Talk:United States and state terrorism/strawpolls/discussion

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

Moves
I never have done a straw poll before, so correct me if I am doing this wrong.

I don't know if I should modify the page, but i removed this:

===Include facts only (ie no allegations/accusations or non substantiated material)===

Oppose


This question is worded in such a way, that of course everyone will agree with it. Everyone wants facts, this sections needs to be worded differently.

In addition, I made some minor title changes, and I moved the article from Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America/strawpolls to Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America/strawpolls is that correct?

I added my alternative: "American political violence as per Words_to_avoid."

When we decide on the final outline in four days, I will invite those who voted on my graph to vote again, or I will transpose what already voted on. (I am going to call it voting). Travb (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I meant to start voting as soon as one wants too and give the voring 4 days to a week but that's not all that important. As for the one you took out, it goes to the heart of one of the problems, namely the fact that allegations are part of the equation right now and imho they shouldn't be. thank you for the move to the new location btw, it does fit better and gives the strawpolls their own talk page.--Kalsermar 00:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

SOA Discussion in Full
From: Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America/strawpolls

Oppose

 * 1) 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.
 * That's sponsorship. Cry how you like, zerofaults/kalsemar, but it's a simple fact that the SOA is demonstrable proof that the U.S. *sponsors* terrorism.211.72.233.6 13:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion however no WP:RS source is stating that, also the article isnt about sponsorship is it? read the title its about state terrorism, that means acts of state terrorism by the United States, so even proving sponsorship it still would not fall under the title. As I stated, since they are not government employee'sn officials, soldiers, or under contract of receiving pay from, acting on behalf of the US government, there is obviously no acts of terrorism being commited by the US, and no sources stating so. Please be mroe civil. -- zero faults   ' '' 14:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You know User:Zer0faults, for claiming that you don't play the definition game, I find your comments here rather confusing. Look at User:Zer0faults edits, User:Zer0faults is attempting to define the article so narrowly that nothing is including in the article. "State terrorism" only means "state terrorism" by US staff (and even if US staff does it, User:Zer0faults can fall back on selective use of wikipedia policy to keep the information out).  Proxy acts of terrorism, are not to be included in the article, nevermind that the soldiers 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. So User:Zer0faults, do you admit that the US has done a through e?  You stated "Stating the US trains terrorists at the SOA is actually false, because they are not terrorists till some time after they leave the SOA." So even though the staff are trained with torture manuals and how to terrorize the population by US staff, the US is not culpable (guilty) at all? Please clarify your incredibly narrow definition of terrorism (which you have not provided one source for).  If your other messages are any guide, please also insult me with such statments as: "Your inability to understand anything is quite amazing...You seemed to have jumped in the middle of something you do not understand the points of...I am starting to wonder if you are paying attention...why does WP:OR seem to evade you and Travb..." I guess when you run out of proof you can instead insult people. Travb (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you even read the "terror manual" the copy of one sent to South America? It actually has things crossed out explaining that they should not do certain things. But I dont reall yhave to go into this because you still have yet to provide sources. As I keep telling you, you can write paragraph after paragraph but sources are the only way things are getting into this article.
 * If you dont like the article title change it, I didnt name. Dont complain to be that you want to add things that dont fall under the title. There was no allegations of proxy acts of terrorism either, your person definitions here are irrelevant, when you learn that your opinion = nothing, and source = everything you will get farther. -- zero faults   ' '' 10:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, acutally I did read the original. The reason that it was crossed out, was before it was going to go public, someone crossed out sections. I can do something which you seem unable to do: provide sources too. "your person definitions here are irrelevant" like quoting the dictionary definition of words?  I thought this was WP:OR but this is exactly what you do down below.  Your wikipolicy goes both ways User:Zer0faults. "was no allegations of proxy acts of terrorism either" Careful about broad generalations User:Zer0faults, because they come back to haunt you, especially when you never admit you are wrong or mistaken.  This stament is as absurd as when Sea quoted a document, and in the next sentence you demanded the exact same thing which he had just provided.
 * User Sea: The amount of money Bolivia normally receives is small; much of it is used to train Bolivian military officers in the United States.
 * User:Zer0faults: That specifically says the US gives Bolivia money, then Bolivia then spends to train soldiers in the US. That is not the US taxpayer funding the SOA.
