Jump to content

Talk:United States and state terrorism/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Israel?

i think that it's important to mention the united states' funding of israel in this article. israel has been convicted of a number of human rights violations by the UN etc, especially in the recent conflict with lebanon. as israel's biggest ally, the united states had a major role in facilitating the acquisition of munitions. has there been previous discussion on this issue, and a decision not to include it in the article? i will refrain from making any changes until i know that other people here feel that this controversial topic warrants posting. User:anriar

Human rights violations are not acts of terrorism. --NuclearZer0 15:10, 30 November 2006 (UC:)

Why not?

Because they are ... Human rights violations ... --NuclearZer0 23:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

True, but Qana was terrorism. Nlsanand 03:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. --Tbeatty 03:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
What did those poor children do, exactly? Nlsanand 03:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Terrorism is attacking with the intent to cause terror rather than direct damage. For instance, the Holocaust was not an act of terrorism - its intent was to actually destroy the Jewish people. It was evil, it was human rights violations, it was murder, but it wasn't terrorism. In comparison, something like the attacks on the WTC towers primary purpose was not to destroy the towers (or the Pentagon) but to cause terror in the American populace. Titanium Dragon 13:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


The US certainly carries out international terrorism, by for example giving Israel the arms to carry it out. Take the Intifada in 2000. When from the beginning of the retribution the Israeli military used US helicopters in outright terrorist attacks in Hebron, Ramalla, East Jerusalem, etc. Bill Clinton made the biggest deal in military helicopters in a decade to Israel, October 3rd. The US press did not publish this, the same as the other example documented in the 1973 case: the US rewarded Israeli state-terrorism with more arms.

Does the US carry out international terrorism in Turkey for example? Yes, through the Turks by sending them the planes and helicopters to kill Kurds in the South-East. User:Green01 12:23, Dec. 30 2006 (UTC).

Ganser stuff from article

I moved this here because it was in a section title "International Attempts at Defining Terrorism", which it clearly has nothing to do with, it seems to just be an accusation against the CIA. The content is located below:


Similarly, Daniele Ganser[1][2], Swiss researcher at the Swiss government's Centre for Security Studies has written[3] that when measured against most definitions of terrorism, the language which the United States Government used to settle if the CIA or US Army has the right to engage in covert psychological warfarePDF, is similar to the language used when defining a terrorist organization. In 1948, the National Security Council of the U.S. issued NSC 10/2 in response to Soviet "psychological warfare",PDF stating that the CIA shall:

Plan and conduct covert operations which are conducted or sponsored by this government against hostile foreign states or groups or in support of friendly foreign states or groups but which are so planned and conducted that any US Government responsibility for them is not evident to unauthorised persons and that if uncovered the US Government can plausibly disclaim any responsibility for them. Covert action shall include any covert activities related to: propaganda; economic warfare; preventive direct action, including sabotage, anti-sabotage, demolition, and evacuation measures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance movements, guerrillas and refugee liberation groups, and support of indigenous anti-Communist elements in threatened countries of the free world. Such operations should not include armed conflict by recognized military forces, espionage, counter-espionage, and cover and deception for military operations.[4]PDF

It used to be in a section called "American Terrorism" but things get changed around over time and the point gets lost. [1] ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 13:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I added a little more to it for when it gets readded, like why 10/2 was established meaning to counter soviet psychological warfare, as well as fleshed out the quote which states what the CIA isnt suppose to do and added that the covert actions refer to psychological warfare, according to the State Department. The PDF has a nice history of the CIA you can check out, explaining why certain directives were established, and why the CIA was picked over the military to handle those operations. --NuclearZer0 13:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
A short explanation would be useful, but I would be against a lengthly rebuttal of CIA behavour here. That should be put in the CIA article itself. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 13:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Its not a rebuttal, its the full explanation. When i first seen the section it said 10/2 founded the CIA, which was false. It then said that its what decided the CIA conduct "covert" actions, which is half truth leaving out the fact that its "covert psychological warfare", it also left out why they were tasked, which was in response to what was percieved at the time to be the Soviet Union conducting "psychological warfare" against the US, meaning in defense. Anyway WP:NPOV states we have to present both sides. I am simpyl asking for the complete side. --NuclearZer0 13:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Thats fair. 10/2 didn't found the CIA? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 13:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The CIA was founded in 1947 with the National Security Act of 1947, they were derived from the Central Intelligence Group which I think was founded in '46 and itself derived from the Office of Strategic Studies --NuclearZer0 13:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I think this might have been my error. I took it from Ganser, but checking it now, he doesn't say NSC 10/2 founded the CIA. He says on p54, "...on June 18, 1948 the NSC passed the notorious directive NSC 10/2 which authorised the CIA to carry out covert action operations...." ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 14:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any problem clarifying the context of the directive; however, the wording needs to be cleaned up:

Similarly, Daniele Ganser[5][6], -- a researcher at the Swiss government's Centre for Security Studies -- has written[7] that when measured against most definitions of terrorism the language which the United States Government used to task the CIA with covert warfare qualifies it as a terrorist organization. In response to the perceived threat of Soviet "psychological warfare", the U.S. National Security Council issued in 1948 the directive NSC 10/2 ,PDF stating that the CIA shall:
Plan and conduct covert operations which are conducted or sponsored by this government against hostile foreign states or groups or in support of friendly foreign states or groups but which are so planned and conducted that any US Government responsibility for them is not evident to unauthorised persons and that if uncovered the US Government can plausibly disclaim any responsibility for them. Covert action shall include any covert activities related to: propaganda; economic warfare; preventive direct action, including sabotage, anti-sabotage, demolition, and evacuation measures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance movements, guerrillas and refugee liberation groups, and support of indigenous anti-Communist elements in threatened countries of the free world. Such operations should not include armed conflict by recognized military forces, espionage, counter-espionage, and cover and deception for military operations.[8]PDF

Also, i don't think that Ganser's opinion should be watered down by saying the "language is similar"; if Ganser's opinion is that the the language qualifies the CIA as a terrorist organization, then it should be stated as such. It is, after all, his opinion: not ours. It's late. Good-night. Stone put to sky 18:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This "United States Government used to task the CIA with covert warfare qualifies it as a terrorist organization" is a half truth as pointed out above and in the source I presented, its "covert psychological warfare." I guess what we can use is Seabhcan stating for us Ganser's quote and the definition Ganser gives on what a terrorist organization is, so we can see if its similar or the same. Also I doubt Ganser said it "qualifies the CIA as a terrorist organization", but I will wait and see if Seabhcan can provide the full quote and context. --NuclearZer0 18:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
From chp 2 pg 32. "From a systematic scientific perspective the covert action department of the CIA according to the definition of the FBI is therefore a terrorist organistation. Because `Terrorism', according to the FBI, `is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objective'."... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 19:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
While I do not agree with it since he seems to ignore the "unlawful" portion of the definition, it should be noted that he is specifically speaking of the FBI definition if its ever added back to the article in an appropriate place. It should also be noted that he is specifically talking about the CIA "covert action department" and not the whole of the CIA, thanks Seabhcan I appreciate you taking the time to look that up. --NuclearZer0 20:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, seeing that the CIA only operates outside of the US, even the thin veil of legality supplied by NSC 10/2 (US Law) doesn't apply. Operations of foreign intelligence agencies are illegal in all countries. If those operations involve the use of force with the aim of intimidation or coercion they are terrorism by the FBI definition. And I believe that the US Courts claim universal jurisdiction on terrorist cases.
US law is very strict about these things usually. I know a guy in jail in Los Angeles for terrorism because he sent €100 to his brother in Gaza who is a member of Hamas. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 20:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Thats nice but thats original research, also CIA doesnt only operate outside of the US, I think you are mistaking that they cannot conduct operations on US citizens. Anyway that is all very much WP:OR since Ganser specifies a department so should we. We should also state Gansers definition, since its the crust of the comparison. --NuclearZer0 21:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Are your sure the CIA is allowed to operate within the US? I believe I have read that it isn't. I know that the FBI has control of anti-spy work within the US (ie. they are the ones who detect and arrest foreign spies in US soil) and I believe the CIA does this outside. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 21:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Operate within, yes, target people within, no. Even that no is more of a "its not their job" not a "its illegal for them to do" kinda thing. I think the confusion is in roles, the job of the CIA is to handle intelligence, the role of the FBI is more to investigate and arrest. Just for examples MKULTRA and CHAOS come to mind of operations on US soil. Now that I think of it, I believe only psychologial warfare is not permitted to be carried out on the domestic audience as its termed. --NuclearZer0 22:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, we've been discovering lately in my corner of the world that the CIA also been 'arresting' people. And that is certainly illegal. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 22:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Except that your government permits it, so its not illegal is it. --NuclearZer0 23:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Its illegal if its against the laws as they are agreed by parliament and are written down. Just because the particular gangster in office at the time choses to look the other way doesn't make it legal. It just makes that politician also a criminal. If a president beats his wife, that doesn't make wife-beating legal ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 23:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Governments are allowed to turn over criminals to other governments, its called rendition. I dont think rendition requires them to actually leave the country, its just normally done that way. Also if you read the article on extraordinary rendition, it will explain to you its legal and has been done long before the WOT. --NuclearZer0 00:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
If that article says its legal the article is incorrect. Evidence of this is that Italy has issued warrants for the arrest of 13 CIA agents who kidnapped an Italian citizen. `Extradition' is the legal process whereby a person may be handed over to a foreign legal system. It involves the case for extradition being presented to a judge. What the CIA do is grab someone off the street and ship them abroad for torture. Under the law, that is kidnap. If members of european security agencies were involved they are also kidnappers, under the law. There are several cases of CIA 'extraordinary rendition' being investigated across Europe at the moment. All are treated as illegal. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 00:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
1 kidnapping does not make all rendition cases, cases of kidnapping ... I am sure that is obvious. You think what the CIA does is grab them off the street, the truth is we do not know the full proccess as it contains no public oversight. Also they arent illegal if they are under investigation, thats a pre judgement you are making. Do you ever wonder how much is really for show since they don't actually expect the US to turn over CIA agents. --NuclearZer0 00:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Another point is if I am right, the Italian government handed the person over, the issue was if the Italian agents had a right to turn them over, I may be wrong however. --NuclearZer0 00:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
(indent) also "13 people they claim are agents "linked to the CIA", is not the same as 13 CIA agents. --NuclearZer0 00:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
They are suspected CIA agents. The CIA doesn't publish its employment records. In the Italian case, I believe the man was taken off the street. However there was a similar case in Sweden where the man was captured by Swedish security people and handed over. Of course the CIA won't hand the people over, but the legal process must be followed in any case. As for the pre-judgment issue: kidnap is illegal. The question before the court is whether these particular 13 people did this act. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 00:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Correct so we have 13 random people who may or may not be CIA agents that kidnapped a man off the street. So we do not know if they are the CIA or if they even kidnapped the person ... doesn't sound very conclusive. So possibly an illegal act took place, a kidnapping, by who? we do not know, where he went? we do not know either. Couldnt it have been the swedish government? they dont publish their records either. --NuclearZer0 00:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Except that "extraordinary rendition" is the official policy of the CIA. Do they even deny that they rendered the guy? I think they don't. The 13 people in question were traveling on official US government diplomatic passports.... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 00:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I checked the Extraordinary Rendition article. It doesn't say its legal. They wording they use is "extra-judicial" which is another way of saying outside of the law or 'not-legal'. Whether there is a difference between that and 'illegal' I don't know. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 00:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Incorrect. Extra-judicial means outside of a legal proceeding, not 'outside the law' nor 'not-legal'. --Tbeatty 00:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't mean `legal', though. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 01:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Innocent till proven guilty =), j/k, this was a good conversation, enjoy your weekend. --NuclearZer0 02:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
LOL. Yeah. So what you say is that if you aren't entitled to do something, then, in fact, you are actually allowed to do it. That's a nice piece of orwellian Newspeak. Extra-judicial means that the proper procedures weren't followed, and since they are necessary for the act to be legal to begin with... but no, procedures are just technicalities. True paladins of good don't have to care about them, they can arrest and detain whoever they want wherever they want. Warrants? Irrelevant technicalities. Borders? Irrelevant? Nations? Irrelevant? Rights? Irrelevant. The Paladins of Goodness (TM) ride to arrest the Evildoers (TM) across the world. --OliverH 23:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

But yes, everyone outside the US is an evil propagandist, frothing at the mouth and rabidly waiting for any chance to get at the noble paladins... Nevermind what even the US government acknowledges, what must not be true could not possibly be true. Never mind what sources within the CIA admit, NO, if you say we know nothing, then we know nothing. Probably because you believe in the MIB, too? But hey, we know the drill: The US press [2] is a bunch of unamerican, leftist propagandist in league with the terrorists deliberately spreading lies about comments by the Bush administration and the CIA. Say, how fare do you actually want to take this farce? To the point where you claim that the world is flat and the White House is actually the center of the universe? That GWB can change the gravitational constant with a stroke of his pen? It's really getting absurd here.--OliverH 23:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to reply to the rant above and simply give you a definition:

ex·tra·ju·di·cial (kstr-j-dshl) Pronunciation Key Audio pronunciation of "Extra-judicial" [P] adj.

