Talk:United States and state terrorism/Archive 11

message: I removed this section because it is the most egregious in the article.  That the US supported a coup in Iran and initiated various methods of destabilizing and sabotaging the Iraqi Ba'athist regime is well known.  This is not the same thing as "terrorism", and offhand remarks about it are flatly unsubstantive.  This article, if it is to have any meaning (of which it is lacking in the first place), should remain focused on substantive and verifiable charges of terrorism from reputable sources, not an original research synthesis of known facts with tendentious views on them.  --72.84.56.55 20:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with every single word.Ultramarine 20:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's better to discuss first and then think about removing. Ultramarine posted several suggested deletions above and has been allowing some time for replies which is good (I've only been dealing with the Guatemala section which has taken up hours of time). Let other folks weigh in on this, though I might largely be in agreement with you that much or all of this section could be removed. The Asia Times source seems okay, but more like it would need to be found as I don't think the coup against Mossadegh is a clear-cut case of state terrorism.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 22:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Answer in one place below.Ultramarine 22:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:Bold applies. The editor did comment here, and that is more than most do prior to making changes. If you're not going to tolerate extremist POV being removed from the article, then you can try and put it back, but we'll probably not tolerate it since we don't permit people to violate polices.--MONGO 22:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. No source has been presented supporting the claim that the persons involved in the Iran coup were terrorists. The Asian Times commentary is just that, an unsourced commentary. A better source is requried. The Iraq material can be discussed further.Ultramarine 22:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again I might agree that this section can be deleted (I have not had time to even think about it really) but I think you can see why folks get annoyed when a new anon user deletes content without discussion. There is no rush on anything here, and since Ultramarine and the new editor are proposing the deletion of multiple sections they need to allow time for folks to respond.  One of the main editors of this article (for years apparently) Stone put to sky is blocked for a short period and obviously that person (and others) should be given time to comment. Because this article is so contentious, we should discuss first, then be bold.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 23:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strangely enought this do not apply any opposing views which are usually deleted without discussion. I have requested sources for a very long time now regarding the Iran coup, so it is certainly appropriate to delete.Ultramarine 23:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed the Iran section, because it merely consisted of known historical facts repeated, with only a single source from an online newspaper's opinion, actually classifying it as an act of terrorism. --MichaelLinnear 23:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I read it, and it didn't really say anything about the coup, so I replaced that stuff with material regarding the alleged sponsorship of "terrorist/freedom fight" groups in Iran. The article dealt more with the US's meddling in Iran's internal affairs and behind the scenes fanning of ethnic minority's tensions with the central government. --MichaelLinnear 23:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good change by Michael Linnear, this obviously better expresses what the Asia Times article was discussing.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 01:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah well, the text I added got nuked in the latest war. At least I can say that I tried. --MichaelLinnear 06:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You certainly did. Nuked, I might add, by an anon IP with a few edits and without any prior discussion acknowledging your constructive changes or the fact that a couple of people agreed with them. That seems par for the course here today though, where compromise edits have been deleted out of hand by folks who have done little or no work on the article and where some nice give and take between editors of different views ended in an edit war largely between editors who do not actually work on the article and then page protection. Depressing. I hope we can add in your edit when this thing gets unprotected. I would certainly support that.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 07:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Middle East section

message: Greetings to all our American friends on this page. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Happy Fourth of July

