Talk:United States and state terrorism/strawpolls

The discussion page for this page is Talk:United States and state terrorism/strawpolls/discussion. Sorry for the inconvenience. Tom Harrison Talk 18:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

RE: Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America

Current title
Allegations of state Terrorism by United States of America

Support

 * 1) --Weak keep.--Zleitzen 02:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) --Keep. JRSP 03:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) --Keep. Addhoc 17:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) --Keep. Jun-Dai 21:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) --Keep. User:Green01 3:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) --Keep. Mushroom (Talk) 00:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) --Keep. (best of bad options) Self-Described Seabhcán 08:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose (state suggested alternative)

 * 1) --State terrorism by the United States of America —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RaveenS (talk • contribs).
 * 2) --State terrorism by the United States, so there's no room for every allegations or opinion out there.--Kalsermar 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) --I agree with Kalsemar.--NYCJosh 23:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) --I agree with Kalsemar also. -- zero faults   ' '' 20:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) --Political violence by the United States, I guess. It really needs a defined purpose. Fagstein 06:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC) *Support I strongly agree with User:Fagstein, a similar title change was a great comprimise which worked in another passionate contoversy. Please see:Words_to_avoid where Zionist terrorism was changed to Zionist political violence.  Plus, If this compromise title reaches a consensus, we can add this article to the policy page as another good example of compromise :). In addition, "Allegations" violates WP:AWW. Travb (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)  Does political violence include violence sponsored by a state, e.g., Saddam Hussein offering money to the families of suicide bombers that attack Isreal or the US feeding money to rebel factions in other states? Jun-Dai 01:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 
 * 6) No strong opinion on current title, but oppose Fagstein's proposal. Political violence is much too broad, including war by any reasonable interpretation.  14:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) -Oppose. And i oppose even more Fagstein's proposal.  So long as "terrorism" is a word being used in daily conversation, possessing a conventionally understood meaning, then i utterly oppose any and all attempts to water down the term by substituting more acceptable rhetoric so as to appease the fragile egos and tender sentiments that right-wing zealots indulge in when using their country's name.  The simple fact is that the early Zionist movement utilized what we today unqualifiedly understand as **terrorism**, and by changing the title that fact has been distorted and hidden.  Similarly, what is being attempted here is directly analagous;  one need only change the word "Israel" with "United States" and the motives for the lie read precisely the same. Furthermore, by limiting the page to "Allegations of State Sponsored Terrorism", the title limits us to *only* a discussion of currently evolving events.  Unfortunately, whether the more sensitive among us here would like to admit it or not, there is a VERY LONG HISTORY of U.S. sponsored terrorism:  the Indian Wars, raids against Indian villages shortly after the establishment of the Texas Republic, Civil War irregulars, the invasion of the Phillippines saw a good lot as well as Cuba, during the Spanish American war - the list goes on, i'm sure. These are not *allegations*.  These are flat-out fully documented *facts*, and whether or not people here *like* them is beside the point.  There is simply *no* *possible* *means* to justify the change of the title to the sham that currently sits there.Stone put to sky 12:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment
If the name is US state-sponsored political violence, it is an invitation to original research, trying to collect factoids to prove a case. If it is American terrorism (term), or Allegations of state terrorism by (the) United States of America, then it is clear that we are writing an article about the allegetions. To me this seems central to having encyclopedic coverage of this topic. As long as the title makes it clear that we are writing about allegations, I have no great preference. I again point out that American terrorism (term) (now merged in here) was stable for several months under a similar model. Tom Harrison Talk 22:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hogwash. There is plenty of evidence out there to demonstrate U.S. sponsorship of terrorist groups in Cuba, Indonesia, Haiti, El Salvador, Columbia, and Nicaragua, and those are just the ones that i can recall unquestionable facts for immediately, off the top of my head.  I suspect that there is similar evidence to support a case for U.S. involvement in terrorism in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cambodia, Burma, Laos, Iran (i know i've read at least three or four newspaper articles in the last year that detail U.S. sponsored groups carrying out bombing raids in Irani territory), Angola, and other African nations as well.


