Talk:United States and state terrorism/Archive 25

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

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

→

Operation Ajax?

I'm surprised there is no mention of the CIA operated overthrow of the democratic government in Iran: "1953 Iranian coup d'état" --Stor stark7 ^Speak 01:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well we need references that state that this is allegedly an act of state terrorism. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I was almost positive that there was a source at one point, an ex-CIA officials, or perhaps someone on the talk page was mentioning it. --I Write Stuff (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I give up, I gave it 10 minutes. I hope someone with better sources and stamina than me can find something directly connecting "state terrorism" with the operation, if such source indeed does exist. I wonder what it would be called if it was Iran that had done the same to the US? Never mind, we probably need another article though, "U.S. meddling in other states internal affairs" or similar. This is the only source I could google on short notice. I have no idea about its reliability, with my luck its just a mirror of an earlier version of the Wiki article. Nevertheless it lists Operation PBSUCCESS, Operation Just Cause, Operation Ajax, and Operation Urgent Fury as U.S. state terrorism. It also lists tha Nicaragua intervention in the 1980, and something called Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, although I see that that one is already mentioned. Food for further source searches perhaps, but not by me....--Stor stark7 ^Speak 02:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That's probably a mirror cite of an old wiki-article, in any case it's certainly not a reliable source. I'm not sure we've ever had a source alleging that the overthrow of Mossadegh was state terrorism. It's been widely condemned, but it was a pretty straightforward coup e'etat (albeit with a lot of complex elements to it - it was not simply a case of US manipulation). Also to an extent the UK was more the driving external force behind the coup, even though the CIA had a major hand in it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I was curious and looked up to see what I could find on Operation Ajax in the following reliable source: "Terrorism and the State: A Critique of Domination through Fear" a Book by William D. Perdue; Praeger, 1989. The author is was the Professor and Chair of the Department of Sociology and the Director of the Contemporary World Studies program at Eastern Washington University. I present the material here for evaluation, and include additional material that might be considered beyond the scope of this article but to provide for context; I'm referring to some of the economic analysis. Here is a chapter on Ajex (excerpts) that implicates the US in the 1953 coup against democratically elected Mossadeq, and describes its resulting in an "Iranian Regime Terror: 1953-79."

"In what has been a recurring theme in the centers of Western power through this century, the Eisenhower administration feared the loss of Iran to Soviet influence, and its C.I.A. became a key-player in the British proposed operation “Ajax” (Roosevelt, 1979). C.I.A. agents assisted in the orchestration of “pro-shah” riots (Copeland, 1969:51)...The Mossadeq government fell on August 19, and the shah returned three days later courtesy of “an American operation from beginning to end (Tully, 1962:96).”...West and its shah went busily about creating the precipitating conditions that could only resurrect the dormant forces of theocratic reaction in the years to come. Iranian Regime Terror: 1953-79."

In the decade following Mossadeq's ouster, the shah moved internally to suppress the Tudeh party and the National Front (Ramazani, 1975:326). One crucial event was the formation in 1957 of the National Security and Information Organization, the acronym for which from the Farsi language is SAVAK. SAVAK was created with the aid of the U.S. C.I.A. and F.B.I, and the Israeli Mossad (Abrahamian, 1982:419)... SAVAK was to become a hated and feared arm of regime terror. Its more than 5,000 agents made ample use of torture to identify and brutally suppress political opposition from the left or right."

It was, however, the new imperial ties with the United States that implicated a superpower in the excesses of the court and the economic violence visited on the poor (Pesaran, 1985:15-50)....By means of the Mutual Security Act of 1954 and the Law for the Attraction and Protection of Foreign Investment in Iran (1955), Western (and particularly, U.S.) hegemony was assured. Foreign investors were offered guarantees against losses owing to nationalization, and between 1950 and 1970, U.S. military and economic aid to Iran amounted to some 2.3 billion dollars.

Under U.S. tutelage, Iran was absorbed into a Western model of development marked by several distinctive properties. A preference for a few large-scale projects (ranging from factories to the construction of dams and intercity transportation) disguised economic fragmentation and the continued neglect of the agricultural sector. Iran devalued its currency, increased its money supply and lent huge sums to the private sector. The resulting “boom” coexisted with inflation and deficits, leading to International Monetary Fund (I.M.F.) “stabi-lization” in 1960 with its standard austerity measures: control of private sector credit, import-controls, cuts in government services and higher interest rates. A Western-style White Revolution (a clear historical reference to anti-Red forces in the Russian Revolution), called for...privatization of state industries. These in concert with I.M.F. austerity measures...

However, massive growth in Iranian oil revenues proved only to fund its splendid dependency. At the international level, in the classic sense of “boom-erang capitalism, ” the shah used petrodollars to support Western export industries, including vast expenditures on modern armaments. In 1977 alone, Iran purchased arms worth 2.3 billion, out of a total 6.5 billion exported by the United States (United States Bureau of Census, 1979:367). Military sales from the U.S. alone for the five-year period 1973 to 1977 amounted to 15.2 billion (Halliday, 1979:95). The “development” of Iran was in keeping with the shah's commitment to convert Iran into a “Great Civilization” and the world's fifth-ranking power. Internally, the inequality of dependency relations was reproduced with wealth concentrated by class and in the cities.

The United States offered to meet the shah's obsession for sophisticated military hardware, technicians, and advisers. The shah in turn agreed to use the armed force of his state to defend Western interests in the Persian Gulf. This political alliance revealed more concretely the real power behind the Peacock Throne. But the relationship born in splendor was to end in ironic ruin.

...The hated shah was on the soil of the nation whose C.I.A. had engineered his return to power in 1953, and that had presided over the international construction of its modern dependency. It was in this context that students loyal to Khomeini took the U.S. embassy in Tehran on November 4, and provided the Imam with one tool to seize control of a potentially authentic revolution."Giovanni33 (talk) 08:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

US involvement in the coup can certainly be criticized. But the question is if it was state terrorism. If, admittedly arbitrarily, using one of the many definitions of terrorism which sees it as violence against civilians with the purpose of influencing the government, then a coup is not state terrorism. It changes the government directly. A separate question is if US support of the Shah makes action done by his security agencies US state terrorism. That is dubious also according to this definition of terrorism. Again, civilians were not attacked in order to influence government policy. Again, the US could be criticized for this support but not for it being US state terrorism. If criticizing the US, we should also point out the good things the Shah did, like the White revolution, and the US would seem to able to claim credit for this.Ultramarine (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Logical, however, I think it passes in this context since it the regime is describes as perpetrating terror, targeting its own civilians (political parties, etc). The source calls it, in fact, the "Iranian Regime of Terror: 1953-79." Specifically the SAVAK as the "feared arm of regime terror. Its more than 5,000 agents made ample use of torture to identify and brutally suppress political opposition..." And, it implicates the US in supporting and bringing the regime to power. So I think we have all the logical elements there to include it. Its just a question of how and to what degree. Also, we should have multiple sources, as well. Also, I disagree taht this should be about good vs. bad "things" the US did. This is not about making judgments are trying to balance good things vs bad things. That would be too much off topic (better left in the other article that talks about the reforms). Here we are only interested in a certain aspect of the coup and its repurcusions, as they pertain to allegations of state terrorism.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

