Talk:United States and state terrorism/Archive 1

message: G'day guys,
I've protected this page against further editing for the meantime.  I don't know who is right in your budding edit war, and I cherish that ignorance.  Revert wars are not constructive.  Please apply at Wikipedia:Protected page when you feel you can handle this with more maturity than has currently been shown.  Thanks, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "American terrorism" is documented and cited as a widely used term. There was no consensus to delete, rename, or redirect that article. It is against Wikipedia policy to make up neologisms like Terrorism by United States of America. It is also against Wikipedia policy to delete, rename, and redirect articles without consensus. I will not give my "cooperation" to people who are violating Wikipedia policy. --Peter McConaughey 15:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, "Terrorism by the United States of America" is a descriptive sentence. "American terrorism" is a neologism, and is inaccurate. It's not used to refer to the American continent, it's used to refer to the United States of America. See use of the word American. --Chaosfeary 15:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Politically correct or not, the term "American terrorism" is widely used to mean terrorism perpetrated by Americans.  The "descriptive sentence" that you made up is not used by anyone to mean anything except by you to misdirect the fact that you broke Wikipedia rules by essentially deleting an article without consensus. --Peter McConaughey 15:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: NO ARTICLE HAS BEEN DELETED - See Terrorism by United States of America. --Chaosfeary 15:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your Talk:Terrorism by United States of America is a joke. You made up that neologism and I will not support it. You renamed "American Terrorism" to your made-up neologism or "descriptive sentence" and then changed the definition, essentially deleting the original article. You can claim that you didn't delete it, but the effect is the same. Do you think people are so dense that they can't see what you're doing? People like you who ignore consensus, force their will on others, and justify their actions through misdirection, are the reason that Wikipedia fails to live up to its potential. --Peter McConaughey 16:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protection

message: I came here from the RfC.  To me, 'American terrorism' says "terrorist acts committed by citizens of the United States", while 'Terrorism by the United States of America' says "terrorist acts committed by, sponsored by, or endorsed by the government".  Which is this supposed to be about? --Carnildo 21:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's the question. I see two or three possibilities: US state-sponsored terrorism; Domestic terrorism in the US; and maybe American terrorism as a political term. My thought is that American terrorism might take the reader to a disambiguation page where they could choose. Currently there are articles at Domestic terrorism in the United States and Terrorism by United States of America. American terrorism redirects to the second. Tom Harrison (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Title dispute

message: Very bad faith move to rename the article!
Here is how this page (American terrorism) should look like:
----
For the term, see American terrorism (term)
For terrorism in USA, see Domestic terrorism in the United States
For terrorism by USA, see Terrorism by United States of America
----
--Striver 19:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad Faith

message: Good disambiguation page.  JG of Borg 17:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awesome 

message: Please keep the move discussion centralized at American terrorism (term). savidan(talk) (e@) 01:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, as there was no opposition... —Nightstallion (?) 07:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: NPOV may be the wrong tag.  This is a touchy and controversial subject being approached, and this may not be the most diplomatic way to go about it.  It is worth pointing out that, thus far, the article may as well be called "Grievances against the United States."  Also, applications of the term (neologism?) "American terrorism" are only notable when they come from notable sources.  If you're going to step into this breech, do it following WP sourcing, citation, and POV rules carefully. Tom Lillis 09:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, i dont agree. The term is made legitimate by the use in prominent sources, but they dont refer as a single act as "American terrorism", rather it is a umbreall term for everyting the USA has done. It is easly demostrated by the widh of the events labeled "American terrorism". --Striver 14:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: "A year after America's terrorism war suffered a huge setback, with the revelation of Abu Ghraib abuses via pictures showing Iraqi prisoners" 
again, the term is widely used, and it is used to include a variaty of events.
--Striver 14:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well as an umbrella it gives any wiki contributer a carte blanche to add whatever relevant information they have about "American terrorism" to this page.  With such a broad definition it becomes a forum of anti-Americanism by the very nature of the subject.  If there are to be pages on "United States Policy Towards American Indians" or "United States Intervention in Latin America" so be it, those are well defined specific topics where the idea of terrorism can be defined.  However, to create one page specifically tailored to "American Terrorism" and the expression thereof is inherently anti-American and thereby POV. 63.161.169.66 19:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is about the term "American terrorism" as a term. It's not about putative examples of terrorism by the US government. It's about the term, who uses it, and how it's used. If I search wikipedia for "American terrorism" I get a disambiguation page that lets me choose American terrorism (term) (this page here), Domestic terrorism in the United States, and a page about the book American Terrorist. There is discussion about having another page, about terrorism by the US, but I don't think we have one yet. I agree with BYT that such a page wouldn't be stable. Tom Harrison (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Old uncategorised comments