message: I don't mean to belittle anyone or their opinion.  I just feel there is a lot of debate about the concept of terrorism and the naming of this article which serves as a roadblock to this article achieving a good nuetral status.  After reading much of talk page it seems to me some users don't understand the concept of terrorism.  There can be both right wing and left wing terrorism because it is a term given by one idealogue to someone of an opposing idealogy for carrying out violent acts and inciting terror to achieve their idealogical goals.  So to someone in a capitalist democracy like USA, a communist guerilla such as Che Guevarra or Fidel Castro were terrorists because they violently overthrew their a capitalistic/democratic idealogy.  Thus this applies to State Terrorism of the USA because they funded/trained/supported guerilla's that shared their same philosophy that went against the existing regime of a number of country's idealogy and thus their sovereignty.  Just because some people on here think that capitalism is the correct system doesn't mean that people that violently support them aren't terrorists.  It is a completely perspective term:  one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.  Thus the title fits from the perspective of the Guatamalan or Nicaraguan or Iranian regimes.Wiegrajo 11:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your are correct that there is no international agreement on what terrorism or "state terrorism" is. So any claims are the personal opinions of the author. But read WP:SOAP and Wikipedia:POV forking, one sided articles only presenting the views of one side are not allowed. Regarding the title, see "Changing the name to 'Criticisms of United States foreign policy'?" above. By the way, Guatemala has an elected democratic government, although the degree of capitalism may be discussed.Ultramarine 11:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is no consensus on what terrorism is, would you agree we can no longer call al-Qaeda, IRA, ETA, FARC, Hamas, and others terrorists? Again, by your own words this would violate WP:SOAP and WP:OR.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Ultramarine, we are allowed to report on the opinions of external, notable, authors. That is not SOAP. Soap is reporting our own opinions, which no one here is doing. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 11:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the link. Proposed definitions. The text clearly states that there is no agreed on definition which is a problem.Ultramarine 12:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Although the so called "Academic Consensus Definition" is kind of interesting. It would remove much of the contested material from this article, like the support for coups. It would also remove targeted assassinations of specific opponents, for example by death squads, from being terrorism.Ultramarine 12:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we take any attempt at creating a "a state of terror" as hallmark we can safely conclude much of what is discussed here falls under the definition of terrorism. Again I refer to the "state of terror" the US is manufacturing regarding Iran and its supposed developement of a nuclear bomb as the most recent example.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 12:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I think it's the IAEA that is concerned with Iran's atomic energy program.   IAEA concerns + Hezbollah + comments that Israel will become a fireball by Iranian president = they manufactured their own state of terror.  Iran has been a thorn in the U.S. side since 1979.  Yet it remains unbombed for nearly thirty years despite the shrill but baseless cries of U.S. critics that an attack is imminent.  Cuba has remained invasion free to the chagrin of the chicken littles and boys who cried wolf.  Your voice in the chorus has been duly noted.  The U.S. has not created a "state of terror" in either of these two nations despite their adversarial nature and the lopsided balance of power.    But as a side note, are you worried about Pakistan's "supposed" nuclear weapons?  --Tbeatty 07:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can of course provide evidence for your erroneous claim that it is the IAEA and not the Bush administration promoting the fear of a nuclear bomb in Iran? Of course you unfortunately forhot the US involvement in the Iraq-Iran war when the US tried to bomb it through its proxy Saddam. Then when he no longer listened to orders, as bin Laden, he immediately became public enemy No. 1.  Second, the Iranian President merely pointed out that Israel is the principal source of trouble in the Middle-East and that the only solution is for Israel to stop its human rights violations and illegal occupation. Oddly remeniscent of the comments bin Laden made regarding the US that should stop supporting US-friendly dictators and stop the use of military force to secure US interests in non-US territory. As for Pakistan, yes I am worried, the fact Khan succeeded in stealing the technology and his country now has the bomb is troubling since Pakistan is not overly zealous in targetting terrorists. A fact Bush conspicuously ignores since it is an "ally."Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 05:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there's this. And this.  Pretty much says they are working on nuclear weapons.  And I'm glad to see you are frightened by Pakistan's nuclear weapons.  Don't know why you aren't afraid of the other countries acquiring them or are you employing the "enemy of my enemy" theory of nuclear war.  I think you overexaggerate U.S. support of Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war.   Iran used to be an ally of the U.S. It is very apparent when you see their military hardware.  Very American.  Very western.  Iraq, however, is equally a Sovet era satellite country.  From tanks to rifles to rockets, it's all Soviet red.  Israel is not the principle source of trouble in the Middle East, it is merely an excuse.  The Middle East is one big civil war on low boil with various factions and tribes. Religious, economic and tribal wars. It's Shia muslim vs. Sunni muslim, Muslim vs. Jew, Fundamentalist Muslim vs. Secular muslim, Saudia Arabi vs. Al Qaeda, Persian vs. Arab, Palestinian vs. Israeli, Palestinian vs. Jordanian, Ba'ath vs. Lebanese Christian, Saudi Arabian vs. Egyptian, Hamas vs. PLO, etc ,etc. In 1967, Israel crushed Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian forces, not because Israel was fighting an organized coalition, but because each of three rivals were afraid the other rival would grab too much israeil terroritory in victory. Each, in turn, were drawn in because of their rivalry, not their alliance. Depending on which country is lending support to which faction invites terrorist attack. Peace is elusive because alliances that form for one reason dissolve for others. Today's ally is tomorrows enemy. There is no foreign policy today that will eliminate countries from terrorist attack from countries in this region because the alliances are so complex. Even withdrawing support from Israel which is largely regarded as the number one reason for making the U.S. a target will simply shift it to whatever alliances we have. Supporting Saudia Arabia makes us a target. Supporting Egypt makes us a target. Supporting Lebanon, supporting Jordan, supporting the PLO, supporting Iran, supporting pakistan, supporting indonesia, all makes us a target by somebody. "neutral" is not an option because of the amount of money that is involved and the level of exports these countries have. Today's enemy is Al Qaeda and they are the most powerful today. But they weren't the terrorists of yesterday and they won't be the terrorists of tomorrow. They didn't do Munich 1972 or PAn Am over Lockerbie. Abu Nidal wasn't in Al Qaeda. Leon Klinghofer wasn't killed by Al Qaeda. You can rest assured that there will be a new crop of terrorist organizations in the future and undoubtedly it will be tied to some policy the U.S. has today, but it really doesn't matter what the policy is, there will be terrorists. It could be Jordanian terrorists upset that we support Palestinians or it could be palestinian terrorists upset that we opposed them.  And as USS Cole, World Trade Center, Khobar Towers and U.S. Embassies in Africa can attest, it doesn't matter who the President is.  --Tbeatty 06:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of the last couple of comments take us way, way off track from anything to do with the discussion about this article.  Also (and I'm really not trying to be overly pedantic here) the Six Day War of course happened in 1967, not 1968.  