Talk:United States and state terrorism/Archive 14

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

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

India

An Indian newspaper, the Economic Times (part of the Times of India), has accused the CIA of supporting Sikh terrorism in the 1970's. 'CIA, ISI encouraged Sikh terrorism' - [1]

Extraordinary claims requries extraordinary sources. The claims of a single official wanting to promote his book is not that.Ultramarine 12:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

99% of the sources cited for Iran's WMD programs, for example, are from US papers with a dubious history on this topic (eg. New York Times) who quote unnamed 'official's who clearly have their own agenda. Why can wikipedia use those, but not the more reliable Times of India? ... Seabhcan 12:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is not called Solidly Proven Instances of state terrorism by the United States, so let's not hold it to that standard. In order to list notable allegations, we have to accept that not all of them are proven, or even true. That's why they're called allegations. ThAtSo 12:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

See WP:REDFLAG and Wikipedia:Fringe theories.Ultramarine 12:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The Times of India is one of the world's most respected news papers. It is RS. ... Seabhcan 12:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It is merely quoting the views of an official wanting to promote his coming book.Ultramarine 12:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

<-- I believe you could call that an Allegation of State Terrorism. The only question is whether that allegation is notable. Seeing that this paper has a readership in the 10s of millions, I say it is.... Seabhcan 13:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not the newspaper making the allegation, but an offical citing an as yet not published boook.Ultramarine 13:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, please solve old controversies like intro before creating new ones.Ultramarine 13:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

? What on earth has that got to do with anything? If the New York Times reports an unnamed 'official', as they do daily, that is seen as notable. Are you saying that Indian officials are not notable? ... Seabhcan 13:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That usually means the views of the US government expressed indirectly, so notable. A not very important retired official making claims, citing an unpublished book, is not notable view.Ultramarine 13:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

<-- Can you quote a policy which backs up that opinion? I disagree with it. The world's most widely read English language newspaper sees publishes an allegation and you say that isn;t a notable allegation? If that view was applied across wikipedia, would anything be left? ... Seabhcan 13:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

See WP:REDFLAG. It is not the newspaper making the accusation due to a journalist doing an investigation. It is merely mentioning a not very important retired official making claims and prominting his unpublished book.Ultramarine 13:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Now you are saying the Times of India is not RS? You are grasping at straws here and it is becoming increasingly difficult for me to continue to assume good faith. Please leave your personal bias to one side and consider the illogic of your claims! ... Seabhcan 13:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The newspaper may be reliable, the official is not. For example, if the NYT happens to mention some dubious conspiracy theory book regarding Elvis, this does not mean that this book suddenly is reliable.Ultramarine 13:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That is why we trust WP:RS sources to fact check and present reliable information. Also why the paper is cited, not the officials homepage. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

<-- The newspaper does not claim that this information is reliable.Ultramarine 13:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If it felt it was not reliable, it would not post it, which is why we have WP:RS. Your assumptions however are not notable regarding the sources reliability. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

What if the New York Times mentions some dubious conspiracy theory you happen to agree with, like that Iran is magically developing mysterious WMD without leaving any traces or evidence? Then thats RS isn't it? ... Seabhcan 13:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The man in question was a top official of Research and Analysis Wing. Quite a notable organisation. ... Seabhcan 13:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The last is a good point. However, extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Until his book is published his claims cannot be checked or commented on.Ultramarine 13:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

<-- That is not policy. We are not here to do Original Research into the truth of the man's allegations. If the Times reports it, then it is notable. ... Seabhcan 14:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipeida does not include every random opinion that can be found by Googling. Lots of theories regarding Elvis can be found on the Internet and elsehwere, thid does not mean Wikipedia should list them all. At least until the book is published, this is just unverifiable personal claims.Ultramarine 14:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct, neither does Times of India, glad we can clear up that it is reliable. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, if the NYT happens to mention an Elvis conspiracy theory book, this does not make the book reliable.Ultramarine 14:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

<-- WP:RS does not seem to say that ... It also is not a book review, so the story is not talking about the book, its talking about the allegations, and mentions the book. Until you have something regarding WP:RS I consider this issue closed. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I again refer to WP:REDFLAG. An unpublished book is not an extraordinary source.Ultramarine 14:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Which is why Times of India is cited. This is getting silly. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

An mention in the Times of India still does not make an unpublished book an extraordinary source.Ultramarine 14:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Which is why Times of India is cited. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

<-- How does this make the unpublished book reliable? Ultramarine 14:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is why Times of India is cited. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain your argument? Ultramarine 14:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The Times of India is cited. Sorry not sure how to expand on that very simple point. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

From WP:REDFLAG: "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues" Where are these multiple sources? Ultramarine 15:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

<-- [2] Enjoy. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It is the same official, now writing in a minor online only newspaper.Ultramarine 15:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Asia Times, a minor online newspaper? ... This discussion seems to be over. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a free online only newspaper claiming to have less than 100,000 daily visitors. In contrast, the NYT have over one million people who pays to read it.Ultramarine 15:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It is notable as an accusation since it was published in a reliable source. Whether it's true is irrelevant. ThAtSo 17:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. That merry-go-round was making me dizzy.Giovanni33 18:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It is still a single person refering to a not published book. Not an exceptional source.Ultramarine 18:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No. Its not "a single person". Its the Times of India. That is exceptional. ... Seabhcan 19:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, at some point we need to stop pretending to care what Ultramarine thinks. If he's going to make unreasonable demands, then we don't need to satisfy them. Let's move on to more interesting issues, like just about anything else. ThAtSo 19:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

An exceptional source would be needed for us to state the claim to be true. In an article that's just about claims, all we need is an ordinary, reliable source to show that the claim is notable. You need to stop trying to lawyer this by raising the bar artificially. It's just not going to work. ThAtSo 19:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of unanswered old controversies that should be resolved before introducing new ones, like the Introduction or the Opposing Views section.Ultramarine 19:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I see no controversy here - just that you have run out of arguments against inclusion and are stalling for time. The problem with the Opposing Views section is that it lacks reliable sources. Go find them. Here, we have a reliable source, and so the material can be added. ... Seabhcan 19:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

See below regarding opposing views. A single source refering to an unpublished book is still not very reliable. Do you have any more sources backing up this claim? It is also strange, why would the US be the least interested in an independent Sikh state?Ultramarine 19:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not here to speculate, but the politics of the region were quite different in the 1970's. What is not reliable? Do you suppose that the Times of India is lying about the existence of the allegation? ... Seabhcan 19:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Likewise with the Japan section. The ball in in your court to find a reliable source to support the points you tried to make (at least one of them, since you kept switching the goal posts in that circular debate as well).The philippines and El Salvador sections, I think, were also wrongly blanked. Maybe we should address any issues/disputes about those sections, mainly to see if any valid arguments exist so as to fix them for re-inclusion?Giovanni33 19:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed regarding Philippines at least. The section above, I present numerous sources regarding the Peoples Tribunal that found the US guilty of its support for the state terrorism of the Arroyo regime and further that the acts could not be seperated between Arroyo or the US. It also mentions 3 HR groups as those bringing the suit. --SevenOfDiamonds 21:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

We should resolve dispute in the order they were first introduced before creating new ones.Ultramarine 19:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Opposing views

Halperin et al. propose that one reason for the support, by the US and other Western nations, for certain right-wing dictatorships is that it is rare for democracy to exist in nations with low economic development. In these nations, the poor population without a middle class would vote for populist politics that would eventually fail, causing disappointment, and a return to dictatorship or even violent internal conflict. This, supporting a dictatorship that promotes economic growth and creates a solid middle class have often been seen as the best option available, anticipating that this will eventually lead to democratization. However, this view has been challenged recently by arguing that research shows that poor democracies perform better, including also on economic growth if excluding East Asia, than poor dictatorships.[3] Right-wing dictatorships in nations such as Portugal, Spain, Greece, Turkey, Chile, Brazil, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, and Indonesia eventually become democracies.

Research on the democratic peace theory has generally found that democracies, including the United States, have not made war on one another. There have been U.S. support for coups against some democracies, but for example Spencer R. Weart argues that part of the explanation was the perception, correct or not, that these states were turning into Communist dictatorships. Also important was the role of rarely transparent United States government agencies, who sometimes mislead or did not fully implement the decisions of elected civilian leaders.^[1]

Chomsky claims that the United States is a leading terrorist nation. However, actual empirical studies have found that democracies, including the United States, have killed much fewer civilians than dictatorships.[4][5][6]^[2] Media may falsely give the impression that Chomsky's claim is correct. Studies have found that New York Times coverage of worldwide human rights violations is biased, predominantly focusing on the human rights violations in nations where there is clear U.S. involvement, while having relatively little coverage of the human rights violations in other nations.[7][8] For example, the bloodiest war in recent time, involving eight nations and killing millions of civilians, was the Second Congo War, which was almost completely ignored by the media. Finally, those nations with military alliances with the US can spend less on the military and have a less active foreign policy since they can count on US protection. This may give a false impression that the US is less peaceful than those nations.[9][10]

That US soldiers have committed war crimes such as rapes and killing POWs is a fact. However, such acts are not approved or supported by the US government or the US military.[11] They are not the policy of the US government. The same applies even more to acts committed by to foreign groups supported but outside direct US control.

Niall Ferguson argues that the US is incorrectly blamed for many human rights violations in nations they have supported. For example, the US cannot credibly be blamed for all the 200,000 deaths during the long civil war in Guatemala.[12]. The US Intelligence Oversight Board^[3] points out that military aid was cut for long periods because of such violations, that the US helped stop a coup in 1993, and that efforts were made to improve the conduct of the security services.

This is an unresolved old controversy. For some reaon the sourced opposing material stated in the introduction at User:Ultramarine/Sandbox was removed and replaced with unsourced claims. This obviously needs to be resolved.Ultramarine 19:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

After you resolve the issue with the Japan section. You need to find a good source, I believe, to back up your claims regarding academic consensus, that you disputed. So you already have your work cut out for you--unless you concede the argument?Giovanni33 19:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

We should solve old disputes before creating new controversies.Ultramarine 19:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph of your sandbox text is speculative and poorly sourced. ... Seabhcan 19:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly how, there is a source, while the inserted material in the current version has no source.Ultramarine 19:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If there really is only one source available for that whole paragraph, then it should at least be re-written to reflect that: "Researchers Halperin, Siegle, Weinstei and Myers speculate that...". It should also be considered whether these researchers are notable enough to warrant a whole paragraph. WEIGHT applies. ... Seabhcan 20:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Such a claim seems strange after that you have argued that an unpublished book by a single person is enough for including material in this article.Ultramarine 20:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't propose a whole paragraph on the subject. Also, you have presented your paragraph as fact, rather than a single theory from a single semi-notable source. ... Seabhcan 20:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You in effect propose an entire new section on India. An academic book by several persons is certainly better than an unpublished book by a single individiual.Ultramarine 20:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see my rewording of the paragraph. ... Seabhcan 20:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. I did some further rewording to better reflect the source.Ultramarine 20:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the second paragraph: "Supporters of the United States point out the United States rarely have used violence against other democracies." Who are these supporters? do you mean "Weart, Spencer R."? If so, you should reword as before. If there's more than just him (as implied by "supporters") you should provide more sources. At least two are implied.