 * Huh? User Sea just provided a source which says: the US gives Bolivia money AND Bolivia then spends to train soldiers in the US. Travb (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Correct, however that does not however state US tax payer money is being used to train those soldiers. Again are you stating that the US funds the North Korean Nuclear Weapons project as well? We have given economic aid to North Korea and they spent that money on Nuclear weapons possibly. Further trainnig in the US does not mean training at SoA. -- zero faults   ' '' 12:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) -SOA are not US soldiers or government officials or people acting on behalf of the US or employed by the US etc. -- zero faults   ' '' 17:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The SOA is run by the United States Army. Self-Described Seabhcán 17:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes but the people who attend are not US personnel, US employees, US soldiers, under contract by the US, members of the US government, under orders of the US government etc. Their acts are not permissable as US terrorism. -- zero faults   ' '' 17:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As with Nicaragua above, I disagree. These 'studies' are paid for by the US Government and these 'students' are trained by the US military. They are thus US agents. Anyway, it doens't matter what I think. There is no shortage of notable sources expressing the opinion that this is a case of US state terrorism (for example ). If you have sources expressing a contary opinion, those can also be presented in the article. That is the way Wikipedia works.Self-Described Seabhcán 17:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It very much does matter as we are tryibg to build a concensus lol. Also they are not US agents, and you cannot prove they are, which is the problem with all SOA related material, there is no proof these people worked for the US, just that they trained in a US facility. Hence not US terrorism, I think you need to look up info about straw polls cause if people are gonig to take unilateral action then I can withdraw my votes and go back to deleting. -- zero faults   ' '' 17:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * First, a suggestion on a straw poll is not 'unilateral action'! Second, Wikipedia isn't interested in 'proof' of anything. 'Proof' is OR. Wikipedia is based on notable opinion and citations. If the Guardian and others say something is US terrorism, then that opinion is notable and has a case for inclusion. Wikipedia is not a court of law. Self-Described Seabhcán 17:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Gaurdian is not saying the US commited those acts, just that it trained the people who went on to do it. Did you read the article? -- zero faults   ' '' 17:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * By that logic Bin Ladin isn't a terrorist because he didn't personally commit any acts of terrorism. He just trained the guys who did. That may be your opinion. Others may have a different opinion. The US is not a person and cannot 'bodily' commit acts of terrorism. However, if the US state trains a supports others who do, then that is US state terrorism.Self-Described Seabhcán 18:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * They were not terrorists when they entered the US, again maybe you should look up information about the topic. They later became terrorists. Its almost like saying "Yale graduates are presidents" because some have become presidents later. -- zero faults   ' '' 18:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ever heard of Plausible deniability? The US uses Plausible deniability all the time, so those who desperatly cling onto the American civil religion can argue on wikipedia talk pages and elsewhere that America is never really responsible for terrorism. The problem for the faithful is that the FOIA and wistle blowers are two weapons which very effectively and consistently shatter this myth.
 * User:Zer0faults, please provide sources for you allegations. You consistently criticize the research of others, but in a month of arguing, you have not provided one source for your opinion. "SOA are not US soldiers or government officials or people acting on behalf of the US or employed by the US etc."  Really?  Says who? Where is your source User:Zer0faults, it goes both ways: if you are going to demand that others document and source their POV, the least you can do is document and source your own POV.  You have been marginally effective at quoting wikipedia policy, but I have yet to see any of your research and sourcing skills on this wikipage. Travb (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You seemed to have jumped in the middle of something you do not understand the points of. Osama bin Laden has admitted to picking out the 9/11 hijackers for the purpose of 9/11, now if you can prove the US sent these people to commit crimes then your all set, but the Guardian does not argue the US did that either. Just that they trained them in bad things, which isnt an act of state terrorism. Also if you read the page on the SOA or the Guardian article it says they are not US employees, please do research before attempting to argue with me simply to argue. -- zero faults   ' '' 18:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "now if you can prove the US sent these people to commit crimes then your all set" Thank you, then by your "reasoning" we have already proved our point. Now it is your turn to actually provide sources to counter this claim.
 * Can I see this proof you claim to haev of the US sending these people back to their countries to commit terrorist acts? Telling someone how to kill is not the same as sending them out to kill people. Also if you do not stop your taunting I will take this to AN/i as you are becoming moer and more uncivil. Please refrain from attacking the editor and all. Some would say ... Well its been said. -- zero faults   ' '' 18:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL This is so FUNNY! "Just that they trained them in bad things, which isnt an act of state terrorism." As we point out the fallacies in your argument, one by one, your "rationalizion" becomes more and more absurd.  Not that you will answer my question Zer0faults, because you never do: but what "bad things" in your mind qualify as terrorism.  And BTW, please provide sources, which in a month you have never, ever provided. 18:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess when you run out of proof you can instead insult people. However this comment has been noted.
