Talk:State terrorism/Archive 2

message: Apparntly, someone bothered to quote Dr Lev Greenberg, a known far left looney, which was responsible for cheap incitement propoganda such as "The murder of Sheikh Yassin is part of an Israeli policy that can be described as symbolic genocide".   Greenberg was condamned by many in Israel and almost brought BGU to lose it donators. MathKnight 23:27, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he can be described as far left.  At least the information is on topic.  I would prefer to remove all off-topic information, and just leave information which actually describes Israel as using "State terrorism".  What are your thoughts? Jayjg 23:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lev Greenberg 

message: Critics of Israel claim that Israeli "state terrorism" has caused more deaths (perhaps twice as many) than the terrorist attacks by the Palestinians, and that Israeli "state terrorism" in the 1948 War of Independence created millions of Palestinian refugees.
====Civilian deaths during ‘al-Aqsa Intifada’====
=====International Condemnation =====	 	
European governments, the UN, 'mainstream human rights groups', many countries, specially Islamic countries, 'Palestinian Group' and many political analyst condemn Israel for disproportionate use of military force in populated areas.	 	
		 	
On May 7, 2002, an emergency session of the United Nations General Assembly was called to vote on a resolution condemning Israel for its 'illegal' actions in Palestinian-controlled areas, and its refusal to accept a UN 'fact-finding' team to the Jenin refugee camp.	 	
		 	
The Resolution was passed 74-4 Countries voting against were (Israel, USA, Marshall Islands and States of Micronesia. BBC News Link	 	
=====Disagreement on the terms to describe Israeli Actions =====	 	
The exact term to describe these actions varied between the different groups from genocide, slaughter and terrorism to ‘disappointment development’ while Israel mostly used the term self defense. 	 	
According to Dr. Lev Grinberg a political sociologist at Ben Gurion University, Israel's actions constitute state terrorism.  On June 4, 2004 Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan also accused Israel of state terrorism.
:What about describing them as "actions" in the article, and add the two paragraphs above as well, including the links to the sources (replacing the potentially POV-objections-attracting commondreams.org link with something more direct to Grinberg's publications)? --Shaddack 03:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The above is clearly propaganda -- Qana, for example, was not a "refugee camp" but a UN position. And "massacre" is a propaganda term -- the civilians were killed because the Israelis were firing at a Palestinian firing position specifically located there to use civilians as cover. Their rounds merely undershot their target by only 100 yards. Accidents of war happen, they aren't terrorism. The use of the term state-terrorism to apply to anyone shooting back at a terrorist is sheer propaganda. Quite frankly, unless this propaganda rampage stops, Wikipedia will lose its usefulness.
----
This a temporary template, it is minimalist and NPOV as possible in order to avoid any NPOV disputes and have it accepted by all parties involved as a temporary solution until a compromise is reached. MathKnight 23:46, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Disputed Section 

message: =====International Condemnation =====	 	
European governments, the UN, 'mainstream human rights groups', many countries, specially Islamic countries, 'Palestinian Group' and many political analyst condemn Israel for disproportionate use of military force in populated areas.	 	
		 	
On May 7, 2002, an emergency session of the United Nations General Assembly was called to vote on a resolution condemning Israel for its 'illegal' actions in Palestinian-controlled areas, and its refusal to accept a UN 'fact-finding' team to the Jenin refugee camp.	 	
		 	
The Resolution was passed 74-4 Countries voting against were (Israel, USA, Marshall Islands and States of Micronesia. BBC News Link	 	
=====Disagreement on the terms to describe Israeli Actions =====	 	
The exact term to describe these actions varied between the different groups from genocide, slaughter and terrorism to ‘disappointment development’ while Israel mostly used the term self defense. 	 	
According to Dr. Lev Grinberg a political sociologist at Ben Gurion University, Israel's actions constitute state terrorism.  On June 4, 2004 Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan also accused Israel of state terrorism.
:What about describing them as "actions" in the article, and add the two paragraphs above as well, including the links to the sources (replacing the potentially POV-objections-attracting commondreams.org link with something more direct to Grinberg's publications)? --Shaddack 03:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The above is clearly propaganda -- Qana, for example, was not a "refugee camp" but a UN position. And "massacre" is a propaganda term -- the civilians were killed because the Israelis were firing at a Palestinian firing position specifically located there to use civilians as cover. Their rounds merely undershot their target by only 100 yards. Accidents of war happen, they aren't terrorism. The use of the term state-terrorism to apply to anyone shooting back at a terrorist is sheer propaganda. Quite frankly, unless this propaganda rampage stops, Wikipedia will lose its usefulness.
----
This a temporary template, it is minimalist and NPOV as possible in order to avoid any NPOV disputes and have it accepted by all parties involved as a temporary solution until a compromise is reached. MathKnight 23:46, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Civilian deaths during &#8216;al-Aqsa Intifada&#8217;

message: The exact term to describe these actions varied between the different groups from genocide, slaughter and terrorism to ‘disappointment development’ while Israel mostly used the term self defense. 	 	
According to Dr. Lev Grinberg a political sociologist at Ben Gurion University, Israel's actions constitute state terrorism.  On June 4, 2004 Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan also accused Israel of state terrorism.
:What about describing them as "actions" in the article, and add the two paragraphs above as well, including the links to the sources (replacing the potentially POV-objections-attracting commondreams.org link with something more direct to Grinberg's publications)? --Shaddack 03:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disagreement on the terms to describe Israeli Actions 

