Talk:State terrorism/Archive 1

message: I removed this paragraph from the article:
:The United States was condmened [sic - VV] by the World Court in 1986 for "unlawful use of force" against Nicaragua.  Terrorism is defined by NATO as "the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against individuals or property in an attempt to coerce or intimidate governments or societies to achieve political, religious or ideological objectives".
Nothing in the World Court ruling declared that this constituted terrorism.  The NATO definition of terrorism is interesting, but does not belong here.  It probably belongs in the (mess known as the) terrorism article, as it is a fairly general statement peculiar not just only not to the US but not to state terrorism.  Noting the "unlawful use of force" shared wording doesn't cut it; bombing Pearl Harbor was unlawful but not terrorism. -- VV 21:21, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: the new version of the Nicaragua claim.  "Criticised"?  By who?  Anyone of any significance? -- VV 01:14, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Nicaragua

message: Lowe, nice work here. Kudos. Kingturtle 19:35, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  nice work 

message: It should be noted that "state terrorism" is a neologism, not a broadly accepted political science term. The formulation works within a framework that redefines "terrorism", itself a relatively recent term, to have an even broader meaning than it did before 9/11, that of violence intended to destabilize nations by attacking civilians. By that definition "state terrorism" is nonsensical. --The Cunctator 03:40, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Neologisms are in the eye of the beholder, as are definitions of what is "broadly accepted". Labelling this term a neologism is a POV effort to minimize violence against civilians committed by state actors so that the term "terrorism" is only used to describe non-state actors. "Broadly accepted" is code for "what I, and most of the people whom I know, believe". State terrorism is not confined to totalitarian governments nor is it directed solely at national populations. It can be perpetrated by democratic governments and against communities and groups smaller than national populations. A cursory search finds the term "state terrorism" used by Amnesty International, used in academic political science textbooks for more than 20 years, and as a subject taught in Political Science courses in major US universities.   Alberuni 04:06, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I agree with Alberuni. Also, terrorism is not defined as "violence intended to destabilize nations by attacking civilians" ("destabilising a nation" doesn't even make any sense - you probably mean "destabilising a state or government"). Terrorism is defined as violence that (1) targets civilians in an indisciminate fashion (2) to achieve political/social/religious goals. State terrorism is absolutely within that definition, and it is used when the (direct or indirect) perpetrator of terrorism is a state. - pir 09:34, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Do we know if the term goes back before the 1980s? Understanding the history of the term's use is, I think, key to understanding the term's meaning, especially within the context of trying to develop a consistent sociopolitical language. I don't think anyone would challenge that the use of "terrorism" in political science has skyrocketed in the last few years. This is a significant change which should not be ignored. Let's try not to be creatures of the moment. --The Cunctator 01:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Agreed, but "state terrorism" does not appear to be a neologism simply by virtue of the fact that it is a phrase, and neither of its component words are new.  "State terrorism" is only a neologistic expression if the definition of terrorism explicitly excludes state actors, in which case "state terrorism" is coining a new sense of the word terrorism. - Nat Krause 15:02, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The situation may be analogous to homicide bomber.  Both words are established, but they're combination is a neologism. VeryVerily 22:57, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Um, what makes something a neologism is whether it's a newly-coined term. Alberuni has given evidence that it's not. --The Cunctator 01:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a broadly accepted political science term 

message: For those who dispute reality. Jewish state has a "Law of Necessity" that approves torturing prisoners to protect Israeli lives.  --Alberuni 17:19, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is not whether they did it, but whether the government justified it.  As far as I can see, the Supreme Court declared it illegal, which seems to be the opposite of justifying it. Jayjg 17:32, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't read too well do you Jayjg? Yes, the Israeli government justifies it as necessary to protect Israelis. "The Israeli Supreme Court left open the possibility, however, that in an actual "ticking bomb" case -- a situation in which a terrorist refused to divulge information necessary to defuse a bomb that was about to kill hundreds of innocent civilians -- an agent who employed physical pressure could defend himself against criminal charges by invoking "the law of necessity." " In any case, Israel now ADMITS torturing thousands of Palestinians prior to the Supreme Court decision. Allegations of torture continue and now Israel denies it again. Of course, no one believes them, except those who willfully delude themselves. --Alberuni 17:41, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Leaving open the possibility of using it as a defense in a "ticking bomb" case is not the same as officially justifying it.  Find me an example of a government spokesman justifying it.  By the way, denying it is quite the opposite of justifying it. Jayjg 17:46, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Allowing use of torture under any circumstances IS justifying it. The fact that Israelis deny specific torture allegations and allegations that torture is routine does not contradict the fact that Israelis also justify it's use in some cases to protect Israeli civilians. You know that. --Alberuni 19:02, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israeli use of torture on Arab prisoners 