As anyone familiar with the history of the Middle East would probably agree, that's a howler of a mistake--for the Middle East post-WWII it's about equivalent to saying that the French Revolution got going when the Bastille was stormed in 1787.  If you can't get basic facts straight you've got a real problem.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 10:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed the typo.  --Tbeatty 14:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Unless of course a source has cited it as state terrorism, which is the real requirement for inclusion. You seem to be advocating WP:SYNTH to simply apply whatever fits the definition, regardless of the sources. --74.73.16.230 12:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If a death squad kills, say a prominent Marxist leader they suspect of invovlement with rebels, then he is the main target. It is not a random or a symbolic murder intended to create anxiety primarily, it is intended to remove an important suspected leader.Ultramarine 12:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If they select them randomly with the intention to frighten the rest of the population, then it would be terrorism as per this particular definition. If they kill 200,000 people they feel are Communist rebels, then it is not terrorism as per this particular definition.Ultramarine 13:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If a fascist death squad kills people in Central America, it is US terrorism. If a fascist death squad kills people in Iraq, it's an insurgency. If in Europe, I guess it's hooliganism, and you need more security cameras. Tom Harrison Talk 13:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats a bit of an anti-Europeanism comment, isn't it Tom. Good thing I won't take it personally. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 13:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it anti-European to suggest responding to terrorism as if it were a law enforcement problem is fundamentally stupid? Or that people who had no trouble recognizing state-sponsored right-wing death squads in 1985 can't see them today? Still, it is off topic and I'll say no more. Feel free to refactor or remove my remarks, and thanks for not taking offense. Tom Harrison Talk 14:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would just like to note that my adminship was stripped for comments in a similar vein which were deemed "anti-American". You, Tom, have nothing to worry about, though. European editors do not see a limit to free speech. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 14:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you continue to fail to see the difference between the commentary you subjected numerous editors to and what Tom harrison has stated, then I can't help you. One would hope that you would have learned the difference...and that brings up another point...with an arbcom ruling which decreed that you did indeed make numerous anti-American comments, don't you think that your continued involvement in furthering your POV here on this article should be seen as circumspect?--MONGO 04:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, the U.S. would deal with terrorism on it's soil as a law enforcement problem.  Posse Comitatus would prevent anything else.   The difference is that the U.S. would respond militarily to other countries that allowed terrorists to launch their attacks.  European countries logistically lack the ability to respond that way.  Most NATO countries cannot project the kind of power necessary without logistical help from the U.S. or a massive buildup of their military which would make the deployment not very rapid.  Even the U.S. needed months to prepare for Afghanistan as well as air bases in Kazakhstan.  As for European free speech, last time I checked French girls weren't allowed to wear head scarves to school.  Germany and Austria have banned books and certain statements.  And on July 12, we'll see if free speech is allowed in Ireland this year or if firebombs and beatings have replaced them.  --Tbeatty 07:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Or bomb Boston. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 15:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really?  I thought they were giving money to "End the Occupation" and there were calls in England "Bring the Troops Home" and that the British troops were actually responsible for the 200,000 civilian deaths caused by IRA bombings.  After all, the IRA wasn't in Ireland until the British invaded.  And that policing, intelligence and diplomacy really worked out in Bosnia.  When are  those troops coming home?  And those damn Chechens not respecting their "occupation" either for their own good.  And when is the EU going to admit the state of Basque?  Can't really have diplomacy with a group that doesn't have it's own state.  But I guess it's only really Iraq that's a problem because... well... Bush.  --Tbeatty 08:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Thankfully! Then where would Matt_Damon's movies have been filmed! --74.73.16.230 15:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arguing over a definition and how to WP:SYNTH it is kinda pointless. As long as WP:RS source cites the event as state terrorism, or terrorism attributed to state X, then the material meets the requirements. If anyone from the US did not notice it is the fourth of July, perhaps a bbq with family or a visit to a VA shelter/memorial would do you more good then arguing on the internet. --74.73.16.230 15:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also WP:REDFLAG. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, often mulitple, so quoting some obscure far left website is not enough.Ultramarine 15:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup that far left Cuban/Venezuelan government, that leftist UN commission, those leftist Guatemalan commissions, those crazy dems over in the AHRC and of course that obvious leftist Christian Tomuschat. Spare me please. --74.73.16.230 15:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: To defend myself from your misunderstanding of what I had written, which in retrospect was poorly worded and hastily written as well, what I meant was:  to someone like GW, che guevarra was a terrorist.  However to someone like Hugo Chavez, he was a liberator. My point is that usage of the term is perspective based.  However, one could also and probably should also just apply the UN's definition as the definitive because the UN charter is the foundation of modern International Law and through the signature and membership of almost every government on the planet, it should be considered "agreed upon."Wiegrajo 09:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Fidel supported terrorism by harboring Spanish terrorists that are wanted by Spain and training and harboring african terrorist as well as involvenment with Columbia drug cartel and FARC.  Nobody cares that he's leftist.  He's only 90 miles from Florida, he has a Marine base on his island and he's never been bombed or attacked.  At the same time, the Soviet Union created a nice buffer of countries around itself and turned them into the communist bloc inflicting poverty on millions of people.  --Tbeatty 07:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope that is a joke or the irony of you having read the cases of Posada and his cohorts and not believe the US is then guilty of "State Terrorism" --74.73.16.230 10:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: For our work here, the only thing that makes anything terrorism is citation to multiple reliable sources that say it is terrorism. If there are not multiple reliable sources that say it was terrorism, as far as I'm concerned you can still include almost anything you want as long as it is attributed and cited. Start with 'Professor X says' and end with a citation that actually says 'terrorism.' What I oppose is claiming as fact 'this was an act of state terrorism' and citing Chomsky for it, or synthesizing sources you think together match a definition of state terrorism.Tom Harrison Talk 15:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy with that. Ultramarine also seems happy. How about the rest of us? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 16:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Just to be clear, since McClintock doesn't say that the U.S. engaged in terrorism and to contrue that U.S. did is synthesis and original research, his comments wouldn't be included in this article.  --Tbeatty 06:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually it only takes one reliable source for us to be able report the claim.Giovanni33 17:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concept of Terrorism and How this Article is Appropriately Titled 