message: During the al-Aqsa Intifada, Israel has undertaken controversial military operations and tactics that have resulted in criticism of Israel's policy. European governments, the UN and mainstream human rights groups condemn Israel for disproportionate use of military force in populated areas but rarely accuse Israel of deliberately targeting civilians. They generally accept Israel's claims that its state violence is aimed against militants and suicide bombers but call some of the methods "unlawful" due to the disproportionate use of force and extensive civilian casualties. 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 tries to minimize the civilian death toll but civilian casualties are nonetheless bound to happen due to the misconduct of Palestinian militias. Israel is not listed in the U.S. list of state sponsors of international terrorism.
Pro-Palestinian groups and Arab officials accuse Israel of "state terrorism" aimed against Palestinian civilians, protesters and members of organizations that it labels as "terrorist". Israel rejects 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[ed] 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, weapons or smuggling tunnels.
* A multitude of Israeli military operations conducted in 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 a 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 .
</blockquote>
: The above is clearly propaganda -- Qana, for example, was not a "refugee camp" but a UN position. And "massacre" is a propaganda term -- the civilians were killed because the Israelis were firing at a Palestinian firing position specifically located there to use civilians as cover. Their rounds merely undershot their target by only 100 yards. Accidents of war happen, they aren't terrorism. The use of the term state-terrorism to apply to anyone shooting back at a terrorist is sheer propaganda. Quite frankly, unless this propaganda rampage stops, Wikipedia will lose its usefulness.
----
This a temporary template, it is minimalist and NPOV as possible in order to avoid any NPOV disputes and have it accepted by all parties involved as a temporary solution until a compromise is reached. MathKnight 23:46, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed Tactics 

message: I think this issue is bugging again and again as it can be easily be seen from talk let's fix this first. That what you asked far ?
*I claim you asked for list of countries condemning
*You claim you asked for list of countries using term 'state terrorism'
Now here is copy from Talk:State_terrorism/Archive_1#Limited_List_on_condemnation
 Limited List on condemnation
In statement condemnation is limited only to European countries, UN and HR groups, missing many others they all condemned so all should be mentioned. (Islamic countries, Arab groups, political analysts etc) Zain 20:19, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: What list was asked for 

message: I think it should be clear that you are changing positions. But doesn’t matter. So please let’s take some deep breaths. Let’s not make it personal I am not making any further edits for time being (although I see some content irrelevant
, yes you have same position on some other content). Let’s call for neutral mediation and solve this issue in a more civilized way. 
Thanks in advance for your corporation
Zain 02:16, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  'good faith' Solution of the disagreement 

message: I have requestion mediation from dispute resolution. Because me and you were not able to solve our differences on talk.
So let the mediators help us to solve it.
Zain 22:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have requestion for mediation from 'dispute resolution' 

message: I think last time we were little stable about the contents. NPOV problem was very much fixed and ‘only’ relevance was required to fix.  You made a change (although not very much agreeing with it) and I accepted. Discussion was continuing the change which was done was neither mine neither yours. It was from a third person. That third person made changes because of his ‘complete misunderstand’ of the situation. So reverting to his changes don’t make any sense.
I’ll request you to restore the edit which was done by you and I compromised on it for time being. It was the ‘temporary solution’ which we agreed, at least for a while. So please revert it, i don’t want to revert it without ur consensus because it will generate a useless ‘edit war’. 
I have asked for official mediation but it will take some time so please revert it to the last change you did (although you didn’t agree with it fully). But it is best compromise.
Zain 23:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't agree with any of it, so it's no compromise.  My version is , which you reverted 3 times in your edit war.  MathKnight's version is the compromise version.  And I've explained many times before, the article is about State terrorism, not all that stuff that's in your version. Jayjg 23:33, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I and 'edit war' hmm at least i don't know about it. I think edit war is when i remove your edits you added content i added more. And New. Probably I am newer then you on wikipedia so don't understand the concept of 'edit war' that well. If I am starting an edit war then why i didn't revert your changes. (Just reverted once with explaining why) and reverted a version more then 24 hours old not which was put but you not me.
Any way i am asking a friend to revert what u 'claim' was right. After which I started 'edit war'. I am not doing it my self because will be acused of 'edit war'. 
So Now you happy? your version stored.
I am trying to abstain from editing it until neutral party arives. Until then i'll request you to at least not edit your own version.
I am taking break I suggest you should do the same.
Zain 23:53, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  You started Edit war again 

message: why are some selected words in bold ? This is absolutely non neutral as this bold words are only used  to present the case of the US and not the opposite POV. TahitiB 19:52, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  putting some words in bold is not neutral 

message: The top section needs some work. "State Sponsored Terrorism" (SST) redirects to "State Terrorism" (ST), where it is noted that ST is separate from the more common term SST (which is linked, but because of the redirect we come back to the same article). The difference between the two is never really explained. Is ST a subset of SST, or the other way around?
BeavisSanchez 02:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  State terrorism vs state sponsored terrorism 

message: Quote from the current version of the article (note the words "often liberal"):
:Other controversial examples include the U.S. intervention in Chile, and many other U.S. foreign interventions. Vietnam, and the Korean War are also cited as terrorism by some, often liberal, critics because of the large number of civilian casualities and diproportionate American military power.
I am not sure why the words often liberal are here. As European I am more or less aware of the US meaning of the word liberal. In many countries the word liberal points to a different political stream, see Liberalism. In the quoted phrase the word seems to be used in the US meaning and degrades the weight of the issue by turning it into an internal US dispute between political parties. So it should be taken out (which I am going to do now). Taka 18:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Often liberal 

