Talk:United States and state terrorism/Archive 2

Reason for creation
Per discussion on the State terrorism I have been peeling off by country each so called incident to make it easy for us to edit the main page. So far I have created State terrorism in Syria and Sri Lanka, looks like the consensus on both will be to keep them, hence this explosive article which is nothing but a copy of what was already there in List of State terrorism by country. My eventual aim I to have an article by every country in the world and categories under state terrorism to categorize all different incidents, ...... God help me. RaveenS 13:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We already have a page for things describes as acts of terrorism by the US - American terrorism. I've redirected the pages there. Tom Harrison Talk 18:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It should be merged, not redirected as content from this article will be lost RaveenS 20:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge into American terrorism. Some work on the evidence presented here in terms of reliable sources is in order.--MONGO 21:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into American terrorism, and drop American terrorism as an ambigious title - is it about terrorism in the various American countries, terrorism by the USA, a particular type of terroism perculiar to the continent? Etc. Markb 12:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree the other article American_terrorism is a mess, this one is better organized and needs to be expanded before any merger happensRaveenS


 * What needs to be done to improve it? Tom Harrison Talk 17:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Tom, American Terrorism is a article on definition, this is an article on acts, hence I have changed my view about merge. It should be keepRaveenS


 * Merge Karwynn (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge there is already a section on the us in List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state, therefore i don't see the need for a whole article. no other country seems to have on. guess that would be a Merge trueblood 21:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge as per trueblood.Travb (talk) 04:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else want to give an opinion? Tom Harrison Talk 19:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Like I said in AfD, stubbify, keep on the AfD, drop it to RS, I think merge into the other article, and then rename the other article. American terrorism implies acts against the US, as opposed to acts considered as terrorism acts by Americans by foreign parties. rootology (T) 22:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The AT article deters discussion of actual events and history b/c unless someone prominent has labeled the act "terrorism" it cannot be mentioned. This page by contrast actually informs about the unseemly past. However, merging some content from the AT article into THIS article would be a good idea. --NYCJosh 18:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think NYCJosh's view above nicely summarises my concerns. He wants a platform where he can tell the Truth, and finds that the requirements for citation make that harder. Tom Harrison Talk 13:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What article do you think is a mess? Tom Harrison Talk 13:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Expand section?
I don't think we need to solicit accusations of American terrorism on the presumption that it has occured. I've removed the sections on Nicaragua and Chile. Tom Harrison Talk 13:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK for now RaveenS 17:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Tom,
 * Check the source before reverting my correction, please. The source is the NY Times for the Iraq bombing. Commondreams just archived it. As for the reporter's name, since when is the reporter's name of a major paper (the NYT) mentioned in a Wikipedia article? Should every fact in all articles be prefaced with something like "Joe Smith writing for Major News Source X reports that the dow jones lost y points last week"? It's bordering on deliberate underreporting. As it is, the piece is prefaced with "according to fornmer US intel officials." --NYCJosh 23:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Your version of the article is what is in place. What is your question? Should every fact in all articles be prefaced with something like "Joe Smith writing for Major News Source X reports that the dow jones lost y points last week"? No. Should this assertion be prefaced by who makes it? I think so. Or maybe I am missing your point. Tom Harrison Talk 19:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just curious, why on this article is it relevant to cite the reporter's name as well? rootology (T) 22:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * See American terrorism, and the discussion page there. Tom Harrison Talk 23:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Many researchers?
I'd like to see a clarification of the word "many" in the sentence "However, many researchers have commented that the true aim was often to increase the power and control of the United States over Europe." Is there a list somewhere of these "many" researchers? Otherwise I can only assume the statement is speculative. Thank you. &mdash; RJH (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Dr. Ganser lists a number of researchers in his book. I don't know what your threshold for 'many' is but besides Dr. Ganser, here are some more articles saying much the same:, and here is the US government admitting the existance of Gladio but denying it was involved in terrorism in Greece  Self-Described Seabhcán 21:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Evil empire
Wow...the evidence in this article is very compelling! No doubt the U.S. has a history of terrorism that exceeds all other entities. The use of quality references is also impressive...I can see absolutely no efforts to "dig" for info here...this stuff is very mainstream and there is isn't any potential radical subversion apparent.--MONGO 18:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not to cause a fight, but the United States POV is irrelevant on Wikipedia, only NPOV per Wikipedia policy... rootology (T) 19:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, no one understands sarcasm anymore. So instead, I'll be factual. The references cited are either radical ro extremely biased sources...period.--MONGO 19:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I contest the sources used to NPOV this article. They are, as I mentioned, radical or simply POV...therefore a NPOV tag has been placed on the article.--MONGO 19:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is exatly why we created this article so that POV fighters can fight it out in their turf than to muddy and destroy a very vlaubale article on State terrorism      User:RaveenS
 * Sometimes I think worse is better. I am kind of looking forward to seeing exactly what the contributors think constitutes neutral presentation. Tom Harrison Talk 19:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * MONGO, can you give specific examples of what you think to be "radical"? There are 27 references here. Please detail which are 'radical' and why you think so. Self-Described Seabhcán 23:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow. There is almost nothing in this article which satisfies Wikipedia criteria for inclusion.  In addition, it directly violates Wikipedia policy against "connecting the dots". See WP:NOR for an education about Wiki policy.  Please completely rewrite this article.  Morton devonshire 01:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't feed the neo-cons. Travb (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no OR in this article. If you would care to read the sources you will educate your self and realise this is the case. All conclusions here (connected dots) are 100% taken from the published references. Self-Described Seabhcán 11:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed these paragraphs
I removed the following:

''The United States government has conspired with organized crime figures to assassinate the Cuban head of state. In August 1960, Colonel Sheffield Edwards, director of the CIA's Office of Security, proposed the assassination of Fidel Castro by mafia assassins. Between August 1960, and April 1961, the CIA with the help of the Mafia pursued a series of plots to poison or shoot Castro.

''In 1988 Iran Air Flight 655 was shot down by the USS Vincennes while enroute from Bandar Abbas to Dubai killing all 290 civilian passangers. The US claimed the act it to be an error. However, following the incident, the men of the Vincennes were all awarded combat-action ribbons and the air-warfare co-ordinator won the navy's Commendation Medal for "heroic achievement" noting his "ability to maintain his poise and confidence under fire" that enabled him to "quickly and precisely complete the firing procedure." In 1989 Iran took the US to the International Court of Justice over the incident. The US chose to settle out of court, paying Iran $63m componsation.''