message: Israel claims that mass arrests and torture are sometimes necessary to protect Israeli citizens.
Where exactly has "Israel" claimed that torture is sometimes necessary to protect Israeli citizens?  Please quote the government official who has made this claim on behalf of the country. Jayjg 02:19, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You should read this and this and this and  this and this and this and finally, to bring you up to date, read this. Torture is a long-standing practice for the Israeli military and secret police and continues to this very day in a routine bureaucritized "legal" form in the ruthless Jewish state. Aren't you proud? --Alberuni 04:13, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you found a spokesperson making this claim yet?  The court rulings restrict the kind of physical interrogation permitted, and don't describe it as torture; I think the Israeli position needs to be accurately represented, not paraphrased by editors hostile to the country. Jayjg 15:12, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite the hypocrite, eh? If editors hostile to the subject matter were banned, you wouldn't have anything to do all day. No surprise that the ISRAELI courts don't describe their physical interrogation methods against ARABS as torture. Neither did Paul Wolfowitz describe Abu Ghraib interrogations as torture. They both described them as necessary to protect Israelis and Americans, respectively.  Torture is going on right now in Israel. Sorry to burst your bubble.  --Alberuni 05:56, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not NPOV to put words into the mouths of people that they haven't said.  NPOV demands that they be quoted exactly, not paraphrase to say what the editor believes they should have said. Jayjg 10:26, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Israelis claim that routine "physical interrogation methods" (what many others, including Amnesty International call "torture") are necessary. Israelis also claim that in case of a "ticking bonmb" (suspect who knows of an impending attack against israelis) even methods of more extreme torture are acceptable of a court issues "special permits" and these are justified by israelis in order "to save Jewish lives". You know exactly what is going on but you feign ignorance and edit disingenuously in your systematic effort to cover the crimes and atrocities of your beloved Israel. You are a POV POS. --Alberuni 22:00, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text:  "No surprise that the ISRAELI courts don't describe their physical interrogation methods against ARABS as torture" (Alberuni's OWN words), yet he is defending in the article "Israel CLAIMS that...torture is necessary" (obviously because it suits his agenda).  You just contradicted your OWN argument.  Again. (Wiki really needs a How to form cogent arguments article).  Game - set - match NPOV version.  Terrapin 21:49, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really not that hard for one to say exactly what Israel says, rather than what one would like it to say.  That's what Wikipedia:NPOV demands, in fact.  Please note the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. Jayjg 22:39, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Israel claims torture necessary?

message: Alberuni, you have reverted this section five times in one day; I'm sure you are well aware of the Wikipedia:Three revert rule, please respect it. Jayjg 02:21, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Israel claims torture" - 5 reverts Alberuni 

message: Reverted. --Alberuni 20:15, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits with atrocious spelling and POV apologetics 