  1. Outside of the authority of a court.
  2. Outside of the usual judicial proceedings.

No where there does it say illegal. --NuclearZer0 23:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but you claim the Extraordinary Rendition article actually said it that was `legal'. It certainly doesn't say that. But, hey, we all make mistakes. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 23:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The article on burrito's doesnt say they are outlawed ... but yes my mistake it doesnt say its legal, much like the article on burrito's doesn't say its outlawed. --NuclearZer0 00:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Its completely crazy, off the wall nuts, to suggest that Extraordinary Rendition isn't highly illegal. Why do you think the whole of Europe is up in arms about it? Its the biggest scandal I can remember. At the airport near my home, where these poor guys are shipped through in chains, there has been a permanent 24 hour peace camp since 2002. There have been arrests in Italy. German government people have lost their jobs. There's been EU investigations. Resignations, etc. How could kidnapping be anything but illegal?
Imagine in your own country if, China for example, was 'extraordinarily rendering' US citizens from their homes off the street. The Chinese might pass a chinese law to allow it. It would still be illegal in the US.... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 00:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Burritos, extraordinary rendition, or football hooliganism, if some notable person has said it is state terrorism by the US, we can include it here. Is that the case? Tom Harrison Talk 00:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Huh? I think your on a different page, Tom. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 00:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I wondered myself. Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America, right? If someone important has said extraordinary rendition is an example of American state terrorism, cite them and include it. Tom Harrison Talk 01:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


Oh, my. All this talk over a source, when all that's needed is to refer to the source!

This is very, very simple: Ganser very clearly says that the "language used" to set up the CIA's covert-ops division qualifies it as a terrorist organization. Ganser is the source of this quote, he's reliable and an expert, and that's that. It really doesn't matter what anyone else thinks about Ganser, what anyone else thinks about the purported legality or illegality of the CIA, or any of that. The simple fact is that Ganser says that according to pretty much any definition of the word, the CIA qualifies as a terrorist organization. That's that. There shouldn't be any more discussion about this. Stone put to sky 04:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong again, first he doesnt say "set up" and doesnt say "qualifies the CIA", also this was already settled above, you are out of loop this time around, the rest of the coversation is on a dif topic about extraordinary rendition and an article Seabhcan read. --NuclearZer0 12:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
We already agreed I believe that as long as it specifies "CIA covert operations department" like the quote says on top of the other items that were already added, that it is fine as well as adding Gansers quote which gives the FBI definition of terrorit organization. Feel free to chime in on the other discussion if its on going however --NuclearZer0 12:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


Look, Zero -- the sentence is already modified so that it *doesn't* say "set up" -- so you're arguing with a straw man, there, buddy - and it ain't got nothin' t' do with me.

Second, my use of the word "qualifies" is what is commonly known as a "paraphrase"; if you'd like me to use the *exact* phrase that Ganser used -- which, incidentally, is a LOT stronger than the way i put it (and so looks a lot worse), then i'll be happy to. No problem! It's done!

Finally, i may have come in late here, but i haven't seen that the Ganser material is "settled". When it is, i promise to stop chiming in. As for saying that this statement applies to "one part" of the CIA -- that's absurd. If you wanted to argue that it applies to the CIA and not the FBI, then fine; you're right. But CIA covert ops are managed and directed by the same bureaucracy that manages and directs the rest of the organization and forces each portion to cooperate with the other; it doesn't matter if the left hand doesn't know what the right's doing, here, because the brain and eyeballs are quite clear on the matters at hand. So no go on qualifying this as "well, *one* part of the CIA is terrorist in nature, but not the rest". Stone put to sky 16:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If it's so settled, then why hasn't it been replaced? I'll give someone else a chance to manage this. It'll be done by tomorrow, anyway. Stone put to sky 16:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What I dont think you understand is that the conversation ended, I am not sure what you are talking about, also Ganser specifically says only one part of the CIA so the paragraph if ever reinserted has to say that one part. Also I think you need to read more clearly, its the FBI's definition tha Ganser is arguing would make that one department of the CIA classified as such, not that the FBI does anything, just that its their definition Ganser uses, Please read over and stop attempting to be so confrontational for no reason. --NuclearZer0 16:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Just to followup the reason it hasn't been replaced is because there is no section for it, its the very first thing written in this section of the talk page ... Again please read carefully and stop attempting to be so confrontational for no reason. --NuclearZer0 18:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Also you say I am arguing a straw man, but I was responding to your second sentence which stated "This is very, very simple: Ganser very clearly says that the "language used" to set up the CIA's covert-ops division qualifies it as a terrorist organization", again as Seabhcan pointed out, he didnt say its what setup the CIA or what setup that division. You can read up on the history of the CIA but it was already engaging in this activity before 10/2. As I pointed out the job of 10/2 was to determine if the CIA or Military would continue to do it in face of the "soviet propaganda machine". --NuclearZer0 18:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you checked the section heading we're currently corresponding in, but it's "Ganser stuff from article".

Straw man + straw man + straw man + straw man = big waste of time.

The Ganser stuff is relevant. I am replacing it now because you have yet to do so. Stone put to sky 10:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Noone said its not relevant to the article, just that its not relevant to the section it was in. IF you read what I wrote, I said that all along. You really do seem like you are just trying to be confrontational cause you keep making things up to argue about. Just put it ni a new section where it should be and add more the Ganser and you are all set. What straw man arguements are you talking about? I think you need a wiki break Stone. --NuclearZer0 11:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Come on now, this has nothing to do with the definition of American Terrorism:

Similarly, a leading military and security studies academic, Daniele Ganser[9][10][11][12] has written[13] that "the covert action department of the CIA" is, "according to the definition of the FBI...a terrorist organistation." Dr. Ganser explains that this is because "`Terrorism', according to the FBI, `is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objective'," and as Dr. Ganser goes on to point out this is precisely the objective give to the covert operations section of the CIA when the US Government choose if the CIA or US military would continue to handle psychological operations in response to the Soviet Union "psychological warfare."[14] The relevant document -- also quoted by Ganser -- is the 1948 U.S. National Security Council directive, 10/2, where the activity of the CIA covert (psychological) operations bureau is defined as follows:
[To] Plan and conduct covert operations which are conducted or sponsored by this government against hostile foreign states or groups or in support of friendly foreign states or groups but which are so planned and conducted that any US Government responsibility for them is not evident to unauthorised persons and that if uncovered the US Government can plausibly disclaim any responsibility for them. Covert action shall include any covert activities related to: propaganda; economic warfare; preventive direct action, including sabotage, anti-sabotage, demolition, and evacuation measures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance movements, guerrillas and refugee liberation groups, and support of indigenous anti-Communist elements in threatened countries of the free world. Such operations should not include armed conflict by recognized military forces, espionage, counter-espionage, and cover and deception for military operations.[15][16]

I fleshed it out more to explain that it wasnt what the CIA covert operations department was started under since it already existed per the source I provided, and what the situation was at the time, and added the (psychological) also per the source I provided. Please stop putting this anywhere, and take the time to make a section for it, you didnt put it back where it was, and you put it in another section that made no sense "Definition of American Terrorism" ... --NuclearZer0 11:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


Uhhh...pardon me, but if we are going to define what American Terrorism is or isn't, and who it is that is levelling the accusations against the U.S, then yes -- the Ganser material is absolutely relevant. Here we have a widely published, leading, independent academic researcher clearly stating that by the U.S's own definition, NSC 10/2 establishes the CIA covert ops bureau as a terrorist organization.

That is absolutely relevant to the definition of the problem. There is no reason to remove it. I object in the *strongest* *terms* to your vandalization of this piece of the article.

The fact is, i gave you *two* *days* to restore this section to the article; that means that you've had *two* *days* to make suggestions and attempt to restore the information. You haven't done it. Now, after me waiting for *two* *days* for you to put it back, i come along and restore it to its former place -- where nobody was complaining about it anyway -- and then you pop in and remove it again, claiming that it doesn't fit?

This is very, very bad faith on your part, Zero. It is not in the spirit of Wikipedia guidelines, and i find it difficult to express how obviously contrary to the purpose and place of this page your actions are. Please -- act in good faith and replace the material where it should be. There is no reason to remove it; it's properly sourced, it clearly fits under the section header, and it has been accurately and carefully reviewed by you, me, and about ten other people on these pages. Stone put to sky 11:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

First as I already told you twice above, you didnt put it back where it was. It was removed cause its not relevant, even the creator of the paragraph said it wasnt. Now you come along and put it back in a new place, one that is even less relevant. If you want to create a section on the CIA, go do it, stop trying to drop this someplace as if you can't be bothered to create a real section for it. I don't know if you been reading this thread, as I stated in my response to Seabhcan, I have no problem with the content once clarified, however it doesnt belong where it was, and less in the new place you put it. Just find the right place and stop revert warring and being confrontational for no reason, this is the third time you basically argued into air because you didnt want to read what I wrote above or are arguing a point that was already agreed on etc. --NuclearZer0 12:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


Restoring Zero's Edits

Zero has taken out a good 2 or 3 fifths of the introductory "definition" area. He has not included any explanation for his deletions. Moreover, much of this is material that was suggested by he himself, or by others who have objected to what they consider an "anti-american" POV on this page. Thus, in the interests of fairness and objectivity, i have restored the material; basically, these are two passages which explain, in turn:

A) That the U.S. itself maintains a formal list of states which it identifies as sponsors of terrorism, and B) Clarifies the accepted boundaries of how any given act may or may not be classified as "State sponsored terrorism".

Specifically, B) explains that acts which are terrorist in nature are not simply random aberrations in policy, or the acts of uncontrolled rogue agents. This is relevant because when people accuse the United States of "terrorism", they sometimes use acts which are clearly not established U.S. policy to do so. Similarly, the fact the the U.S. has a list of state sponsors of terror indicates both that it is fair to ask whether or not the U.S. itself participates in such activity, as well as establishes that the U.S. itself possesses a standard by which it professes to evaluate others. Both of these are important points to be made in any definition of a problem. Stone put to sky 12:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Citations please. This is going to be my reply to your diatribes. Also writing "according to what it claims is a standard legal measure." isnt balancing POV, its making a editorialized comment. Remember you added a whole bunch of sources last time around, none having to do with the topic of them using "flimsy evidence", now you want to introduce that comment as another way of undermining the process without providing a citation? I think if you really wanted to maintain POV you would leave it as is, as its implied its legal already. --NuclearZer0 12:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That looks to me as if you are refusing to discuss the restoration of this content. Am i correct in that assumption? Stone put to sky 12:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I see. Apparently there is no response forthcoming.

Well, then, i shall continue; your edits to the section regarding the GCCCW are totally inaccurate. Your wording gives the absolutely false impression that the document was signed in order to *give* militaries rights, and that the considerations of civilians mentioned are secondary to the concerns of how militaries use their weaponry. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The GCCCW was initiated first and foremost with the protection of civilians in mind, and secondly to protect soldiers from weaponry such as mustard gas, napalm, and other, equally reprehensible tools of destruction. The section as you currently have it must be changed. Stone put to sky 12:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The way you had it setup didnt make any sense as it pulled from Incendiary Weapons first, then gave military target definition then went and gave the mines/cluster bomb issue. The ordering doesn't make any sense, the reason I added that portion was to show a counter to the Human Rights groups, and introduce NPOV to the paragraph, you then reword it in an attempt to say GCCCW supports the Human Rights groups, by introducing a paragraph from the Incendiary Weapons section and stating a paragraph that defines what a miliary target is and its value is secondary to that. The most overall definition should come first, being the military target definition, then the definitions that only have to do with certain sections. Further I said taht even the military target definition isnt absolute as certain sections specifically override it, such as the ones you mentioned, which is me countering my own balance, stop arguing just to argue, its getting insane. You are arguing that I took my balance and made it more in the opposing favor, yet not completely!!! That doesn't make any sense. --NuclearZer0 13:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what i said was that you took the spirit and intent of the GCCCW and turned it on its head to serve your own immediate purposes. Stone put to sky 13:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

What you actually wrote was "GCCCW are totally inaccurate", which they are your quotes from it, I just moved them around, so if anything, you were totally inaccurate. --NuclearZer0 13:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, nonsense. You altered some key words, you know you did, and i'm not going to argue the point with you because anyone who wants to can go back and look at the history of the edits.

Again, you are objecting to the fact that i'm paraphrasing the Conventions, and using the quotations to illustrate the single point that is relevant to this article: that they establish a fundamental measure by which war crimes and terrorist acts may be evaluated.

This measure is integral to the article, and the portions i quoted were significant because they gave very clear examples of what constitutes a war crime and/or an act of terrorism (according to some defintions). What you have done is gone and twisted the Conventions around so that they appear to provide *justification* for the use of military force and WMD on civilian populations, which is entirely contrary to the intent and purpose of the GCCCW.

This is all clearly stated in the first few clauses of the protocols you yourself linked to.

Regardless, my usage of the various selections of the Conventions served only one purpose: to flesh out in a methodical manner what measures they were trying to establish as criminal and/or terrorist. It really doesn't matter if i cited the protocols in the same order in which they were authored, because the point was to help the *reader* understand what they mean -- not to recite them verbatim from the document. Stone put to sky 13:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This is your problem "you are objecting to the fact that i'm paraphrasing the Conventions, and using the quotations to illustrate the single point", please read WP:NPOV and why a "single point" is not appropriate. Also I put the quotes back in order. Military Objective is first defined in Protocol II, then Incendiary Weapons in Protocol III, and then finally the mines and cluster bombs in Protocol V. Stop attempting to make the whole article show a "single point" its in violation of a Wikipedia policy. --NuclearZer0 13:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
This is also not acceptable "my usage of the various selections of the Conventions served only one purpose". Please allow for NPOV and stop attempting to slant the article. I further clarified that Incendiary weapons are never allowed to be used on civilians, which I felt I did well enough the first time, but now its clearer --NuclearZer0 13:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


Oh, dear, Mr Zero: My usage did not attempt to further any particular point of view, but only to outline the intent and effects of the GCCCW. It was only to that end that they served a purpose. Fortunately for me, i do not need to argue against the Geneva Conventions in order to prove my point.