While I do agree with your logic the important thing is that we can include it if we have reliable sources, and if we do not have reliable sources we cannot include it. personally I want to work seriously on the article when it gets unprotected so we stick to the point (talking about alleged terrorist allegations) and don't use the article to talk about the details opf any alleged terrorism. So if Chomsky says it was terrorism we dont spend 2 paragraphs talking aboputt he operation, we say that Chomsky thinks it is terrorism for "x" reason. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is what we're coming to agreement on, that we need to be concise in the amount of background information given aside from the allegations themselves. - Merzbow (talk) 08:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Background material should be used only so as to intelligently discuss the allegations, and provide relevant and direct context to them. The question is: does it help to explain the nature of the "state terrorism" in question? But we have to be careful not to bloat it (easily done!). Where to draw the line is a matter of editorial judgment and consensus.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, do we have source accusing the US of state terrorism? A source accusing Iran of terror does not mean that this is US state terrorism. If providing background info, we must also include such on good things that the regime did like the White revolution.Ultramarine (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That is not quite the correct standard. Yes, it includes direct allegations accusing the US of State terrorism, of course, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that this article's scope also includes allegations of significant complicity in supporting state terror. That is what the sources above do. Also, reforms initiated that has nothing to do with state terror are off topic, in my view. They will bloat the article/section, and are best left for their own article. This is not about balancing pro/anti US, as this article is not about pro/anti US govt. policies. Its not a debate. It is a presentation of the relevant literature on allegations of State Terrorism in which the US is significantly involved.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please quote the "direct allegations accusing the US of State terrorism". No, the article is not titled "allegations of significant complicity in supporting state terror." That the US supported Iran does not make the US responsible for everything done by Iran. I see no allegations that coup involved terror although the Shah's regime later is accused of this. Also, is use of "terror" the same as terrorism? No, the definitions are more complex. If we include general background material, then we must do so in a NPOV way. If we include material about the Shah not accusing the US of state terrorism but criticizing him generally, then we must also include opposing view like the White revolution. Also, background material must be brief and summarized. There are other articles discussing the Shah's regime.Ultramarine (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This is beating a dead horse again, also its a logical fallacy to claim that allegations of significant US complicity in State Terrorism means "the US is responsible for everything done by Iran." That is a straw man. No one is making that claim. But we have reliable sources implicating the US in State terrorism by funding, supporting, financing, training, harboring, etc. actions that reliable sources say are state terrorism. Therefore we can report on that. This standard has long ago been settled on so I don't see a need to rehash it, again.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly no such settlement. Please give the quotes I asked. To explain the OR more clearly. A source accuses the Shah of using terror. 1. Does not mean that the source is making an accusation of terrorism which has far more complex definitions than this. For example, is repression against political opponents terrorism? Terrorism is sometimes seen to apply only to uninvolved civilians. 2. US support for the Shah does not make the US responsible for everything done by the regime. For example, the US supported the Soviet Union heavily during WWII. Does not make the US responsible for everything done by Stalin during this period. What is needed is a source accusing the US of state terrorism in Iran. Regarding any background, it should be a NPOV summary.Ultramarine (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

... or a source accusing the US of funding or otherwise supporting state terrorism. But yeah, for the purposes of this article, sources accusing the Shah of terrorism are not useful. — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point. The source accuses that US of funding or otherwise supporting a state "regime of terror.' As Ultra knows there is not one agreed definition which is why we must rely on reliable sources instead of picking and choosing which qualifies per our own definition (that would indeed be OR).Giovanni33 (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

See what I wrote. Since you ignored it I will repeat it "To explain the OR more clearly. A source accuses the Shah of using terror. 1. Does not mean that the source is making an accusation of terrorism which has far more complex definitions than this. For example, is repression against political opponents terrorism? Terrorism is sometimes seen to apply only to uninvolved civilians. 2. US support for the Shah does not make the US responsible for everything done by the regime. For example, the US supported the Soviet Union heavily during WWII. Does not make the US responsible for everything done by Stalin during this period. What is needed is a source accusing the US of state terrorism in Iran. Regarding any background, it should be a NPOV summary."Ultramarine (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't ignore your points, I answered and refuted them. 1. Straw man fallacy, and 2. definition issue is OR, on your part. Read above.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"Straw man fallacy"? Why? Are you arguing that the US is responsible for everything done in nations they have supported? Like the Soviet Union during WWII? Regarding "terror", it is you who are doing OR when arguing that it is a synonym of "terrorism".Ultramarine (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd read "state terrorism" into "regime of terror". There's enough solidly referenced material here; we don't need to include stuff that's admitted by interpreting and arguably stretching the source's words: That would just reflect poorly on the rest of the article. — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats certainly a reasonable and valid counter argument, unlike the straw man fallacies by Ultra.:)Giovanni33 (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

What fallacies? You have not answered my questionsUltramarine (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have twice. No need to keep repeating this on the talk page when everyone can clearly see it. It becomes a distraction. If want, you can drop me a message on my talk page and I can explain it there (many times).Giovanni33 (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who reads the discussion will see you have not answered my arguments. The place to discuss article issues is here.Ultramarine (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Using exactly your arguments I could cite sources accusing Stalin of terror during the WWII. As well as the extremely large military and economical aid to the Soviet Union. Synthesizing this I would then create a section accusing the US of state terrorism in the Soviet Union.Ultramarine (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if there are good sources that assign a significant portion of the blame on the US, i.e. that argue the US desired that outcome and supported it through various means to help to bring it out. So if we have sources that argue and connect any instances of State terror with arguments of US culpability, then yes, we could include that. However, unlike the CIA sponsored coup Operation Ajax, I doubt you have any sources that make the claims you're making. I agree with Sidhekin, though, that currently, its called "terror regime" which may not exactly be state terrorism. So that is a valid argument (unlike yours), and therefore we should look at more sources to get a better picture to see if this qualifies as an instance of state terrorism. But there is no question that the US is blamed for playing a major active role in bringing it about. Terror by proxy, though clients states, certainly counts, and in fact forms most of the allegations within this article. And no more straw man arguments, please.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"But there is no question that the US is blamed for playing a major active role in bringing it about." Again, this is not a general US criticism article but one about state terrorism. Again, do you have a source stating that Iran was US state terrorism? Then quote it please. Regarding possible "straw mans" none of my two arguments was that.Ultramarine (talk) 07:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually when you when you argue, "US support for the Shah does not make the US responsible for everything done by the regime," you are making a straw man argument because one one is claiming that the US is responsible for "everything."76.102.72.153 (talk) 04:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni, you really need to stop this thing you do where you say "X source says that US act Y was bad and reprehensible, so therefore it's state terrorism and should be in the article". That's OR and SYNT. Jtrainor (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Giovanni is saying that. At least that is not what I got. The issue seems to be that the source describes it a terror regime. Is that the same as state terrorism? That seems to be the only issue here. "Bad and reprehensible" = "state terrorism" would be OR. But "terror regime"="state terrorism" is much closer.76.102.72.153 (talk) 04:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Terror is not necessarily terrorism. See above. Nor is the US responsible for everything done in nations supported. Again, please give a source making the accusation of "state terrorism".Ultramarine (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This is starting to seem like a silly wikilawyering argument. "terror regime" does not have to be equal to state terrorism, however it may. If its being called a terror regime because they committed terrorism against civilians for political purposes, then its state terrorism, however there are many reasons it could have been labeled a terror regime. Again context is obviously the driving factor. I do not think this is really a case of OR or SYNTH unless the "terror regime" is not due to the regime, ie the state, committing terrorism against the civilian population. If everyone would just stop and think, instead of slinging alphabets, perhaps this page would be less hostile. --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. A Terror Regime described in this context in a book called "Terrorism and the State" in which it describes a the terror regime from 53 to 79, is describing and referring to that government. As such we are talking about the State here. I think its valid. But, we should use the authors term, "terror regime" instead of state terrorism (distinction without a difference?) unless we have other sources. In any case, I'll look for additional sources when I have some time in the next few days. I agree we need to drop the wiklawyering here.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This is all bizarre. Overthrowing a govt, democratically elected or otherwise, isn't (state) terrorism, except by a defn so wide as to render the term meaningless. Discussion belongs under US foreign policy William M. Connolley (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that depend on the means to do it? You do realize most "terrorists" are attempting to over throw governments. --I Write Stuff (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Terrorism is a means; overthrowing a govermnent is an end. But I still don't think "terror regime"="state terrorism" is going to hold up. — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This is another straw man. No one is claiming that overthrowing a govt is state terrorism. However, the there is nothing bizarre about the claim that this coup involved state terrorism as its quite common place both in maintaining power and establishing it through violent means. This does not mean that its the same as a coup, but a coup attempt can certainly employ state terrorism. The key to grasp is that its the method, the tactics, that is the of import here. And if we have reliable sources that make the claim about this particular conflict as employing state terrorism, that is all we need to worry about. Applying our own definitions and understanding to what is or is not state terrorism, what is too broad or too narrow, is an excercise in futility.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No, overthrowing a govt isn't state terrorism just as war isn't state terrorism. War, or coups, supercede terrorism. No wonder this article is such a mess William M. Connolley (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually war, coup, and other forms of conflict with violence or threatened violence frequently employ the tactic and of terrorism, esp. among state actors. This is according to various reliable sources. These are apples and oranges: goals and tactics should not be confused.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure where this logic stems from. Its like saying there are no terrorists in Iraq or Afghanistan since both are war zones. So when "a person" blows up a dump truck in a school killing children, it was clearly an act of war. --I Write Stuff (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

In empirical political science "war" is usually defined as at least 1000 battle deaths involving armed combatants. Attacks against armed persons are usually not seen as terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that classify September 11th as an act of war, not an act of terrorism? Armed combatants are not civilians, so attacks against them would not fall under war by your definition. --I Write Stuff (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The civilians killed in 9/11 were not armed.Ultramarine (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Time for a rename to Allegations of state terrorism?