message: Objections against this paragraph should be raised here. For your convinience, a copy of it (unaltered) is written below. The paragraph is based on the previous one, and most of the text was unchanged. MathKnight 20:28, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the previous version better. The current version's terrible spelling, grammar and extremely biased POV excuses/apologism for Israeli military operations not appropriate material for an encyclopedia article about state terrorism. It reads more like a bad joke or an IDF brochure handed out to tourists at Ben Gurion airport. --Alberuni 20:43, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I answer your objection in the following days, please be patient. In the meanwhile, try to narrow to make your claims more specific and fix typos\spelling\grammer mistakes if there are any. MathKnight 21:37, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text:  The previous text was very unaccurate, since it gave no assertion of who accuses Israel of state terrorism and mixed between accusation of deliberate harming of civilians and criticism of tactics. Since no European government or non pro-Palestinian Human Right group (such as HRW or Amnesty) has raised such accusations and never called Israel's actions a "state terrorism", we should point that out. I did mention the criticism they had and I've taken Israel's reply from the orginal paragraph. Only the first paragraph was totally rewritten, the rest of the text remained mostly unchanged. I do acknowledge that Palestinian and Arab spokesmen accuse Israel in state terrorims and it is clearly written in the second paragraph. I ran a quick search in Google and found that the accusation of Israel in "state terrorism" is confined to pro-Palestinian groups and the Arab and Muslim world. Since the former text didn't make those more percise attribute, I replace it with the current text (2) that does. MathKnight 09:42, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: MathKnight, you improved your spelling but you still use English incorrectly. What is a "military percussion"? It has no meaning in English. Also, your extremist Zionist POV is glaring. You believe that the only people who can see Israel as a state terrorist are pro-Palestinian and Arab groups. That is false. Not all critics of Israel are Palestinian. Some are even Israeli! I know that's hard to believe in your narrow categorical "us-against-them" view of the world. Lev Grinberg at Ben Gurion University, for instance.    . Your edits are highly POV and inaccurate. And they have been reverted. --Alberuni 17:41, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: # Sorry to disappoint you, but Lev Grinberg is considered a loony by most Israeli intelectuals. He is a radical pro-Palestinian activist, some even call him a self-hating Jew. He was condamned by almost every one in Israel (including left wing activists) for his incitement and an article he wrote which calls Israel's killing of Ahmed Yassin a "symbolic ethnic cleansing". Can't you find such accusations within mainstream movements and not within radical groups? MathKnight 21:13, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: # As for the rest, see JFW answer. Instead of reverting, please confine your dispute to specific parts and work out an agreed NPOV compromise. MathKnight 21:13, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Haha. You must be kidding. His version is a completely warped pro-Israeli POV on Israeli state terrorism. It really cannot be salvaged. His spelling was a problem and now is corrected. It's his bias that is ridiculously extreme.  That you can't see anything wrong with it, says something about you. Fine, if people want to live with that Israeli terrorism apologism in their encyclopedia, good for you all. "In Ziopedia We Trust." What a bunch of crap. --Alberuni 21:03, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Raising paranoic "Elders of Zion" accusations won't bring you anywhere. MathKnight 21:13, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed Israel's paragraph 

