Talk:United States and state terrorism/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Middle East Section

I think someone should add a section of the United States terrorist acts against the Arabs, Al-Qaieda and Taliban leaders and members, as this is one of the most popular issues and subjects in the world. Please don't tell me that America has done nothing of this sort, because well that would be just really stupid in my opinion and in the opinion of many others. My reason for asking for a section on this to be added because is not to highlight America's crimes against many Arabs and "terrorist" groups, but to give the full overview and detail of American terrorist acts.

Middle East section

I removed this section because it is the most egregious in the article. That the US supported a coup in Iran and initiated various methods of destabilizing and sabotaging the Iraqi Ba'athist regime is well known. This is not the same thing as "terrorism", and offhand remarks about it are flatly unsubstantive. This article, if it is to have any meaning (of which it is lacking in the first place), should remain focused on substantive and verifiable charges of terrorism from reputable sources, not an original research synthesis of known facts with tendentious views on them. --72.84.56.55 20:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with every single word.Ultramarine 20:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It's better to discuss first and then think about removing. Ultramarine posted several suggested deletions above and has been allowing some time for replies which is good (I've only been dealing with the Guatemala section which has taken up hours of time). Let other folks weigh in on this, though I might largely be in agreement with you that much or all of this section could be removed. The Asia Times source seems okay, but more like it would need to be found as I don't think the coup against Mossadegh is a clear-cut case of state terrorism.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Answer in one place below.Ultramarine 22:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove entire sections without first proposing deletions here. It is (1) disrespectful of the work we have put into this article over a long perion, and (2) pointless, because we will not tolerate it and it just becomes a game. Start by having the courtesy of reviewing past discussions on this page of some of the entries you find so difficult to understand. Also, select a user name.

I don't know how to reconcile your remark "offhand remarks about it are flatly unsubsntative" with WP policy. You accuse of OR, but fail to acknowledge that reliable sources say terrorism. You don't understand what this article is about "This article, if it is to have any meaning (of which it is lacking in the first place)" That's fine. Do some reading. Start with one or two of the books cited in the footnotes. Verify for yourself the claims made in those books by checking some of their footnotes. Then, when you start to appreciate "the meaning" (as you put it), come back and offer some thoughts.--NYCJosh 22:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:Bold applies. The editor did comment here, and that is more than most do prior to making changes. If you're not going to tolerate extremist POV being removed from the article, then you can try and put it back, but we'll probably not tolerate it since we don't permit people to violate polices.--MONGO 22:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree. No source has been presented supporting the claim that the persons involved in the Iran coup were terrorists. The Asian Times commentary is just that, an unsourced commentary. A better source is requried. The Iraq material can be discussed further.Ultramarine 22:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Again I might agree that this section can be deleted (I have not had time to even think about it really) but I think you can see why folks get annoyed when a new anon user deletes content without discussion. There is no rush on anything here, and since Ultramarine and the new editor are proposing the deletion of multiple sections they need to allow time for folks to respond. One of the main editors of this article (for years apparently) Stone put to sky is blocked for a short period and obviously that person (and others) should be given time to comment. Because this article is so contentious, we should discuss first, then be bold.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Strangely enought this do not apply any opposing views which are usually deleted without discussion. I have requested sources for a very long time now regarding the Iran coup, so it is certainly appropriate to delete.Ultramarine 23:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the Iran section, because it merely consisted of known historical facts repeated, with only a single source from an online newspaper's opinion, actually classifying it as an act of terrorism. --MichaelLinnear 23:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Replaced with other material instead. --MichaelLinnear 23:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

MichaelL, "known historical facts" are our business if they are relevant to the article. A single relaible source is sufficient per WP policy on RS. Asia Times is non just an on-line newspaper, I believe, but in any event that is besides the point b/c it is a major non-US news source. It was not an editorial or "opinion" piece but a regular feature story. Perhaps you just don't like what is says?--NYCJosh 23:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I read it, and it didn't really say anything about the coup, so I replaced that stuff with material regarding the alleged sponsorship of "terrorist/freedom fight" groups in Iran. The article dealt more with the US's meddling in Iran's internal affairs and behind the scenes fanning of ethnic minority's tensions with the central government. --MichaelLinnear 23:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Good change by Michael Linnear, this obviously better expresses what the Asia Times article was discussing.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah well, the text I added got nuked in the latest war. At least I can say that I tried. --MichaelLinnear 06:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You certainly did. Nuked, I might add, by an anon IP with a few edits and without any prior discussion acknowledging your constructive changes or the fact that a couple of people agreed with them. That seems par for the course here today though, where compromise edits have been deleted out of hand by folks who have done little or no work on the article and where some nice give and take between editors of different views ended in an edit war largely between editors who do not actually work on the article and then page protection. Depressing. I hope we can add in your edit when this thing gets unprotected. I would certainly support that.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

General problem with the article's thesis

And that is what it is, an original research thesis. Aside from the incontrovertible fact that this article is founded in its core upon Chomsky's false assertion about the ICJ ruling, there is a problem with constructing any such article about "state terrorism" involving the United States - namely, that most serious academics (of which Chomsky is not beyond the field of linguistics) consider the appellation of "state terrorism" in regards to the United States a simplistic rhetorical device and linguistic trick. They therefore do not respond in kind, or consider at all, the non-issue of "state terrorism" itself but rather write about the merits of US foreign policy broadly. They do not all tackle it from the same view, some being sympathetic to the goals, others seeing it as a litany of crimes--complicity in human rights violations, torture, abuse, and assassinations. But "state terrorism" in regards to US foreign policy is a propagandistic term employed by politically charged (notice all being from the far left) "sources". So the absurd synthesis of actual facts in regards to US foreign policy with political propaganda is matched with an equally unreasonable demand for countervailing sources with respect to specific incidents to argue solely or primarily on the grounds of "state terrorism" itself. If authors are arguing that these policies did not exist, are being misconstrued, are being oversimplified, or that responsibility for certain events does not lay primarily or at all at the feet of the US government, then they are not going to engage in any significant way on the issue of "terrorism" itself, because it is after all meaningless. And so far left propagandists get a free page to make a litany of tendentious charges that forms wholly unencyclopedic material, to put it no higher. --72.84.56.55 20:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree again.Ultramarine 21:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Literate adults apply filters to what they read. If the page were as bad as that, anyone reading it who wasn't already a chomskybot would see it for the soapbox it was, and probably dismiss even legitimate criticism as agenda-driven nonsense. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"Literate adults" (i.e. politically well-read ones) do not constitute the majority of Wikipedia readers, who largely come to Wikipedia to be informed (albeit lazily, as this is simply the most accessible source). Instead they are being assaulted by propaganda. It is absurd to posit by indirection that it is okay to leave biased material essentially because people who know better will recognize and dismiss it anyway. The problem is it shouldn't be there to begin with. --72.84.56.55 21:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope you will consider creating an account and help make Wikipedia better.Ultramarine 21:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

To the anon user, I do not think you will at all find it difficult to locate discussions of US foreign policy which go against the claims of this article. Have you tried? You acknowledge that there are sources that argue "that these policies [i.e. state terrorism] did not exist, are being misconstrued, are being oversimplified, or that responsibility for certain events does not lay primarily or at all at the feet of the US government." So find them and put them in the article. If they are arguing that "state terrorism" was not what was going on (even if they just apply another name to the policy, e.g. "containment of the communist threat") then you can include that. Go find some sources, because your claims that it is impossible for such sources to exist because no one cares about any of this stuff is simply not believable. Why don't you start by looking up some book reviews of the various books cited? Why don't you look through academic journals that publish on this matters? If you're not interested in doing this than I don't see why we should care about the points you make. Sorry if that seems harsh, but this article needs more work and less "I don't like this thing" complaints. We already dealt with that in the AfD.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with 72.84.56.55. State terrorism is not a term used in international law or serious political science. There is no agreed on defintion of it and it is inherently POV. Serious literature talks about human righs violations, deaths, genocides, war crimes, and so on. State terrorism is term used by propagandists.Ultramarine 22:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Everyone knows that you think that and everyone knows that a ton of people disagree with you. That's a huge part of what the AfD was about. Your side lost, and we are going to have an article about this in some form. If you want to work on it as you've shown some real willingness to do, great. If you want to rehash old arguments that waste everyone's time, or if your objective is simply to delete almost all of the content in this article in bits and pieces (death by a thousand cuts), not great. This thread is yet another colossal waste of time.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The AfD is not evidence that term is used in international law or serious political science, merely a poll of the opinion of some Wikikpedia editors at the moment regarding if the article should be deleted. No law using the term "state terrorism" has been presented or an agreeement regarding what the term means. In serious literature more precise terms are used.Ultramarine 22:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Everyone knows what you think and a ton of people disagree with you, Bigtimepeace. I see that SixOfDiamonds and now Stone put to sky have been blocked recently for edit warring...none of the editors who refute your argument have been blocked, nor are they likely to be since they aren't POV pushing edit warriors. Numerous arbcom cases have demonstrated that single purpose accounts that edit war will be banned.--MONGO 22:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, everyone knows what everyone thinks and I ton of people disagree with everyone, which is my point. Rehashing the fundamental debate about this article's existence, which I perceive this thread to be about it, is not helpful. Why you bring up SixOfDiamonds and Stone put to sky is beyond me. I'm not them, and I am clearly not a single-purpose account. I see a great deal of POV pushing going on here (in a sense that is all that is going on here) on both sides of the debate. That unfortunately seems to be inevitable, and if you cannot see that your "side" is pushing a POV just as much as the other one than I don't know what to say. Tom harrison and Ultramarine and others are careful to avoid being blocked for 3RR which is good, but obviously they are also participating in edit warring (wait! that's the proper name for this article! "edit warring!"). Incidentally, as you can see above Ultramarine and I have been making an effort (albeit via a heated debate) to come to consensus on certain changes in the Guatemala section. It's my hope this can continue to happen, which is why I find rehashing old existential debates about this article annoying.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I was lazy and all I did was go to the WP State Terrorism article and copy a few of the first couple of books I found with state terrorism in their title: Alexander George (1991) Western State Terrorism. Polity Press, ISBN 0-7456-0931-7. Alexander L. George was the Graham H. Stuart Professor of Political Science Emeritus at Stanford University. Sluka, Jeffrey A. (Ed.) (2000) Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, ISBN 0-8122-1711-X. Sluka is Associate Professor, Massey University, New Zealand Is that serious enough? How about we read a little in the subject before venturing brave new opinions about the non-existence of academic subjects?--NYCJosh 23:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)--NYCJosh 23:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I said serious political science, Chomsky has been around for a long time and has some followers. It also makes for catchy title even if a book then does not use the term very much. The fundamental problem still applies: no agreed on definition, so any claims becomes just the personal views of the author. So I agree with what 72.84.56.55 said, "namely, that most serious academics (of which Chomsky is not beyond the field of linguistics) consider the appellation of "state terrorism" in regards to the United States a simplistic rhetorical device and linguistic trick."Ultramarine 23:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

A professor at Stanford is serious, as is a book published by an Ivy League (U Penn) press. I don't see how you can dismiss those sources unless you've actually looked at them.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine, I cite a major political scientist (who happens to be older than Chomsky) from Stanford and you just cannot let it go? Is there a generally agreed upon definition of "organized crime"? No, but is there a WP article on it? Organized crime is social and legal pheonomenon (there is a RICO statute that was writtent to address it), but there is no "agreed upon definition." How about "executive branch of the United States"? (OK, that one is NEAR-unanimous.) How about "date rape"? How about the majority of non-trivial social and legal phoenomena? Should WP not discuss these?--NYCJosh 23:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There are treaties and agreements on "organized crime", none on "state terrrorism". "Rape" as a term is not controversial. "State terrorism" is an undefined concept, except something bad, can be interpreted as killings, open war, torture, economic embargoes, restricting religous freedom, ignoring animal rights, allwoing abortions, exploitation of the poor, or whatever. For example, the Vatican has recently described abortion as terrorism, so presumably we should have section on abortions since it allowed by the state.Ultramarine 00:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Sorry, Ultramarine, but that is just silly. I would think much more of you if you showed you were able to listen and learn from what others have told you. Please debate honestly towards improving the article. --John 00:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Please comment on content and not editors. --Tbeatty 01:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I was. Your point was? --John 01:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I missed where these sentences I would think much more of you if you showed you were able to listen and learn from what others have told you. Please debate honestly towards improving the article. were about content. It sounds a lot like condescending garbage to me. Are you really claiming it was about content? Maybe you should just refactor it, apologize and move on. --Tbeatty 02:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

For another example of what Ultramarine may be talking about(he'll correct me if not), see Template:State terrorism. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I had a look. That seems like another very unedifying conflict going on over there. My faith is in good-faith editors like yourself working together to make the article better. It's one of Wikipedia's great strengths that there are enough of us dedicated to making difficult articles good to produce decent articles on subjects as hard as abortion and Israel, for example. Let's try not to bring past conflicts to this, however hard that may be. --John 01:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Bigtimepeace, you either misunderstood or misconstrued my point. I am not contending that there aren't serious sources of varying opinions which deal with the subjects and events mentioned, but that it is inherent that you are not going to find sources that argue on the grounds of disproving that state terrorism occurred, because most commentators are not going to acknowledge either the concept itself or its applicability to those specific situations. The fact that you parsed my comment about those arguing "that these policies did not exist" with "i.e. state terrorism" shows that you haven't grasped my point. It is not that some authors argue that policies of state terrorism didn't exist, it is that they argue that some of the specific policies (torture manuals, encouraging abuse, support for specific assassinations, etc.) did not exist. But if any such sources are mentioned beyond the narrow linguistic scope of "state terrorism" are presented, it is dismissed by other editors as introducing irrelevant arguments into the article.