 * The problem here is that a group of Wiksters has decided that they don't like the *sound* of "Terrorism Sponsored by the United States", and so they are insisting on the name being changed. The evidence to support the title is validated many, many times over, and the use of the word "terrorism" in this context is by no means stretched or forced.  The problem here is simply politics;  many citizens in today's United States like to pretend as if they have a moral high-ground over "terrorists" and refuse to accept that terrorist acts are far more often perpetrated by military organizations than they are by so-called "terrorist" groups.  While it may not be the case that militaries must strap hidden bombs onto their fighters' backs and send them on missions-of-no-return, there is yet no *moral* or *tactical* difference between bombing civilian infrastructure from the safety of unassailable jets, sending a suicide bomber onto a crowded bus, or targeting major business centers, marketplaces, ports or tourist attractions.


 * If the United States is going to funnel money into groups like the Contras, the Maton Coute Coute, the Cuban Refugee groups down in South Florida, Indonesian militias, or -- as now -- Kurdish and Iraqi death squads (and there is more than enough evidence out there to justify this list alone), then there is no possible justification for allowing it to condemn the terrorist violence used by non-state groups as somehow extraordinary or beyond the bounds of human decency.


 * The title "Allegations of State Terrorism" is nothing more than a cynical and hypocritical attempt to divert attention away from the root causes of today's world conflicts, and i -- as an American, a citizen of the United Staes, and a diligent and laborious expatriate -- am deeply offended by it. Stone put to sky 12:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Seems notable--Kalsermar 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Travb (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Addhoc 17:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Keep. User:Green01 3:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Keep. Mushroom (Talk) 00:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Keep--Hattusili 06:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Keep Self-Described Seabhcán 08:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Qualifiedly keep.  Depends on context.Stone put to sky 12:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) I've never heard the term before this, and I don't know what it means. Jun-Dai 21:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. This shouldn't be an article about words or terms. It should be about the political pheonomenon known as terrorism perpetrated by a particular government, or allegations of its occurence. --NYCJosh 23:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Qualifiedly Oppose.  Depends on context.Stone put to sky 12:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) NN term and Clearly POV phrasing --  zero faults   ' '' 16:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose.  The fact of 'American Terrorism' is notable, but I've never heard the term discussed as such, and I'm active in an environment where I would. Kalkin 14:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Keep, but rephrase. Addhoc 17:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Keep. --NYCJosh 23:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Keep. Mushroom (Talk) 00:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Keep (if this refers to Dr Ganser's work, then Keep. However, this has no known or cited connection to ST911.org, and this fake and misleading connection needs to be removed immediately) Self-Described Seabhcán 08:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Keep, but don't use the phrase "Scholar for Truth" without quotes, it is POV. Kalkin 14:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) --Non reliable group with a clear POV.--Kalsermar 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) --Non reliable group as above, clearly POV, they do not even try to hide it. -- zero faults   ' '' 16:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) --Iffy, too many different definitions but could be handy to keep--Kalsermar 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Keep Travb (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Keep Addhoc 17:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) -- Keep. User:Green01 3:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Keep but maybe abbreviate and make more readable.--NYCJosh 23:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Keep. Mushroom (Talk) 00:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Keep, but cut down. There are dozens of definitions of terrorism out there. There is already an article on this at Definitions of terrorism. I suggest we keep only the FBI definition here because it is interesting what definition US law enforcement maintain and because Dr Ganser has specifically connected this FBI definition to the CIA charter.Self-Described Seabhcán 08:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) --Naturally --Kalsermar 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Keep Travb (talk) 13:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong keep. Addhoc 17:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Keep in some form. --NYCJosh 23:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Keep. Mushroom (Talk) 00:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Keep Self-Described Seabhcán 08:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Keep and explain that the items in this article meet sometimes only 1 definition of the many many definitions, poitn to definitions of terrorism article. --  zero faults   ' '' 16:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) --Church committee reports, yes. But needs an expanded account of verifiable, notable claims of CIA involvement in terrorist attacks against Cuba. There isn't any point arguing this - these act have been clearly described as terrorism by the perpetrators - the claims exist - they've been made in notable forums (UN) by notable people (leading politicians and ministers) - and are supplemented by a significant amount of evidence revealed in declassified documents.