Interesting paragraphs, but it isn't terrorism per se, when in the first case it is an assassination attempt, and in the second case, the US claimed that it was an accident. Travb (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Iran vs. United States
As far as I can tell, the cited references for this section do not mention terrorism. --JWSchmidt 00:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Will merge
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)
 * 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)
 * I have to concur with Seabhcan.--MONGO 13:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Talk:State_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America has 3 or 4 merge votes, I didn't know this was contentious. Travb (talk) 04:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)


 * I see you did not remind us of No original research. Tom Harrison Talk 22:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's covered by "others", my reply was long enough already. Scanning the talk page the only mention of NOR previously was Morton's comment today. What do you consider to OR in the article as it exists now? Also, what do you think of my specific statement that Wikipedia shall not be pro-any country? rootology (T) 23:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:OR says in part, "articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements that serves to advance a position." I think that is what the article is likely to be. As far as your idea of 'not pro-any country', I think I prefer the formulation in WP:NPOV. Tom Harrison Talk 23:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I could see removal of the Nicaragua section based on this, but the others in and of themselves are allegations (or in the world court one) proven cases of terrorism. I'd say that Allegations of State terrorism by United States of America would be a better title, and that section removed. rootology (T) 23:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The removal of the Nicaragua section as original research? I cut and paste this intro from the Nicaragua v. US page, I can, if necessary, back up each one of those words with several law review articles which state the same thing.  It is probably the best case of American terrorism ever.Travb (talk) 04:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment 1 RE User:Seabhcan: ''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.''

As per: Talk:Howard_Zinn, which you can read in full to get the full quote, Ward Churchill states:


 * ''Progressives, on the other hand, while acknowledging many of America’s more reprehensible features...have become quite (uniform) in attributing all things negative to handy abstractions like “capitalism,” “the state,” “structural oppression,” and, yes, “the hierarchy.” Hence, they have been able to conjure what might be termed the “miracle of immaculate genocide,” a form of genocide, that is, in which—apart from a few amorphous “decision-making élites” —there are no actual perpetrators and no one who might “really” be deemed culpable by reason of complicity. The parallels between this “cutting edge” conception and the defense mounted by postwar Germans—including the nazis at Nuremberg—are as eerie as they are obvious.

Do you fit into this camp User:Seabhcan? This American terrorism caused by American foreign policy is somehow because of abstractions like “capitalism,” “the state,” “structural oppression.” Please read the full quote of Churchill. American history is replete with examples of Americans simply not giving a fuck about who the American government tortures, kills, or imprisons. I can give you a long list of horrors perptrated by the US government and the US population just doesn't care, in fact, they often reelect these leaders in land slide victories.

American empire can also fit into this definition of a "racial slur" but through a lot of hard work and comprimise from me and other editors, we have defined the term in such a way that it becomes an encyclopedic article, and not a "racial slur". Both American terrorism and State terrorism by United States of America are simply not up to this level yet, and they have a long way to go. (Granted, there is a lot I really dislike about American empire, including the use of the "imperialism".)

Ironically, this AfD was a good catalyst for change, but both articles still need a hell of a lot of work, including decent, knowlegable conservative editors (none of those who have voted for the AfD seem to be rising to the challenge). The person who voted to destroy this article has actually made it stronger. I get a good sense of pleasure in this delicious irony.

Again, we have two sets of article which can be merged into one. Thus far the votes for merge outweigh the votes for not merging.

I have worked on a hell of a lot of really controversial wikisites. There are a lot of things that we liberals and left leaning folks can do to insure that this article never goes through another AfD again. My experience with the Template:AmericanEmpire series has taught me a lot. I will throw some of these ideas out after the AfD. I will even invite the most intellegent conservative I know on wikipedia, and the most dangerous foe I have ever gotten in an edit war with, to come and give his two cents to this article. This is because I believe that the strongest articles on wikipedia have all sides represnted, not just one side. I look forward to working with you all, and working with real wikipedian editors, conservatives included who do not use pre-teen vandal tactics. MONDO is a smart conservative who may be able to contribute something to this article.Travb (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it is semantics, but it is important semantics. Yes, real people from America committed real crimes, so why not call these crimes 'American'. To take two similar examples... real German people carried out the Holocaust, yet we refer to it as having been committed by Nazi's. Why? Or for an older example, people from Italy killed Christ and committed genocide in Israel in 70AD, yet we refer to the perpetrators as 'Romans'.
 * I think there is a good and proper reason for this. We say that 'Nazis' did the holocaust because this act was carried out under a certain ideology and by members of a certain subgroup within the German nation at that time. To say 'Germans' did it is to first, imply a racial guilt of all Germans, both those who lived at the time and those yet to be born, and second, to ignore the complexities of the time, to simplify the events and motivations and hide it all behind behind a shield of ignorance in the term 'evil'. This is more comforting and we can say to ourselves, "If it happened because of 'evil', and I am not 'evil', then I have nothing to worry about.".
 * The reality is that bad things are done by otherwise good people - and even if we ourselves are good, our actions may result in evil. Plenty of Germans were very good people, even at that time, even many who were nazis. (I have a personal story about my wife's grandmother who was a slave labouror in Germany during the war - she was saved by the wife of a Nazi officer who was later executed for (other) war crimes. Its too long to give the details here)
 * Also, it covers up the complexity of events. eg. Hitler executed 10,000s of germans who faught against Nazism.
 * To call it "American" terrorism covers up these important details in the same way. The terrorism is committed by a very small subgroup within US society who behave according to a particular ideology. Yes they are supported by the tax paying public, but I disagree that this implies uniform guilt on the entire population. Many people in America fight against this ideology, and they are no less American than the criminals. Self-Described Seabhcán 09:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sigh, you are simply restating what Ward Churchill said.


 * "This American terrorism caused by American foreign policy is somehow because of abstractions like “capitalism,” “the state,” “structural oppression.”"


 * You ignore that our leaders are elected, and that we as Americans choose these leaders to invade and kill and mame. I can think of at least three presidents who trampled pacifist opponents in landslides.  Reagan, Nixon, and TR.  Americans simply don't give a fuck. As long as Americans have a full tank of gas, a generally nice standard of living, the vast majority of Americans simply don't care who we kill and how we kill them to continue to have the standard of living that we have.  Don't simply blame our democratically elected leaders for the terrorism that they have caused abroad.  There are millions of Americans who vote for these leaders who don't care.  They don't care that Exxon takes 70% of the profits from gas extraction, Americans don't care if only 17 cents of every dollar in bannana production actually goes back to the central american countries.  Americans don't care that we killed 200,000 one million Filipinos in the Philippine-American War. I could go on and on and on.  The voting record shows clearly that those who care, really care about American terrorism are in the minority.  Remember presidents have some of the highest approval ratings before wars--Bush has been no exception.  History is literred with politicans who were pacifists and who lost.  Is there any doubt why the democrats are so unwilling to support the anti-war left? It is because the majority of Americans support the wars, the bloodshed and the horrors that our country has caused abroad, and they benefit from it.  If the democrats embraced this spirit of pacifism it would be political suicide.


 * Have you read Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust? I don't think that the holocaust could have happened if the German people in gereral were not racists, nor could the horrors caused by the Japanese against the Chinese have happened without racism, nor could the American genocide of the indians, not the nuclear bombing of Japan and internment of the Japanese happened without American racism.  I have other examples but I will not go on.  I am a real big supporter of National Guilt.


 * It is really easy for Americans to come to terms with the genocide of the Indians and slavery, because they are convinently in the past and there is no benefit from their use anymore. The indians have been exterminated, and the slaves were forcefully freed.  Just like the vast majority of Americans who supported slavery or genocide of the indians when it was happening, the vast majority of Americans support American foreign policy because Americans are prospering from the decisions of our government's foreign policy now.  I addressed this question in my web blog here: A perplexing contradiction in the way Americans see history.