message: After looking around Wikipedia to see if there were analogous pages for other nations (as I am entirely sure that the grievances being aired here are covered elsewhere), I found State terrorism#United States.  As such, I am fairly sure that this article is redundant and probably unnecessarily inflammatory.  I suggest you look at that and consider trying to reasonably merge the information or simply delete this article.  Tom Lillis 22:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That section has a reference to here as a main article, made by somebody else. Also, that section is to long and the issues there needs to be mergerd to this article, which im going to do. --Striver 10:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Page is legit, see:
* Terrorism in Pakistan
* Terrorism in India
* Terrorism in Kashmir
Im removing POV tag. --Striver 10:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note the way those pages are written, and the way this one is written, before hastening to remove the  tag. Those pages are about terrorism that occurs in those nations; this page is just a list of alleged terroristic crimes committed by the US. It clearly lacks a neutral point of view, and it's clear that you have grievances against the US which you are attempting to air on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. An informative, POV-free article, like the ones you have noted, is appropriate; a page detailing a list of crimes committed by the United States, especially by someone with a clear political vendetta, is not.  – Mipadi 15:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

text: well, both domestic terrorism, as well as foreign terrorism is covered by the term "American terrorism". Just do a simple google search. --Striver 19:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly redundant. 

message: Someone removed the section about the US's use and ownership of WMD's. My question is- do we need a source for something that is self-defining, terrorism is the use of WMD's or violence against civilians to disrupt the functioning of society... and the WWII bombings fit that definition exactly.
As the article stands, the fact about the US's ownership of WMD's doesn't really fit, however, the direction it is headed, the US government and some citizens as people who have engaged in terrorist acts (see page on request for deletion about current discusssion), I believe that fact fits well.
Any thoughts?
peace,
17:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: WMD's

message: This article's AFD debate did not get consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed AFD 

message: Despite surviving an AFD, someone decided to delete the page and turn it into a re-direct to a stub. I've reverted to the page which survived the AfD till this is discussed. --Irishpunktom\talk 13:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the article should be a redirect right now, but it should start as a stub. There certainly was not a consensus to keep the article, there just wasn't consensus to delete. It makes much more sense to rebuild from a stub than to try to rework the horrible version that was put up for deletion. Carbonite | Talk 13:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This probably means little since I wasn't involved and am not an expert on terrorism, but I agree with Carbonite. The original article was way too biased. A redirect is questionable since a lot of people do consider the US to have committed acts of terrorism. So the best alternative IMO would be to rebuild the article from stub level. Johnleemk | Talk 14:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The redirect is vandalism -- please restore so we can work to improve this article, which survived its AfD minutes ago -- thanks. BrandonYusufToropov 14:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. AFD is not a debate on whether an article should stay as an article or not. It's a debate on whether an article should be deleted. If the article becomes a redirect, you can't cite the AFD as consensus to undo the redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 14:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brought back 

message: If Wounded Knee (for example) meets an objective definition of terrorism, let's say so and cite the sources. If someone says it was terrorism, let's say who says, and cite the source. Let's not say, "Some say..." Tom Harrison (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 