message: From our long discussions, I think we can suggest some ground rules for including material.
#An event can be directly described in the article as terrorism if and only if multiple notable and reliable sources define it as such, and if no other notable source disagrees.
#Otherwise, if a notable author or source describes an event as terrorism, it may be indirectly described in the article as terrorism in the form "Author X says...".
#If such an author states the definition that he used to arrive at this conclusion, this should be included, otherwise it may be noted that no definition was given.
#Notable sources which criticize the author should be included where they exist.
#This article is about State terrorism and sources should directly accuse the US, or its state organs (eg CIA), of involvement in said terrorism. 
----
:Agree, disagree, discuss, below. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 16:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can not describe something directly as terrorism since there is no agreement on what terrorism is. That is, attribution is always needed. Otherwise looks interesting.Ultramarine 16:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if multiple notable sources agree that something is terrorism, then that should be good enough for us. (although, I doubt that will happen often - point 2 is more applicable) ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 16:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless there is any other notable source that disagrees, and then we have to attribute it. Anyways, I think you're using the wrong term here, the article is about "state terrorism", not "terrorism". - Merzbow 16:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True. I'll add another point (this one is sure to cause arguements!) ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 16:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will agree if you modify 1 to add the caveat ", and if no other notable source disagrees.". - Merzbow 16:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Meaning if a notable source disagrees, then it falls to point 2. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 16:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. - Merzbow 17:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Number four is not valid, to the extent that its included just to attack the author, instead of the relevant question/POV/claim that the author is making. That is why the additions of Ultramarin to bash Chomsky, including talking about his "ethical predisposition",, or that "Chomky is no pacifist,' on a topic of "the US own definition," of terrorism is not valid, as its off topic, and irrelevant. Thus, its not valid to say "which criticize the author should be included where they exist," unless its meant by that there is a disagreement about the authors claims, i.e. which the author is being cited for. That is why Ultramarine's off topic anti-Chomsky reader additions will have to go, as well as the introduction pov additions, 'chomsky cult, and "police states."Giovanni33 17:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this general approach, and appreciate Seabhcan's efforts here. I agree with Giovanni's last point though. Number four should not be about criticizing the author in a general sense, but criticizing their point of view on the matter, or at least their knowledge/ability to comment on this particular issue. For example saying Chomsky is not a pacifist would be off topic, but saying that he criticizes some regimes for state terror (for example the US) while not being as adamant about it for other regimes (for example Cambodia under Pol Pot) would reveal his possible bias on this particular topic and be worthy of inclusion (I disagree with the point, but think this kind of criticism would be totally appropriate for this article). It might be good to elaborate on point 5, as I see it being a point of contention. I think most would agree that the precise phrase "state terrorism" need not appear (for example "terrorism by the state" or "the government of the United States engaged in terrorism when" etc. would be acceptable if a reliable source used such phrasing--correct me if there's disagreement there) but the line would get fuzzy at some point. For example if a source said: The US provided country X with weapons and training, told it to use these weapons and training to defeat an insurgency in its country even if it meant killing many civilians, sources label the actions of country X's military state terrorism. Some editors would object vehemently to this formulation, others would be fine with it (there are other examples that might be even less clear cut). So I think we should hash out five a bit more (maybe add a couple of sub-points to further clarify) and slightly reword four so the focus is not on the author in general but rather on their views on the matter in question and/or their knowledge in that particular area. I think we could work those things out though.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 17:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In regards to Ultramarine's Chomsky addition, the End of Faith quote and the second Windschuttle quote are arguably not relevant because they are too broad (I don't entirely understand the second Windschuttle quote so maybe it is), but the first paragraph is acceptable since it specifically criticizes Chomsky's selective application of the accusation of state terrorism. - Merzbow 22:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed, as Bigtimepeace stated it, I argued above and you now write. Attacking the authors and not their arguements would be an ad hominem. For comparable instance, if the US State Department stated XYZ against person A. Would it be ok for us to then put in a section criticizing the critic, stating: However the US State Department has been accused of being hypocritical in their selection of countries involved in state terrorism [1][2][3][4]" Surely not as we are suppose to criticize the statement they make, not the author. --74.73.16.230 20:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Tbeatty. Country Y giving humanitarian aid is not supporting terrorism. Giving aid to an insurgency or military is involvement. Country Y giving safe haven to that countries refugees is not but giving safe haven to it's terrorists is. In other words the same criteria the U.S. itself uses for other countries. Wayne 21:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually according to the US definition, via the State Department, giving aid is all it takes to end up on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. I believe it is why Cuba is listed, for its support for Iran, politically, and it not doing as much as they believe it can to curb terrorism, not actually supporting, just not helping much apparently. --74.73.16.230 21:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the U.S. requirement is funding revolutionary elements that engage in terrorism, not just military funding.  For example, supplying military aid to Egypt is not terrorism.  Training revolutionary terrorists in Africa (what Cuba does) is terrorism.  --Tbeatty 01:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But which is State Terrorism? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 08:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was it.  Keep in mind that cuba's addition to the list was years ago before the end of the cold war when they actively supported revolutionary terrorist.  They are still holding Basque Separatists and support FARC, but not as actively as before.  It's been proposed that they be reomved from the list but that would require an act of Congress which won't happen.  --Tbeatty 08:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How will you react when someone presents a notable source which describes US funding of foreign military as US state terrorism? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funding a foreign military is not terrorism.  For example, if Egypt committed terrorsit acts, the U.S. would not be complicit in those acts simply because it funds the military.  Soverieign States are sovereign and that comes with all the privileges and responsibilities.   A notable source would have to explicitly make the case preferably in a peer reviewed journal that such action constituted terrorism.  It would have to be an explicit and direct statement.  It would have to be in the larger definition of terrorism and not a narrowly constructed "personal definition".  Not meeting these would warrant deletion even if sourced as it is synthesis.  McClintock is a perfect example of what is not acceptable.  Summary of McClintock "Guatemala engaged in counter-terrorism.  Their counter-terrorism killed civilians so their coutner-terrism was in fact terrorism by the state.  The U.S. had a doctrines on counter-terrorism that Guatemala used to train.  Therefore, the U.S. counter-terrism doctrine is state sponsered terrorism."  and then using that to support a claim of State Terrorism by the U.S. is simply not acceptable.  --Tbeatty 09:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that you think it isn't terrorism. I accept that. And there are very many notable sources that concur. However, there are other notable sources that disagree, and do claim it is terror. Will you allow those sources to be represented in this article? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I answered that question and gave an example.   It is a good starting point.  --Tbeatty 15:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: What are you talking about?  Hamas and Hizbullah both make attacks on Israel, in Israel.  One attacks from Lebanon, the other from the West Banck and Gaza.  The state department has a reputable list of countries and organization.  THey've certainly has been active in adding groups to the list.  They have a notable criteria to add groups/counties to the list.  Once they add the United States, feel free to use them as a reference in this article.   I think that would be an acceptable source.  BUt using your own Original Research and synthesis to conclude the U.S. is on the list is not acceptable.  BTW, are you really claiming Kosovo was a terrorist act and Wesley Clark and Bill Clinton would now be "terrorists"?  It would certainly be interesting to see you add this to their bios here.  --Tbeatty 15:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is if you believe Israel is not in Palestinian land ... To Hamas they are fighting inside their own land, taken from them. But that depends on who you support I guess. --SixOfDiamonds 16:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you making the argument that attacks inside your own country, as defined by the attacker, against civilians is not terrorism?  --Tbeatty 23:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am explaining to you why your statement "Hamas and Hizbullah both make attacks on Israel, in Israel." would be argued with by those groups. You are attempting to make the point that those groups are not freedom fighters since they attack other nations, however I am explaining to you, from their perspective, they are not attacking another nation. Not sure where you got your last statement from. I will now on include a dif and quote when responding to you to make it more clear, as well as the standard indent. --SixOfDiamonds 12:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: (from his talk, here)I already answered it. A notable source would have to explicitly make the case preferably in a peer reviewed journal that such action constituted terrorism. It would have to be an explicit and direct statement. It would have to be in the larger definition of terrorism and not a narrowly constructed "personal definition". Not meeting these would warrant deletion even if sourced as it is synthesis. I then gave an example that is unacceptable. --Tbeatty 15:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your personal definition rule has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. --SixOfDiamonds 16:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed inclusion rules 