message: ==== 1 ====
This is the paragraph under dispute. Please do not alter or change it.
During the al-Aqsa Intifada, Israel have undertaken controversial military percussions and tactics which resulted with criticism on Israel's policy. Most of the criticism by Europe, the UN and mainstream Human Rights groups condemn Israel for disproportionate use of military force in populated areas, but they never accused Israel is a policy of deliberately targeting civilians. They do accept Israel's claim that its operation are aimed against militants and suicide bombers, but calling some of the methods "unlawful" due to collateral damage and civilian casualties caused by them. Israel counters that Palestinian terrorists hide in populated areas and use civilians as decoys in order to maximize the civilian death toll, and incite hatred toward Israel. Israel claims the IDF try to minimize civilian death toll but civilian casualties are bound to happen due to the misconduct of Palestinian militias which force urban warfare on Israeli soldiers. Israel is not listed in the U.S. list of state sponsors of international terrorism.
Some pro-Palestinians groups accuse Israel in "state terrorism" aimed to attack Palestinian civilians, protesters and members of organizations that it labels as "terrorist". Israel reject this accusation outright, and state that those kind of accusations are only raised by radical anti-Israeli groups.
Some of the disputed Israeli tactics are:
* Israel's official policy of "targeted assassination" of purported terrorist leaders has been criticized as "extra-judicial execution". Palestinian spokesmen condemn the "target killing" as terroristic, while countries like the United States see them as legitimate self-defense measure against Palestinian terrorism.
* The use of bulldozers, explosives, helicopters and tanks by the Israel - which resulted in destruction of homes, businesses, farms, and schools have been criticized as collective punishment and disproportionate use of force. Israel claims that destroyed property is owned by accused militants and their families, or that they contain terrorist infrastructure such as bomb labs, weapon stash or smuggling tunnels.
* A multitude of Israeli military operation conducted at urban areas and refugee camps such as the Qana Massacre, and attacks on Jenin and Jabalia have been condemned as terroristic by Palestinian and Arab spokesmen, although Israel maintains that their military attacks on civilian areas are always in response to terrorist activity in these camps. On April, 2002, Palestinian officials blamed Israel of massacring 500-3000 civilians in Jenin during Operation Defensive Shield, but those allegation were refuted by Human Rights groups and UN fact-finding commission.
* Israel's policy of mass detention without charge or trial of Palestinian civilians suspected of terrorism and allegations of torture in Israeli prisons are also considered by some to be terroristic. Israel claims that mass arrests are sometimes necessary to protect Israeli citizens, and claims that "moderate physical pressure" of a type that many others, including B'Tselem and the United Nations Committee Against Torture, consider to constitute torture, are necessary .
==== 2 ====
During the al-Aqsa Intifada, Israel have undertaken controversial military percussions and tactics which resulted with criticism on Israel's policy. Most of the criticism by Europe, the UN and mainstream Human Rights groups condemn Israel for disproportionate use of military force in populated areas, but they never accused Israel is a policy of deliberately targeting civilians. They do accept Israel's claim that its operation are aimed against militants and suicide bombers, but calling some of the methods "unlawful" due to collateral damage and civilian casualties caused by them. Israel counters that Palestinian terrorists hide in populated areas and use civilians as decoys in order to maximize the civilian death toll, and incite hatred toward Israel. Israel claims the IDF try to minimize civilian death toll but civilian casualties are bound to happen due to the misconduct of Palestinian militias which force urban warfare on Israeli soldiers. Israel is not listed in the U.S. list of state sponsors of international terrorism.
Pro-Palestinians groups and Arab officials accuse Israel in "state terrorism" aimed to attack Palestinian civilians, protesters and members of organizations that it labels as "terrorist". Israel reject this accusation outright, and state that those kind of accusations are only raised by radical anti-Israeli groups.
Some of the disputed Israeli tactics are:
* Israel's official policy of "targeted assassination" of purported terrorist leaders has been criticized as "extra-judicial execution". Palestinian spokesmen condemn the "target killing" as terroristic, while countries like the United States see them as legitimate self-defense measure against Palestinian terrorism.
* The use of bulldozers, explosives, helicopters and tanks by the Israel - which resulted in destruction of homes, businesses, farms, and schools have been criticized as collective punishment and disproportionate use of force. Israel claims that destroyed property is owned by accused militants and their families, or that they contain terrorist infrastructure such as bomb labs, weapon stash or smuggling tunnels.
* A multitude of Israeli military operation conducted at urban areas and refugee camps such as the Qana Massacre, and attacks on Jenin and Jabalia have been condemned as terroristic by Palestinian and Arab spokesmen, although Israel maintains that their military attacks on civilian areas are always in response to terrorist activity in these camps. On April, 2002, Palestinian officials blamed Israel of massacring 500-3000 civilians in Jenin during Operation Defensive Shield, but those allegation were refuted by Human Rights groups and UN fact-finding commission.
* Israel's policy of mass detention without charge or trial of Palestinian civilians suspected of terrorism and allegations of torture in Israeli prisons are also considered by some to be terroristic. Israel claims that mass arrests are sometimes necessary to protect Israeli citizens, and claims that "moderate physical pressure" of a type that many others, including B'Tselem and the United Nations Committee Against Torture, consider to constitute torture, are necessary .
----
:MathKnight, you improved your spelling but you still use English incorrectly. What is a "military percussion"? It has no meaning in English. Also, your extremist Zionist POV is glaring. You believe that the only people who can see Israel as a state terrorist are pro-Palestinian and Arab groups. That is false. Not all critics of Israel are Palestinian. Some are even Israeli! I know that's hard to believe in your narrow categorical "us-against-them" view of the world. Lev Grinberg at Ben Gurion University, for instance.    . Your edits are highly POV and inaccurate. And they have been reverted. --Alberuni 17:41, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: # Sorry to disappoint you, but Lev Grinberg is considered a loony by most Israeli intelectuals. He is a radical pro-Palestinian activist, some even call him a self-hating Jew. He was condamned by almost every one in Israel (including left wing activists) for his incitement and an article he wrote which calls Israel's killing of Ahmed Yassin a "symbolic ethnic cleansing". Can't you find such accusations within mainstream movements and not within radical groups? MathKnight 21:13, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: # As for the rest, see JFW answer. Instead of reverting, please confine your dispute to specific parts and work out an agreed NPOV compromise. MathKnight 21:13, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Haha. You must be kidding. His version is a completely warped pro-Israeli POV on Israeli state terrorism. It really cannot be salvaged. His spelling was a problem and now is corrected. It's his bias that is ridiculously extreme.  That you can't see anything wrong with it, says something about you. Fine, if people want to live with that Israeli terrorism apologism in their encyclopedia, good for you all. "In Ziopedia We Trust." What a bunch of crap. --Alberuni 21:03, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Raising paranoic "Elders of Zion" accusations won't bring you anywhere. MathKnight 21:13, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel  