message: "American terrorism" is documented and cited as a widely used term. There was no consensus to delete, rename, or redirect that article. It is against Wikipedia policy to make up neologisms like Terrorism by United States of America. It is also against Wikipedia policy to delete, rename, and redirect articles without consensus. I will not give my "cooperation" to people who are violating Wikipedia policy.
This Terrorism by United States of America article is a joke. You renamed "American Terrorism" to your made-up neologism and then changed the definition, essentially deleting the original article. You can claim that you didn't delete it, but the effect is the same. Do you think people are so dense that they can't see what you're doing? People who ignore consensus, force their will on others, and justify their actions through misdirection, are the reason that Wikipedia fails to live up to its potential. --Peter McConaughey 15:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As a disinterested party, I recommend listing this article on RFC. Johnleemk | Talk 15:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a great idea. A neutral third-party would be the perfect person to add it. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Politics --Peter McConaughey 17:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done (quite a while ago, I might add; I just forgot to note it here). Johnleemk | Talk 18:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hijacking of the "American terrorism" article

message: Ok, so, the NPOV problems, I can understand why some peole would see that.  but, the Accuracy problems.. where are these? --Irishpunktom\talk 15:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy

message: Actually, "Terrorism by the United States of America" is a descriptive sentence. "American terrorism" is a neologism, and is inaccurate.
It's not used to refer to the American continent, it's used to refer to the United States of America, which is NOT "America", as per the article by the same name. See use of the word American.
Looking at the articles like
* Terrorism in Pakistan
* Terrorism in India
* Terrorism in Kashmir
Maybe this article should actually be at "Terrorism in the United States of America", really... Would be much more NPOV and in line with the other articles on similar subjects above..  --Chaosfeary 15:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  American terrorism - Neologism 

message: As this seems to be moving in the right direction, I'm curious if anyone else would be interested in working with me on starting an article covering the other potential meaning of "American terrorism," that being Domestic terrorism in the United States.  Anybody? Tom Lillis 16:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's part of what people mean when they use the term "American terrorism." It belongs in that article. --Peter McConaughey 17:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Politics aside, the article you're proposing would get pretty damned big, pretty damned fast.  I honestly don't understand why we don't just turn "American terrorism" into a disambiguation page that links to both Terrorism by United States of America and Domestic terrorism in the United States.  Tom Lillis 17:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad idea. It could also disambiguate American Terrorist, a book about Timothy McVeigh. Carbonite | Talk 17:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Maybe after the disambiguation, the page could discuss use of the term in the media, if there's enough for that to stand on its own. Tom Harrison (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see one problem with it: Wikipedia editors just made up the terms Terrorism by United States of America and Domestic terrorism in the United States, whereas American terrorism is a term in use. Is it our job to create terms, or to write articles covering existing definitions? --Peter McConaughey 17:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Those aren't "made up" terms, they're titles of articles. This isn't a dictionary, it's an encyclopedia. Carbonite | Talk 17:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I Google tested this up and down, then Lexis tested it, then JStor tested it.  An archive of the discussion is preserved with the AfD debate.  The point is this: the term is used, but it used to mean several dozen things.  Writing an article which discusses every possible use of the term would be a.) an NPOV nightmare and b.) next to impossible.  The potential meanings that I am proposing we focus on with a disambiguation page are a challenge enough, and honestly aren't the most common meanings.  (Google-sift.  You'll see that American terrorism seems to most commonly refer to terrorism in the Americas as a whole.  I am not making this up.)  I am not trying to hijack anything and I do not have an agenda to push.  (And I am nobody's cohort, incidentally.)  I simply want to lay out facts and the arguments relevant to those facts in a logical and comprehensive manner. Tom Lillis 18:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Companion Article 

message: It would be nice if the individual(s) who are responsible for the presence of the current NPOV tag would explain the reasoning for it.  An argument over the redirect shouldn't be signified with the tag.  (An argument over an unreasonable POV being inherent in the title might be, but I don't see how you can argue with the POV of the title.)  What about the questions of factual accuracy?
In other news, I am going to let this cool for a bit and do some journal reading.  (Yay, academia.)  Tom Lillis 18:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the tag is a carry-over from the original version of the American Terrorism article. Since the rebuilding really just started a few hours ago, I think it might be best to keep the tag for a short while until the article becomes a bit more stable. Otherwise I think a revert war over which dispute tags are appropriate (if any) is rather likely. Once the article is expanded and slightly polished, discussions about compliance with NPOV will be much more productive. Carbonite | Talk 19:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag. 