Your edits, however, not only asserted a point of view -- but one that is patently opposite to the intent of the GCCCW!

If you feel my posts about the GCCCW exhibited some sort of Point of View regarding what they say and how they say it, then feel free to show us how. I suspect, though, that it is rather the GCCCW itself to which you object.

Is that the case? Stone put to sky 14:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I am lost on what you are talking about again. I will quote myself:
I hope that helps, certain parts are bold, there are quotes that you use etc. Give it a quick careful read and let me know if you have any trouble. If you still think I am commenting about the legitamacy of the GCCCW, then read it again a few more times as that has not even been mentioned. --NuclearZer0 17:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Where will we put the Ganser material?

Having tried unsuccessfully to persuade Zero to find for us the appropriate portion of the Introduction to place this passage, i am wondering if there are any other opinions out there that might care to chime in on this? Or perhaps Zero has decided to repent of his indulgence, and give us a constructive suggestion?

Regardless, i am once again asking: where shall we put the Ganser material? It is already long overdue for restoration; it has passed all tests of relevancy and validity; and the article would be vastly improved by its inclusion. Thus: where shall we put it? Stone put to sky 13:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Create its own secton, this was said above to Seabhcan when I first took it out, that its an important definition and should be in the article, just not where it was. You claim to have read that section yet are asking the same questions that have been answered already. Please read the full threads more carefully. The issue was never that its inclusion awsn't up to snuff for the article, you are starting to seem like you don't actually read this talk page at all. --NuclearZer0 13:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
My very first response to Seabhcan about the material is "I added a little more to it for when it gets readded", this is just after him explaining that the section was renamed and so the information lost context. --NuclearZer0 13:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The material is relevant to "definitions of terrorism", since in fact it takes one definition of terrorism -- the FBI's -- and shows that a U.S. government directive from the NSC qualifies as terrorist under it. Where i placed it back an hour or so ago was an excellent spot; there is no reason for us to create a new section for it, because it qualifies fine under the current headings.

There is no point on creating new headings because they are neither necessary, nor agreed upon.

And as a matter of fact -- i quite object to the creation of "Other attempts at defining terrorism". All of the organizations and definitions listed under that heading are International organizations. There is no reason to create a new heading. Stone put to sky 13:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The person who wrote the section even says its out of context now and doesn't belong there, are you really argunig against me and Seabhcan over this? I created the other section cause not all the groups you presented are international, so its "other", you can chang eit to "Human Rights groups attempts to define terrorism" if you prefer since you are talking about Human Rights groups only in the section. And I do not agree with the section you put it in. You want to accuse the CIA in general of being a terrorist organization, then make a section for it. That section is for definitions, not accusations. --NuclearZer0 13:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but did you miss that when i restored it i put it in a slightly different place? In a place where it's relevance is indisputable?

Also, i will be restoring these citations:

This one: http://www.cetim.ch/fr/interventions_details.php?iid=207

Comes from this website: http://www.cetim.ch/en/interventions_onu.php?currentyear=&pid=

And clearly states that the U.S. holds a double standard vis a vis definitions of terrorism and human rights.

This one: http://perso.orange.fr/polex/strategie/droit_et_anti-terrorisme.htm

Is an article by the guy mentioned in this article: http://www.lwfcamerica.org/english/contenido.php?cod=144

Who happens to be an internationally respected human rights lawyer. In his article, he explictly states that the U.S. has a double standard vis a vis its definition of terrorism.

This one: http://www.redress.org/publications/TerrorismReport_fr.pdf

Is a link to a pdf file from an internationally respected aid group for victims of torture. In it, they clearly state that one of the reasons there isn't an international definition of terrorism is because the United States wants to protect itself and its allies from prosecution.

None of these are from fringe groups; CETIM and Redress both work directly and often with the UN (CETIM even has direct input on policy there), and Teitelbaum is an active and respected lawyer who works throughout Europe and Central/South America.

You have no basis for eliminating these sources. I urge you to stop deleting sources which conform to WP:RS. Stone put to sky 13:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"And clearly states that the U.S. holds a double standard vis a vis definitions of terrorism and human rights."
I have no problem with this, its not what you wrote though, its being used to cite that "sometimes qualifying enemy states as "terrorist" on the basis of flimsy evidence", which it does not say at all.
Eh. O.k. Take out the part about "flimsy evidence". Double-standard is enough.Stone put to sky 14:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
"Who happens to be an internationally respected human rights lawyer. In his article, he explictly states that the U.S. has a double standard vis a vis its definition of terrorism.
Again this does not support the statement "sometimes qualifying enemy states as "terrorist" on the basis of flimsy evidence"
"Is a link to a pdf file from an internationally respected aid group for victims of torture. In it, they clearly state that one of the reasons there isn't an international definition of terrorism is because the United States wants to protect itself and its allies from prosecution."
This also does not support "sometimes qualifying enemy states as "terrorist" on the basis of flimsy evidence"
Oh, dear me; yes, it most certainly does. You should run the file through a translator and read the article before you try to say anything about it. This one file in particular goes into great depth about the Pinochet case and how the U.S. continues to manipulate its definition of "State Terrorism" and to stonewall the International Court despite the fact that it has condemned other countries for far less. Stone put to sky 14:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Two of these was removed before, both of these and you conceded they didnt support the point, now you are stating again that they do? --NuclearZer0 14:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the "flimsy evidence" portion as you provided no citation for it and am now seeking a new section for that accusation since again, that section is for definitions only. --NuclearZer0 14:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No, none of those links "were removed before" -- at least, not before you last removed them. I simply didn't feel the need to belabor the point, because you yourself were allowing the source to stand. However, i have always been aware that these sources were adequate for this citation as well. Since you were allowing them to stand before, i just didn't bother.

And finally: there are *no* "new sections" to be added. The article doesn't need any "new sections", unless they are below, when adding new allegations to the list or unless we open up an aspect of this article that obviously doesn't fit the current layout. As it is, however, everything we've gotten together so far is quite happy under "international definitions" and "The Term 'American Terrorism'".

Like i said before: the new "Other Attempts" is extraneous and pointless, and should be removed. Stone put to sky 14:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way, no really. --NuclearZer0 17:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ganser Material, Redux

I'm sorry, but this just will not do. You have moved the Ganser material out of the section where it is most relevant. You must find a better place for it than where it is. Stone put to sky 15:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


Since you haven't responded, i shall presume that you accede and feel as i do that the Ganser material should be replaced into the relevant section. Stone put to sky 16:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a life, please allow for more then 1 hour before you run off and assume there will be no response at all. If you find yourself becoming impatient you can always go out for a walk or something. Again, please be more careful when editing and more patient, thank you. --NuclearZer0 17:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

GCCCW

Look, you are completely and utterly misrepresenting the purpose and intent of the GCCCW.

...Its second clause exhorts the signatories to...[avoid civilian casualties]...It then goes on to define what a military objective is...It does however present a counter balance by excluding certain weapons from use at all....

The GCCCW doesn't go from asking people not to kill civilians to then talking about when it's o.k. to kill civilians, and then next 'provide a counter balance' (balance what, exactly?) to a point that it was never making.

The GCCCW defines what military targets are and aren't to establish a guage for *prosecution*. There is no "counter-balance" involved here. It's a strict logical progression: don't kill civilians; civilians are those people who live in large groups away from established military targets like airbases and sea fortifications; and if you really need to use White Phosphorous, make certain you don't drop it anywhere even vaguely near them. Stone put to sky 14:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Noone said it allows the killing of civilians ... Not sure what you are reading anymore Stone. Also white phosphorous isnt an incendiary. Civilian Objects are objects that are not military objectives, so bombing a house is bad unless that house is a military objective, get it? --NuclearZer0 14:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i quite get it; you are wrong. According to the GCCCW, a house in a civilian neighborhood is never, ever a "military objective" upon which one can drop bombs, chemical weapons, or other WMD's -- got it? What you are doing is inserting the Israeli and U.S. justification into the wording of the GCCCW, and that just isn't in the original. If you can't provide a source for your interpretation, then i am going to alter it so it reflects the wording as it actually is. Stone put to sky 15:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

On what basis have you eliminated the passage which contrasts against the U.S. State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism? Stone put to sky 15:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, you can never drop Incendiary Weapons on a civilian object, you however can drop conventional weapons on a home if its a military objective, since all civilian objects cease being them when they become military objectives. Its quoted in the article ... You gave the quote ... So its technically your interpretation if you inserted falsly quoted material, which I dont think you did. As for contrast section removal, it wasnt removed, stop jumping to conclusions and read the edit summaries. --NuclearZer0 15:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Also why after saying I should re-add the CIA material did you again remove it. It creates a good section where two "well respected" people are using the US's own definitions against it, its actually a well created section with a topic, application of US's own definition. --NuclearZer0 16:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting the way you interpret that. Unfortunately, it's only your interpretation. Find a citation for it, or i will revert the copy back to the way it was before you started playing with it. Stone put to sky 16:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the part you tagged, seems to be more against you as it was throwing the "other side" a bone, but its your call. Also you keep adding duplicate information everywhere, please be more careful when editing. --NuclearZer0 17:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The Ganser material was just fine where it was. You have moved it to a place where it makes no sense whatsoever; in order to do so, you have muddled up an entire section that was previously acknowledged as satisfactory by me, as well as you.

The Ganser material needs to be moved back to where it belongs: Ganser was commenting directly on the U.S. definitions of terrorism and how they are self-contradictory. Ganser was making the point in order to illustrate the difficulties in reaching an international consensus on Terrorism. Thus, the Ganser section obviously should be in the section dealing with international definitions, in order to help describe the difficulties in arriving at a copascetic definition. The material should be moved back.

Similarly, you have excised an entire section of the "Definitions" article, wherein the international position is contrasted against the State Department. The only reason i can imagine you might do this is because you don't feel that international efforts deserve to be given the same space as the State Department efforts; unfortunately, this is an article about the U.S. and how other international players perceive it. The material should remain, and there is no reason to move it. Stone put to sky 18:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Stone put to sky 18:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I never acknowledged it was satisfactory, making stuff up doesn't make it fact, please refrain from putting words in my mouth. Thank you. The ganser material is now in a similar section, one where both Ganser and Chomsky both argue the US is a terrorist organization by using the US's own definitions. I don't know how much better of a location could have been created then by placing those two items side by side. You state "Ganser was commenting directly on the U.S. definitions of terrorism and how they are self-contradictory", this is also exactly what Chomsky is doing by applying the US low-impact warfare definition to their own activities.
As for Gansers material belonging in the section dealnig with international terrorism, this makes little sense as the definition Ganser is using is not an attempt at an international definition, nor has it ever been offered as one, its the FBI's definition, which is not international.
The Ganser material is relevant to general definitions of Terrorism, and specifically to the United States' definitions of Terrorism in an international context. Stone put to sky 19:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
As for your contrasting section, I repeat again that it was not removed from the article, further the definitions section shouldn't be making accusations, that is what the section below it are for.
The "Contrast" section does not make any sense where you have moved it, whereas it fills an important place in the explanation of what the U.S. definition is, and how that definition is perceived internationally. Again, there is no reason to move it, and every reason not to (more below).Stone put to sky 19:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
As for weighing international efforts with State Department efforts, I actually removed the State Department section before, you complained and readded it back if you do not recall. The State Department definition also doesn't fit "International definitions" as it was never offered up for international recognition, nor is it itself the definition of an international organization. Since however you began a revert war over it, I simply expanded it to be complete from the source you provided, the previous sentence was too vague.
The State Department section explains that the whole reason this is a debate in the first place is because the United States has made it one by maintaining a list of what it considers are state sponsors of terrorism. The "contrasting" section elaborates how much of the world perceives the U.S. position. Both are quite relevant to any article explaining "Allegations of State Terrorism by the U.S.A." Stone put to sky 19:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Also this article is about "Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America" and only that. You want to start a new article titled "The U.S. and how other international players perceive it", feel free.--NuclearZer0 19:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Once again: Yes, you are absolutely right. The article is about allegations of terrorism made by other states against the U.S.A. Therefore, it is necessary to understand on what basis those accusations are made and how other states perceive the U.S.A's justifications of its actions. Stone put to sky 19:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

In that vein, these paragraphs:

Some of the controversy associated with the term involves disputes over the definition of terrorism, and some with the substance of the allegations. The term's usage (and controversy) appears to have increased in parallel with media coverage of terrorism since the September 11, 2001 attacks and the Bush administration's proclamation of a War on Terrorism. [citation needed]

The United States Department of State maintains a list of states it considers to be supporters of terrorism, which its designation criteria is based on three laws: section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, and section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act. Six other nations are listed due to "engaging in certain trade with state sponsors."[17]. However, specialists and state plaintiffs in international law have long accused the United States government of selectively choosing its definition of "terrorism" according to the actions of its enemies, while ignoring stronger evidence that would qualify acts by the U.S, its agents or allies as "terrorist".[18]

The United States Department of State maintains a list of states it considers to be supporters of terrorism, which its designation criteria is based on three laws: section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, and section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act. Six other nations are listed due to "engaging in certain trade with state sponsors."Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).[19]

State terrorism refers to violence against civilians perpetrated by organizations clearly affiliated with national government-affiliated authorities. Whether a particular act is described as "terrorism" may depend on whether the International community considers the action justified or necessary, as well as other factors. As yet, there is no internationally accepted standard by which acts may be gauged to qualify as terrorist in nature.[20]


Along with these:

A monograph written by Dr. Jeffrey Record, a professor in the Department of Strategy and International Security at the U.S. Air Force’s Air War College, counted 109 definitions of terrorism that covered a total of 22 different definitional elements; Record also noted that terrorism expert Walter Laqueur in 1999 counted over 100 definitions, leading Laqueur to conclude that the "only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence"[21].