--Zleitzen 02:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak Keep Travb (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Keep. Addhoc 17:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) --Keep. User:Green01 3:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Keep. Agree with Zleitzen. --NYCJosh 23:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Keep. Mushroom (Talk) 00:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Keep and expand. Self-Described Seabhcán 08:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) --Keep. Addhoc 17:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) --Keep. User:Green01 3:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Keep but explain it was nixed by the president and never implemnted. Significant as to the lenghts the US military establishment was proposing to go. Provides modus operandi. --NYCJosh 00:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Keep. Mushroom (Talk) 00:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Keep per NYCJosh. A mention of the USS Maine (ACR-1 wouldn't be out of place either. Self-Described Seabhcán 08:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Keep.  Even though it never happened it's notable as background in this context because we know about the plans in detail, unlike most that were carried through. Kalkin 14:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) --Never happened--Kalsermar 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) --I'm generally opposed to most Northwoods material. I think it is blown out of proportion. One could speculate on the possible connections between Northwoods and the terrorist attacks on Cuba but that would be original research - I don't know if anyone notable has ever made a case to explicitly link the two. Although many of the non-Black propoganda events cited in the Cuba project did in fact occur over time, the bombing of boats, planes, civilian sites, the murder of Cuban diplomats and so on.--Zleitzen 02:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Did not happen. --  zero faults   ' '' 17:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Keep Travb (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Keep Addhoc 18:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) --Keep. User:Green01 3:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Keep.--NYCJosh 23:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Keep. Mushroom (Talk) 00:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Keep--Hattusili 06:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Strong Keep. Self-Described Seabhcán 08:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Keep. Kalkin 14:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) --Not terrorism by the US--Kalsermar 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) --Not terrorism, sources do not call it terrorism, people involved explain use of manual was to prevent terrorism etc. Been argued on talk page already and disproven to be terrorism with no counter arguement given. -- zero faults   ' '' 16:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC) "Please see the debate here . Travb (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)"
 * As I said no counter arguements given. -- zero faults   ' '' 17:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "no counter arguements given" i.e. no counter arguements which will ever satisfy User:Zer0faults. Travb (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Try to be more civil, answer the question of who is making the allegation and what they said and their rank, or are we back to saying the headline is all you need for an allegation? -- zero faults   ' '' 10:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh I see, I am not being civil, but saying my my arguments are not arguments "As I said no counter arguements given." is civil. As I mentioned many times before, your strict interpretation of wikipolicy goes both ways. If you want people to follow the rules, that means you have to follow the rules too. Travb (talk) 11:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Again I ask, Who is maknig the allegation in your Nicaraguan source and what rank are they and what is the exact quote. Since I am in the proccess of filing an AN/I report regarding this constant attacks on me I will be only responding by posting this now on. -- zero faults   ' '' 12:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I provided sources, you use your arguably impossible interpretation of wikipolicy to this sources. The ANI failed, since I took the extraordinary step, and allowed you too delete my comments which offended you, could I delete all of your threats on this page? Travb (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am still waiting for you to answer the above question, check your sources on Nicaragua and answer the question for each source. Thank you. I am starting to think that you no longer even believe that the sources are accusing the US, because it would have been easier for you to browse over them and present this information. As for my source regarding bin Laden sending the 9/11 hijackers and them being al-Qaeda operatives So as you see they worked for al-Qaeda not just trained with, they were also recruited for that particular act. --  zero faults   ' '' 12:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Would these below be sources? I have posted already. Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America I think they meet or exceed all of your specifications:


 * Please see the: "Implicit and Explicit Terror" section, explaining how to terrorize the population.


 * Articles on the manual:


 * Terrorism Debacles in the Reagan Administration
 * Torture 101: The Case Against the United States for Atrocities Committed by School of the Americas Alumni (law review article)
 * The CIA's Murder Manual "To the extent (unclear) to which the manual's advice was applied, people have died and a whole style of terror and counter-civilian violence and deception has been condoned." Washington Post
 * United Press International Rep. Norman Minetta, D-Calif: "Minetta said if that is accurate, the CIA did not tell the committees of violent acts by the rebels "and all they did was professionalize the terror.""
 * U.S. Orders Probe of CIA Terror Manual. Facts on File World News Digest.