Funny we don't have an article on Alleged state terrorism by the United Kingdom, Alleged state terrorism by Iran etc. I propose we change the name of the article to Allegations of state terrorism, this would avoid the POV issues of solely talking about alleged state terrorism by one country when there are and have been accusations against many countries from South Africa (apartheid era), Spain, Iraq (Saddam era) and a very long et al. This would solve many issues, what say folk. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be a different article. In fact there is one that has a list of countries under state sponsored terrorism. See: [1]Giovanni33 (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

See Special:PrefixIndex/Allegations of state terrorism, including Allegations of Iranian state terrorism. Okay, some are just redirects, but this is not the only article there; would you propose to merge them? I'd vote no: This article more than long enough and more than touchy enough as it is. — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There is too much material here specifically covering allegations of state terrorism committed by the US for it to be merged into a parent article about allegations of state terrorism in general. There are no POV issues in talking about allegations that a specific country uses state terrorism, so long as it is discussed in a balanced fashion (meaning that both arguments and counter-arguments are presented). If there is sufficient sourced material to warrant an "Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United Kingdom" article then it should be created. It is natural for subjects with large quantities of data to have these kinds of content forks.Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Rather continuing my point from above, on so long as it is discussed in a balanced fashion (meaning that both arguments and counter-arguments are presented), a section titled "Opposing Views" referencing a term (democide) not even in a dictionary and stating the U.S. might not be considered to be as evil as the Khmer Rouge (as an example) is hardly "balance."

It would appear that instead of having a bunch of events under a title stating they are alleged to be terrorism they should be described as what they are, subversive activities--and the article have a section titled "Allegations of state sponsored terrorism." THAT would be "NPOV". By taking real events with real consequences and lumping them under a title with "allegations" substantially diminishes their significance and does a disservice to nations and peoples impacted. —PētersV (talk) 04:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think "Opposing views" should be used when the view is opposed, and "Justifications" should be used when the issue has been rationalized. For example, Hiroshima, is often not opposed, simply justified by the possible dead if they did not bomb, so a justification section may be more appropriate. Perhaps "Alternate view" --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No doubt there are many alternative views, but the problem is that its off topic to this article, and will just repeat these other debates found in other articles. To any alternative or opposing view should really be about the topic, i.e. arguments logically connected with those that claims/arguments of state terror. NPOV does not mean, "include any argument to make the US look good" to create an artificial balance and pretend that they are opposed, let alone related, to the arguments that this article deals with. And that is the problem with most of Ultramarine's wish list additions.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As much as we are asking Ultra, and those who oppose even the topic, to see past the strict semantics, it is historically obvious that the US has argued that Hiroshima was necessary. The response to accusations has always been the death toll. The US usually does not oppose a view, just present what it feels were its justifications. I think not including these is unwittingly supressing the other PoV which we need to be careful of. --I Write Stuff (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

PētersV - I think I follow your meaning that discussing world events under a title that includes the word "allegations" might imply that whether these events occurred is in question. I don't agree though. The article includes the atomic bombings, which no-one disputes happened. The "allegations" term concerns whether the events were terrorism, not whether they happened (although in some cases how or whether the US was involved is also disputed). I think we should give readers the benefit of the doubt that they will understand the distinction. This article reports on the notable cultural phenonema of allegations that the US has committed terrorism (sometimes including a sub-phenonema of allegations that the frequent use of "terrorism" allegations by the US is hypocritical). The article describes this phenomena, the reasoning given by those making the allegations, and the counter-reasoning of those who disagree. The counter-arguments are discussed section-by-section in order to provide a neutral point of view. That's necessary, because each sub-allegation is different and has been responded to differently. There is already an article about US foreign policy that includes more general criticisms, without using the word "allegations" (except about whether US torture behind closed doors is happening, which seems an appropriate usage). Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

For my part, I believe that a lot of folks here have had their priorities backwards. I have always maintained that the body of an article is not an entity that attempts to elaborate whatever is implied by the title so much as the function of the title is to attempt to encapsulate the subject of the article. The title should not assume such significance that it is employed to mechanically delimit the subject matter of the article. Rather, it is the task of explicating a notable discourse that should have priority. The title should simply reflect the essence of that discourse.

This article for me has always been – at least in large part- about explaining a notable social discourse that is advanced by numerous reliable sources about the subject of U.S. state terrorism. Accordingly, the discourse encompasses far more than just allegations. Various themes are explored: including the U.S. role in the construction and maintenance of the institutions of state terrorism, ie: death squads, and para-statal counter-terror networks; the role of the arms trade; discussion of international conceptions and definitions of terrorism and the role of the hegemonic power in establishing these norms; themes concerning the relations and alliances that are established between groups in the hegemonic power and ruling groups in the periphery; analysis of possible motivations such as economic interests (including the control of crucial resources such as cash crops, drugs and oil), or the role of anti-communist ideology; the U.S. role in the evolution of state terrorist methods and technology; a critique of mainstream discourses about terrorism; discussion of coercive diplomacy as a form of state terrorism, discussion of impunity and redress for victims of state terrorism; and discussion of possible effective means of resistance against state terrorism, ie: through the vitalization of international humanitarian law, and greater democratic control of the U.S. executive and those agencies involved in formulating and executing foreign policy, (to name several themes, but not all of them).

The title that consists of “Allegations…” is far too narrow to convey the richness of this discourse, and greatly facilitates highly politicized initiatives (invariably by those unfamiliar with the literature) to suppress anything but the most minimal and truncated expression of this richness by insisting on an artificially literal and narrow interpretation of Wikipedia policy.

To reiterate, I think that one of the primary tasks of the article is to try to explain this social discourse with clarity, accuracy, and a neutral point of view. The purpose of the title is to try to encapsulate the essence of this social discourse. It may very well be that a social discourse is too complex to encapsulate in a single, succinct catch-phrase. It then to seems to me to fall upon the lead paragraph to clarify the subject of the article. After some thinking, the best title that I can come up with is: “The Discourse on U.S. State Terrorism” . It has the advantage of implying that it is not established fact but rather a dynamic public discussion, hence subject to further interventions and evolution. It may not be the “golden title” that captures everything important about the article in a single catch-phrase. Nevertheless, perhaps it is possible to convey whatever essential points that it misses in the lead paragraph(s) of the article?BernardL (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Allegations should be in the title for reasons previously stated. Also, this is not a general US criticism article. Not an article about "arms trade" or "the control of crucial resources such as cash crops, drugs and oil". Definitions of terrorism and state terrorism are discussed in the main articles about these topics.Ultramarine (talk) 04:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If reliable sources relate the arms trade or control of resources to state terrorism or support for state terrorism, then discussion of those things is relevant here. On the name issue, I'm not that keen on "The Discourse on U.S. State Terrorism". It still implies the existence of the state terrorism, because it sounds like an article about a discourse about something that definitely exists. Like the Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which is a debate over something that is accepted fact. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If we are to have "discourse" then the title should be Discourse on Whether the U.S. Engages in State Terrorism. Books on "State Terrorism: The U.S. in XYZ" are titled to be sensational apart from considerations of factualness or neutrality.

I lost my uncle in the bombing of Dresden, an act I personally (along with numerous others) consider nothing short of mass murder. That does not qualify, however, for Allegations of mass murder by the United States or Allegations of mass murder by Great Britain. But perhaps Discourse on acts of war as mass murder.

Chile

This is a section that is long over due. The US involvement in Chile against Allende is quote infamous. Here is an adequate source--the book: "The State as Terrorist: The Dynamics of Governmental Violence and Repression" by Prof. Michael Stohl, and Prof. George A. Lopez; Greenwood Press, 1984. Page 51:

More recently, in the period 1970-1973, the United States worked on a number of levels to overthrow the elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile. In addition to nonterroristic strategies such as bribery after the election campaign, the United States embarked on a program to create economic and political chaos in Chile. The CIA was implicated in the assassination of René Schneider, the commander-in-chief of the Chilean army, who was selected as a target because he refused to prevent Allende from taking office. "The United States government attempted to foment a coup, it discused coup plans with the Chileans later convicted of Schneider's abduction, it advocated his removal as a step toward overturning the results of a free election, it offered a payment of $50,000 for Schneider's kidnapping and it supplied the weapons for this strategy." 25 After the failure to prevent Allende from taking office, efforts shifted to obtaining his removal. At least $7 million was authorized by the United States for CIA use in the destabilizing of Chilean society. This included financing and assisting opposition groups and right-wing terrorist paramilitary groups such as Patria y Libertad ("Fatherland and Liberty"). Finally, in September 1973 the Allende government was overthrown in a brutal and violent military coup in which the United States was intimately involved. The message for the populations of Latin American nations and particularly the Left opposition was clear: the United States would not permit the continuation of a Socialist government, even if it came to power in a democratic election and continued to uphold the basic democratic structure of that society." Any objections to the section on Chile?Giovanni33 (talk) 06:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no official documents or other evidence showing that the US was involved in the coup which succeeded as discussed in the main article on this. There may have been US involvement in coup attempts before this. But again coups are not state terrorism. This is not a general US criticisms article. Regarding the alleged support for Patria y Libertad this could possible be mentioned.Ultramarine (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Coups are not terrorism, but terrorism may be used for many ends, including coups.