message: How about the Cultural Revolution in China?
Otherwise, the US has tons of accusations against it even though many worse crimes go unmentioned. So, what about the Blitz during WWII, where Germany bombed London? What about Japan during WWII (Shanghai massacare)? What about Yugoslavia's actions in the 1990's (Kosovo)? How about the French Revolution, or Vichy France? Franco in Spain, especially during the Civil War (same for the Republicans)? How about the German/Austrian/Russian repression of the Poles before WWI? How about Russian pogroms against the Jews? Inquisitions and other forced conversions? The British expulsion of those French from Canada? 
Seriously, if this is going to be unbiased then it needs to include ALL instances that fit the definition. If you can't restrain the list to something reasonable, then maybe it should just be trashed, or at least moved to another page. AdamRetchless 06:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea, I'm surprised there isn't already an entry on the subject. There's plenty of material, and I can't imagine anybody arguing with this inclusion. illWill 18:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: suggestions for the list

message: From History:
:this article is such a hot potato, it needs a POV tag. right now it reads like it was written by Noam Chosky or Vladimir
:on second though, the totally disputed tag needs to be there - no one can agree what "state terrorism" really is user:69.58.249.133 12:37, 6 Jun 2005  (UCT)
User:69.58.249.133 Please list your specific grievances otherwise they can not be discussed and/or fixed.  Philip Baird Shearer 16:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: TotallyDisputed Template

message: I have reverted this
: Loyalist paramilitaries, supported and aided by unauthorized elements of the British security forces , killed scores of Republicans and civilians as part of their campaign against Irish unity. While there are no documented cases of this collusion being official British government policy, it was widespread and continued for decades. The British government still refuses to release documents pertaining to these deaths.
back to 
:Loyalist paramilitaries, supported by unauthorized elements of the British security forces, have been blamed for the deaths of Republicans as part of a counter-terrorist operation. There are no documented cases of this being British government policy.
I think that the words of the are more succinct, accurate and less emotive. "Scores" is at least 40 but a very wooly term. Republicans are civilians, making a distinction, implies an armed conflict which is not something the governments of Ireland and the UK ever claimed that the recent troubles were. If anyone objects to the term "counter-terrorist" and would like to substitute "counter-insergency" or something similar, I would not have an objections. Philip Baird Shearer 16:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does the section on United Kingdom keep reverting to remove the word 'unauthorised'? - neither of the sources provided supply sufficient evidence to justify the removal of the word.illWill 01:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NI

message: User:Lapsed Pacifist  wrote @ 13:42, 20 Jun 2005 UTC: 
:The U.S. government has tightened its immigration rules since the 9/11 attacks and has deported a number of men living in the U.S. who have or are assumed to have terrorist backgrounds, e.g. former members of the IRA or the INLA. Usually these men have lived peacefully in America for years and resent their deportation strongly, pointing to the troubled history of Northern Ireland. Other people have been refused entry to the U.S. on similar grounds. These restrictions do not apply to right-wing terrorists from Latin America.
Please can you source this information? Philip Baird Shearer 18:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: United States

message: Does the kidnapping of Adolf Eichman by Israeli commandos count as state terrorism?
What about Jesús de Galíndez and Lev Trotsky's deaths?
--Error 22:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Eichman, Galíndez, Trotsky

message: Since this has the potential to become a POV playground, I think the standard for writing, as well as documenting this section has to become much better than it is.
The WHO link about the dengue hemorrhagic fever, for example, places the source of the epidemic from "increased migration of people from endemic countries to the municipality". Keep in mind, tens of thousands of Cuban troops were in Angola, rotating in and out of theater, during the outbreaks. 
With that said, would acts of the Cuban government, including arming, training and providing asylum to Puerto Rican separatist; 15 years of work in Nicaragua to destabilize Managua's government; the assassination attempt of Turner Shelton, or the funding of the FARC, ELN etc, be considered "acts of state terrorism"?
----------
When I first looked at the article it looked like it had been written by a Cuban because the English grammar was quite bad, and is quite POV. I tried to improve it a bit but did not have much time. Kingal86 17:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Treatment of Cuba V US

message: I was very surprised to see that the Black and Tans have not been added to the page (under the United Kingdom header of course!). They were a Text book example of State terrorism, anyone up for putting them under the UK section?  Superdude99 13:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think that they should be in here, as all the examples given are post World War II, with most being post 1970. Philip Baird Shearer 14:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I think that we should remove the first paragraph on German, the reference to Leon Trotsky for the USSR and the and put a defintion at the top stating that this list is a list state terrorism committed since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Black and Tans

message: How about including Apartheid South Africa as a state terrorist?  I could easily make the argument right here in about 20 pages. Rian
:South Africa was added on 24 January 2006.Phase1 12:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apartheid South Africa 

message: The Gladio can hardly be labeled as Italian State terrorism. Greek defence minister Yannis Varvitsiotis, French minister of defense Jean-Pierre Chevènement, the CIA, and NATO, were all actively involved in the network. At best it is international...which would then make it defunct under the definition of state terrorism.
...
Given that SISMI agents were found guilty of messing with the investigation into the Bologna massacre, and the numerous other strategy of tension accusations I'm putting Italy back on the list. Chaikney 15:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italy 