This is why I say the article's conceit shows that it needs destroyed or reworked completely, because legitimate topics of interest are glossed over in propagandistic fashion by tendentious political sources for the purpose of effecting emotive, biased material. --72.65.92.47 01:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we may reasonably take the six AfDs as evidence that the community does not wish the article to be destroyed or reworked completely. Your use of terms like "tendentious" and "propagandistic" may lead others to think you are a bit emotive and biased yourself. If we could keep this page for focussed discussion on how to improve the article that would be great. --John 02:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Bias in a person is not germane, as that merely means a person expresses an opinion. What is relevant is bias in an article, in which case tendentious and propagandistic sources or writing is very relevant. --72.65.92.47 02:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. If you think the article is biased, this page exists to allow you to make suggestions towards improving it. How would you suggest we do that? --John 02:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe this article to be strongly biased and I believe it should be nominated for deletion.WacoJacko 08:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Remove Noam Chomsky and his detractors.

It makes no sense to have a section where Chomsky is identified and rebuffed. This is not a page in discussion of Noam Chomsky's views. Let's stick to the facts. There should be history here, not editorials. Citing Chomsky as pertains to historical events is one thing, but qouting his opinions are quite another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.1.88 (talk • contribs)

But then the article would be a blank page. --Tbeatty 01:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the article? I mean that in all seriousness. I cannot fathom how someone can seriously claim that the entire article consists of opinions rendered by Chomsky, when that is so obviously, obviously false.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Once the pretense of the definition is removed, the article would unravel and cease to exist. The vaguely linked actions to terrorism is simply opinion. --Tbeatty 03:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Except there are many other sources who describe US actions as state terrorism--not just Chomsky. I just added a source in the Guatemala section today.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I must have misseed it. Which source called U.S. action in Guatemala terrorism? --Tbeatty 03:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

See footnote 79, the book by Michael McClintock. Indented article text quoting McClintock says "United States counter-insurgency doctrine encouraged the Guatemalan military to adopt both new organizational forms and new techniques in order to root out insurgency more effectively. New techniques would revolve around a central precept of the new counter-insurgency: that counter insurgent war must be waged free of restriction by laws, by the rules of war, or moral considerations: guerrilla “terror” could be defeated only by the untrammeled use of “counter-terror”, the terrorism of the state." Obviously this is not the only non-Chomsky source in the article which talks about US state terror.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I read that. That was State Terrorism By Guatemala. Nowhere did it say the U.S. engaged in terrorism. --Tbeatty 04:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You did not read very carefully. The point McClintock is clearly making is that it is US doctrine that is at work here, not Guatemalan. The Guatemalan military learned its counter-terror techniques (which McClintock calls "terrorism of the state") from the United States who encouraged use of these techniques to "root out insurgency more effectively." You can say you don't think this is state terrorism, or that it is not state terrorism by the US, but McClintock disagrees with you and he is the source. The same section also quotes a US army colonel who was involved in training the Guatemalans who said "That’s the way this country is. The Communists are using everything they have, including terror. And it must be met." Later in the same section we have "Gareau claims that by funding, training and supervising Guatemalan 'Death Squads' Washington was complicit in state terrorism." Again, you can disagree, but those are what the sources say. There are other examples in other sections of the article which have already been discussed.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

First, this article is about terrorism, not terrorist doctrine. Or Techniques. Or Academic Theories. You can propose a rename if you watn to include those things. Second, McClintock interprets "counter-terrorism" as "terrorism of the state". That is certainly not the mainstream definition of coutner-terrism. It is not, and has never been U.S. doctrine to engage in terrorism. Third, there is no evidence that the U.S. trained any "Death Squads". That is a stretch that the U.S. trained elements of the Guatemalan army. If they became death squads, that is a separate issue. But the U.S. did not train "death squads." In any event, the U.S. did not participate in the acts of terrorism which is the title of this article. --Tbeatty 04:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A see a lot of assertions in your comment, but no sources. You don't think "counter-terrorism" is "terrorism of the state," (and we're talking here just about Guatemala, not in general) but McClintock does and he is an expert. Your opinion on this quite simply does not matter--this article is not based on what you think. If you have a source that agrees with your opinion by all means include it. In saying that McClintock was discussing US doctrine I was not emphasizing the "doctrine" part but rather the "US" part (i.e. it was a US idea, not a Guatemalan). The point is that the US developed a counter-insurgency/counter-terror doctrine, trained the Guatemalans in it, and advised them to use it in their own country while supplying them with money and arms. McClintock has labeled this state terrorism on the part of the US, which was obviously the most powerful actor--the Guatemalans could not have done what they did without the US. Your assertion that it is a "stretch that the U.S. trained elements of the Guatemalan army" would be funny if the reality were not so incredibly awful. That the US trained elements of the Guatemalan (and other Latin American repressive armed forces) and trained them specifically in repressive tactics is well documented. If you find that hard to believe then I think it's possible that you do not know much about this topic. You argue with the sources provided, but I assume you have never read them, and you yourself provide no other sources other than your own musings.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Doctrine is Counter-terrorism. It is the goal of the U.N. that every nation engage in Counter-Terrorism as there is a International Conventions on Counter-Terrorism [1]. Using McClintock's absurd definition of COunter Terrorism, every state and the U.N is engaged in terror. Second, The U.S. trained a lot of Latin American armies (and European Armies, and Asian armies and African Armies and Middle Eastern Armies) . The U.S. itself did not engage in terrorism. Training armies of nations is not terrorism even if members of those armies go on to commit acts of terrorism. The Actor is guilty of terrorism, not the trainer. We don't punish teachers if their children grow up to be murderers. We also don't call those teachers murderers. --Tbeatty 04:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, this is not an article on the 'ideas' of terrorism. We don't have the thought police yet so terrorism ideas are NOT terrorism. --Tbeatty 04:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Based on your definition of counter-terrorism above, I don't mind a rename to "Counter-terrorism by the United States". --Tbeatty 05:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You're completely missing my point, and obviously this article is not going to be re-named to its polar opposite (go ahead and create that article if you want though--it's a completely different topic). I am not saying "counter-terrorism"="state terrorism" in general and neither is McClintock. He is saying that what the US called "counter-terrorism" in Guatemala in the 1950s, 60s, and beyond is better described as "state terrorism" because it did not kill "terrorists" but rather political opponents of the state and, even more so, innocent civilians. Thus, McClintock says, "state terrorism" is the better term in this particular instance. US description of its actions in Guatemala as "counter-terrorism" are, McClintock would say, specious. You may disagree with him, but that's neither here nor there. UN conventions have nothing to do with this (I don't think there were any back then with respect to terrorism) and neither does US anti-terror policy post-9/11 or anything like that. I'm talking about a specific time and a specific place. I'm not talking about "ideas" of terrorism but real actions taken by the American government. Again, the fact that you think "Training armies of nations is not terrorism even if members of those armies go on to commit acts of terrorism. The Actor is guilty of terrorism, not the trainer" is irrelevant. Sources have been provided which, in the case of Guatemala, disagree with you, as they argue that the US trained the Guatemalan army in techniques which, some experts like McClintock think, constitute state terrorism. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty, I've just noticed your removal of the entire section on Guatemala. Other editors on "your side" are at least trying to dialogue, and the version of that section produced earlier was a product of that. Are you even aware of this? Do you even care? Do you feel the need to ask anyone about huge deletions before making them? Obviously you do not. Why you would delete this in the middle of a discussion eludes me, and why you would not post anything about it on the talk page is an egregious lapse of editorial judgment on a controversial article. If you are not interested in working with others here, please go edit elsewhere.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

YOu are entirely synthesizing a point in that section and is why it doesn't belong. You take the written U.S. policy goal of Counter-terrorism. You cite a srouce that interprets counter-terrorism to mean terrorism. You then imply that the U.S. engaged in this new counter-terrorism/terrorism by training Guatemalans. This is twisted beyong logical inclusion on an article on terrorist acts perpetrated by the U.S. McClinotck's twisted definition that defies the definition adopted by treaty beyond the pale. If this is your source, it is not adequate for inclusion here. Maybe put it in McClintock's bio. You had no consensus to add this material and I simply removed it before it grew out of hand. Please get consensus here before adding it. --Tbeatty 06:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Look above you in the section on Guatemala started by Ultramarine. I asked the editor who was asking for more sources on this section, Ultramarine, if he thought this was good for inclusion and he said yes. No one else said anything, though I asked for comment in two different sections. The fact that I had an editor from "your side" support inclusion seemed good enough for me. Giovanni also weighed in on edit summary saying that the material seemed fine. You said nothing then and you said nothing about deleting it in our discussion here before you made the deletion. Your last post ignores everything I said in reply to you above and quite frankly is difficult to understand. There is nothing about interpreting counter-terrorism to mean terrorism and I can't think how you would think that unless you are willfully misreading what I wrote. Reread my comment above at 05:39, I'm not going to type it again. Since I added in the material after asking for comments and receiving the blessing of another editor, and since you deleted it without even being aware of that fact and without discussing it with anyone, I think it's fairly obvious who is in the wrong here. Mass deletions or additions in a controversial article warrant discussion. I did this, you did not.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"My Side" is wikipedia policy. You synthesize a position from your source. You don't even seem to know that his definition of "counter-terrorism" is not just limited to Guatemala and he has repeated it for years. He has a radical view. Quoting McClintock for more than a sentence is undo weight. Certainly U.S. policy towards Guatemala can be scrutinized just as Israel's policy towards Guatemala can be scrutinized. But accusing them of terrorist acts is beyond what your sources do. The closest they get is a three times removed relationship to "death squads" within the Guatemalan army. The criticism comes from leftist groups that opposed the otherthrow of the leftist government and started the insurgency campaign to begin with. Did the U.S. oppose the Communist government during the cold war? Of Course. Did the U.S. train and support groups that overthrew this government? Yes. Was it U.S. policy to engage in terrorism? Of course not. Did the U.S. engage in terrorism? No sources have been provided. Did Guatemalans engage in terrorism? Yes. Leftist guatemalans attacked government troops and terrorized villagers in order to get support. Right wing Government forces countered with attacks on the insurgents and caused civilian deaths. But that's it. There was no terrorist acts committed by the United States and no source says that they were so this section should be deleted as being unsourced. --Tbeatty 06:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you think your side is wiki policy, obviously I disagree. So don't bring it up again. You do not explain why you feel it is unnecessary for you to discuss huge changes before making them. You do not engage with the fact that the additions I made were endorsed by two other editors (please, please reply to this point). I don't care what McClintock says elsewhere, I care what he said about Guatemala and I would bet a hundred dollars you've never opened one of his books. If you really thought he was given undue weight you would have discussed trimming it down to one sentence as you say above. Instead you deleted the entire section (much of it from other sources, and not worked on by me) so bringing up the "undue weight" aspect is clearly disingenuous. No source I used mentions "death squads" so I assume you have not even looked at the edit history to see which material I added (go ahead and look now). The Arbenz government was not communist, and if you truly think it was, then I am quite positive that you are not versed on this topic. Given that, and given that you again (for the 10th time) offer only your thoughts and no sources whatsoever, I don't see why your blanket assertions like "Right wing Government forces countered with attacks on the insurgents and caused civilian deaths. But that's it. There was no terrorist acts committed by the United States" have any validity. I spent a great deal of time today going back and forth with Ultramarine to improve the Guatemala section and we came to an agreement about it and I think it was improved though it still needed work. Then you come in and wipe away that work (and what I hope was a bit of good will generated) with one edit that you don't consult anyone on regarding a topic which you obviously know little about. Sorry, but I think that stinks, and it's the kind of behavior that drives good-faith editors away from this project. In my opinion, your behavior has not been civil.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

We discusssed it here. I know quite a bit about guatemala. I am not as familiar with your obscure source of McClintock, but then his book sales indicate that no one is. McClintock created a definitaion of "terrorism" that is his own. You acknowledge he does it, but then apply his definition as if it were the general definition. McClintock's definition does not fit the definition used in the title of the article and therefore his claims are not valid justifications for inclusion. Your claims of "consensus" are ludicrous. All I see from Utramarine is "no. nope. not.". And it was only yesterday so I don't see how you can claim I somehow didn't comment on it in time. I boldy removed what I saw as crap. Not just the crap you added so I am an equal opportunity crap remover on that point. The whole Guatemalan section needed to go because htere was simply no sources that said the U.S. committed terrorism. And there was no consensus to add that material. It was simple really. --Tbeatty 07:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