"In addition to nonterroristic strategies [...] the United States embarked on a program to create economic and political chaos in Chile." That's an accusation of terrorism right there. Who are these professors, Stohl and Lopez? What weight to they carry? Do other scholars corroborate? — the Sidhekin (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Which definition of state terrorism include "economic and political chaos"? Is an embargo state terrorism?Ultramarine (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The key point is that this undertaking was "in addition to nonterroristic strategies". It is not terrorism by definition: It is terrorism by the authors' claim. — the Sidhekin (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Stohl is well know, cited and I would say respected, certainly someone who works in the field, Google Scholar. --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree the source is a reliable one and the authors are clearly making the claim, as Sidhekin point out. They claim that the United States embarked on actions to destabilizing of Chilean society, and describe this as terror. They also state the US supported "right-wing terrorist paramilitary group" as well. These two claims, both direct and indirect, more than meet the burden of proof for inclusion, straw man arguments aside.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Where is the accusation of state terror? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Right above you. Its even in italics and made bold. Can't miss it. :)Giovanni33 (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the source still stops short of accusing the United States of state terrorism. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

How so?Giovanni33 (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What I would prefer is an actual accusation. The author, based on what I can see above, never really says that the United States has committed state terrorism. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe, as Sidhekin and others have pointed out that the above passage does make an accusation of state terrorism very clearly. So we should use that. Still, I've always said that its better to have multiple reliable sources that support the same claims. So in that vein, here is another source, which might state the case in a way you might better prefer to see.

The source is one we are familiar with here as reliable. The book is: State Terrorism and the United States: From Counterinsurgency to the War on Terrorism by Frederick H. Gareau. He has a chapter on Chile that goes into some detail, but here are some of his relevant conclusions:

"Washington's training of thousands of military personnel from Chile who later committed state terrorism again makes Washington eligible for the charge of accessory before the fact to state terrorism. The CIA's close relationship during the height of the terror to Contreras, Chile's chief terrorist (with the possible exception of Pinochet himself), lays Washington open to the charge of accessory during the fact. That he was a graduate of an American military school and received at least one payment from the agency makes the charge more plausible. But the extent of Washington's role was further clarified..."

Here he then talks about DINA and states concludes that "The United States took charge of the overall coordination of counterinsurgency efforts between all Latin American countries."

"Washington's service as the overall coordinator of state terrorism in Latin America demonstrates the enthusiasm with which Washington played its role as an accomplice to state terrorism in the region. It was not a reluctant player. Rather it not only trained Latin American governments in terrorism and financed the means to commit terrorism; it also encouraged them to apply the lessons learned to put down what it called “the communist threat.” Its enthusiasm extended to coordinating efforts to apprehend those wanted by terrorist states who had fled to other countries in the region. This much is known. How centralized the coordination was is a more difficult question to answer. How much influence was exercised by Washington in the decision to commit terrorism is a much harder question to answer...The evidence available leads to the conclusion that Washington's influence over the decision to commit these acts was considerable." Page 78-79.Giovanni33 (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

here is another source... "“Chile became the third Latin American country to institutionalize state terrorism. Unlike their counterparts in Brazil and Uruguay, the Chilean military did not temporize. They were not interested in preserving even a façade of civilian governance, and upon overthrowing the elected government of Salvador Allende on September 11, 1973 they quickly abolished or appropriated virtually every institution that had the potential to oppose them. Unlike their Brazilian counterparts, they did not embrace state terrorism as a last recourse; they launched a wave of terrorism on the day of the coup. In contrast to the Brazilians and Uruguayans, the Chileans were very public about their objectives and their methods; there was nothing subtle about rounding up thousands of prisoners, the extensive use of torture, executions following sham court-marshall, and shootings in cold blood. After the initial wave of open terrorism, the Chilean armed forces constructed a sophisticated apparatus for the secret application of state terrorism that lasted until the dictatorship’s end. …The impact of the Chilean coup reached far beyond the country’s borders. Through their aid in the overthrow of Allende and their support of the Pinochet dictatorship, President Richard Nixon and his national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, sent a clear signal to all of Latin America that anti-revolutionary regimes employing repression, even state terrorism, could count on the support of the United States. The U.S. government in effect, gave a green light to Latin America’s right wing and its armed forces to eradicate the left and use repression to erase the advances that workers- and in some countries, campesinos- had made through decades of struggle. This “Septmember 11 effect” was soon felt around the hemisphere.” (Wright, Thomas C. State Terrorism and Latin America: Chile, Argentina, and International Human Rights, Rowman & Littlefield, 29)BernardL (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. And for the same source above, on page 87: "Given that they knew about the terrorism of this regime, what did the elites in Washington during the Nixon and Ford administrations do about it? The elites in Washington reacted by increasing U.S. military assistance and sales to the state terrorists, by covering up their terrorism, by urging U.S. diplomats to do so also, and by assuring the terrorists of their support, thereby becoming accessories to state terrorism before, during, and after the fact."Giovanni33 (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Since there appears to be further objections in light of the above sources, I think we have consensus to add this material in a Chile section. I'll do so shortly.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Rev. Jeremiah Wright?

It seems like the most prominent allegation today is the Revrend Wright's. According to abc news: Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11: "In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda's attacks because of its own terrorism. "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001. "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost," he told his congregation." Not to joggle elbows if you have something going, but that might be something the article ought to mention. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably lacks credentials as a credible subject matter expert on this material, but it is a widely distributed accusation. Thanks! TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

He is notable and I have no objection to including these rather truthful allegations. I vote for inclusion. Giovanni33 (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion that the allegations are truthful is irrelevant. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Becomes an interesting problem, while easy to source, he is not an expert in the field, nor representative of any human rights group etc. Do you have a proposed text Tom? --I Write Stuff (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Rather points out the whole problem with "Allegations of BAD THING X by Y" articles. We have children in Pakistan taught to recite the Qur'an in a language they don't understand being taught the U.S. did the 9/11 attack itself to discredit the Muslim world. Do we include that allegation too? I'm sure we can find a "notable" cleric espousing that view as well. There's no boundary between fact and polemic here. —PētersV (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No, this is not an article for "bad things." That is a red-herring that I wish people would stop making. This article is only for notable allegations of State Terrorism--and that is exactly what it is. If it were all 'bad things" we would have a an article a million times the size of this one.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

And so I ask, is this supposed to be a list of fact or fiction? Or we don't care? —PētersV (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Factual, as are Rev. Writes claims. There is nothing fictional here. However, WP standards is verifiability, not "truth." That is policy I believe.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia specifically discusses how articles are not suppose to be "truth" but verifiable. However, I see where you are going and think we can at least draw the line at reputable critic, someone with at least a publishing history in the field, or at least a critical examination. I can accept a world leaders voice, but Wright really is not notable unto himself with his Obama link. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, Wright is notable only for his Obama link, not for any scholarly endeavor of his own making. - Merzbow (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Giovanni, assuming that Wright's allegations are true is original research, by your own standards. Know thyself! Jtrainor (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean Jtrainor. My position is that in WP the threshold is verifiability, not "truth"---even though his claims (at least these ones) are obviously true and factual.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Scholarly endeavors as the sole criterion for inclusion is wrong; notability may be enough for inclusion in this type of article. The standards for historical/scientific articles are different than one about a political opinion article, such as this one. Note that we have President Chavez, who does not have scholarly endeavors, either. But we report his views. The standards in this article include both one of notability and one of high academic quality (the latter is better). Heads of state are automatically very notable. Rev. Writes, may not reach that level of notability, even though his views have been all over the mainstream media. Perhaps if he kept speaking out and became known for these views more so than his link with Obama, then he might be ok for inclusion. I'm ok either way. However, his views should be in his own article where we can put in a wiki-link to this article.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability-not-truth is merely the criterion for assessing a contribution. It doesn't make it automatically includable. Questions of undue weight apply too. In this case, its clear the the Rev Wright is merely mouthing off and should not be included William M. Connolley (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

