Talk:United States and state terrorism/Archive 15

message: I have just one objection: this crazy "the support, by the US and other Western nations, for certain right-wing dictatorships is that it is rare for democracy to exist in nations with low economic development," argument can't pass a simple universality test. Other arguments are debatable, like all in a discussion, but this is simply false. If this was really American foreign policy, then why are they so worried about democracy in Cuba and Iraq? They don't think that Cuba or Iraq are economically developed, do they? "Though this kind of policy only applies to pro-American dictators" or something of the sort should be added, for the sake of reality. --200.222.30.9 15:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have several objections to this section. 1) it's quite poorly written with several typos.  2) much of it isn't relevant to the subject matter. 3) it's poorly argued setting up straw-men and making spurios points e.g. No-one is attributing the 200,000 deaths in Guatemala to the US, but the US was backing regimes which carried out operations (Ronald Reagan referring to genocidal dictator Efrain Rios Montt as a 'man of great moral integrity') as was directly involved in various aspects, as meticulously detailed in the article; the argument against Chomsky using research by the democide guy (I forget his name) is massively oversimplified, morally relativistic and irrelevant to this article, which is about state terrorism not deaths attributed to governments. I suggest removal of the section. Pexise 16:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't get me wrong, I agree that an opposing views section is very necessary for this page, but one which is well written and well argued, pointing to opposing views about US state terrorism.  This section as it is now talks about democratic peace theory and some other vague arguments generally trying to justify US foreign policy and realpolitik, not specifically defending the US against the charge of state terrorism.  But then I suppose that US state terrorism is pretty undeniable, so I suppose there are no arguments against the charges. Pexise 07:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on Opposing views 

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.
Thanks.Giovanni33 18:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no allegation the US committed state terrorism. An allegation of being complicit in someone else's alleged state terror is not an allegation of state terrorism on one's own behalf. - Merzbow 00:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The scope of this article, per its lead includes: accussations of..."funding, training, and harboring individuals and groups who engage in terrorism..." The many allegations I present above, fit this exactly.Giovanni33 00:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we need to change that because that's not what the title of the article says. Right now it's being used as a dump for long laundry lists of every atrocity committed by every tin-pot dictatorship in history, interspersed with a couple lines about how somebody from the US might have trained somebody there. The Japanese bombing material is relevant; stuff like this isn't. - Merzbow 02:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is something that we would need consensus on to change, I think. The title is short, so it may not always explain what the article is about. That is what the lead really does. I think the scope of the article is good as it is. I believe any allegations of state terrorism (not just any atrocity, as you say), but actual claims of terror by the State, is valid--provided that its cited by reputable scholars in the field, and that the accusations implicate the US govt. I think the section can be improved to make that link even better, per BernardL, below. I won't put this in the article until consensus, though. And, thanks for agreeing that the Japan Atomic Bombings section is relevant. I think that section had overwheming consensus and I hope that its not blanked again.Giovanni33 16:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Atomic bombing section does not belong in this article. There is still no consensus for addition.Dman727 22:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a good start. The structure is sound. It's a good idea to start by letting people know what kind of state terror happened, using good sources. It is the last paragraph above all that requires more substantiation. I am confident that the last paragraph can be the most compelling of all because I am quite familiar with the scholarly work that can substantiate it. I will try to flesh this part out in the next several days. Cynthia J. Arnson's Window on the Past: A Declassified History of Death