Similarly, a leading military and security studies academic, Dr. Daniele Ganser[22][23][24][25] has pointed out[26] that the definitions used by the U.S. government are sometimes even at odds with each other; as Ganser indicates, "the covert action department of the CIA" is, "according to the definition of the FBI...a terrorist organistation." Dr. Ganser explains that this is because "`Terrorism', according to the FBI, `is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objective'," and as Dr. Ganser goes on to point out this is precisely the objective given to the CIA's covert operations bureau when it was formed in 1948.[27] The relevant document -- also quoted by Ganser -- U.S. National Security Council directive, 10/2, where the activity of the CIA covert (psychological) operations bureau is defined as follows:


Should be restored immediately. Once again: this is because they serve an important purpose in outlining how other countries, international organizations and experts perceive the United States' legal posture on these issues. Stone put to sky 19:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me further point out that the placement of these passages only became significant once i had provided solid sources for all of the assertions therein. Prior to this, you did not profess to have a problem with what they were saying or how they were saying it, only that you did not feel the assertions were properly sourced. Now that the assertions have been sourced, it is obvious that you are resorting to other means to try and get the material removed from the page. This is not in line with WP:NPOV, and not in the spirit of Wikipedia's consensual editing process; this seems, once again, to be more evidence that you are not interested in editing this article except insofar as you can press your own POV. Stone put to sky 19:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If you arent gonig to write anything new then I am just going to ignore you. I have already told you Ganser is better off near Chomsky as they are doing the same thing. I never took out the monograph thing, not on purpose at least. Most of what you are asking to be reinserted is in the article, please again read more carefully. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 20:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Further this is an ignorant statement "resorting to other means to try and get the material removed from the page" as I have already told you all of that stuff is in the article, try reading the article before writing your diatribes. Your constant accusations are pushing the limits of me Assuming Good Faith. --NuclearZer0 20:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Documenting the version See this for further discussionRaveenS

title

Can someone explain why this article is entitled "allegations..." rather then "Govt sponsered terrosism by US>>" Also, is their a page for non goverment terrorism in us,that would cover from the right wing kkk to the leftwing ? Cinnamon colbert 20:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

More precisely, the article refers to allegations against the US, not allegations made by the US. So the title is misleading. Mdmcginn 19:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Its a compromise reached after loooonnnnnggg discussion with the Bushites. The page went through half a dozen names and got put up for deletion more than once. We settled on this name for the sake of a quiet life. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 20:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
As I suspected - terrorism of an intellectual sort; the right wingers refuse to accept reality. Why should sensible people give up on this ? It's not to far to say that the long term credibility of wikipedia rests on not giving in to fanatics. It seems wikipedia needs some alternate mechanism of resolving disputes - like alternate versions of articles.Cinnamon colbert 22:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Cinnamon -Some editors are still arguing, on Wiki, that Saddam was virtually part of Al Qaeda, had stockpiles of WMD's, nukes ready or in the works, and represented a grave and present danger not only to the the U.S. but the entire planet, and humanity's very existance! 'baby steps' - F.A.A.F.A. 01:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I give up on you, I cannot believe you would go on after the RfA and use a term like "Bushites." How about it was a compromise that prevented it from being deleted based on not meeting its own requirements, since we are dealing with "allegations" its only appropriate the title says so. I really no longer care of you are desysop'd and am done defending anyone on that RfA since its obvious that even in the face of that the behavior continues. --NuclearZer0 20:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Can you give criteria for deciding between "allegations" and "events" ? IF this were not criticsim of the us, I can't believe this would be a topic for discussion even on wikipedia Cinnamon colbert 22:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
All articles about state terrorism by specific countries are named 'State terrorism by...', except the U.S. article. Despite the U.S. article being the longest one and properly sourced. Give me one reason not to rename it. --Nyp 09:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Because it deals with accusations/allegations of state terrorism, so the article is named by what it contains, allegations of state terrorism. I wrote this above I am not sure why you are ignoring it. If the other articles only contain accusation and not prosecutions of "state terrorism" then those articles should be renamed to "allegations of state terrorism by ..." we don't break a fixed article because others are broke ... --NuclearZer0 11:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I did not ignore it, I did not see it as a sufficient answer to my question. Regardless of this, do for simplicity compare this article to the Syrian one, State terrorism in Syria. Despite that both articles deal with nothing but allegations, the article about Syrian state terrorism both lacks the 'Allegations...' in the title and contains the category State terrorism. In difference to the U.S. one. If you believe that the other articles are the ones that are broken, I will go and fix them. I also would like to remind you of that the USA is the only country on Earth that has been condemned for international terrorism. --Nyp 11:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The article on Syria should be renamed to be more precise in what the article covers, which is why this one was named as such. As for the category there was much debate and admins decided that if people felt the state terrorism category was bias to be attached to an article in particular, to remove it. I find the state terrorism cat to be bias because it does not contain the relevant items as per WP:WTA, which is a citation, a reference to who is calling the act terrorism etc. If it was listed on a list with the proper items that would be fine, however a category lacks the necessary items required to maintain such a title. --NuclearZer0 17:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Your opinion is noted but any country-perspective is dismissable here. We do not allow bias to show favor on depictions of any nation. VigoDeutschendorf 23:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow arent you rude. When the article no longer deals in accusations then it can be renamed something other then allegations ... So instead of making factually wrong articles the goal should be to fix the Syria article, not break everything else to be like the broken ones. Not really sure where bias comes in, its like stating if we call one white man a racist we need to call them all racists, its wrong to do so, but we need them all to be wrong so they match ... that makes little sense and if you are going to ignore my arguement it shows you have no counter claim. --NuclearZer0 00:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Not rude, and not personal. Personalities have no basis on the encyclopedia and are not a consideration. Please go ahead and repair the others; if you feel they are in error. This one is an article about alleged state terrorism by America. I fail to see why that is an issue. VigoDeutschendorf 00:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Not sure who said it was personal. There also is no issue, the article is currently named correctly, it deals with allegations and is named so. This was covered in the AfD and admins stated the article should be renamed to a neutral term as "State terrorism by the United States" was a statement of fact, which allegations are not. --NuclearZer0 00:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Thus we are in agreement. However, the category is appropriate and required. VigoDeutschendorf 00:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Um no its not because per WTA, stating something or someone is a terrorist/terrorism requires a citiation to who said it as well as noting Person X states event Y was terrorism/a terrorist, which is not possible in categories. If you are not going to use policy or a guideline I am just gonig to ignore you. --NuclearZer0 00:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
You are wrong. This article deals with state terrorism, so instead of creating a pointless category such as 'Allegations of state terrorism' we might as well use the existing 'State terrorism'. Using this category does not insinuate that the United States have committed acts of state terrorism, but merely makes it easier to find for those interested in the subject. I am going to add it in the article once again as it does belong there. I am also going to fix the mess the last editing back and forth caused. --Nyp 09:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Um no, I am glad you have an opinion but we have policies that trump your personal feelings, when you have something to say based on WP:WTA or another guideline/policy, let me know. --NuclearZer0 11:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I have read WP:WTA and still have the opinion that it not is applicable in this case. The category 'State terrorism' has nothing to do with if the article itself does or does not insinuate anything. Allegations of state terrorism is clearly a part of the subject State terrorism, e.g. the category is to be used. Compromising with the article name is one thing, doing it with the categories is another. --Nyp 12:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
As pointed out to you and as you read in WTA, accusations or labeling of terrorism/terrorist needs citations and it needs to be attributed to who, not possible with a cat, hence it doesnt belong. If you care to argue based on a policy and not your personal opinion let me know. --NuclearZer0 16:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
For the sake of simplicity... My point is that using the category State terrorism neither is an accusation nor an insinuation against the US, but a tool to categorize the article. That is the whole point with categories on Wikipedia. Categories should not be seen as content of the article. If we disagree on that, there is little else I can say. Nothing but 'How the *beep* do you add citations to a category?' Also, you are aware of the the only remaining category ironically is about the US' anti-terror policy? Now that's one that truly doesn't have anything to do with the article. --Nyp 16:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I get your point, however its not based on policy or guidelines, I am asking you to understand that the cat violates those policies, and your revert warring violates the good faith assumed to the person that argued for keeping the cat by the admin who closed it. The fact that you cannot add citations to the cat is the very reason the inclusion of this article violates WP:WTA. Again please use policies and guidelines, not your personal opinion to state why it should stay. --NuclearZer0 23:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is the title now some kind of bastardised form of shorthand? "State terrorism by United States of America" looks like an editor was too lazy to include "the". Sfacets 10:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

lack of history

In a brief reading of the article, I was struck by how only recent, webable (neologism meaning things that can be check via web available info) were cited. One could certainly include many events relating to native indians, the spanish-american war and the philippines (google smedley butler), etc etc. IF one were to include acts by agents provacateurs, one could certainly add a lot of material from Vietnam, the red scare of the 20s, the labor movement going back to the 1800s. The section on vietnam seems awfully skimpy. There is a lot of material (eg, recent articles about the tiger unit from newspapers in ohio) that would certainly imply there was large scale murder by US forces in nam, and , at best, the chain of command turned a blind eye. And this is just the stuff I know off the top of my head - surely just the tip of the iceberg. I think the main point of the article shold be that all goverments, by their very nature, frequently engage in things like terrorism, and what distinguishes good and bad govements is the degree to which they recongize their own problems and try to fix them. As a new comer, have I missed loooong discussions on this to ?Cinnamon colbert 22:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Counter claims?

I saw that mentioned above, and it does need something, if it can be sourced. Have any sourced, valid counter claims been found previously? Nothing that is OR? As mentioned also, on the AfD, we cannot exlude sources from governments simply because the US doesn't recognize that government (!!). The US view in regards to Cuba is sadly antiquated, and also a minority viewpoint. They have a seat in the United Nations, and are viewed as a legitimate government by other nations.

Ultimately, if no counter claims exist that can be sourced, they are simply excluded and not mentioned/alluded to. Is that not our way? An article does not need to be 'balanced' if no material observes to balance it. By that notion, we would need to give due weight to a certain Adolf from Germany having been a pleasant chap some of the time. Ludicrous. · XP · 17:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, all

It's very nice to see the new faces -- and probably some of y'all're old faces, because actually i'm rather new around here. Sorry i haven't been around of late; i'm preparing to go back to the States for Xmas, and between work and those preparations things have gotten busy. I'll be popping in and out to try and help hammer out a few of these issues that've been mentioned. Peace -- Stone put to sky 10:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Moved