I'm also not happy with the qualification rarely. Rarely when compared to what? In comparison to how often other countries attack democracies? or in comparison to the larger number of non-democracies attacked. What is the source of the "rarely" ?... Seabhcan 21:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right. We should change "rarely" to "never" and it's pretty common knowledge so no source is required. --Tbeatty 21:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, perhaps it can note the ratio perhaps right afterward and directly attribute as appropriate if only one source is given. --SevenOfDiamonds 21:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That there has been no open wars between democracies is generally acknowledged in political science. That includes the US. The US have supported some coups against democracies, but in these cases is perceived them, correctly or not, as being or as turning into Communist dictatorships.Ultramarine 21:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have reworded the text.Ultramarine 21:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Chomsky disagrees with this. He points out that Nicaragua, for example, was considered a democracy by many except the US, and concludes that the media defines a 'democracy' based on whether it is an official enemy or not. ... Seabhcan 21:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, Chile in 1973 and Iran in 1953 were certainly democracies by all definitions. ... Seabhcan 21:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

In all these cases there were the US perception, correct of not, of these nations were or turning into Communsit dictatorships.Ultramarine 22:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. (I was actually replying to the above comment. Now that I've read the latest version, I'm happy with it) ... Seabhcan 22:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The final paragraph of the intro reads like a blog. It needs to be put in the third person. ... Seabhcan 22:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for you help. I did some further rewording.Ultramarine 22:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph on SOA just says it has changed in recent years, not that it wasn't guilty before the change. ... Seabhcan 09:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Seabhcan, thanks for your suggestions. I will try to improve the material. Is there any remaining problem with the first section that should hopefully improve the "Opposing view" section in this article. The other material, except maybe the Chomsky section, was intended for adding to the other appropriate sections, not the opposing views section.Ultramarine 20:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Spelling correction, communist is not capitalized. 199.125.109.60 18:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree, but cannot change quotes (or they are no longer quotes).Ultramarine 20:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I object to the first paragraph (starting with Halperin) of Ultramarine's sandbox being included. Halperin seems to be articulating his theory for why it was good policy for the US to support right-wing dictators. But there are no RSs cited to show that this has any relevance to any alleged US terrorism. That is, the source (as far it is cited) does not claim that such considerations about the benefits to the target countries of having right-wing dictators were operational for CIA or other US policy makers--there is no indication that US policy makers in deciding whether or not to start a terror operation considered the factors discussed by Halperin. Therefore, Halperin's theory seems to be a post-hoc apology (in the Greek sense)for US policy. It has no demonstrated bearing on the decisions by policy makers or on the terrorist campaigns discussed in the article.

Similarly, the transitions of the list of countries at the end of the first paragraph from right-wing authoritarian countries to democracies have no connection to US terrorism. Many communist countries opposed by the US have also become democracies. So, what does that have to do with allegations of US terrorism against OTHER countries? Same goes for the second paragraph about democractic peace theory. I could go on for much of the remainder but I'll pause here to see what others think.--NYCJosh 23:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Halperin et al's article, this article mentions for example the US support of the dictatorship in Gutatemala, so this is relevant. The list shows nations where this more or less happened, we can of course include opposing examples also.Ultramarine 08:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Japan

Some legal scholars, historians, other governments, and human rights organizations have accused the United States of having committed acts of State terrorism as a result of the nuclear attacks against the Empire of Japan at the end of World War II. The 'atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki', remain the only time a state has used nuclear weapons against concentrated civilian populated areas. Some critics hold that it represents the single greatest act of state terrorism in the 20th Century. Some academics also consider that these bombings represent a genocide.^[4]^[5]

The role of the bombings in Japan's surrender, as well as the effects and justification for them, has been subject to debate. In particular, the claims that these attacks were acts of state terrorism remain a matter of controversy. However, University of Chicago historian Bruce Cumings states there is a consensus among historians to Martin Sherwin's statement, that "the Nagasaki bomb was gratuitous at best and genocidal at worst."^[6]

The arguments center around the targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal. Specifically, the fact that the Target Committee on May 10–11, 1945, rejected the use of the weapons against a strictly military objective, choosing a large civilian population to create a psychological effect that would be felt around the world. ^[7] They also center around claims that the attacks were militarily unnecessary, and transgressed moral barriers.^[8]^[9] ^[10] ^[11]^[12]^[13]

Historian Howard Zinn wrote, "if 'terrorism' has a useful meaning (and I believe it does, because it marks off an act as intolerable, since it involves the indiscriminate use of violence against human beings for some political purpose), then it applies exactly to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki."[13]

Zinn quoted the sociologist Kai Erikson:

“

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

”

Similarly, Michael Walzer wrote of it as an example of "...war terrorism: the effort to kill civilians in such large numbers that their government is forced to surrender. Hiroshima seems to me the classic case."^[14]

Mark Selden, a professor of sociology and history at Binghamton University and professorial associate in the East Asia Program at Cornell University, author of “War and State Terrorism: The United States, Japan, and the Asia-Pacific in the Long Twentieth Century (War and Peace Library),” writes, "This deployment of air power against civilians would become the centerpiece of all subsequent U.S. wars, a practice in direct contravention of the Geneva principles, and cumulatively 'the single most important example of the use of terror in twentieth century warfare."[14] He also wrote, "Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan."

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

Heads of State have also repeated the claim. President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez paid tribute to the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, calling the dropping of the A-bomb, "the greatest act of terrorism in recorded history." [15]

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

“

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

”

These claims have prompted historian Robert Newman, a supporter of the bombings, to argue that the practice of terrorism is justified in some cases.^[15]

The final sentence seems really out of place: "These claims have prompted historian Robert Newman, a supporter of the bombings, to argue that the practice of terrorism is justified in some cases.[21]" I would suggest simply removing it, as the quote already includes that argument. 199.125.109.118 04:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Robert Newman's argument is not presented at all. If anything it should be expanded so as to make that argument, not removed. Note he is supporting the bombings, making an argument that terrorism is sometimes justified. He is relevant to this topic because he does address these allegations that it is state terrorism, and accepts that framework, only arguing that terrorism is sometimes justified.Giovanni33 21:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Is his argument not that the "justification for the attacks given by the U.S. government then and now was mainly to save lives that might otherwise might have been lost in a military campaign"? How different is it to say that "the practice of terrorism is justified in some cases". However what I might suggest after the quote is a paragraph to summarize the section. 199.125.109.25 05:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless he says "terrorism is justified" or he refers to the incidents as terrorism, I would just if anything write that he feels the bombings were justified. Do not want to equate a person with such a ... well with that quote. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedic?

How in the world does this article even exist? The first word in the title is "Allegations". An allegation is by definition "an assertion unsupported and by implication regarded as unsupportable" or by Wiki definition: "...assertions without proof, only claims until they are proved.". And I quote the Wiki page on State terrorism: "State terrorism is a controversial term, with no agreed on definition, used when arguing that there may be a similarity between terrorism and certain acts done by states." That is the very definition of a vague, pov issue that only is useful in abstract discussion.

Should there be an article about allegations that Elvis is still alive? Wikipedia could have article after article of all the allegations that exist but that doesn't make them factual, noteworthy, or even necessary. From a parity standpoint, I don't see any articles relating specifically to Russian state terrorism or Iranian state terrorism or... Is that because there is not enough evidence to justify an article or that it's difficult to objectively define actions by a government as terrorism (within the context/scope of world history)?

Should we have a page about, "Allegations of State Terrorism of the Mongol Nation" or the "Roman Empire" for that matter? There's too much interpretation going on here and not enough factual basis.

All of the info/events used in this article are explored elsewhere in a far more encyclopedic, objective fashion and I submit that this article be deleted due to the fact it lacks an objective, factually determined premise and a NPOV.

The Wiki tags alone say it all:

"This article or section has multiple issues: Its neutrality is disputed.Tagged since July 2007.

It may contain original research or unverified claims.Tagged since July 2007.

It may contain an unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not verifiable with the given sources. Tagged since July 2007.

It may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations which do not verify the text."

How many ways of saying this isn't a legitimate article does there need to be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.84.206 (talk)

If only people did not simply tag the article. Feel free to look over the text and let me know any sections you feel are synthesis or misinterpreted citations. --SevenOfDiamonds 21:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The unidentified comment is correct that the term "allegations" is incorrect for this article, since RSs support the claims of terrorism. But some editors wanted to tone down the title and insisted on including "allegations." With regard to terrorism by other countries, he is welcome to start them and I will help.--NYCJosh 23:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The unidentified comment is correct that the term "terrorism" is incorrect for this article, since there are no RSs that support the claim of terrorism. But some editors want to hype up the title and include "terrorism". With regard to allegations to other countries, he is welcome to start with reliable sources and I will help. --Tbeatty 23:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, immitation is the highest form of flattery. I am glad we agree on one thing (last sentence).--NYCJosh 00:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that given this article's abundant RS's and verified factual account of events scholars identify as state terrorism by the US, the title merely suggesting "allegations" does not to justice to the content of the article. The allegations part was added without consensus and as a result there was a title move war going on, so it was protected in the allegations title. Personally I'm more intersted in developing the content of the article than quibbiling about the title. We have editors who insist a-priori that any source, no matter how notable, fails by virtue of the opinion/argument it advances beause they themselves do not share the political POV, and thus want to censor this view, instead of allowing it a proper voice counter balanced with other pov's. Such editors are, ofcourse, in violation of WP policies.Giovanni33 00:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

At least most of contents are disputed as per earlier discussions, as well as the exclusion of opposing views.Ultramarine 08:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The title and tag issues that the commenter cites seem to be arising out of problems due to edit warring, not the actual content of the article. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 04:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm disputing the premise of the article. While I'm certain I'm the thousandth person to make this point it needs repeating, this isn't an objective, universally recognized issue. First off, all the information is cherry picked and only represents the actions of a few, not the entirety of the United States. By the logic in this article, any one organization (militia, corporate, governmental, etc.) are representative of the entirety of a country. If that were true, by the assertion of this article, all countries are terrorist states and promote terrorism which reduces the issue to a meaningless distinction. If individual departments (CIA for example) are responsible, then they should have their own articles.

Wikipedia should not be about deliberately throwing bad apples into a larger apple barrel and saying the whole barrel is rotten.

Secondly, the article's pov of "terrorism" has been reduced to such an oversimplified definition that it applies to anyone. The nuances of warfare have been reduced to petty thuggery and the sacrifices of those that have died in defense of the their country have been lumped in with random murder. By broadening the issue to an unreasonably oversimplified, abstract level, the random Miami gangbanger that kills a German tourist is a terrorist and by the logic presented here, has made the U.S. a country that promotes terrorism.

That's how ridiculous this article is. I'm not indifferent to fact that alot of people have put in countless hours finessing and arguing and generally obsessing over how many terrorist angels can dance on the head of a non-existant pin, but I think the fact that this article has so much emotion and disagreement should be indication enough that the jury is still out on whether it's a legitimate topic. Should it be discussed? OF COURSE. Does it have some validity? Sure. Does it belong here? No. This isn't the place pushing political science agendas or grand philosophical debate. There are plenty of other places for that.

And for the record, everyone here knows we can find sources for just about anything, that isn't the sole benchmark of validity. There is always some professor, scientist, political analyst, etc. with a minority opinion that backs up even the most fringe belief. There are always connections that can be made between things even when a causal relationship is far from provable. Throwing a bunch of factual information into an article that is well sourced, doesn't automatically make what it is about, true. Manipulate the date enough and anything can be proven by using the least nuanced interpretation of the facts. Since simplification is de riguer, let me put it this way: Just because a learned person says something is true, doesn't make it so. Just because Noam has an axe to grind doesn't make him right, it just makes him a very educated man with a biased agenda.

This article starts with a questionable premise and then molds all the information around that premise. The basic premise is flawed/debatable (that a country should be labeled for the actions of individuals), there is no universally agreed upon definition of what "state terrorism" is, and the events/actions listed are not the entirety of one country or it's history. I'm not going to go section by section with what I think is wrong, I'm not interested in getting into a pissing contest over the individual issues. I'm saying the whole premise is pov/question of semantics and shouldn't be here. There are some things that only history can judge, not a handful of overeducated people on Wikipedia. - The Keeper —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.84.206 (talk • contribs)

Care to show some examples? Perhaps you can show where 1 person, killing 1 other person, for personal gain only, has been cited as a terrorist. Or you can show perhaps a section highlighting a private enterprise in a nation (business, corporate) is cited as having committed terrorist acts on behalf on the nation they are within and cited in this article as such. I also do not see anyone including any militias, but perhaps I am missing that one as well. This is not really addressed to "The Keeper" but to anyone who cares to answer so I can review. Also just to make something clear, we are not here to represent, or speak to the truth. Thank you. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I also did not noticed anyone from Wikipedia being cited in the article, so I do not see how some "overeducated people on Wikipedia" are judging anything, however I do see over 100 citations, which means those "fringe theories" are held by a wide enough group of people that they no longer apply to our policies here on Wikipedia about what a "fringe" theory is. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the first point of anon, the article is about terrorism by the US GOVERNMENT (including agencies and agents thereof). That maybe requires clarification, but is should be obvious, just as an article entitled US foreign policy is about GOVERNMENT policy, not say, the policy of General Motors.

