Talk:United States and state terrorism/Archive 14

message: An Indian newspaper, the Economic Times (part of the Times of India), has accused the CIA of supporting Sikh terrorism in the 1970's. 'CIA, ISI encouraged Sikh terrorism' - 
:Extraordinary claims requries extraordinary sources. The claims of a single official wanting to promote his book is not that.Ultramarine 12:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 99% of the sources cited for Iran's WMD programs, for example, are from US papers with a dubious history on this topic (eg. New York Times) who quote unnamed 'official's who clearly have their own agenda. Why can wikipedia use those, but not the more reliable Times of India? ... Seabhcan 12:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The article is not called Solidly Proven Instances of state terrorism by the United States, so let's not hold it to that standard. In order to list notable allegations, we have to accept that not all of them are proven, or even true. That's why they're called allegations. ThAtSo 12:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:REDFLAG and Wikipedia:Fringe theories.Ultramarine 12:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Times of India is one of the world's most respected news papers. It is RS. ... Seabhcan 12:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is merely quoting the views of an official wanting to promote his coming book.Ultramarine 12:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It is not the newspaper making the allegation, but an offical citing an as yet not published boook.Ultramarine 13:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, please solve old controversies like intro before creating new ones.Ultramarine 13:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ? What on earth has that got to do with anything? If the New York Times reports an unnamed 'official', as they do daily, that is seen as notable. Are you saying that Indian officials are not notable? ... Seabhcan 13:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That usually means the views of the US government expressed indirectly, so notable. A not very important retired official making claims, citing an unpublished book, is not notable view.Ultramarine 13:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: See WP:REDFLAG. It is not the newspaper making the accusation due to a journalist doing an investigation. It is merely mentioning a not very important retired official making claims and prominting his unpublished book.Ultramarine 13:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you are saying the Times of India is not RS? You are grasping at straws here and it is becoming increasingly difficult for me to continue to assume good faith. Please leave your personal bias to one side and consider the illogic of your claims! ... Seabhcan 13:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The newspaper may be reliable, the official is not. For example, if the NYT happens to mention some dubious conspiracy theory book regarding Elvis, this does not mean that this book suddenly is reliable.Ultramarine 13:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is why we trust WP:RS sources to fact check and present reliable information. Also why the paper is cited, not the officials homepage. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If it felt it was not reliable, it would not post it, which is why we have WP:RS. Your assumptions however are not notable regarding the sources reliability. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What if the New York Times mentions some dubious conspiracy theory you happen to agree with, like that Iran is magically developing mysterious WMD without leaving any traces or evidence? Then thats RS isn't it? ... Seabhcan 13:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The man in question was a top official of Research and Analysis Wing. Quite a notable organisation. ... Seabhcan 13:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The last is a good point. However, extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Until his book is published his claims cannot be checked or commented on.Ultramarine 13:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipeida does not include every random opinion that can be found by Googling. Lots of theories regarding Elvis can be found on the Internet and elsehwere, thid does not mean Wikipedia should list them all. At least until the book is published, this is just unverifiable personal claims.Ultramarine 14:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, neither does Times of India, glad we can clear up that it is reliable. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, if the NYT happens to mention an Elvis conspiracy theory book, this does not make the book reliable.Ultramarine 14:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I again refer to WP:REDFLAG. An unpublished book is not an extraordinary source.Ultramarine 14:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why Times of India is cited. This is getting silly. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An mention in the Times of India still does not make an unpublished book an extraordinary source.Ultramarine 14:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why Times of India is cited. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Why is why Times of India is cited. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you explain your argument? Ultramarine 14:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Times of India is cited. Sorry not sure how to expand on that very simple point. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From WP:REDFLAG: "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues" Where are these multiple sources? Ultramarine 15:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It is the same official, now writing in a minor online only newspaper.Ultramarine 15:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Asia Times, a minor online newspaper? ... This discussion seems to be over. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a free online only newspaper claiming to have less than 100,000 daily visitors. In contrast, the NYT have over one million people who pays to read it.Ultramarine 15:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. That merry-go-round was making me dizzy.Giovanni33 18:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is still a single person refering to a not published book. Not an exceptional source.Ultramarine 18:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Its not "a single person". Its the Times of India. That is exceptional. ... Seabhcan 19:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, at some point we need to stop pretending to care what Ultramarine thinks. If he's going to make unreasonable demands, then we don't need to satisfy them. Let's move on to more interesting issues, like just about anything else. ThAtSo 19:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There are lots of unanswered old controversies that should be resolved before introducing new ones, like the Introduction or the Opposing Views section.Ultramarine 19:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no controversy here - just that you have run out of arguments against inclusion and are stalling for time. The problem with the Opposing Views section is that it lacks reliable sources. Go find them. Here, we have a reliable source, and so the material can be added. ... Seabhcan 19:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See below regarding opposing views. A single source refering to an unpublished book is still not very reliable. Do you have any more sources backing up this claim? It is also strange, why would the US be the least interested in an independent Sikh state?Ultramarine 19:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not here to speculate, but the politics of the region were quite different in the 1970's. What is not reliable? Do you suppose that the Times of India is lying about the existence of the allegation? ... Seabhcan 19:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Likewise with the Japan section. The ball in in your court to find a reliable source to support the points you tried to make (at least one of them, since you kept switching the goal posts in that circular debate as well).The philippines and El Salvador sections, I think, were also wrongly blanked. Maybe we should address any issues/disputes about those sections, mainly to see if any valid arguments exist so as to fix them for re-inclusion?Giovanni33 19:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed regarding Philippines at least. The section above, I present numerous sources regarding the Peoples Tribunal that found the US guilty of its support for the state terrorism of the Arroyo regime and further that the acts could not be seperated between Arroyo or the US. It also mentions 3 HR groups as those bringing the suit. --SevenOfDiamonds 21:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: We should resolve dispute in the order they were first introduced before creating new ones.Ultramarine 19:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  India 