While I still think it should not be included since Wright is not an academic or world leader, this is actually the field he is known for discussing, you can read his article for more information. If by "mouthing off" you are drawing a comparison to an outburst or something similar, then that correlation is incorrect. So while this is an area he frequently discusses, I still think he is not of the level required to have a scholarly discussion. --I Write Stuff (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Being "known for discussing" a subject is not the same as being a reputable source. Some of the comments above reflect confusion about this. A subject's notability governs their acceptance for a Wikipedia article to be written on them. For a source to be reputable a lot more conditions have to be met. Rumiton (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That is correct. It is also a primary reason I do not approve of the addition of the material, as stated above. I was clarifying the difference in "mouthing off" as if he was blowing off steam. --I Write Stuff (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Wright's views don't make the grade for inclusion here as notable, as his connection is with Obama. Although I agree with Giovanni that it isn't just academic criteria that determines includability in these kinds of articles, so that's not my reason for opposing. He is certainly notable and his views are relevant and notable in his own article. If he became a well known speaker or writer on the subject of terrorism, independent of Obama, that would be another story, most likely, and would be evaluated then for relevance here. Bob Herbert of the NY Times doesn't support him, referring to his 15 minutes of fame. And that kinda sums it up for me. — Becksguy (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that Rev. Jeremiah, because of his notability, should definitely be included. One major evidence of this is that mainstream, reliable sources are reporting his views. If this can't be considered notable, then I don't know what is. Note, I'm not calling for the endorsement of the Reverend's views, only a neutral reporting of it.Bless sins (talk) 06:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Per above, notable is not the same as reputable. "Notability" is a standard used to decide whether or not a figure deserves a Wikipedia article. "Reputable" is a standard used to decide whether or not a figure qualifies as a source. To bring up an example I know you're familiar with, Robert Spencer is probably the most notable critic of Islam in the US, having several best-selling books. But he's not reputable, which is why we don't see his views in the Islam article. - Merzbow (talk) 06:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Care to define "reputable" in the context of wikipedia? By reputable, do you basically mean reliable? And no, Spencer is barely notable, as reliable sources do not publish his views very often. Where multiple do, you can usually find it on wikipedia.Bless sins (talk) 07:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Newspapers "report" on Wright's views because he's a notable individual due to the Obama mess. They do not "publish" them as expert opinion. Wikipedia is not journalism; we are still clinging on to the pretense at least of quality academic sourcing. - Merzbow (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is about allegations. The Reverend is making exactly that. If we had "quality academic"s saying things it'd no longer be "allegations" but could almost be treated as fact. Are you denying that the Reverend is making the "allegation"?Bless sins (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If you strongly feel it should be included, create a sandbox and show how you see Wright material fitting into the article as a whole. I am fairly skeptical that his credentials to speak on this topic justify inclusion, but I am willing to take a look at how you think it can be included in a way that increases the value of the article. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That stage we get to once we have determined that our sources meet WP:V. There is no point arguing over the wording of something if the sources themselves don't qualify. Merzbow, do you have any policy backing for your assertion that only "expert opinion" may be included in wikipedia (which excludes the opinions of extremists, like bin Laden that are currently in wikipedia)?Bless sins (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

To me it seems that giving us two or three ACTUCAL sentances that you think would add value to the article that people could discuss in specific is much more productive than everyone writing paragraphs and paragraphs and paragraphs of 'theoreticals' that get us no where. I am out of this conversation until there is something specific to look at.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Organization

What is the organizational scheme for these sections? I recall there being an "Asia" section under which Japan and the Phil sections were posted at one time. The material does not appear to be organized by date either. What method is being used?DrGabriela (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Change title

Can we please change the title and focus of this article to be a proper NPOV basis? Paramilitary actions of the United States would be a neutral title that does not make value judgments, but lets us cover the relevant historical events. One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. "Paramilitary" is a factual, correct word that covers both. Also notice that this title focuses on the facts of what actually happened, rather than mere "allegations". Jehochman ^Talk 02:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That might make a good article, but its different than this one. For example, the atomic bombings would not fall under "paramilitary actions."Giovanni33 (talk) 06:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm down with that title. It seems to be the most neutral one ever proposed. In addition, it would give the article some more scope and end several arguments over what should be in it. Jtrainor (talk) 07:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

List of grudges against the United States would seem to fit. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Now that would be an article I'd probably vote to delete (Unless the term "grudges' became a notable conceptual term, and we had lot of reliable sources from experts in the field of "grudgology" that discuss it.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to create your article on covert paramilitary actions and this can be a daughter article focusing on those actions that have involved terroristic aspects (and other actions by the US that have terroristic aspects). (And thanks once again Guy, for your always so insightful commentary)TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to rename all articles with "terrorism" in their title, Jehochman? After all, "One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter." And honestly, Jtrainor, I'd say the last thing this article needs is a wider scope. Please don't. — the Sidhekin (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

We are discussing this article, not all articles. Jehochman ^Talk 18:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that an article under that name should exist and would be good, but this is an entirely seperate issue and should remain as such. Subtle ways to push your own POV are inappropriate. Hooper (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That's all we need, another name change after the multiple moves so far (including back to one of the earlier ones). The problem with this article is that the subject matter is a battleground regardless of the article name, and changing the name again is not going to fix that. And a wider scope will just make it that much more difficult to reach consensus. — Becksguy (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is a horrible mess and probably should be stubbed, retitled and restarted. "Allegations of" is a very bad thing to put in any title because it makes the article an instant coatrack for POV pushing. Either the US has supported paramilitary groups or extrajudicial killings, or they have not, per the reliable sources. If they have, then we should describe what happened with neutral, non-judgmental language. Paramilitary actions of the United States and Extrajudicial killings by the United States might both be legitimate topics. The first would cover things like Bay of Pigs and the latter could cover things like the assassination of Ernesto Guevara. We need to focus on the objective facts, not the arguments and controversies. Jehochman ^Talk 18:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The article title should read: "State Terrorism by the United States". Although I dislike the neologism of "terrorism", it has unfortunately been weaved through the public consciousness. Redthoreau (talk) RT 19:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

"Terrorism" is a propagandistic term. It is highly subjective and highly disputed, whether applied to the United States, or other nations. I like the idea of shortening the title, but can we use a term that is objective? That's why I proposed "Paramilitary actions of the United States". Perhaps "Attacks against civilians by the United States" or "War crimes by the United States". The My Lai Massacre would be one. These are all object terms that allow us to determine whether the thing happened or not. "Terrorist" is too subjective because there is no generally accepted definition of what is terrorism and what isn't. A terrorist is somebody you don't like who has used or threatened violence. Jehochman ^Talk 03:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jehochman. Let me address your arguments, and express why I disagree. I understand your wanting to make the subject less charged, and more mainstream. Terrorism is indeed a controversial term, esp. when it comes to applying to particular political entities, not the least of which are states. But this fact is not so problematic that we can't cover it in a NPOV manner. There are scholarly standards for terrorism. Yes, some people call terrorists freedom fighters, and we can report on that, but the two are in fact not mutually exclusive. And, we can report facts here objectively. Keep in mind that notable POV's from experts are themselves facts. Facts about their views. Views of notable experts about an important and growing social and academic discourse regarding the phenomenon termed "state terrorism" is an encyclopedic subject/topic. Articles as these should be able to present an intelligent discussion of the nature of this phenomenon, reflecting the discourse found within academia, and the many books on the subject. This can be presented in a manner that is not propagandistic. If we avoided all terms and concepts that were akin to this subject, wikipedia would be significantly bereft of important areas of knowledge. Facts of notable world views, philosophical systems, outlooks, methods, political trends, etc. can all be reported factually in keeping with NPOV. This article is no different in that respect. The only thing that makes it more politically charged (among US edtors) is the fact that the discussion of terrorism focuses on the actions of that country, the United States. We can cover the same actions under other conceptual frameworks, yes, but that just amounts to censoring this very legitimate and scholarly viewpoint: that of the conceptual framework of state-terrorism as applied to the various historical actions by the US. Various scholarly have synthesized the events to give them a meaning and interpretation under this concept and WP should report on it and discuss this intelligently and in a NPOV manner.