 * So you are simply blaming the leaders that we as Americans elect, instead of focusing your ire at your friends, neighbors, family, and yourself, who benefit from these policies, and who actively voted for these leaders. It is really easy and human nature to blame someone else, harder to take blame yourself.  I think Ward Churchill really is on to something with his article: The Ghosts of 9-1-1: Reflections on History, Justice and Roosting Chickens. Leftist authors like Howard Zinn class warfare is inspiring, and makes allies among the lower classes, but it is dishonest.  The vast majority of Americans, of all social classes have historically supported American foreign policy, just as they supported Slavery and the American genocide of the Indians before. Travb (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment 2 RE User:Rootology: ''Precedent has been set to keep the other "State terrorism by..." articles, as should this one stay.''

Actually, I see no precedent at all. Look at: List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state or Category:State_terrorism. There seems to be no consesus at all. I simply don't care which article is merged into which. I just think they should be merged. We can talk about moving this article to a less POV and less likely to be deleted article name later. For now I think the articles should just be merged. Travb (talk) 08:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed broken link
Signed: Travb (talk) 03:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary
In this diff you use the edit summary, "Revert vandalism of morty". He removed information he regards as unsourced. He has at least an arguable case. Do you not agree that his edit was a good-faith effort to improve the page? I also wonder at your rationale for restoring to the article material sourced to babaklayeghi.blogspot.com. Tom Harrison Talk 03:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is what I wrote on the AfD:


 * Morty is refusing to bring up any concrete examples of suspicious sources, and instead he deletes large portions of the article itself, calling them "disreputable sources", here are the "disreputable sources" which Morty deleted: New York Times, The Independent and The Guardian, among others. As I mentioned above, "I am truly convinced there is no hurdle high enough that wikieditors could jump to satisfy these wikipedians." Travb (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is Tom's response:
 * In the diff you provide, I do see a link to The Guardian; and I see several references to The Times and The Independent, but the links seem to go to:
 * commondreams.org, counterpunch.org, cambridgeclarion.org, ethlife.ethz.ch, stragi.it, themoscowtimes.com, onlinejournal.com, indymedia.org, babaklayeghi.blogspot.com, poptel.org.uk, chomsky.info, fff.org, Tom Harrison Talk 03:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Tom stated this: "He removed information he regards as unsourced." but in the AfD he lists himself, 12 sources which Morty deleted. Travb (talk) 04:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed blog
I removed this blog as per suggestion from Tom. Signed: Travb (talk) 04:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Robert Fisk story
I've removed the following passage from this article:


 * Independent journalist Robert Fisk reported on May 8th 2006 that in Syria and Iraq the US is widely believed to be behind some of the recent wave of 'insurgent' carbombings in Baghdad (although Fisk himself expressed skepticism about these rumors). He interviewed an unnamed Syrian security source who recounted stories such as the following:
 * One young Iraqi man told us that he was trained by the Americans as a policeman in Baghdad and he spent 70 per cent of his time learning to drive and 30 per cent in weapons training. They said to him: 'Come back in a week.' When he went back, they gave him a mobile phone and told him to drive into a crowded area near a mosque and phone them. He waited in the car but couldn't get the right mobile signal. So he got out of the car to where he received a better signal. Then his car blew up.

My reason for removal: It misinterprets what Fisk actually wrote. His story is titled "Through a Syrian Lens" and reports that there are Syrians who believe in a "fearful portrait of an America trapped in the bloody sands of Iraq, desperately trying to provoke a civil war around Baghdad in order to reduce its own military casualties." Moreover, Fisk is careful to specify that he himself has doubts about the truth of allegations such as the story quoted above of the Iraqi man whose car allegedly blew up. He writes: "Impossible, I think to myself. But then I remember how many times Iraqis in Baghdad have told me similar stories. These reports are believed even if they seem unbelievable."

Fisk is giving an account of stories that were told to him by an unnamed "security source" in Syria, and by Fisk's own account he has not attempted to verify the accuracy of those stories. For example, Fisk doesn't say that he actually spoke with the Iraqi soldier whose story is quoted above. Fisk's reporting tells us something about the type of rumors flying in Iraq and Syria, but it shouldn't be presented here as though these allegations are actually proven. --Sheldon Rampton 06:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand your point, but I don't think the section misrepresents at all. It states Fisk reports that "the US is widely believed to", not that Fisk himself thinks this. I'll clarify it and put it back in. Self-Described Seabhcán 13:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Even saying that the US "is widely believed to" overstates the case. He says that stories like this are given credence in Syria and in Iraq (although he gives no specific examples from Iraq in this story). Also, these rumors about US sponsorship of carbombings should be lumped together with Fisk's comments about Haditha and the likelihood that US forces have committed other massacres. I've done some rewriting to separate the two. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sheldon Rampton (talk • contribs).
 * You're right about splitting the two. Looks good. Self-Described Seabhcán 17:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't middle easterners, particularly Iraqis prone to conspiracy theories? I have read this before. I know Americans, for example, are also prone to conspiracy theories (UFOs, WTC, JFK, etc.) but not on the scale of Iraqis. I will read the article in full and put my two cents in.Travb (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Its a very sweeping statement to say a particular nation is 'prone' to conspiracy theories, particularly for a nation which was so often the victim of real and proven conspiracies in the past (the Iraq war, for example). Just my opinion. Self-Described Seabhcán 09:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I have read a few articles about this though--maybe it is racist and inaccurate--don't know. Travb (talk) 11:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed Frisk again
I removed the Frisk story above.

The reason I re-removed the above, is just as Sheldon Rampton stated, is that Frisk interviewed one man: "a man I have known for 15 years - we shall call him a "security source"" and reported his stories. These are third hand stories at best: an Iraqi tells this security source, and then this security source tells Frisk. This is rumors and gossip. Not terribly convincing.

I also removed this, from the "The shocking truth about the American occupation of Iraq" :


 * In June 2006, Fisk editorialized that the Haditha killings might be "just the tip of the mass grave" of civilians killed by U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

"The shocking truth about the American occupation of Iraq" is Frisk's opinion, and pure conjecture: "just the tip of the mass grave" of civilians killed by U.S. soldiers in Iraq."

There are plenty of excellent examples of American terrorism. We have only grazed the surface. These two articles only weaken this article as a whole. Currently in this article we have reports from the NYT, the Moscow Times, the National Archives, and the International Court of Justice, next to Frisk's third hand accounts of something that might have happened, and pure speculation and conjecture.