I am glad that after one month, you have started to provide sources for your information. This is a major breakthrough in building consesus, thank you. :)

WP:AGF WP:Civil "I am starting to think that you no longer even believe that the sources are accusing the US, because it would have been easier for you to browse over them and present this information."

Signed: Travb (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am still waiting for you to state who in those sources is alleging the US commited acts of terrorism, please for each one state who, what they said, and their rank/position. Thank you. -- zero faults   ' '' 16:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) --Week keep of second part if there's a good source. Bagdad bombings are out--Kalsermar 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Delete 1st sct, Strong Kp 2nd Travb (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Keep Addhoc 18:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Keep.--NYCJosh 23:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Keep. Mushroom (Talk) 00:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Keep all sources material. Self-Described Seabhcán 17:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  Keep Addhoc 18:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Keep. Agree with Travb about forgery allegations.--NYCJosh 23:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Keep. Mushroom (Talk) 00:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Keep--Hattusili 06:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Keep Self-Described Seabhcán 08:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) --No terrorism occured nor was it a US operation but rather NATO--Kalsermar 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak delete, if it stays the forgery items need to be addressed, as per User:TDC Travb (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) --NATO operations belong in a seperate article. -- zero faults   ' '' 16:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak oppose, as NATO rather than US operation. Kalkin 14:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Strong Keep Travb (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Keep Addhoc 18:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) --Keep. User:Green01 3:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Keep. --NYCJosh 23:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Keep. Mushroom (Talk) 00:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Keep. Self-Described Seabhcán 17:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) --No terrorism occured--Kalsermar 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) --Source does not state terrorism, one person that does not have a law degree cannot change the legal definition of unlawful force. -- zero faults   ' '' 16:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) --Keep. These were allegations made by a country in an important international forum. It was a NATO operation but US war planes were doing much of the bombing and the US was a principal decision maker and participant in launching the campaign. --NYCJosh 23:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Keep. Mushroom (Talk) 00:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Keep--Hattusili 06:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Absolutely Keep.  To claim that 'no terrorism occurred' is to foist a U.S.Government definition of terrorism off as the *only* definition of terrorism.  Yugoslavia obviously considers what the U.S. did as terrorism, and i think that they of all people'd be in a position to know it if they saw it.Stone put to sky 12:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Keep. While Zer0faults' opinion of Chomsky is not notable, Chomsky's opinion is notable. Self-Described Seabhcán 17:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Weak keep.  No strong opinion on whether the ICC cases should stay, but either both stay or both go, since the allegation is identical. Kalkin 14:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) --No terrorism occured--Kalsermar 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Delete. Travb (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Delete. Addhoc 18:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Not terrorism, tell Chomsky to get a law degree and we will accept his legal commentary. --  zero faults   ' '' 16:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) -- I appreciate this article isn't about linguistics, however Chomsky has written books about politics as well. Addhoc 18:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) --Keep. User:Green01 3:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Keep. --NYCJosh 23:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Keep. Mushroom (Talk) 00:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Keep. Chomsky's opinion is notable. Millions of people read his books. If Zer0faults can tell those millions that Chomsky isn't an expert, and they stop reading his books, then his opinion becomes not-notable. Self-Described Seabhcán 17:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:RS & WP:V, a persons popularity does not determine their ability to give legal commentary suitable for a source here on Wikipedia. Specifically states the person should be a journalist for a WP:RS source or an expert in the field. Chomsky is neither. -- zero faults   ' '' 17:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) --Non reliable source on the subject, this isn't about linguistics--Kalsermar 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Delete chomsky quote in this section. Travb (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Person is not an expert in the field nor a journalist, hence he has no credibility here. Especially to be renaming legal definitions. --  zero faults   ' '' 16:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) --Not state terrorism, could be included in article about terrorism by US citizens--Kalsermar 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) --Not state terrorism. Unless there is something about the case i don't know.