message: During the al-Aqsa Intifada, Israel have undertaken controversial military percussions and tactics which resulted with criticism on Israel's policy. Most of the criticism by Europe, the UN and mainstream Human Rights groups condemn Israel for disproportionate use of military force in populated areas, but they never accused Israel is a policy of deliberately targeting civilians. They do accept Israel's claim that its operation are aimed against militants and suicide bombers, but calling some of the methods "unlawful" due to collateral damage and civilian casualties caused by them. Israel counters that Palestinian terrorists hide in populated areas and use civilians as decoys in order to maximize the civilian death toll, and incite hatred toward Israel. Israel claims the IDF try to minimize civilian death toll but civilian casualties are bound to happen due to the misconduct of Palestinian militias which force urban warfare on Israeli soldiers. Israel is not listed in the U.S. list of state sponsors of international terrorism.
Pro-Palestinians groups and Arab officials accuse Israel in "state terrorism" aimed to attack Palestinian civilians, protesters and members of organizations that it labels as "terrorist". Israel reject this accusation outright, and state that those kind of accusations are only raised by radical anti-Israeli groups.
Some of the disputed Israeli tactics are:
* Israel's official policy of "targeted assassination" of purported terrorist leaders has been criticized as "extra-judicial execution". Palestinian spokesmen condemn the "target killing" as terroristic, while countries like the United States see them as legitimate self-defense measure against Palestinian terrorism.
* The use of bulldozers, explosives, helicopters and tanks by the Israel - which resulted in destruction of homes, businesses, farms, and schools have been criticized as collective punishment and disproportionate use of force. Israel claims that destroyed property is owned by accused militants and their families, or that they contain terrorist infrastructure such as bomb labs, weapon stash or smuggling tunnels.
* A multitude of Israeli military operation conducted at urban areas and refugee camps such as the Qana Massacre, and attacks on Jenin and Jabalia have been condemned as terroristic by Palestinian and Arab spokesmen, although Israel maintains that their military attacks on civilian areas are always in response to terrorist activity in these camps. On April, 2002, Palestinian officials blamed Israel of massacring 500-3000 civilians in Jenin during Operation Defensive Shield, but those allegation were refuted by Human Rights groups and UN fact-finding commission.
* Israel's policy of mass detention without charge or trial of Palestinian civilians suspected of terrorism and allegations of torture in Israeli prisons are also considered by some to be terroristic. Israel claims that mass arrests are sometimes necessary to protect Israeli citizens, and claims that "moderate physical pressure" of a type that many others, including B'Tselem and the United Nations Committee Against Torture, consider to constitute torture, are necessary .
----
:MathKnight, you improved your spelling but you still use English incorrectly. What is a "military percussion"? It has no meaning in English. Also, your extremist Zionist POV is glaring. You believe that the only people who can see Israel as a state terrorist are pro-Palestinian and Arab groups. That is false. Not all critics of Israel are Palestinian. Some are even Israeli! I know that's hard to believe in your narrow categorical "us-against-them" view of the world. Lev Grinberg at Ben Gurion University, for instance.    . Your edits are highly POV and inaccurate. And they have been reverted. --Alberuni 17:41, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: # Sorry to disappoint you, but Lev Grinberg is considered a loony by most Israeli intelectuals. He is a radical pro-Palestinian activist, some even call him a self-hating Jew. He was condamned by almost every one in Israel (including left wing activists) for his incitement and an article he wrote which calls Israel's killing of Ahmed Yassin a "symbolic ethnic cleansing". Can't you find such accusations within mainstream movements and not within radical groups? MathKnight 21:13, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: # As for the rest, see JFW answer. Instead of reverting, please confine your dispute to specific parts and work out an agreed NPOV compromise. MathKnight 21:13, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Haha. You must be kidding. His version is a completely warped pro-Israeli POV on Israeli state terrorism. It really cannot be salvaged. His spelling was a problem and now is corrected. It's his bias that is ridiculously extreme.  That you can't see anything wrong with it, says something about you. Fine, if people want to live with that Israeli terrorism apologism in their encyclopedia, good for you all. "In Ziopedia We Trust." What a bunch of crap. --Alberuni 21:03, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Raising paranoic "Elders of Zion" accusations won't bring you anywhere. MathKnight 21:13, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 