I agree with Frisk on most things, but these two articles are not really very factually strong, and should be kept out of the article. Better to place them on the Frisk page.Travb (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Morton's mass nuking
Removing 90% of an article in one fell swoop without clearly detailing why isn't really appropriate... please explain why they should go. I rv'd it. rootology (T) 06:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policy prohibits these sources under its reliable sources policy. See particularly Self-published sources as secondary sources at .  Thanks.  Morton devonshire 16:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Which sources in this article fall under this definition? You deleted links to the New York Times, The Moscow Times, The Independent, The Guardian, etc. Are these 'self-published'? If so, what isn't? Self-Described Seabhcán 17:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Tom Harrison described them above. Let me remind you:  commondreams.org, counterpunch.org, cambridgeclarion.org, ethlife.ethz.ch, stragi.it, themoscowtimes.com, onlinejournal.com, indymedia.org, babaklayeghi.blogspot.com, poptel.org.uk, chomsky.info, fff.org  Morton devonshire 17:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Tom's opinion was disputed, and themoscowtimes is a valid source, as is commondream's archival of a NY times page. Perhaps we should just list the references to the NY times piece as an offline reference, which is also valid for media not available online. Would that satisfy you for that one? rootology (T) 17:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The Moscow Times is a major newspaper. Ethlife is the magazine of ETH, a very important university in Switzerland. You also deleted links to The Guardian, The Independent and text of European Parliament resolutions.Self-Described Seabhcán 17:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I restored my little blurb on User:Morton devonshire behavior. Morty and Tom keep recycling the same garbage and trying to sell it as new.  A casual observer can see clearly that their arguments have no merits.  Further, with a little study and reflection, it is obvious that they are simply pushing their POV, masking it in wikipolicy, a common tactic of POV warriors who don't have the desire or the talent to research articles themselves.Travb (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless we are going to say 'who thinks', there is no reason to have 'are thought to have...' in an encyclopedia. We might as well say, "It is whispered in the market place..." Tom Harrison Talk 17:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, put in the list of people who think it then. Its a really widely accepted part of history, so it will be a long list. I would leave it up the reader to assume it refers to the 12 citations in that section.Self-Described Seabhcán 18:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * ...which brings us back to the basis of POV dispute on the content of this article, and comes full circle to the whole Pro-nations thing. These foreign sources are "saying" they "believe" or "think" that the acts in question were terrorism. The US itself says it's not. Who's right? It's not our place to say. They were notable enough events in and of themselves, and these RS qualified sources say they are. That's the basis of nearly every article--Text is written in the article. Does it meet V from a RS? Yes/no. Is the RS reaching the conclusion that some editors like or personally believe? Absolutely irrelevant to anything on all of Wikipedia. rootology (T) 18:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If Tom and Morty keep up this recycled allegations, with no basis in fact, I am going to have to ask them questions and paint them in the corner, continuing to ask them questions until they either give up or give me an answer. They both ignore facts which are inconvent to their own POV, and have added not one word to this article.Travb (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

If there are the sources to back it up, just say "agents of Gladio were resposnible for the Bologna massacre." If there are not, then don't say it. "It is thought that" has no place here. Tom Harrison Talk 18:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. Done. Self-Described Seabhcán 18:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If it's sourced as you say, you should go and update Bologna massacre. It's barely given a mention there. Tom Harrison Talk 20:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly, which is what people are trying to do--source the article. If there is a concern with specific wording by all means do address that. I just remind everyone that we need to make sure that the nature of something or content of something that meets RS is irrelevant as far as being "liked". You tend to skew from your edits and opinions a bit more conservative and pro-American, which is totally fine, as everyone is entitled to their own personal POV. In my personal POV not all of these were terrorism--but my personal POV means nothing for the article, nor should anyone else's. I just keep seeing that being a factoring issue in a lot of the arguments/work/editing, and it needs to stop. Not singling you out, but just reiterating for everyone's benefit. rootology (T) 18:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I wonder if global warming has been described as an act of American terrorism in the European press. And there is no mention yet of America's responsibility for AIDS. Tom Harrison Talk 20:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If the Europeon press started saying all over that this was the case it would be worthy of inclusion in some form. Red herring... rootology (T) 21:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If the U.S. was ever guilty of terrorism, it was to the aboriginal peoples of the U.S. The rest of this stuff is definitely simply POV based on sources that I find to be POV...so counterbalance is badly needed.--MONGO 21:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and not grounds for deletion--that's just a content matter. There surely is some V/RS stuff out there that could be added to balance. rootology (T) 21:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Tom, you have yet to write one damn word in this article. Why not do some research instead of recycling dubious claims and supporting mass deletions? User:Rootology wrote: Exactly, which is what people are trying to do--source the article. well, this is partial correct, only one group of people are sourcing this article, the other group is whining and attempting to get this article deleted, and to my knowledge and have added nothing to this article, not one word.Travb (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * MONDO: If the U.S. was ever guilty of terrorism, it was to the aboriginal peoples of the U.S. The rest of this stuff is definitely simply POV based on sources that I find to be POV...so counterbalance is badly needed. Well Monodo, use your considerable research skills to actually write something in this article.  You are good at countering the 9/11 conspiracy theories, why not actually take those research skills and apply them here? Thus far I have yet to see one conservative with a counter view add one sentence to this article.  Instead everyone is screaming "POV" probably because the views that are expressed here are completely opposite their own ideology and American civil religion. As I have been reminded myself a few times, wikipedia is not a chat board, this is an encyclopedia.  Start building and stop whining.  I have already removed three sections from this article, and because I did it in a diplomatic way, explaining my deletions, 2 of these three deletions have stayed removed.  Whereas Morty has deleted large sections, with no explation, or clearly erroneous explanations, and his edits have been removed immediatly.  So this begs the question: who is the most effective wikipedia editor, Morty or myself?  Who more effectively pushes his POV, Morty or myself.  I learned long ago that the key to winning edit wars is out research your opponents.  This takes a lot of work and dedication, which clearly no conservative wikieditor has shown here.


 * If you don't want to spend the time reseaching this subject, wikipedians who gripe and belly ache and attempt to push their own POV using wikipedia policy as a weapon, are wasting everyones time.Travb (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Chill out. I'll get to that when I feel like it. As far as I am concerned, and I have stated this already, the article is POV. I'll get to the details about WHY later when I log back on.--MONGO 21:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I really look forward to your edits and contributions sir. I have seen your great work on other pages, and I look forward to you adding your expertise here.  As I mentioned above, as soon as this AfD closes, I am going to push to merge this article, push to rename it to a less POV term, suggest that some material moved to other pages or is removed, and get some really good conservative editors to help edit this page.Travb (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

A small minority of wikiusers
A small minority of wikiusers take away more than they contribute to wikipedia. Based on looking at all of some of the users edits yesterday (clear back to when he registered), unfortunatly some wikipedians, in regards to political articles, is definatly one of those wikipedians who destroys much more than he ever creates.

In addition, i have noticed that some wikipedians rarely if ever discusses his deletions on the discussion board.

A handful of wikipedians I want to sit down and force them into a course explain what wikipedia's core goals are. Some wikipedians tops the short list.

I wonder if some wikipedians realize that 99% of his edits are pointless and a waste of time, because they are simply reverted.

Deleting large portions of text which don't fit your POV is pathetically easy. Pre-teenage vandals do this all the time.

Backing up your POV with well referenced, excellent sources, such as we now have here: the US Dept of State Official Website, The National Security Archive, the International Criminal Court, the European Parliament, American Journal of International Law, the Washington Post, the New York Times, The Moscow Times, and the BBC News, among others, is much harder, and requires a level of sophistication, hard work, and research that unfortunatly a lot of wikipedians are simply not willing to exert.

It is much easier to delete in mass like a pre-teenage vandal, but it is much less effective, and truly pointless.

I welcome real conservative adults editing this wikipage, to help balance the apparent POV. Some of the best articles come about because rational comprimises between liberals and conservatives, for example No Gun Ri. I am troubled that not a single one of the people who have voted to delete have, to my knowledge, added one sentence to this article. Instead, they have only removed material.