message: Did any one see the Kofi Annan quote? --
United Nations General Assembly A/59/2005 21 March 2005
Report of the Secretary-General, Kofi Annan: In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All
: 91.  It is time to set aside debates on so-called "State terrorism".  The use of force by States is already thoroughly regulated under international law.  And the right to resist occupation must be understood in its true meaning.  It cannot include the right to deliberately kill or maim civilians.  I endorse fully the High-level Panel's call for a definition of terrorism, which would make it clear that, in addition to actions already proscribed by existing conventions, any action constitutes terrorism if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.  I believe this proposal has clear moral force, and I strongly urge world leaders to unite behind it and to conclude a comprehensive convention on terrorism before the end of the sixtieth session of the General Assembly.
AnonMoos 18:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "any action, in addition to actions already specified by the existing conventions on aspects of terrorism, the Geneva Conventions and Security Council resolution 1566 (2004), that is intended to cause death or seriously bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such an act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act".
See Wikipedia:Use of the word terrorism (policy development)#Proposed UN Definition of Terrorism for a previous discussion on this. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Kofi Annan quote

message: Freestyle, what's the point of having the linked references at the bottom of the page? It means the reader has to scroll down (assuming they know to, and why should they, because there are no links to footnotes?) and even then they can't immediately see which link is for which quote. Links to quotes should appear after the quote, or there should at least be a footnote. See Wikipedia:Cite sources. As it stands, we have neither. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:54, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
:Footnotes are fine with me. freestylefrappe 21:45, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
::Footnotes are fine for references to books.  Online references should be in the article itself, for convenience. Jayjg (talk) 03:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: * Official documents from U.S. government, formerly classified as Top Secret and Eyes Only for the President were recently declassified and made public, thanks to the Freedom of Information Act. These documents indicate that only between October 1960 and April 1961, the CIA introduced 75 tons of explosives in 30 secret aerial missions and 45 tons of weapons and explosives in 31 marine infiltrations, with which were perpetrated 310 attacks with bombs, 6 trains derailed, and 150 factories and 800 plantations were set to fire. 
No source provided for such contentious allegations-removed. 
* Between 1959 and 2003 more than 800 attacks were allegedly performed including 78 bombings against civilian population and 61 Cuban airplanes were hijacked. 
No source provided for such contentious allegations-removed. 
* Biological attacks were also launched, such as the alleged introduction of African Swine Fever Virus forcing the sacrifice of half a million pigs. In Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations, the dengue hemorrhagic fever affected about 344,203 persons, with the record case of 11,400 falling ill in a single day July 6 1981 . 
WHO source describes outbreak, but does not (sot surprisingly) lay blame at the CIA or US's feet. Second source is vague and strongly points to original research to connect the two. 
* These documents also link Cuban exile Luis Posada Carriles, on the CIA's payroll, with many attacks, including the bombing of a Cuban civilian airliner in Venezuela in 1976, killing 73 people . Posada has apparently been given asylum in the U.S. The United States Justice Department has refused a request for extradition from Venezuela, but in 2005 Posada was apparently arrested for entering the U.S. illegally.
Posada was a CIA employee in the early 60's, but any actions taken since then are his own, unless more documentation exists that would point to his continued employment by the CIA in 1976. Unless Posada was employed by the CIA in 1976, this was not an act of "state terrorism", just the non state kind. TDC 23:05, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Are you joking? Posada was a CIA employee, the CIA is a governmental agency, this is a clear act of state terrorism. Even a declassified report to Kissinger from the CIA includes that "We are going to hit a Cuban airliner." This is not an invention from European and Latin America journalists (and NY Times), you can find better source for the facts in this recently removed ("censured") section, from The National Security Archive. 
The removal of this section with these weak reasonings attempts against the international neutrality of the wikipedia. --Asierra 15:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Removal Of USA vs Cuba

message: The article on US firebombings of Japan specifically states that these don't fit the earlier definition. Firstly, this is unnecessary since this issue is already discussed earlier. Secondly, definition earlier is as follows "use or threat of violence by the state or its agents or supporters, particularly against civilian individuals and populations, as a means of political intimidation and control (i.e. a means of repression)". Clearly the US (and all) firebombings fit this definition since they were aimed primarily at civlians in an attempt to intimidate the citizens, soldiers and leaders of the countries...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.234.141.76 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 13 September 2005  (UTC)
:One of the aims of war is to use force to impose one's will on the enemy. If actions are taken within the laws of war are to defined as terrorism one would have to define all actions in war which used force as terrorism. This is clearly not what most people mean when they use the term "state terrorism". To do so is to stray into the region of R. J. Rummel's democide idea.
:To be cynical: When the Nazis were dishing out more than they were receiving they did not use the term "Terror Bombing", but when they Allies started to devastate German cities suddenly aerial bombardment was "Terror Bombing" in Nazi propaganda.
:As to legal position on bombardment of civilians see  International Review of the Red Cross no 323, p.347-363 The Law of Air Warfare (1998)
::In examining these events [aerial bombardment] in the light of international humanitarian law, it should be borne in mind that during the Second World War there was no agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument governing the protection of the civilian population or civilian property, as the Conventions then in force dealt only with the protection of the wounded and the sick on the battlefield and in naval warfare, hospital ships, the laws and customs of war and the protection of prisoners of war.
:And to cover the use of nuclear weapons during World War II. In 1996 International Court of Justice ruled in  legality of the Threat or use of nuclear weapons (8 July 1996) the in 1996 "There is in neither customary nor conventional international law any comprehensive and universal prohibition of the threat or use of nuclear weapons as such; That is a conclusion drawn about the use of nukes in 1996 with all the  Humanitarian Law which has been built up since Word War II. So one can conclude that it was not against the laws of war in 1945 and so the use of atomic weapons in 1945 was not a terrorist act because they were used withing the laws of war in use at that time. Philip Baird Shearer 13:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  USA firebombings 

