This article was nominated for deletion on August 9, 2006. The result of the discussion was No Consensus.

Please see Talk:American terrorism for an older discussion relevant to this topic.

Archives

Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America/archive1

Lets discuss each section and attempt to come to a rough consensus.

I took the highly unusual step of cutting and pasting ever single comment which is relevant to every section, then I archived the earlier talk page.

Everyone is welcome to debate these sections, but I think we need to come to a consensus about what this article should include, and what it should not include, First see #What is terrorism? to comment. This worked very well with another controversial page, the predecessor to: List_of_United_States_military_history_events.

To keep the organization intact, please respond to my comments in this section #Debates about content comments, create a new section, or respond in any of the sections below. Travb (talk) 03:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title of the article

After this AfD, i am going to merge this article with American terrorism, I think that is the general consesus. Travb (talk) 03:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with this move. The term "American" terrorism is vague and ambiguous, and to me, it almost sounds like a racial slur. This article is about acts that the government of the US has undertaken. Calling it "American" accuses the population as a whole of these aledged crimes. I would equally object to an article such as "Jewish terrorism" or "Arab terrorism", however, "Terrorism by Israel" or "Terrorism by Egypt" (with good content) would be acceptable and NPOV. Material from American terrorism could be moved here, however.Self-Described Seabhcán 11:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to concur with Seabhcan.--MONGO 13:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:State_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America#Reason_for_creation has 3 or 4 merge votes, I didn't know this was contentious. Travb (talk) 04:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a while American terrorism was stable as American terrorism (term), as part of some deal involving Islamofascism, if I remember right. It has been about the use of the term in contemporary discourse. The name was changed at the end of May. If it is just going to be a collection of anectdotes chosen to convince readers of the US' essential moral equivalence with Al-Qaida, I have no preference what title is used. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we can narrow it down to one article, then it is easier to keep all the radical POV pushing in one place. According to certain perspectives, virtually any recognized government entity could be found to have committed some manner of terrorists action. I suppose for a title requirement, moving American Terrorism to this article is more accurate though I stated the opposite on the Afd.--MONGO 19:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the AfD is to keep I'd recommend keeping it as-is as the name. Precedent has been set to keep the other "State terrorism by..." articles, as should this one stay. It's really nothing to do (as said above) with POV pushing or anything silly like that. From my comment just now on AfD: "Nothing POV about this title, or State terrorism by Canada, State terrorism by Sweden, State terrorism by Ukraine, State terrorism by Japan, State terrorism by Israel, or State terrorism by India. The "domestic" viewpoint--that is, the 'home' view of the government or local media of that nation--has no role in determining what is considered state terrorism, really. Would domestic Canadian media or government in 99% of cases even refer to it's actions as state terrorism? Or any other nation? Of course not. To call the US article POV and unsalvageable is simply patriotic bluster. I love America, I live here, but if a sanctioned United Nations court said something we did for example is terrorism, guess what? It's terrorism. Editorial/domestic POV has no place in the content or name of an article. Facts are facts--whether they are locally disliked facts are irrelevant, I'm unhappy to admit. The article needs to stay, as do the others from the original forking based on this."

Simply put, each of the articles has merit as they exist now, and I'll politely remind everyone we are not here to support a pro-Syria, pro-Libya, or pro-United States viewpoint--anyone here for that is here for the very wrong reasons. We're here to build a factually accurate encyclopedia based on WP:V and WP:RS, and the others. Whether the source of the RS is not to one's taste is utterly irrelevant and not for consideration--does it meet RS by the written policy? If so, it counts. rootology (T) 22:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--- I like rootology's idea of calling this article "Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America", and I think this naming should be applied to all countries. Why? Because who _proves_ such a thing? Do we have international trials for national governments that sponsor state terrorism? If not, then we never had anything proven. Further, it's clear that getting people to agree on a definition of state terrorism is problematic. That's why I think this series of articles, if they concentrate on noteworthy, well-sourced allegations, will be much easier to develop in an NPOV manner. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 03:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey stevie I am really glad you brought this up. This was one issue that I wanted to tackle with this article.

Unfortunatly, I have to disagree with the name change. First of all, in regards to your question: Do we have international trials for national governments that sponsor state terrorism? See Nicaragua v. US. Second, Allegation is a weasel word, please see WP:AWW. Instead, is there any name that we can come up with which relays the idea of terrorism, but is less controversial?

Great suggestions though, looking forward to your edits. Travb (talk) 04:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is allegation a weasel word if it's a sourced allegation from a government or notable organization? Further, I'm not interested in making any edits to this particular article. As you can tell by my contributions, I'm working on plenty other things at the moment. I'm just concerned about this article from afar. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 05:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Stevie if I offended you. I wish they had another name for weasel words. The term offends people. Any other suggestions for the title? I am trying to brain storm, but I am not doing to well, I am hoping we can find a name which is a "eurika" name which everyone can agree on. There maybe some people who don't even want to change the name. We'll see what happens, another wikipedian called getting a consensus on a wikiarticle is like herding cats. Travb (talk) 05:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head, I'm thinking "State-sponsored actions to destabilize other nations outside of war". That's my best for late night.  :) Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 05:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the best name change would be to "Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America", mainly since there has not been, aside from a few minor examples, in which the U.S. has been brought to international courts for engaging in war crimes during peacetime. I suppose to let you know where I stand politically on issues similar to this, I wouldn't have apologized to Japan for Hiroshima or Nagasaki.--MONGO 05:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any clear nay's to my doing this right now? rootology (T) 06:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, done. Anyone objects, please rv me. :)rootology (T) 06:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I object, as I stated above, but I won't rock the boat. Hopefully we can come up with a better term.Travb (talk) 06:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it remains as "allegations", I would hope that articles about allegations would work in a similar vein as negative aspects in biographies of living persons. That is, each allegation should have roughly three independent verifiable reputable sources. And this should apply to allegations of such behavior by all countries... we certainly should be even-handed on something like this. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 06:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I did to just calm the extreme right types so that no one can scream POV about the title, and that work itself can get done. We can always move again to a better one and leave the original as needed redirects for search purposes. rootology (T) 06:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We could call it American terrorism (term); We could call it United States - evil empire of hypocrisy and badness plus they owned slaves. Maybe Allegations of state terrorism by the United States would work. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The second selection looks fine with me -- seems to capture the intent. Morton devonshire 17:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rootology wrote: To be honest I did to just calm the extreme right types so that no one can scream POV about the title User:Morton devonshire wrote: The second selection looks fine with me -- seems to capture the intent You are a genius rootology--mission accomplished, great job! I think I am going to give you a barnstar award. Travb (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, now that we have consensus, I will rename the article tonight. Cheers. Morton devonshire 21:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop disrupting. There is no concensus for that renaming. rootology (T) 21:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be consistent, LinaMishima might tell you to WP:AGF and WP:NPA, but I wouldn't want to represent her point of view. Cheers. Happy editing! Morton devonshire 21:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being consistant is stating there is no consensus for a renaming and encouraging you to engage more in the calm discussion of improvements, carefully arguing a point rather than only stating a policy. Also, accepting how others might (wrongly) percieve an action and nicely explaining that this is not your intent tends to make people think more of you and get them to listen to you more. LinaMishima 22:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this page be "Allegations of state terrorism by the United States"? Any other page only has "United States" as its title, not "United States of America". Iolakana|^T 17:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism Synonyms