message: I'm not advocating removing this as an act of terrorism, although I think it's more rightly classified as a war crime.  I am, however, suggesting that the contributor of that item find a new source to justify it.  The source they're using utterly contradicts the point they're trying to make.  I suspect that they Googled "My Lai American terrorism" or something and just grabbed the first link.  Read your sources, people! Tom Lillis 02:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: hehe - I went reading through a couple of sources, decided to add one and picked the wrong one! D'oh!  I'll change it now! --Irishpunktom\talk 09:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't find any reference to My Lai there, so I've changed the item to something more generic. I'm kind of surprised it's proving so difficult to find a reference to My Lai as terrorism. As soon as one turns up I'd like to include it. Tom Harrison (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Lai Massacre 

message: ... concerning the totally non-consensus redirect away from American terrorism, which I continue to object to in the strongest possible terms. BrandonYusufToropov 11:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have revised my request for mediation with [[User:Carbonite]]... 

message: The choice to redirect this article is totally without consensus, and should be reversed. The article should reflect usage of the term "American terrorism," which is notable, and the title should reflect that. BrandonYusufToropov 14:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But is there consensus to maintain it at American terrorism? There's no consensus for either side. So we just maintain the article wherever it is until consensus can be found. Perhaps being a little less belligerent and being more open to discussion would help develop some form of consensus. Johnleemk | Talk 14:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think we should take the article back to the point before it was hijacked, and discuss the options there. The principle should be: discussions and establishment of consensus BEFORE undertaking major actions.' Reality check: People smothered this article title like Jack Nicholson in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and they did it minutes after the AfD failed, ignoring all dissenting voices. So let's all start being open to discussion, reverse patently vandalous redirects], as well as redirects that make the page sound like it's about horror movies. Let's work together, build up a little good will by restoring the status quo ante hijackiatus, and not to any other point, and see what we can accomplish from there. BrandonYusufToropov 14:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Surviving an AFD usually allows an article to stay. Moving without consensus minutes after an AFD is bad form and wrong. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just changed it back.. i tried american Terror first.. but that is very wrong and would refer to the terror felt by Americans, and perhaps by extension the (new?) sense of Paranoia that is apparent throughout the nation. American Terrorism is back to being the title.--Irishpunktom\talk 14:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Not really. The AFD is a debate whether to delete the article or not. That is all. It is not a debate on whether the article should be moved or redirected or whatever. Quite often those options are brought up, but it is always up to the closing admin to decide unless there's massive consensus that the article should never have been on AFD in the first place and should have been redirected/kept. The article's survived the AFD. All that means is it's now an article like all others, without any threat of being deleted. If someone wants to move it or even remove the content and redirect it elsewhere, then the AFD cannot be cited for or against it. Johnleemk | Talk 15:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: There's no consensus whatsoever for "American Terror." Again -- talk first, then change the article. Pretty basic principle. BrandonYusufToropov 14:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to agree that, whatever the reasons, promptly redirecting an article so soon after surviving an AfD - even if legal and can be argued for in support - may be construed as bad faith by other editors. As an outsider who has no specific interest in an article like this one, I'm requesting that those editors in favor of redirecting this article (which I have not read and have no real interest in reading) please not do so for at least a few days cooling-off period as a sign of good faith until/unless things can/can't be worked out in discussion. Ramallite (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  There was and is no consensus whatsoever to redirect this article to [[Terrorism by United States of America]] 

message: Please, cut and paste moves are bad. They corrupt the page history and make life harder for the copyright people. Special:movepage exists for a reason (unless you don't have access to it, in which case, there's also a reason for that). Also, these article names are BAAAADDD. Naming convention insists on having all initial letters (except the first one in the sentence) lower case unless it's a unique name (i.e. George Bush or Ketuanan Melayu, not All men are created equal). Johnleemk | Talk 15:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I think an admin should restore it to American terrorism to conform to WP style. BrandonYusufToropov 15:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed also, but it was impossible to move the page as it already existed as a manual Re-direct with a history. Also, American terrorism is locked.--Irishpunktom\talk 16:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you couldn't move it while preserving the edit history, you should not have moved it. I would like the record of my edits restored as soon as possible. Tom Harrison (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can get your edit history here and talk history here.--Irishpunktom\talk 16:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No cut and paste moves, please! 