Some of these users use the same old tired excuses and arguments to mask their own POV, removing material with lame tactics instead of helping to build wikipedia. Shielding your POV in wikipedia policy and deletions is easy, promoting your POV while contributing to wikipedia is much more work and effort, which none of these people seem to want to do.

Unfortunatly, some wikipedian's behavior here is a poster child for all of this behavior.Travb (talk) 07:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What has this got to do with trying to make the article better?--MONGO 10:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem like an intellegent person. Every conservative editor here has used wikipedia policy as a weapon and complained on the talk page, and only the leftist wikieditors have actually been writing an Encyclopedia. If I am still not clear enough on this, please let me know.  I look forward to your contributions to the article. Travb (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I strongly recommend you attack the message and not the messenger.--MONGO 21:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Good advice, you are welcome to tone down my message as you see fit. I will change my words to third person, instead of naming names. I support WP:GF, Civility, Etiquette. That said, these policies often are road blocks to the underlying problems.  What I clearly see here is a group of conservative editors who are pushing their POV by using wikipedia policy as a weapon.  Unfortunatly it is a tactic that I have seen dozens of times before. In some cases, it is important to point out the messengers tactics. I mentioned you above in some of my "ramblings" as one of conservative editor who could maybe step past the POV warrior mode, and use his considerable research abilities to edit this article and add material which makes it less bias.


 * I look forward to your hopeful edits to this page. Travb (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, time's about up.
AfD five days ends in < 10 minutes for a previously uninvolved admin to review. Thanks for virtually everyone being/trying to be civil. rootology (T) 19:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You spoke to soon, my patience with these POV warriors ran out last night.Travb (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Morton devonshire 01:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Merged
Now that the AfD is over, I merged the article American terrorism as per the discussion above. Now we have everything in one place, and can now work on building this article better. Travb (talk) 00:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Edits
I removed the following, since it is already in the article:


 * In 1982, the U.S. State Department called the activities of the Contras, who were armed and financed by the United States, "terrorist activities". The United States were found guilty of unlawful use of force by the International Court of Justice (Nicaragua v. United States; Sandanista; Iran-Contra Affair).

signed: Travb (talk) 01:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Links
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tom harrison (talk • contribs).
 * Katrina and the new global terrorism
 * Tuvalu and Global Warming
 * Jihad Abu Az Zamman - The Orator is Naked
 * Saudi march for Hezbollah draws thousands
 * Yogyakarta students demand UN stop Israel Aggression
 * Civilians die in U.S. attack IRAQI FORCES KILL SEVERAL INSURGENTS IN SEPARATE ACTION
 * Our Terrorism, and Theirs Liberal apologetics for American atrocities
 * The Faith of George W. Bush: Christian Supremacy, American Imperialism and Global Disaster
 * Anger over Iraq war spills onto the streets
 * “Insurgents” Hermeneutics Are Not a Substitute for Clarity!
 * For God's sake, someone's got to do something
 * The Killing Fields
 * AIDS is Terrorism
 * ECONOMIC TERRORISM

Hey Tom, I about erased this, mistakenly thinking it is as a link farm. Any reason to include these links? Travb (talk) 04:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Links on talk pages have rel="nofollow". Tom Harrison Talk 12:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Tom I look forward to seeing how you incorporate these sites into the article, please see: Defining terrorism above, I think your links have emphasized the importance of all of us deciding on a consensus on what should be in the article, and which shouldn't be. Terrorism is an overly vague term. Travb (talk) 05:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think a bunch of random volunteer encyclopedia editors get to pick and choose links to advance a position. Tom Harrison Talk 13:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Tom is trying to demostrate that that almost anyone that has a different view than the official U.S. Government view, particularly about actions the U.S. is involved in, might label American actions as terroristic. The working UN definition is pretty good at delineating what truly does constitute terrorism...namely, a peacetime equivalent to a war crime...I suppose the article would be best if we were to try and find evidence that the U.S. has therefore committed war crimes during peacetime.--MONGO 05:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * RE: Links on talk pages have rel="nofollow". Really Tom? Do you know were this is stated? I didn't know that.  RE: I think Tom is trying to demostrate that that.... the term "terrorism" is really problemic, as I have mentioned here, that is why I think we need to Define terrorism as I requested above, what actions should and should not be included?Travb (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In my browser I choose View, then Page source. Ctrl-u is the shortcut. Your browser may be different. Tom Harrison Talk 22:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tom for the really valuable information, i really appreciate it. Best wishes. Travb (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Name suggestions
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 &bull; Work 03:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 &bull; Work 05:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 &bull; Work 05:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)

Any clear nay's to my doing this right now? rootology (T) 06:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Meh, done. Anyone objects, please rv me. :)rootology (T) 06:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 &bull; Work 06:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)
 * The second selection looks fine with me -- seems to capture the intent. Morton devonshire 17:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * So, now that we have consensus, I will rename the article tonight. Cheers.  Morton devonshire 21:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please stop disrupting. There is no concensus for that renaming. rootology (T) 21:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

Name
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". Iola k ana |T 17:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Connecting the Dots Violates WP:NOR
Just a reminder that "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" violates Wikipedia's policy against original research. See here for the policy in question. When the article states: "The following incidents have been described in notable sources as acts of State terrorism by the United States of America", and then lists those allegations, that's an example of this kind of original research violative of the policy. Please remove this material. Morton DevonshireYo 
 * I'd dispute that. WP:NOR refers to if A is true and B is true then C, which the listing of references does not do. It instead details A, B, C, D, E, etc, rather than attempting to tie together the list of them to draw a conclusion from the combination. Perhaps the leading paragraph could be changed to indicate that this is a compilation of sources rather than an attempt to make a point (from the presense of the list). To help with this we really need some counter-references. However I am not entirely sure where to find them. LinaMishima 17:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder, Morton. Please point me to a 'joined-dot' not supported by the references. Self-Described Seabhcán 18:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I just did. [[Image:Matt_Devonshire2.jpg|20px]]Morton DevonshireYo 
 * Your above description would define all lists as OR. Self-Described Seabhcán 18:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, we don't include things in the encyclopedia unless they have an existence outside of Wikipedia -- they fail notability, among other things. Please read WP:NOT, and particularly "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" at .  [[Image:Matt_Devonshire2.jpg|20px]]Morton DevonshireYo 
 * Please cite the specifics in the article or edit them yourself then. Reviewing your contributions you added "A list" as text and have reiterated this one policy line again and again. If you don't agree per policy the way something is structured, the impetus is on you to change it, not to talk at us by reciting and reiterating policy again and again. Please contribute positively to the project, rather than serving to disrupt. Thanks! rootology (T) 21:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * These are your contributions to date:, , , and . Three mass deletions and rewording "Allegations of State terrorism" to "A list". rootology (T) 21:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, they're good, aren't they! Thanks for the compliment.  Morton devonshire 21:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, then all that needs to be done is the sentence "The following incidents have been described in notable sources as acts of State terrorism by the United States of America" at best needs editing. The cited material meets V/RS, so its not OR. At best your claim of the sentence in question needs editing, if you can demonstrate this. Which I'd be fine with--please show us. rootology (T) 18:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No. Lot's more to be done.  I will continue to edit later.  [[Image:Matt_Devonshire2.jpg|20px]]Morton DevonshireYo 
 * Could you please give some examples? Other than the obvious "adding references which support the counter argument", it's hard to think off the top of my head what you mean. With examples we can all pitch in to try and help. LinaMishima 18:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Much of the page is a collection of references (some of dodgy reliability) chosen to advance the position that the US routinely commits acts of state terrorism. That is original research. If we want to have an article about allegations of state terrorism by the US, we can have an article about those allegations. If we want an article about how the US has commited acts of state terrorism, that's original research. We can easily say, "Chomsky says this happened and was terrorism" or "Ganser says this happened and was terrorism." We cannot say, "This was an act of terrorism."(Ganser, 20xx). Tom Harrison Talk 22:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Iran vs. US Define terrorism - rename article or new section
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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:, , , and . 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)