See: thesaurus.com terrorism

Not a single one seems like a less controversial Synonym, or even a relevant synonym.

I think that this article would benefit from a name change because of the experience I had with the page, History of United States Imperialism, which was constantly being put up for deletion. I suggested changing the title, and another user came up with the Template:AmericanEmpire suddenly all of our work was not exactly mainstream but tolerated as a real encyclopedic article. Since then there has been no AfDs, and much of the controversy and attacks from other wikipedians have disappeared, all because of a simple name change. Travb (talk) 04:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Start at the top

This article needs a better title. "American terrorism" is needlessly POV, and "Allegations of state terrorism by USA" could imply that the allegations (instead of the alleged terrorism) come from the U.S. I'm afraid I can't think of anything better offhand. Fagstein 17:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is more POV about the first than the second?--Paraphelion 17:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have similar concerns about State terrorism in Sri Lanka and State terrorism in Syria? rootology (T) 17:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion is that any article with the word allegation or accusation or alleged or similar terms are inherently POV and unencyclopaedic.--Kalsermar 18:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is terrorism?

I think it is important to define exactly what should be in the article and what should not be in the article. "Terrorism" is a label that can apply to many actions.

Does terrorism in this article deal with:

Signed: Travb (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not object to mediation if people think it would be useful, but I have seen way worse pages than this. One thing to remember is, there is no deadline. Another thing to remember is, an encyclopedic definition of terrorism does not come from a dozen random guys who chose to edit Wikipedia one day. We absolutely do not get to craft our own definition of terrorism, or to vote on the definition we like best. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like most of your statments Tom, I agree in part, disagree in part. Another thing to remember is, an encyclopedic definition of terrorism does not come from a dozen random guys who chose to edit Wikipedia one day. I agree. That is why I provided encyclopedic definitions. What would you suggest instead Tom? I am trying to get a viable comprimise. Thus far you have provided a lot of critism of my comprimises, and provided no alternatives of your own. The way you dismiss my idea, your statment makes it sound like I am attempting to write a new dictionary, and place my name on it. I am attempting to avoid future edit wars, and focus our work. Terrorism is a vague term, as you showed by your #Links above.

We absolutely do not get to craft our own definition of terrorism, or to vote on the definition we like best. Actually, we can. No matter what people claim, wikipedians vote for things all the time, and decide via consensus what should be included and what should be excluded from articles. As you showed with your #Links above, there is a wide variety of defintions on terrorism. What terrorism are we talking about here? Are war crimes terrorism? Is all torture terrorism? I don't see an answers to those questions from you. If we don't decide on a defintion, ever war that America has ever been in can be included in this list. NYC is wondering if we should include the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasoki. Should we? If we should why? If not why shouldn't we? Travb (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see I already linked to Definition of terrorism. I think what we are talking about are "allegations of terrorism." Cooking up our own definition, or voting on which definition we like best, would be original research. We should describe the allegation, and cite the source. As an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, that is what we do. We do not vote on a definition of 'planet', or 'bismuth'; We are just as unqualified to define terrorism. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the people at Definition of terrorism are qualified to define terrorism? What would you consider an example of state terrorism by United States of America? Which one of the dozen examples meets your defintion? I atttempted to explain why we needed a definition of terrorism within this article. I also encouraged you to give alternative suggestions, which you have given absolutly none, and continue to give absolutly, and will continue to give absolutly none.Travb (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point is, that page is not the definition of terrorism, it is an encyclopedia article about the definition of terrorism. This is an encyclopedia article about allegations of terrorism. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...this is why we need to define what terrorism is in this article. I think the intentional targeting of civilians can be considered terrorism.... Travb (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need to, or get to, define terrorism. Using summary style, we might include a paragraph about the definition of terrorism. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we agree what this article is going to cover? Can we agree that, staying true to its title, it will cover allegations of state terrorism? I hope we do and if so, that means that non implemented things, or opinions that are clearly not applicable, should go. As an example I deleted the Yugoslav court case. It might not have been pretty, or necessary, for the Clinton admin to go into Yugo, but it was a military operation, not terrorism. Note to that the "court" took no action. This article should not degenerate into a list of accusations and opinions from anti-americans against anything the US has ever done, planned or even thought to have planned.--Kalsermar 00:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism conducted by a military does not mean it's not terrorism.--Paraphelion 09:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism is impossible to define because it is in the eye of the victim. If Al Qaida bombs me I say it's terrorism, they say its war. If I bomb them I say its war, they say its terrorism. In reality, all war has an aspect of terrorism in it - remember 'shock and awe'? The stated aim was not just to defeat the Iraqis but to demonstrate US power through a demonstration of violent power. But it doesn't matter. Wikipedia's opinion of terrorism is Original Research. What we need is cited notable beliefs and statements on what terrorism is and isn't, from both sides of the arguement. Self-Described Seabhcán 10:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We had a similar issue on another article and I proposed that attacks such as car bombings and suicide bombings were in fact the method of freedom fighters / terrorists to declare and enact war. However their status and the fact that they do not follow the Geneva Convetion makes them terrorists. See while Osama bin Laden calls it warfare, and I call it warfare, its not recognized as legal warfare by the United Nations and so it gets labeled terrorism. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one should be easy, if it is commited by a national military during authorized operations it can never be terrorism. Therefore, downing the Iranian plane cannot be terrorism as it occured during a war scenario by the US military under full control of the authorities. If it is commited by a non-national (para)military group or an extra-national group, Hamas, Al-Qaida, IRA etc, it is terrorism, especially if commited without regard for civilian life.--Kalsermar 18:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What should this article cover?