Regarding definitions, this article has actually been straightjacketed and currently includes ONLY instances in which the action was labeled as "terrorism" by the source. Anaon is completely wrong with the Miami gang banger example, for at least this reason. It is a non-issue because currently the article has little leeway about what is or is not considered an act of terrorism.

As far as "cherry picking", I don't really understand. Isn't it the job of an encyclopedia to present facts, or examples of a pheonomenon, in an organized way? Does anon have a problem with the WP article on "terrorism"? Or on list of wars of the Roman Empire? Why is this different?--NYCJosh 16:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to sign. I was making a broader point with "fringe", so don't get your panties in a bunch. To say this again for the slow witted, my issue is with the central premise and not with the individual parts. Put together, they make a very pretty picture which is the intent. Unfortunately it's based on a flawed premise. The United States of America didn't do anything. The United States GOVERNMENT, or more to the point the people running SOME of it's agencies, are behind acts that could generously be labeled as "state terrorism". You want to change the article to something that more adequately explores and truly reflects the nuances of this issue, be my guest. Till then, this article is still ridiculously generalized.

Did Germany kill over ten million people in the concentration camps or did the Nazis? Did the Soviet Union murder millions of it's people, or was it Stalin and his inner circle? Last time I checked, there is no, "The Soviet Union Acts of Genocide" article. There is a "Holocaust" article that details and explains the issue fully and doesn't just take the easy way out by labeling an entire country of people.

And just because someone sifted through all the "pro" citations they could find and conveniently chose to ignore the number of "con" positions does not change anything. For example, there are 244,000 doctors and medical students in the AMA alone. I guarantee I can find 100 (if not more) of them that believe and are on record saying AIDS was created by the U.S. government. That doesn't make it a fact. Now consider how many political, military, and legal experts there are on the planet and tell me again how 100 citations here is at all definitive. Citations are used to support something, not prove it. How many of the citations are by people that actually worked in the U.S. government? How many are written by intellectuals that have zero experience in carrying out government policy or even forming it?

"Allegations" is right. Chosen to placate others or not, that's all this is. KeeperOTD 16:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It helps to read the article and the sources cited, not just stop when shocked by the title of the article. None of the information is based on surveys of what people "believe" or on the beliefs or theories of "experts" or "intellectuals." The sources tell what purpotedly happened in the real world. Actually, several of the sources are based on the reports of US government officials and declassified US documents.--NYCJosh 16:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, or confessions of those involved. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Translation: Primary sources have been synthesized as "proof" by contributors. And the article title is the least shocking part of this travesty of an article. It's not the subject that shocking, it's the tone and conclusions that this article purports to make. It's one of the poorest articles in the encyclopedia. --Tbeatty 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Translation: When asked to prove my claims of WP:HFHBGVW I can never =( --SevenOfDiamonds 17:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. I knew I was going to get sucked into a tedious tangent. I did read the article and the sources cited. I was (once again) making a larger point that got ignored in favor of being difficult for difficult's sake. It's not the factual quality of the individual sections that I question, they are fine (for like the hundredth time). My issues is that THERE IS NO AGREEMENT ON WHAT CONSTITUTES "STATE TERRORISM". One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist and so on. It's all point of view. M'kay? This article has no business being in Wikipedia. And if I didn't know better, I'd say this was just subtle U.S. bashing pretending to be an informed article. But we all know it can't be that. Anyway, you can go back to your logic circle jerk and pat each other on the back for having the most well referenced nonsense on here. I'm gonna go see if I can't find the "Holacaust Never Happened" page and see how well referenced and full of factual material that is. After all, if it has 100 citations and historically accurate sections taken out of context, then it must be ok by Wiki policy and all true. KeeperOTD 17:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Bingo. Winner, winner, chicken dinner. Nail on the head. --Tbeatty

Agree. The sources include state censored Cuban media, 9/11 conspiracy sites, and various very far left activist magazines and activists. Not to mention the systematic exclusion of opposing view, only including some selected straw mans. This article should be mentioned at WP:SOAP as how to not write an article.Ultramarine 17:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no agreement on what God is, or who God is, or on what Christianity really is. There is however a pretty large agreement by people on what acts constitute "state terrorism." Odd that with no agreement on what state terrorism is, there is a large agreement of what acts are considered state terrorism. I am sure you would not state that 9/11 was not an act of "terrorism" and then argue that the UN, the only group people seem to cite, has not classified what terrorism is. The red herring here is that you do not need a "agreed upon by all nations" definition of what terrorism is, to state "Whoah dude! that was terrorism" or to label things as terrorism such as the academics have done. Just like you do not need a world definition of what/who God is, to say, I believe in God. Unless you prefer to debate the dollar bills meaning forever. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

American politicians and broadcast pundits routinely refer to 9/11 as acts of terrorism. Given the views expressed by some of the editors, no doubt they bristle every time, thinking "how dare they say it was 'terrorism,' there is no universally agreed upon definition of that term." If so, then they are entitled to maintain similar views here.--NYCJosh 22:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

RFC

Can the RFC be closed now? Is the issue resolved? Eiler7 20:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There never were any issues to be solved, except for a few editors who are not contributing but come and blank whole well sourced sections that were added with conensus, and then get this page locked in that vandalized state, hiding under an alleged but unexplained "content dispute." We need editors to protect this article from such continued vandalism once it becomes unprotected.Giovanni33 17:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Certainly lots of issues discussed above.Ultramarine 17:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes please close. I opened it to find more voices, then found information that met the requirements laid forward for Ultra anyway, that is that they specifically stated "state terrorism." --SevenOfDiamonds 12:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

I would propose to branch the article to internal and external terrorism by the United States government.

If you provided a source that states internal US terrorism, then we could think about it.--NYCJosh 19:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Potential references

"Giant cross to mark Stalin terror". BBC. 2007-08-06. Retrieved 2007-08-07.

Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a Allegations of state terrorism by Russia or Allegations of state terrorism by the U.S.S.R. - I guess those links answer my question. Let me know if you are interested in starting one, I will try to contribute, but it is not really my field. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll help out too, Tom. I think this article is getting wrapped up nicely and its time to move on. ... Seabhcan 14:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

When looking for stuff on Russia, I found this Washington Post article from 1989:

Michael Dobbs (January 6, 1989). "Soviets Charge U.S. With `State Terrorism' and `Adventurism'". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-08-07. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) ... Seabhcan 14:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
"COUNTRIES REAGAN CALLED TERRORIST STATES REPLY IN KIND". Philadelphia Inquirer. July 10, 1985. Retrieved 2007-08-07. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) ... Seabhcan 14:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

I have asked before but not recieved any good answers so I will ask again. Who are the "human rights organizations" accusing the US of terrorism? At least two are implied by the statement. Asian Human Rights Commission could be one,[18] but this is incorrect. They are merely quoting "Bay Area Indymedia" as a news item, like they do for many other news organizations that happen to mention the Asian Human Rights Commission. It is San Juan who makes this claims, and two times he cites the Commission, but none of cites make any claims of terrorism or state terrorism. So zero human rights organizations have made such claims. Similarly, who are the two "legal scholars"? One is presumably the member of the National Lawyers Guild, but who is the other?Ultramarine 18:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. It should be removed as non-cited material, original research and synthesis. --Tbeatty 02:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Since Giovanni33 does not want to discuss this we seem to have a consensus.Ultramarine 02:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't get it twisted, you don't have consensus for your points here. The idea that a lack of response from one (admittedly unnecessarily argumentative) editor implies some sort of general consent for your point is utterly absurd, and asserting "consensus" (even in a joking fashion) is a bad move on this talk page.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the issues raised, please do. Ultramarine 10:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly no disrespect, but I don't want to discuss any of the "issues" raised because this talk page could and should be dead for awhile (I done said this before--so I'm reiterating). And that's the thing man. BS talk about "consensus" might well elicit a comment from me, and in this case it obviously did.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 11:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If you do not want to follow the standard wikipedia dispute resolution and dicuss the issue, then we can only conclude that the issue is resolved.Ultramarine 11:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll try and drum up some more sources. Give me a few hours. ... Seabhcan 12:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, got side tracked and didn't have a chance to look properly. Can anyone else help? ... Seabhcan 11:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Since no one has been able to find supporting sources or want to raise concrete objections, is anyone objecting to Tbeatty's ccomment?Ultramarine 16:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

raises hand* since one is clearly mentioned, removing the total wording makes little sense. If anything change it to singular, however silly that is. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a source for a member of National Lawyers Guild which could be used for changing to "legal scholar" from "legal scholars". There are none for "human rights organizations".Ultramarine 17:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

AHRC, as you noted above. I also presented one to you on the other page you argue on, ignoring it seems to be bad faith. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

As I noted AHRC does not accuse the US of terrorism.Ultramarine 17:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You have mentioned an article from HRW in another article. That source did not accuse the US of terrorism or state terrorism either.Ultramarine 17:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I also object but will not go around in circles on this issue, until you stop doing that to the Japan section issues, first. When that is resolved, then I'll addreess this issue. Until then I object to changes here.Giovanni33 17:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This issue was raised first and should be resolved before new controversies.Ultramarine 17:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Disagree.Giovanni33 17:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Explain.Ultramarine 17:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

HUSTISYA! (Victims of the US-Arroyo Regime United for Justice), SELDA (organization of political prisoners), Desaparacidos (organization of victims, relatives and friends of the disappeared), Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN, New Patriotic Alliance), KARAPATAN (Alliance for the Advancement of People's Rights), Public Interest Law Center, Peace for Life, Philippine Peace Center, IBON Foundation, United Church of Christ in the Philippines and the Ecumenical Bishops Forum.

The Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal: Second Session on the Philippines. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Muireann O'Briain, Richard Falk, Andrea Giardina are three of the jurors who found the guilty verdict, which are legal scholars. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

That is to unspecific. What article are you refering to?Ultramarine 17:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Article? I am talking about The Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal: Second Session on the Philippines --SevenOfDiamonds 18:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Presumably you are again refering to his article: [19] Note that the Asian Human Rights Commission are merely quoting "Bay Area Indymedia" as a news item, like they do for many other news organizations that happen to mention the Asian Human Rights Commission. It is San Juan who makes this claims, and two times he cites the Commission, but none of cites make any claims of terrorism or state terrorism. I cannot see that any accusations of terrorism are made by any human rights organization in that article.Ultramarine 18:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal: Second Session on the Philippines Why do I have to keep posting this? --SevenOfDiamonds 18:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Also The quote is The United States of America has been accused of funding, training, and harboring individuals and groups who engage in terrorism by some legal scholars, other governments, and human rights organizations,[dubious – discuss] among others. Therefore the sources does not have to say "state terrorism." This has been pointed out to you before, forum-shopping is not appropriate. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

That is the the disputed statement in this article. Give an exact quote, source, and page numbers, where "The Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal: Second Session on the Philippines" has accused the US of terrorism or state terrorism, please.Ultramarine 18:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The verdict. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, verdict regarding what and what is the quote? Ultramarine 18:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding what? I do not get your question. Verdict of the The Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal: Second Session on the Philippines --SevenOfDiamonds 18:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

That is not a verifiable statement. It is like stating "Amnesty has stated..." and then not mentioning in what publication. Please name the specific report you refer to.Ultramarine 18:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The verdict of the The Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal: Second Session on the Philippines --SevenOfDiamonds 18:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not really sure what you are arguing anymore. I gave you a source, go read it. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Doubtful if it is a human rights organization. I have read it, and it does not accuse the US of terrorism.Ultramarine 18:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