When I asked for Ultramarine's comment he said "See no obvious problems, except that most relate to the an early period when the civil war was less intense." I don't know what you are quoting with the no nope not stuff, but it wasn't in reply to me asking about including new material. I still don't think you know "quite a bit about Guatemela", and also probably not much about book sales if you think academic works ever sell a lot, or much about sources if you think the measure of a source's validity is how many people purchased it. McClintock's book is well known and cited by people who know about this topic which is basically academics. I've given up trying to figure out what you are harping on with respect to "McClintock's definition" and various other formulations. He said US behavior in Guatemala constituted terrorism by the state and that was clearly stated in the passage I cited. You think this whole article is crap, so I don't see why you just deleted one section, other than you and I happened to be arguing about it at the time, which smacks of WP:POINT, like most of the actions you have taken regarding this article (including proposing jokey alternate titles). You again dodge the question of why it is unnecessary for you, Tbeatty, to talk on the talk page before removing something you don't like whereas when I get an okay to add new material from an editor with an opposing view that is not good enough. Your invocation of WP:BOLD could not impress me less. I am unimpressed by anyone, whatever their belief, who makes sweeping edits to this contentious page without even attempting to engage other editors. If you can't understand why such behavior is problematic, then we might as well end this discussion.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll skip the argumentative stuff and go to your misinterpretation of McClintock. McClintock quotes the Army doctrine of counter-terrorism as taught to Guatemalans. He then applies his definition of counter-terrorism which is "terror by the state". You then conclude that this means that his definition fits within the article definition of "terror by the state" and include his comments as relevant. You further extrapolate that having a policy on counter-terrorism is the same as committing an act of terror. McClintock has consistently used his definition of counter-terrorism beyond simply Guatemala so trying to narrow it down to a "Guatemalan definition of terrorism" is not supported by the sources. The whole notion is a logical fallacy and original research and synthesis. Counter-terrorism is not "terror by the state" in the accepted definition of the word. McClintocks argument, while a valid premise within the scope of his own work, cannot be extrapolated to a general article on terrorism. It is too much original research and synthesis to stretch his definition to the framework of the article. --Tbeatty 08:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You've said all this before and I have replied and disagreed. Others can judge the validity of the content you deleted for themselves and "interpret" (whatever that means) McClintock for themselves as well. Some will agree with you, others with me. There's no point in elaborating any further. You won't address the fact that you feel you can radically alter this article without discussing it first, while others (namely me in this case) cannot add in material unless some unknown other number of editors (but more than two!) have given consent for its conclusion. The fact that I discussed my drastic edits before making them and you did not is apparently not a problem for you. I'm sure it will be for others, and I think we're done here for now.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've said it yet you keep thinking that McClinotck's "terrorism of the state" statement makes it inclusionable in the article. It clearly does not. It is a logical fallacy. This is Wikipedia and I feel I can radically alter any article on the site that doesn't onform to policy, is libellous and/ or POV such as this one. I wasn't revert warring or violating any policy. I don't really care that you discussed your unsourced POV edits so go cry a river somewhere else. --Tbeatty 17:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Its good to see you are working alone without concensus, I see how we can handle this situation once the protection is dropped. Thanks for your admission. --74.73.16.230 18:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Bigtimepeace, let me ask a not-so-hypothetical question. In your opinion, what makes a source reliable enough for inclusion in this article? Would you support weeding out some of the less-notable sources being used as cites (like web articles written by priests), in favor of sources like McClintock (who seems to qualify via getting a book published by a press that appears to have a distribution deal with a major US publisher, even though he's never held an academic position)? This not a trick question, I am genuinely interested in finding common ground here. - Merzbow 04:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your point, and I fully agree with this. Personally as a rule I prefer published books and articles from reputable presses and journals as opposed to web sources of any kind (I think some disagree with me there since the former are not as accessible and therefore not as easily checked). In adding in the material about Guatemala earlier (including the McClintock) my goal was to improve the quality of the sources. I have not looked through the sourcing on this article carefully, but I'm sure there is plenty of stuff that is poor or at least questionable in terms of reliable sources. Replacing them is clearly desirable, and perhaps something we can work on section by section (if reliable sources cannot be found, the section could be deleted, I just think we should proceed carefully). Incidentally, the McClintock book (or books, there were two of them) is (or at least was, it's probably getting a bit dated) generally well regarded (though obviously many disagree with it) and he is very much considered an expert in this area, though his work has been mainly with Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and not in academia as you say. Ironically, in terms of Wikipedia I think this article is fairly well sourced, but I still think it could be greatly improved and it probably has multiple sources that should not be here and need to be replaced. I don't know how much time I'll have to work on this (I need to get back to real world work soon) but I will do what I can. Hope that answers your question, and I think your suggestion is a good way to get us on some common ground and help us to find a way forward, which is certainly appreciated.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think this is an important thing to nail down because an article is shaped by the sources available, and if there is no baseline or agreement regarding the quality of sources used, then nothing else is really possible. As a start, I've been trying to keep the lead from being overwhelmed by low-quality sources (such as the unfortunate priest) that Stone continues to add. (Many of those sources are still cited in the article text.) Personally, I think the criteria should be that either the writer have significant and relevant academic credentials, or the publisher be very notable (either a book by a press with major distribution, or an article in a major periodical or academic journal, or an unsigned article by a very notable group like Amnesty). - Merzbow 05:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

McClintock's book, Instruments of Statecraft: U.S. Guerrilla Warfare, Counterinsurgency and Counterterrorism, 1940-1990 (Pantheon, 1992) was so popular it was never reprinted and is now out of print. Though it can still be found online here, it fails to state that the U.S. has committed acts of terrorism that I can see.--MONGO 06:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not the book I cited, and it's popularity or status in or out of print has nothing to do with anything. Get back to me when you have an argument and when you've taken two seconds to familiarize yourself with the source cited.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

His POV is noted as is yours. Thanks.--MONGO 06:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If you think that responds to anything in any way, I can assure that it does not. I have no idea what you are talking about, and you have not explained to me why you advise me to "talk it out" on the talk page but you endorse Tbeatty's mass deletion for which he solicited no other opinions. Now the page is blocked, and the progress some of us editors were beginning to make on this page will be halted. Thanks.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see much progress...all I saw was rational tought having to constantly argue with POV pushing. The protection had nothing to do with me in the least, but it is long overdue. Let me know when you can prove that a neutral administrative body of international recognition decrees that the U.S. is guilty of terroism. Until then, all we have is the opinions of some writers, many of which are about as far from neutral as one can get.--MONGO 07:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You made three reverts MONGO, you were one of the central parties in the edit war. The protection had everything to do with you, and perhaps it was even your goal since you say it was "long overdue." Read the section above called "Guatemala 1 - Still no sources" and tell me if that is not evidence of at least some progress, at least some dialogue among those with differing views (also the Iran section was edited constructively by Michael Linnear, but then removed by an anon IP with almost no edits). That's great you think you stand on the side of "rational thought," but I can't see how you would think that that is somehow a constructive comment to make here. I'm not going to agree with you and suddenly see the light and that I am on the side of irrational thought. I've already objected to your "neutral administrative body of international recognition" canard a couple of times, and you never explained to me what you mean by this and why that kind of source is required for this article but for no others. I'd love it if you explained it here, but I'm sure you won't. I know you still want this article deleted, so it's hard to take serious any claim you would make about wanting to work to improve it, and the fact that you do not seem to make substantive edits (other than deletions, reversions, or page moves which you do not discuss) speaks for itself.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay...you're right about me.--MONGO 08:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If you say so, personally I thought I may have gone too far at the end there. I do, in all seriousness, admire your ability to dodge inconvenient points.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Is someone going to block the IP that keeps reverting the article to an old version? How is the article ever going to "improve" if anonymous edit warriors keep reverting to some stupider version?--Beguiled 06:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Tbeatty's claim that America is blameless in Guatemala I refer you to the UN report released by the Historical Clarification Commission. The investigation was partially funded by US Agency for International Development. The investigation was barred from naming US government officials involved in the genocide but it did put blame on America.
The UN report found that the U.S. government was aware of the genocide at the time it was taking place and that it actively encouraged the attacks. The report found that the CIA supported "illegal operations" while the Pentagon's School of the Americas by training Guatemalan officers in counterinsurgency methods "had a significant bearing on human rights violations during the armed confrontation." The report goes on to say: "The excuses that lower-ranking soldiers acted with wide autonomy, explaining that excesses and errors were committed that were not ordered by superiors, are baseless arguments based on our investigation."
Regardless of whether the U.S. took part in the actual terrorist attacks their support of the organisations that did qualifies as this is the same definition that the U.S. uses now to invade countries. Wayne 06:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Where did I say blameless? I think I outlined recent Guatemala history here and included the U.S. role in the coup and the support of the right wing government over the communist government during the cold war. The question is what you blame the U.S. for? Training the army? Overthrowing communist governments? Supporting the right wing government while they stabilize? None of those things are terrorist acts committed by the U.S. and consequently they don't belong here. --Tbeatty 06:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

They are if you add enough spin to them.--MONGO 07:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Also Here's the report. I missed the section where they accused the U.S. of terrorism. I also missed the section on the CIA. They said the U.S. military training as well as Cuban military training contributed to the human rights abuses committed by the Guatemalans. --Tbeatty 07:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You missed what I said in the second sentence. The investigative panel was specifically forbidden in the terms of reference from naming U.S. citizens that were directly involved. My mistake on the CIA as they did not say that...they said US Central Intelligence Agency. You also seem to have missed why i said it proved the U.S. was guilty. The U.S. considers any country that supports terrorism a terrorist state. It's actions fulfill it's own definition. I dont agree with that definition myself as it places blame on the entire country rather than the idiots in power. Wayne 20:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• "Guatemalan Army Waged 'Genocide,' New Report Finds" -MIREYA NAVARRO -February 26, 1999 -New York Times
• [2]
• [3]
• If you are looking for particular quotes, they were made by one of the three jurists selected. --74.73.16.230 21:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see any quotes in the report about the US Central Intelligence Agency. Quotes that aren't in the report shouldn't be attributed to a U.N. report. Also, to answer your charge, the U.S. did not support terrorism and it does not say that they did in the report so your proof is logically flawed. --Tbeatty 07:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Do not think I had a question so I am not sure how its flawed. The statement was made by a member of the panel issuing the report during the reading of the report in front of the leaders of the country (brave man). I think you should read the sources before commenting. --74.73.16.230 10:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Changing the name to "Criticisms of United States foreign policy"?

"Terrorism" or "state terrorism" are undefined and inflammatory terms. We will discuss endlessly if certain events were "terrorism" or not, even if the events themselves are not controversial. How about changing the title to "Criticisms of United States foreign policy"? Then we can add criticisms (and counter-criticisms) of US policy without endlessly discussing if the term "terrorism" is appropriate. We can also place the policies in their historical context and more easily discuss the reasons for why the US advocated a certain policy at the time.Ultramarine 09:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I did a search based on your suggestion, and i found this Opposition to United States foreign policy. Not a great article - reads like a pov essay. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Could hopefully be more easily improved than this article. Encourages more context and avoids the endless problems noted above regarding whether an act is "terrorism" or not.Ultramarine 09:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it would just change the arguments. We'll still have people suggesting that Chomsky can't be quoted because he hasn't got a degree in US foreign policy, and that Cuban and Venezuelan opinion doesn't count because its state controlled. (I never hear such objections to using the BBC as a source, although that is also state controlled.) ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

But I think we would be having better discussions, like regarding the reasons for some US action, rather than endless unresolvable discussions regarding if the US action should be called "terrorism" or not.Ultramarine 09:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't be having either discussion on wikipedia. We should "discuss the article, not the subject" ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

In this article we have had endless discussions regarding if this Wikipedia article should call the US support for the Contras "state terrorism" or not. More interesting would be a discussion regarding the article content of a Wikipedia article describing the support in more detail, the effects of the support, and the reasons for the support.Ultramarine 09:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That is, a discussion of for example the negative effects of Iran-Contra Affair and what to include in a criticisms article is more productive than simply endlessly discussing if suppoting Contras should be called "state terrorism" or not.

Since people appear to strive for an article on a specific issue "criticism" would seem to broad a term. Consider the way in which the Bush administration attempts to sabotage the Global warming discussion, or undermines the non-proloferation treaty, et cetera. Certainly we can find "criticism" regarding those examples, and others. However, that clearly falls under a different heading than what this article wants to discuss.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Odd, Bush seemed to indicate otherwise at G8 meeting two years ago.[4]--MONGO 04:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but would changing the focus to a broader subject be wrong? Due to the fuzzy definition of terrorism, there will never be any agreement reached on what to include with the current title.Ultramarine 14:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

As I, and I think most of the other non-US editors, see it, the problem is that the US editors will never accept any act as terrorism, nor will they accept any source which labels any act as terrorism. US editors see any such source as inadmissible by definition. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 14:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Spare me the unsourced claims. Even if true, which it is not as those examining where IPs arrive from know, this still does not change the fundamental problem with the fuzzy definition.Ultramarine 14:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The application of the definition, fuzzy or otherwise, is not our call. We should just refer to published authors who apply the term. Whether they are correct in the application is not for us to say (unless some other author has publicly disagreed with them, in which case that goes in too). ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 14:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Then we must include a clarification, like "Using his own definition of 'state terrorism', X thinks that Y is an example of 'state terrorism'".Ultramarine 14:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with attributive language, and I believe that is what we do in this article. But, simply in citing the source using the words, "according to..." suffices.Giovanni33 14:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That would be acceptable to me, although it might look a bit clumsy if repeated over and over. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 14:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

We could describe somewhere what particular definition of state terrorism a particular author uses. Then we can refer to this.Ultramarine 14:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

However this would obviously not lead to Chomsky bashing as the topic would still be the definition and not the person or their comparative treatment of terrorism related topics across Asia and the Middle-East. I am off for the day, enjoy your holidays if you are off. --74.73.16.230 15:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

iIf the topic is Chomsky's definition and his claims that certain acts are state terrorism, then npov also requires including the criticisms of those views.Ultramarine 15:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. I think I will leave my statement at that. Its been explained to you repeatedly why you are wrong. Your choice to ignore that so you can add in some Chomsky bashing from "Anti-Chomsky reader" that no one else even supports shows how wrong you are. If it is added, I will remove it as not meeting WP:RS. Furthermore the other article is not even discussing the definition in question, just saying Chomsky, while right, should call other instances, such as Pol Pot to have been terrorism. --74.73.16.230 15:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Authors often do not specify which particular definition they are using, and it is irrelevant anyway. The important issue is the notable author has said this thing, therefore we report this statement. If other notable authors disagree, then that should also be included.