Okay, maybe asking to define terrorism in the wrong approach, because thus far both Tom and User:Seabhcan, two ideological opposites, seem to think this is pointless. How about we approach it this way:

Does terrorism in this article deal with:

• political assinations?
• war crimes?
• torture?
• accidental military actions?

I personally think the following should be included :

• torture
• Many covert CIA actions, but not all covert CIA actions
• military campaigns which "intentionally" target civilians

The following should not be included :

• political assinations
• war crimes
• accidental military actions
• military campaigns which target "legitamate" military targets, but accidently kill civilians.

...should we try to reach a consensus on each section now, or wait? Because when I write this list of what should and should not be included, certain sections automatically stay, and certain sections seem to drop out. Do we include accusations by other countries that the US is conducting terrorism, as long as we state in the article? Is this allowed as long as we clearly begin the section by stating that "Country x accused the US of terrorism..."? I think we should. What do you all think?

Maybe instead of trying to define which general acts are terrorism, it would be easier to define what general acts are not terrorism.

Signed: Travb (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above, first section, are acts of terrorism. An act of terrorism is when you specifically target civilians. Political assassinations are .... political assassinations, political figured are normally religious or governmental leaders. War crimes are war crimes, events taking place during the course of a war, declared by act of congress, are not acts of terrorism, unless specifically targetting civilians to instill terror. Covert CIA actions proven to target civilians, meaning kill them purposely are acts of terrorism and state sponsored terrorism. Covert CIA actions not targetting civilians is not terrorism. Torture is not terrorism if the person is not being tortured to instill terrorism on a larger scale. If they are publically tortured or annouced publically to be tortured or some combination that involved inflicting fear on a civilian populace then its terrorism. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I largely agree with this.--Kalsermar 18:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about CIA actions not targetting civilians but meant to terrorize civilians?--Paraphelion 16:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a distinction should be made as well as to whether the actions were authorized and who exactly commits it.--Kalsermar 18:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not Terrorism, Allegations of Terrorism

Perhaps this whole debate about what terrorism is, is not necessary. This is accustations of terrorism. All we need to document are other notable groups - states, NGOs, for example, that have accussed America of terrorism. Whether or not it is terrorism is not our concern. If available, we can include accuser's explainations of why they view one thing or another as terrorism, but that is not necessarily required either. The article can of course further discuss whether or not it is terrorism - as cited from notable and reliable op-ed sources.--Paraphelion 16:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically you are creating an anti-american page then. This list will just be a compilation of accusations by anyone with a wikipedia article on any topic regardless of proof. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The burden isn't on Wikipedia to proove or disproove whether it WAS terrorism, it's an article about accusations leveled against the United States of America. However, there are certainly going to be refutations of the same and comments about them from the US State Department, the White House, various press secretaries through history, the United Nations, major media groups reporting on the things I just mentioned, and so on. If you do some research you will likely find some. As mentioned above by me, the role of Wikipedia is not to bash a country, nor to support a country. It's to have articles about notable events, things, and people. Accusations of terrorism are notable. rootology (T) 16:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create the page. If that is what you want it to be, you can certainly argue for that. This is what the page is titled. Accusation does not imply proof. However, I would expect that only notable accusations from established organizations, such as other states and NGOs would be listed here, not anyone at all with an accusation. Why would you assume that any accusation by anyone at all would be listed here? Are there any other articles in wikipedia where any random non-notable crackpot with something to say is included in a related article, or are you just being disingenuous? Additionally, I am not arguing for or against this article's existence.--Paraphelion 17:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with accusations of terrorism, if you read this article, is there is not many. Most of the articles being used as sources only list one person making the accusations, at times not even someone qualified, such as Chomsky, or at other times no such accusation existing. The second paragraph in the Cuba section does not have a single source stating the act was terrorism or the US sponsored terrorism ... Why anyone would not consider this a POV article when its sole focus is to create a soapbox for single accusations is beyond me. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has it ever occured to anyone btw that WP is an encyclopaedia and encyclopaedia's should deal in facts, not allegations or accusations? --Kalsermar 18:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree however it was voted no concensus in the AfD. Which really isnt a keep nor a delete. Most of the items dont even have sources that call the events terrorism or state sponsorship of it. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zer0faults wrote: Basically you are creating an anti-american page then. And what is wrong with creating a anti-american page? The dominant users of wikipedia are Americans, and there is an overwhelming American bias and outlook. After all of the arguments about wikipedia policy, we finally get to the real reason that you have with the page, User:Zer0faults: you don't want to create an "anti-american page". I have asked people before, not to fling around the "anti-American" label, which is counter productive. I haven't called anyone or anyone's ideas here an imperialist, jingoist, apologist, or facist, and I never will. Labels are simply boxes which we place others in who do not have the same beleifs that we do. These boxes create walls that hinder understanding.

User:Zer0faults wrote: This list will just be a compilation of accusations by anyone with a wikipedia article on any topic regardless of proof. User:Zer0faults, you have talked a lot about what should not be in the page, why not start talking about what should be in the page--it appears obvious that if you had your choice, this page would no longer exist, unfortunatly, there was no consensus in the AfD, and this page does exist, and will continue to exist. Do any of the events listed on this page count as terrorism? I have yet to see you list one event as terrorism. Please list below under each subcategory, which events you personally feel are terrorism.