Covering other subjects about US foreign policies is fine, but it's a related but different subject. Many are already are covered, and should be in the See Also section here, such as Covert U.S. regime change actions, CIA Sponsored Coups, US invasions, State Terrorism, Terrorism, American Empire, etc. If we change the title its vital that the term Terrorism is kept in the title, as there is a large and growing literature within Terrorology that discusses the US in this vein. One term that is closely associated with it, and can be added to the title is "Political Violence." So if we keep Terrorism and Political Violence, I'd support it. It does not increase the scope so much that it dilutes the specialty nature of this subject, but opens it up for less bickering, and more discussion of the topics. Again, that there is no widely accepted, non-controversial definition of "state sponsored terrorism" is not a problem; this article can (and should) only report that various significant people have reliably voiced the opinion that such-and-such is state terrorism by the US; but not that these incidents are indeed state terrorism. Thus there is no inherent reason a neutral article can't be written about this subject.

As to the WP:COATRACK argument, a coatrack article is an article that presumes to be about A while it is in fact dedicated to bashing B. The present article is supposed to be about state terrorism committed by the US (allegations of it, rather), and it does in fact cover allegations of state terrorism by the US. I can't see the coats on this rack.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That's surprising because there are pretty big coats on that rack. Most of the content on Central America and Japan have nothing to do with terrorism let alone terrorism by the United States yet the coat was hung here. --DHeyward (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You must be reading a different article. Can you quote some content on Japan or C.A in this article that has "nothing to do with terrorism..."? I challenge you to back up that claim, substantiate it please. If you are telling the truth, it should be easy for you to do. I do find it odd that you never let anyone know of this huge problem before, if it really does exist. :)Giovanni33 (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Here are the items that have nothing to do with terrorism.

3 Specific allegations against the US by region
3.1 Japan (1945)
3.2 Cuba (1956-present)
3.3 Nicaragua (1979-90)
3.4 Guatemala (1954-96)
3.6 El Salvador (1980-92)

I've opposed these items since I first edited but it's pointless to argue with the army of POV puppet warriors. We have articles on all those countries so building this coat rack article for fringe POV views is problematic. It's the "List of things we don't like" article. --DHeyward (talk) 03:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That is not a response. I asked for specific text. Quote the language that you has nothing to do with terrorism. Of course, this is not your own personal POV that we care about. You understand that right? What you are alleging is that there is off-topic content in these sections that has nothing to do with the claims of State Terrorism, according to the sources presented. That should be your claim. Fine. Now please support it by quoting the relevant text, and explain how the sources do not support their relevance to the topic, state terrorism. I've read those sections and I can't find anything that isn't directly supported by the sources claims of US involvement with State Terrorism. You say it's pointless to argue, but you have yet to even make an argument, even one time. So you can't claim its pointless to argue when you have never made the effort yet.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The title of this article was "State Terrorism by the United States" for a period in early 2007. If we can't even agree on a title, how are we going to agree on content, one wonders. However, the term terrorism does have a definition—with several essential elements that all the definitions include—and that's what this article has been about, despite multiple name changes. And although the term has also been use in propaganda by various individuals/groups/countries, it still has a core meaning with more than sufficient academic sources. Deleting the word terrorism from the title would change the essential nature of the article and then it would be about another subject, several of which already have articles. I have to say I'm loosing hope that this article will stabilize unless people really work at it. — Becksguy (talk) 14:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni, as long as you're trying to get the Hiroshima + Nagasaki stuff included in here, I'm not going to take any arguments from you that this article is not a coatrack even remotely seriously. Jtrainor (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well you've never shown yourself to be a serious editor as far as this article is concerned, anyway, so no biggie there.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware the purpose of the article is "everything under the sun that anyone has ever described as an act of terrorism by the United States that has ever appeared in print that can be referenced" including acts of war characterized as such. (I did note that Hiroshima and Nagasaki don't appear in the article as of this moment.) As for "serious" editors, "dismissive" <> "discourse." The article doesn't have to be a coatrack, but it certainly is at this point given its title and structure. I mean, really, an opposing viewpoints section that states democracies have killed more people than totalitarian regimes? Are we also counting democracies that were attacked by totalitarian regimes as alleged aggressors? Never critique before morning coffee. —PētersV (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ummm - please re-read the actual article - you are basing your position on items that are not factually true. (see specifically that Japan/Nagasaki/Hiroshima is in the article and that the article says democracies kill fewer people than dictatorships). TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Um... The Japan section is in the current, fully protected version of the article. And no one has ever said that this article should contain "everything under the sun" described as terrorism committed by the US. Also, coatrack does not apply here, as adequately explained before per the meaning of coatrack. This article is about acts of terrorism committed by the US, as claimed by reliable sources, not terrorism by any other country or organization, or about acts of war that meet the international laws on the conduct of war, in which terrorism, war crimes, and crimes against humanity do not. This rack is conspicuous for it's absence of coats. Even those that seek to deny the illegality of the bombings are concerned. John Bolton, former US ambassador to the United Nations, used Hiroshima and Nagasaki as examples why the US should not adhere to the International Criminal Court (ICC): "A fair reading of the treaty [the Rome Statute concerning the ICC], for example, leaves the objective observer unable to answer with confidence whether the United States was guilty of war crimes for its aerial bombing campaigns over Germany and Japan in World War II. Indeed, if anything, a straightforward reading of the language probably indicates that the court would find the United States guilty. A fortiori, these provisions seem to imply that the United States would have been guilty of a war crime for dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is intolerable and unacceptable." And finally, also as adequately demonstrated before, the 1945 bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are reliably sourced as acts of terrorism by a state. Yes, there are also sources that say different, so we include both. As we should. To delete the section is censorship and a disservice to our readers. — Becksguy (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The Japan section is full of quality sources and some notable ones are even being left out (ie: Michael Mann prof Sociology UCLA; Douglas Lackey, prof philosophy City Uni NY; Igor Primoratz prof philosophy Hebrew University,etc.) There were some vapid claims about a lack of material on Latin America. There is in fact plenty. To give two examples: 1. Before the mass deletions, the Nicaragua section contained the following from Greg Grandin, one of the foremost historians of Latin America: “Nicaragua, where the United States backed not a counterinsurgent state but anti-communist mercenaries, likewise represented a disjuncture between the idealism used to justify U.S. policy and its support for political terrorism... The corollary to the idealism embraced by the Republicans in the realm of diplomatic public policy debate was thus political terror. In the dirtiest of Latin America’s dirty wars, their faith in America’s mission justified atrocities in the name of liberty.” [71] In his analysis, Grandin emphasizes that the behaviour of the U.S. backed-contras was particularly inhumane and vicious: "In Nicaragua, the U.S.-backed Contras decapitated, castrated, and otherwise mutilated civilians and foreign aid workers. Some earned a reputation for using spoons to gorge their victims eye’s out. In one raid, Contras cut the breasts of a civilian defender to pieces and ripped the flesh off the bones of another.” [72]. 2. A good general reference concerning the U.S. role in state terror in Latin America is: When States Kill: Latin America, the U.S., and Technologies of Terror.University of Texas Press 2005”BernardL (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Afghani Islamists

Why doesn't this article mention the US funding and arming of Afghani Islamists? The Communist terrorism article considers every group supported by the Soviet Union to be "Communist terrorists", so shouldn't this article consider the Islamists to be "U.S. terrorists"? 129.215.37.190 (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If the charge is made in a reliable source by someone whose opinion on the subject would be notable, such a section is a candidate for inclusion. If you have sources, please create a sandbox and draft of the section for other editors to review and comment on. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 11:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The Philippines

The Philippines section[2] currently has five sources, none of which contain accusations of state terrorism by the United States. I am proposing that the section be deleted if such a source cannot be provided. Please discuss. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

All the resources seem to be in context and proper, so I'll have to disagree with your recommendation. Hooper (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is about allegations of state terrorism. Those sources contain no such allegations. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going with Ice Cold Beer on this one. Jtrainor (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with HoopperBandP, where. This has been discussed before and the references support the claims. All the claims are in context too. I suggest going back in the archives to review this discussion before rehashing it again.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've read the archives. The sources do not indicate any allegations of state terrorism against the United States. If I'm wrong, please show me where any of the sources makes such an allegation. Otherwise, such a source needs to be provided or the section needs to go. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The entire section is built around the accusations of a single individual, E. San Juan Jr, with a bunch of articles in fringe websites. And we also have the accusation of a Catholic friar also publishing in a fringe website; he certainly doesn't count. San Juan is a marginally notable former professor, but these are just webzines he's published these articles in. Unless other reliable sources can be found, I see no foundation to keep this section. - Merzbow (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, the Catholic priest about whose merits you are so certain are negligible has been nominated 3 times for the Nobel Peace Prize and is recognized as an authority on human rights in the Philippines. I do however, recommend expanding the scope of the section to include material discussing the U.S. role in state terrorism by the Marcos and Aquino regimes.BernardL (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