message: There should be a wiki policy against the following: "X is a controversial concept that is without a clear definition." Equivocating and meaningless. Marskell 11:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Since I am studying about terrorism, I found this article or definition, whatever you wish to call it, and reviewed it, somewhat quickly I suppose.  I was mainly interested in the content, but when I returned to the top of the page suggesting it needed edited it made me curious.  It isn't the author that is biased, it is those who would edit it.  No one wants to admit that "their" kind of people are terrorists in one way or another.  I suggest to you that terrorism can be as simple as a parent who terrorizes a child up to a country who threatens to attack someone if they don't perform as the country desires.  I doubt if there is any nation anywhere with the capabilities to conduct it, that has not committed terrorism of some type.   Terrorism is simply the use of force against anyone, but particularly the innocent, to coherse them into whatever behavior they desire.  Waco may be a poor example, but there are those who sympathize with the people there that would consider it to be so.  You see, it depends on which side you feel is "correct."  I don't agree that it was terrorism, simply because the people there were disobeying the law by having weapons that were illegal and they were given so many chances not to be injured in any way, unlike the Murtha Building in Oklahoma where the people had no chance at all.  There is simply no comparison; however, I reiiterate that it depends on where you are standing how you might judge it.  The author makes it very clear that "some" "may" call certain things terrorism and do.  There are probably as many definitions of terrorism as the number of organizations that are called terrorists.
There are parents who terrorize their children, teachers who terrorize their students, bosses that terrorize their employees, politicians that terrorize their constituents, governments that terrorize their own people and governments who terrorize one another.  It is hypocrisy to describe another government's actions as terrorism when one's own government is engaging in the same behavior OR in hiring others to conduct that behavior for them.  12.217.172.250 06:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for Edit? 

message: Morocco
Arre's Years of lead should be incorporated into a Morocco section. freestylefrappe 03:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stuff that should be incorporated 

message: merge from State sponsored terrorism
-St|eve 06:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from State sponsored terrorism 

message: That the USA is on the list for some vague covert operations and simply supporting so-called "state sponsors of terrorism", but not Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge? How objective is that? In fact, with the loose definition that we have now, we can conclude that almost every country on the planet has been guilty of state sponsored terrorism at one time or another. CJK 20:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Laughable

message: Before I get accused of anti-Americanist POV, or someone points out the anti-Bush credentials on my user page. I'd like to explain why I reverted Antispammer's changes to this article.
* The article linked to, Operation Northwoods, reiterates the claims made in the blanked section in more detail, and quotes a number of notable references. While I haven't checked these references, I have no suspicion that this is a hoax or attack article, unless someone claims or proves otherwise.
* Antispammer has less than 10 edits - mostly attacks on users and articles which criticize US policy. While the attacks aren't hugely destructive, they do show extreme POV tendency.
* The same user has a user page that basically consists of a huge American flag - confirmative, based on my reasoning above, that the user is trying to suppress the backed-up criticism of American foreign policy. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs  11:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because most people will never understand history, and never understand why someone would come up with such a stupid plan.--Antispammer 11:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse the typo, it wasn't 10, but 100 edits. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs  11:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Antispammer|Antispammer]]'s edits reverted 

message: Given the reason given this time for the removal of Operation Northwoods (that it was planned, but never executed), I'm prepared to leave it in this time without any revert. The tendency to remove United States entries while putting in ones for other countries is a worrying one, indicative of pro-US bias, but since I have nothing to back this claim up with and it is just my view, I'm going to leave it. What does everyone else think? Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs  17:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, but I also detect a subtle hint of POV in your reasoning. As you say, there's no reason to doubt that they would propose it again (even though it was not to be disclosed), but then again there's no reason to believe they would either - it's pure speculation. It didn't actually show the US was "ready" to do this (although, as I say, my personal opinion is that they would), just that two joint chiefs proposed Northwoods. Nobody really knows how far along this got. The reason I deleted Antispammer's edits was because I knew he had a history of wiping anything that looked remotely critical of America. 155.84.57.253 had a different rationale however - he or she (correctly) stated that entries for other countries only list incidents of state terrorism that were actually carried out, and it was a bit unfair and POV to start sticking in terrorism that "nearly" happened. If I'm wrong, get some sources together and we can work something out. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs  12:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Operation Northwoods]] 

message: I have a serious issue with this phrase:
France can be considered the originator of state terrorism.
There's absolutely nothing to back this claim up. The mass persecution and burnings of protestants under the reign of Mary I could easily be considered state terrorism, and this happened over two hundred years prior. I don't need to state that there's probably more examples of persecution by ruling classes (Ancient Egypt, Rome etc.) Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs  12:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  French entry POV 

message: I removed the dubious claim that the Iraq's Scud attack on Israel somehow constituted a case of "state terrorism".
It was reverted by User:CantStandYa under a purposedly misleading summany "rv van", without any explanations, so I remove it back.
:Iraq also attempted to terrorize the population of Israel (a noncombatant), during the Gulf War, with Scud missiles.
This claim is extremely weird, as the attack happened during the war, and if we included that then all wartime attacks on civilian populations would have to be classified as terrorism. It doesn't seem that any other attacks on civilians are listed on this page. Israel's claim to be a "noncombatant" is dubious, as it was one of the closest allies of the USA (Iraq's main enemy in the war), and it doesn't seem that there was any peace treaty between Iraq and Israel. This claim also doesn't seem to be very relevant. Taw 09:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq's attack on Israel 