message: (from above)
I understand that you think it isn't terrorism. I accept that. And there are very many notable sources that concur. However, there are other notable sources that disagree, and do claim it is terror. Will you allow those sources to be represented in this article? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (from his talk, here)I already answered it. A notable source would have to explicitly make the case preferably in a peer reviewed journal that such action constituted terrorism. It would have to be an explicit and direct statement. It would have to be in the larger definition of terrorism and not a narrowly constructed "personal definition". Not meeting these would warrant deletion even if sourced as it is synthesis. I then gave an example that is unacceptable. --Tbeatty 15:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your personal definition rule has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. --SixOfDiamonds 16:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tbeatty's two cents

message: Again we see a complex issue being glossed over here for tendentious political points.  The US set up stay behind armies in Europe.  Some individuals connected to those organizations committed acts of terrorism (decades later). Therefore the US is being held responsible, even though there is no credible suggestion that the US was in any way responsible for the events.  That the Italian communists casted vague aspersions on the US, the bane of their existence ever since they helped prevent a communist takeover after WWII, is unsurprising and not at all relevant in determining with any verifiability whether this constitutes terrorism "by the United States".  There is nothing substantive here either, and I support removal.  --72.84.56.55 20:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Good points.Ultramarine 20:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarify this for me if you could: the US trains and organizes them, sets up funding and supply lines, means of communication, and all that stuff - but isn't responsible when they put all this to good use against organizations and politics that run contrary to US interests? Kinda like how even after they shut down Operation 40 the groups it set up continued to function, or how School of the Americas training had nothing whatsoever to with the Atlacatl Battalion atrocities in El Salvador. And yet we hear so much from 'conservatives' about responsibility. As for "communist takeover after WWII", well wikipedia accepts all sorts so I guess that's one way of looking at participatory democracy. LamontCranston 13:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gladio