--Zleitzen 02:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) delete. Travb (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) delete, completely irrelevant. Addhoc 18:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Delete. Mushroom (Talk) 00:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Delete. Not state terrorism. Self-Described Seabhcán 17:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) --Keep. Explain that if part of war some would exclude on that basis. --NYCJosh 00:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Keep, but expand.  The context of the massacre and its implications for U.S. terrorist tactics in the Indian Wars is not made clear in the article.  Moreover, there are many other examples that can be added to this, which was not an isolated incident.  Kalsemar simply doesn't know his history and can't be bothered to find out the facts, and should not be indulged.Stone put to sky 12:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Keep and expand as per Stone put to sky.  Terrorist tactics in the Indian Wars are indisputable certainly notable, Wounded Knee being the least of it.  (Smallpox blankets, anyone?  That's disputed, actually, but it's at least a notable allegation.) Kalkin 14:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) --Can't see the charge of terrorism substantiated--Kalsermar 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Delete as per User:Kalsermar. Travb (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Delete Addhoc 18:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Delete, stretching a bit here. --  zero faults   ' '' 16:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) --Modify. These historic events are good illustrations of the general EXCEPTION that governments and others often urge for warfare. So we could tie in with (or make part of) the DEFINITION of terrorism section: acts most would no doubt consider to be terrorism (the deliberate targeting of civilians to achieve a political purpose), when done by a sovereign government as part of a war are thought by many to be excluded from that category. --NYCJosh 23:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Keep--Hattusili 06:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Keep.  War crimes, terrorism, and crimes against humanity are by no means distinct and discrete concepts.  They overlap, and in the case of war crimes are hotly debated legal issues that have no clear resolution.Stone put to sky 12:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) --War time military operation, not terrorism--Kalsermar 18:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Delete. Travb (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Delete - war crimes, terrorism and crimes against humanity are different concepts. Addhoc 18:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Delete, its a war crime not terrorism. --  zero faults   ' '' 16:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Delete per Zerofaults. Self-Described Seabhcán 17:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Delete per ZeroFaults, but a clear distinction needs to be made at the top of the article between war crimes and terrorism, noting that the U.S. has been alleged to have committed all kinds of war crimes which do not belong in this article. Kalkin 14:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) --Easy, we don't exonorate Saddam's record because he says he didn't do anything wrong--Kalsermar 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Don't consider the Baath Party to be much of a victim. Addhoc 18:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Keep. Travb (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Keep. Addhoc 18:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) --Keep. User:Green01 3:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC) ....SOMEONE HAS DELETED THIS FROM THE ARTICLE. PLEASE RESTORE SO WE CAN READ AND VOTE.--NYCJosh 23:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Keep. Mushroom (Talk) 00:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Keep. Kalkin 14:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) --Not terrorism and not by the US--Kalsermar 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Not terrorism. --  zero faults   ' '' 16:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Weak Keep Travb (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Keep Addhoc 18:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) --Keep. User:Green01 3:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC) SOMEONE HAS DELETED THIS FROM THE ARTICLE. PLEASE RESTORE SO WE CAN READ AND VOTE.--NYCJosh 23:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Keep. Mushroom (Talk) 00:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Keep. Self-Described Seabhcán 17:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Keep. Kalkin 14:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) --Military incident during warlike scenario--Kalsermar 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Kelsermar -- zero faults   ' '' 21:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