message: Some legal scholars, historians, other governments, and human rights organizations have accused the United States of having committed acts of State terrorism as a result of the nuclear attacks against the Empire of Japan at the end of World War II. The 'atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki', remain the only time a state has used nuclear weapons against concentrated civilian populated areas. Some critics hold that it represents the single greatest act of state terrorism in the 20th Century. Some academics also consider that these bombings represent a genocide.
 Reviewed at:
The role of the bombings in Japan's surrender, as well as the effects and justification for them, has been subject to debate. In particular, the claims that these attacks were acts of state terrorism remain a matter of controversy. However, University of Chicago historian Bruce Cumings states there is a consensus among historians to Martin Sherwin's statement, that "the Nagasaki bomb was gratuitous at best and genocidal at worst."
The arguments center around the targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal. Specifically, the fact that the Target Committee on May 10–11, 1945, rejected the use of the weapons against a strictly military objective, choosing a large civilian population to create a psychological effect that would be felt around the world.  They also center around claims that the attacks were militarily unnecessary, and transgressed moral barriers.
 
Historian Howard Zinn wrote, "if 'terrorism' has a useful meaning (and I believe it does, because it marks off an act as intolerable, since it involves the indiscriminate use of violence against human beings for some political purpose), then it applies exactly to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki."
Zinn quoted the sociologist Kai Erikson:
Similarly, Michael Walzer wrote of it as an example of "...war terrorism: the effort to kill civilians in such large numbers that their government is forced to surrender. Hiroshima seems to me the classic case."
Mark Selden, a professor of sociology and history at Binghamton University and professorial associate in the East Asia Program at Cornell University, author of “War and State Terrorism: The United States, Japan, and the Asia-Pacific in the Long Twentieth Century (War and Peace Library),” writes, "This deployment of air power against civilians would become the centerpiece of all subsequent U.S. wars, a practice in direct contravention of the Geneva principles, and cumulatively 'the single most important example of the use of terror in twentieth century warfare."   He also wrote, "Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan."
Selden writes: “Over the next half century, the United States would destroy with impunity cities and rural populations throughout Asia, beginning in Japan and continuing in North Korea, Indochina, Iraq and Afghanistan, to mention only the most heavily bombed nations...if nuclear weapons defined important elements of the global balance of terror centered on U.S.-Soviet conflict, "conventional" bomb attacks defined the trajectory of the subsequent half century of warfare." (Selden, War and State Terrorism).
Heads of State have also repeated the claim. President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez paid tribute to the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, calling the dropping of the A-bomb, "the greatest act of terrorism in recorded history." 
Richard Falk, professor Emeritus of International Law and Practice at Princeton University has written in some detail about Hiroshima and Nagasaki as instances of state terrorism. He states that “The graveyards of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the number-one exhibits of state terrorism.” Falk discusses the public justifications for the attacks, as follows:
These claims have prompted historian Robert Newman, a supporter of the bombings, to argue that the practice of terrorism is justified in some cases.
