrorism in the context of a war, and when they violate norms of war, they are also war crimes. But they make them no less acts of terror when those conditions are obtained according to the definition. The fact that no one vetoed it is irrelevant. You admit that the US instigated these sanctions against Iraq in this manner and for these purposes. Case closed. I don't add just any allegation and slanted interpretation. I add in well-founded allegations that fit the articles scope as presented by valid sources. That is all that should matter, not your POV, or mine, or if this article will make people mad like Michael Moore does, etc. Also, irrelevant. Let people think what they will, but lets report on all the notable allegations of state terrorism, and if there is a counter claim that its not, lets present that as well. And, these notable allegations of state terrorism have nothing to do with conspiracy theories of 9/11, etcGiovanni33 00:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Giovanni33, you make your point extremely well, and for what it's worth I really believe you are trying to create an informative, neutral article on this topic. However, I really believe your efforts at including Hitler's London bombing campaign and the Japanese nuclear bombings must wait until you are successful in a bid to change the definition of "terrorism" - to remove the exception of acts committed by two states who have formally declared war. The Iraqi sanctions, however verifiable and believable (I can personally imagine that the comittee deciding those sanctions had EXACTLY that purpose in mind), would open this article up to a deluge of possible acts - eventually culminating in the complete devaluation of the other portions of this article. This is something to be avoided at all costs. Yes, it will be a shame not to include MANY real, terrifying and frankly awful events from the past - but the price for including them would be credibility. Bassclef 15:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. To be clear, I do not want to modify or change the current definition we use in this article. I accept it as accurate. So I think the problem is you misunderstand what the definition says. It says: "Terrorism is generally defined as a violent or other harmful act committed (or threatened) against civilians by a militant organization in an attempt to accomplish a political or social goal. State terrorism is violence against civilians perpetrated by a national government or proxy state, but is considered an illegitimate or illegal usage of force. Commentators tend to distinguish between state terrorism and war crimes;[10] while they may share many of the same elements, state terrorism generally refers to acts committed outside a declared state of war." I agree with that and see no problem with my examples. Look at the meaning of the word "generally" from dictionary.com: "1. usually; commonly; ordinarily: He generally comes home at noon. 2.with respect to the larger part; for the most part. 3. without reference to or disregarding particular persons, things, situations, etc., that may be an exception: generally speaking." So, if you accept the definition, then it accepts that terrorism can occur within the context of a declared state of war, and therefore can not rely on that definition to exclude my addition. Its true that generally its not (war crimes are different), but we do have a few examples of terrorism within war. If you are to say there are no exceptions and the declared state of war is absolute in that no acts of state terror can occure, then its you--not me--who needs to get the definition changed to state that. Currently it does not. And, since we have an abundance of notable sources that make the allegation that the atomic bombings of Japan were acts of terror, then we should be able to report that argument. The same with the kind of sanctions the US imposed on Iraq (there was no formal declaration of war by congress against Iraq in imposing the sanctions, btw). Lastly, I disagree that reporting on all well known cases of US state sponsored terror weakens the article, nor would it open it up to a deluge of possible acts. Each specific allegation must be looked at on a case by case basis judging from the claims of valid, reliable, and notable sources. To fail to do this, in my view, is what devalues this article, as it leaves it glaringly incomplete, without a valid reason.Giovanni33 18:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Introduction Versions

We were making progress with a compromised version in the introduction. The first two are compromised wordings. The first one below is by Merzbow. The second one is mine, which I wanted to improve upon, but not dispute the essentials of the way it was put, per the compromise. The last one is Mongo's, which was recently reverted back to.

My changes to Merzbow's, was to add to the statement that ends simply in"...who in engage in terrorism" a grounding in established definitions: "according to" such and such definition. Also, note that both accurately make the point that some scholars deem the US as having been found guilty of state sponsored terrorism, legally, by virtue of the ruling of the highest court in the world, the ICJ. Now look at the third version recently installed by Mongo. Note the disagreement is not that that the activities of those individuals are in fact terrorism or not--its not that they should not be labeled as terrorism or not--given the proper definition that such activities fall under. That is not in dispute. The disputed part was making clear the link between the US complicity in these very terrorist activities, and that having been found guilty of "unlawful force" in Nicaragua constituted having been found guilty of state sponsored terrorism in a legal court of law. Again, both the first and second version make these points clear, and the relation between them in a NPOV and proper manner. However, now look at the recently installed version. It completely the meaning by wiping out these distinctions and confusing them into one issue. The carefully worded points made above are lost.

1. The United States of America has been accused of funding, training, and harboring individuals and groups who engage in terrorism.[1][2][3] Some scholars say that the U.S. should be legally considered a sponsor of state terrorism because the International Court of Justice has found it guilty of the "unlawful use of force".[4]


2. The United States of America has been accused of funding, training, and harboring individuals and groups whose activities qualify as state sponsored terrorism according to both international law and the US' own internal definitions.[1][2][3] Some scholars, such as Noam Chomsky, argue that the U.S. can be legally deemed a sponsor of state terrorism because the International Court of Justice found it guilty of the "unlawful use of force".[4]


3. The United States of America has been accused of funding, training, and harboring individuals and groups whose activities qualify as state sponsored terrorism, according to linguistics professor Noam Chomsky, and several other people.[1][2][3] This is based largely on the International Court of Justice's findings in the case of Nicaragua vs. United States, in which the court found the U.S. guilty of "unlawful use of force".[4] Giovanni33 06:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Everybody has an opinion about what does and does not qualify as terrorism, which is why I prefer to see any such implications represented as opinion in the text. That's why I like #1, which is also the most direct and unambiguous. If we want to explicitly name the case (Nicaragua vs. US) in that also, then sure. Naming or not naming the scholars is fine by me. but if we want to use the term "some scholars", we should also add a cite by somebody else in addition to Chomsky who makes the same ICJ accusation. Right now, I think only he is cited. (Since I'm almost 100% sure that there are others who have made this same accusation I'm OK with leaving it as "some scholars" for a little while until a second cite can be found). - Merzbow 07:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with that change, and its certainly better than what we currently have. Can you make the change? Thanks. And, if others disagree, I'd hope that you can talk about it here before reverting, again.Giovanni33 00:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Completely in support of #1 - let's hope it's a move forward that stays! Bassclef 15:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
The USA does actually train and arm people who commit acts of terrorism. i beleive its called al queda or some such, whom the USA trained and armed with CIA combat expertise and weapons in order to screw with russian oil interests in the region ( at the time) Charred Feathers 08:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

And School of the Americas trained terrorists... // Liftarn

Edit war

Would it be possible to start discussing our edits while not reverting those of others. Thank you. You may use this page for that. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

whoever was adding what i removed this time, is attempting to remove the nuetrality from the article, and claiming i am doing thus, which dont seem fair. the version before this event was neutral enough without lying or pussy footing.Charred Feathers 07:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Protected

The article is protected for one week. If you are ready to resume editing before that, or to contest this action, please place a request at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not up on the finer workings of wikipedia, how would I go about asking that the Strategy of tension be linked to in addition to Operation Gladio in the Western Europe sub? LamontCranston 20:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Update: should have seen it earlier but anyway, in the Iranian sub a link for Operation Ajax, its briefly discussed anyway. LamontCranston 03:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)