message: We have a tag along the lines of what I've written below at the top of the page, but I want to make this even more explicit since it still seems to be a problem. This would apply both to deletions and additions, and I would suggest that something along these lines (along with Seabhcan's proposal above in whatever form it ultimately takes) have permanent places at the top of the talk page, assuming editors are in general agreement about them. Comments (thumbs up, thumbs down, proposed changes, etc.) on my proposed text below are welcome, but after a couple of mass deletions yesterday without any prior discussion or effort to work on the content, I think a guideline along these lines is needed (if people just want to edit what I have below, that's fine too--I'm not married to it and am just trying to express a general idea). I have to prepare to celebrate Independence Day in the classic American way--grilling meat and drinking booze--so I won't be around to add in other thoughts for awhile (though it looks like rain here in NYC, which might put the kibosh on the festivities--luckily there's a lot of bars in this town).--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 18:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a very contentious topic, and article content is often hotly disputed. As such, it is critical that editors wishing to make significant changes (whether it be adding new text, deleting text, or significantly altering the wording of multiple passages) discuss it here on the talk page first. Please bring up any changes you wish to make, and wait for some feedback from other editors. The goal should be to arrive at some form of consensus, but it's quite possible this will not happen. If consensus cannot be achieved it is fine to make the changes you wish to make, so long as you have made an effort to solicit feedback. Significant changes made without prior discussion (be they additions or deletions) will, as a rule, be reverted.
The page was moved from Allegations of to State terrorism by without discussion or consensus. The page was substantially rewritten as a personal essay without discussion or consensus. I'm not going to support any special rules now to make it harder to change. Tom Harrison Talk 18:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It doesnt make it harder to change, because the alternative is to have an edit war and that doesnt change anything. It just gets the article locked. Will will not make progress unless we all agree to these common sense rules, as stipulated above. That way we can use the talk page to forge a consensus to major changes. It may not be easy, but its better than the alternatives, by far.Giovanni33 04:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: General proposal for significant changes

message: This article seems like blatant POV WacoJacko 08:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Care you present an actual argument so that any POV violations can be fixed? That would be far more helpful.Giovanni33 14:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Claim about this article

message: Here's the problem with the name of the article.  I will use the following fictional articleto demonstrate the fallacious logic used in both the creating and naming of this article.
Hypothetical article title Terrorism by anti-Global Warming Advocates.
Terrorism by anti-Global Warming Advocates
Anti-Global Warming advocates are responsible for numerous terrorist attacks.  
===  Al Gore  ===
 Al Gore's son, who Al Gore fathered and reared,  was arrested while driving a Prius recently with numerous narcotics.  Al Qaeda is located in Afghanistan.  Afghanistan is a large exporter of illicit opium products.  Terrorists use the drug trade to fund their attacks.  Illegal drugs are "an instrument of terror."  Prius automobiles are small hybrid vehicles popular with anti-global warming advocates and can reach speeds that exceed 100 mph.  Al Gore's son was arrested while protecting the environment at a speed in excess of the legal limit.   The Prius was discovered with the "instruments of terror" after being searched.  The Prius "instrument of terror" was towed to a police impound lot.  
===List of Vehicles Used to further terrorism ===
 Prius
See the absurdity?  This article reads almost identical to the above paragraph.  From it's title down to it's claims and lists. --Tbeatty 09:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone sees the absurdity bro. We read your comment.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 09:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, we read absurdities most of the time you make edits here. Fortunately, this article suffers from no such defect.Giovanni33 14:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, the personal attacks.  the last refuge.  But it is about the level I expect.  No response.  No  sources.  Just ad hominem.  --Tbeatty 15:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An attack would be a response, and this obviously would not require sources ... --SixOfDiamonds 16:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no personal or ad hominem attacks, just attacks on what you wrote (there's a difference you know). I cannot fathom how one could respond to your post rationally since it is so utterly nonsensical, much less respond with "sources." Obviously you did not use any sources to construct your bizarre faux article, so expecting anyone to respond to you with sources is ridiculous.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 19:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  I can source every sentence.  Every sentence is sourcably true and is in the news today.  However the tale it weaves is absurd.  Just like this article.  Which statement did you say was untrue or non-sourcable?  McClintock synthesis of the United States committing terrorism in Guatemala is the same logic synthesis I used to link the Environmentalist Prius drivers to 9/11.  --Tbeatty 22:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Demonstrating Absurdity with Absurdity 