 * The Iran vs. US section was removed here. 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, - 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)
 * 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. 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)

Footnote style on this page is driving me crazy
I really appreciate how everyone backs up every word of what you say on this page. But for the love of God don't add footnotes in the middle of a sentence. Only in rare, very rare cases should this be done. Add the footnotes at the end of the statment which is being quoted.

I am REALLY tired of having to fix these ref tags.

In addition the footnote should be after the punctation, not before. Thank you! 21:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

onlinejournal.com and italy.indymedia.org fail WP:RS
Sorry, but onlinejournal.com and italy.indymedia.org do not pass WP:RS. See  You should remove those sources. Thanks. Cheers. Morton devonshire 22:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Tom Harrison Talk 22:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Indymedia is a collection of subsites, their editorial oversight is unknown and hence they fail WP:RS. -- zero faults   ' '' 16:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Going forward... concensus
Giving the already absurd level of content fighting, I move that all deletions or additions to the article contested even once be justified by the "other side" here on the Talk page. If not, this is going to end up sooner rather than later at ArbCom. I think this would be fair--as TravB said above he's nuked whole chunks of the article and no one has put them back in yet, while wholesale uncommented likewise nuking by others keeps getting undone. The allegations were made, were documented, and were notable, so the article will remain: lets just get it to a NPOV middle ground. I'll remind everyon again that the only POV that matters is NPOV. Anyone's left or right wingism will be left at the door, and abusing based on either side will be met with eventual sanctions by the community. Just sayin'. rootology (T) 22:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd in fact say that any non-grammatical, spelling or minor rewording related change should be explained on the talk page when it is done. This way, the reasoning is right here, and no assumptions can be easily made. LinaMishima 22:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I cannot agree to that. The burden is on the person who wants to include the material to cite it to a verifiable, reliable source. There is no reason to go at this like we're killing snakes. We have no deadline. We can all edit, modify, and re-edit at a reasonable pace like adults. Sections can be spun off to other pages, and other pages can be merged in here. There's no need for drama, or special rules. This is really just business as usual. The talk page is available as needed, but there is no reason to belabor everyone's attention with long impassioned screeds. Blogger is free. Tom Harrison Talk 22:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think all Rootology is attempting to do is stop revert wars. We all have a vision of how this wikipage should look.  Wikipedia is built on consesus.  As I have argued with Morton, my "nuked whole chunks of the article (which) no one has put them back in yet" is because I explained in detail  why  I deleted these sections.  Whereas others have started revert wars, whose edits last less than 2 minutes.  Who is the more effective POV warrior/diplomat?  Someone whose edits last days, even weeks, or someone whose edits last a grand total of 10 minutes before being deleted?  I am trying to teach my POV opposites how to effectively push there own POV, but no one seems to be listening. Travb (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[Proposed] Guidelines on this wikipage
Due to the many reverts, I think that all of us should abide by the rule that we don't delete any sentence or source without alerting others on the talk page when we do it, and explaining the reason why. This will (hopefully) avoid revert wars.

Even Morton was able to convince me that what he was trying to do was rational, by explaining what he was doing and why he was doing it. As shown here. Travb (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sentence removed
I removed the following sentence:
 * It is unsurprisingly primarily used by opponents of the American government.

This is:
 * 1) unsourced,
 * 2) unencyclopedic ("unsurprisingly"),
 * 3) a broad generalization,
 * 4) and covered in Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America

Signed: Travb (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
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   ' '' 16:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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   ' '' 16:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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   ' '' 16:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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. 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? --Zleitzen 17:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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   ' '' 17:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


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

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   ' '' 16:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Also having a PhD qualifies you for that field, he is not a scholar of law. -- zero faults   ' '' 17:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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   ' '' 17:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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   ' '' 17:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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   ' '' 17:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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)
 * Agreed. rootology (T) 18:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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   ' '' 18:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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   ' '' 18:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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


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

NYCJosh, last edit on journalists
See here. I agree with this. When I asked Tom for the reasoning behind this, he said to see above I believe, but I saw no policy-based reason for this on the area mentioned. Can anyone cite any rule on Wikipedia that says in some cases we'll cite the name of the author, and in others the source itself (which is the New York Times in this case)? My gut tells me that the reasoning is to make the statement have less authority as read.

This reference is similar: "Clapp, Rodney (September 1 2002). "When Tulsa Burned A forgotten episode in American terrorism". Christianity Today." The current passage says, "Author Rodney Clapp has described". Why not Christianity Today? I do not see similar notation of author rather than source on other articles. rootology (T) 20:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted sections: Honduras, Nicaragua vs. US, U.S. Military Plans To Commit Terrorism
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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * Tolerance of lynching - I took this out because it isn't STT even if it is true.

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.

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)


 * 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)


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


 * Kalsermer, you initiated the AfD, having lost the AfD, you seem to now want to delete the article, section by section. You have added nothing three words to this article.  Not one word that I am aware of. I will waste my time explaining why everyone of these acts are terrorism.  I know my explanation will not be satisfactory to you, because you will only be satisfied when this article ceases to exist, but I will do it anyway. Again, the idea of wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia, all I see you doing is attempting to destroy everyone else's hard work.  You have added nothing three words to this article. Travb (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Travb, I have not "lost" the AfD as you state it nor am I required to add to this article in order to delete sections of it that are not to be included in my opinion. Whether you will "waste" your time explaining is neither here nor there, this is not your article. What you know your explanations will do to me is totally irrelevant and I resent the implication therein. What about assuming good faith? Also, when did you become so perceptive as to presume to know when I will be satisfied with this article? Last but not least, for your information, I care a great deal about Wikipedia, a neutral encyclopaedia if it can still be called that. I work every day during my limited time that I can allot to this project to better Wikipedia. If by doing that I appear to spoil the party of anti-American demagogues by pointing things out and deleting non-encyclopaedic parts of this article than so be it. All I see you do is add things to this article and denigrate anyone who dares disagree with your POV. This will not work I'm afraid.--Kalsermar 00:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Nicaragua vs. US
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)
 * 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.

Baghdad bombings

 * User:Kalsermar wrote: 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.

I will look over this. Travb (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Honduras

 * 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.