User:Zer0faults wrote This list will just be a compilation of accusations by anyone with a wikipedia article on any topic regardless of proof. Lets be honest User:Zer0faults: there is no level of proof which will satisfy you, this article has around 40 referenced sources, and that is not satisfactory to you. If this article had 100 sources, I am willing to bet it would not be satisfactory to you. I believe you start with the premise that America is the land of opportunity, a country which spreads freedom and democracy around the world, and those few times America does attrocious things, they are "mistakes" and anomalies. This is what is called American civil religion. It is a belief system that most Americans have to a certain degree, some more than others. I simply don't believe in this ideology. I believe that America has had gross human right violation and killed millions of people in its history, and keeps millions more in terrible poverty. Can we reconcile these two beliefs? Probably not. But I sure am going to try. The first step is for you to define terrorism. Not American terrorism, but terrorism in general. If country A kills civilians in country B, and this is labeled terrorism, then if country X kills civilians in country Y, then this should also be labeled terrorism. I will respond to your excellent points above a little bit later.Travb (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning of article: Definition_and_the_term_American_terrorism

Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America#Definition_and_the_term_American_terrorism

in

• The whole beggining of the article, definitions and such.--Kalsermar 0128, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Federal Criminal Code definition of terrorism deletion

The following was deleted, after being added today:[1]

The United States has defined terrorism under the Federal Criminal Code. Chapter 113B of Part I of Title 18 of the United States Code defines terrorism and lists the crimes associated with terrorism.^[1] In Section 2331 of Chapter 113b, terrorism is defined as:

"..activities that involve violent... <or life-threatening acts>... that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and... appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and ...<if domestic>...(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States...<if international>...(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States..." Therefore, acts performed or supported by the U.S. government that meet this standard codified in U.S. law would constitute terrorism under U.S. law, at least if performed by someone other than the U.S. government.

Can the user who deleted this explain why? Or I will restore this edit. Travb (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I am restoring this deletion, the wikiuser states that it is original research,[2] which is absurd. Travb (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that wikiuser was Tom Harrison who as an administrator should know better. This is not the first time he has deleted fully sourced contributions with such non-explanations. I don't mean to get personal, it's not my nature, but I am glad other editors actually restored my contribution this time and called Tom on it.--NYCJosh 23:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism_of_the_term

Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America#Criticism_of_the_term

Cuba

Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America#Cuba Small revert war reguarding:

...The plan does not make clear whether or not U.S. citizens or military were to be intentionally harmed or killed.

This last sentence was removed. I am not sure why. This paragraph needs to be referenced, if it is okay with everyone, if it has no references within 24 hours (21:39, 17 August 2006), it can be removed. I have added two fact tags. Travb (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain how a plan that was never implemented has a place in an article about allegations of STT? Are we going to put in every plan ever concieved by the mind of man?--Kalsermar 21:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the extensive footnotes in this article now. I think root has already answered your question.

I removed:

http://www.blythe.org/nytransfer-subs/2001cov/11_Sept_2001_-_Another_Operation_Northwoods_ Excerpt from Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency, Doubleday, 2001

This link doesnt seem to work, if someone can get it fixed, added back to the article, but use:

<ref name = " "> {{cite web

| title =

| work =

| url =

| accessdate=2006-07-30

}} </ref>

PLEASE! Travb (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some dispute as to whether to include Operation Northwoods under the Cuba section or the Within the US section of this article. US Terrorism was perpetrated against Cuba (Operation Mongoose = the Cuba Project) and is well documented (e.g. National Security Archive). So far I know, there is no evidence that Operation Northwoods terrorist acts proposed by the Joint Chiefs against targets in the US were carried out (thanks to the civilian leadership under JFK nixing the proposal). So the Within the US section should only have the acts proposed but not carried out in Northwoods. --NYCJosh 22:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will state it again, Northwoods was not implemented so exactly what terrorism occured here? This is not Plans of terrorism thought up by US government officials.--Kalsermar 00:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a notable plan to commit terrorism related to several aspects in the article.--Paraphelion 00:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! It was a plan, are we going to deal in any and all plans ever concieved? No terrorism occured thus not covered by the topic of the article.--Kalsermar 00:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strawman - I am not making a case to deal in any and all plans ever conceived. This particular plan relates directly to the topic of the article.--Paraphelion 02:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also took out the other bit under Cuba here. Which definition of terrorism does this fit into? Who was terrorized? Who got killed or targeted?--Kalsermar 00:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

in

• First part of the Cuba section.

--Kalsermar 0128, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The section: "The United States has refused to put on trial or to extradite Luis Posada Carriles, Guillermo Novo Sampol, Pedro Remon, and Gaspar Jimenezand to Cuba or Venezuela, although they are accused of having perpetrated terrorist acts. [14]"

This is not an example of terrorism or state sponsorship of terrorism. If you read the sourced article it does not even claim its state sponsored terrorism. It says the US should have morally not allowed these people into the country, that is all. Furthermore if you read the article you will see there was no pressure by the US on Panama to release them, and finally they were sent to the US to prevent their torture in their home country and the crime they committed was illegal immigration, not terrorism according to what Panama was holding them on. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zer0faults wrote: "This is not an example of terrorism or state sponsorship of terrorism" Then what is an example of terrorism or state sponsorship of terrorism? Until we define what to include and what not to include in the article, #What_should_this_article_cover? then we will never reach a comprimise, let alone a consenus. Travb (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if you read the section, or the sources provided, but the US was in no way involved with the crime. 9 years later the people are let free and given passage into the US since they were going to be tortured in Cuba and sentenced to death. I am not sure how they were sponsored if the US was not involved or funded the crime. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zero, The U.S. is knowingly harboring these terrorists. Harboring terrorists (providing a safe haven, refusing to try or extradite) is a kind of state sponsorship. See article of State Sponsored terrorism for "harboring". --NYCJosh 17:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These people were not convicted of terrorism by a recognized government. Again its WP:OR for you to assume that when no source says it was. I have had dealings with you before and hopefully you will understand the importance of sources this time around. Especially since extraordinary assertions need more then one source as well. Now if you haev anything to refute the fact that none of the sources call it state sponsorship of terrorism, feel free to present it. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicaragua

Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America#Nicaragua

I took out a couple of sections for the following reason: ...