The final sentence seems really out of place: "These claims have prompted historian Robert Newman, a supporter of the bombings, to argue that the practice of terrorism is justified in some cases.[21]" I would suggest simply removing it, as the quote already includes that argument. 199.125.109.118 04:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Robert Newman's argument is not presented at all. If anything it should be expanded so as to make that argument, not removed. Note he is supporting the bombings, making an argument that terrorism is sometimes justified. He is relevant to this topic because he does address these allegations that it is state terrorism, and accepts that framework, only arguing that terrorism is sometimes justified.Giovanni33 21:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is his argument not that the "justification for the attacks given by the U.S. government then and now was mainly to save lives that might otherwise might have been lost in a military campaign"?  How different is it to say that "the practice of terrorism is justified in some cases".  However what I might suggest after the quote is a paragraph to summarize the section. 199.125.109.25 05:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless he says "terrorism is justified" or he refers to the incidents as terrorism, I would just if anything write that he feels the bombings were justified. Do not want to equate a person with such a ... well with that quote. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japan 

message: Can the RFC be closed now? Is the issue resolved? Eiler7 20:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There never were any issues to be solved, except for a few editors who are not contributing but come and blank whole well sourced sections that were added with conensus, and then get this page locked in that vandalized state, hiding under an alleged but unexplained "content dispute." We need editors to protect this article from such continued vandalism once it becomes unprotected.Giovanni33 17:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly lots of issues discussed above.Ultramarine 17:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC 

message: I would propose to branch the article to internal and external terrorism by the United States government.
:If you provided a source that states internal US terrorism, then we could think about it.--NYCJosh 19:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: *
Tom Harrison Talk 12:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a Allegations of state terrorism by Russia or Allegations of state terrorism by the U.S.S.R. - I guess those links answer my question. Let me know if you are interested in starting one, I will try to contribute, but it is not really my field. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll help out too, Tom. I think this article is getting wrapped up nicely and its time to move on. ... Seabhcan 14:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When looking for stuff on Russia, I found this Washington Post article from 1989:
* ... Seabhcan 14:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential references 

message: I believe  is not intended for use in the main namespace (WP:SELF), and, as such, should be removed from the top of this article.  Only this mainspace article and one other currently transclude it (see Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Underdiscussion).  I'll remove the other myself, but that's currently not possible here.    justen   10:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct me if I am wrong but I see no reason to remove the tag, and I have undone your good faith edit on the other place it was used. Looking at the locations the template is used, I see about 50 templates (not project namespaces) that show when to use the template, and only two articles that actually use the template.  With all the hotly contested articles on Wikipedia it is surprising that the template is not used more extensively. I guess that is good. Some admin will come along and resolve the issue for us, because of the editprotected tag. 199.125.109.25 17:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi 199.  The reason the tag is not used is because of a Wikipedia guideline called WP:SELF.  Essentially, the guideline and principle is that we should never refer to "Wikipedia" or "talk pages" from a main namespace article page.  Basically, the tag that was added to this article is not meant to be used outside of the WP: project namespace.  While I agree that directing folks to talk pages of contested articles has its merits, Wikipedians came to a consensus, some time ago, that it was something that we would not do.    justen   19:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. The protection tag suffices. Cheers. --MZMcBride 21:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested edit to remove tag 