message: I have been asking around about what can be done with this page, and other pages like it.  
There is a group of editors who edit and AfD vote in tandem here.  
They have strong biases and will do anything to remove information which is contrary to their POV. 
I have seen none of them, with the exception of Ultramarine, contribute anything to this article, instead they spend all of there time posting AfDs are removing large sections of this article and articles like it. 
They attempt to bolster their POV by hiding behind policy. These arguments on the talk page here are the same recycled arguments from months, even years ago. They dont want to comprimise, their behavior make this crystal clear.  The bottom line is that these editors want this article to cease to exist, and will do anything to make this happen. AfD's, twisting policy, deleting large sections of referenced text: anything to purge wikipedia of views they dont agree with. 
On this page, many strawpolls have been launched and nothing happened. A moderator was assigned to this page at one point and nothing happened.  I think it is time for a RfC, followed by an Arbcom.
I am troubled by how these editors remove large portions of text from articles they personally disagree with, I am concerned about how they use wikipolicy to push their POV, I am concerned at how other editors in the past have accused three or four of these editors of working in tandem off wiki. 
My question is this: 
Should the RfC be for this page alone or for these group of editors?  WP:RfC said it was okay to have a group of editors in a RFC.69.152.136.146 19:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi --MONGO 19:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the distruptive users should be warned first, then blocked, and then if they don't behave, should be banned from this article, at least. So far they've only been distrupive.Giovanni33 22:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  --Tbeatty 05:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC about this page or about several users?

message: This template: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:State_terrorism is up for deletion. 69.152.136.146 19:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You better read the page again..."However, it is agreed that disruptive canvassing, even if it seems to be within guidelines below, is never acceptable."...posting this here is deliberately disruptive and comments made at the Tfd by yourself and anon IP's have been disruptive. Don't be disruptive. you need to read WP:TE and I would do so real soon.--MONGO 20:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More attacks, and its not disruptive. Its a simple notice and valid since the template covers this article. PS your attacks are boring, attempting to be a virtual bully will not get you far. Try working with the people here, much like Tom, he is a shinning example of a constructive editor even when he does not agree with the topic. --SixOfDiamonds 20:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Tom is a shining example. I deal with single purpose accounts and POV pushers directly and bluntly. If you can't handle my factual accord of your contributions then I can't help you. There are like 1.8 million other articles for you to work on, I know, I started a few myself and have featured content here as well. You have offered nothing to Wikipedia since you showed up, out of the blue to vote on the Afd for this article and have been POV pushing since. You'll likely end up banned if you don't make some major adjustments.--MONGO 20:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yawn* more chest beating. --SixOfDiamonds 21:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That last comment is a fine example of WP:BITE and WP:NPA. Well done Mongo. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 21:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't see a personal attack or a newbie.  He has no meaningful contributions and he is worred about termplate deletions.  --Tbeatty 22:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please also don't forget to Assume Good Faith. This kind of incivility isn't helping your arguement. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 22:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor yours.  --Tbeatty 00:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seabhcan - You seem to be the POV icon of what civility is. JungleCat  Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the playground can you people stop attacking each other. --SixOfDiamonds 12:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Up for deletion

message: When this page can be edited again, someone should draft a new overview paragraph because it reads like a bunch of random sentences stringed together by people all trying to get their voices heard.  Plus the use of the word 'cult' after Chomsky's name has negative implication and is POV.  Just some comment from an ammused on-looker.Wiegrajo 13:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, unfortunately, the article was protected the way, before it could be fixed. If you look at the history, you can see there is a coherent, neutral intro. This will be fixed as soon as protection ends, of course. I hope you stick around to help this article. Thanks.Giovanni33 01:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Protection ain't going away until we can all agree on what to do after it ends. - Merzbow 18:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction/Overview section is incoherent 

message: There were a lot of messages at the top. I combined them into one of the newer templates. I know this was not discussed, but I didn't think it affected content of the article. If there is anyone who doesn't think this was good. I'll switch them back. Sancho 17:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template trimming 