• Honduras - entire section: Similar reasoning, it is not STT by the US even if true and carried out as stated. The US may have financed things, it is also a fact that they tried to persuade them from commiting terrorism. Finally, it was commited, if at all, by Honduras, not the US....--Kalsermar 21:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We will discuss this later, I am troubled that it appears you took out Nicaragua vs. US, this is the best example of state terrorism in the whole article. Travb (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, what is state terrorism and what did the US do that was ST in Nicaragua?--Kalsermar 00:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA planted mines in a busy harbor for commercial shipping, sinking at least one civilian ship. --NYCJosh 17:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should stay if we have sources specifically stating it was an act of state sponsored terrorism. If there is no sources stating this it should obviously be removed as noone is making the allegation of state terrorism. Take note unlawful combat is not the same as terrorism. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full agreement with Zerofaults on this, it is not terrorism. Whether it was a good or even legal thing to do isn't the issue here.--Kalsermar 18:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Middle East

Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America#Middle_East

I took out a couple of sections for the following reason: ... I also question the part regarding the Baghdad bombings. This part is pure speculation on the part of some agents and the newspaper reporter. Reading the piece also trows much doubt whether anything really happened and by whom and to what effect... --Kalsermar 21:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kalsemar, you seem to have an agenda to whitewash the record of terrorism by sabotaging this article. The US intelligence officals cited in the article were involved in US intelligence at the time the bombing capmaign took place. Why is that "speculation"? Further, according to WP rules you cannot second-guess a reliable source. If you have a source that disproves or contradicts the NY Times article, let's see it. Otherwise it has to stay up.--NYCJosh 17:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NYCJosh, I will say this once to you as well, do not question my good faith or accuse me of vandalism.--Kalsermar 18:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the article specifically calls it an act of terrorism by the United States or specifically calls it state sponsored terrorism. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My questions regarding the Baghdad bombing are 1)there is confusion as to whom commited what acts and the details are sketchy and contradictory. There is nothing in the piece that specifically says that the US knowingly authorized a bombing of a schoolbus full of children.--Kalsermar 18:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Western Europe: Operation Gladio

Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America#Western_Europe

Sorry, but onlinejournal.com and italy.indymedia.org do not pass WP:RS. See [3] You should remove those sources. Thanks. Cheers. Morton devonshire 22:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will agree to not fight over their inclusion if a couple of other people agree (no offense, but everyone is pushing their own POV for better or worse... I just want NPOV, and these have been added/removed ad nauseum by 'extremists' on both sides). rootology (T) 22:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed - online journal appears to be non-notable (well, it's not in wikipedia), and indymedia would be a bad source, because as far as I can tell, it's highly biased.

If we're committed to discussing a controversial issue properly, I agree that use of sources which tend to be POV by nature should be kept to a minimum. Ideally, this article needs peer review and much contribution from wikipedians who don't hold allegiance to the U.S. I see dozens of adverbs in this article used specifically to couch accusations in the most U.S.-positive light. BusterD 22:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RS doesn't say we can't use these sources it says we should cross-check them with other sources to make sure they aren't making bogus claims. As we aren't relying on those sources alone, in my opinion I think its ok. But I won't argue the point. Remove them if it makes you happy. Self-Described Seabhcán 22:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indymedia is a collection of subsites, their editorial oversight is unknown and hence they fail WP:RS. --User:Zer0faults 16:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took out a couple of sections for the following reason: ... Furthermore, the section dealing with Gladio starts out by saying that it was a NATO operation and the USSD denies any terrorism took place. So, it isn't a US operation and thus doesn't belong here but under another article dealing with NATO.--Kalsermar 21:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US is a founding member of NATO and a US general always is its top military commander. The CIA set up the Italian secret intelligence services after WWII. It is difficult to imagine GAldoio being implemendted without US cooperation and specific approval. It certainly belongs in this article, especially since WP doens't have a separate article for list of NATO terrorism. --NYCJosh 17:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The US is one of, then 16 or so, members of NATO and they cannot act alone within NATO. If it was a NATO operation then it should be in Allegations of terrorism by NATO.--Kalsermar 18:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kalsemar, if you start such an article about NATO, I'll support you. As of now, there is no such article. In any case, US military planes commanded by US generals were doing much of the bombing. U.S. Gen. Wesley Clark was commander. Sec. State Albright gave the green light. You cannot say that the US did not do it solely because others participated through the institution of NATO. --NYCJosh 20:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NYCJosh, you are mixing things up. First, this particular part pertains to Gladio, not Yugoslavia. Second, If NATO authorizes military action, and the US military carries out that action, how could it possibly be terrorism?--Kalsermar 20:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Italian Senate Report

The link provided at the end of the sentence does not mention the Italian Senate, it only mentions the Left Democrat party.

The United States was accused of playing a large part in the campaign of anti-communist terrorism in Italy during the cold war in a report released yesterday by the Left Democrat party.

The explicit accusation is contained in a draft report to a parliamentary commission on terrorism.

The formerly communist LDP is the biggest party in Giuliano Amato's centre-left government, and the report could sour relations between Italy and the United States and unleash a storm of domestic political controversy.