To say Doubtful if it is a human rights organization means you did not read it, lying about sources is not proper. Since at the beginning of the verdict, they state who they are. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, does not accuse the US of terrorism in the verdict. Give a quote if claiming otherwise.Ultramarine 18:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry this conversation is over, you have just lied regarding sources and as such I cannot have a conversation with you regarding them. Good day. I have presented numerous HR groups who signed on with the above and the verdict issued. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I am looking at the verdict right now and cannot see any accusations of state terrorism or terrorism by the US. Again, give a quote if you disagree. As noted above, no human rights organizatios accusing the US of this has been presented.Ultramarine 18:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sure you are, like you were a moment ago. I am no longer dealing with you on this article. So we can leave this as oppose to the removal of material, since I have presented sources. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Now you know why I'm reluctant to deal with UltraMarine, too, as he engaged in TE editing practices, which seem to me, to be aimed at creating frustration though playing dumb and repeating himself. For the record, I looked at the source SevenOfDiamonds gave, and it does mention State terrorism and state terror several times.Giovanni33 19:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be better if you gave sources for your claims, or agreed to remove them, rather than engage in personal attacks.Ultramarine 19:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

That has already been done, many times. If you choose to not see them then we can't help you further. Your conduct here on the talk page is classic TE, and if you are doing it purposefully, then that is not allowed. If you persist, you will not be taken seriously and just ignored.Giovanni33 19:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No sources has been presented which mentions human rights organizations accusing the US of terrorism or state terrorism. I again ask you to give them, much better than personal attacks. Ad hominem is not a valid argument.Ultramarine 19:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

When you close your eyes, the world does not disappear. I think as far as myself is concerned, I will simpyl reply to you with a source or something and not engage in pointless chit chat after. Your lying has proven to be detrimental to my work and research here. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yet another personal attack. Ad hominem is not an alternative to factual arguments. I suggest you instead state a source supporting the claims.Ultramarine 19:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

He already has. When you say he hasn't, it is factually false (since I have looked and can readily see it for myself). As far as you seeing this deliberately or not(lying), I don't know. But, we can assume you can read, and therefore, have seen it. Therefore, there is no personal attack, only an observation of fact. Either that or you just don't bother to read the sources that are given to you. This is now a pattern with you accross many articles. It looks like the other side has to actually quote large sections over and over before you finally "see it."Giovanni33 20:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Reading the source showed that it did not support the claim as per above. Not to mention that the claim requries at least two human rights organizaitons.Ultramarine 20:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Based on your false claim above, I can only conclude that you did not infact read it, or you have trouble reading.Giovanni33 20:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I have read it. If you have read it, you should have no problem giving a quote supporting your claim.Ultramarine 20:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem doing that, just feel that one is not needed since there are so many in the article, and its plain to anyone who read its. I know you require me to quote it for you, but I call that lazyiness. So if you did read it, read it again. But, if you really are lazy, just do a search for the word "terror" and click "next"== your computer will show each time its used.Giovanni33 20:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Since there is a dispute on this issue, please give a quote if you "don't have a problem doing that".Ultramarine 20:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I would normally be happy to comply, except you've shown your not being serious. First address the Japan section above, then I'll be happy to quote for you, what I'm sure everyone else who has read the sources and readily see.Giovanni33 20:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, ad hominem will not help your case. Please use factual arguments. We should resolve old disputes before introducing new controversies.Ultramarine 20:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Look I am not playing this game, I am an adult and tired of childish BS. You did not read the source and I am tired of hearing otherwise, your blatant disrespect and false claims are obsurd. Your own quote above proved you have not read the source presented and this conversation is over as you have proven to lie about having read them, and then about their contents. When you decide to be taken serious, then you will act in a serious manner and not lie about sources, and if you have read them, and further about their contents. Giovanni I reccomend you simply post the source if you find the need to respond to him. I am going to do the same, there is no point in arguing in circles because he does not want to read the source, or chooses to lie about it. --SevenOfDiamonds 21:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Ultramarine, you don't have to address the Japanese issues as you were askd to. Then again, we don't have to take your wishes seriously and can just do what we think is right, since your unsupported opinion isn't going to carry any weight in this discussion. It's up to you. ThAtSo 23:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any of this is very helpful right now, but I'll try to answer Ultramarine's question, even though I really do not know about this topic. In the version of the verdict I could find (the web site of The Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal: Second Session on the Philippines seems to be down right now), I don't think there is any specific mention of state terrorism by the US. But there is such a charge--or at least that's how I would interpret it--here. This is a call to sign on to the upcoming verdict, put out by the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal itself (as you can see if you click on the PDF). The third charge reads in part: "Transgression of Philippine national sovereignty, including treason by the Arroyo regime, all-out war policy and use of state terrorism to keep the Arroyo puppet clique in power and to align with the US global war of terror and aggression, the culpability of the Arroyo regime and the US for war crimes and crimes of humanity." Now admittedly it's definitely possible to read that as not directly accusing the US of "state terrorism" but rather of "war crimes and crimes of humanity" (i.e. only the Arroyo regime is guilty of state terrorism). But I think that would be splitting hairs a bit too much. I did not read the full report (which I found as a Word document here), but it seems to heavily emphasize US culpability and complicity in actions which, in the statement I'm citing here, the group labels as state terrorism. Hope that helps, and it's possible I missed more direct language about state terrorism and the US in this context. Folks can debate if the statement I'm citing is sufficient evidence for our purposes, or better yet put the question aside for a little while and either work on other articles or on finding better sources for stuff here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The verdict nowhere accuses the US of state terrorism or terrorism, even assuimg that this tribunal is a human rights organization. So no sources have been shown which shows human rights organizations (at least two to implied) accusing the US of terrorism or state terroism.Ultramarine 08:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we can assume it is a human rights organization, it seems to have been around since the 70s or 80s and convened itself around a variety of human rights issues and brought in a variety of experts. If you don't think it is one you should explain why with some specificity, but I think it would be a better idea to admit that this group qualifies and move on to their argument. I already agreed that the verdict did not refer to state terrorism by the US (at least that I saw) but I referred you to a different document from the same group which, I think, does do that. It's perfectly legitimate for you to disagree with how I'm reading that document as I already pointed out, but you did not respond to my post (I'm not sure if you even read the document), which at the very least calls into question the notion that this group didn't accuse the US of state terrorism in the Philippines, which is your claim.

Wait, I'm realizing this is all fairly irrelevant as someone pointed out above, since the sentence from the intro we are discussing says "The United States of America has been accused of funding, training, and harboring individuals and groups who engage in terrorism by some legal scholars, other governments, and human rights organizations, among others." Sentences in the report like "The AFP [Philippine armed forces] continues to serve as an instrument of suppression and executor of extra-legal operations under the guidance and with the support of US counterinsurgency and anti-terrorism agencies, i.e. the CIA and the Department of Defense in Pentagon. The Arroyo regimes’ dependence on the US and the US trained armed forces is crucial for the survival of the regime." That quote alone clearly backs up the sentence, I'm sure I could have found others, and if you want to add a link directly to the report to improve the sourcing you could certainly request that an admin do that. Does that clear up your concerns on this point? I would like to move on.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Your new link goes to http://www.aprnet.org which is definitely not a human rights organization.Ultramarine 09:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I know, but I already explained this. Go to this link, scroll down briefly to where it talks about "statement of support" and then click on "download PDF." See that document? That's what I'm referring to.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh and, I should have added, to make it perfectly clear we would cite this report in conjunction with the shorter document I cited above which clearly accuses the Arroyo government at the very least (and arguably the US government) of state terrorism. I think that would take care of it--actually the shorter doc by itself is probably good info as a source for the intro sentence in question, which does not deal directly with accusations of state terrorism by the US--I should have noticed this fact earlier.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The souces given do not include any human righrs organization accusing the US of terrorism. Interpretations and synthesis arguing that other criticisms are in fact criticisms of terrorism by these organizations are OR and not allowed. Not to mention that at least two organizations are required for current statement.Ultramarine 09:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain that again, much more specifically? The one-page PDF I'm talking about is from the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal. Are you arguing that is not an HR org? On what basis? The document refers to state terror by the Arroyo gov, culpability of the US for war crimes and military intervention by the US. If that's not good enough, the full report which this document references refers very explicitly to US support for the Arroyo gov (which is very clearly accused of state terror). So can you explain specifically what your problem with this is, i.e. how it is not a valid source for the intro sentence in question?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

See WP:SYN, such argumentation is not allowed.Ultramarine 09:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Where is the violation of WP:SYN? These are documents from the same group on the same issue, if I quoted a press release about a report and the report itself, using different language from each, would that be a violation of WP:SYN? Because this is the exact same thing.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

A. An online petition for support of a coming tribunal which as one of three charges mentioned state terrorism by the Philippino government. B. US has supported this government. Original synthesis 1: The US has done state terrorism. Original synthesis 2: This tribunal accused the US of this. Also ignoring later developments, that the tribunal in its verdict later did not accuse the US of state terrorism.Ultramarine 09:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, by simply saying you disagree with the logical connections this group is making, you are yourself doing original research. To report on this group's connections, as they report it, is not.Giovanni33 10:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not an "online petition" from some random web site--it's printed on the letterhead of the group who wrote the report, i.e. it's their document. More importantly, this information has nothing to do with the US doing state terrorism as I already said. Please stop bringing that up, you know the intro sentence this is sourcing does not say that. Thus your original synthesis points 1 and 2 are completely irrelevant because you are saying I am saying something that I am not. Here's what I'm saying. One HR group has accused the Arroyo regime of state terrorism, and argued that this has occurred "with the support and full awareness of the government of George Walker Bush" as the longer report says. That's it, that supports the intro sentence in question (I think the one page PDF does that all by itself). But these documents are from the exact same group on the exact same issue, they can both be used to establish the group's opinion (if you say otherwise, most of this encyclopedia would be OR since we could never even use two newspaper articles from the same paper on the same topic since pulling info--e.g. one day John said this and then the next day he said that--from both would be OR). The US does not need to be accused of state terrorism, just of supporting someone who has been accused of committing terrorism, because that's the intro sentence we are talking about, right?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

An online petition for support of a future tribunal is not very intersting since the tribunal itself now has passed. See WP:SYN. Synthesizing as in my last paragraph above violates this. Plesae give a source where a HR organiztion accuses the US of terrorism, which the intro states, not an OR synthesis.Ultramarine 10:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself, referring to policies of which you know I am well aware, refusing to engage with the specific points I just made (i.e. this is not about state terrorism, i.e. your specific point about synthesis is therefore completely irrelevant), and making bald assertions, presumably because you realize you've just about lost this little debate. That's great you don't think the source is "interesting," but that has nothing to do with anything we are talking about or with Wikipedia policies. Let me rephrase this one more time, even more clearly. One HR group has accused the US of directly supporting the Arroyo gov militarily and financially and has also accused the Arroyo gov of state terrorism--two undeniable facts revealed in two official documents from the group. These facts provide partial sourcing for the statement ""The United States of America has been accused of funding, training, and harboring individuals and groups who engage in terrorism by some legal scholars, other governments, and human rights organizations, among others." Whatever you say in reply, do not refer me to WP:SYN--I've read it 30 times.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

But is allegedly supporting others who allegedly do terrorsim then "state terrorism" by the first party? What is the source for this? Unless a source is given for this, then the whole sentence should be removed. Furthermore, who is the other human rights organizaion?Ultramarine 10:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who the other HR org is and I don't care right now, I'm dealing with/wasting time on this one issue on this one source and don't even have time to think about another one--don't move the bar on me before you even bother to concede on the source we are talking about. Whether what I have described is "state terrorism" by the first party is completely, utterly, beside the point because the sentence in the intro for which these sources would provide backing does not refer to state terrorism by the United States. Do you understand? I've literally said this 4 or 5 times now--please acknowledge that you understand that the sentence in question is about US support of groups accused of terrorism, not state terrorism by the US. It's not the same thing, which is why there are two different sentences.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

My whole point is that the statement requires at least two human righrs organizations and only one such possible source has been given. Furthermore, I dispute the relevance of the sentence "The United States of America has been accused of funding, training, and harboring individuals and groups who engage in terrorism" for this article. Who is claiming that it is "state terorism" to give some kind of support to another party who have been accused of terrorism? Ultramarine 10:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