The United States supported terrorism in Hondorous. More later.Travb (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Parts I believe should be removed
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Operation Northwoods
Small revert war reguarding:

''In 1962, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Lyman Lemnitzer, endorsed Operation Northwoods, a plot to gather public support for military intervention in Cuba. The plot called for acts of terrorism against the United States, including the development of a "terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington", "sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated)", faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban --Paraphelion 02:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)waters similar to a "Remember the Maine" incident. The plan does not make clear whether or not U.S. citizens or military were to be intentionally harmed or killed.''

The 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)
 * 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)
 * 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:




 * PLEASE! Travb (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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)

Federal Criminal Code definition of terrorism deletion
The following was deleted, after being added today:

''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. ''In Section 2331 of Chapter 113b, terrorism is defined as:
 * ''"..activities that involve violent... ... 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 ... ...(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States... ...(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)


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


 * 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)

Bush is a terrorist
I see there is some proof that Bush is a terrorist...--MONGO 22:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The mailbox graphic for me makes it pass WP:RS. That is a terrorist in the box. rootology (T) 22:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There is certainly proof that someone says so. It's cited to http://www.rwor.org/. If we are going to write about allegations of terrorism, we can include any notable allegation. We should not pick and choose just those that encourage the reader to take the allegations seriously. Tom Harrison Talk 22:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * MONGO, What does this have to do with the article? Except to try to bait leftist to say irrelevant (and arguably stupid) things like Root just did?


 * If you want to argue the relevancy of sources like the National Archives, do what TDC is doing, read the documents, and find holes in what the documents say. This is a very effective weapon. Making silly comments about Bush is well, silly.


 * I have to respect you though Mondo, you are the only conservative who has added anything to the article, thus far.Travb (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)


 * This series of article has Jumped the Shark! Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks TDC, although clever, this criticism adds truly nothing to the article. I would be overjoyed for you to be the first conservative editor to add one footnote to this article (I think Mondo may have already added a few though). The majority of conservatives appear to only be deleting content.Travb (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Deleting poor content that neither conforms to WP:V or WP:RS, but I suppose we could always refer to whatreallyhappned.com to fill this article out some. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As stated below, it is obvious what you see as "poor" content: Anything which does not match your POV.  And it is obvious what you see as "good" content, anything which matches your POV, including Commentary magazine and David Horwitz.  Please don't use wikipedia policy to justify deleting referenced material which is deleted because it does not meet your POV.Travb (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not to pick a fight here, but Commentary magazine is on of the most influential publications around, and far too much material on Wiki is drawn from very unreputable sources (Indymedia, High Times, various weblogs etcetera), to the best of my knowledge I have not removed anything with a valid source. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding a full fledged edit war
Based on the edits the past day, I think it is important to bring in a third party mediator to avoid a full fledged edit war. ''I will hold off, see what happens in the next day.

There appears to be three parties too this argument:


 * 1) Those who often delete large portions of text, and add nothing except minor word to the article.
 * 2) Those who almost exclusively add content to the article.
 * 3) Those who both add and delete content from this article (myself and MONDO)

The parties who seem most effective are the last two. Deletions by the first group are quickly reverted. Again, I am concerned that not one of these deletionists has added a single source to this text. Many users have added nothing to the article, except for minor word changes which better reflect their POV. For those deletionists who continue to delete large portions of text: you are on the wrong webpage. Wikipedia favors those who can source their POV, not those who delete large sections of text which do not meet their POV. I hope a mediator will calm the deletionists urge to delete, and not add anything to this article.Travb (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Trav, we have had this conversation before, and you have been chastised for it as well. You cannot just cut and paste entire swaths of material into an article. Unless it is attributed and pruned, the article, aside from violating copyright, winds up reflecting 100% the bias and POV of the source from whence it came. NPOV is not about he said she said, tit for tat quotes, but its about evaluating sources, shit canning the bad ones, and placing the good ones in proper context. Why you cant see this frustrates the hell out me. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The burden is on the person who wants to add the content to justify it, not on the person who deletes it to justify its removal. Tom Harrison Talk 22:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh TDC, the nostalgia that wells up in my heart when we begin arguing article content is overwhelming. You cannot just cut and paste entire swaths of material into an article. I agree. Unless it is attributed  check, that has been done. aside from violating copyright Please don't quote copyright law to me, this is not the forum, especially since there is nothing in this article which is a copyright violation. All I have to say is: "fair use" and that you use copyright the same way you use all wikipedia policy, to push your own POV. NPOV is not about he said she said, tit for tat quotes, but its about evaluating sources, shit canning the bad ones, and placing the good ones in proper context. Goodness. Who judges what sources are the "good ones"? Maybe TDC?


 * IMHO, you are one of the biggest POV warriors on wikipedia. Large referenced section of articles have been completely deleted because they dont match your POV.  So for you to espouse the merits of NPOV is completly and utterly ridiclous.  If you are going to talk the talk, walk the walk.


 * About the time that you were arguing on one of the sites about reliable sources, I found one of the few references that you added to an article, it was from Commentary magazine, an article from David Horowitz. So while you are deleting large numbers of leftist referenced sites, stating that they are "NPOV" you are adding comments from Commentary magazine and David Horowitz.


 * My image of a NPOV article is an article which has both sides of the argument, equally. That is why I have invited the most intellegent conservative I know to edit this page.  Your idea of a NPOV article is an article with only your viewpoint alone.  This is clear from your edits and mass deletions. Why you cant see this frustrates the hell out me.


 * In re to what User:Tom harrison said: The burden is on the person who wants to add the content to justify it, not on the person who deletes it to justify its removal. What wikipedia policy are you quoting? Or is this how you repeatedly justify deleting referenced sources? IMHO, which carries as much weight as your opinion, I see two groups of people here: those who are deleting referenced content, using wikipedia policy to mask their POV, and those who are actively adding content, to support their POV.


 * At least TDC is reading the articles that others are posting, and tweaking them to be more reflective of what they actually say. I have yet to see many editors add one word of content. Failing to delete this article in an AfD it appears like some editors have moved onto PLAN B: delete this article section by section. This is why a mediator is sorely needed.  The twisting of wikipedia policy to justify this POV is patently absurd.  Including the WP:OR which some editors continue to state. Travb (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Trav, your interpretation of fair use almost got you booted forever, lets not go there. I remove material that does not match my POV more often because it is the most poorly sourced material here, or, in this case, when a source is given, the material does not match what is present. Throwing charges like terrorism around are very serious, and while there is a crank for evey idea on earth, only notable cranks beling here. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Verifiability Tom Harrison Talk 23:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How is "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain." not read to include deletions? The policy here makes no exclusion between the two. I.e., deleting sourced material needs to be justified. rootology (T) 23:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry Tom, my mistake, thanks for pointing out this too me. I was wrong. This is the second interesting thing you have pointed out to me here.  Thanks. I look forward to you adding material to this article. Best wishes. Travb (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem, we all live and learn. Tom Harrison Talk 23:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Some of us "live and learn" by making mistakes more than others, I seem to be one of those people who learns by mistakes. Travb (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion
As per: Verifiability:


 * Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to move it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the template, or tag the article by adding  or  . Also in that case it may be helpful for your co-editors to leave a clarifying note on the talk page, for instance indicating which sources you already checked. You can also make the unsourced sentences invisible in the article by adding  after it, until reliable sources have been provided. When using this "commenting out" technique it is usually best to leave a clarifying note on the talk page.