Squads in El Salvador is a particularly rich source for substantiating links between Salvadoran death squads and the U.S. political and military establishments, as well as a revealing analysis of U.S. denials. Here is one useful excerpt...."Throughout the decade, and particularly during the years 1980-1983 when the killing was at its height, assigning responsibility for the violence and human rights abuses was a product of intense ideological polarization in the United States. The Reagan administration downplayed the scale of abuse as well as the involvement of state actors. Because of the level of denial, as well as the extent of U.S. involvement with the Salvadoran military and security forces, the U.S. role in El Salvador-what was known about death squads, when it was known, and what actions the United States did or did not take to curb their abuses- becomes an important part of El Salvador's death squad story." (Cynthia J. Arnson, p.88) BernardL 03:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: "Here is another quote substantiating claims that material military aid and financial aid to the Salvadoran regime while the crimes were being committed. (Note that Cynthia J. Arnson updated the $4.6 billion figure cited here to $6 billion.) ...."Our support for the terror extends far beyond misleading and false statements by government spokesmen. The Salvador government and army survive only through a massive influx of aid from Washington, totaling $4.6 billion dollars over the past decade. U.S. military aid (by now some $1 billion dollars) is essential for keeping in power military and security forces largely responsible for the deaths of 70,000 civilians in the past ten years. The U.S. has unfailingly supplied the tools of terror and repression to the Salvadoran military , as well as training in their use." (George, Alexander, Western State Terrorism, 5)BernardL 10:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Since it is immediately at hand we should not forget the testimony of Frederick Gareau which was part of the previous El Salvador section...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.
“ 	As is usually the case with truth commissions, the one for El Salvador did not focus on Washington's support for the government. .. That terror was committed in El Salvador is not disputed. Those who doubt this should reread the above and realize that an estimated 75,000 were killed in this small country in the period 1980 to 1991. The truth commission found that the terrorism that was committed in the country was overwhelmingly governmental terrorism, committed by the Salvadoran army, the National Guard, and their death squads and affiliated agencies. They were responsible for 95 percent of the deaths, the guerrillas for only five percent. These were the same institutions that were the concern and the favorites of Washington—receiving its indoctrination and training and profiting from its largess. El Salvador received six billion dollars in aid from Washington in the period 1979 to 1992. This subsidy to the tiny country during the government repression and terrorism came to average out at $100,000 for each member of its armed forces. This subsidy allowed the government to pay for the terrorist activities committed by the security forces. By virtue of this largess and the military training, notably in counterinsurgency warfare, Washington emerges in this chapter as an accessory before and during the fact.By covering up for San Salvador after it had committed terror, Washington was an accessory after the fact. It gave diplomatic support to state terrorism.[1]" BernardL 11:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree, theoretically, unless there's proof the United States was directly involved, and not just sponsored and supported terrorism they would be just accessories to terrorism, but some anti-American fellas like the CIA and Bush II think Bin Laden is responsible for the 11/9 terrorist attacks, even though he never actually stepped on those planes. So the matter is debatable. --200.222.30.9 16:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And in case I didn't make myself clear, it's my personal understanding (and, if I'm correct, most of the world's, the CIA and Bush II were only the first experts on the matter I could think of) that Bin Laden does share the blame on those crimes, so, following the same rationale, the United States share the blame for El Salvador, due to their fundamental role in providing massive assistance to the Salvadoran government (if I recall, without American support, the terror would not happen, at least not in the scale that it did). Therefore this section does belong to the article. --200.222.30.9 23:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material to work on and add to the El Salvador Section 