Moved from: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America

  • Comment If we're going to talk about several "allegations / conspiracy theory" pages at once, we need to set a common standard, especially since a precedent here could affect pages like Kennedy assassination theories and 9/11 conspiracy theories. First, let's get the definitions straight:
Allegation: X did Y
Verifiable fact: The allegation that X did Y has been seriously discussed in several notable sources, such as... (list sources)
Wikipedia cannot make the claim, "X did Y", but it can publish verifiable facts, like the one listed above. We can simply report this fact (the fact that such allegations have been widely discussed in notable sources), or we can write an article which discusses this allegation. This is where POV comes into the picture. Any in-depth article about an allegation or conspiracy theory must cover both points of view, without slipping into OR. I'd have no problem with an article in this format:
1: Verifiable fact: The allegation that X did Y has been seriously discussed in several notable sources, such as...
(mention a couple sources which summarize the allegation itself, but in a NPOV tone)
2: Verifiable fact: In the book ("They Did Bad"), Bob discusses...
(summary of all the published sources which support the allegation, no extra OR)
3: Verifiable fact: However, an alternate explanation was put forward by the "Real Beef Research Institute" ...
(summary of all the published sources which refute the allegation, no extra OR)
4: List all references fully at the end.
Oh, btw, "Hillary Clinton acts like a bitch" will always be a matter of personal opinion and judgement. Conspiracies and allegations deal with matters of fact - "It is alleged that, on this date, this happened...". People might hold opinions about it with varying degrees of confidence, but a simple allegation of fact (X did Y) is either right or it is wrong. Quack 688 09:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment Interesting points. But I'm not quite sure how events on this page affect various conspiracy articles. In the area of the article I am concerned with, the allegations are made by the Cuban government that perpetrators of terrorists acts were employed by the CIA. The alternative explanation comes from the perpetrators, who say that yes they were employed by the CIA, and admit to the acts. Its fairly straightforward. There are no opposing points of view, and it is all recorded in declassified files anyway. Just as there is no opposing view that the CIA initiated the Bay of Pigs invasion, conducted assassination attempts on Cuban leaders, tracked down Che Guevara in Bolivia and oversaw his execution etc etc. These events aren't conspiracy theories or wild allegations.--Zleitzen 11:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
(leaving space for more replies on a common standard - Quack 688 15:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC))
  • Zleitzen, Re: US article - I haven't looked that closely at any of the articles yet, which is why I wanted to setup some ground rules above. Still, here's a couple random thoughts about the United States article:
1) The title itself is a matter of opinion - what exactly is an act of terror? Does rigging an election count? What if someone says they're freedom fighters? I really don't want do get into that debate, so I'll simply suggest that covert operations might be a more NPOV term to use. Any claims that act X was a (terrorist act / liberation) need to be made when discussing that specific act.
2) I'm concerned about the "Other allegations of American terrorism" section. This section simply takes a historical event (e.g. war in Iraq), and lists a single source which puts forward the opinion that it was terrorism. First, a Saddam spokesman is hardly a neutral source. Instead of putting these quotes here, they might better be used on a "war in Iraq" page, as an example of the "pro-Saddam POV'. Secondly, if you want to find some independent evidence of the US sponsoring acts of terror in places like Iraq, be my guest. But note that "a group of soldiers comitting a criminal offence", and "an act of terrorism ordered and sponsored by the US government" are two very different things. If the only evidence that such terrorism occured is that a Saddam supporter said "what the US is doing is terrorism", this should be treated as propoganda and dismissed. Quack 688 15:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
US Army Manual definition of terrorism: "the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain political or religious ideological goals through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear". — coelacan talk — 17:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Good points.
1) We have been arguing about a title for months, with several informal and formal straw polls, changing the title is like Herding cats. In addition, I argued over and over that "alleged" in the title violates WP:AWW. The unsuprising response was what "is" is. (this has been a common argument for months, what WP:V WP:NOR really mean, does source x meet WP:V WP:NOR? )...
1) Several editors have attempted to define what is terrorism, using US terms for terrorism. I think it is a good idea, similar to the short definition at American Empire another controversial page. The definition section has been deleted repeatedly (in fact, every single one of these sections has been deleted by a small core group of wikipedians, opposed to this page)
2) The "Other allegations of American terrorism" section was supposed to be deleted, at least that was the result of the straw poll, along with the Operation Gladio section.
I noticed someone put these all back in. I will remove the sections now.
If you are intersted in the 5 archives, the entire soap opera is there. Travb (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with various definitions being presented. I do have a problem with an article that uses any fitting definition to define what it means by terrorism, that is pretty misleading. For example perhaps a good middle ground would be to have definitions of terrorism from the people as well as who they are accusing of terrorism. For instance if we are discussing Cuba the definition of terrorism according to Cuba and US Army definition would be presented first, to see exactly what the person making the accusations is using as their basis. As for point 2, you will get more bee's with honey then under-the-cuff accusations. After reading more about Gladio I really have no problem with its inclusion, however it should be noted where in EU we are discussing, for instance much of the accusations deal with "Gladio" as in Italy's group, not Gladio meaning all of the NATO stay behind networks. And finally the definition section should only contain definitions, not accusations, unless we format the page to have each accusation section contain a definition per my above idea. --NuclearZer0 18:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think its very important to have a definition of what terrorism is in the Cuba section. Unless there are people who dispute the fact that blowing up civilian airplanes and hotels etc to further political aims is terrorism. According to one of the main perpetrators, "We just wanted to make a big scandal so that the tourists don't come anymore. We don't want any more foreign investment. It is sad that someone is dead, but we can't stop." and of one of the victims "That Italian was sitting in the wrong place at the wrong time".[3] To describe these as accusations by the Cuban government - needing definitions - is misleading. --Zleitzen 19:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I am proposing a general standard for the article, I am not sure what you find misleading about that. The other option is to put everyone's definitions in the top part and over burden it, which I am also fine with if it only contains definitions. However we would need the State Department def, US Army, CIA, UN, NATO, Cuba, Iraq, Nicaragua etc. Or we can always just show US def's or any def's used in the article and only those. The idea of just putting any def doesnt seem very clear or concise. --NuclearZer0 19:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I find the emphasis on Cuba's definition of terrorism, and "the person making the accusations" misleading to the case. Cuba have the same definition of terrorism as everyone else. And the accusations are substantiated by both the perpetrators themselves, and CIA documentation. There is no need to discuss the definition of terrorism according to Cuba as though it was some matter of contention. The acts are universally agreed to be terrorism. One only needs to state the facts.

  1. The CIA trained, supplied, sponsored various people that commited universally agreed acts of terrorism.
  2. These people still reside in the U.S. and have not been extradicted nor tried for the crimes by US authorities. Though some were convicted in Venezuela in 1976 before either escaping or buying their way back to the US.
  3. The Cuban government go to the United Nations, and allege that this is evidence of US "state terrorism" .

It is straight forward. I'm fairly sure that the US government would deny being implicately responsible for the terrorist acts, though I have not seen a denial. But as they so far refuse to bring the perpetrators to US court, despite the best efforts of the FBI to prosecute many of those involved, we don't know yet. --Zleitzen 21:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I am proposing a general standard for the article, I am not sure what you find misleading about that. Who universally agreed they were terrorism? If it was universally agreed I am sure you can find me CNN or Times reports and not Cuba State News reports, someone other then Cuban officials and far left commentators like Chomsky. The cuban government may have went but what was the UN's response, did the UN call it terrorism or "unlawful combat"? Things like that are important. And again in case we missed it the first two times. I am proposing a general standard for the article, not specifically reffering to Cuba. --NuclearZer0 23:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You ask for CNN, Times etc. Keep hold of these. So we never have to go through this again.

  • BBC - [4] "The papers also reveal that an FBI informer "all but admitted" that Mr Posada was one of those behind the 1976 bombing that killed 73 people." - "The US would have to reconcile its traditional sympathy for the politically influential Cuban exiles in Miami and its firm stand against suspected terrorists in the wake of the 11 September 2001 attacks"
  • CNN - [5] "Alleged anti-Castro terrorist Posada arrested" - "Posada's presence in the United States has presented a problem for U.S. officials, who want to support anti-Castro Cubans but are sensitive to terrorist charges against Posada"
  • New York Times - [6]. The US Justice Department called Posada “an unrepentant criminal and admitted mastermind of terrorist plots and attacks on tourist sites.”
  • Time Magazine - [7] "Why the Bush Administration May Let a Terror Suspect Go Free"
  • Washington Post - [8] "He was a fugitive who had escaped from Venezuela in 1985 while awaiting trial in the 1976 bombing of a Cuban passenger plane that killed all 73 people aboard-- the first deadly act of airline terrorism in the Americas."

So your claims by "Cuban state news, Chomsky" (?) etc can be joined by sources which include the US justice department. --Zleitzen 02:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

English must not your first language. As I have said now 3 times. I am not complaining about the Cuba section. I am proposing a set of standards for the article ... What are you not understanding about this? --NuclearZer0 18:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a few concerns with the efforts to define terrorism. It's not our job to define terrorism. Even if we came up with a great definition, it would be OR, and a Wikipedia-only definition of the term might be misinterpreted by casual readers. I don't have a problem with looking at published definitions, but all the ones I've seen are simply too vague. Take the US Army definition coelacan found: "the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain political or religious ideological goals through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear". By that definition, the "shock and awe" US invasion of Iraq could be called an act of terrorism, since it was intended to be intimidating, and it was done to achieve a political goal. If you can twist a definition to say whatever you want, then either the definition is broken, or whatever you're talking about can't be strictly defined.

Regarding what allegations to list, and how, there's a quote from WP:NPOV that I think is relevant:

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.

As NuclearUmpf said, one source from a biased party isn't enough to label something as terrorism. I'm going to have a go at drawing up a table, based on two questions.

Claim 1: Country/Agency/Individual X carried out "Operation Bollocks".
Claim 2: This was an act of terrorism.

Question 1: Did "Operation Bollocks" really happen? (question of fact, assessed by studying a large number of reliable sources)
Question 2: If so, was it a terrorist act? (question of opinion, but assessed by looking at how it's referred to in reliable sources)

A note on trivial vs significant minority: Trivial is when only a handful of parties make the claim, and the claim's ignored - few reputable sources even bother to mention it, let alone attack or defend it. When large numbers of outsiders start to step in and debate the claim, it becomes a significant minority. If enough reputable sources cover this debate, it might even grow to deserve its own article, even if not accepted by the majority. Example: Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center.

'Go down, then across;

Across: if it happened, was it terrorism?
Down: did it happen? 		Majority say "yes" Significant minority Trivial minority
Majority say "yes" Own article, referred to as terrorist incident Own article, NPOV title, make both cases Own article, possibly with a very minor footnote regarding the terrorist claim
Significant minority Put on "allegations of state terrorism" list, since it would be called terrorism if verified Put on "alleged covert ops" list, with NPOV views for both its factual status, and its terrorist status if verified Alleged covert ops list, no mention of the terrorist angle
Trivial minority Ignore - we're not here to publish material until it's received a certain amount of outside review and discussion ignore, as previous Ignore, as previous

(Disclaimer: I'm still making this up as I go, I reserve the right to back-flip.) Quack 688 03:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: this Posada character. First, I know absolutely nothing about this subject matter. But the way it reads, it seems that the accepted facts are that Posada is a suspect in a terrorist incident, and that the US is refusing to extradite him. The opinion question is whether or not harboring this suspect is an act of state terrorism. By my table above, such questions should be answered at the relevant articles - Luis Posada Carriles. The most this list should do is link to that article.
I just thought of a better example to use for all this. "An alleged murderer" is someone who's been accused of comitting a murder, e.g. someone accused of stabbing someone. The only thing in question is whether or not he did it - if he did, stabbing someone counts as murder, end of story. You can't simply call a hit-and-run driver who denies it "an alleged murderer", since it's a legal fact that, unless you can prove otherwise, hit-and-run is not murder. Quack 688 08:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The truth of the matter is the US was not accused of state terrorism by anyone but Cuba/Chavez because they harbored Posada. Here is the kicker, when Posada entered to the US it was not on charges of terrorism, he snuck across the Mexican border. So Cuba is the only country saying Posada is a terrorist and they want to put him on trial for it, the US is saying they will not extradict him because they do not believe he will receive a fair trial or punishment. The irony in this is that the same people arguing that the US is harboring a terrorist by not rextradicted him to a country where he will face torture and death are the ones complaining that the US extradicted people to those black sites to face torture and death. Kind of shows the hipocracy of the situation, its ok to extradict certain people but not others. --NuclearZer0 18:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but either Posada and others worked for the CIA. Or they didn't. Either the US has been accused of "state terrorism" to the UN over this episode, or they haven't. Those are the only two questions you need to ask. By the way, Posada was tried and convicted for terrorist activities, but escaped jail in Venezuela dressed as a priest with the help of the CANF. Out of interest, why do you think this "unrepentant criminal and admitted mastermind of terrorist plots" hasn't been tried or extradited by the US? Is it perhaps because he'd simply stand up and reveal 40 years of material about the CIA's activities against Cuba?--Zleitzen 15:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Being accused at the UN is different then being accused by the UN. As we all know Chavez called Bush the devil at the UN, that is different from the UN calling Bush the devil. Also he was not extradicted to Venezuela because: A Department of Homeland Security judge ruled that he cannot be deported because of alleged threat of torture in Venezuela. --NuclearZer0 18:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Your points are fascinating Zero. You are right. If Posada was extradited to Cuba, he would be executed. Just as Timothy McVeigh was executed. Posada will not be extradited, the FBI and US justice department have attempted to have him tried in the US. And have so far been overruled. The reasons for this are of course obvious to anyone who knows anything about Florida politics.
You write "So Cuba is the only country saying Posada is a terrorist", in the face of numerous sources, including the US Justice department which called Posada an "unrepentant criminal and admitted mastermind of terrorist plots". So that can be ignored. As for "Being accused at the UN is different then being accused by the UN" - indeed it is, but that isn't an argument for anything to be deleted as is obvious from the many articles which detail US allegations made about Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden etc etc etc. Your point of "irony" above "these are the same people... its ok to extradite certain people but not others" - which I assume refers to the prisoners Guantanamo bay - has no merit nor connection to any of this. We're not talking about Guantanamo bay.
Either Posada and others worked for the CIA. Or they didn't. Either the US has been accused of "state terrorism" to the UN over this episode, or they haven't. If they have, as is the case here, then that is what constitutes relevant information on a page such as this. Thank you and good night.--Zleitzen 19:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Who ever argued for anything to be deleted? Zleitzen I again ask you to read the talk page archives. I have no problem with the Cuba section meeting requirements of WP. I am not sure why you do not understand this, though I have stated it numerous times and have not touched a single section about a country since Seabhcan presented such wonderful sources that pass WP:RS and WP:V. I do not know what you are really talking about anymore, its like a crowd of people standing around saying the sky is blue and you pick a random one and accuse him of saying the sky is red, though noone said the sky was red ... perhaps we should seek mediation as you seem to have a personal problem with me, or another reason that you keep putting words in my mouth. --NuclearZer0 23:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
You have no problem with the Cuba section? Then why do continue to bring up the issue of the sources - the claims etc. Both here, and at the afd. Listen. I imagine your quite a young person judging by your comments. And perhaps from a different culture to myself. So maybe there is a lack of understanding here, and we are at cross purposes. But your numerous attempts to argue about the sources and credibility of the claims in the Cuba section gives me the impression you have an issue with it. Your calls for deleting the page, and bringing up the Cuba section as part of the justification in an afd enhances this impression. Perhaps a mediation is required. But not one between ourselves. A mediation may be required to reconcile your comments on one occasion with your comments on another. If there is a problem here, this consistent inconsistency is at its root. If you have no problem with the Cuba section, then it would be wiser not to give the impression that you do.--Zleitzen 23:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Having a problem with an entire article sourced with anti-US governments groups etc is different then feeling as though the article doesnt meet the requirements of WP:RS and WP:V. As from your comment on what you presume to be my age, I think its quite clear now that you ran out of arguements to counter that point, instead you keeping running back accusing me of wanting to delete something and now guesses on my age, instead of addressing the bias and unencylopedic nature of an entire article based on "allegations" of governments the US does not get along with. As for the Cuba section, I guess this would be the 4th time but I have no problem with it on the basis of WP:RS and WP:V, just on the way it makes the encyclopedia look. As I said its like an encyclopedia article on the "worthfulness of Jews" cited by Hitler and our friendly president of Iran. Again, please read my comments instead of attempting to attack me, it makes it seem like you have no counter arguements. I will also seek mediation next week if this continues, hopefully you will agree to it as its the first step in dispute resolution and may help us quite a bit. And just in case you missed it before, I have no problem with the Cuba section according to Wikipedia standards, and never attempted to have it removed. --NuclearZer0 01:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Source Quality

First off, i'd like to say that -- while i'm sure Quack's suggestions seem quite reasonable to him -- they are unrealistic. The simple fact is that many of the editors on this page will be satisfied only with its complete deletion from the Wiki (and with that last RfD, these have clearly stated so in absolutely unambiguous terms: Tom Harrison, TDC, Morton Devonshire, NuclearUmpf, brianyoumans, and quite a few others that i'm not going to bother with at the moment). To that end, several have demonstrated that they are quite content to use any manner of subterfuge -- including out-and-out libellous falsehoods -- to achieve their ends. In an environment so hostile, reaching consensus through straw polls is simply not a realistic alternative.