SOA and SOA Watch
There is already a lot of detail on these articles(SOA and SOA Watch), but I propose a brief mention here under the "Latin America" section.

Support

 * 1) Include - Self-Described Seabhcán 17:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong include. Travb (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The merits of this vote should be weighed by below comments showing this user does not know who the SOA Alumni are by stating they may have been US officials. -- zero faults   ' '' 18:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That is not what was said at all. It was pointed out that Zer0faults's opinion (that only those directly and officially employed by the US goverment may be considered as agents of US terrorism) is his own opinion and no supporting references for this opinion have been provided. Self-Described Seabhcán 18:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry but the allegation would be that they are US officials, that would require proof, not stating they arent. Nice try to twist it, but you are now asking to disprove an event that never happened ... So the logical problem with that? -- zero faults   ' '' 18:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No. You are making the claim that a terrorist who is trained and funded by the US State, is not a US State Terrorist unless he is 'official'? You will have to support that claim with references. Self-Described Seabhcán 18:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * can I see proof that his actions in his country were funded by the US? Further that his actions were a direct result of the training in the US as well. -- zero faults   ' '' 18:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you stating every soldier that is discharged from the military and then goes on to kill someone is an act of the US commiting murder? If not then I do not see your point, these people were attending a school in the US, graduated, left, and then commited some bad acts, less then 1% of them to be precise. -- zero faults   ' '' 12:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Include (now renamed) SOA. The US trained many a terrorist there. It's a regular who is who in Latin American milit/security establishment terrorism. --NYCJosh 21:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * How many of the 60,000 graduates are we talking about here? 10% or so? -- zero faults   ' '' 22:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know, the exact percentage, but I do know you said "20" and failed to provide a source for this. You also acknowledge here that the US trains people in the SOA, "How many of the 60,000 graduates are we talking about here? 10% or so?" but yet you write above: "can I see proof that his actions in his country were funded by the US?"   Is training someone to be a terrorist considered evidence enough for you User:Zer0faults? We have already discussed the sections of this manual at length, and to my knowledge, you have never addressed the sections which encourage terrorism. Again, you demand proof of what we write, but provide no proof for your statments.  You have not provided a source since you started editing this wikipage. Travb (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The wikipedia page on SOA lists less then 20 notable graduates. Sorry i thought you actually read the page since its wikilinked above. -- zero faults   ' '' 08:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to exapnd the real number is about just under 100, however the real number of graduates is about 80,000 not 60,000 What is that, less then 1% i think. --  zero faults   ' '' 08:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Include. Kalkin 14:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Obviously anyone who opposes the inclusion of the SOA doesn't speak english well enough to know what "sponsorship" means.  The SOA is a training ground where techniques of torture and policing by "informal" militias are taught to people who are: a) trained by the U.S.A, b) armed by the U.S.A.;  c) Often *paid* by the U.S.A.;  d) Aided and abetted in their activities through access to U.S. logistical and intelligence support, and e) Often aided in the support of their regimes through direct economic and military support. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.72.233.6 (talk • contribs).  Moved from oppose, as sounds like support to me. Maybe I'm wrong

Oppose
Note: The threaded discussion has been moved to the talk page: Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America/strawpolls
 * 1) -SOA are not US soldiers or government officials or people acting on behalf of the US or employed by the US etc. Even SOA watching specifically lists them as people of their respective countries, not US graduates. Also no US graduates are even listed. --  zero faults   ' '' 17:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

1980's support for Mujahideen
The CIA training and funding of the Afghan Mujahideen, including OBL, is an accepted and admitted part of US history. The 9/11 blowback of this policy should also be mentioned.