 * You are accusing the US of terrorism, what sources can be provided that would prove otherwise? You are asking for me to prove something never happened. Hmm lets see I can account for the location of every US official that day, or simply see if you have a source for your claims, which you have yet to produce on the other talk page. You keep asking for sources, yet you are making the accusations without sources. So what do you keep asking me for sources of for the past month? -- zero faults   ' '' 18:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I count 60 references in the article. How many have you contributed? Self-Described Seabhcán 18:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am starting to wonder if you are paying attention. I am saying these events did not happen as US terrorism, how can I produce source for that view, you have to produce sources stating its true, not vice versa, your accusations not mine. -- zero faults   ' '' 18:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem to have an exaggerated sense of your own importance. We have dozens of citations saying that SOA is a US State supported terrorist training ground, and opposing them is you, alone, with no citations. Tell me again your reasons for opposing inclusion????Self-Described Seabhcán 19:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Noone is arguing its not a terrorist training ground, my point is I have yet to see a article stating that the people who come out of SOA are acting on the behalf of the US government. They can train them all day, however they are not acting on their behalf so its not US terrorism. Instead of ranting here and arguing with me because I oppose you, why dont you produce such a source instead of that Guardian page that simply says its a training camp, not stating the US is commiting acts of terrorism. -- zero faults   ' '' 20:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I would just like to point out that under British law (and probably US law too, I'm not an expert) the training of terrorists is considered terrorism in itself. Self-Described Seabhcán 08:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not considered terrorism itself, it is however against the law. However it very specifically states that a person is guilty only if he provides instruction or training that he knows that a person receiving that training intends to use those skills for or in connection with the commision of act of terrorism, or for assisting the commission of others in an act of terrorism. However there is no proof that I have seen that states the US knew these people would go commit terrorist acts, feel free however to present some, and then to further present a source stating its illegal under UK law, since its synthesizing evidence to take two seperate sources and connect them to make your point. And thats UK law not US or international law. -- zero faults   ' '' 14:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you like me to also present evidence showing that it is illegal on the crazy planet you live on? Self-Described Seabhcán 15:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * When you are willing to act civil again please get back to me. Oddly enough because I do not know what you are actually addressing. You cannot show anything, why does WP:OR seem to evade you and Travb? YOu need to show a source arguing your point of it being terrorism by the US, that is how Wikipedia works, noone cares what you think you can prove through a smashing up of multiple sources. Read WP:OR please. -- zero faults   ' '' 16:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"Noone is arguing its not a terrorist training ground" Great, so the US trains terrorists. I am glad that we have this established. So we can state that the SOA is a terrorist training ground in the article. I am glad that we now have your permission, as User:Seabhcan wrote "You seem to have an exaggerated sense of your own importance." But wait, this contradicts what you wrote before: "Just that they trained them in bad things, which isnt an act of state terrorism." So which is it Zer0? Are you arguing that the SOA is a "terrorist training ground" or not? Is "bad things" really terrorism? Should we change the title of the article to Allegations of bad things by United States of America? In addition, we have already established that the Guardian is a WP:RS correct? Talking about souces, I am interested what source you base this sentence on: "SOA are not US soldiers or government officials or people acting on behalf of the US or employed by the US etc." Can you cite your source? We have cited plenty of sources, and in one month, you have provided absolutly none, your opinion is well known on these pages, but your ability to back up your claims is seriously lacking. Instead, you play the definition game, you play the wikipedia policy game, you repeatedly threaten others, you refuse to apologize for insulting other wikiusers, you criticize other's sources, etc. Hardly conductive to consensus. Everything is supposed sourced on wikipedia, and thus far, you have provided zero sources for your opinion. "You are asking for me to prove something never happened. Hmm lets see I can account for the location of every US official that day, or simply see if you have a source for your claims, which you have yet to produce on the other talk page." Isn't that exactly what you are doing? We have consistently provided sources, and you say "wait" this source really doesn't say that, it says this. And if that fails, and we give you a source which specifically says terrorism, you either (a) ignore the source, or (b) you fall back on WP:RS, WP:OR. I have already shown your interpretation of WP:OR is completely different from what WP:OR says. When I have pointed this out, you repeatedly ignore this.