Second, bringing up each source to an editorial vote is not good wiki practice. Votes can be stacked. They are liable to the vicissitudes of board participation (how many of us will be here Xmas day? And if we are, isn't it likely because it was arranged in advance, on IRC?). Sources either are or aren't WP:RS. If a source is provided that meets the broad standards outlined there, then there is simply no more room for discussion: it stays, so long as it's relevant to the article. That's that. No vote, no nothing. It's relevant, it stays, and we move on to the next source.

In that vein the recent brouhaha over Dr. Ganser's material -- on which Fred Bauder commented -- is an instructional case. Apparently, what we had was an instance of a Wikipedia admin overstepping his bounds on a subject about which he apparently knows very little (and unless i'm mistaken, Bauder -- to his great credit -- admitted as much). Ganser represents an authoritative voice from an academic military/government research institute who has published a great many peer-reviewed articles as well as one widely influential and well-respected book. If that doesn't meet WP:RS, then there basically isn't anything that does. Unfortunately, there was a long time here on these pages where the vast majority of editors disputed the quality of this source and excised all citations of his work from the page; they felt confident in doing this because a mediator from Wikipedia came on and took a straw poll which showed that the majority of "editors" supported removal.

As the case demonstrates, a majority vote in a straw poll says nothing whatsoever about the quality or relevance of a source. In fact, a majority vote in a straw poll doesn't even say much of anything about the number of people actually voting -- and yet, this is exactly what Quack is asking us to consider. Something is a "trivial minority" when....? Well? When most people here say it is? It's biased when...most people say it is?

Similarly, how exactly are we going to distinguish between 'trivial minorities' in a field as small and exclusive as that of International Law? We're talking about a profession that numbers its worldwide practitioners in the thousands. Finding any source that quotes international legal documents on this subject is going to be a challenge; finding one that's widely quoted in a way that your average, B.A.-holding computer software engineer has heard of will be impossible.

How are we going to distinguish between what constitutes a trivial minority in the Nicragua vs. U.S. case? Here, we've got a country that's something like 1/60th the size of the U.S. -- obviously, the "majority" of people are going to support the U.S. position, right? A country whose GDP is something like 1/100,000th that of the U.S. There aren't going to be huge, AJAX websites out there touting the Nicaraguan Gov't's case. Nor have the largest U.S. book publishers issued comprehensive, English-language treatments of Nicaragua's complaints.

The point should be clear: in matters of law, 'minorities' only matter when the judges are making their decision, and again the case i mention above makes what i'm saying clear. The deletion of Ganser was a clear violation of wikipedia policy. It was wrong. In fact, the onle good thing that came out of it is that we now have an unambiguous example to avoid; which we will, assiduously. I promise. Stone put to sky 10:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You need a blog because your on-wiki attacks against people just make them not want to hear your point. When you can rewrite this without false accusations I will read it and take you serious. --NuclearZer0 18:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about, Nuclear. I mention you only a couple of times in that post, and only in regards to positions that you have clearly endorsed and asserted elsewhere. Please indicate for me where the personal attack you perceive is, and i will be happy to apologize and adjust the post. Stone put to sky 11:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The simple fact is that many of the editors on this page will be satisfied only with its complete deletion from the Wiki (and with that last RfD, these have clearly stated so in absolutely unambiguous terms: Tom Harrison, TDC, Morton Devonshire, NuclearUmpf, brianyoumans, and quite a few others that i'm not going to bother with at the moment).
Stop attacking people or attempting to negatively brand them, and just argue your point. --NuclearZer0 15:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Stone put to sky, I think you've slightly misunderstood what I was talking about with majority, significant minority, and trivial minority (though I admit I should have been clearer myself). I don't care what a single source says, I don't care what Wikipedians believe, I don't even care what the general population thinks. When asking questions like these, we should be assessing the entire library of reliable sources - as a whole. It doesn't matter if it's a specialized field like international law that most people don't know about, since even this field has its own collection of published works.
Imagine an alien landed here and wanted to know, "How far away do Earthlings believe the nearest galaxy is?" If they asked 100 random people on the street (or 100 Wikipedians without internet access :-p ), they'd conclude that Earthlings have no idea. If they looked up a single source, they might get lucky, or they might get a wrong answer. If they looked at all our reliable sources together, they'd come up with the best answer of what. collectively, we believe the distance to the next galaxy is.
I'll have another go at those definitions for the table. Take any given statement. We need to ask ourselves, how common is this view across the whole body of reliable sources on the subject?
  • Majority - a vast majority of sources agree with the statement, and do not even bother debating it - it is considered a matter of fact. (Example: The fact that terrorist attacks oooured on 9/11.)
  • Significant minority - while most sources agree with the statement, there are several which oppose it. This opposition is strong enough that the agreeing sources have been forced to address this opposition's claims directly. Even if few people actually agree with the minority, there has been considerable debate on the subject. (Example: controlled demolition hypothesis)
  • Trivial minority - nearly every source implicitly contradicts the statement. It is possible to find one or two sources which accept it. However, these views have not entered the academic or cultural mainstream, and have not even been directly addressed by other sources in the field. (Quote from 9/11_conspiracy_theories#Less_common_theories: "Judi McLeod of Canada Free Press suggested the possible involvement of the mafia." (with linked source). This is the only mention of this theory in the article.)
It's not our job to discuss the merits of the for and against case. It's our job to summarize the for and against cases that have been made in the published world. If there hasn't been a debate on the subject in question, Wikipedia isn't the place to start it.
Where does a claim made by a single source fit into this? Even if it's arguments are totally convincing, and everyone who reads it is blown away. until it's been addressed by other sources, it can never be more than a "trivial minority" within the body of literature. That means you can't write a half-way article, with one paragraph outlining the claims of this source, and one paragraph summarizing the entire body of literature on the subject in order to refute it. By doing that, you make this source looks like a significant minority, when it clearly is not. At most, you can mention this source's claim in passing. Quack 688 23:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for clarifying your point. I'm not sure that what i was pointing out is as irrelevant as you assert, though. I understand what you mean when you talk about "minority" views versus "majority" views; but the problem is that these terms are based on (popular) "majority" and (popular) "minority" -- ideas which don't really have that much relevance in the legal field, or in theories of international relations.

My point is that your suggestion that "a claim made by a single source" is "never ... more than a "trivial minority" "until it's been addressed by other sources" is wrong. If the Nicaraguan Government makes an official claim that's only reported in a Nicaraguan newspaper, then according to any academic or legal standard that's enough. Similarly, if we have a legal claim that's reported by some UN body -- or by one of its advisors -- then that is obviously enough, too. In this regard, the relative size of the U.S. in comparison to Nicaragua becomes of premier importance: the United States has close on 300,000,000 citizens, and the relative saturation of media outlets that serve them is probably the greatest in the world. Nicaragua has some 5,000,000+ people, and the number of medial outlets per capita there are probably among the worlds' fewest.

Also, there is the greater point: if you're looking for these issues to be widely addressed by many sources, then are we to accept pulp newspapers and unofficial commentary by informed participants? Repeated references by a single journalist? Because in many cases in the West, there are only two or three journalists who cover certain aspects of foreign affairs; for instance, virtually all of English- and German-language information about Burma, Laos, North Vietnam and North Thailand (as well as much of Cambodia, south & central Thailand, and south Vietnam) is the product of a single journalist -- Bertil Lintner. This is the one guy where virtually all Time, Newsweek, International Herald Tribune, etc, etc articles originate. So if we are going to limit our sources, what happens when someone decides that, say, Lintner isn't acceptable because they feel he's not impartial enough, on the basis of article ____ in publication ____?

Similarly, if we're not going to accept any and all references to an issue, then are we to limit ourselves only to commentary that is by informed, official, expert and professional sources? Because if this latter standard is the one to which we adhere, then it will be very difficult indeed for us to track down more than a single reference for the simple reason that legal or diplomatic ultimatums are rarely issued more than once. Remember, in WWII there was only a single declaration of war against Japan; yet virtually all of our understanding of the events which led up to it have come from secondary- and tertiary- sources.

Because of these misgivings, i am reluctant to accept these suggestions of yours. On the surface, they seem reasonable; but i am certain that once we introduce these artificial measures into our discussion, they will work to sow only discord and frustration with the editors here.

Ultimately, my opposition is simple: WP:RS is all we need to evaluate suitable sources. There is no point in introducing any artificial measures here, because WP:RS is adequate to our purposes. Stone put to sky 11:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Need for an Amenable Set of Definitions

Now, all that said: there is a clear need for us to arrive upon an evenly applied definition. Unfortunately, there are basically three ways that the word "terrorism" is used: as a legal term, as a term to describe the use of certain military tactics, and as a general pejorative applied to "the enemy". While i think it would be most useful if these usages were pointed out on the "Terrorism" or "State Terrorism" pages, they aren't. That leads us to an even more unfortunate set of circumstances: the first two definitions of the term (military tactic / legal definition) are generally clear and easily applied to a given set of circumstances, and routinely used by human rights groups, legal groups, and journalistic media to describe "terrorist" acts. Meanwhile, the third usage is the one that causes the most controversy: in my experience, Americans in general like to pretend that this is the only definition around (thus explaining their indignation when hearing it applied to activities of their own countrymen and insistence that it's too hazy a term to be usefully examined).

I've provided some legal sources and some military sources for the first two definitions. Dr. Ganser's work was originally intended as a supplementary source for a military-based definition (Ganser has sought, in his work, to help bring the military and legal definitions closer). Similarly, we've got a few legal commentators and human rights groups to comment on the legal definitions.

As i wrote a month or two ago, the reason we need these three definitions is clear: if someone (say, NuclearUmpf) wishes to write a rebuttal to charges treated by the article, then having reference to these definitions will dramatically cut down on the verbiage required to explain their opposition. It's much easier to say "In contrast, these particular accusations are considered by ________ as little more than propaganda and moral posturing; moreover, when evaluated according to legal definitions, acts _______ and _______ clearly do not violate any international legal standards, and are commonly used techniques whne ________ing."

It's much more difficult to make declarations like that if there are no legal standards or definitions provided in the article.

In addition, without such clear definitions we will find it virtually impossible to discuss many historical situations for the simple reason that at the time of the Anti-Imperialist league, "terrorism" was only rarely used as a loose descriptive alongside other words, and in no way approached its current status as a blossoming technical / legal term. "Terrorism" as a tactic, however, was widely used by the U.S. military, and there are at least a few examples that clearly deserve mention on this page.

It's this failure of the article -- to provide definitions of what "terrorism" means from both a legal and tactical standpoint -- that i've tried for a long time to establish, here. It is also what NuclearUmpf has clearly fought against; it seems that the only definitions of "terrorism" or "state terrorism" that NuclearUmpf is willing to accept are those propagated and applied by the U.S. Executive and the U.S. military. That is, of course, absurd; since we are talking about an inter-national set of accusations, we must make clear and unambiguous use of what inter-national references are available. To date, however, NuclearUmpf has done his best to remove as many mentions of international agreements and academic treatments of these definitions as he could get away with. The result has been that i, for one, have spent all my time tracking down absurd demands for sources on minute or obvious legalisms.

That was time that could have been better spent writing copy. It was also time that could have been used to work up a version more amenable to Nuclear. But you see, that's the point: Nuclear doesn't care if the copy is amenable, readable, or relevant because he doesn't believe that the page should even exist.

What this has resulted in is an article that veers all over the place. My proposition is simple: let's establish a clear structure for the article that will allow for expansion as the article permits. Then -- and this will be the hard part -- we will work together to add content to it. Those of us here who have an actual interest in seeing the page expanded into a properly encyclopedic treatment will need to be vigilant and very, very cooperative, but i have no doubt that we will eventually, slowly succeed; while there are many people out there who will work together to vandalize it, through cooperation and planning we will eventually succeed in hammering out a properly informative and neutral treatment.