message: Hi, can you all try to agree first, instead of edit warring on this article, or it will be fully protected again like before, = everyone looses.  Jackaranga 04:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the theorys on this page are really way out there.  How to resolve such a conflict when people clearly have an agenda by inserting such crackpot material, and then when its removed its called edit warring?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timespade (talk • contribs) 08:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain. Personal opinions are not the way WP works. We report what valid sources say, that is relevant to the topic of the article. If this is not the case, please explain that. Also, there is a 3RR rule, and you have violated that with 4 reverts under 24 hours, which is a blockable offense. Please discuss here before making any more reversions. Thanks.Giovanni33 09:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: User's first edits are to a semi-protected page = sleeper.  Though I don't feel strongly enough about it to argue with those acting in good faith, the sources seem to support the assertions and the paragraphs in question are worded neutrally.  Timespade, if you really are trying to contribute maybe you could outline for those with more experience on this article the problems you perceive in the sources or the material.  Milto LOL pia 10:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those edit warring IP's should just be blocked so the real culprit behind those IP's gets blocked. They are using them in abusive manners. That sleeper as obviously not a new user since his first act was to revert.209.247.23.141 02:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop edit warring ! 

message: This article contains new information to add to the article. Badagnani 00:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of nuclear materials against civilian populations 

message: </div>
::I think that most of the legwork has been done. As it currently appears this proposed section is ready for inclusion. There are some considerations worth expressing, because they may eventually produce some positive refinements. As always constructive feedback from anyone is welcome. 
::1. Several significant critical analyses of the White Paper first appeared in independent media outlets, then in major newspapers and journals, such as The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. The critiques typically concluded that the White Paper was a propaganda piece. Accordingly, an accurate and reasonable analysis of the evidence on which the Paper`s central claims were based failed to validate those claims. Moreover, Raymond Bonner reports that some of the documents on which the report was based were provided by death squad leader Robert D'Aubuisson. And, on top of that, when Post investigative reporter Robert G. Kaiser interviewed the White Paper`s author, Jon Glassman, it was admitted by Glassman that parts of the report were `misleading`and overembellished.`` (Bonner, Weakness and Deciet, 256-260)
::2. Perhaps a sentence could be allocated to the perceived causes of the Salvadoran civil conflict.  According to the Americas Watch division of Human Rights Watch,  “The Salvadoran conflict stems, to a great extent, from the persistent denial of basic socioeconomic rights to the peasant majority. Throughout the past decade systematic violence has befallen not just peasants protesting the lack of land and the means to a decent existence but, in a steadily widening circle, individuals and institutions who have espoused the cause of the peasants and decried their fate: labor leaders, priests and nuns, political leaders, journalists, teachers and students, health workers and human rights monitors.  (The Americas Watch Report, El Salvador`s Decade of Terror: Human Rights Since the Assassination of Archbishop Romero) 
::3. It should be noted that nine years following the El Mozote massacre, the Atlacatl Battalion was far from reformed, as evidenced by murders of the Jesuit priests. Humans Rights Watch notes that just three days prior to the murder of the Jesuits, their housekeeper and her daughter, ``the battalion was undergoing training by U.S. Special Forces from Fort Bragg, North Carolina.`` ( El Salvador’s Decade of Terror, Americas Watch, Human Rights Watch Books, Yale University Press, 1991, p. 20)
::4. Still fresh off his pursuits as a death squad leader, Robert D`aubuisson was being celebrated by significant elements of the American right, as this link indicates.[]
  
::5. Perhaps another sentence could be added on the air war campaign involving the indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations. One of the key issues that arose during the campaign concerned statements by the Salvadoran gov`t and U.S. state officials to the effect that peasants who stayed in the zones selected as targets deserved their fate, and were assumed to be guerrilla sympathizers. 
::6.  The extensive role of military advisers in El Salvador, an issue sometimes overlooked, was suggestive of wider systemic abuses of ethical and legal norms. According to William Leogrande’s analysis “a great deal of the Reagan administration’s policy toward Salvador was considered on what former Senator Sam Irvin called ‘the windy side of the law’. The president used his emergency powers, even when there was no emergency, to send $80 million in military aid to El Salvador without congressional review” (Leogrande, 281). The Reagan administration carried out circumventions and arbitrary re-definitions of laws stipulating the quantity and role of advisers.BernardL 00:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The text above and BernardL's points for addition are both very good. Please add these points into the text and place it in the article. This is very well referenced material and is also very well balanced, and I can't see any objections to its inclusion now.209.244.188.87 03:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, NYCJosh for the critical evaluation. While I do think you were a tad bit too harsh, I do see your points. I've made various changes to attempt to address them, trimming a bit, and adding a bit. I think it an improvment, now. I added it to the article, and welcome further improvement per consensus.Giovanni33 18:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Much better. Thanks for heeding my criticism. I made a few more slight changes. As I wrote, I would support inclusion of this in other relevant articles (e.g. modern history of El Salv.) or in a separate article on the death squads/1980s repression, but if it were up to me, as important as this chapter is, because of undue weight I would cut it down to five or six parags.--NYCJosh 19:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I respect this article and just want to congratulate all involved with it. It goes to show there is still hope for freedom of speech and somewhat radical viewpoints on the internet. For more coverage of Latin American terrorism by the United States, I recommend Empire's Workshop by Greg Grandin. It would provide invaluable research for this article. In addition, shouldn't there be some reference to the CIA free trade deals with the United Fruit Company?Wikitank 20:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Grandin is undoubtedly one of the leading scholars on US and Latin American relations working today (his best known work involves Guatemala) and though I have not even so much as flipped through it I second the notion that Empire's Workshop could be a good source for this article, though I have no idea if Grandin ever uses the appellation "state terrorism" or some close approximation of it with respect to US actions in Latin America. He definitely views US elites as rapacious imperialists, but may or may not describe their actions as "state terrorism."--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 09:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommendations for Added Research 