Imagine the people who will read this article. They may have heard something about the US being accused of terrorism, and they want to find out what all the fuss is about. They want to know who said it, why they said it, and whether other notable people agree or disagree. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 15:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The definition used is certainly relevant since there is no agreement on it. If they state none, we note that also.Ultramarine 15:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats fine also, and interesting to note. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 15:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct, this should also apply to the critique. It should be criticizing the definition presented by author X, not author X's application of a word, for instance the critique should be against Chomsky definition of "State terrorism", not in how he applys the term "terrorism," note the difference of a specific definition of state terrorism, as opposed to how author X uses the word terrorism alone. --74.73.16.230 20:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Happy Fourth of July

Greetings to all our American friends on this page. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Concept of Terrorism and How this Article is Appropriately Titled

I don't mean to belittle anyone or their opinion. I just feel there is a lot of debate about the concept of terrorism and the naming of this article which serves as a roadblock to this article achieving a good nuetral status. After reading much of talk page it seems to me some users don't understand the concept of terrorism. There can be both right wing and left wing terrorism because it is a term given by one idealogue to someone of an opposing idealogy for carrying out violent acts and inciting terror to achieve their idealogical goals. So to someone in a capitalist democracy like USA, a communist guerilla such as Che Guevarra or Fidel Castro were terrorists because they violently overthrew their a capitalistic/democratic idealogy. Thus this applies to State Terrorism of the USA because they funded/trained/supported guerilla's that shared their same philosophy that went against the existing regime of a number of country's idealogy and thus their sovereignty. Just because some people on here think that capitalism is the correct system doesn't mean that people that violently support them aren't terrorists. It is a completely perspective term: one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Thus the title fits from the perspective of the Guatamalan or Nicaraguan or Iranian regimes.Wiegrajo 11:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Your are correct that there is no international agreement on what terrorism or "state terrorism" is. So any claims are the personal opinions of the author. But read WP:SOAP and Wikipedia:POV forking, one sided articles only presenting the views of one side are not allowed. Regarding the title, see "Changing the name to 'Criticisms of United States foreign policy'?" above. By the way, Guatemala has an elected democratic government, although the degree of capitalism may be discussed.Ultramarine 11:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If there is no consensus on what terrorism is, would you agree we can no longer call al-Qaeda, IRA, ETA, FARC, Hamas, and others terrorists? Again, by your own words this would violate WP:SOAP and WP:OR.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine, we are allowed to report on the opinions of external, notable, authors. That is not SOAP. Soap is reporting our own opinions, which no one here is doing. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 11:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the UN has several definitions right here: [5]. Note the Academic Consensus Definition:

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988). Pexise 11:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, take a yellow cab, drive it around London while eating a banana and call me octopus. Isn't that applicable to the US? -Big surprise- But wait, applying any definition is OR so therefore is not allowed. Just like our interpretation 100 mph is equal to 160 km/h.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link.[6] Proposed definitions. The text clearly states that there is no agreed on definition which is a problem.Ultramarine 12:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Although the so called "Academic Consensus Definition" is kind of interesting. It would remove much of the contested material from this article, like the support for coups. It would also remove targeted assassinations of specific opponents, for example by death squads, from being terrorism.Ultramarine 12:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If we take any attempt at creating a "a state of terror" as hallmark we can safely conclude much of what is discussed here falls under the definition of terrorism. Again I refer to the "state of terror" the US is manufacturing regarding Iran and its supposed developement of a nuclear bomb as the most recent example.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think it's the IAEA that is concerned with Iran's atomic energy program. IAEA concerns + Hezbollah + comments that Israel will become a fireball by Iranian president = they manufactured their own state of terror. Iran has been a thorn in the U.S. side since 1979. Yet it remains unbombed for nearly thirty years despite the shrill but baseless cries of U.S. critics that an attack is imminent. Cuba has remained invasion free to the chagrin of the chicken littles and boys who cried wolf. Your voice in the chorus has been duly noted. The U.S. has not created a "state of terror" in either of these two nations despite their adversarial nature and the lopsided balance of power. But as a side note, are you worried about Pakistan's "supposed" nuclear weapons? --Tbeatty 07:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You can of course provide evidence for your erroneous claim that it is the IAEA and not the Bush administration promoting the fear of a nuclear bomb in Iran? Of course you unfortunately forhot the US involvement in the Iraq-Iran war when the US tried to bomb it through its proxy Saddam. Then when he no longer listened to orders, as bin Laden, he immediately became public enemy No. 1. Second, the Iranian President merely pointed out that Israel is the principal source of trouble in the Middle-East and that the only solution is for Israel to stop its human rights violations and illegal occupation. Oddly remeniscent of the comments bin Laden made regarding the US that should stop supporting US-friendly dictators and stop the use of military force to secure US interests in non-US territory. As for Pakistan, yes I am worried, the fact Khan succeeded in stealing the technology and his country now has the bomb is troubling since Pakistan is not overly zealous in targetting terrorists. A fact Bush conspicuously ignores since it is an "ally."Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 05:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well there's this. And this. Pretty much says they are working on nuclear weapons. And I'm glad to see you are frightened by Pakistan's nuclear weapons. Don't know why you aren't afraid of the other countries acquiring them or are you employing the "enemy of my enemy" theory of nuclear war. I think you overexaggerate U.S. support of Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war. Iran used to be an ally of the U.S. It is very apparent when you see their military hardware. Very American. Very western. Iraq, however, is equally a Sovet era satellite country. From tanks to rifles to rockets, it's all Soviet red. Israel is not the principle source of trouble in the Middle East, it is merely an excuse. The Middle East is one big civil war on low boil with various factions and tribes. Religious, economic and tribal wars. It's Shia muslim vs. Sunni muslim, Muslim vs. Jew, Fundamentalist Muslim vs. Secular muslim, Saudia Arabi vs. Al Qaeda, Persian vs. Arab, Palestinian vs. Israeli, Palestinian vs. Jordanian, Ba'ath vs. Lebanese Christian, Saudi Arabian vs. Egyptian, Hamas vs. PLO, etc ,etc. In 1967, Israel crushed Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian forces, not because Israel was fighting an organized coalition, but because each of three rivals were afraid the other rival would grab too much israeil terroritory in victory. Each, in turn, were drawn in because of their rivalry, not their alliance. Depending on which country is lending support to which faction invites terrorist attack. Peace is elusive because alliances that form for one reason dissolve for others. Today's ally is tomorrows enemy. There is no foreign policy today that will eliminate countries from terrorist attack from countries in this region because the alliances are so complex. Even withdrawing support from Israel which is largely regarded as the number one reason for making the U.S. a target will simply shift it to whatever alliances we have. Supporting Saudia Arabia makes us a target. Supporting Egypt makes us a target. Supporting Lebanon, supporting Jordan, supporting the PLO, supporting Iran, supporting pakistan, supporting indonesia, all makes us a target by somebody. "neutral" is not an option because of the amount of money that is involved and the level of exports these countries have. Today's enemy is Al Qaeda and they are the most powerful today. But they weren't the terrorists of yesterday and they won't be the terrorists of tomorrow. They didn't do Munich 1972 or PAn Am over Lockerbie. Abu Nidal wasn't in Al Qaeda. Leon Klinghofer wasn't killed by Al Qaeda. You can rest assured that there will be a new crop of terrorist organizations in the future and undoubtedly it will be tied to some policy the U.S. has today, but it really doesn't matter what the policy is, there will be terrorists. It could be Jordanian terrorists upset that we support Palestinians or it could be palestinian terrorists upset that we opposed them. And as USS Cole, World Trade Center, Khobar Towers and U.S. Embassies in Africa can attest, it doesn't matter who the President is. --Tbeatty 06:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Both of the last couple of comments take us way, way off track from anything to do with the discussion about this article. Also (and I'm really not trying to be overly pedantic here) the Six Day War of course happened in 1967, not 1968. As anyone familiar with the history of the Middle East would probably agree, that's a howler of a mistake--for the Middle East post-WWII it's about equivalent to saying that the French Revolution got going when the Bastille was stormed in 1787. If you can't get basic facts straight you've got a real problem.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the typo. --Tbeatty 14:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless of course a source has cited it as state terrorism, which is the real requirement for inclusion. You seem to be advocating WP:SYNTH to simply apply whatever fits the definition, regardless of the sources. --74.73.16.230 12:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"It would also remove targeted assassinations of specific opponents, for example by death squads, from being terrorism." How on earth did you draw that conclusion? Please read again: "The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population." Pexise 12:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If a death squad kills, say a prominent Marxist leader they suspect of invovlement with rebels, then he is the main target. It is not a random or a symbolic murder intended to create anxiety primarily, it is intended to remove an important suspected leader.Ultramarine 12:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Erm... Pexise 12:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

How about when a death squad kills 200,000 civilians? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 13:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If they select them randomly with the intention to frighten the rest of the population, then it would be terrorism as per this particular definition. If they kill 200,000 people they feel are Communist rebels, then it is not terrorism as per this particular definition.Ultramarine 13:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If a fascist death squad kills people in Central America, it is US terrorism. If a fascist death squad kills people in Iraq, it's an insurgency. If in Europe, I guess it's hooliganism, and you need more security cameras. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats a bit of an anti-Europeanism comment, isn't it Tom. Good thing I won't take it personally. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 13:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it anti-European to suggest responding to terrorism as if it were a law enforcement problem is fundamentally stupid? Or that people who had no trouble recognizing state-sponsored right-wing death squads in 1985 can't see them today? Still, it is off topic and I'll say no more. Feel free to refactor or remove my remarks, and thanks for not taking offense. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to note that my adminship was stripped for comments in a similar vein which were deemed "anti-American". You, Tom, have nothing to worry about, though. European editors do not see a limit to free speech. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 14:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If you continue to fail to see the difference between the commentary you subjected numerous editors to and what Tom harrison has stated, then I can't help you. One would hope that you would have learned the difference...and that brings up another point...with an arbcom ruling which decreed that you did indeed make numerous anti-American comments, don't you think that your continued involvement in furthering your POV here on this article should be seen as circumspect?--MONGO 04:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, the U.S. would deal with terrorism on it's soil as a law enforcement problem. Posse Comitatus would prevent anything else. The difference is that the U.S. would respond militarily to other countries that allowed terrorists to launch their attacks. European countries logistically lack the ability to respond that way. Most NATO countries cannot project the kind of power necessary without logistical help from the U.S. or a massive buildup of their military which would make the deployment not very rapid. Even the U.S. needed months to prepare for Afghanistan as well as air bases in Kazakhstan. As for European free speech, last time I checked French girls weren't allowed to wear head scarves to school. Germany and Austria have banned books and certain statements. And on July 12, we'll see if free speech is allowed in Ireland this year or if firebombs and beatings have replaced them. --Tbeatty 07:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Um - what's stupid about responding to terrorism through law enforcement? The thing is, in Europe we have decades of experience of terrorism, and have learnt how to deal with it - policing, intelligence and diplomacy. Good job we didn't invade Ireland when the US was financing the IRA, eh? Pexise 15:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Or bomb Boston. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 15:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Really? I thought they were giving money to "End the Occupation" and there were calls in England "Bring the Troops Home" and that the British troops were actually responsible for the 200,000 civilian deaths caused by IRA bombings. After all, the IRA wasn't in Ireland until the British invaded. And that policing, intelligence and diplomacy really worked out in Bosnia. When are those troops coming home? And those damn Chechens not respecting their "occupation" either for their own good. And when is the EU going to admit the state of Basque? Can't really have diplomacy with a group that doesn't have it's own state. But I guess it's only really Iraq that's a problem because... well... Bush. --Tbeatty 08:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thankfully! Then where would Matt_Damon's movies have been filmed! --74.73.16.230 15:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Arguing over a definition and how to WP:SYNTH it is kinda pointless. As long as WP:RS source cites the event as state terrorism, or terrorism attributed to state X, then the material meets the requirements. If anyone from the US did not notice it is the fourth of July, perhaps a bbq with family or a visit to a VA shelter/memorial would do you more good then arguing on the internet. --74.73.16.230 15:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

There is also WP:REDFLAG. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, often mulitple, so quoting some obscure far left website is not enough.Ultramarine 15:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup that far left Cuban/Venezuelan government, that leftist UN commission, those leftist Guatemalan commissions, those crazy dems over in the AHRC and of course that obvious leftist Christian Tomuschat. Spare me please. --74.73.16.230 15:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"So to someone in a capitalist democracy like USA, a communist guerilla such as Che Guevarra or Fidel Castro were terrorists because they violently overthrew their a capitalistic/democratic ideology." The people who think that just shoot themselves in their own foot. By broadening the definition of terrorism to include overthowing friendly regimes they make themselves terrorist when they are involved in similar actions. Count Iblis 15:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

To defend myself from your misunderstanding of what I had written, which in retrospect was poorly worded and hastily written as well, what I meant was: to someone like GW, che guevarra was a terrorist. However to someone like Hugo Chavez, he was a liberator. My point is that usage of the term is perspective based. However, one could also and probably should also just apply the UN's definition as the definitive because the UN charter is the foundation of modern International Law and through the signature and membership of almost every government on the planet, it should be considered "agreed upon."Wiegrajo 09:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No, Fidel supported terrorism by harboring Spanish terrorists that are wanted by Spain and training and harboring african terrorist as well as involvenment with Columbia drug cartel and FARC. Nobody cares that he's leftist. He's only 90 miles from Florida, he has a Marine base on his island and he's never been bombed or attacked. At the same time, the Soviet Union created a nice buffer of countries around itself and turned them into the communist bloc inflicting poverty on millions of people. --Tbeatty 07:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope that is a joke or the irony of you having read the cases of Posada and his cohorts and not believe the US is then guilty of "State Terrorism" --74.73.16.230 10:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

For our work here, the only thing that makes anything terrorism is citation to multiple reliable sources that say it is terrorism. If there are not multiple reliable sources that say it was terrorism, as far as I'm concerned you can still include almost anything you want as long as it is attributed and cited. Start with 'Professor X says' and end with a citation that actually says 'terrorism.' What I oppose is claiming as fact 'this was an act of state terrorism' and citing Chomsky for it, or synthesizing sources you think together match a definition of state terrorism.Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. Ultramarine also seems happy. How about the rest of us? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 16:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, since McClintock doesn't say that the U.S. engaged in terrorism and to contrue that U.S. did is synthesis and original research, his comments wouldn't be included in this article. --Tbeatty 06:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me, as long as some of the accusations about reliable sources from earlier do not rear their ugly heads again. Suggesting that Zed books, a Professor from UCL and the NGO Redress are not reliable sources is ludicrous. Pexise 16:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually it only takes one reliable source for us to be able report the claim.Giovanni33 17:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"the calculated use of violence, primarily against civilians, to coerce and intimidate civilian populations or governments through instilling fear" - seems perfectly defined to me and pretty well sums up things like Operation 40, COINTELPRO, Operation Phoenix, Gladio, what the Contras were doing, and so on. LamontCranston 12:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed inclusion rules

From our long discussions, I think we can suggest some ground rules for including material.