Unless there is some confirmation that the Italian Senate acted on the report, it should be present as it currently is in the article, the delusions of a out of power party whose members took millions of dollars from the KGB to form their own clandestine armies, or is that fact too inconvient for this article? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed this back, to reflect your edit, good catch, and thanks for discussing changes on the talk page. Travb (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... Iffy:

• Gladio, as stated in this article it was a NATO op. thus not by USA' --Kalsermar 01:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also cannot stess highly enough the fact that 30-31B is a forgery. This allegation was first made in 1979 by US intelegence and confirmed via Mitrokinh. This claim is not solely from the US, and it is the lynchpin in Gasner's book. FCYTravis, I have no idea how you got US Army out of that source or why you put it in there. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Court cases: Nicaragua_vs._United_States

Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America#Nicaragua_vs._United_States

There is alot of A+B=C type of logic in this article, some sections use references that dont even cite terrorism. Furthermore there is a connection being drawn between unlawful combat and terrorism, with only Chmsky's opinion to support them as the same thing. Claims like the US commited acts of terrorism need more then Chomsky's opinion to support them. Cases such as Yugoslavia do not even state terrorism nor are their any sources calling it that, the case was further dismissed. Please follow WP:OR and do not link statements, find sources that do the linking. Extraordinary conclusions need more then one source as well. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise for now leaving unlawful combat, since the definition of terrorism does allow such things to be covered. It would be better to focus on where sources are being misinterpreted or additional conclusions being drawn - clean out the easy ones that can't be argued with at all. LinaMishima 16:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extrodinary conclusions need very good, strong and relibable references, rather than simply more than one. A single reference can be applied, as long as it is good. Technically, every statement needs more than one reference. LinaMishima 16:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is also worth remembering that a case being dismissed is exactly what this article needs - counterpoints to the general POV of the references. LinaMishima 16:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also please note that Chomsky is not a lawyer, nor does he possess a law degree, so his opinion on "unlawful combat" is not even on par with a legal opinion. Further sources should be added if that section is going to be placed back. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of the Cuba paragraph was done because no source given states it was an act of terrorism or state sponsorship of terrorism, they just question the morality of such a decision. The concept of US asking Panama to release them is even questioned in the first place. Please provide sources of people stating these acts were in fact terrorism, further considering the nature of the claims they require multiple sources. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources can be easily provided to link the CIA to state terrorism in Cuba. Including ties with Posada/Bosch, payments made to Posada, money channelled to the Cuban American National Foundation via Jorge Mas Canosa, the bombing of Cubana Flight 455 and the bombing attacks of the 1990's. [4] That these were terrorist acts is beyond question, it is a rare moment where the Cuban government and (at least outside the public eye) US Government sources are in broad agreement. I presume that US declassified documents, and the claims of the Cuban government are considered equally legitimate sources?

I'm also intrigued by the whole multiple sources premise. If an editor requires multiple sources for claims against the actions of nation states (which I am in general agreement with) then that should apply across the board. I'd like to see that same criteria applied to accusations against Cuba on the List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state page. No sources are provided at all at present. And I'd be interested to see the sources that are provided if offered. If they are US government sources, then Cuban government sources claiming state terrorism by the US should be equally available for this article. That seems reasonable and fair? [5] --Zleitzen 17:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree all of those articles should be highly sourced as they claims are extraordinary. Furthermore if you want add more sources, however the paragraph was without a source stating the incident was an act of state sponsorship of terrorism. I am not against content, just content without supporting sources. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've no problem with that removal, as already stated LinaMishima 17:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I have with unlawful combat being linked to terrorism is the only source being provided for them being the same thing is a person who is not a lawyer. While Chomsky is popular he does not even have a law degree to be offering a legal opinion on equality of terms. Further since such a claim is being used to link two lawsuits to acts of terrorism, the claim needs to be supported by more then a sole source. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If one source covers both and it's a very good source, that's fine by me. More sources are always good, but requiring more than one can get you into the land of endless escalation. Chomsky is a world-renowned scholar, and calling something 'terrorism' isn't a legal statement, actualy - considering that the word has very few formal definitions. What we need is good sources by him, rather than interviews - ideally peer reviewed. LinaMishima 17:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know Chomsky is like a Saint to the Left, but he's not an expert on terrorism (i.e. no training, experience, academic degrees or other expert credentials). As such, his opinion is no more important than would be Dog Poop Girl's opinion on the issue. Morton devonshire 17:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also having a PhD qualifies you for that field, he is not a scholar of law. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need to not say, "This was terrorism," but instead, "Castro and Chomsky say this was terrorism." Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or rather, Castro, Chomsky, the CIA, the FBI and every international organisation and media outlet on the planet describe the bombing of Cubana 455 and the bombing campaigns against Cuba as terrorism.--Zleitzen 17:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful then please add the section back with sources of all those people calling it terrorism by the US, not just terrorism, but acts of terrorism by the US. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I do not have a problem with content, I have a problem with the sources. Some dont state the events were terrorism, one source is just Chomsky taking a legal definition and stating that he feels its the equivalent of terrorism, which he is not a lawyer to be used as a credible source for that. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Chomsky is not really an important source on this. I mean, Orlando Bosch himself has bragged enough times that he is a terrorist! I'll knock the section together in due course with appropriate sources.--Zleitzen 17:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stating he is a terrorist is just the first step, you then have to provide sources stating the particular act he carried uot was funded by the US or supported in some fashion, the one he is taking credit for as a terrorist. Just to clarify, stating he had contact with a group, or that he was funded by CIA/FBI before then is not the equivalent of stating they funded that incident for which he claims to be a terrorist. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think some users are confused about the purpose of this article. Wikipedia's role is not to 'prove' US terrorism one way or the other. It is to present a collection of cited facts, beliefs and opinions. If we could only present scientifically provable information then there would be no article on Christianity, for example. Chomsky may not be a lawyer, but his opinion carries a great deal of weight around the world and is thus notable. We don't have to prove a person's connection to something else. Wikipedia is not a court of law. If notable opinion and publications suggest there is such a connection, then it is notable and should be included. If we were to prove or disprove something, no matter how conclusively, it would be Original Research, and should be published elsewhere. Self-Described Seabhcán 18:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. rootology (T) 18:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further I never asked for anythnig to be proven, just that sources be provided stating the person did X on behalf of Y. If you cannot do that and only have sources saying they "once were funded by Y" and later did X that is not the same as saying Y is a sponsor of event X. Hence why it states A+B=C is original research. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know what you are talking about, one of the items removed had no sources that claimed a terrorist attack happened, so it was not presenting even beliefs or opinions to that affect. As for Chomsky he is not a lawyer, therefore he is not a person of expertise in the field he is discussing, and not appropriate for citing. Also the section basically takes the word of one man to link every unlawful combat case to being terrorism, a man that is not even a legal expert. I do not mind you putting peoples opinions but they need to be widely held opinions, not just Chomskys opinions, especially when defining a legal term. Do you want this to be a good article, or a list of things Chomsky thinks are terrorism? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand WP:OR and WP:RS -- we're not trying to prove anything. We're trying to cite other reliable sources' conclusions in an encyclopedic fashion. Connecting the dots, as you suggest, directly violates Wikipedia policy. Chomsky is not qualified for this set of opinions per WP:RS -- he's a Linguistics Professor. Morton devonshire 18:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chomsky is not just a linguistics professor, precisely because people listen to him about other subjects too. Its not for us to decide whether they should, but they do, so his statements are notable. When Ann Coulter says something racist about arabs, we don't censor it from wikipedia because she's just a lawyer.Self-Described Seabhcán 19:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to write, "Chomsky said that was terrorism," that's easy. The problem comes in if you want to write, "That was terrorism.(Chomsky, 2002)" Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is too subtle for me. Self-Described Seabhcán 19:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then just use the first formulation and don't worry about it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