message: Look, I won't edit it since my english is not that good and I really like wikipedia, so I don't want to contribute with something of mediocre quality. However, being a brazilian, I really got angry at something I just saw: 
----
"supporting a dictatorship that promotes economic growth has often been seen as the best option available, anticipating that this WILL EVENTUALLY LEAD TO DEMOCRATIZATION. Evidence of this claim is the fact that right-wing dictatorships in all of the following nations eventually became democracies: Portugal, Spain, Greece, Turkey, Chile, BRAZIL, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, and Indonesia"
----
I don't know about those other countries situation before their respectives coup d'etats, but Brazil was a democracy, and it has been proved that the USA had supported and financed brazilian 1964 coup d'etat(by Lindon Johnson government files, USA would provide help for such event with "Operação Brother Sam and Operação Popeye). Now, come on. Is this a respecful encylopedia or what? I mean, overthrowing a democracy in another country for the sake of a war justifies anything? These evidences are ridiculous, and I bet other countries, not only Brazil, were countries that had it's democracy. Chile, better, all of South America also suffered with dictatorships, so I'm pretty sure this point is ofensive. I'm not blaming USA of nothing, I would just be glad if somebody removes that point from the article and put up a better justification. Thank you in advance.
:Absolutely agreed, what a ridiculous statement, I'll delete it now. Pexise 19:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. If you find a reliable source alleging US terrorism in Operation Brother Sam or Operation Popeye (I am just trying to tranlsate what you wrote), then inlcude it here and we'll fix up the English. If not, then you may still wish to add the information to the article "Covert US Regime Change Actions."--NYCJosh 21:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like an ultramarine quote, am I right?  If not, my apologies to Ultra.Travb (talk) 01:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct as usual, Travb.--NYCJosh 00:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brazil and "opposing views" section 

message: The paragraph is a summary of the Asia Times Online article  which never mentioned "state terrorism" anywhere. Just because it might meet the nebulous definition does not mean it is appropriate for editors to make the value judgment to include it. Please find a source that refers to US activity in Iran as "state terrorism" before including this. --arkalochori |talk| 22:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the article and it mentions it several times. Here is one quote that clearly makes that accusation: "it is the US (and not Pakistan) that is sponsoring the trans-border terrorism. And what could Musharraf do about US activities on Pakistani soil even if he wanted to?"Giovanni33 07:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iran section 

message: I respect this article and just want to congratulate all involved with it. It goes to show there is still hope for freedom of speech and somewhat radical viewpoints on the internet. For more coverage of Latin American terrorism by the United States, I recommend Empire's Workshop by Greg Grandin. It would provide invaluable research for this article. In addition, shouldn't there be some reference to the CIA free trade deals with the United Fruit Company?Wikitank 20:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Grandin is undoubtedly one of the leading scholars on US and Latin American relations working today (his best known work involves Guatemala) and though I have not even so much as flipped through it I second the notion that Empire's Workshop could be a good source for this article, though I have no idea if Grandin ever uses the appellation "state terrorism" or some close approximation of it with respect to US actions in Latin America. He definitely views US elites as rapacious imperialists, but may or may not describe their actions as "state terrorism."--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 09:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommendations for Added Research 

message: I believe this subject would make for a good section in this article. We need to find sources that describe the actions of the US govt as state terror, of course. It could point to the main article on the subject, too.Giovanni33 21:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support provided the sources are solid.--NYCJosh (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  State Terrorism against Native Americans? 