If we can all follow these suggested guidelines, we can avoid calling in a third party mediator and a revert war. Travb (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced material
Posted it to Tom above, here for review. How is "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain." not read to include deletions? The policy here makes no exclusion between the two. I.e., deleting sourced material needs to be justified. rootology (T) 23:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please respond above. (Sorry, my mistake, again) Travb (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Er... sorry, I think I'm being slow. I posted it under it's own header as it seemed to be a totally seperate (albeit related) matter. rootology (T) 23:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The burden is on us Root according to this policy. I think that those who are building this article have met this burden.


 * In law, there are certain burdens a person must prove, once this burden is proved, often this burden is passed on to the other side to disprove. Since we have verified our additions to this article, it is now up to the deletionists to explain why these sections should not be in the article--the burden passes to them.


 * This policy section talks about the importance of verifable sources. I agree 100% with it.  I am a big source Nazi in some ways. That is why I follow this section's suggestions and add  tags to the section or sentence before I delete it.  I often wait weeks to delete a section or sentence, and I almost always move this deleted section to talk, and fully explain my deletion, whereas the majority of the deletionists have not followed this suggest policy.  Deletionists are quoting one section, but ignoring the rest.  That is why I posted the last paragraph of this section here.Travb (talk) 23:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Question
According to the weight of scholarly opinion, the aim of Truman and other key US decision makers in bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to demonstrate to the Soviets, then correctly understood as emerging out of the war as the major rival to US power, the ability and willingness of the US to use nuclear weapons and their devastating effect on large human targets; Japan was already persuing peace talks that Summer and was days away from agreeing to surrender. Therefore, according to this view (most historians who have studied the issue), the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki meet most reasonable definitions (including the US legal definition) of terrorism, EXCEPT that there was a declared state of war between the US and Japan. My question therefore is the following: Should this state of war be considered irrelevant, since the acts in question had nothing to do with the prosecution of the war. The war only provided a cover for acts that were aimed at generating fear in a (then ally) emerging rival. Should Hiroshima and Naga be included as nuclear terrorism? --NYCJosh 23:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see:  no one seems to want to be the first person to suggest a defintion, so I am going to try and provide one, we need to debate this folks, and come to a rough consensus.Travb (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Definition and the term American terrorism Section
I removed the following:


 * ''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.

This entire section was deleted earlier by other wikipedians, and I restored it, under the mistaken impression that the entire section I restored was part of the code. As a fig leaf and comprimise to my conservative wikipedians, I deleted this sentence. This sentence needs to be citied if it is to appear in the article. Thanks for catching this error on my part User:NYCJosh Travb (talk) 23:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for restoring the passage as a whole, Travb. How about the following sentence: Therefore, acts that meet this standard codified in U.S. law would constitute terrorism under U.S. law.


 * Seems almost tautological, but provides at least a point of departure for evaluating any act, including acts by Uncle Sam.--NYCJosh 23:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If it is not sourced, it should not be in the article. It is not hard to find sources to back up your own POV, you just need to know where to look. Travb (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Defining 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:
 * political assinations?
 * war crimes?
 * torture?
 * accidental military actions?

Here is my first attempt at what terrorism is, from the deleted dictionary defintions I had put on this page before:

I personally like this defintion is best: The use or threat of violence to intimidate or cause panic, especially as a means of affecting political conduct.

So the following would be included :
 * torture

The following would not be included :
 * political assinations
 * war crimes
 * accidental military actions

Any alternatives? Signed: Travb (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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  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  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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

What this article is
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)
 * Operation Northwoods is a clear example of the United States military planning to execute state terrorism. Should we exclude mention of the foiled airliner bomb plot from Islamic terrorism because it was only "planned?" Absurd. FCYTravis 00:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Kalsermar let me ask you one question: which section belongs here? You have deleted several sections, at least a half dozen.  You initiated a AfD to delete this entire article, which you lost.  Having lost the AfD, you start the common tactic, Plan B: Delete the article, section by section.  Which example is "okay" for you.  I will continue to ask this question until I get an answer.Travb (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, I have left numerous parts. What I object to are the parts that are not covered by the subject of this article, namely, allegations of state terrorism. I have removed sections where nbo terrorism occured, or where there were only plans that were not implemented. What rationale is there for those sections?--Kalsermar 01:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Kalsemar, by your logic, the attacks against the WTC on 9/11 may also not be terrorism since it was a "military operation" by an international guerilla army trained in large part by the US in the 1980s in Afghanistan who were fighting, in their view, a defensive war against the US and its allies in the region.

Let's consider the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia, like all members of NATO, including the US, are member states of the UN, and have signed the UN Charter and are therefore bound by it. The UN Charter provides only two exceptions to its ban on member states attacking fellow member states (the very reason the UN was established after WWII was to prevent war): 1. UN Sec Council authorized action, 2. A threat of imminent armed attack. Neither condition was met in bombing Yugo. No UN Sec. Council Res. It was not even alleged thatt Yugo was about to attack any NATO country or threatening to do so. So it seems that the NATO bombing was illegal. Was it a war? Did any NATO countries declare war? No. So if it's an illegal attack that includes the deliberate targeting of civilian targets (Belgrade bridges, radio stations, electricity plants etc.) why isn't it terrorism? Did I become "anti-American" by thinking these thoughts? --NYCJosh 01:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, which 9/11 hijackers, or any member of AQ were trained by the US in Afghanistan? Be specific, and have a source. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope, and the bombing of Yugo was imho totally unacceptable, but, it was not terrorism. As for 9/11, it was not carried out by a national military but by a group of private citizens, members of Al-Qaida.--Kalsermar 01:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Kalsermar: Which example of state terrorism by United States of America is "okay" for you. Simple question.  Answer it please. Travb (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * ok, you will get a simple answer. Look at the title of this article, it is Allegations of state terrorism by USA. So what should be here:
 * 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.
 * The whole beggining of the article, definitions and such.
 * First part of the Cuba section.
 * Middle East section as they are allegations. Although the Baghdad bombing should be looked into as you stated.


 * 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?
 * Military action by national armies, thus Yugo bombing is out imho and so would the Iranian airline downing.
 * Things like the Baath party allegations. These are so obviuous I shouldn't have to explain why.
 * 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)


 * Iffy:
 * Gladio, as stated in this article it was a NATO op. thus not by USA'


 * So as you can see, plenty can stay now that the title is allegations of....--Kalsermar 01:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Grand, thank you for answering my question, I appreciate it. We can work with this after the page is protected, and work on a comprimise everyone is happy with.Travb (talk) 01:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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).

Requested page protection
Requests_for_page_protection

There have been so many sections of this article deleted, I can't keep up. It is obvious that there are two groups here: a group who wants to build this page, and a group who wants to complete delete it, section by section, including the initiator of the AfD. I want to revert to an earlier version, before half the article was deleted, but this would destroy many valuable edits, and these sections will simply be deleted again.Travb (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason why I am asking for page protection
This user is not much different from other deletionists with this page:

Total words deleted in this article by user: 1,963 words, number of words added: 3. Documented all here on this temporary page: User:Travb/Deletions

Signed: Travb (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)