A minute ago your whole point was that what I was describing violated SYN or OR, but now you have found a new point, so I assume you are conceding the particular argument we just had. Moving the goal posts as you are in the midst of losing a debate (we were only talking about one very specific thing--not the entire first sentence of the article, or the fact that another source was required) will not stand you in good stead with me. I'm done here for now. If you take away anything away from this excruciatingly painful tete a tete, I hope you recognize that you do not have consensus for whatever it is you thought you were arguing (at this point I don't know what that is since you just flipped the script). I'll leave it to others to deal with the new objections you've raised now that the old ones did not work out for you. The best thing to do though would be to work elsewhere since progress is not going to happen here right now. Fin.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have always stated that two human rights organizations are required for the current statement. As well as questioning the general OR in this article were editors make up their own definition of state terrorism and then claims that some acts are violations of their own definition.Ultramarine 10:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

HUSTISYA! (Victims of the US-Arroyo Regime United for Justice), SELDA (organization of political prisoners), Desaparacidos (organization of victims, relatives and friends of the disappeared), Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN, New Patriotic Alliance), KARAPATAN (Alliance for the Advancement of People's Rights), Public Interest Law Center, Peace for Life, Philippine Peace Center, IBON Foundation, United Church of Christ in the Philippines and the Ecumenical Bishops Forum. Why do I have to post everything 10 times? These are the Human Rights Group representing the Philippines that were present and represented at the Tribunal. The verdict found that the US could not be seperated from the Philippines and could notbe considered seperatly or independantly and came to the conclusion that " ... all of the three charges presented against Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her Government, and against George Walker Bush and his Government are substantiated." If only Ultramarine would have read the source. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

They are not accusing, the tribunal are. Regarding OR, see aboveUltramarine 10:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Go read the source. Tribunals do not make accusations. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This further proves you did not read the source, since the group says who they are in the opening paragraph of the Verdict, and you again, still, do not know who they are. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I read it, do not agree. So now we have multiple HR groups, this seems resolved. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not a real tribunal with real legal powers, so it is only making accusations.Ultramarine 10:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Tribunals do not make accusations. Your repeat of this shows that you still have not read the source, since you still do not know who they are. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It describes itself as an "opinion tribunal" Thus is expresses opinions.Ultramarine 10:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It listens to them, and adresses them with a verdict. The accusations are made by the numerous groups above, as has been shown to you. I think I am done talking to you unless you have a new arguement? --SevenOfDiamonds 10:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It has no legal powers and thus only expresses opinions, regardless of it prefers to call this a "verdict". My whole point is that the statement requires at least two human righrs organizations and only one such possible source has been given. Furthermore, I dispute the relevance of the sentence "The United States of America has been accused of funding, training, and harboring individuals and groups who engage in terrorism" for this article. Who is claiming that it is "state terorism" to give some kind of support to another party who have been accused of terrorism? Ultramarine 10:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me number them for you then: [20]

HUSTISYA! (Victims of the US-Arroyo Regime United for Justice)
SELDA (organization of political prisoners)
Desaparacidos (organization of victims, relatives and friends of the disappeared)
Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN, New Patriotic Alliance)
KARAPATAN (Alliance for the Advancement of People's Rights)
Public Interest Law Center
Peace for Life
Philippine Peace Center
IBON Foundation
United Church of Christ in the Philippines
Ecumenical Bishops Forum

I hope that removes any confusion. The item linked above says the US is complicit in state terrorism of the Arroyo Regime, that seems to meet the requirements. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is another one on behalf of HUSTISYA!, if you honestly believe the tribunal is making the accusation, then that is 1, and here is HUSTISYA! making another: [21] Page 4. So that makes 2, which is multiple. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

They do not, unless you have more links. It is the tribunal who makes these accusations. If for example the UN makes an accusation, then we do not say that the 150+ nations make an accusation. Furthermore, please give a source for that giving support to another party allegedly doing terrorism is state terrorism by the first party? It is like arguing that since the US is currently giving some form of support to North Korea, therefore the US is responsibly for human rights violations by North Korea.Ultramarine 10:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The sentence does not say what you think it does, I think that is the problem. They are being accused of supporting the "state terrorism" of Arroyo. That is clearly documented. --SevenOfDiamonds 11:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Further the verdict finds that the crimes commited cannot be seperated ... --SevenOfDiamonds 11:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

We need a source for that some kind of support to another party alleged to do terrorism or state terrorism is then state terrorism by the first party. See my comparison to US aid to North Korea.Ultramarine 11:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Please repost the first sentence for me, and highlite in bold where it says "state terrorism" I think this why we are an an inpasse, you may be looking at something different then me due to cache issues. I await this post. Thank you. --SevenOfDiamonds 11:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the state terrorism article, not an article called "US aid to nations alleged to do terrorism".Ultramarine 11:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Just let me know on my talk when you post it, just to make sure we are attempting to source the same statement. Thanks. --SevenOfDiamonds 11:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I am disputing the relevance of the whole statement to this article. If the US gives some form of support to North Korea as currently, and there are HR organizaions accusing North Korea of HR violations, then it is OR to argue that the US is responsible for these human rights violations by North Korea. Furthermore, two different HR organizations are implied by the current statement.Ultramarine 11:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

When you become a WP:RS source and publish something in a WP:RS newpaper, magazine etc. Let me know and I will quote how you feel about the linking these HR groups do. Until then, we only have the HR groups. 2 more sources presented below. This now wraps up "multiple". --SevenOfDiamonds 11:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Further the HUSTISYA! source is backed by DESAPARECIDOS, SELDA and BAGONG ALYANSANGMAKABAYAN. Making more then multiple. --SevenOfDiamonds 11:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The Responsibility for the Killings Falls on Arroyo By Fidel V. Agcaoili, Chairperson, Human Rights Committee National Democratic Front of the Philippines - 1 February 2007 Mrs. Arroyo’s announcement for the Commission to continue its “investigative” work is another political gimmick to mollify the mounting criticism coming from all over the world against the policy of state terrorism by her US-backed regime. --SevenOfDiamonds 11:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

See above.Ultramarine 11:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting on that. --SevenOfDiamonds 11:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Defending People’s Rights Against Foreign Aggression And State Terrorism, Romeo T. Capulong, President, Public Interest Law Center (PILC) - Keynote Address to the Third IAPL Congress, Davao City, Philippines, 14 October 2006 As lawyers defending the oppressed and exploited poor we experience in our country being subjected to serious threats of assassination under a government that employs total war, state terrorism and political persecution with the help of a foreign power to perpetuate an unjust system. I say this also because of the increasing tensions and blatant violations of international law throughout the world arising from U.S.-led wars of aggression and interventionism in many countries even as peoples continue to suffer the trade and financial impositions of major capitalist countries led by the United States. --SevenOfDiamonds 11:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

An individual is not necessarily an organization. There is also the question of notability, you keep refering to obscure organizations in the Philippines. The statement implies a more general criticism by human rights organizations, which would require more notable organiztions also in other nations.Ultramarine 11:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Name a non-obscure HR group in the Philippines. I think, you believe its obscure because you do not know of HR groups in Philippines, so name me 4 that are not obscure. --SevenOfDiamonds 11:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of HR groups: Task Force Detainees of the Philippines, Commission on Human Rights Philippines, Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates, The Virlanie Foundation, etc. I will make a more general statement below.Ultramarine 11:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

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

This article is about "Allegations of state terrorism by the United States". That the US have given some form of support to others alleged to have done terrorism does not mean that the US have done "state terrorism". For example, the US currently gives some form of support to North Korea, which is accused by human rights organizations of human rights violations and terrorism previously. This does not make the US responsible for this.
The statement implies at least two legal scholars. Only one, a member of the National Lawyers Guild, is mentioned.
The statement implies at least two human rights organizations, only one possible such is discussed, a tribunal in the Philippines.
Extraordinary claims, extraordinary sources are required. Thus, dubious sources such as conspiracy theorists publishing their thoughts online are not reliable sources.Ultramarine 11:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist? Who are you talking about? I gave you 5+ HR groups. Public Interest Law Center seems to cover Legal scholars well. Also no matter how much you type, the opening paragraph is now sourced. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

PS Verlanie Foundation is a childrens shelter program. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No other objection? Ultramarine 13:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding what? I listed 5 groups, which you have not disputed any, and PILC which covers legal scholars. Your running on about conspiracy theorists ... seems a bit off topic. So other then the above being wrong, no no other objections. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Lets take the first point first. "State sponsored terrorism" is a different concept from "state terrorism". The sentence could be appropriate in article called "Allegations of US sponsorship of terrorism". "State terrorism" however implies direct action by US personel, which giving aid is not.Ultramarine 13:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but the first sentence is now sourced. I really care little about you interpretation of definitions. Further it was people on your side of the spectrum that I believe gave the current name, the name originally was allegations of state sponsored terrorism by the united states. Feel free to get concensus and move it again. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Please give a source for that "state terrorism" includes giving aid to groups doing terrorism. The standard term for that is "state sponsored terrorism". State terror, on the other hand, refers to direct actions by the state in question, like by the Red Khmers when in power or Stalin's regime. It is like the the distinction between being a party of a war and giving some aid to one of then nations involved in a war.Ultramarine 14:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I did above, you just ignored it [22] --SevenOfDiamonds 14:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This does not state that "state terrorism" includes giving aid to groups doing terrorism as per my argument above.Ultramarine 14:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Rofl, sure it doesn't, its only highlited on page 4 ... *rolls eyes* at least attempt a cursory examination and a quick search before making such a claim. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

We will prove during the trial that Gloria-Macapagal-Arroyo, with the complicit support of George Bush and their co-conspirators, are guilty of the following crimes:

2. Thru the aforementioned Oplan Bantay Laya and its implementing projects, and insupport of the US global “war on terror” of George W. Bush, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyohas resorted to state terrorism against both the armed revolutionary movement of theCPP/NPA/NDF and the progressive opposition by explicitly and implicitly directing, abetting, tolerating and rewarding political killings, abductions and involuntary disappearances, torture, massacre and other violations of civil and political rights committed by the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), the Philippine National Police (PNP), paramilitary forces and death squads of the AFP and PNP.

Not clear enough? --SevenOfDiamonds 14:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Accuses Gloria Macapagal-Arroyohas of "state terrorism". That the US supported this government is probably argued elsewhere, although not in your quote. This does not mean the US did "state terrorism". If the Philippines had been at war with Indonesia and the US gave some form of support for this, this does not make the US a participant of this war. That is the distinction between "state terrorism" and "state sponsored terrorism".Ultramarine 14:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

We will prove during the trial that Gloria-Macapagal-Arroyo, with the complicit support of George Bush and their co-conspirators, are guilty of the following crimes Please read more carefully. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the claims of the "chief prosecutor", not the final "verdict".Ultramarine 14:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like an allegation. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Not by a human righs organization.Ultramarine 14:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, by 4. Read the source please. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I will take this as evidence that this "tribunal" found the US not guilty of this "charge", since it was not mentioned in the final verdict. Do you have another source?Ultramarine 14:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Read the sources! you have already been given the verdict, you stated you read it. So tell me, what did it say again? --SevenOfDiamonds 14:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The verdict did not include this charge. Obviously the US was cleared.Ultramarine 14:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Lol obviously you are not reading the sources. There are 3 claims made and the verdict stated "has convinced the PPT that each and all of the three charges presented against Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her Government, and against George Walker Bush and his Government are substantiated." Stop wasting my time. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, the mock trial stated that. Regardless, support for "state terrorsim" by another group is not state terrorism itself, just like support for one sidd in a war is not the same as being an active participant in the hostilities. That is the distinction between "state terrorism" and "state sponsored terrorism".Ultramarine 14:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The source disagrees with you. When you are published we will be glad to include your opinion as a side to the current one. Until then, 3 groups have now been presented in one source. The fact that you refer to this as a "mock trial" still makes me wonder if you read the source. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The mock trial charge stated "with the complicit support of George Bush". Again, support is not the same as doing. That is the reason there are different terms, "state terrorsim" and "state sponsored terrorism".Ultramarine 15:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I also quote "the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal (tribunal permanent des peuples, TPP)-a tribunal founded in Bologna in 1979 that holds mock trials against states that are allegedly guilty of crimes against humanity"[23]

It sources the sentence, you claim is not properly sourced. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The mock trial only accuses the US of support, so that would be state sponsored terrorism. Why is "the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal (tribunal permanent des peuples, TPP)-a tribunal founded in Bologna in 1979 that holds mock trials against states that are allegedly guilty of crimes against humanity"[24] not properly sourced? Ultramarine 18:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Perhaps the commas are throwing me off, but your sentence is not making any sense to me. If you have a problem with the source, please state so in common language. The group alleges the US supported the state terrorism of Arroyo, which fulfills the first sentence. --SevenOfDiamonds 21:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Support for something is not the same as doing. Compare being in a war and supporting one side in a war. That is why there are different terms, "state terrorism" which could for example be the state terror during Stalin, and "state sponosored terrorism" which is support for terrorism. So this whole sentence does not belong in this article. This points to a more general problem with this article, it mostly deals with alleged US support of terrorism by others, so maybe it should be better titled "Allegations of United States sponsorship of terrorism"? Ultramarine 21:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I think a quote from a humanitarian organization that accuses the US of terrorism can be found at wikiquote, though your interpretation may differ (American imperialism: "Throughout the world, on any given day, a man, woman or child is likely to be displaced, tortured, killed or "disappeared", at the hands of governments or armed political groups. More often than not, the United States shares the blame." by the AI).