1. An event can be directly described in the article as terrorism if and only if multiple notable and reliable sources define it as such, and if no other notable source disagrees.
2. Otherwise, if a notable author or source describes an event as terrorism, it may be indirectly described in the article as terrorism in the form "Author X says...".
3. If such an author states the definition that he used to arrive at this conclusion, this should be included, otherwise it may be noted that no definition was given.
4. Notable sources which criticize the author should be included where they exist.
5. This article is about State terrorism and sources should directly accuse the US, or its state organs (eg CIA), of involvement in said terrorism.

---

Agree, disagree, discuss, below. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 16:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

We can not describe something directly as terrorism since there is no agreement on what terrorism is. That is, attribution is always needed. Otherwise looks interesting.Ultramarine 16:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think if multiple notable sources agree that something is terrorism, then that should be good enough for us. (although, I doubt that will happen often - point 2 is more applicable) ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 16:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is any other notable source that disagrees, and then we have to attribute it. Anyways, I think you're using the wrong term here, the article is about "state terrorism", not "terrorism". - Merzbow 16:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

True. I'll add another point (this one is sure to cause arguements!) ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 16:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I will agree if you modify 1 to add the caveat ", and if no other notable source disagrees.". - Merzbow 16:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Meaning if a notable source disagrees, then it falls to point 2. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 16:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. - Merzbow 17:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Number four is not valid, to the extent that its included just to attack the author, instead of the relevant question/POV/claim that the author is making. That is why the additions of Ultramarin to bash Chomsky, including talking about his "ethical predisposition",, or that "Chomky is no pacifist,' on a topic of "the US own definition," of terrorism is not valid, as its off topic, and irrelevant. Thus, its not valid to say "which criticize the author should be included where they exist," unless its meant by that there is a disagreement about the authors claims, i.e. which the author is being cited for. That is why Ultramarine's off topic anti-Chomsky reader additions will have to go, as well as the introduction pov additions, 'chomsky cult, and "police states."Giovanni33 17:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this general approach, and appreciate Seabhcan's efforts here. I agree with Giovanni's last point though. Number four should not be about criticizing the author in a general sense, but criticizing their point of view on the matter, or at least their knowledge/ability to comment on this particular issue. For example saying Chomsky is not a pacifist would be off topic, but saying that he criticizes some regimes for state terror (for example the US) while not being as adamant about it for other regimes (for example Cambodia under Pol Pot) would reveal his possible bias on this particular topic and be worthy of inclusion (I disagree with the point, but think this kind of criticism would be totally appropriate for this article). It might be good to elaborate on point 5, as I see it being a point of contention. I think most would agree that the precise phrase "state terrorism" need not appear (for example "terrorism by the state" or "the government of the United States engaged in terrorism when" etc. would be acceptable if a reliable source used such phrasing--correct me if there's disagreement there) but the line would get fuzzy at some point. For example if a source said: The US provided country X with weapons and training, told it to use these weapons and training to defeat an insurgency in its country even if it meant killing many civilians, sources label the actions of country X's military state terrorism. Some editors would object vehemently to this formulation, others would be fine with it (there are other examples that might be even less clear cut). So I think we should hash out five a bit more (maybe add a couple of sub-points to further clarify) and slightly reword four so the focus is not on the author in general but rather on their views on the matter in question and/or their knowledge in that particular area. I think we could work those things out though.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

In regards to Ultramarine's Chomsky addition, the End of Faith quote and the second Windschuttle quote are arguably not relevant because they are too broad (I don't entirely understand the second Windschuttle quote so maybe it is), but the first paragraph is acceptable since it specifically criticizes Chomsky's selective application of the accusation of state terrorism. - Merzbow 22:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm - yes, should the arguments be criticised rather than the authors..? Otherwise that would be Ad hominem wouldn't it? Pexise 18:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, as Bigtimepeace stated it, I argued above and you now write. Attacking the authors and not their arguements would be an ad hominem. For comparable instance, if the US State Department stated XYZ against person A. Would it be ok for us to then put in a section criticizing the critic, stating: However the US State Department has been accused of being hypocritical in their selection of countries involved in state terrorism [1][2][3][4]" Surely not as we are suppose to criticize the statement they make, not the author. --74.73.16.230 20:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"Involvement in terrorism" should be first order. For example, Country X commits terrorism. Country Y supports Country X, therefore Country Y committed terrorism is too far removed. The state and state organs should be direct or ordered directly and supported by sources. No vague guilt by association. --Tbeatty 18:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tbeatty. Country Y giving humanitarian aid is not supporting terrorism. Giving aid to an insurgency or military is involvement. Country Y giving safe haven to that countries refugees is not but giving safe haven to it's terrorists is. In other words the same criteria the U.S. itself uses for other countries. Wayne 21:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually according to the US definition, via the State Department, giving aid is all it takes to end up on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. I believe it is why Cuba is listed, for its support for Iran, politically, and it not doing as much as they believe it can to curb terrorism, not actually supporting, just not helping much apparently. --74.73.16.230 21:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the U.S. requirement is funding revolutionary elements that engage in terrorism, not just military funding. For example, supplying military aid to Egypt is not terrorism. Training revolutionary terrorists in Africa (what Cuba does) is terrorism. --Tbeatty 01:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

But which is State Terrorism? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 08:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That was it. Keep in mind that cuba's addition to the list was years ago before the end of the cold war when they actively supported revolutionary terrorist. They are still holding Basque Separatists and support FARC, but not as actively as before. It's been proposed that they be reomved from the list but that would require an act of Congress which won't happen. --Tbeatty 08:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

How will you react when someone presents a notable source which describes US funding of foreign military as US state terrorism? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Funding a foreign military is not terrorism. For example, if Egypt committed terrorsit acts, the U.S. would not be complicit in those acts simply because it funds the military. Soverieign States are sovereign and that comes with all the privileges and responsibilities. A notable source would have to explicitly make the case preferably in a peer reviewed journal that such action constituted terrorism. It would have to be an explicit and direct statement. It would have to be in the larger definition of terrorism and not a narrowly constructed "personal definition". Not meeting these would warrant deletion even if sourced as it is synthesis. McClintock is a perfect example of what is not acceptable. Summary of McClintock "Guatemala engaged in counter-terrorism. Their counter-terrorism killed civilians so their coutner-terrism was in fact terrorism by the state. The U.S. had a doctrines on counter-terrorism that Guatemala used to train. Therefore, the U.S. counter-terrism doctrine is state sponsered terrorism." and then using that to support a claim of State Terrorism by the U.S. is simply not acceptable. --Tbeatty 09:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you think it isn't terrorism. I accept that. And there are very many notable sources that concur. However, there are other notable sources that disagree, and do claim it is terror. Will you allow those sources to be represented in this article? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I answered that question and gave an example.

“ A notable source would have to explicitly make the case preferably in a peer reviewed journal that such action constituted terrorism. It would have to be an explicit and direct statement. It would have to be in the larger definition of terrorism and not a narrowly constructed "personal definition". Not meeting these would warrant deletion even if sourced as it is synthesis. ”

It is a good starting point. --Tbeatty 15:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the State Department, giving aid to an organization that has been condemned as terrorist is what is required; neither Hamas, nor Hizbulla is revolutionary nor anti-state in its actions. Both fight within their own territory and operate largely as defense forces protecting their own local population. However, Syria and Iran are considered "State Terrorists" because of their support for these organizations.

The same in reverse holds for people who label acts by the U.S. as "State Terrorism": if a government or state apparatus has been identified as a consistent and violent human rights abuser -- and clearly does so in an effort to contain, eliminate, or silence popular dissatisfaction and resentment against its social and political policies -- then that state is considered to be a "State Terrorist". Support for such a state would therefore qualify any supporting government to be complicit in its crimes.

This is a simple and clear argument that the United States has used against its own enemies time and again; it is currently being used against Syria (when was the last time we heard of a group of Syrian suicide bombers?), Iran, and Cuba, but its more traditional usage was against the Soviet Union/Russia, as when the United States accused the Russians of criminal activity through the support of government excesses in Poland, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Angola, the Congo, Yugoslavia, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Georgia, Uzbekistan, El Salvador, Nicaragua, etc. These accusations were offered as non-negotiable facts even when there was no existing evidence to support the accusations (as in the case of the 1954 coup in Guatemala, or the '80s war against the Nicaraguan people, or most recently in the invasion of Iraq and the increasing number of falsehoods directed against the people and government of Iran).

In each case, the United States used as its argument that any state support received from the Soviet Union was an intrinsic violation of human rights and on that pretext usually instigated violent coups, suppression of the population, and viciously conceived "counter-terrorism" activity. The same methodology is currently at work in regards to "terrorism": all that is needed is for the State Department to declare a group "terrorist" in nature, and then any support for that group is identified as support for terrorism.

Thus we have the case of the Philippines: there are clear and unambiguous admissions by the State Department, U.S. executive, and U.S. military that they are both aware of the violent excesses and repressive state apparatus, and that by increasing their aid to the Philippine government they will be contributing to those excesses. There is a clear pattern, as well, showing that upon receipt of U.S. aid those excesses have, indeed, increased. Government bodies within the Philippine state have formally concluded that the excesses, while not established as official policy, are indeed crimes of the state against the Philippine people, and the government officials under which they have occurred are prosecutable by law. Finally, there is a growing number of formal bodies and expert commentators who are labeling these excesses "State Terrorism" and laying part of the responsibility upon the U.S. government and the protection and training it has given the Philippine state.

In other words: using the United States' own logic, if the Syrian government can be considered a "State sponsor of terrorism" -- for supporting the local, popularly established and clearly defensive organizations of Hizb'ullah and the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades -- then so, too, the United States may be considered a State Sponsor of terrorism for the support it gives to governments like that currently ruling the Philippines, Indonesia, Uzbekistan, Israel or perhaps even Kosovo (although not as an exclusive actor -- NATO led force, U.S. dominated military presence, but clearly multinational and under the auspices of the UN).

Now i'm not arguing that all these cases must be included; but those where there is a clearly discernible pattern of state-sponsored violence and terrorism, support by the united states, and loud public outcry against the activity are well within the subject of this article.