message: I am bringing this here as a responce to this appeal for consensus. The disputed phrase is this:
:In Northern Ireland, members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and British army, have been involved in the deaths of Irish republican terrorists at the hands of different loyalist paramilitary groups. The victims included members of the PIRA, Sinn Féin and those perceived to be aiding them, including solicitors.
I proposed the part: "Irish republican terrorists" be reworded as: Irish republicans.
My reasons for this are as follows:
#The word "terrorist" is a judgemental one, bearing obvious negative connotations. Who is a terrorist for one is a freedom fighter for another. NPOV policy dictates that we stick to the facts and let readers decide for themselves whatever conclusions they will take. And the facts is that they were Irish Republicans who by many are considered terrorists. So I believe that a term such as "Irish Republicans" is NPOV, as long as it is clarified in the immediately following sentence that these include members of PIRA.
#The immediately following sentence makes clear that the victims were not only PIRA militants but also solicitors and those "pereived to be aiding them". Solicitors can in no way be labelled as terrorists for defending their clients. Also, given the tension of the events it is highly likely that those "percieved to be aiding" PIRA members could well be completely unrelated to terrorist actions, or that they could be mere supporters of PIRA's actions, which does not make them terrorists but sympathizers. Therefore I think that using the blanket term "terrorists" for group A (all the killed) in the first sentence only to say in the following sentence that group A is comprised of groups B (PIRA) and C (others), where group B can be considered as terrorist while group C cannot be considered as such is not accurate and biased. What groups B and C have in common is that they are both made of Irish Republicans, militans (group B) and not militants (group C), so I think that the way to describe group A=B+C is by using plain "Irish Republicans".
--Michalis Famelis 15:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me quote from the article with my own bolding: "...members of the RUC and British army, have been involved...". No-one calls the whole of the RUC a terrorist organization. Rather actions by members of the RUC constitute state terrorism. Is that not clear enough? And apart from that, did you not read my comment? Not all victims were IRA, there were also sympathizers and solicitors. And they cannot be named terrorists, can they? --Michalis Famelis 17:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I object to the proposal on a purely semantic point of view. I think using Irish Republicans instead of Irish Republican terrorists would have a completely opposite effect to what you're suggesting - writing Irish Republicans would insinuate that any Irish Republican is by default inclined towards violence, which of course isn't true. By writing Irish Republican terrorists, you really do make sure that the terrorist element is singled out. Of course, I wouldn't disagree with putting in an alternative to clarify this - perhaps extreme elements of the Irish Republican movement? Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs  08:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the whole opening could use a rewrite for the shake of clarity. Note that all that I know of the matter is this piece of wikitext. And from what I understand of it, there were two kinds of victims: combatants and non-combatants. If we are to have a term that covers both grous in the first sentence we must find something that on the one hand does not label non-violent victims as terrorists and on the other hand does not sanctify violent militants. --Michalis Famelis 11:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Kingdom - Northern Ireland 

message: from just scanning through the heated discussion it seems to me that this article could benefit from taking all the examples out.
 Whether a particular act is described as "terrorism" may depend on whether the International community considers the action justified or necessary.
it's clear from the definition that it always depends on your politics if you call an act of agression state terrorism or something else, this article will always be a playground for edit warriors. i think wikipedia should not be the place for this kind of political discusison (whether the us or israel are commiting acts of state terrorism) and the article would greatly improved by being pruned down to a good definition. 
trueblood 20:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  playground 

message: The fact that Cuban population has been suffering terrorism attacks since decades has been well known  in all the World, including informed Americans (facts covered by European and Latin American news agencies). The allegation that these acts were performed by US sponsored agents was also known and only lacked the official confirmation from US side. This confirmation just came recently with the declassification of some documents from the CIA and the FBI. Perhaps the grammar was not good (I'm not a native English speaker) or the sources not well cited, but the full removal of a section with facts well known outside USA is really disaponting about the seriousness and maturity of the Wikipedia.
By the way, I am not a Cuban, I am a Mexican and I use to write Science and Computing History articles at the Spanish edition of the Wikipedia. --Asierra 16:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protest against removal Of USA vs Cuba 

message: from just scanning through the heated discussion it seems to me that this article could benefit from taking all the examples out.
 Whether a particular act is described as "terrorism" may depend on whether the International community considers the action justified or necessary.
it's clear from the definition that it always depends on your politics if you call an act of agression state terrorism or something else, this article will always be a playground for edit warriors. i think wikipedia should not be the place for this kind of political discusison (whether the us or israel are commiting acts of state terrorism) and the article would greatly improved by being pruned down to a good definition. 
trueblood 20:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  playground 

message: i don't see the necessity of this merge with state violence, which is just a stub anyway.
if there are no arguments brought forth the merger box should go.
--trueblood 18:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  state violence 

message: The best way to keep individual countries state terrorism from confusing the intent of the article, I propose that we create individual articles on each country such as State terrorism in Sudan, State terrorism in Sri Lanka.... please discuss the merits it. Then this whole article can be a high level article dealing with what state terorism is and link to each countries culpabilitiesHuracane 16:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Huracane, I think this is a good idea, otherwise this article is going to become quite unwieldy and it is hard to keep discussions organized as well since there are so many differing threads going on.--Realstarslayer 17:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  One way to organize this article is define state terrorism and list of types of state terrorist actions such as ethnic cleaninzing, massacres, disappearances, torture. and then link to individual countries state terrorist practices ?RaveenS 17:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I have moved Syria to Sri Lanka to appropriate sectionsRaveenS
How about a Category:State terrorism by country ? That will organize this even better.IMHOHuracane 19:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Organizing this article 