"You keep asking for sources, yet you are making the accusations without sources. So what do you keep asking me for sources of for the past month?" Wait, I thought the Guardian was a WP:RS now you are saying that the Guardian isn't a source? Or is this some broad generalization which has no basis in fact?

So where are you getting your sources Zer0?:

"SOA are not US soldiers or government officials or people acting on behalf of the US or employed by the US etc."

(removed personal attack and documented the dif)

Travb (talk) 01:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And you asked me if I knew english. Training people in terrorist tactics is not an act of state terrorism, as it doesnt involve actually terrorizing anyone. Next point, you have not given a single source that states that SOA members were employed by, under the orders of, financially supported by, under contract of, or direct members of the United States. Asking me to produce a source that states a negative is a logical fallacy. When you produce a source that says they were government employee's I will attempt to find one that says otherwise, however producing a source that refutes a claim that only you make will be quite hard.


 * Yes the guardian is a WP:RS source, however the guardian does not state the US commited acts of terrorism, just that it trained these people in bad things, not really acts of terrorism specifically. Further your constant attacks on me show you have no sources to support your claims, your constant asking for sources to prove claims that are never made false is even more illogical. Again I ask you actually read your sources, we can go back to this game if you like. In the articles in the page you still have yet to answer who is making the accusations that the US is guilty of state terrorism, what exactly they said and what their position is. Of course you cannot answer this because your only proof is a headline, noone actually says the US is guilt yof state terrorism in the articles themselves.