There is, however, a far more important issue in the introduction. The first paragraph has eleven citations of people that believe in US-sponsored terrorism, and the second one has only two of people that don't. That position is seriously underepresented. --200.222.30.9 19:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That is a very good point and I wish people would expand on the counter sections and work together to make a better article, however it seems many of those opposing items do not wish to edit the article, edit as in add content. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all we should correct the errors, at most one human rights organization, if the mock trial can be called that, has accused the US of supporting terrorism. Which of course is not the same as dong terroism as per above.Ultramarine 21:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

As you see Ultramarine partially agrees, he is working on rewriting many sections. The fact that he still demonstrating he has not read the source is something I find quite comical, and yet very sad. --SevenOfDiamonds 21:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Who are you replying to here? The placement would suggest Ultramarine, but the content of your comments would appear to be a personal attack on Ultramarine, done with stagecraft for a wider audience. Completely unproductive as well. - Crockspot 21:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Find another tree to bark up, you are surely not caught up on the situation, feel free to read the archives though. "stage craft" I guess I can play impartial, but now that you have involved yourself, it eliminates your use of admin tools here, so I feel better about that. So tell me, how many groups are named in that source? --SevenOfDiamonds 22:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Since when am I an admin? - Crockspot 15:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, seen an old thread on your page where you were hoping to be nominated, or something to that effect. Good response though. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I still hope to in the near future. I have been receiving support on that from several admins, even ones who decidedly lean to the left, because they know that I am fair and would probably not abuse the tools. If I were an admin, I would know better than to use the tools in a conflict where I am directly involved. But with the recent accusations against an uninvolved admin, I could see where some might consider ANY admin action I took on any topic to be "improper". I guess, when and if that time comes, we will cross that bridge. - Crockspot 15:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The talk pages are not for general discussion. Did you read the source yet? Let me know how many Human Rights groups you find mentioned. Thanks. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Since I don't edit this article, (and no one else will be able to for almost two months), the short answer is no. But feel free to hold your breath until I do. - Crockspot 16:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I figured you did not, thanks for admitting as much of your understanding of the current discussion you decided to involve yourself. PS I will be holding my breath. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ad hominem will not help your case.Ultramarine 21:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not an ad hominem to point out that the source you are quoting is one you have not read, which is why you keep making the silly claim that its one group, when within the first 100 words of that source, 3 groups are named. --SevenOfDiamonds 22:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

He was probably replying to me. And okay, I'll get you some citations. According to that definition of terrorism ("premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets")...

One of his co-conspirators was Luis Posada Carriles, a CIA-trained Bay of Pigs veteran, who was previously charged in the 1976 terrorist bombing of a Cuban airliner that killed 73 people.

Two countries do want Mr. Posada: Venezuela, where he is wanted for blowing up the plane, and Cuba, where he is viewed as an enemy of the state who has repeatedly tried to assassinate Mr. Castro.

"CIA agents trained Posada Carriles's commandos in sabotage and violence and directed their activities, the account states, only to abandon them as unsavory criminals in the 1970s"

And of course I don't say that sponsoring terrorism was out of question. Here is an interesting list of graduates from the school of Americas.

Also In the late 1980s, the CIA assigned Vietnam veteran U.S. General John Singlaub to organize anti-communist vigilante groups all over the country for mass terror

and finnaly, in here the UN press release (Security council 8), about Yugoslavia: "The Security Council could not be passive and quiet as though it was unaware of the fact that the bombing of the past six weeks had caused deaths, misery and terror to thousands of civilians." the word terror is used, though you'll obviously argue that the UN is not a "Human Rights Organization" or that it was largely the other NATO countries and not US, or some other thing, so I'll stand by the other citations. --200.222.30.9 22:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

None of the above quotes are human rights organizations accusing the US of terrorism. Also, I again note that there is a distinction bettween doing and supporting, as in being in a war and supporting one side in a war. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the Cuba airplane bombing was planned by the CIA or the US. That some persons taking courses lasting less than a year in a US army school, most not taking any controversial intelligence courses but simply regular military courses like Tank Warfare, later do human rights violations, does not mean that the US have done terrorism.Ultramarine 12:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the CIA part of American government? I'd hate to think the CIA can just go around committing terrorism without warning the congress or the president. Also, those five quotes are from Human Rights Organizations, and the five mentioned US terrorism, the Human Rights watch is actually totally anti-Castro, and it still refers to US terrorism (Posada wasn't just trained by the CIA, he was directed). And on the School of Americas quote, the term is "sponsor", they allege that the US teach those terrorists things like "Tank Warfare" (Understandably, I mean, that sure is a big list of graduates, you don't get so many terrorists out of a list of graduates from Havard). The UN accuses the NATO countries of killing civilians and spreading terror, in order to get Milosevic outta there, I don't know your definition of terrorism, but that fits mine. --200.222.30.9 14:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

None of these quotes accuse the CIA or the US government of doing "terrorism". OR interpretations that they meant "terrorism" are just that, OR interpretations which are not allowed. I again note regarding Posada that there is no evidence that the bombing was planned or direct by the US or CIA.Ultramarine 16:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean, but the thing is that you didn't ask for evidence, you asked for accusations, and accusations are just what I gave you. The three Posada ones clearly describe him as a terrorist, no OR here, the U.S. General appointed by the CIA is clearly accused of committing mass-terror and the UN clearly accuses NATO of causing "deaths, misery and terror to thousands of civilians". So I don't see your point. I also don't see any new representation from the other side, and the only reason I put out those quotes so that this whole discussion about Human Rights organizations could end, and some opposing point of views could be written on the article. I guess I failed. --200.222.30.9 17:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you are giving my quotes that you personally think means accusations of "terrorism". However, none of the quotes says that. Also, I again note the distinction between doing terrorism yourself and supporting others who do. The name of this article means the first, it is not callled "allegations of US support of terrorism". It also seems dubious that derechos.org is a notable human rights organizations, it seems mostly to be an anti-US site. Exceptional claims requires exceptional sources.Ultramarine 17:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You didn't ask for notable human rights orgs, but okay, I'll give you one more quote, though before, let me ask you some things. Why is that claim exceptional? If I was talking about how the URSS committed lots of terrorism in the Cold War, wouldn't three sources suffice? Would you claim those are anti-soviet sources? Why is Derechos anti-american? Human Rights Watch seems anti-Cuba, yet, they say the CIA directed (until some undetermined time) and trained Posada, that source is both notable and surely not anti-american. Note the term "directed", this wasn't simply sponsoring. This is more than what the Al Qaeda does. It trains terrorists, but don't usually direct them. So where's the line between sponsoring and committing? Why is it that when the UN talks about causing terror and killing civilians to get Milosevic it is not terrorism?

But you say Derechos is anti-american and that the others should be dismissed for less than explained reasons, so here goes, another source: Last year, an assassination attempt on Fidel Castro was ordered by a well-known international terrorist. The United States Central Intelligence Agency also had ordered one on President Castro in 1976. that's UN for you. Note the perfect and ironic juxtaposition. I bet the guy writing this was being sarcastic. --200.222.30.9 20:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR. The source does not state that attempting to murder Castro was terrorism, that is your own OR interpretation of this. Such OR is not allowed in Wikipedia.Ultramarine 09:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

For example, the UN's "academic consensus definition," states that "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought." Thus, according to this particular definition of terrorism, it would not be terrorism to assassinate Castro.Ultramarine 09:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The UN definition was the one I used for Yugoslavia, i.e. it would be terrorism to bomb Yugoslavian civilians (targets of opportunity) to destabilize Milosevic, and you said that was OR. Anyway, even if we dismiss that now, the earlier source about Yugoslavia becomes true. Hell, according to that definition, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be terrorism, since it attacked targets of opportunity to make the Japanese surrender even faster. Look, I don't want you to recognize the US committed terrorism, I just want you to recognize that there are Human Rights Organizations that say that (the six sources I found were with a cursory glance at Google), and then I would like if you added things to the article that say just how much it isn't true. --200.222.30.9 14:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no agreed on definition of terrorism and WP:OR prohibits us from ourself deciding on a particular definition and then claim that some particular act violates our own defintion. In short, you have to give sources showing that human rights organizations are accusing the US of "terrorism", not yourself argue that you think that other criticisms not mentioning "terrorism" are in fact really meaning "terrorism".Ultramarine 14:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, words do have meaning, and there are reliable sources that are authoritative about these meanings. The UN's definition of terrorism is a perfectly good one that we cannot ignore without revealing major bias. ThAtSo 14:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The UN has four different definitions of terrorism.Ultramarine 15:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Any one of which is more authoritative than your personal ones. ThAtSo 16:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not given one. I have merely pointed out that claiming that some particular act is terrorism violates WP:OR unless the given source states this. Arguing that attempting to assassinate Castro is an act of terrorism because a wikipedia editor thinks that attempted assassinations are terrorism violates OR unless there is a source claiming that this particular act was terrorism.Ultramarine 16:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'll repeat, I didn't use my definition of terrorism, I used the article's one, but at any rate, "terrorism" was the term Human Rights Watch, UN and Derechos used, they accused the US of directing "Terrorists" (a person that commits terrorism) and spreading "terror" (the act of committing terrorism). Besides, even if Derechos were to be directed by Hugo Chavés himself, they would still be accusing the US of terrorism, and you asked for accusations, not evidence. I also think that under any definition of the word "terrorism" that you can come up, there's no way to not classify what happened in Yugoslavia as terrorism, unless you argue that it's because it happened during a war (if you call unilateral bombings "a war"), in which case the PLO, the Hezbollah and the Hamas cease to be terrorists. By the way, why people never argue that terrorism has no definition when they're talking about Al Qaeda? --200.222.30.9 15:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No, your sources did not accuse the US of terrorism, that is your own OR interpretation. Nor did the US direct Posada to bomb the airplane, even assuming that the allegations that he is a terrorist is correct. Why is bombing against military targets terrorism, there were certainly no deliberate bombing of civilians in Yugoslavia? Al Qaeda and Hamas certainly dispute that they do terrorist acts and in Wikipedia such claims are qualified by exactly who applies this label. Which is another problem with this article. So instead of stating "legal scholars" we should name exactly the legal scholar who is making this claim. More generally, most would argue that the difference between Al Qaeda and US activities is that Al Qaeda deliberately attack civilians, the US, say after the Vietnam war which was the last time rather unspecific area bombing was used, only tries to attack military targets.Ultramarine 17:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

We could use Chomsky's definition of terrorism: "Violence by the weak against the strong". That definition neatly fits with US government usage, where Hezbollah, Hamas, etc are terrorists when they bomb rich white people, but US actions are never terrorist, by definition. ... Seabhcan 15:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Chomsky is writing outside his academic field and has no particular scholarship regarding terrorism. Since Al Qaeda prefers to attack unarmed civilians, they are certainly the strong against the weak. There is no particulare reason to accept his unclear definition as preferable to for example the four different proposed UN definitions.Ultramarine 17:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Chomsky is far from being an expert in terrorism, he is a left liberal, and I respect him for that, but he is far from an expert in terrorism. I agree that we need to qualify (care to do that? It's not like I can), though I believe the sources do give some examples. And I agree that Vietnam bombings were rather "unspecific". But I disagree with just about everything else you said. First, I disagree with the "when it's military targets and civilians die, the civilians are not deliberate targets" rationale. Take that guy flew that plane into the pentagon, a military target, he would fly that plane into the building no matter if the plane was crowded or not. His target was the pentagon, and the civilians that died were "unintended targets" or "collateral damage" if you prefer. Were the civilians deliberate targets? I'd say that yes, the civilian death toll was completely disregarded and no measures were taken to diminish it.