message: So...why exactly the dubious tag remains since there's no discussion anymore? (By the way, the article continues having lots and lots of sources that believe in US terrorism and few that disbelieve it, won't anyone at least try to address that?) --200.222.30.9 00:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no discussion only because the article is protected. Here are the edits that will be made as soon as possible, at a minimum. 199.125.109.118 05:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious tag 

message: :Great, I would be happy of this to be included in the article. Pexise 16:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on El Salvador 

message: In his analysis of the U.N. Truth Commision's Report on El Salvador, Frederick Garneau argued for significant culpability on the part of United States governments.
This section can be archived. 199.125.109.55 03:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  El Salvador 

message: U.S State Terrorism in El Salvador
Between 1970 and 1991 the country of El Salvador became embroiled in a civil conflict characterized by massive human rights abuses and political terror. (Arnson, Cynthia J. Window on the Past: A Declassified History of Death Squads in El Salvador in Death Squads in Global Perspective: Murder with Deniability, Campbell and Brenner,eds, St. Martin’s Press, 2000, p.85). In their retrospective assessments, human rights organizations and truth commissions have attributed the great majority of the violence to the actions of government forces. (From Madness to Hope: the 12-year war in El Salvador:
Report of the Commission on the Truth for El Salvador, http://www.usip.org/library/tc/doc/reports/el_salvador/tc_es_03151993_toc.html, "El Salvador: 'Death Squads' -A Government Strategy," Amnesty International AMR 29/21/88,October
1988 (pp.l-6, 15-21). A report of an Amnesty International investigative mission made public in 1984 stated that “many of the 40,000 people killed in the preceding five years had been murdered by government forces who openly dumped mutilated corpses in an apparent effort to terrorize the population.” (Amnesty International Annual Report, 1985)
The state terror took several forms. On December 11, 1981, the U.S.-trained elite Atlacatl Battalion of the Salvadoran army killed hundreds of men, women, and children in he village of El Mozote. Actions included decapitation, raping of young girls before killing them, and massacring men, women, and children in separate groups with U.S.-supplied M-16 rifles. (Menjivar and Rodriquez, State Terror in the U.S.-Latin American Interstate Regime.) Death squads worked in conjunction with Salvadoran Security services to eliminate opponents, leftist rebels and their supporters. (Martin, Gus, Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives and Issues, Sage Publications, 2003,p.110). Cynthia Arnson, a long-time writers on Latin America for Human Rights Watch, argues that “the objective of death squad terror seemed not only elimination of opponents, but also, through torture and the gruesome disfiguration of bodies, the terrorization of the population.” (Arnson, Cynthia J. Window on the Past: A Declassified History of Death Squads in El Salvador in Death Squads in Global Perspective: Murder with Deniability, Campbell and Brenner,eds, St. Martin’s Press, 2000, p.86). ORDEN was a paramilitary and intelligence service “that used terror against rural civilians. Another death squad, The White Hand, committed numerous atrocities against civilians. ” (Martin, Gus, Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives and Issues, Sage Publications, 2003,p.110).
Long-time Amnesty International researcher Michael McClintock has correlated the imprint of a “White Hand on the door of potential “death squad” victims in El Salvador and Guatemala” with precedents in Vietnam, suggesting that they had access to “the same unclassified manual, through more detailed classified instructional material or through personal contact with American training personnel. (McClintock, M, American Doctrine and State Terror in Western State Terrorism, Alexander George, ed. Polity-Blackwell, 1991, p.133) In the mid-1980’s state terror in El Salvador increasingly took the form of indiscriminate air forces bombing, the planting of mines and harassment of national and international medical personnel- “all indicate that although death rates attributable to death squads have declined in El Salvador since 1983, non-combatant victims of the civil war have increased dramatically. (Lopez, George A. Terrorism in Latin America in The Politics of Terrorism, Michael Stohl, ed., p.514)
U.S. foreign policy critics have charged that the U.S. is complicit in Salvadoran state terror, in part, due to the extensive training to the Salvadoran forces who were directly responsible, together with the extensive military aid that was provided--both at time when facts concerning its state terrorism were known. An additional factor has been the US role in denying the killings and human rights abuses despite the relevant facts being known and made publicly available.
This section can be archived. 199.125.109.55 03:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material to work on and add to the El Salvador Section