message: *Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Travb Tom Harrison Talk 23:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's interesting.WacoJacko 23:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup... the bottom line is that edits by IPs that begin in 68. and 69. on this article are likely from that one editor. - Merzbow 02:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, and they all seem to have quite an extreme agenda.....WacoJacko 03:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any 'extreme agenda," and I think talk like that violates WP policy, assume good faith. Also, there is nothing wrong with editing as an anon IP. Anon IP should carry just as much weight as anyone else. If its been established that serveral IP's are one person, then we treat them all as one person for evaluating consensus, and 3RR.Giovanni33 15:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Good to know, and I think it's safe to say that edits from these IP addresses should carry little or no weight as we work on this article. I'm not familiar with Travb's past participation on this page (I think it basically all took place before I came here), but if this user is interested in contributing they should obviously do so openly, not anonymously via dynamic IP addresses.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 07:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the socks is User:Divestment, who moved the article to its present name against consensus. Tom Harrison Talk 13:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Even more to the point, though: so far as i have seen, Tom has never -- in any of his post -- been guilty of creating mass quantities of original research, of sparking (or continuing) edit wars, calling for the creation of specious and tendentious sections every day, of rejecting any and every effort to reach a consensus, nor of broadcasting and canvassing large groups of unrelated wikipedia editors to fall upon this page for the express purpose of violating WP:NPOV, WP:POINT, WP:NOR, WP:NPA or WP:SOAPBOX.  Other posters here -- posting under their psuedonymous names -- have, however, and so i find this sudden righteous outburst from Stone as hypocritical.  Is that a big deal compared to unrecalcitrant repeat violators of policy who consistently post from a psuedonym account?  Hardly, i think.  --Tbeatty 08:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are allowed to post via IP as long as you do not have any Arbcom hearings pending, or are not evading a block. You can read it all on the policy page for sockpuppets. Its why the IP's have not been blocked, since it seems Travb did not have a pending Arbcom/block. --74.73.16.230 11:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Avoiding scrutiny from other editors Tom Harrison Talk 13:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His deletion log says "right to vanish." Checkuser shows multiple IP's which probably signifies dialup. Unlike myself he may not have the option of using a single IP. --74.73.16.230 14:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Even more to the point, though: so far as i have seen, Tom has never -- in any of his post -- been guilty of creating mass quantities of original research,
Nobody here has, either. Stone put to sky 08:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: of sparking (or continuing) edit wars,
Last edit war a direct consequence of Tom's frivolous posts, followed by mass deletions of sourced material.  Stone put to sky 08:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: calling for the creation of specious and tendentious sections every day,
There are no specious nor tendentious sections in this entire article -- unless you consider the reporting of targeted assassination, mass murder, torture, and genocide "specious and tendentious".  Stone put to sky 08:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: of rejecting any and every effort to reach a consensus,
Tom has never contributed anything to the article;  he has only deleted;  and every effort by him has always been to delete the article, its content, or water it down so that the information presented here disappears altogether. Every attempt to enjoin him in adding content more to his liking has been met with rejection.  So really, you're just flat-out lying here.  Stone put to sky 08:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: nor of broadcasting and canvassing large groups of unrelated wikipedia editors to fall upon this page for the express purpose of violating WP:NPOV, WP:POINT, WP:NOR, WP:NPA or WP:SOAPBOX. 
Well, not Tom.  But his good buddy Morton Devonshire certainly does.  Stone put to sky 08:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Other posters here -- posting under their psuedonymous names -- have, however,
Some others have.  But not Travb.  Straw men do burn.  Be careful with the insinuations.  Stone put to sky 08:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: and so i find this sudden righteous outburst from Stone as hypocritical.
Righteous?  I said i was right in comparison to others?  How odd -- 
Do you mean you can't tell the difference between getting up on a high horse and spouting self-congratulatory bullshit from rising to defend another poster?   
I think you need to do some work on your vocabulary, there, "tbeatty".  Stone put to sky 08:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Is that a big deal compared to unrecalcitrant repeat violators of policy who consistently post from a psuedonym account?  Hardly, i think.  
But of course, one would expect that from yet another of the unrecalcitrant deletionist crowd.   Stone put to sky 08:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you really serious?  Defending Travb is fine, but excoriating those who would like to know it's him (and were correct), while at the same time you file a Checkuser of Ultramarine with specious reasoning takes a special kind of hypocrisy (BTW, your CU will be rejected because of that specious reasoning, consider this foreshadowing).  Didn't you just get done praising Ultramaring for working with you?  And accusing others of being with the "deletionist crowd" is exceptionally rich considering your current edit war where you delete the entire criticism section of a fringe theory. .  The reality is that you appear to be interested only in your POV.   --Tbeatty 09:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I see the fruitcake and vegetable bit, but where did you call me a slug?  --Tbeatty 09:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay Stone put to sky, you can step down from the soapbox, and please, please try to remember WP:SOAPBOX for once.WacoJacko 09:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puppet accounts 

message: Requesting edit to paragraph 8 of 2.1.1 The first mention of "Jose Antonio Llama" to be wiki-linked as such. The article has been created about the person. Thank you. --SixOfDiamonds 14:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, the article is unprotected.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 20:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You missed one, I got it. east.718 20:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cuba Section