To suggest anything else is wiki-lawyering. Stone put to sky 09:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Hamas and Hizbullah both make attacks on Israel, in Israel. One attacks from Lebanon, the other from the West Banck and Gaza. The state department has a reputable list of countries and organization. THey've certainly has been active in adding groups to the list. They have a notable criteria to add groups/counties to the list. Once they add the United States, feel free to use them as a reference in this article. I think that would be an acceptable source. BUt using your own Original Research and synthesis to conclude the U.S. is on the list is not acceptable. BTW, are you really claiming Kosovo was a terrorist act and Wesley Clark and Bill Clinton would now be "terrorists"? It would certainly be interesting to see you add this to their bios here. --Tbeatty 15:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That is if you believe Israel is not in Palestinian land ... To Hamas they are fighting inside their own land, taken from them. But that depends on who you support I guess. --SixOfDiamonds 16:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you making the argument that attacks inside your own country, as defined by the attacker, against civilians is not terrorism? --Tbeatty 23:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I am explaining to you why your statement "Hamas and Hizbullah both make attacks on Israel, in Israel." would be argued with by those groups. You are attempting to make the point that those groups are not freedom fighters since they attack other nations, however I am explaining to you, from their perspective, they are not attacking another nation. Not sure where you got your last statement from. I will now on include a dif and quote when responding to you to make it more clear, as well as the standard indent. --SixOfDiamonds 12:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty's two cents

(from above) I understand that you think it isn't terrorism. I accept that. And there are very many notable sources that concur. However, there are other notable sources that disagree, and do claim it is terror. Will you allow those sources to be represented in this article? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

(from his talk, here)I already answered it. A notable source would have to explicitly make the case preferably in a peer reviewed journal that such action constituted terrorism. It would have to be an explicit and direct statement. It would have to be in the larger definition of terrorism and not a narrowly constructed "personal definition". Not meeting these would warrant deletion even if sourced as it is synthesis. I then gave an example that is unacceptable. --Tbeatty 15:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Your personal definition rule has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. --SixOfDiamonds 16:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

| result4 =Speedy Keep | page4 =Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America (3rd nomination) | date5=March 30, 2007 | result5=Keep | page5=State terrorism by United States of America (fifth nomination) | date6=June 25, 2007 | result6=Keep (no consensus) | page6=State terrorism by the United States (sixth nomination) }}

Gareau's thesis

It does not seem to be Gareau's thesis that "the U.S. has been legally found guilty of international terrorism." I have changed the introduction to reflect this, and moved Gareau to 'Further reading'. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreee. Good point.Ultramarine 20:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the work, but what is his thesis? Where are you getting your info from?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I read the abstract linked, and used Amazon's 'search inside' feature. (I looked for a review by some specialist or scholar in the field, but didn't find one) Gareau does not seem to use Chomsky's argument that Nicaragua v. United States --> legally guilty of state terrorism. He argues (or at least assert) that the US commits acts of state terrorism primarily from economic motivation, and because US leaders (especially Bush) are wicked hypocrites. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not think a "search inside" feature should be grounds for removing a source that someone has actually read. I would reccomend you visit the library or buy the book, then once you have completed the source decide if the above still stands. --74.73.16.230 15:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The burden is on whoever wants to include it, not on me to prove a negative. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Its in the "front matter" as Amazon describes it. The Introduction to be precise, Amazon doe snot include the introduction in the version you read online. The quote is:

"WASHINGTON PUBLISHES AN ANNUAL LIST OF GOVERNMENTS THAT IT ALLEGES aid terrorists. Typically, this list contains a majority of governments of Arab states plus Iran, Cuba, and North Korea. This highlights the importance of how terrorism is defined. If state terrorism were included in the definition, Washington would have to include itself in the list"

.

I will revert this tomorrow if there are no objections by then. This is why I stated the "search in" feature on Amazon should not be considered a measuring tool of sources. Just so you do not think I am lying you can search for, "If state terrorism were" You can read the quoted passage here. This was posted originally to Toms page, however it bares all around discussion and significance. --SixOfDiamonds 22:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it, but my point is that isn't what Chomsky is saying. I don't mind mentioning Gareau ("Gareau maintains that..."), but we have to distinguish his position from Chomsky's. Anyway, this probably belongs on the talk page so others can address it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC) (moved from my talk page Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

Gladio

Again we see a complex issue being glossed over here for tendentious political points. The US set up stay behind armies in Europe. Some individuals connected to those organizations committed acts of terrorism (decades later). Therefore the US is being held responsible, even though there is no credible suggestion that the US was in any way responsible for the events. That the Italian communists casted vague aspersions on the US, the bane of their existence ever since they helped prevent a communist takeover after WWII, is unsurprising and not at all relevant in determining with any verifiability whether this constitutes terrorism "by the United States". There is nothing substantive here either, and I support removal. --72.84.56.55 20:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Good points.Ultramarine 20:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarify this for me if you could: the US trains and organizes them, sets up funding and supply lines, means of communication, and all that stuff - but isn't responsible when they put all this to good use against organizations and politics that run contrary to US interests? Kinda like how even after they shut down Operation 40 the groups it set up continued to function, or how School of the Americas training had nothing whatsoever to with the Atlacatl Battalion atrocities in El Salvador. And yet we hear so much from 'conservatives' about responsibility. As for "communist takeover after WWII", well wikipedia accepts all sorts so I guess that's one way of looking at participatory democracy. LamontCranston 13:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

General proposal for significant changes

We have a tag along the lines of what I've written below at the top of the page, but I want to make this even more explicit since it still seems to be a problem. This would apply both to deletions and additions, and I would suggest that something along these lines (along with Seabhcan's proposal above in whatever form it ultimately takes) have permanent places at the top of the talk page, assuming editors are in general agreement about them. Comments (thumbs up, thumbs down, proposed changes, etc.) on my proposed text below are welcome, but after a couple of mass deletions yesterday without any prior discussion or effort to work on the content, I think a guideline along these lines is needed (if people just want to edit what I have below, that's fine too--I'm not married to it and am just trying to express a general idea). I have to prepare to celebrate Independence Day in the classic American way--grilling meat and drinking booze--so I won't be around to add in other thoughts for awhile (though it looks like rain here in NYC, which might put the kibosh on the festivities--luckily there's a lot of bars in this town).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a very contentious topic, and article content is often hotly disputed. As such, it is critical that editors wishing to make significant changes (whether it be adding new text, deleting text, or significantly altering the wording of multiple passages) discuss it here on the talk page first. Please bring up any changes you wish to make, and wait for some feedback from other editors. The goal should be to arrive at some form of consensus, but it's quite possible this will not happen. If consensus cannot be achieved it is fine to make the changes you wish to make, so long as you have made an effort to solicit feedback. Significant changes made without prior discussion (be they additions or deletions) will, as a rule, be reverted.

The page was moved from Allegations of to State terrorism by without discussion or consensus. The page was substantially rewritten as a personal essay without discussion or consensus. I'm not going to support any special rules now to make it harder to change. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesnt make it harder to change, because the alternative is to have an edit war and that doesnt change anything. It just gets the article locked. Will will not make progress unless we all agree to these common sense rules, as stipulated above. That way we can use the talk page to forge a consensus to major changes. It may not be easy, but its better than the alternatives, by far.Giovanni33 04:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

General comment

would you agree we can no longer call al-Qaeda, IRA, ETA, FARC, Hamas, and others terrorists

I would, for the purposes of the site. The appellation of "terrorism" is inappropriate for an encyclopedia and emotive in general, though various organs of state and interstate organizations may find it appropriate (and under certain circumstances, rightly so). It is not appropriate to brand organizations or actions as terroristic for the fact that a plethora of organizations or individuals with often vested interests against the accused stake those claims. That is why social science exists, in part--to sort out slogans from impartial research. --72.65.92.206 05:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No, not if an internationally recognized body such as the UN, including folks like former Secretary-General Kofi Annan, unanimously agree that some actions are terrorism.[7]--MONGO 05:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What about cases where the vote is something like 438-1, where there is clearly near-unanimous agreement but one particular, very powerful player shamelessly vetoes any official action or statement? Stone put to sky 10:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Dude, there's like totally only, like 193 countries out there. And Israel and the UK always vote with the US. That makes 190:3 usually. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 10:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well -- multiply it by three votes, then.

In the particular votes i'm speaking of, Britain remarkably went along with the majority and supported the pro-palestinian position. Also, i don't think countries which are facing official UN condemnation are allowed to take part in the vote (would it make sense to allow a defendant to join in with the jury?). But then, there are a few times that it was something like Everyone:3, with countries like Burundi and Guinea Bisseau going along for a few hundred thousand dollars of aid, or loan forgiveness, or something along those lines. Stone put to sky 12:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there are some political elements that need to be identified. IRA is a terrorist organization but Sinn Fein is probably not. Hamas has a political, military and social service organization that I wouldn't know how to separate. Certainly hamas' violent operations qualify as terrorism. Same with the PLO. Al Qaeda, ETA and FARC have no redeeming qualities and it would be hard to make the case they are not purely terrorist organizations. --Tbeatty 08:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hamas is the political wing (i.e. -- like Sinn Fein); the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades are their military wing (i.e. -- like the IRA). FARC clearly qualifies as a revolutionary movement; attempts to label it a "terrorist" organization are very recent and utterly specious. FARC is no more a "purely terrorist organization" than were the signers of the Declaration of Independence (who, i might add, were considered mere terrorists by the urbane, genteel, and well-heeled European lapdogs of the era). Stone put to sky 10:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

According to this article, the lapdogs are still trying to make that case. But they were wrong then and they are wrong now. --Tbeatty 15:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The USA has nothing in common with recognized terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda, ETA, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the IRA.WacoJacko 08:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit. The U.S. Irish are traditionally the single-greatest contributors and supporters of the IRA (and none have ever been deported or prosecuted for it), and the U.S. government (Reagan era, through Bush) quite literally created Al Qaeda by training, and funding, and equipping it. Stone put to sky 10:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No, MArxist-Leninist support has always been greater for the IRA. Also, your claim about Al Qaeda is more synthesis. The U.S. funded and supported Mujahedin in Afghanistan. This is not the same as "creating Al Qaeda". Al Qaeda was formed by bin Laden as a response to U.S. military bases in Saudia Arabia and it's creating had nothing to do with Afghanistan Operations. Some Al Qaeda operatives had received experience and training in Afghanistan but synthesizing "creation" from that is more original research and synthesis. --Tbeatty 15:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You are mis-informed. Most IRA funding came from Irish-Americans (not the US government, though). And as former UK Foreign Minister Robin Cook said:

• Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by Western security agencies. Throughout the 80s, he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organization would turn its attention to the west. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 15:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm very well informed. Well travelled too. More than you could imagine. But let's put it this way: There are still Irish Catholic pubs in Boston. There is still Irish Catholics seeking home rule and reunification in Ireland. So why did the bombings stop? According to you, the funding should still be there. But in the real world, not the imaginary wishful thinking worl, the Soviet Union collapsed and with it the violence that plagued Northern Ireland since the end of World War II. The Provisional IRA's real funding and training ended and so did the violence. Funny, the same thing happened in Guatemala at the same time. --Tbeatty 22:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

as for bin Laden, he wasn't a product of anything to do with the U.S. funding in Afghanistan. The U.S. supported various Afghani tribes, not the Arab fighters who would have been viewed as outsiders and funding them directly would have created mistrust in the local community. It was up to the local Afghani's tribes to decide how to include foreign fighters in their clans. It was very important to respact clan sensitivities. This should be so obvious that it doesn't need explaining. --Tbeatty 22:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This is why we do not define it and let the sources do the designating. --74.73.16.230 10:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This is getting slightly off the point but demonstrates the ignorance many people have of relevant hsitory. Why do people keep trotting out the single quote from Cook (with no backing given) as if it is a definitive account? If there's something both al Qaeda and the US government agree on, it is that bin Laden's activities in Afghanistan were independently funded and that the CIA had nothing at all to do with, even indirectly, the funding, training, organization, or founding of al Qaeda. The US allowed funding of various mujahideen groups via the Pakistani ISI, who were very nonchalant in what types of organizations they helped, including other radical fundamentalists like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who later turned on other groups in an internecine conflict but was anti-Taliban only until the US invaded. There is plenty of nuance that polemicist critics of US foreign policy miss. Yes the US supported many groups in Afghanistan indirectly. Yes some of the funding went to radical sources. But did the US have anything at all to do with al Qaeda's creation or helping bin Laden? No, and no evidence has ever been produced that suggests it remotely. --72.65.92.206 21:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You got that explanation from the CNN article. I'd give more weight to a Foreign Minister, privy to secret information, over a random CNN reporter and his anonymous administration officials any day. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 21:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a similar explanation was given by Richard Miniter. Only native Afghan groups were supplied by the CIA. In fact Bin Laden hated Americans, even then. He hated them so much that in his camps, they would be killed on the spot. The CIA never provided him with funds or supplies.--LWF 21:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You got that explanation from the CNN article. Kindly do not patronize me by saying where I receive information. My understanding is based on several more weighty sources than CNN reports (which are often ludicrously oversimplified as well). Miniter is in fact one of them, so the other user is closer than you are. --72.65.92.206 21:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Claim about this article

This article seems like blatant POV WacoJacko 08:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Care you present an actual argument so that any POV violations can be fixed? That would be far more helpful.Giovanni33 14:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Demonstrating Absurdity with Absurdity

Here's the problem with the name of the article. I will use the following fictional articleto demonstrate the fallacious logic used in both the creating and naming of this article.

Hypothetical article title Terrorism by anti-Global Warming Advocates.

Terrorism by anti-Global Warming Advocates
Anti-Global Warming advocates are responsible for numerous terrorist attacks.
=== Al Gore ===
Al Gore's son, who Al Gore fathered and reared, was arrested while driving a Prius recently with numerous narcotics. Al Qaeda is located in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a large exporter of illicit opium products. Terrorists use the drug trade to fund their attacks. Illegal drugs are "an instrument of terror." Prius automobiles are small hybrid vehicles popular with anti-global warming advocates and can reach speeds that exceed 100 mph. Al Gore's son was arrested while protecting the environment at a speed in excess of the legal limit. The Prius was discovered with the "instruments of terror" after being searched. The Prius "instrument of terror" was towed to a police impound lot.
===List of Vehicles Used to further terrorism ===
Prius

See the absurdity? This article reads almost identical to the above paragraph. From it's title down to it's claims and lists. --Tbeatty 09:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Everyone sees the absurdity bro. We read your comment.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we read absurdities most of the time you make edits here. Fortunately, this article suffers from no such defect.Giovanni33 14:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, the personal attacks. the last refuge. But it is about the level I expect. No response. No sources. Just ad hominem. --Tbeatty 15:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

An attack would be a response, and this obviously would not require sources ... --SixOfDiamonds 16:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I see no personal or ad hominem attacks, just attacks on what you wrote (there's a difference you know). I cannot fathom how one could respond to your post rationally since it is so utterly nonsensical, much less respond with "sources." Obviously you did not use any sources to construct your bizarre faux article, so expecting anyone to respond to you with sources is ridiculous.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I can source every sentence. Every sentence is sourcably true and is in the news today. However the tale it weaves is absurd. Just like this article. Which statement did you say was untrue or non-sourcable? McClintock synthesis of the United States committing terrorism in Guatemala is the same logic synthesis I used to link the Environmentalist Prius drivers to 9/11. --Tbeatty 22:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

One more time

Rename the article to State Terrorism and the United States:

For? I certainly am; gives enough space for both sides to make their arguments and is neutral enough for even the most fierce of Bush the Utterly Incompetent's supporters to feel comfortable with; the current article would easily be subsumed within such a title, and we could slowly emigrate the current lengthy diatribe -- through lists and references to outside pages -- to something more manageable and encyclopedic.