message: The first line of this article says "American terrorism is a controversial political neologism." I hardly think that is the most informative thing about American terrorism. Wikipedia editors report how a term is used. In every country but the United Kingdom/States, terrorism refers to the creation of terror, either through "a system of coercive intimidation" or by trying "to awaken or spread a feeling of terror or alarm" (OED). American terrorism is simply the creation of terror by the United States of America (through "a system of coercive intimidation" or by trying "to awaken or spread a feeling of terror or alarm" in its own people). Ask pretty much any person outside of the United Kingdom/States, and they'll explain something along those lines as the definition of "American terrorism." That's a lot more informative than making people read truisms about politics being controversial and types of grammar.  --Peter McConaughey 23:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We've determined, by consensus, that the article about the use of the term, and I think we have an obligation to follow through on that. Reporting on the phenomenon as though it were an objectively identifiable process, like photosynthesis or something, is outside the scope of this article, I think. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken up somewhere else, though, if you can get consensus, but I have a feeling connecting any nation's unique brand of terrorism to a specific article would be a difficult sell. BYT 14:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Most informative things first

message: For information on American terrorism see:
* American terrorism (term), for the term's use in public discourse;
* Domestic terrorism in the United States for terrorist acts in the United States carried out by American citizens;
* American Terrorist for the book by Michel and Herbeck about Timothy McVeigh;
Tom Harrison (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks good to me. BYT 18:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have requested the page be unprotected. Tom Harrison (talk) 17:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Striver -- if you think that's an important article, could I ask you to first WP:Be bold and create a draft of it? My sense is that it's unlikely to survive calls for its deletion, but that's only one man's view. BYT 19:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed disambig page 

message: I strongly oppose that merge, this article suvived a VFD, merging is yet another bad faith atempt to geting rid of this article. --Striver 22:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I, too, oppose this merge. Point of the article is the usage of the term. BYT 13:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: U.S. officials are not to blame for the war crimes committed by this country. The United States is a government of the people. I take full responsibility for the actions of my representatives. It's ludicrous to assert that a few fogeys in Washington can control 290 million armed civilians. If the United States commits war crimes, we, the citizens of the United States of America, are the criminals. --Peter McConaughey 00:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: So are the neutrality and factual accuracy of this page disputed? If not, maybe we could remove the tag. Tom Harrison (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should remove this and place a "controversial" template on the talk page. BYT 14:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Tom Harrison (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded --Peter McConaughey 22:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totally Disputed? 

message: Every commentator listed as supporting "American terrorism" is a left wing commentator, and widely known to be on the fringe and/or extremist.  You have Noam Chomsky who comments against America and American imperialism and is on the fringe left.  Cornel West who is a communist and black militant.  Hugo Chavez who is a communist in his own nation opposed to the United States for political gain.  Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who has called the Holocaust a 'myth' and is president of one of the United State's oldest enemies.  Gore Vidal has called the Oklohoma City bombings the result of the FBI for stricter terror laws.  Finally there is Howard Zinn a Marxist-historian who has written a revisionist history of the United States.
Where is one, just one, mainstream or widely accepted or respected academic or leader who can lay claim against the United States or believes in "American Terrorism"?  This page is pure POV and deserves to be deleted or merged with another topic.  However, if a reasonable source can be found that is reputable and has consensus support, at least in the world at large not necessairly wikipedia, then this article will have merit, but until then this is just a polemic of anti-Americanism User:63.161.169.67
::I don't think you've accurately described the page content -- the 1996 ref that constitutes the first footnote, for instance, is not "widely known to be on the fringe and/or extremist."
::Secondly, the fact that someone is well known for expressing specific political viewpoints makes him or her more notable, not less so. What you're saying, apparently, is that no leftist commentator is worthy of attention. Not sure I agree. By the way, Sean Hannity has used the term in a published work. BYT 18:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that someone has read the page, seen Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Howard Zinn, and has been misled. We have no citations for those men using the term, and I'm removing their names. When someone finds a cited reference, we can put them back. Tom Harrison (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. BYT 19:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: I'm removing the cleanup tag. Feel free to put it back if anyone thinks it is still needed. Tom Harrison (talk) 03:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: It's probably the same in most nations, although the United States does have ICBMs as a patent advantage.  Military troop members are the most prevalent terrorists when constituents are non-cooperative or pre-occupied outside the national security realm of active influence.
Terrorist techniques include the ingestion of dairy products which cause abdominal distress, then a targeting of individual constituents who have been observed to be engaged in questionable conduct  --  most prevalent, probably, near oil refineries and other might-become-volatile manufacturing sites.
06:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorism  --  In America and from Americans 