I took out a couple of sections for the following reason:

...

• Nicaragua - Section stating demonstrators into clashes with the authorities... - Leading demonstrators in into protests to solicit a violent response by the other side is hardly terrorism, just provocations.--Kalsermar 21:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We will discuss this later, I am troubled that it appears you took out Nicaragua vs. US, this is the best example of state terrorism in the whole article. Travb (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, what is state terrorism and what did the US do that was ST in Nicaragua?--Kalsermar 00:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...

User:Kalsermar wrote: Nicaragua - Section stating demonstrators into clashes with the authorities... - Leading demonstrators in into protests to solicit a violent response by the other side is hardly terrorism, just provocations.

In this case the ICJ found the united states guilty of the "unlawful use of force" The unlawful use of force means terrorism, that is part of the defintion. Travb (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unlawful Force is not terrorism, Chomsky is the only person who says so and he is not a legal expert to be used as a source. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The IJC never once said terrorism. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Court cases:Yugoslavia_v._United_States

Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America#Yugoslavia_v._United_States

out

• Military action by national armies, thus Yugo bombing is out imho and so would the Iranian airline downing.--Kalsermar 01:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other_allegations_of_American_terrorism

Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America#Other_allegations_of_American_terrorism

Chomsky quote

I took out a couple of sections for the following reason:

• U.S. Military Plans To Commit Terrorism - entire section: This article is bad enough dealing in allegations, a subject I think is highly unencyclopaedic, but so long as it is not titled Allegation of state terrorism by the United States and any plan(s) that may have been thought of but never implemented, it should at least deal with allegations of STT, not plans that were never implemented. Other than that, some of the bitses were highly speculative, like the actual killing of people. Kalsermar 21:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy McVeigh

in

• Acts that might be deemed state terrorism, Wounded Knee and Timothy McVeigh I could live with, one commited by the US one by a citizen, although I don't think the latter should be here but I can live with it.--Kalsermar 0128, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Blacks

out

• Tolerance of lynching - I took this out because it isn't STT even if it is true.Kalsermar 21:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre of Wounded Knee

The following section should be removed in my opinion:

• Wounded Knee
• Vietnam
• Saddam's (or his regime's remnants) accusations

Reason:Whether or not these acts are described as American Terrorism or not, they are not and can never be STT because they were all (with the possible exception of Wounded Knee, acts of war or at least made during regular military operations by a regulated national military organization, namely the US military. If we want this to be Accusation of STT by USA they should be removed. This article is not accusation by people, who say something is terrorism. I would hope someone will remove these parts in the name of preserving the article according to its title.--Kalsermar 21:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent points User:Kalsermar this is why we need to define what terrorism is in this article. I think the intentional targeting of civilians can be considered terrorism. Cut and paste the sections to talk, and we will see what everyone else says. Thanks for addressing this here on the talk page. Travb (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need to, or get to, define terrorism. Using summary style, we might include a paragraph about the definition of terrorism. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--- in

• Acts that might be deemed state terrorism, Wounded Knee and Timothy McVeigh I could live with, one commited by the US one by a citizen, although I don't think the latter should be here but I can live with it.--Kalsermar 0128, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

--- in

• Acts that might be deemed state terrorism, Wounded Knee and Timothy McVeigh I could live with, one commited by the US one by a citizen, although I don't think the latter should be here but I can live with it.--Kalsermar 0128, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

U.S. action in Vietnam

The following section should be removed in my opinion:

• Wounded Knee
• Vietnam
• Saddam's (or his regime's remnants) accusations

Reason:Whether or not these acts are described as American Terrorism or not, they are not and can never be STT because they were all (with the possible exception of Wounded Knee, acts of war or at least made during regular military operations by a regulated national military organization, namely the US military. If we want this to be Accusation of STT by USA they should be removed. This article is not accusation by people, who say something is terrorism. I would hope someone will remove these parts in the name of preserving the article according to its title.--Kalsermar 21:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent points User:Kalsermar this is why we need to define what terrorism is in this article. I think the intentional targeting of civilians can be considered terrorism. Cut and paste the sections to talk, and we will see what everyone else says. Thanks for addressing this here on the talk page. Travb (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need to, or get to, define terrorism. Using summary style, we might include a paragraph about the definition of terrorism. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

== My Lai ==

Why is it mentioned as a 'renegade' act? It was part of Operation Whella Wallawa, not some isolated accident. Green01 10:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC).

Ba'ath Party

The following section should be removed in my opinion:

• Wounded Knee
• Vietnam
• Saddam's (or his regime's remnants) accusations

Reason:Whether or not these acts are described as American Terrorism or not, they are not and can never be STT because they were all (with the possible exception of Wounded Knee, acts of war or at least made during regular military operations by a regulated national military organization, namely the US military. If we want this to be Accusation of STT by USA they should be removed. This article is not accusation by people, who say something is terrorism. I would hope someone will remove these parts in the name of preserving the article according to its title.--Kalsermar 21:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent points User:Kalsermar this is why we need to define what terrorism is in this article. I think the intentional targeting of civilians can be considered terrorism. Cut and paste the sections to talk, and we will see what everyone else says. Thanks for addressing this here on the talk page. Travb (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need to, or get to, define terrorism. Using summary style, we might include a paragraph about the definition of terrorism. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

in:

• Middle East section as they are allegations. Although the Baghdad bombing should be looked into as you stated.

out:

• Things like the Baath party allegations. These are so obviuous I shouldn't have to explain why.