Against? I can't think of any good reason not to. But i'm open to suggestions. Stone put to sky 10:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I like it. --MichaelLinnear 20:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

When you change "by" to "and" there is no meaningful connection between the terms "United States" and "State Terrorism" and thus there is no reason for an article. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to see anyone demonstrate that the U.S. has been internationally recognized as a terrorist state, or to have engaged in terrorism.--MONGO 11:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The article cites many sources showing heads of government/state from other nations saying that they see the USA government as terrorist. Gronky 11:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I see...yes, Chavez, who seems to be setting up his own kingdom and shutting down opposition media, following in the path of Castro who did the same and of course, surely what Iraq has to say is worth consideration...yup...you're right...if they say the U.S. is a terrorist state then it must be, Gronky.--MONGO 11:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Mongo, no one is trying to prove the US is a terrorist state, just as no one who edits the Islam article tries to prove that thesis. Here, we are just documenting the phenomenon of notable others declaring the US is terrorist. You may not want to hear what Chavez and Iran say, but they are other people who are interested. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 12:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

From a quick skim, I see quotes from vice/heads of state/government of Venezuela, Iran, Indonesia, and Cuba. But if you won't be serious, then I won't put in any more effort to give you a longer list. Gronky 12:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no please do...I fully expect that the people who think as you apparently do are likely to be leaders as Chavez and Castro are and others who reject that the Holocaust happened, etc.--MONGO 18:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

People who think as I do? I just got here; we've never met before on Wikipedia. You said X doesn't exist, and I pointed out that you were standing beside it. Gronky 19:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

MONGO your comment above seems to say that editors who disagree with you here are authoritarian Holocaust deniers (I find the fact that you bring the Holocaust into this discussion, for no reason whatsoever, a bit disgusting). These kind of personal attacks are unbelievably uncalled for. Most of your recent edits on this page seem to consist of personal attacks and bullying (e.g. threatening users with a perma ban). Just as I asked Stone to cease from calling other user's edits "vandalism" (see Stone's talk page) I ask you to quite the name calling and bullying. Please do it now. You've said you think WP:COOL is a good essay, so maybe you should look over it again.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If that is how you read it, then that is your problem. I would highly recommend you not wikistalk my edits and stop POV pushing. The leader of Iran has denied and or at the very least seriously questioned the Holocaust, publically and openly. Gronky has stated that "vice/heads of state/government of Venezuela, Iran, Indonesia, and Cuba" have made claims that the U.S. has enabled or engaged in terrorism and the fact is that the leader of Iran is a Holocaust denier. So anyone who would believe that the leader of Iran, who is a holocaust denier has a rationale opinion that is noteworthy on this subject must be pretty biased.--MONGO 19:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

We've both been editing this page and article for awhile now, so accusations of wikistalking are a bit ridiculous. If you stop making personal attacks, I will stop replying to you and asking you to stop them. I guess asking someone to be civil (as I am doing for you) is "POV pushing" given that I am taking the POV that Wiki policies regarding civility should be adhered to. I'm sorry if you have a problem with that, but when you make personal attacks and threaten other users you should expect to be called out on it. Folks who believe that the opinions of heads of state (even a Holocaust denier like Ahmadinejad) should be included are following Wiki policies, not being biased, and certainly not siding with Holocaust deniers.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Using "and" makes the title meaningless. There is no topic called "State Terrorism" which the USA government could have a policy/effect/relationship with. Gronky 11:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

BTP and Gronk: I disagree; using the word "and" clearly indicates that there is a notable relationship between the U.S. and State Terrorism which notable and authoritative people have remarked upon. By changing the word "by" to "and", it further opens up the article to commentary on what the nature of this "notable relationship" might be. The deletionists on this page insist that the title is inherently POV and limits the scope of the article; while i disagree wholeheartedly, by changing the article name to such an open-ended subject it would allow the deletionists a free hand when crafting their criticisms of the idea.

Of course, it would also allow the contributing editors to this page a bit more freedom as well; but it would complicate matters for the current contributors insofar as allowing this greater rhetorical space would force them to address criticisms that are not strictly historical in nature. Currently, content is limited to easily proved U.S. participation in events which are plainly terrorist in nature. By opening up the title of the page, we can allow the deletionists space in which they can make their claims that certain events were not terrorist, or that certain events can not be ascribed to the United States, or clarify the justifications and rationalizations used to support the U.S. policy that ensured involvement in such events.

MONGO: As usual, your comments and objections to the suggestion here are strictly ad hominem and/or off topic. Nevertheless, i am still offering this solution as an attempt to reach a good-faith consensus for this article. Stone put to sky 12:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This from the man who began a recent reply with "Bullshit." Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ad hominin fallacy. Don't talk about "the man," talk about the content/merits of the argument the "man' mankes. Btw, there is nothing wrong with starting a reply with a strong thesis, claim (such as the claim that he was responding being pure BS, which I agree is correct) as long as he supports his own claim with a clear refutation of the BS, thus, proving it to be so. And, he did that. Therefore, I don't understand the problem you have with this recent reply.Giovanni33 14:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

'Cause BS is not permitted he should have been calling them "stupid", "Anti-American", "Leftists" and "Trolls." Those are the only strong words permitted. --SixOfDiamonds 16:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks do not excuse personal attacks. Civility is still policy, even if people are uncivil to you. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you can apply your comments evenly and leave a message for Mongo for his below diatribe. Thanks. --SixOfDiamonds 19:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You could do the same with Stone-put-to-sky and his persistent incivility. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You as an administrator have taken the task and responsibility, without bias I would hope. --SixOfDiamonds 19:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

How about we use the McClintock definition and call it Counter-terrorism and the United States. There's plenty of sources that say the U.S. engages in counter-terrorism. --Tbeatty 15:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Lest we forget, many terrorist-like activities are disguised as counterterrorism, i.e. Operation Condor.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 19:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Not disguised, tactically low-intensity warfare often mandates such tactics when combating an insurgency. --MichaelLinnear 07:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You probably are not aware that much of the "insurgents" in Operation Condor were innocent civilians whose terrorist activitise consisted of having differing political opinions. Here "counterterrorism" clearly was a device to instill terror in the population "disguised as counterterrorism".Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty counter-terrorism is the practice of fighting terrorism. It does not refer to perpetrating acts of terrorism.WacoJacko 12:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, "counter-terrorism" may be used to kill off potential future terrorists and other troublemakers. Btw, what about the 1965-1967 Indonesian genocide? It was activley supported by USA who provided death lists, weapons and communication equipment. // Liftarn

This page is terribly biased

I am appalled at the bias of this page. It is as if it had been written solely by patriotic Americans who are blinded as to how the rest of the world perceives them. Wake up call! - it isn't just Noam Chumsky that thinks that USA is the cause of global terrorism. Most of the world outside of the USA thinks so. Since the end of world war 2, a war in which USA came in at the end having milked it financially while the whole of Europe suffered, USA has engaged in atrocity after atrocity right across the world, especially the middle east and south america. Most of the world's terrorism is in response to USA's state-sponsored terrorism. Think about why people are willing to lose their lives over this. Because they are insane? Because they have too much money? Or because there has been a grave injustice. The solution to terrorism isn't to attack them with missiles - it is to remove what faults we have made, and to undo them and remedy the problems. Throwing bombs at terrorists just makes it bigger. It is like cutting the head off the hydra - remove one head and two more grow.

It is quite normal historically for the most powerful nation on earth (which in most respects USA has been since the end of world war 2) to engage in atrocities of this nature, to cover them up to hide them from their own people, and to then blame everyone else. From Romans to Egyptians to British to Spanish, every powerful nation has done it. It is very important for the average American to be aware of this. Perhaps it is necessary for it to occur in order for USA to remain as the most powerful nation. If China becomes number 1, will they do any less? Of course not. They would do exactly the same kinds of things. It is just that if China becomes powerful, then Americans will be more outraged about it, while people who are closer to China will think that China is all fine. It is all a matter of who is lying to who.

This article is important, but it needs to be written by non-Americans. Americans should recuse themselves from writing it as they are, by their very nationality, ridiculously biased about this. 123.2.168.215 14:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

--MichaelLinnear 20:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of your points, except I disagree with your conclusion. Not all Americans are nationalists, or bigots, unable to tolerate criticism of their govt. Thus, ones nationality does not automatically predispose one to unable to be neutral (pro-American govt) any more or any less than NOT being American makes one anti-American. Thus, I have to disagree with your prescription (not your description), just as I have to object to editor like Mongo who make the same mistake in reasoning, judging someone based on their nationality. I'm refering to this, as the most recent example: " 06:04, 4 July 2007 MONGO (Talk | contribs) (61,303 bytes) (revert vandalism by anon IP, soon ot end up blocked...shoul we belive than an editor from Brunei Darussalam is not anti-American? I think not.)"Giovanni33 15:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I love it when anonymous IP's make such bullshit commentary. It also is certainly notable that Giovanni33 has a twisted view of the U.S., and indeed spends an overwhelming percentage of his edits trying to find whatever hairbrained fault he can about the U.S. and call it "fact". His outrageous block log is proof positive that he is an edit warring nuisance that should have been perma banned long ago. Whenever single purpose accounts like Giovanni33 misuse Wikipedia to promote their hate and bias incessantly into article space, they should be banned. I see that as a strong liklihood in the near future if Giovanni33 doesn't stop his POV pushing. See his block log and known sockpuppet accounts.--MONGO 18:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

More attacks as a response, MONGO, only makes you look very foolish and weak. Your editing on this article is predicated on bullying and attacking others, it appears. This has to stop. When you can't support your claims (with is almost always), you just attack the person, and make more unsupported claims. No wonder you were de-sysoped! I agree with others that if you don’t change your behavior, you should get banned-- at least from this article. Hopefully, it won’t come to that.

I won’t dignify your irrelevant comments about my past block log of last year that has nothing to do with this, but I note its a special case of argumentum ad hominen--poisoning the well fallacy. I also note that your further claims are baseless (just name calling is not very convincing), while you have ignored my valid point valid about your false reasoning. In fact, in looking at some of your other edits, I am surprised to find other examples of this invalid reasoning, indicative of bigotry and xenophobia. For example, I note that you also wrote these gems consistent with the pattern here: MONGO (rv, antiwar foreigners pushing their POV)[8] MONGO (rv...the australian news piece is mostly opinion from a foreign newspaper, the wording was clearly POV in the remainder of the information.) [9] You reverted the anon editor above, and called it “vandalism,” when it was clearly just content dispute. But, you did an IP trace to make sure to attack him/her for where he was editing from—his country. And, used your nativist assumptions to base your bigoted reasoning in an attack on the users national origin as indicative of proof that he was “anti-American.” That is really stupid of you. And, you threatened that he will get banned, etc. This bullying, personal attacks, and national chauvinism has no place here on WP. If you persist with this kind of disruption, then its you who will likely be banned. Have a good day!Giovanni33 22:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"Ahh, the personal attacks. the last refuge. But it is about the level I expect. No response. No sources. Just ad hominem. --Tbeatty" The irony. --SixOfDiamonds 18:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious you're a sock of another editor. Once I figure out which one that is and if that is of a previously banned editor, you'll be banned again. All single purpose accounts that are disruptive and do nothing but POV pushing should be banned. You already have one block and there will surely be more soon.--MONGO 19:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, with the greatest of respect, perhaps you should take your own advice (which I thought was really good advice by the way). I'm sure that if the accusations you make have any merit they will be pursued. I'm also sure you know that this is not the proper place in which to raise them. If we could try to keep focussed here on the article that would be great. --John 19:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a right to defend myself from an obvious disrupter and you shouldn't be defending his disruption just because he has a similar POV to yours.--MONGO 19:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The further irony. I am preparing to ask you be banned from participating on this page. The following remarks have been nothing but attacks on users: [10][11][12][13][14][15] They are out of line and your participation here has been in the manner of pushing people around, instead of attempting to work with them in a collaborative manner. I do not know if you have any further conspiracy theories on who everyone who opposes you actually is, but save them, you already went through your Checkuser and it showed I was not a sock. You should be well aware that Checkuser will show other accounts that have used the same IP. If one of those was a banned user, it would have came up. Now refrain from further threats and attempt to help this article reach a place where further complaints over NPOV can be addressed. --SixOfDiamonds 19:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Good luck to you on that. The diffs showing that you are a POV pushing WP:SPA are, well, all the diffs.--MONGO 19:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Congrats I award you a tin foil hat --SixOfDiamonds 20:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Could we again focus on the article, although exchanging pet names can be very entertaining it is not what WP does. If that is your pleasure please visit a forum or blog.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 19:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree..let's get the name changed to a non POV title first. Anyone can write a book and say the U.S. is a terrorist state or has supported terrorism, but until someone can show me where any internationally recognized body has decreed that the U.S. is such, then the article is simply a violation of WP:SYNTH and undue weight to advance a position...Wikipedia is not a soapbox--MONGO 20:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you will never be satisfied, which is fine, since your requirements are beyond policy. I am guessing people will see your requests, treat them as they should be, and work in a fashion that improves the article. --SixOfDiamonds 20:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I cite policies this article currently violates...if you choose to see it otherwise, then I can't help you become a better Wikipedia contributor. But you're not there to do anything other than POV push...so far, that is all you have done.--MONGO 20:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

More attacks. --SixOfDiamonds 20:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

At this point I think the best thing we could all do stay off this talk page for a while. I'm going to follow my own recommendation. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good suggestion Tom. I think it would be good for all of us to cool off for awhile and work elsewhere, however I have doubts that this will happen. I think we should all consider Tom's suggestion though and ponder the question of whether anything constructive is going on here right now.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly going to take Tom's suggestion. Nothing positive will come from this discussion unless editors can remember to focus on contributions rather than the contributor. I don't see that happening right now. Maybe if we come back in a week or so we can have a better discussion. See you then. --John 21:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

RfC about this page or about several users?