message: "Chomsky insists on a consistent definition of "terrorism" regardless of the identity of the perpetrator, and has therefore described the U.S as "a leading terrorist state.""
So a consistent definition of terrorism logically implies that the U.S. is a terrorist state? Tom Harrison Talk 18:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the implication. ('If only Americans were consistent, they would by definition acknowledge that they are terrorists; it's only their inconsistency that allows them to claim otherwise.") I don't like it either. Feels like a rhetorical ploy, like we walked in on a three-card monte game. BYT 18:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency 

message: The examples listed in the article for operations organized or supported by the U.S. that some have called "terrorism" gives the misimpression that Mai Lai massacre is one of the only such events since WII. The casual reader is thus given the impression that this issue is just an academic exercise.
To rectiy this situation, today I added several post-war examples, which I prefaced by something like "some critics have also given the following as examples of terrorist operations organized or supported by the U.S." Operation Ajax, Operation Condor, Operation Northwoods (proposed by the joint chiefs but never implemented, the Cuban Project (also known as Operation Mongoose). 
Why was this deleted? Will the deleter please identify her/himself and her/his reasons? If you check Wipidia's entries under each of these, you'll find ample reasons why some have suggested these as examples of American terrorism? What part of this do you dispute, deleter?
GB in NY Jan 5/06.
:Hi GB; First, you can always see who did anything by looking at the page history. There is a tab at the top labeled history that will show you who did what, with a brief summary of the edit.
:What you wrote, "some critics have also given the following as examples..." is not well enough cited. "Some critics say," while common, is the language of innuendo. We need to know who says. Find a notable published quote of someone calling Operation Northwoods terrorism, and I will support its inclusion here. This page is about American terrorism as a term, not as a thing. We are not collecting examples of actions by the U.S. that someone might consider terrorism. We want examples of people calling actions terrorism. Tom Harrison Talk 00:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further, we really ought not to use one Wikipedia article as the supporting citation for another. If someone, other than another Wikipedia editor, has called the murder of Archbishop Romero American terrorism, please find the citable quotation. Tom Harrison Talk 17:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples 

message: The discussion about the title seems to have died down since December but by no means was resolved so this seems like as good a time as any for starting the move discussion. Basically, I oppose the use of "(term)" to disambiguation in the absense of a direct namespace conflict. The disambiguation page that is at American terrorism should be moved to American terrorism (disambiguation) and this page should be moved there. The disambiguation notice on this page should be "For other uses, see American terrorism (disambiguation)." This is the de facto consensus across Wikipedia. This is why we dont have Bushism (term) or God (fictional character). savidan(talk) (e@) 01:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you should start a trend and include America in a set of moves. Ewlyahoocom 09:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: shrugs Doesn't sound like there's opposition to me. Done. —Nightstallion (?) 07:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: HenryS said: Many people use the the term American terrorism with meaning terrorism in America. There are famous acts of terror and terrorists in the USA, so the term is pure legitimate. On other hand some people use the term with meaning terrorism of the USA, as a state. That is meaningless (see Terrorism) 
"Dear HenryS, June 29, you added the above. It consists of 4 statements I think: Meaning A, then your opinion, then meaning B, then your opinion on that. Firstly, I think this is already covered in the disambiguation page, which is mentioned on top of this article. Secondly, I believe that state terrorism and terrorism by a state are two completely different things. The first being overt, and directed towards its own population, the second usually covert, and directed towards non-citizens. Hope this helps. — Xiutwel (talk) 08:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  @ usage of the term