Support

 * 1) -Include. Self-Described Seabhcán 15:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) -Include. U.S. development of "terrorist infrastructure," then of course not called that because their targets were the "bad guys" (the Soviet Army). When their targets switched, e.g. the US military headquarters, the Pentagon, was attacked on 9/11, it was routinely called terrorism. Shows US attempts to manipulate the term. Same for Reagan's statement that the terrorist Contras (acknowledged to commit terrorist acts by US State Dep't) are "the moral equivalent of the founding fathers." Some of this could be mentioned in the intro. section about uses and manipulations of the term for political motives. Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that the mujahadin's US-funded guerilla warfare against the Soviet occupying troops constituted terrorism. I am saying: (1) the US training and financing was critical for the founding and development of al qaida and OBL--should be discussed in the body of the article; (2) the inconsistent application of the term by US politicians and the media--should be discussed in intro section. --NYCJosh 16:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Just to follow up, since al qaida is thought to be perhaps THE preeminent international terrorist organization, the fact that the US trained the people who went on to found it in the ways of guerilla warfare/terror (small cell structure operating on need to know basis), brought many of them together, and provided military training, weapons, funding, crucial coordiantion etc. is quite important to understanding terrorism today. So the US support of the mujahadin, while not state terrorism in itself (unless someone finds sources stating that at the time the mujahadin attacked a civilian target, for example an Afghan gov't target--I have not looked), without this support, Sept. 11, Madrid, etc. would not have been possible as we know them. Thus, at a minimum it's being an indispensable state enabler of al qaida terrorism. --NYCJosh 22:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) As per NYJosh this obviously not a case of State Terrorism. -- zero faults   ' '' 21:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Zer0faults unless someone can document an instance of Mujahedeen terrorism while the US sponsored them, ie against the USSR. Actually I suspect this would be easy, but 'blowback' is not state terrorism. Kalkin 21:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) --National armies engaged in wartime can commit warcrimes but not terrorism--Kalsermar 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) --War crimes, terrorism and crimes against humanity are widely considered to be different concepts. Addhoc 18:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) War crimes are not terrorism, cause then unlawful combat would be the charge not war crimes if we are to both except Chomsky and that war crimes and terrorism are the same thing. See the problem with Chomsky and linking of two different charges? --  zero faults   ' '' 17:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak support.  In general I think the distinction is bullshit, but for this article I'm in favor of it, just to keep it from getting unmanageable.  (The U.S. has committed a hell of a lot of war crimes over the course of 300 years.)  There just needs to be a clear note at the top of the article saying that war crimes, sometimes considered terrorism, are outside the article's scope, however horrific they may be. Kalkin 14:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) --Military forces can committ terrorism. The Allied air campaigns against German cities in WW@ is an example. Killing civialins for political purposes. The air campaigns in South Vietnam, Operation Mongoose was a terrorist campaign(Mai Lai massacre a small part of it). User:Green01 3:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Keep but DISTINGUISH. Go into reasons for and agains excluding in the definitions section. See my comment about about Vietnam. The reader should draw his/her own conclusions based on the info and the defitions presented. We report, they decide. --NYCJosh 00:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Keep.  Terrorism is a tactic.  If an army goes into a region and kills every male child over the age of ten -- as the U.S. did in its invasion of the Phillippines -- then that is flat-out, unqualified terrorism.  Moreover, the U.S. army has only recently become a "professional" army;  prior to about fifty years ago, it was a draftee- or volunteer-army.Stone put to sky 12:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) --In general I oppose including them--Kalsermar 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) --Not state terrorism by my definition of the term.--Zleitzen 02:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Kalsermar, case by case basis. If military or government official its on border, if during war time its not terrorism. --  zero faults   ' '' 21:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) --Not always, especially where there are civilian casualties. Addhoc 18:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) --Assasinations of high-profile political activists is terrorism. The assasination of Archbishop Romero(1980), or Fred Hampton(1969). User:Green01 3:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Keep, unless explicit military target (e.g. Pentagon on Sept 11.) --NYCJosh 00:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Keep.  The CIA has an explicit policy against political assassinations, so that if groups supported and trained by the U.S. engage in them it is obviously a transgression of the public standard of conduct espoused by the United States Government itself.  Assassinations in which U.S. sponsored groups are involved thus become important measures of how well the United States abides by its own public legal and political assertions.Stone put to sky 12:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Keep some, depending on target & victims, as per NYCJosh and Addhoc. Kalkin 14:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) --Of course this is out as nothing happened. A foiled attack is one thing a plan is nothing more than that.--Kalsermar 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) --They did not happen so they cannot be terrorism, they are being accused of commiting a terrorist attack that never happened ... That does not even make sense. -- zero faults   ' '' 20:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) --Case by case basis. Addhoc 18:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) ditto Jun-Dai 21:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) --Should be included, US offical definition includes intent. Therefore US plans for example must be included in the page. User:Green01 3:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Keep if important enough. See Northwood comment. Official plans, proposals and policies can be quite instructive as to institutional direction and motivation for terrorist actions, political appointee oversight (Northwoods proposal killed by pol. appointee), legislative v. executive branch checks and balances (Church Committee review of CIA assassination policy) etc. The article should make quite clear whether or not it was known to be implemented. --NYCJosh 00:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Case by case, as per my Northwoods comment. Kalkin 14:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)