message: This article carries no inline citations and seems to comprise largely of original research, Therefore I have tagged it. Whatsmore, the fast and loose interpretation of WP:NOR and WP:V on this article is causing numerous problems on articles throughout wikipedia. I have come across three articles/afd's etc only today where users are pointing to this article as a source for keeping their own sections on various matters.--Zleitzen 16:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research

message: I corrected the titled of the Chomsky, Noam and Herman, Edward S. book. Listed was only the subtitle 
'The Political Economy of Human Rights: Vol. 1.' Since it was referring to volume 1 I added the full title. If the reference was to both volumes I might almost see the reasoning to have displayed only this subtitle which both volumes belong to.  However if both books were listed why not display the entire title of both. It did not make sense to not display the full title in either case.  Was it a POV? --NonSuper2Lov 14:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor Change, but not

message: The article has almost no sources and seems to someone personal opinons regarding what "state terrorism" is.Ultramarine 16:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the lead speaks for itself, "State terrorism is a controversial term, with no agreed on definition". --MichaelLinnear 04:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do people intend to add in a researched version of Acts labelled as state terrorism, sorted by state to replace what was removed from it? If not, then I think the section header should be removed and ther list be included under the See also heading. I didn't include a reference beyond the OED for the bit on the invention of terrorism during the French Revolution, but I felt a sentence of explanation of what happened was needed for readers not up on their French history. If someone wants to track down a reference, then please do. The wiki articles on revolutionary France don't have sufficient inline referencing for me to pick out a source.--Peter cohen 11:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: The category State terrorism is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Categories for Discussion policies. This does not mean that any of the articles in that category will be deleted. They may, however, be recategorized.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at that category's entry on the Categories for discussion page.
Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress.
Cgingold 12:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice of possible deletion of Category:State terrorism 

message: Dear all. A peer review has been requested for the article Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States. Your comments on how best to improve it would be appreciated. John Smith's (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review requested 

message: I've cut a certain amount of material today because I thought there was too much discussion of terrorism in general rather than stste terrorism. Also a paragraph-long definition was repeated. It is also rather odd just hjaving the one substantive section called scope and definition.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. I moved this and more material to the Definition of terrorism article.Ultramarine (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for sorting out a bit more. There now needs to a split to create a second section covering inatances and alleged instances of ST.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  My recent edits 

message: He's sure no expert on terrorism, and has displayed himself to be both stupid and biased in the past. Jtrainor (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but he is still notable.Ultramarine (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps in his own right, but the question is, are his views on terrorism noteable? Jtrainor (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When his is speakign as the senior official of the UN, then they are.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Why do Kofi Annan's views matter?

message: I'm assuming the failure tag was added the Brittanica quote because the definition is technically for "terrorism". However, the entire quote inludes "by state institutions" making it pertinent, but not as a introductory definition. I corrected the link and removed the tag as well. Also, the second quote from Brittanica makes a general statement which is undermined by other references in this article ..."always clandestine"... secrecy is not 'always' a defining quality of state terrorism because there is at times no need for secrecy as governments are often dominating forces. For this reason I've moved the Brittanica quotes to the definition section to follow the dictionary definition giving a logical flow to a list of controverial definitions clearly lacking unanimity.  - Steve3849 talk 22:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Logical. Good work.Giovanni33 (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedia Brittanica 

message: There have been several comments internationally referring to terrorism in Zimbabwe. This seems to be a usage in line with the original meaning of terrorism as that carried out by those in control of the apparatus of the state on opponents within the state. Is this recentism or is it worth a mention?--Peter cohen (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zimbabwe 

message: \All those empty by country subsectiosn look a bit messy.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is anyone planning to fill in the by country stuff?? 

message: The image :File:Herald.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Herald.jpg

message: Obviously, as all of you who have been reading, or editting this article understand its very notion is imbued with controversy. The term however is used commonly. It has had scholarly, though controversial books written about it for over a decade. The article should show how the term has been used in media. Rather than removing everything controversial (the article exists and would therefore need content) disputed POV would be attended with opposing POV. 
The recent edit I have made to Israel is appearing to some as anti-semetic. Bill Moyer is a reputable voice. His recent statements are not unfounded and lend some credibility to voices that for years have been written off as merely anti-semetic. I would prefer that editors made changes, or additions to my edits rather than simply deleting them. Another possible solution is to get rid of the ==By country== thing altogether, which I do not endorse. 
Lastly, my recent edits are the new material to the Israel section only. All of my edits were intended to be reinclusions of this material only. I currently have no specific interest in the India/Pakistan dispute.  - Steve3849 talk 07:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not include your edits to the main article on allegations fo Israeli "terrorism" by anti-semites instead of this one? An attempt to exploit google page ranks, perhaps?72.179.45.108 (talk) 07:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My primary edit was to an empty Israel section.  - Steve3849 talk 08:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What relevance has anti-Semitism here? This is an article about state terrorism. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: I propose deleting most the of Pakistan section; its size is unlike any of the other brief country sections.
Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emphasis on Pakistan 