message: I added a pragraph saying :
"In context of 'total human death toll' critics claim  that, Israel 'state terrorism' has caused more deaths, then the Nationalist terrorism Of Palestinians. In addition to death toll, Israel 'state terrorism' has caused 9.6 million Palestinians to become refugees and Israel still denies their right to return"
as u can see from the paragraph that i didn't say it is true. I simply said that it is a claim which critics (Palestenians and others) make but they were reverted without explanation on Talk Page. So I think if we have dispute on any thing we should explain it on the talk page then just raw changing it. so plz explain it here on the talk page that why you think they should not be there.
:with regards
Zain
:Futher note that it is not editing of existing disputed paragraph. It is a totally different issue not getting into 'civilian' or 'miltary casualities' just mentioning a total human death toll. and not getting into tactics used by either side.
:Zain 12:53, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel and total death toll comparison 

message: What is happening here is that, people from opposite political opinion are trying to say opposite things in a same single sentence. In this way there will be no consensus even on a single sentence both due to wordings and due to different ‘factual observations’. Therefore, I am splitting, part of the section which I initially added to accommodate both point of views. With using the wording like ‘claim’, ‘accuse’  and ‘say’. So they won’t be technically incorrect. That’s the method used by controversial topics. This method can show point of view of both parties and decision of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ is left to the reader. Here our job is to increase readers knowledge not to change their ‘political point of view’.
:with regards
:Zain 21:46, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Jayjg 04:30, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: I've created a summary that is an appropriate level of detail for this article; people wishing more detail can click on the links provided in the paragraph. Jayjg 04:39, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accommodating both point of views using sections 

message: Removal of material earlier is not based of legitimacy. The reason sited was not that ‘Israel has no reason to do it’ simply that it is article on ‘state terrorist’ and where we should explain what actions of a certain states are viewed as ‘state terrorism’. For example if you see Terrorism you can’t add into that why 9/11 was done what were reason is foreign policy. Not because they are incorrect (although they may be) but it is that they are not relevant to subject title. So please don’t discuss legitimacy here. Try to focus on relevance.
Zain 18:19, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Point is not about Legitimate it is about relevance 

message: "Some groups"?  Which groups?  As it stands, these are weasel words. Jayjg 18:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some groups and Arab officials accuse Israel 

message: Please if any change can cause dispute, explain clearly on talk. Specially if it is reversion.
Zain 20:00, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Good advice for everyone, including you. Jayjg 20:21, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debatable edits without discussing on Talk 

message: Now you have to mention countries other then Arab countries. You  missed other Islamic countries and other countries, in others you have to elaborate. And many others. 
Zain 20:19, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Who are these?  Please document exactly who they are. Jayjg 20:24, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Islamic Countries i.e. Pakistan, Iran Zain 20:30, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about State terrorism.  Who says Israel practices State terrorism.  Please quote them. Jayjg 20:51, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of others in describing state terrorism

message: Many groups used terms other then terrorism like genocide, slaughter etc these also should be mentioned. Similarly the term self defense should also be mentioned.
Zain 20:19, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an article about terrorism and state terrorism, not about those other things. Jayjg 20:24, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The term self defence was not used by me. And the mention that it is not terrorism was also not done by me! So if those were mentioned these should be mentioned as well Zain 20:29, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about State terrorism.  Please state who defends charges against State terrorism with the defense of "self-defense". Jayjg 20:52, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing other terms used to describe actions

message: As it is the article of ‘state terrorism’ the groups viewing it as state terrorism should be mentioned first.
Zain 20:19, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Only those describing it as such should be mentioned. Jayjg 20:24, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean before who only condemed but didn't saw as terrorism Zain 20:28, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about State terrorism. Jayjg 20:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Preference of describing terms