 * Just a last point so you realize something. I can create a terrorist manual, but that does not mean I am guilty of state terrorism. Your bin Laden example fell on its face because bin Laden states he sends those people to do XYZ. If you can produce sources state that the SOA actually sends those people back to South America to be terrorists that would be something else, but even then they are still not members of the US, so they are not under orders by the US. The 9/11 hijackers as stated by bin Laden during the zacharias trial were al-Qeada members and hence under his direct orders. Again please read before you comment, and please read your sources before you start claiming something. They acticle you presented said the Nicaraguan people were responcible for terrorist attacks, it did not says they were working for the US. Your second source states that they were funded by the US, however their acts were not under orders by the US. Your attempts to meld these two sources is WP:OR, O no, there goes those policies again. Instead of complaining about them being pointed out to you, maybe you should actually read them. Last point, don't ever attack me like this on a straw poll page again, I have a right to my opinion, too bad there is no concensus here =/. -- zero faults   ' '' 08:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You asked for a source for the claim that the US taxpayer funds SOA terrorism: (Int. Heald Trib.) "Less than a month after an assertively anti-American president took office in Bolivia, the Bush administration is planning to cut military aid to the country by 96 percent. The amount of money Bolivia normally receives is small; much of it is used to train Bolivian military officers in the United States. But the cut holds the potential to anger the powerful Bolivian military establishment, which has been responsible for a long history of coups."
 * What else would you like? I'm working today, but I can always find time to back myself up with sources... Self-Described Seabhcán 09:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That specifically says the US gives Bolivia money, then Bolivia then spends to train soldiers in the US. That is not the US taxpayer funding the SOA. Also coups are not terrorism. The US gives aid to many countries are you saying then the US is funding anything they do with that aid? So the US giving economic aid to North Korea is the US funding a nuclear weapons program in North Korea? There seems to be this jump you guys are willing to make, skipping B and jumping right to C from A.-- zero faults   ' '' 09:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You should read a little about the realities of aid. Most aid is 'tied aid' meaning it is given for a specific purpose and cannot be spent on something else. A famous example is the "bushes Legs" 'food aid' to Russia in the 1990's. The US gave 'aid to Russia on condition it be spent only on buying US chicken which couldn't be sold in the US due to food safety laws. Self-Described Seabhcán 09:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Its funny because instead of this long threaded ranting discussion all you had to do is produce the single source I am sure you have from Time magazine, New York Times, CNN etc that says the US commited acts of terrorism through the SOA. Not that the SOA commited terrorism, not that the US gave their countries economic aid. Simply that the US commited acts of terrorism through the SOA. Then I can change my post to go up there, instead all htese sources that dont actually say the US commited terrorism. Please read WP:OR, we cannot argue around the idea, you have to provide a source that says they commited acts of terrorism, it has to say that, the person saying that in the medium they are saying it has to meet WP:V and WP:RS. -- zero faults   ' '' 09:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Those particular newspapers will never say such a thing, regardless of any amount of evidence. However, that doesn't matter, because Wikipedia isn't just about repeating the opinion of CNN or Murdoch, it counts other opinions as well. Try (Democracy Now!) for example. Self-Described Seabhcán 09:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That article does not say the US commited acts of terrorism either. I direct you after the above comment to WP:RS
 * "Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them."
 * That kind of situation is exactly something WP:RS says to be careful of. -- zero faults   ' '' 09:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The "prevailing view in the relavant academic community" is that US carries out acts of State Terrorism (See D. Ganser) I have seen no academic writings which say otherwise. Democracy Now is WP:RS. Self-Described Seabhcán 10:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * D Ganser, the man who thinks the World Trade Center was blown up with explosives? I do not think he represents to the acedemic community. I will not argue over this because he is known for Gladio also. However DemocracyNow article as I stated does not say that the US commited an act of terrorism. The arguement wasnt that it failed WP:RS, to quote myself That article does not say the US commited acts of terrorism either. -- zero faults   ' '' 11:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It is your opinion only that training terrorist is not an act of terrorism in itself. As I pointed out above, under UK law training terrorists is legally defined as being terrorism in and of itself. This is probably the case with US law too, however, I'm not an expert. So, can you provide an academic reference which disagrees with UK law? Can you provide one which says training terrorists is not an act of terrorism? Self-Described Seabhcán 12:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Stop asking me to disprove things you make up off the top of your head, provide a source backing what you are saying before asking anyone to disprove it.
 * Wouldnt that require a source arguing that training of SOA soldiers is an act of terrorism in itself then? I havent seen a source stating that either. Further laws enacted after the closing of the SOA are obviously not applicable as laws are not retroactive. So to even argue that point you would have to show someone arguing that the SOA still chruned out terrorists as you call them after the law was passed. From looking at the list of people SOA Alumni that is, you will be hard pressed to find someone arguing that, then again of the 60,000 alumni 20 have gone home to do bad deeds and people still argue its the schools fault, imagine if we looked at my old high school and out of 60,000 calculated how many gone on to commit crime then argued that the school trains people how to commit crimes. Again, please present sources or we are just clogging up this page.
 * You keep asking me to prove negatives, the better question since you are the one asserting it is illegal to train terrorists and asserting that terrorists were trained at SOA, then you need to prove that its illegal, actually that its an act of terrorism in and of itself, under UK law to train South American soldiers, if those soldiers later returned to their countries and commited acts of terrorism. So your single source would have to be arguing your point that under UK Law the US commited an act of terrorism by training these soldiers who later went on to commit acts of terrorism. I would like to see this, and please make sure it follows WP:RS and WP:V. -- zero faults   ' '' 12:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You'll be asking me to prove the sky is blue next. SOA hasn't been closed, by the way, just renamed. Self-Described Seabhcán 13:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess that means you have no sources stating that the US broke UK law by training soldiers and individuals in the School of Americas? Good then please stop using this as your reasoning since I prefer not to have arguements in which one party is violating WP:OR. However if you can present a source stating this feel free to continue the discussion by posting the source. Thank you. -- zero faults   ' '' 14:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Zer0faults, you seem determined to have the last word on every post, and on every page. This is a typical tactic you have deployed for a month. Today you have said that I was lying, and threatened me three or four times. User:Zleitzen has asked us to calm down, so you can have the last word, as you seem so determined to have.Travb (talk) 12:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Category needed
Hiya, a request from those of us on the categorization team... Right now, since this subpage is in the main article space, it keeps being flagged as "article lacking category". In order to keep it from showing up on our reports, could I please ask that it either be categorized, or moved into a talkpage archive? Thanks. --Elonka 17:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)