And he can't find anyone else willing to publish his views than a website nobody's heard of? Being nominated for the Peace Prize is no standard of notability: "In some years as many as 199 nominations have been received." - Nobel peace prize. He has no Wikipedia article about him (Shay Cullen), and the web article in question [3] helpfully informs us to "For more informaetion (sic) see: http://www.preda.org." Is this the standard for high-quality sourcing we want to proud of? - Merzbow (talk) 03:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

E. San Juan, Jr. is of course notable (has a google hit of over 3 millilon[4], and so s Fr. Shay Cullen who was also awarded the prestigious Human Rights Award from the City of Weimar, in Germany. A Wikipedia article about him could certainly exist and pass notability standards.[5],[6]Giovanni33 (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

A more correct Google search gives 25,000 hits for "E. San Juan, Jr.".[7] Unknown how many of these are about the same person. A prize by a small city in Germany is not notableUltramarine (talk) 04:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Being nominated does not make someone noteworthy - not to say that there are no other reasons why he may be notable. On another note:

President Arroyo invited thousands of U.S. Special Forces to engage in police actions together with the AFP, thus violating an explicit Constitutional provision against the intervention of foreign troops in local affairs. She followed Fidel Ramos in implementing the Visiting Forces Agreement, together with other onerous treaties, thus maintaining U.S. control of the Philippine military via training of officers, logistics, and dictation of punitive measures against the Moro insurgents as well as the New People's Army guerrillas. The Philippines became the "second front in the war on terror," with Bush visiting the Philippines in October 2004 and citing the neocolony as a model for the rebuilding of devastated Iraq.

That isn't necessarily state terrorism, so should be removed. The second one isn't much better. Even if that is "state terrorism", it's the Philippine government. The article is about the US committing state terrorism, not supporting regimes that amongst other things are alleged to commit it. John Smith's (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It is highly questionable whether counterinsurgency efforts could in any way be described as terrorism. Jtrainor (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not questionable at all, besides the fact that we should not be questioning what reliable sources say anyway. State Terrorism is almost always a part of the low intensity conflict/counter insurgency efforts by states. In fact, Chomsky even says that counter insurgency is just a technical term used by the powerful for state terrorism. Now, I'm not saying that we can then subsitute any claim of counter insurgency/political violence as state terrorism. No, we still need sources that make the explicit claims of state terrorism. However, its completely false--and OR--to say its "highly questionable whether counterinsurgency efforts could in any way be described as terrorism." That is not what a reading of the literature says. Rather they go hand in hand.Giovanni33 (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. So a government attempting to suppress an illegal armed group in it's own territory is terrorism? Perhaps you should take up that view over at the Iraq war article to describe the current Iraqi government's activities to suppress the various folks causing trouble over there. Jtrainor (talk) 04:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Legality has nothing to do with it. It can be trying to suppress the pacifist vegetarian society, or the Shining Path: the issue is not who or why a conflict exists, but rather the tactics used by the state when it engages in conflict. When those tactics comprise a certain character and nature that scholars deems as terrorism, then we report on it. It so happens that much of the low intensity conflict/counter insurgency operations by State have entailed terrorism by the state, according to the literature. Nothing interesting there to me, and again its not up to use to argue the point: we only report on it. If there are reliable and notable sources making allegations of state terrorism by the US in Iraq, then it belongs in this article, with perhaps a small mention in the main article (we must remember undue weight).

Speaking of illegal, the US invasion of Iraq was illegal under international law. Those who resist an illegal occupation have the law on their side. But this is not an issue of legality. True state terrorism is illegal as it violates other laws regarding the use of force by states, but its not relevant to considerations of state terrorism per se.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess the main point to decide should be if there is a source that states the U.S. government's participation in the Philippines is state terrorism. If this exists, I do not see the problem, however it should be removed if such a source does not exist. I do remember adding one, so unless someone decided to remove it, which case I can readd it, the content should stay. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

lol Jtrainor (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Going back to where this started... the assertion that he section "currently has five sources, none of which contain accusations of state terrorism by the United States". No-one in the discussion above has provided any source which does, only vague assertions of references to previous discussions. Unless someone provides such a source, the section is coming out William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You would like the section to come out you mean. I will look back at the older version to see if one exists. --I Write Stuff (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to Connolley's hearkening back to the original objection about there being 5 references without accusations of state terrorism by the U.S., I would contend that although the objection has been raised there is as yet no evidence that the references have been sufficiently scrutinized by any of the objectors. I would suggest actually reading the references, then picking out the best arguments supporting the notion the accusation in the source that the U.S. is complicit in state terrorism and then subsequently providing argumentation that the source in fact does not make the claim. It should perhaps be kept in mind that most of these have not been included for the purpose of expounding an analysis so much as providing a corroboration that there are in fact folks making the claim. Setting aside for the moment, the question of notability of the source (because it was not brought up in the original objection) we can look at reference #1 [[8]] as follows ... The two most pertinent questions seem to be a) is it being described as state terrorism? From the text we can read: "Meanwhile, the Philippine criminal justice system (described by the Asian Human Rights Commission as “rotten”) will begin to apply this July the heinous provisions of the anti-terrorism bill to criminalize all radical, anticapitalist organizations and all public rallies critical of the neocolonial system, U.S. imperialist aggression, IMF-World Bank, and predatory transnational corporations. UN Special Rapporteur Martin Scheinin has warned that the “Human Security Act” passed by Congress contradicts international principles of legality and is bound to trigger more political killings and other State terrorist abuses. Arroyo’s “lawful” terrorism is bound not only to worsen the misery of 87 million Filipinos over half of whom are direly impoverished (one million leave every year, joining 10 million overseas Filipino workers spread around the planet). State terrorism will surely feed and stoke the fires of revolutionary resistance—both peaceful and armed—against oligarchic barbarism and corporate savagery." Clearly state terrorism is being used as a description. The second pertinent question is whether significant responsibility is being attributed to the U.S. role? In the article being referred to it says: "How is the Bush administration linked to these horrors? Aside from hefty U.S. military aid to Arroyo’s security forces, the intervention of US Special Forces in the brutal Philippine counterinsurgency campaigns has precipitated and sustained these catastrophes. U.S. military aid increased from million in 2001 to 4 million in 2003 and 4 milllion in 2005, making the Philippines the fourth largest recipient of such aid (US Congress-Federal Research Division, March 2006). In effect, Bush has been using US citizens’ tax dollars to fund political killings, torture, and other atrocities inflicted on civilians quite unprecedented in Philippine history. Not even the Marcos dictatorship (1972-1986) could rival Arroyo’s excesses. Through various unequal treaties and diplomatic skullduggery, the US government has underwritten the ongoing counter-insurgency operations as part of its “global war on terrorism,” thus justifying the political murders and the unconscionable impunity of both Philippine and U.S. governments." Is that an attribution of significant responsibility or not? We should be able to go through each of the references systematically like this, actually reading them for a change, and presenting their strongest arguments, then assessing them. It seems to me that all of the objections above show no sign evidence of such close scrutiny. I don't have any particular attachment to this section as I had no hand in writing it and do not particularly approve of the methods of the person who was primarily responsible for it. I would only add that there have been other accusations made regarding the U.S. role in the Philippines as an instance of state terrorism for other time periods. Here are links to the other references in the first sentence: [[9]] , [[10]], [[11]] BernardL (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I must have been unclear when I started this section. I did read all of the sources, and not once is the United States accused of state terrorism. I'll take a look at the other ones that you have just provided and give my thoughts on those. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 00:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Of the three sources you have just provided, the first one does not accuse the United States of state terrorism. The second and third sources are already in the article and, like I've already said, also do not accuse the U.S. of state terrorism. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You did not make yourself clear because you provided objection without any substantiation. Now regarding reference #1 above I provided some evidence that state terrorism by Arroyo is being described, and that the author believes that the U.S. has significant responsibility for the state terrorism. If you disagree use the textual evidence to deny that the claim is in fact being made. Alternatively you could state a more fundamental disagreement that only the most literal self-contained accusations are admissible for this article. In which case I would disagree.BernardL (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In sum, these sources state that the United States has provided aid for the Philippines, which has engaged in state terrorism. The conclusion that this is state terrorism has been made by the authors of this article, and not by the authors of the sources. If you don't believe that the source actually has to accuse the U.S. of state terrorism, then you are challenging our policy on original research. This talk page is not the place to challenge our policies; you are looking for WT:OR. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