message: There is disagreement about the definition. Among major scholars it's not, however, particularly 'controversial'. Pretty much everyone -- including perhaps the most famous scholar, Laqueur -- agrees the term 'terrorism' (and therefore the sub-category 'state terrorism') is tough to define, and that the common sense general sense of the term has changed over time, particularly in recent years, and that there has never been an official or consensus definition.Haberstr (talk) 05:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: merge controversy and definition section

message: Have added large ammounts of poorly written and sourced POV material in the definition and particularly is state terrorism terrorism? section which at present presents a POV that it is. The democide section should either be expanded and poorly sourced, or rolled into a more general section on the topic, the factual accuracy of some sources may be dubious as the editor making these changes has a history of such pov pushing activity.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.42.108 (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your characterization of the "Is state terorism terrorism" section is false, almost the opposite of what readers will read when they read that section. However, if you have any specific concerns with POV in the section, why don't you state those? Then the section can be repaired if it is broken.Haberstr (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Could you please articulate more what you consider to be left-wing is in the article as a whole? The left-leaning references section is somewhat disconnected from what is now used in the text and listed in the notes. Conversely the one illustration is a right-wing cartoon referencing left-wing state terrorism and the selective by country material has been lost.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In trying to understand the histgory of what is going on between the two of you I have noticed this  []. I also notice that the accusation of left-wing bias here appeared shortly after an accusation made by Haberstr in elsewhere of right wing bias. NTL/Virgin-user could you please therefore detail your complaint of left-wing bias here. Without a clear explanation it becomes easy not to assume good faith and suspect that a WP:Point is being made. --Peter cohen (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the reply. Could you give some examples of misrepresentation and the left wing tone? It will help me understand what you're getting at.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

text: If you do a WHOIS on the IPs you're using, an NTL office address in Winchester comes up with a virgin email as the contact point. Some of them do have Tesco in brackets, so maybe you've got Tesco Internet which according to Tesco#Telecoms is a joint venture with NTL operated over BT lines.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: recent edits

message: There is an article with a dubious list of "terrorist" incidents, so why is there not a corresponding list of state terrorism incidents?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.182.135 (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: List of State Terrorism

message: As a researcher, writer, and someone who tries to use a little common sense, I think it unabashadly biased to only list Hamdi v. Rumsfeld as THE example of state terrorism.  This is ludicrous hypocracy, for a number of reasons, designed to make the United States look bad--plain and simple.  
1.  There is no legal discussion on his status. Although one can go to the article, alone it leaves a gravely mistaken impression.  The way it is written implies he was simply a citizen of the US who was thrown in jail, not charged, and had to petition for habeus corpus. In fact, he was caught with a group of Taliban on foreign soil (presents legal issues), was thought to be fighting with them against a UN-sanctioned multilateral operation (again presents questions), and was not immediately identified as a US citizen.  
2.  Here, the courts worked and acted as a check on presidential authority.  Does this really sound like State terrorism?  Did the high court of the Soviet Union declare illegal Stalin's murder of 40 million people?  Did the indepenent judiciary shoot down China's imprisonement, torture, and execution of political dissidents, writers, Wikipedians, journalists, and democracy advocates?  Has the UN or court system in Sudan done anything to stop the Khartoum-supported militias that have killed over 1 million in Darfur?  In this case, the US system worked for Hamdi--yet somehow the author has managed to twist it into anti-American propoganda.  
Some people may view the US actions as State terrorism--however ridiculous that might be--however, we need to look at it in context.  Doing so should make you laugh at this citation.  Even the author supports my ideas--he cites an Amnesty Int. report on torture.  Despite the fact that there are 82 countries that torture (according to AI), his example of State terrorism is a successful lawsuit by a US citizen caught fighting with the enemy to be brought into the US legal system and stand a citizen's trial.  Does the the US system sound like terrorism, considering he was allowed to petition the courts, much less win?
Based on these observations, I'm simply taking all the references out--they can be biased and lend nothing to the definition. If anyone adds this one back, I'll simply try to make a fair and representative display by citing courts cases, executions, torture, wrongful imprisonement, etc, etc in every other country, including Western Europe.  Would love to hear discussion...
:You seem to be quite sure of your position that the US has not being involved in State Terrorism. By the very definition of the term though they have been. You only need to look so far as the wars in Indo-China and the bombing campaigns of WW2 to see gross examples of State Terrorism. Perhaps not the worst excesses of the wars in question, but state terrorism nonetheless. But I do agree, focusing on one citizen who has been denied certain liberties seems a little disengenous. For starters, thats not a clear example of state terrorism and moreover the examples I just listed killed millions and 'terrorised' entire countries. Did this example even kill 1?--Senor Freebie (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Methods slant 

message: Why is Western Media privileged over other sources? This needs a much more global approach.93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? Jayjg (talk) 06:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Israel is viewed by many groups as a state sponsor of terror due to countless civilian deaths including most recently the flotilla incident. Other left groups in the West including some New Historians within Israeli itself and mainstream opinion in most of the third world seem to fall in line with this. I don't completely agree with this viewpoint myself but its neccessary to show all points of view. I think we should maybe add a section giving their point of view credence that it sponsors terror and then give in a criticism section of all the responses that show to the contrary. Not including it is not showing other views exist.
Achamy (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Israel

message: The main discussion forum for this series of articles is Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Terrorism
Terrorism is a 21st-century buzzword; this article does not inform, but only encourages nationalist finger-pointing, and re-labels violence towards innocents, which is a ubiquitous theme throughout history anyway, without having to be sexed up for CNN. I, for one, propose its deletion. 90.221.97.146 (talk) 01:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: [untitled section]