Finally, i'd like to add that i have great sympathy with the poster above, who finds it regrettable that the article only deals with relatively recent, current, web-searchable incidents. I also have some sympathy for NuclearUmpf (yes, believe it or not): as the article currently stands, there is very little space where he can conviently give rebuttal to the stated accusations. Unfortunately, i will emphasize again: this is entirely his own fault. Because he has spent so much time fighting any and all mention of widely demonstrable facts which he does not seem to want to admit, and because he has insisted on trying to force definitions of "terrorism" and "state terrorism" into artificial and inaccurate patterns which are clearly intended to shed the best light possible on U.S. actions, the article has come to be nothing more than a series of allegations that leave very little space for commentary or discussion of nuances.

If he is satisfied with only challenging our sources and refuses to add rebuttals, then so be it; the article will gradually grow to include a virtually iron-clad indictment of U.S. terrorism, and there will be no rebuttals to be found. If, however -- rather than simply attacking sources and attempting to skew the article into unnatural and irrelevant patterns -- he and his comrades (Morty, TDC, Tom Harrison, etc) spent more time adding the rebuttals and commentary they'd like to see here, then i am sure that we could create an article that provides enough scope and counter claims that even they would admit its evenhandedness. Stone put to sky 10:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

We do not get to apply definitions, either a source make the allegations or it didnt, please refer to WP:OR and the kind folks on that talk page, they will explain it to you. I have trie dnumerous times and you do not believe me, so please ask them and get a larger sampling and they will explain to you that you cannot take a definition and apply it as you see fit.--NuclearZer0 18:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
This is also false NuclearUmpf is willing to accept are those propagated and applied by the U.S. Executive and the U.S. military. as I already stated on this talk page and to Seabhcan that I accept any definition the source presents. If the source says the US commited "State terrorism" by slaughtering mor ethen 3 chickens a year, and that source meets WP:RS and WP:V then I am fine with it in the article. You need to read the archives cause you are making false accusations again, and its kind of getting annoying. Perhaps me and you need to seek mediation. --NuclearZer0 18:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I have tried to remove academic definitions? You do realize as I pointed out last time you made this silly accusation that the sectino was just moved lower into the Chomsky section, so I again ask you to apologize for your accusations. --NuclearZer0 18:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
And finally "If he wishes to continue in this antagonistic behavior" is an attack and if you continue them I will file and RfC. --NuclearZer0 18:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Nuclear, i'm sorry if you think that "antagonistic" in this instance was intended as an attack. It was not. As my post above clearly indicates, your stated position is that this page should not exist, and so far as i can tell you have never added any substantial content to the page. If i am wrong about that i will happily apologize and accord you much greater respect.
Unfortunately, up until now i have yet to see anything which belies this observation. Where rebuttals are appropriate, you add nothing; but whenever new evidence or material is presented, you challenge its validity even -- in my opinion -- well beyond the point of absurdity. In this context, "antagonist" is a word that means "Someone (-ist) who opposes (anti-) diligence or striving (-agon-)".
So i do honestly apologize: this was not intended as a personal insult. It was simply an attempt at a factual summation of what your stated position here seems to be: someone who opposes the existence of the page (something you've already admitted to now two or three times, no?), and having failed in getting it deleted now instead opposes all efforts of other editors to expand or validate the information that belongs here. Because the word "antagonist" is apparently improper, i will now edit it to something more amenable. If you prefer that "antagonist" remain, however, i will not object to you reverting my edit. Stone put to sky 12:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Again Stone, stop attempting to negatively portray those that disagree with you and just argue your points. My position is not that the article should be deleted, my real hope is the "allegations" can be dropped from the title and actual trials of terrorism would exist in it. As for challenging the validity of evidence presented, yes I do, what is the problem with this? Would you prefer people just throw anything into the article? There are sources that Seabhcan added and later removed after admitting they were not the best, if you find yourself beyond this then there is an issue. Also while I challenge it, doesn't mean I delete or remove it, so please stop attempting to classify my position, and just argue your point. The more you attempt to box people or label them, and less you spend arguing your point, the worse you look. --NuclearZer0 15:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that we should not try to define what terrorism, or state terrorism, actually are. All we should do is reflect what the body of worldwide published reliable sources has to say on the subject. If several published sources discuss whether or not X was an act of state terrorism (they don't have to agree or disagree, they just have to discuss it in some depth), we can outline the for and against cases here. If a single source alleges that something was state terrorism, and most other sources don't even bother to address this claim, then it doesn't really belong on Wikipedia. I don't mind giving it a quick one-line summary, with a link to the outside source if people want to find out more, but we shouldn't be writing whole paragraphs based on it. Quack 688 00:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem with this suggestion, Quack, is that there are very many different definitions of "terrorism" and "state terrorism"; to list all the allegations against the United States would require far more space than Wikipedia is willing to give the page. Remember: all we need is an allegation made by a foreign country or a foreign political organization against the United States and it (according to your suggestion) could be listed here. That includes any and all allegations by: Iran, Libya, Sudan, Nigeria, Mexico (Zapatistas), Nicaragua, El Salvador, the Vatican, Venezuela, Argentinain human rights groups, Chile, Honduras, Costa Rica, Indonesia, East Timor, Aceh, Burma, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Belarussia, Russia, Georgia, Ireland, Tunisia, South Africa, and quite a few others too. Now, the vast majority of the accusations that are made by the countries above i would dismiss with a vicious snort. But what you are suggesting would be that each and every allegation is allowable, and that's obviously not an encyclopedic treatment.
The obvious solution to this problem is for us to agree upon some clear definitions of what Terrorism is or isn't and insist that all sourced material meet them. Moreover, besides enabling us to make great improvements in the article, it would also cut down dramatically on nonsense and hogwash. Stone put to sky 11:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree, I believe WP:OR prevents us from looking up definitions and applying them as we see fit. I have been asking Stone for sometime to ask the people at WP:OR because he does not believe me and keeps stating its ok for Wikipedia to do this. I am glad you chimed in, perhaps tomorrow I will start the discussion myself at WP:OR and let others chime in as well. --NuclearZer0 01:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm in the middle of an OR disagreement myself on another article - suffice to say that there's one question that needs to be answered: are you talking about a book's subject, or are you talking about the book itself?
Example: "In his book, "Stuff", Joe alleged that Operation Bobo was an act of terrorism."
We don't need any secondary sources to say this, since it's a statement of fact about the book "Stuff", not about Operation Bobo. When you start making statements about Operation Bobo, statements like "Operation Bobo is considered by many to be an act of terrorism", that's when you need to consider the body of published work as a whole. Quack 688 02:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
SUGGESTION FOR NUCLEAR AND STONE How about this, we have a straw poll, and we decide if the terrorism defintion section should stay in, but only, only if we all promise to abide by the majority rule of this straw poll. I am willing to commit to this. User:NuclearUmpf? User:Stone put to sky?
User:Stone put to sky, I know this is the pot calling the kettle black, but you need to cut down on how much you write. I did't read all of it, and I doubt anyone else did either. Make your point in one paragraph.
User:Stone put to sky, I know you are frustrated, if you want, and if you think this helps, I suggest you and User:NuclearUmpf Wikipedia:Taking it outside, choose an off-site where you can express your true feeling for each other, without the confines of wikipedia rules. I have said some of the most wonderfully nasty things to wikipedians when I have Wikipedia:Taking it outside. Travb (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Travb, but i'm generally opposed to straw polls for the simple reason that they can be easily stacked. I don't operate here with a large support pack who comes howling at the drop of my cuff. Others here do have that luxury, and as a consequence i'm not interested in testing the waters to see if they're currently present or not.
The fact of the matter is that as the article currently stands it's received a lot of praise for its even-handedness and neutral tone. It's also received a lot of condemnation, but it has been made more than clear that the people who condemn the page are largely those who object upon partisan Nationalist grounds, and nothing else. I have repeatedly said that i am more than willing to give those folks an opportunity for rebuttal, here, but unfortunately nobody -- not one, single person -- has appeared to attempt the feat. Instead, the sole activity in response to the weighty and considerable evidence presented here has been to push for deletion. Consequently, i do not believe that a straw poll will help the situation any. It will only serve to create more bad blood.
The best means for amelioration of these factions is for both sides to find a middle ground where the issues can be considered from all angles. I am more than willing to help in that effort. Stone put to sky 12:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with the definition section as long as it only contains definitions. Stone keeps wanting to add that Human Rights groups feel all war is bad and so I have to keep adding in the Geneva Convention's definition of military objectives which come fromt he same document as the preamble he keeps adding. The definition section in my opinion should only have definitions and the accusations should be on the bottom, like the current format mostly is. Stone keeps "making up" things that I am doing or do not like. You can check the edit history, I have not edited a countries section in weeks, maybe even a month since Seabhcan added those sources. I have not removed anything that was sourced to a WP:RS source, and the thing he keeps accusing me of deleting was simply moved down to the Chomsky section. I pointed this out last time and asked for an apology but of course all I got wa smore accusations. --NuclearZer0 10:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Also no straw poll can allow us to ignore WP:OR. So no it snot permitted to take definitions and apply them to events, we can cite definitions but no events unless a WP:RS and WP:V source makes the allegations themselves. We do not making accusations here, if Stone wants to accuse countries of things he needs to get a blog. This is not a place to create original material. --NuclearZer0 10:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Why can't we just copy-paste a line or two from other articles, and put together something like this:
Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political, nationalist, or religious goals. State terrorism is a controversial term which generally means violence against civilians perpetrated by a national government or proxy state. The definition of terrorism is inherently controversial - for more information, visit Definition of terrorism.
Done. Any discussion on whether or not the use of cluster bombs constitutes an act of state terrorism should be going on elsewhere. Otherwise, we could end up with a definition tailor-made to support or oppose US policy. Quack 688 11:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

We've tried this, Quack. But as i explained above: because the issue is controversial, and because it's complicated, a more thorough definition serves all sides better.

In addition to that, a simple definition will result in more arguments about whether this or that is or isn't a terrorist act -- not less. What will happen is that someone will say "Wait a minute -- that was in wartime, and in wartime that's allowable!" whereas someone else will say "Not according to >>>>>!" -- and then an argument will start.

By having the definitions readily available and already sourced, many arguments are obviated.

Unfortunately, obviating those arguments has not cut down on the time the parties here spend on bickering. Stone put to sky 12:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If the "use of cluster bombs on civilian targets is a clear and unambiguous act of state terrorism", why is there no mention of this on Cluster bomb or State terrorism? Why isn't cluster bombing listed as a terrorist tactic on Terrorism? Two quotes from Cluster bomb:
"cluster bombs are not yet banned by any international treaty and are considered legitimate weapons by some governments"
"So far Belgium is the only country to have issued a ban on the use (carrying), transportation, export, stockpiling, trade and production of cluster munitions."
First, I don't see any evidence that cluster bombs are widely thought of as terrorist weapons. Second, even if enough evidence arrived to support that claim, this is not the place to present it.Take it to one of those other articles I mentioned. The purpose of this article is to list specific allegations of terrorism by the US - nothing more. The only reason to try and come up with a definition of terrorism here - on a US-specific article - is if you want to come up with a definition of terrorism that would only be applied to the US. Quack 688 12:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
We do not need a single US defintion, or single definition at all. I think each section that contains an accusations should explain what defintion it is using, or who's definition. If they are using the US Militarys' then we should put that at the header of the section, exactly what the US Militarys is. If Cuba is using their home definition, then it should be placed in that section. That would prevent list of world definition in a "definition" section that may not even be definitions used in the article. --NuclearZer0 15:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree in principle, though it'd be difficult in cases where a source simply alleges, "X was state terrorism", without saying what definition of state terrorism they're using. Trying to guess what exact definition they're using could be OR itself. My preference is still to link to appropriate sections of other relevant articles whenever possible, and just copy-paste a sentence or two. That way, people who dispute those definitions can take it up at those articles, not here. I noticed that the definition of terrorism article has a wide variety of definitions: "dictionaries, United Nations, European Union, United States, Laws and government agencies, individuals, Other". If Cuba has a definition radically different to all the ones presented there, why not just add Cuba's definition to that page, then link to it from here to avoid duplication? Quack 688 17:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree, if a definition is not given we should just write that perhaps or leave the "appropriate definition" section blank. We should never guess at one or apply one that the source does not apply. --NuclearZer0 20:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Quack. Lets just cut and paste the inition. I will revert anyone, including User:Stone put to sky who attempts to expand this definition section. I will report anyone to WP:3RR to avoid a long term edit war. I am tired of fighting with editors who refuse to comprimise at all. If you want to Stone, cut and paste your version, into your own page. I will make this new page for you right know: User:Stone put to sky/A User:Zer0faults and other editors make pages like this for contversial topics all the time. Wikiusers tweek these pages, make it the best section/article it can be, then they submit it to the page. Stone, you can work on User:Stone put to sky/A as much as you want, without edit wars, then the wiki community can decide together whether they want it in, in a week or so.

Stone Stop saying things like this:

It's also received a lot of condemnation, but it has been made more than clear that the people who condemn the page are largely those who object upon partisan Nationalist grounds, and nothing else.

Stone, even if this allegation is true, you are simply making things worse for YOU. I strongly suggest you delete this comment, right now.

Stone wrote above: We've tried this, Quack. But as i explained above: because the issue is controversial, and because it's complicated, a more thorough definition serves all sides better.