As has been explained on the WT:OR discussion board in the past, asserting that a source must use the same words as the title to qualify is in fact an unduly extreme interpretation of the policy. The same concepts and accusations can be made in different ways, with different words, and material that is directly related to the topic that does not necessarily use the exact terminology is also admissible. The policy states that a source cannot be used in such a way as to distort the original intention of its author. In the case of E. San Juan Jr. I do not think it distorts his intentions or his analysis at all to suggest that his work maintains that the U.S. is significantly responsible for state terrorism in the Philippines. He describes Arroyo state terror, while the U.S. relation to that terror is a central element in the analysis. In this link here [[12]] he clearly implicates the U.S. immediately by the hyphenization in the title : "BUSH-ARROYO FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY." From the same article I have already given references to his descriptions of the state terror and his explanation of the Bush linkages. In a similar manner, here,...[[13]], San Juan demarcates the U.S. role as a central element in his analysis, both in the title, which joins U.S. hegemony to Arroyo state terrorism, and in the section entitled U.S. patronage. A clincher I think is the following San Juan article: "Imperial Terror, Neo-Colonialism and the Filipino Diaspora"[[14]]. After reading it is there any doubt which state San Juan thinks is the agent of "Imperial Terror"? And taking all into account can there be any doubt that San Juan's analysis belongs in a page whose topic is discussion of significant responsibility of the U.S. in state terrorism? BernardL (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Another issue, as mentioned above, is that the sources here are manifestly unreliable. It's already been discussed why the Friar is non-notable. E. San Juan Jr. maybe, but it's only two minor webzines that his words are referenced in here. We need higher-quality sources to justify a section. - - Merzbow (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but this was not actually "discussed" since no credible "exploration" was conducted. It was pretty much peremptorily dismissed. Your comments regarding the friar suggested US-centrism. First, you argued that he can't be notable because he did not have his own wikipedia article, as if that was some sort of authoritative criteria especially for someone whose main domain is in the third world and for a situation that receives relatively little media coverage. There is in fact a page on Preda that includes pertinent biographical material about Cullen, for what it matters. The point was raised that he has received three nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize. This in of itself does not establish notability, although it may be considered a point contributing to notability. You tried to minimize this by pointing to the large number of nominees in some years. Taken in stride with such considerations surely must be the consideration that the Nobel Committee requires that its nominations are made by individuals who meet their qualifying criteria. [[15]] The fact that Cullen's nominations were made by elected politicians in Germany and Canada attests to a certain international notability. Subsequently it was pointed out that he received a human rights award from the city of Weimar. This was reflexively and summarily dismissed- by what criteria and by what authority? - Well, according to Ultramarine's expert opinion it is because the city of Weimar is small, therefore the award can have no importance. If we actually cared to explore rather than reflexively dismiss we might learn that ..."Every year since 1995 local people in Weimar have nominated an individual, group or organisation to receive a human rights prize in "remembrance of the historical responsibility of Weimar and as a symbol of the nameless victims of dictatorships and despotic rulers around the world." After the nomination process the presentation committee made up of representatives of Amnesty International, Terre des Hommes, UNHCR, and the Society for Endangered Peoples makes the final decision on who should receive the award for "commitment to human rights in spite of state or state-sanctioned violence or persecution." [[16]]. Perhaps, it is worth recalling that all this fuss is being made about a source who seems to be used among a group of sources providing corroboration for a general claim, not any specific analysis. Maybe after all is said and done, such considerations should be dismissed, I'm all ears to reasonable and substantiated arguments. I just do not share the callous attitude that summarily dismisses moral figures ostensibly doing important internationally recognized work to help suffering people. Incidentally Cullen has also received prizes for human rights from cities in Italy and Switzerland. He has also been featured on CNN [[17]] and Amnesty International [[18]] has no problem with extensively referencing PREDA. (The organization that a priori cannot be notable because you've never heard of it.}BernardL (talk) 01:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

He may be the bestest, most lovable friar in the world, but he has no scholarly credentials on the subject, nor has he published these accusations in any reliable source. "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." - WP:RS. A webzine called "Independent Catholic News" with a big fat spelling error at the bottom does not qualify. - Merzbow (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

there is as yet no evidence that the references have been sufficiently scrutinized by any of the objectors - this is the wrong way round. You have to show that the sources contain what they are claimed to. I agree that [19] shows such evidence, but am dubious that its RS. It appears to be a copy of [20]. Its RS-status is at best unclear. Do you have anything better, or is that it? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In that case, could you specify what it is that you find "dubious" and I will see what I can do to address your concerns. I hope that you are aware that San Juan has a phd from Harvard and just last month received a prestigious fellowship to teach at Harvard, effective in the spring of 2009.[[21]] His writings have extensively studied U.S.- Filipino relations, as evidenced by "U.S. Imperialism and Revolution in the Philippines," by "After Postcolonialism: Remapping Philippines-United States Confrontations", and by "In the Wake of Terror: Class, Race, Nation and Ethnicity in the Postmodern World" all by notable academic publishers (Palgrave Macmillan, Rowman & Liitlefield, and Lexington Press, respectively).BernardL (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand. SJ's credentials are not the issue (at the moment). What is in doubt is whether the source is RS. It doesn't seem to be, and you haven't found anything better (if SJ is as notable as you suggest, it seems odd that no mainstream media every publish his stuff). Your source appears to be [22] (the fact that you used a copy of this, apparently without realising it, makes it a bit more dubious). Is bay area indymedia a WP:RS? Clearly a debatable point, but not obviously answerable with Yes. It says its "a non-commercial, democratic collective of bay area independent media makers and media outlets" which doesn't help. Can you find evidence of it being used as a RS elsewhere on wiki? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I was simply asking for clarification. Another source for San Juan’s views was offered- this link to the St. John's University Humanities Review [[23]]. Does this meet the approval of editors here or not, and why?BernardL (talk) 14:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I see no further objections. Source is reliable.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Philippines version added 23:49, 10 May 2008

Per WP:BRD

Bold [24]
Revert (x2) [25]
Awaiting discussion: TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's true that there was no discussion, thus WMC's edit summary saying otherwise was an untruth. Also noteworthy is that after it was originally inserted it was there for about 8 hours without objections, even though Merzbow had been by this page to make a comment [[26]] and Ultramarine was editing on wikipedia. [[27]] If folks want to discuss issues rationally they I'm all fir it. It is to be expected. BernardL (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not removing it. The sourcing is certainly an improvement over the old section, but it's too wordy; two-thirds of it alone are based just on McClintock. It could probably be compressed by half and would be more effective. - Merzbow (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm just quickly going over the Philippines section and am noticing that apparently Prof. Falk doesnt know what he is talking about. The US was not confronted by a nationalistic government movement in the Spanish American War. The US gave weapons to those against the Spanish. It may be that Prof. Falk is talking about the Philippine-American war but how credible can the guy be if he can't even get the name of the war right? LZ (talk) 06:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The section regarding Lansdale seems to be quite a bit in contrast with this version "Trusting the Filipinos, allowing them to form their own solutions to their problems with a minimum of interference, and always treating them as equals were Lansdale's keys to success. He advised them on counter-guerrilla tactics and helped them lessen their reliance on conventional operations, but he always made sure they were responsible for the decisions. He maintained a low-profile and allowed Filipinos to take credit for successful operations, concurrently building pride and confidence in the AFP and their fellow countrymen. As retired Maj. Gen. Lansdale so aptly put it, the Filipinos best knew the problems, best knew how to solve them, and did it -- with U.S. aid and advice, but without U.S. domination of their effort."^[1] Lansdale and Ramon Magsaysay are almost unanimously credited for defeating the insurgency by gaining public support. This is the exact opposite of the claims made here that they terrorized the locals.LZ (talk) 07:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you've found an alternative view of the events from another reliable source. When the article is unlocked, it should be added to maintain NPOV. - Merzbow (talk) 07:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Chile

The below was archived a little too soon. Due to protection were not were able to insert the material. I reproduce it here so editors can see there is consensus to add this material as relevant to the subject, given multiple reliable sources asserting the claims.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)