That and even more is what happened in Yugoslavia. The NATO had everything to be a terrorist by the UN definition: They targeted infrastructure (like bridges and factories) and fairly populated areas, completely disregarding the certainty of a civilian death toll (that was quite high, as you know); Most importantly, they bombed civilian things like water and power plants; Their goal with the bombings was not to occupy the country, their goal was sending a message ("Serbs out, peacekeepers in, refugees back," a simple message I'd say) and instead of using more precise methods like an actual invasion or some other thing, they decided to use their notoriously dumb smart bombs and aeroplanes. Was that terrorism? Well, that certainly wasn't a war, and it seems to fit the UN definition quite nicely. The only difference between that and Al Qaeda, I'd say, is that Al Qaeda could never dream of obtaining so much firepower. Again I point out that the word "terror" was used by the UN.

Now about Posada, according to you "Nor did the US direct Posada to bomb the airplane," I won't discuss that, since that's not my point, my point is the more interesting word, "directed", used in HRW's article, that you forgot to mention. Well, I don't know about you, but even if the article doesn't specifically say that Posada was being directed to commit less than savoury acts, it can be inferred that the CIA wouldn't direct a terrorist on how to best produce cotton candy for the hungry kids in Nigeria, right? --200.222.30.9 01:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

So...there were no answers because everyone agrees or because no one cares? It's just that, if everyone agrees, the "dubious tag" (I'm not sure what's the name) should go. --200.222.30.9 16:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree that the tag should go. That and the fact that I provided 3 groups alone in one document. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I know, but people weren't accepting that source (though I believe it's at least as good as anything from the opposition) so I had to come up with new ones, to try to end this unproductive debate for even more deletion (the whole section on Japan was blanked, it seems) and make people get on to bettering the article. I don't think I was succesful. --200.222.30.9 02:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested edit to remove tag

{{editprotected}} I believe {{underdiscussion}} is not intended for use in the main namespace (WP:SELF), and, as such, should be removed from the top of this article. Only this mainspace article and one other currently transclude it (see Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Underdiscussion). I'll remove the other myself, but that's currently not possible here. justen 10:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong but I see no reason to remove the tag, and I have undone your good faith edit on the other place it was used. Looking at the locations the template is used, I see about 50 templates (not project namespaces) that show when to use the template, and only two articles that actually use the template. With all the hotly contested articles on Wikipedia it is surprising that the template is not used more extensively. I guess that is good. Some admin will come along and resolve the issue for us, because of the editprotected tag. 199.125.109.25 17:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi 199. The reason the tag is not used is because of a Wikipedia guideline called WP:SELF. Essentially, the guideline and principle is that we should never refer to "Wikipedia" or "talk pages" from a main namespace article page. Basically, the tag that was added to this article is not meant to be used outside of the WP: project namespace. While I agree that directing folks to talk pages of contested articles has its merits, Wikipedians came to a consensus, some time ago, that it was something that we would not do. justen 19:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. The protection tag suffices. Cheers. --MZMcBride 21:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Dubious tag

So...why exactly the dubious tag remains since there's no discussion anymore? (By the way, the article continues having lots and lots of sources that believe in US terrorism and few that disbelieve it, won't anyone at least try to address that?) --200.222.30.9 00:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no discussion only because the article is protected. Here are the edits that will be made as soon as possible, at a minimum. 199.125.109.118 05:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Exlanation of item 1 of Edits

Please sign the post, so we can differenciate it from others. Which would be the uncited paragraph in the lead? Opposing views has some problems which need to be fixed before its replaced (the current one is terrible, btw, and the above is much better). The Japan section, El Savador, yes, that was removed without consensus and had clear consensus to add. Moreover, no one has come up with any valid justications to remove them so far (hence being more like vandalism than anything else). Also, the Philippines sections falls in this category and should be added back to the Asia section. The El Salavador section could use some improvement (as they all can, actually--although they are already rather good). Lets work in improving each of these sections so they can be ready for the article once its open back up for editing.Giovanni33 04:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

There is only one uncited paragraph in the lead section, that being the section which comes before the TOC, and it states:

"Defenders of U.S. policy argue that American military interventions were justified in response to threats such as terrorism and Soviet aggression,^[18] and in the end produced superior governments and freer societies.^[19] The theoretical framework for the concept of state terrorism, and the evidence presented for U.S. state terrorism, are matters of considerable controversy.^{[citation needed]}"

The "Edits" section is not signed as it is simply a summary of the discussion. 199.125.109.118 07:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments on El Salvador

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

Protection?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

El Salvador

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

“

As is usually the case with truth commissions, the one for El Salvador did not focus on Washington's support for the government. .. That terror was committed in El Salvador is not disputed. Those who doubt this should reread the above and realize that an estimated 75,000 were killed in this small country in the period 1980 to 1991. The truth commission found that the terrorism that was committed in the country was overwhelmingly governmental terrorism, committed by the Salvadoran army, the National Guard, and their death squads and affiliated agencies. They were responsible for 95 percent of the deaths, the guerrillas for only five percent. These were the same institutions that were the concern and the favorites of Washington—receiving its indoctrination and training and profiting from its largess. El Salvador received six billion dollars in aid from Washington in the period 1979 to 1992. This subsidy to the tiny country during the government repression and terrorism came to average out at $100,000 for each member of its armed forces. This subsidy allowed the government to pay for the terrorist activities committed by the security forces. By virtue of this largess and the military training, notably in counterinsurgency warfare, Washington emerges in this chapter as an accessory before and during the fact.By covering up for San Salvador after it had committed terror, Washington was an accessory after the fact. It gave diplomatic support to state terrorism.^[20]

”

This section can be archived. 199.125.109.55 03:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Material to work on and add to the El Salvador Section

U.S State Terrorism in El Salvador

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

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

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

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

This section can be archived. 199.125.109.55 03:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Opposing views

Halperin et al. propose that one reason for the support, by the US and other Western nations, for certain right-wing dictatorships is that it is rare for democracy to exist in nations with low economic development. In these nations, the poor population without a middle class would vote for populist politics that would eventually fail, causing disappointment, and a return to dictatorship or even violent internal conflict. This, supporting a dictatorship that promotes economic growth and creates a solid middle class have often been seen as the best option available, anticipating that this will eventually lead to democratization. However, this view has been challenged recently by arguing that research shows that poor democracies perform better, including also on economic growth if excluding East Asia, than poor dictatorships. www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/5129.html Right-wing dictatorships in nations such as Portugal, Spain, Greece, Turkey, Chile, Brazil, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, and Indonesia eventually become democracies.

Research on the democratic peace theory has generally found that democracies, including the United States, have not made war on one another. There have been U.S. support for coups against some democracies, but for example Spencer R. Weart argues that part of the explanation was the perception, correct or not, that these states were turning into Communist dictatorships. Also important was the role of rarely transparent United States government agencies, who sometimes mislead or did not fully implement the decisions of elected civilian leaders.^[21]

Chomsky claims that the United States is a leading terrorist nation. However, actual empirical studies have found that democracies, including the United States, have killed much fewer civilians than dictatorships.[25][26][27]^[22] Media may falsely give the impression that Chomsky's claim is correct. Studies have found that New York Times coverage of worldwide human rights violations is biased, predominantly focusing on the human rights violations in nations where there is clear U.S. involvement, while having relatively little coverage of the human rights violations in other nations.[28][29] For example, the bloodiest war in recent time, involving eight nations and killing millions of civilians, was the Second Congo War, which was almost completely ignored by the media. Finally, those nations with military alliances with the US can spend less on the military and have a less active foreign policy since they can count on US protection. This may give a false impression that the US is less peaceful than those nations.[30][31]

That US soldiers have committed war crimes such as rapes and killing POWs is a fact. However, such acts are not approved or supported by the US government or the US military.[32] They are not the policy of the US government. The same applies even more to acts committed by to foreign groups supported but outside direct US control.

Niall Ferguson argues that the US is incorrectly blamed for many human rights violations in nations they have supported. For example, the US cannot credibly be blamed for all the 200,000 deaths during the long civil war in Guatemala.[33]. The US Intelligence Oversight Board^[23] points out that military aid was cut for long periods because of such violations, that the US helped stop a coup in 1993, and that efforts were made to improve the conduct of the security services.

Suggestions

Great work on "Opposing Views" section! I suggest some minor, rewordings along the same lines.

Media may falsely give the impression that Chomsky's claim is correct. Studies have found that New York Times coverage of worldwide human rights violations is biased, predominantly focusing on the human rights violations in nations where there is clear U.S. involvement, while having relatively little coverage of the human rights violations in other nations.

Could be replaced with:

Studies have found that US media focus on countries where the US has an interest,[34] [35] and may not cover stories in other countries. Analysts argue that media coverage of human rights violations is dominated by stories from countries where the US is already involved, resulting (intentionally or unintentionally) in a biased portrayal of US involvement in human rights violations, which may incorrectly appear to lend support to Chomsky's claims.^{[citation needed]}

I am trying to avoid having the article draw a new conclusion (does anyone know of a reference for the claim that someone reputable has made the final statement there?), and removed the inflammatory "falsely". Perhaps the word "biased" could be toned down as well?

Also, I would suggest a minor rewording in another paragraph

That US soldiers have committed war crimes such as rapes and killing POWs is a fact. However, such acts are not approved or supported by the US government or the US military.[36] They are not the policy of the US government. The same applies even more to acts committed by to foreign groups supported but outside direct US control.
Niall Ferguson argues that the US is incorrectly blamed for many human rights violations in nations they have supported. For example, the US cannot credibly be blamed for all the 200,000 deaths during the long civil war in Guatemala.[37].

Could be replaced with

US soldiers have committed war crimes such as rapes and killing of POWs. But these acts are contrary to US law as written in the Uniform Code of Military Justice,[38] and perpetrators are prosecuted.^{[citation needed]} Niall Ferguson and others^{[citation needed]} argue that the US is not responsible for human rights abuses committed by foreign governments or foreign nationals. One example of this reasoning is the assertion that the US cannot credibly be blamed for all 200,000 deaths during the long civil war in Guatemala.[39]

Because Niall Ferguson has a reputation as a biased commentator, I believe it would be useful to refer to others who say the US is not 100% responsible for the abuses of governments it is involved with. If there are studies showing that US involvement has lead to better human-rights outcomes than if the US had not been involved, these would support the opposing view.

I also noticed that the article has some counterarguments embedded in the "opposing views" section. These should get a proper airing. They should have proper citations, and the language should be carefully written to make it clear exactly what is being claimed.