How does a longer section serve User:NuclearUmpf better? He obviously disagrees what you think is best for him.

I am going on a wikivacation, I have had it up to here with these edit wars. User:Quack 688, email me if these editors start edit warring again about the definition section. Travb (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not really sure how a larger or shorter section matters. As long as the section does not make accusations. Its a "definition section" it shouldnt be making accusations. What is so hard for anyone, not you Travb, to understand about this concept. Leave the rest of the article for accusations/allegations. --NuclearZer0 20:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete referenced material

Please do not delete referenced material. Thank you. Travb (talk) 04:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Added more info on Guatemala

I added info on the CIA coup in Guatemala to lead off this section. - F.A.A.F.A. 02:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Move to talk

Sigh, I was supposed to be on wikivacation...sigh...

I removed the following:

In 1954, Guatemala's freely-elected, socialist-leaning president Jacobo Arbenz was overthrown by a small group of Guatemalans backed by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).The CIA codename for the coup was Operation PBSUCCESS, its second successful overthrow of a foreign government. The subsequent military rule, beginning with dictator Carlos Castillo Armas, led to over 30 years of civil war that, from 1960, led to the death of an estimated 200,000 Guatemalan civilians. Due to the military's use of rampant torture, disappearances, "scorched earth" warfare and many other brutal methods, the country became a pariah state internationally.

I am actually quiet familar with Operation PBSUCCESS, writing part of the article. Although this gives background on the torture of the nun, it does not actually involve terrorism per se as it currently stands. I added further tags, so people can read more about the operations listed. I think this would be better in the State terrorism by Guatemala article.

I am also concerned about the tone of this paragraph, it is all true, but it doesn't actually share both sides. Sorry FAAFA, you can re-add the paragraph. I will start the State terrorism by Guatemala and add this pargraph to it. Travb (talk) 05:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I know a enough about the history of Arbenz to concurr that FAAFA's paragraph is roughly accurate. However it is at present unsourced and Travb is right to remove it until sources can be added. Travb, ensure that a page called Allegations of State terrorism by Guatemala contains allegations of State terrorism by Guatemala. Start with the title and detail :
  1. Who is labelling an act "state terrorism".
  2. Where is it being labelled so they can check the source and see that it has indeed been labelled state terrorism.
  3. What is the background context of the claim - using sources again when necessary.
  4. Why is it being labelled state terrorism.
Do that, and editing will be sailing on a still ocean. --Zleitzen 05:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Power too you man. Edit away on the new article: State terrorism by Guatemala. I listed this your concerns on Talk:State terrorism by Guatemala. Travb (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't contend that the coup was 'state terrorism'. I included it to provide historical context to reasons many feel WHY Guatemala was in a Civil War. Before my edit, the article claimed "Guatemala experienced a bloody civil war in the 1980's." Most contend that Guatemala's Civil War started as early as 1954 and no later than 1961/62, depending on who you ask from Reuters Thus, the leadin sentence was not only inaccurate in that it gave the impression that there wasn't a civil war pre-1980's - but I felt a BRIEF description of the CIA coup which most people feel precipitated the civil war, was entirely appropriate and provided valuable contextual info. I take it you don't agree, Trav? - F.A.A.F.A. 06:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This needs to be rewritten, because I have no idea what it means:

The phrasing of the following unrelated links reflect the pejoritive use of the term American terrorism

Thanks. Travb (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

U.S. state terrorism (and state terrorism by proxy) in Guatemala

I must thank Travis for deleting my comments, as it lead to several hours of online research, and new relevations.

In his book The Last Colonial Massacre: Latin America in the Cold War Greg Grandin who worked on the Guatemalan Truth Commission and now teaches Latin American history at New York University writes:


The Last Colonial Massacre: Latin America in the Cold War

Please also see his 2004 presentation for the Network in Solidarity with the People of Guatemala

The National Security Archive Electronic Briefing documents what the U.S. Deputy Chief of Mission in Guatemala Viron Vaky wrote in a classified cable in 1968:


Link to actual declassfied document

U.S. POLICY IN GUATEMALA, 1966-1996 - F.A.A.F.A. 09:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't see an allegations of terrorism in there, does he go on to call it that? if so please use a quote that contains that as its more relevant and useful for the article. Thank you. Other then that, good research. --NuclearZer0 11:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Here is is:
While government repression steadily escalated from 1954, there is one event that perhaps can be considered the inauguration of Cold War terror, not only in Guatemala but throughout Latin America. Of all the lethal measures used by Latin American military regimes to eliminate dissent during the Cold War, the most infamous is the practice of "disappearances" - the extrajudicial kidnapping and execution of political activists by government security forces. Although this signature act of state terror is usually associated with Argentina and Chile in the 1970s, recently declassified US government documents reveal that Washington helped pioneer this practice in Guatemala in 1966. [9] - F.A.A.F.A. 21:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Good find, source is a little iffy, but I can't really object because I do not know enough about them. Just make sure you put who stated it, like John smith of NISGUA (whatever it means) stated XYZ in book or paper or article J. --NuclearZer0 21:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok change that, lucky I decided to read over the paragraph again and the source etc. This is the same source you provided above, just copied to a different page. The article is not alleging the US commited an act of terror, just that it pioneered the practice. I am sure you can find something that is more condemning, that is just a straight accusation. The problem I have is that we are creating a slope. If I stated that Cuba blows up civilians, a signature move of terrorists, something the US pioneered during WW2. That is not something specifically stating the US commited terrorism, just that they blew up civilians and blowing up civilians is a signature move of terrorists. For a simpler example if I say John violated WP:CIVIL which is a signature move of sockpuppets, I am not stating John is a sockpuppet, I am saying the move is signature of sockpuppets and John also did it, its more like a comparison, then an allegation. Other's thoughts and comments? I will not object in the end if Travb or Zeitlen agrees with you over me. --NuclearZer0 21:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Pioneer verb [ trans. ] develop or be the first to use or apply (a new method, area of knowledge, or activity) : he has pioneered a number of innovative techniques. • open up (a road or terrain) as a pioneer.
They couldn't have helped 'pioneer' it without participating in it, directly or indirectly. Charles Manson 'masterminded' the killings of Sharon Tate and others, although he didn't do the killing. He was convicted of murder. Same thinking applies here. We CAN say, without equivocation, that "Greg Grandin, who served on Guatemalan Truth Commission alleges that the US helped pioneer the practice of political kidnapping, also know as "disappearances" an act considered "state terror[ism]" Right? - F.A.A.F.A. 21:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Your definition is fitting since it makes my point stronger, it was pioneered by the US, meaning started by them, since then it has become a signature act of "state terror", meaning it didnt start as that and later developed into it. As I said if Travb or Zeitlen agree with you I will not object any further. Murder does not equal terrorism also, but thats a longer issue, again though, nice find. --NuclearZer0 01:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
"Although this signature act of state terror is usually associated with Argentina and Chile in the 1970s, recently declassified US government documents reveal that Washington helped pioneer this practice in Guatemala in 1966." It says HELPED pioneer. Please NU! Lets not allege that the US INVENTED extrajudicial kidnapping/executions! The date given is 1966 - a decade and a half earlier that the current version of the article claims that the US particpated in what could be considered 'state terror[ism]' in Guatemala. That's what's important. Cheers - F.A.A.F.A. 04:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually what it says is the US participated in kidnappings, something that is a signature of state terror. I actually have a major objection to this inclusion now as I believe there is no direct allegation of state terrorism in that piece and will be removing per the lack of concensus. --NuclearZer0 11:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

(UI)You forgot to include the important word 'EXECUTION'. It says "the extrajudicial kidnapping and execution" - I'll rewrite the Guatemala section over the next few days, and submit here first, and in a RfC for comment and further editing. As it stands now, it's severely lacking and innaccurate. The US participation with, and sponsorship of Guatemala Death Squads was widely known and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt as far back as the Church Committe hearings in 1975/76. - F.A.A.F.A. 20:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Execution does not equal terrorism, I am sure you are aware of that. --NuclearZer0 23:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Grandin (and others who I'll cite) contend that the US actions if Guatemala constituted 'state terror' as early as 1966. I might be able to get it back as far as 1954 though - wish me luck!
"Another version of the assassination lists compiled by the CIA and Carlos Castillo Armas (code-named "Calligeris") in the course of preparing for the 1954 coup. The names of the agency's intended victims were divided into two categories: persons to be disposed of through "Executive action" (i.e., killed) and those to be imprisoned or exiled during the operation. Before releasing this document to the public, the CIA deleted every name, leaving only the rows of numbers to indicate how many people were targeted. "
CIA and Assassinations:The Guatemala 1954 Documents Cheers! - F.A.A.F.A. 23:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't see state terrorism in that, just get a quote that says US commited state terrorism, not started practices that terrorists use or anything like that, but that they commited state terrorism. --NuclearZer0 00:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
You do agree that Extrajudicial execution is terrorism, correct? - F.A.A.F.A. 00:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
(trolling removed in accordance with WP) - F.A.A.F.A. 06:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Our personal feelings are not relevant, so I again ask you provide a quote of the author stating the US commited State Terrorism. Considering the title of the book I am not sure why this is hard, its probably in the introduction. --NuclearZer0 11:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry F.A.A.F.A., I wanted to stop the edit war and avoid third parties if at all possible. Add and modify all the material you want on your own user space, then we can have a strawpoll. If users continue to remove this material after the strawpoll, then we can call in a third party mediator. Your material is not deleted.

I would suggest all editors read over Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Added to this essay I would like to modify the sentence:

On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which are resisted by multiple other editors. (I added these two words just now.)

In addition: "There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are sourced reliably and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption." [10]

The question that will inevitably be stated in rebutal is, what is neutral? I hope that the community can decide ourselves, without a third party forcing a decision on us. (I personally hate when this happens) We are all adults right?

Happy editing everyone, Travb (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I think everyone here is already aware of Wiki policy though considering our block/RfC/Arbcom histories. Which side of the offense were you when it was decided that an allegation had to be made, not just insinuated or not directly existent at all? --NuclearZer0 17:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Your welcome sir, I have real hope that we can all resolve this discussion amicably. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.isn.ethz.ch/php/documents/collection_gladio/synopsis.htm
  2. ^ http://www.dedefensa.org/article.php?art_id=1370
  3. ^ http://www.isn.ethz.ch/pubs/ph/details.cfm?lng=en&size51=10&id=15251
  4. ^ [NSC 10/2: National Security Council Directive on Office of Special Projects, June 18, 1948. Formmerly Top Secret, obtained by Etzold and Gaddis under FOIA rules] (Dr. Daniele Ganser, in his book "Terrorism in Western Europe: An Approach to NATO's Secret Stay-Behind Armies", pub. by the ISN // International Security Network, Centre for Security Studies, Swiss Government, Switzerland)
  5. ^ http://www.isn.ethz.ch/php/documents/collection_gladio/synopsis.htm
  6. ^ http://www.dedefensa.org/article.php?art_id=1370
  7. ^ http://www.isn.ethz.ch/pubs/ph/details.cfm?lng=en&size51=10&id=15251
  8. ^ [NSC 10/2: National Security Council Directive on Office of Special Projects, June 18, 1948. Formmerly Top Secret, obtained by Etzold and Gaddis under FOIA rules] (Dr. Daniele Ganser, in his book "Terrorism in Western Europe: An Approach to NATO's Secret Stay-Behind Armies", pub. by the ISN // International Security Network, Centre for Security Studies, Swiss Government, Switzerland)
  9. ^ http://www.isn.ethz.ch/php/documents/collection_gladio/synopsis.htm
  10. ^ http://www.dedefensa.org/article.php?art_id=1370
  11. ^ [11]
  12. ^ [12]
  13. ^ http://www.isn.ethz.ch/pubs/ph/details.cfm?lng=en&size51=10&id=15251
  14. ^ [13]
  15. ^ [NSC 10/2: National Security Council Directive on Office of Special Projects, June 18, 1948. Formmerly Top Secret, obtained by Etzold and Gaddis under FOIA rules] (Dr. Daniele Ganser, in his book "Terrorism in Western Europe: An Approach to NATO's Secret Stay-Behind Armies", pub. by the ISN // International Security Network, Centre for Security Studies, Swiss Government, Switzerland)
  16. ^ [14]
  17. ^ [15]
  18. ^ http://www.leksikon.org/art.php?n=2543
  19. ^ http://www.cetim.ch/fr/interventions_details.php?iid=207
  20. ^ http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publications/reform/reform82/08.html
  21. ^ Record, Dr. Jeffrey (2003). Bounding the Global War on Terrorism. Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College. {{cite book}}: Check |authorlink= value (help); External link in |authorlink= (help)
  22. ^ http://www.isn.ethz.ch/php/documents/collection_gladio/synopsis.htm
  23. ^ http://www.dedefensa.org/article.php?art_id=1370
  24. ^ [16]
  25. ^ [17]
  26. ^ http://www.isn.ethz.ch/pubs/ph/details.cfm?lng=en&size51=10&id=15251
  27. ^ [18]
  28. ^ [NSC 10/2: National Security Council Directive on Office of Special Projects, June 18, 1948. Formmerly Top Secret, obtained by Etzold and Gaddis under FOIA rules] (Dr. Daniele Ganser, in his book "Terrorism in Western Europe: An Approach to NATO's Secret Stay-Behind Armies", pub. by the ISN // International Security Network, Centre for Security Studies, Swiss Government, Switzerland)
  29. ^ [19]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_and_state_terrorism/Archive_7&oldid=1137285030"