--Kalsermar 01:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General removal

out:

• Plans, things that were not carried out. Why? Because it did not occur and like I said elsewhere, this is not about any and all plans ever concieved. Is this not reasonable?
• Acts commited by non government sanctioned ops. To answer an edit summary, no, if a Libyan citizen' without authorization commits an act of terror it isn't by the USA. 9/11 is terrorism because it wasn't a regulated national military op but it is not Saudi ST because they did not authorize it (as far as we know)--Kalsermar 01:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Sections

Honduras

In the 1980s the United States financed and trained the Honduran military. According to an article in the Baltimore Sun, the United States downplayed the Honduran military's role in torture in secret jails and extrajudicial killings in reports to Congress while privately pressuring the government of Honduras to curb the abuses.^[2] The authors states the terror campaign targeted hundreds of Honduran labor leaders, union organizers and human rights attorneys.

I took out a couple of sections for the following reason: ...

• Honduras - entire section: Similar reasoning, it is not STT by the US even if true and carried out as stated. The US may have financed things, it is also a fact that they tried to persuade them from commiting terrorism. Finally, it was commited, if at all, by Honduras, not the US...--Kalsermar 21:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Court cases: Iran_v._United_States

In 1988 Iran Air Flight 655 was shot down by the USS Vincennes while enroute from Bandar Abbas to Dubai killing all 290 civilian passengers. The US said the the crew of the Vincennes had mistaken the Airbus A300 for an F-14 fighter. A later US enquiry agreed with this, attributing the event to human error. In 1989 Iran took the US to the International Court of Justice over the incident.^[3] The US chose to settle out of court, paying Iran $61.2m compensation.^[4] Despite settling out side of court, the Iranian government continues to dispute the US version of events, calling the action a 'crime'. It is supected that the Lockerbie bombing was masterminded in retaliation.^[5]

Ther problem with the iran vs. US dispute is quite sinmply that terrorism is a lousy word. It is used by people and governments the world over the describe something they disagree with, with very little consistancy. Now, I feel the iran Vs. US section is certainly within the spirit of this article, since Iran clearly still believe that the attack was on purpose and they refer to it as a crime, and there are accusations from elsewhere of a 'secret war'. Clearly, these actions fall under the Definition of terrorism.

As single action we cannot call this terrorism (as none of the references explicitly call it that), as that would be additional reasoning. However it does serve a vital part in the article, in my opinion. Either we need a new section, a new article, or a renamed article ('Missuse of US force and funding', off the top of my head, is a suggestion). LinaMishima 21:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, you don't get to decide: that's the very definition of original research. Morton devonshire 21:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We do get to rename the article, however, so as to bring facts within the article's remit. That is not original research. Original research in this case would be, as you said, stating something not called terrorism as terrorism. Making sure it is not called that but ensuring that it can contribute to the debate and is not out of place in the debate is called good editing. LinaMishima 21:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Morton devonshire I think there is some confusion about what OR is, as those above have stated. Naming an article is not OR. Please contribute something to this article, as others have stated above:

These are your contributions to date: [6], [7], [8], and [9]. Three mass deletions and rewording "Allegations of State terrorism" to "A list".

Thus far your POV push has been a tremendous failure. As I mentioned above, I have been able to delete 3 paragraphs from Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America , 2 which have remained, whereas you have not been able to keep your deletions on this page for more than 10 minutes.

Maybe the iran Vs. US section should remain, as User:LinaMishima stated. Travb (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Iran vs. US section was removed here.[10] The stated reason was: removed Iran section, none of the sources state it was a terrorist act, all state is may have been accident. None is alleging terrorism here. Which sounds reasonable, if you want this to stay in the article User:LinaMishima, please find a source which states Iran clearly still believe that the attack was on purpose and they refer to it as a crime otherwise, I think it should remain removed.

We already had one, [11] - the pull-out reads 'Only one example of the many crimes committed by the US Government against the Iranian people'. However this is by-the-by, as there is no throwing about of the term terrorism. LinaMishima 22:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The next edit states: rv removal: from bbc article "Subsequent investigations have accused the US military of waging a covert war against Iran in support of Iraq." begin discussion on talk page if removed again, please The cited BBC page does not even use the word terrorism.[12] Please find a source (magazine or book preferable please, not a blog) which states that Iranians feel this is terrorism.

I have to agree with Morton on this: Connecting the dots not allowed -- have to show evidence that this has been deemed to be "state terrorism" by a third-party source, not Wikipedia conclusions. Support Zero 2 Travb (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to follow up, Iran calling it a crime does not mean Iran calling it terrorism. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Military action by national armies, thus Yugo bombing is out imho and so would the Iranian airline downing.--Kalsermar 01:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requests_for_comment/Politics#terrorism

I posted a note on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Politics#terrorism as per the suggestion of JKelly at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_help_requested. Travb (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for third party

As suggested before, I requested two people to give there opinion on the dispute, both helped resolve two past heated disputes I had with the most intellegent and crafty conservative I have met on wikipedia, User:Rjensen (who I also invited to help edit this page).

• User_talk:Tyrenius#Request_for_third_party_monitor
• User_talk:Fagstein#Request_for_third_party_monitor

Both got involved before because I requested their help at: Wikipedia:Third Opinion some months ago. Travb (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this whole debate about what terrorism is, is not necessary....

To try and keep the focus of the article, I moved this to #Not Terrorism, Allegations of Terrorism under #What is terrorism? Thanks for everyone's cooperation and hard work in making this article better. Travb (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a better title...

To try and keep the focus of the article, I moved this to #Start at the top under #Title_of_the_article Thanks for everyone's diigence and efforts in making this article better, I think we are making progress in hashing out a consensus... Travb (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]