I have been asking around about what can be done with this page, and other pages like it.

There is a group of editors who edit and AfD vote in tandem here.

They have strong biases and will do anything to remove information which is contrary to their POV.

I have seen none of them, with the exception of Ultramarine, contribute anything to this article, instead they spend all of there time posting AfDs are removing large sections of this article and articles like it.

They attempt to bolster their POV by hiding behind policy. These arguments on the talk page here are the same recycled arguments from months, even years ago. They dont want to comprimise, their behavior make this crystal clear. The bottom line is that these editors want this article to cease to exist, and will do anything to make this happen. AfD's, twisting policy, deleting large sections of referenced text: anything to purge wikipedia of views they dont agree with.

On this page, many strawpolls have been launched and nothing happened. A moderator was assigned to this page at one point and nothing happened. I think it is time for a RfC, followed by an Arbcom.

I am troubled by how these editors remove large portions of text from articles they personally disagree with, I am concerned about how they use wikipolicy to push their POV, I am concerned at how other editors in the past have accused three or four of these editors of working in tandem off wiki.

My question is this:

Should the RfC be for this page alone or for these group of editors? WP:RfC said it was okay to have a group of editors in a RFC.69.152.136.146 19:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Travb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)--MONGO 19:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the distruptive users should be warned first, then blocked, and then if they don't behave, should be banned from this article, at least. So far they've only been distrupive.Giovanni33 22:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --Tbeatty 05:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Up for deletion

This template: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:State_terrorism is up for deletion. 69.152.136.146 19:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

MONGO. Please dont remove this posting. This is not canvassing. Please abide by what you wrote here: "do not ever revert my comments agian"[16] 69.152.136.146 20:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS only applies to talk pages per: Canvassing (also known as "internal spamming" and "cross-posting") is overtly soliciting the opinions of other Wikipedians on their talk pages, and it is controversial. Please stop removing this notice. Thank you. --SixOfDiamonds 20:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You better read the page again..."However, it is agreed that disruptive canvassing, even if it seems to be within guidelines below, is never acceptable."...posting this here is deliberately disruptive and comments made at the Tfd by yourself and anon IP's have been disruptive. Don't be disruptive. you need to read WP:TE and I would do so real soon.--MONGO 20:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

More attacks, and its not disruptive. Its a simple notice and valid since the template covers this article. PS your attacks are boring, attempting to be a virtual bully will not get you far. Try working with the people here, much like Tom, he is a shinning example of a constructive editor even when he does not agree with the topic. --SixOfDiamonds 20:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Tom is a shining example. I deal with single purpose accounts and POV pushers directly and bluntly. If you can't handle my factual accord of your contributions then I can't help you. There are like 1.8 million other articles for you to work on, I know, I started a few myself and have featured content here as well. You have offered nothing to Wikipedia since you showed up, out of the blue to vote on the Afd for this article and have been POV pushing since. You'll likely end up banned if you don't make some major adjustments.--MONGO 20:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yawn* more chest beating. --SixOfDiamonds 21:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That last comment is a fine example of WP:BITE and WP:NPA. Well done Mongo. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 21:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see a personal attack or a newbie. He has no meaningful contributions and he is worred about termplate deletions. --Tbeatty 22:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please also don't forget to Assume Good Faith. This kind of incivility isn't helping your arguement. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 22:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Nor yours. --Tbeatty 00:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Seabhcan - You seem to be the POV icon of what civility is. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not the playground can you people stop attacking each other. --SixOfDiamonds 12:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

New or not, sock or not, how is announcing the TfD here "deliberately disruptive"? Boggle. BenB4 09:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Introduction/Overview section is incoherent

When this page can be edited again, someone should draft a new overview paragraph because it reads like a bunch of random sentences stringed together by people all trying to get their voices heard. Plus the use of the word 'cult' after Chomsky's name has negative implication and is POV. Just some comment from an ammused on-looker.Wiegrajo 13:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately, the article was protected the way, before it could be fixed. If you look at the history, you can see there is a coherent, neutral intro. This will be fixed as soon as protection ends, of course. I hope you stick around to help this article. Thanks.Giovanni33 01:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Protection ain't going away until we can all agree on what to do after it ends. - Merzbow 18:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Template trimming

There were a lot of messages at the top. I combined them into one of the newer templates. I know this was not discussed, but I didn't think it affected content of the article. If there is anyone who doesn't think this was good. I'll switch them back. Sancho 17:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Puppet accounts

• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Travb Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting.WacoJacko 23:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup... the bottom line is that edits by IPs that begin in 68. and 69. on this article are likely from that one editor. - Merzbow 02:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and they all seem to have quite an extreme agenda.....WacoJacko 03:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any 'extreme agenda," and I think talk like that violates WP policy, assume good faith. Also, there is nothing wrong with editing as an anon IP. Anon IP should carry just as much weight as anyone else. If its been established that serveral IP's are one person, then we treat them all as one person for evaluating consensus, and 3RR.Giovanni33 15:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Good to know, and I think it's safe to say that edits from these IP addresses should carry little or no weight as we work on this article. I'm not familiar with Travb's past participation on this page (I think it basically all took place before I came here), but if this user is interested in contributing they should obviously do so openly, not anonymously via dynamic IP addresses.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

One of the socks is User:Divestment, who moved the article to its present name against consensus.[17] Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

What i find even more interesting is that Travb bent over backwards to try and accommodate the deletionists here, and has always tried to resolve edit wars in the most amenable way. My sense of him is that he was a rather young man whose imagination and passion was sparked by Wikipedia ideals.

More to the point, though: so far as i have seen, he has never -- in any of his manifestations -- been guilty of deleting mass quantities of material, of sparking (or continuing) edit wars, calling for specious and tendentious AfD's every six months, of rejecting any and every effort to reach a consensus, nor of broadcasting and canvassing large groups of unrelated wikipedia editors to fall upon this page for the express purpose of violating WP:NPOV, WP:POINT or WP:SOAPBOX. Other posters here -- posting under their "real" names -- have, however, and so i find this sudden righteous outburst from Tom as hypocritical. Is that a big deal compared to unrecalcitrant repeat violators of policy who consistently post from a named account? Hardly, i think. Stone put to sky 07:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Even more to the point, though: so far as i have seen, Tom has never -- in any of his post -- been guilty of creating mass quantities of original research, of sparking (or continuing) edit wars, calling for the creation of specious and tendentious sections every day, of rejecting any and every effort to reach a consensus, nor of broadcasting and canvassing large groups of unrelated wikipedia editors to fall upon this page for the express purpose of violating WP:NPOV, WP:POINT, WP:NOR, WP:NPA or WP:SOAPBOX. Other posters here -- posting under their psuedonymous names -- have, however, and so i find this sudden righteous outburst from Stone as hypocritical. Is that a big deal compared to unrecalcitrant repeat violators of policy who consistently post from a psuedonym account? Hardly, i think. --Tbeatty 08:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You are allowed to post via IP as long as you do not have any Arbcom hearings pending, or are not evading a block. You can read it all on the policy page for sockpuppets. Its why the IP's have not been blocked, since it seems Travb did not have a pending Arbcom/block. --74.73.16.230 11:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Avoiding scrutiny from other editors Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

His deletion log says "right to vanish." Checkuser shows multiple IP's which probably signifies dialup. Unlike myself he may not have the option of using a single IP. --74.73.16.230 14:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Even more to the point, though: so far as i have seen, Tom has never -- in any of his post -- been guilty of creating mass quantities of original research,

Nobody here has, either. Stone put to sky 08:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

of sparking (or continuing) edit wars,

Last edit war a direct consequence of Tom's frivolous posts, followed by mass deletions of sourced material. Stone put to sky 08:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

calling for the creation of specious and tendentious sections every day,

There are no specious nor tendentious sections in this entire article -- unless you consider the reporting of targeted assassination, mass murder, torture, and genocide "specious and tendentious". Stone put to sky 08:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

of rejecting any and every effort to reach a consensus,

Tom has never contributed anything to the article; he has only deleted; and every effort by him has always been to delete the article, its content, or water it down so that the information presented here disappears altogether. Every attempt to enjoin him in adding content more to his liking has been met with rejection. So really, you're just flat-out lying here. Stone put to sky 08:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

nor of broadcasting and canvassing large groups of unrelated wikipedia editors to fall upon this page for the express purpose of violating WP:NPOV, WP:POINT, WP:NOR, WP:NPA or WP:SOAPBOX.

Well, not Tom. But his good buddy Morton Devonshire certainly does. Stone put to sky 08:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Other posters here -- posting under their psuedonymous names -- have, however,

Some others have. But not Travb. Straw men do burn. Be careful with the insinuations. Stone put to sky 08:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

and so i find this sudden righteous outburst from Stone as hypocritical.

Righteous? I said i was right in comparison to others? How odd --

Do you mean you can't tell the difference between getting up on a high horse and spouting self-congratulatory bullshit from rising to defend another poster?

I think you need to do some work on your vocabulary, there, "tbeatty". Stone put to sky 08:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Is that a big deal compared to unrecalcitrant repeat violators of policy who consistently post from a psuedonym account? Hardly, i think.

But of course, one would expect that from yet another of the unrecalcitrant deletionist crowd. Stone put to sky 08:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you really serious? Defending Travb is fine, but excoriating those who would like to know it's him (and were correct), while at the same time you file a Checkuser of Ultramarine with specious reasoning takes a special kind of hypocrisy (BTW, your CU will be rejected because of that specious reasoning, consider this foreshadowing). Didn't you just get done praising Ultramaring for working with you? And accusing others of being with the "deletionist crowd" is exceptionally rich considering your current edit war where you delete the entire criticism section of a fringe theory. [18][19]. The reality is that you appear to be interested only in your POV. --Tbeatty 09:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

No; the reality is that i am interested in building an accurate, useful, relevant, and complete Wikipedia consistent with wiki-policy. Once again, we have here an fruitcake claiming to be a vegetable, while calling the carrot a slug. 218.160.182.247 09:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I see the fruitcake and vegetable bit, but where did you call me a slug? --Tbeatty 09:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay Stone put to sky, you can step down from the soapbox, and please, please try to remember WP:SOAPBOX for once.WacoJacko 09:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I would ask for concision from Stone but when you do struggle through what he says you find that most of it is irrelevant to the matters at hand. Perhaps it would be more prudent to simply ask him to speak less. --72.84.41.13 09:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll

Thought you may all be interested in this old straw poll:

• Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America-strawpolls

The moderator User:Wikizach decided which sections to keep and delete as a result of this strawpoll.

• Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America/Archive_5#RESULTS

It was ignored by those who want to delete this article.

This back and forth will go into perpetuity unless there is a RfC.

In my opinon, any widespread deletion of referenced information is terrible. It doesn't matter whose POV that is being deleted. I wish all wikipedians felt the same way. 68.90.182.192 00:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If there had been consensus support for the slanted rename and rewrite, it shouldn't have been necessary for Stone-put-to-sky and SixOfDiamonds to violate 3rr, and for Travb/Divestment/VariousIPs to use puppet accounts. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I never touched the title. --74.73.16.230 14:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Who is 'I'? Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The same person who has been using this IP. SixOfDiamonds. This is written on my talk page and on this page even. --74.73.16.230 14:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Then why don't you log in? Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph 2 on my talk page. --74.73.16.230 14:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Also your input regarding United Fruit is interesting, you should readd it when you have the chance and explain the link better between their loss of land that given back to the people, and the economic loss of outside nations. From my reading it seems much of the country was owned by outside companies. --74.73.16.230 14:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes? I thought I never added anything to the article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I think you are reffering to this

"Rewriting now to meet your requirements, I wish you were an editor, then you would be able to contribute here. However I have found some sources that support him such as other Generals and a statement by Arroyo etc. I am actually considering starting an article on Phillipino State Terrorism thanks to this information, but first I need to finish writing that article on the Cuban terrorist.

Your response of "Thank you" led me to believe my assumption was correct, the assumption being you as an administrator cannot edit articles as it would a conflict of interest. I have since realize this is not the case. If you felt slighted you simply could have stated why and I would have apologized if I thought I offended you. So my apologies now as you have made it clear you felt offended. If you were offended why did you respond with "Thank you"? --74.73.16.230 15:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Cuba Section

{{editprotected}} Requesting edit to paragraph 8 of 2.1.1 The first mention of "Jose Antonio Llama" to be wiki-linked as such. The article has been created about the person. Thank you. --SixOfDiamonds 14:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Also the 6th paragraph of the same section. A wiki-link around the "Cuban American National Foundation" as it is the first mention as well. Thank you. --SixOfDiamonds 15:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Done, the article is unprotected.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You missed one, I got it. east.718 20:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)