Counter Arguments

Critics of these arguments claim that the US does not take strong enough action to limit human rights violations by US-supported governments.^{[citation needed]} Others claim that semi-transparent, or non-transparent United States government agencies, such as the C.I.A. have sometimes rendered misleading intelligence or failed to implement the policies of elected government officials, thereby usurping constitutional authority.^{[citation needed]} Still others claim that elected and appointed officials routinely approve misleading intelligence and unsavory operations, then deny all knowledge of the abuses when they eventually come to light.^{[citation needed]}

Japan

Some legal scholars, historians, other governments, and human rights organizations have accused the United States of having committed acts of State terrorism as a result of the nuclear attacks against the Empire of Japan at the end of World War II. The 'atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki', remain the only time a state has used nuclear weapons against concentrated civilian populated areas. Some critics hold that it represents the single greatest act of state terrorism in the 20th Century. Some academics also consider that these bombings represent a genocide.^[24]^[25]

The role of the bombings in Japan's surrender, as well as the effects and justification for them, has been subject to debate. In particular, the claims that these attacks were acts of state terrorism remain a matter of controversy. However, University of Chicago historian Bruce Cumings states there is a consensus among historians to Martin Sherwin's statement, that "the Nagasaki bomb was gratuitous at best and genocidal at worst."^[26]

The arguments center around the targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal. Specifically, the fact that the Target Committee on May 10–11, 1945, rejected the use of the weapons against a strictly military objective, choosing a large civilian population to create a psychological effect that would be felt around the world. ^[27] They also center around claims that the attacks were militarily unnecessary, and transgressed moral barriers.^[28]^[9] ^[10] ^[29]^[12]^[30]

Historian Howard Zinn wrote, "if 'terrorism' has a useful meaning (and I believe it does, because it marks off an act as intolerable, since it involves the indiscriminate use of violence against human beings for some political purpose), then it applies exactly to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki."[40]

Zinn quoted the sociologist Kai Erikson:

“

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

”

Similarly, Michael Walzer wrote of it as an example of "...war terrorism: the effort to kill civilians in such large numbers that their government is forced to surrender. Hiroshima seems to me the classic case."^[31]

Mark Selden, a professor of sociology and history at Binghamton University and professorial associate in the East Asia Program at Cornell University, author of “War and State Terrorism: The United States, Japan, and the Asia-Pacific in the Long Twentieth Century (War and Peace Library),” writes, "This deployment of air power against civilians would become the centerpiece of all subsequent U.S. wars, a practice in direct contravention of the Geneva principles, and cumulatively 'the single most important example of the use of terror in twentieth century warfare."[41] He also wrote, "Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan."

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

Heads of State have also repeated the claim. President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez paid tribute to the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, calling the dropping of the A-bomb, "the greatest act of terrorism in recorded history." [42]

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

“

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

”

These claims have prompted historian Robert Newman, a supporter of the bombings, to argue that the practice of terrorism is justified in some cases.^[32]

^ Weart, Spencer R. (1998). Never at War. Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-07017-9.p. 221-224, 314.
^ No Lessons Learned from the Holocaust?, Barbara Harff, 2003.
^ Report on the Guatemala Review Intelligence Oversight Board. June 28, 1996.
^ Frey, Robert S. (2004). The Genocidal Temptation: Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Rwanda and Beyond. University Press of America. ISBN 0761827439. Reviewed at: Rice, Sarah (2005). "The Genocidal Temptation: Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Rwanda and Beyond (Review)". Harvard Human Rights Journal. Vol. 18. {{cite journal}}: |volume= has extra text (help)
^ Dower, John (1995). "The Bombed: Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japanese Memory". Diplomatic History. Vol. 19 (no. 2). {{cite journal}}: |issue= has extra text (help); |volume= has extra text (help)
^ Cumings, Bruce (1999). Parallax Visions. University Press of Duke. p. 54. Sherwin, Martin (1974). A World Destroyed: The Atomic Bomb and the Grand Alliance.
^ "Atomic Bomb: Decision — Target Committee, May 10–11, 1945". Retrieved August 6, 2005.
^ Eisenhower, Dwight D. (1963). The White House Years; Mandate For Change: 1953-1956. Doubleday & Company. pp. pp. 312-313. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
^ ^a ^b "Hiroshima: Quotes". Retrieved August 6, 2005. Cite error: The named reference "Hiroshima: Quotes" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b "Bard Memorandum". Retrieved May 8, 2006. Cite error: The named reference "Bard Memorandum" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
^ "Decision: Part I". Retrieved August 6, 2005.
^ ^a ^b Freeman, Robert (2006). "Was the Atomic Bombing of Japan Necessary?". CommonDreams.org. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
^ "United States Strategic Bombing Survey; Summary Report". United States Government Printing Office. 1946. pp. pg. 26. Retrieved July 28, 2006. {{cite web}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)
^ Walzer, Michael (2002). "Five Questions About Terrorism" (PDF). 49 (1). Foundation for the Study of Independent Social Ideas, Inc. Retrieved 2007-07-11. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |name= ignored (help)
^ Newman, Robert (2004). Enola Gay and the Court of History (Frontiers in Political Communication). Peter Lang Publishing. ISBN 0-8204-7457-6.
^ Johnson, 1983
^ Chomsky, Noam (2006-10-06). "9-11: Institutional Analysis vs. Conspiracy Theory". Z Communications. Retrieved 2007-04-17. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
^ Dinesh D'Souza (2004-11-07). "It Was Reagan Who Tore Down That Wall". Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times.
^ Robert D. Kaplan (July/August 2003). "Supremacy by Stealth". The Atlantic Monthly. The Atlantic Monthly Group. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ Frederick H. Gareau, State Terrorism and the United States : From Counterinsurgency to the War on Terrorism / (Atlanta: Clarity Press, 2004) 41
^ Weart, Spencer R. (1998). Never at War. Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-07017-9.p. 221-224, 314.
^ No Lessons Learned from the Holocaust?, Barbara Harff, 2003.
^ Report on the Guatemala Review Intelligence Oversight Board. June 28, 1996.
^ Frey, Robert S. (2004). The Genocidal Temptation: Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Rwanda and Beyond. University Press of America. ISBN 0761827439. Reviewed at: Rice, Sarah (2005). "The Genocidal Temptation: Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Rwanda and Beyond (Review)". Harvard Human Rights Journal. Vol. 18. {{cite journal}}: |volume= has extra text (help)
^ Dower, John (1995). "The Bombed: Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japanese Memory". Diplomatic History. Vol. 19 (no. 2). {{cite journal}}: |issue= has extra text (help); |volume= has extra text (help)
^ Cumings, Bruce (1999). Parallax Visions. University Press of Duke. p. 54. Sherwin, Martin (1974). A World Destroyed: The Atomic Bomb and the Grand Alliance.
^ "Atomic Bomb: Decision — Target Committee, May 10–11, 1945". Retrieved August 6, 2005.
^ Eisenhower, Dwight D. (1963). The White House Years; Mandate For Change: 1953-1956. Doubleday & Company. pp. pp. 312-313. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
^ "Decision: Part I". Retrieved August 6, 2005.
^ "United States Strategic Bombing Survey; Summary Report". United States Government Printing Office. 1946. pp. pg. 26. Retrieved July 28, 2006. {{cite web}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)
^ Walzer, Michael (2002). "Five Questions About Terrorism" (PDF). 49 (1). Foundation for the Study of Independent Social Ideas, Inc. Retrieved 2007-07-11. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |name= ignored (help)
^ Newman, Robert (2004). Enola Gay and the Court of History (Frontiers in Political Communication). Peter Lang Publishing. ISBN 0-8204-7457-6.

Edits

1. Remove the uncited paragraph in the lead.

2. Add El Salvador

3. Add Japan

4. Replace Opposing views

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

[1] Weart, Spencer R. (1998). Never at War. Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-07017-9.p. 221-224, 314.

[2] No Lessons Learned from the Holocaust?, Barbara Harff, 2003.

[3] Report on the Guatemala Review Intelligence Oversight Board. June 28, 1996.

[4] Frey, Robert S. (2004). The Genocidal Temptation: Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Rwanda and Beyond. University Press of America. ISBN 0761827439. Reviewed at: Rice, Sarah (2005). "The Genocidal Temptation: Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Rwanda and Beyond (Review)". Harvard Human Rights Journal. Vol. 18. {{cite journal}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

[5] Dower, John (1995). "The Bombed: Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japanese Memory". Diplomatic History. Vol. 19 (no. 2). {{cite journal}}: |issue= has extra text (help); |volume= has extra text (help)

[6] Cumings, Bruce (1999). Parallax Visions. University Press of Duke. p. 54. Sherwin, Martin (1974). A World Destroyed: The Atomic Bomb and the Grand Alliance.

[7] "Atomic Bomb: Decision — Target Committee, May 10–11, 1945". Retrieved August 6, 2005.

[8] Eisenhower, Dwight D. (1963). The White House Years; Mandate For Change: 1953-1956. Doubleday & Company. pp. pp. 312-313. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

[Hiroshima:_Quotes-9] "Hiroshima: Quotes". Retrieved August 6, 2005. Cite error: The named reference "Hiroshima: Quotes" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

[Bard_Memorandum-10] "Bard Memorandum". Retrieved May 8, 2006. Cite error: The named reference "Bard Memorandum" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

[11] "Decision: Part I". Retrieved August 6, 2005.

[CD-12] Freeman, Robert (2006). "Was the Atomic Bombing of Japan Necessary?". CommonDreams.org. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

[13] "United States Strategic Bombing Survey; Summary Report". United States Government Printing Office. 1946. pp. pg. 26. Retrieved July 28, 2006. {{cite web}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)

[14] Walzer, Michael (2002). "Five Questions About Terrorism" (PDF). 49 (1). Foundation for the Study of Independent Social Ideas, Inc. Retrieved 2007-07-11. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |name= ignored (help)

[15] Newman, Robert (2004). Enola Gay and the Court of History (Frontiers in Political Communication). Peter Lang Publishing. ISBN 0-8204-7457-6.

[16] Johnson, 1983

[chomsky_inst_vs_conspiracy-17] Chomsky, Noam (2006-10-06). "9-11: Institutional Analysis vs. Conspiracy Theory". Z Communications. Retrieved 2007-04-17. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

[18] Dinesh D'Souza (2004-11-07). "It Was Reagan Who Tore Down That Wall". Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times.

[Kaplan-19] Robert D. Kaplan (July/August 2003). "Supremacy by Stealth". The Atlantic Monthly. The Atlantic Monthly Group. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[20] Frederick H. Gareau, State Terrorism and the United States : From Counterinsurgency to the War on Terrorism / (Atlanta: Clarity Press, 2004) 41

[21] Weart, Spencer R. (1998). Never at War. Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-07017-9.p. 221-224, 314.

[22] No Lessons Learned from the Holocaust?, Barbara Harff, 2003.

[23] Report on the Guatemala Review Intelligence Oversight Board. June 28, 1996.

[24] Frey, Robert S. (2004). The Genocidal Temptation: Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Rwanda and Beyond. University Press of America. ISBN 0761827439. Reviewed at: Rice, Sarah (2005). "The Genocidal Temptation: Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Rwanda and Beyond (Review)". Harvard Human Rights Journal. Vol. 18. {{cite journal}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

[25] Dower, John (1995). "The Bombed: Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japanese Memory". Diplomatic History. Vol. 19 (no. 2). {{cite journal}}: |issue= has extra text (help); |volume= has extra text (help)

[26] Cumings, Bruce (1999). Parallax Visions. University Press of Duke. p. 54. Sherwin, Martin (1974). A World Destroyed: The Atomic Bomb and the Grand Alliance.

[27] "Atomic Bomb: Decision — Target Committee, May 10–11, 1945". Retrieved August 6, 2005.

[28] Eisenhower, Dwight D. (1963). The White House Years; Mandate For Change: 1953-1956. Doubleday & Company. pp. pp. 312-313. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

[29] "Decision: Part I". Retrieved August 6, 2005.

[30] "United States Strategic Bombing Survey; Summary Report". United States Government Printing Office. 1946. pp. pg. 26. Retrieved July 28, 2006. {{cite web}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)

[31] Walzer, Michael (2002). "Five Questions About Terrorism" (PDF). 49 (1). Foundation for the Study of Independent Social Ideas, Inc. Retrieved 2007-07-11. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |name= ignored (help)

[32] Newman, Robert (2004). Enola Gay and the Court of History (Frontiers in Political Communication). Peter Lang Publishing. ISBN 0-8204-7457-6.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

India

Opposing views

Japan

Encyclopedic?

Category

RFC

Proposal

Potential references

Introduction

Arbitrary break

Requested edit to remove tag

Dubious tag

Exlanation of item 1 of Edits

Comments on El Salvador

Protection?

El Salvador

Material to work on and add to the El Salvador Section

Opposing views

Suggestions

Counter Arguments

Japan

Edits