message: I added a lot of material about the current state of affairs in the Philippines and its relationship to the War on Terror and U.S. financing/leadership.  Unfortunately, not even the section header survived.
I included in it notable human rights activists from the Philippines, multiple political monitors from the Philippines, as well as several articles from the Asia Times;  the article was well-sourced, and there seems little reason to axe the whole thing as has obviously been done.  I am curious if anyone here remembers the section and has any suggestions about how to bring it back/improve it?  
IIIRC, there was quite a hubbub by MONGO and his little band of sycophants about my use of "a priest" as one of the sources;  my argument at the time was that the priest was head of several human rights organizations located in the philippines, was personally the recipient of several international awards for his work in the area, and by virtue of his work and publications was clearly an authority on the issues in question.  Even so, there was little defense of the source or the material forthcoming.
I really believe that section should be included; references can be tied in to the BAYAN pages, as well as other parts of Wikipedia.  Moreover, the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, and while it may "only" be circumstantial, that does not disqualify it from consideration on Wikipedia boards so long as there are notable, informed commentators who are on record as saying that U.S. involvement is qualified as State Terrorism.
I am asking for the opinions of people here about how to re-introduce the section.
Finally - the Iran section is woefully inadequate.  Seymour Hersh and the BBC have both reported on U.S. military actions inside the borders of Iran, and in the case of Hersh there has even, IIRC, been explicit mention that the targets were not Iranian military;   since there is no state of war declared between the two countries, that is unambiguous state terrorism.  Unfortunately, the current article makes scant mention of these facts.  Stone put to sky (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you bring up issues worth discussing. The Philippines material was deleted by user:TDC in one fell sweep without any discussion, without consensus, and without removing it to talk (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_United_States&oldid=145533133). I have gone back into the history, excavated the material, and have placed it in a sandbox . I will try to review the material soon. It's immediately apparent that considerable care was taken in the writing of it. I have some additional sources, including Eva-Lotta Hedman's analysis, "State of Siege: Political Violence and Vigilante Mobilization in the Philippines" which appears in the seminal anthology "Western State Terrorism" edited by Alexander George. Unfortunately, I have to pack it in for tonight. But I'll be baack! BernardL (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Moreover, the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, and while it may "only" be circumstantial, that does not disqualify it from consideration on Wikipedia boards so long as there are notable, informed commentators who are on record as saying that U.S. involvement is qualified as State Terrorism. Is Wikipedia a forum to consider and weigh evidence and informally try cases, or is it an encyclopedia that reports the facts as reported by reliable sources? I suggest that WP is not an court of international law. Until some formal charge is filed in an actual judicial tribunal, it is a WP policy violation to suggest that these unsupported allegations that you call "circumstantial evidence" have any formal support beyond mere speculation. The admitted attempt (quoted above) to use WP to evaluate circumstantial evidence is of itself a WP policy violation, it is an attempt to do original research. Raggz (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wondering 

message: The Article is recommended to be edited to not be so lengthy. 
The article is just fine the way it is.  In fact, we are going to increase its length.  None of the relevant information that is currently on the page will disappear.  If you would like to make an alternative suggestion to deletion, then please be my guest.  Stone put to sky (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When an article is too long, the first option that comes to mind is editing it to be more concise. We have no consensus for editing this way? You rejected moving some to another article on the basis that you have some issue with the Guatamala editors? (Did I understand that?) What other option might we consider? Raggz (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus Raggz (talk) 05:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You are the victim of a conspiracy, a cabal? Why not get an Administrator to help? Raggz (talk) 05:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, now -- that's something i'd never considered.  Unfortunately, i don't have the time to bother with such things.  Why don't you acquaint yourself with the page history and then we'll see how you can help? Stone put to sky (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Too Long? 

message: This section should be severely edited for length - or moved to a seperate article. Raggz (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus Raggz (talk) 05:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You are the victim of a conspiracy, a cabal? Why not get an Administrator to help? Raggz (talk) 05:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, now -- that's something i'd never considered.  Unfortunately, i don't have the time to bother with such things.  Why don't you acquaint yourself with the page history and then we'll see how you can help? Stone put to sky (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sister Dianna Ortiz and General Gramajo

message: Not sure who posted this, but an RFC should take the form of a specific question with specific answers.  This isn't even a vague question -- it's just a comment without context, made by an anonymous poster, and apparently serving no purpose.  If comments really are being requested, it might be better for the poster in question -- whoever he (she?  i doubt it) is -- to take a little bit of time and figure out what it is they're asking about. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) No, this article has a long and heated history, and most of the problems have been pounded out with sweat and blood.  It looks a lot better to me now than it did a few years ago.  (2) No, because different sources will define the term differently.  Wikipedia can not fix a definition that is considered superior to all other definitions.  That would be a violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV.  We have to use the definitions that the sources use. MilesAgain (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment: Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States 

message: State terrorism is an undefined phrase without any exact meaning within international law that means anyone may allege that any action by any state for any reason is state terrorism. Without any definition or specific law prohibiting it, state terrorism is only possible to allege and state terrorism can never be proven. 
Someone deleted this, why? I put this in because it explains why we have limited ourselves to only allegations and no facts. If we delete this, we remain limited to allegations and cannot include a single fact, read the definition of allegation. If we put this in the LEAD, ONLY then does the article make sense to a reader. If we put this in the LEAD, only then is the article likely to survive. So keep it - or not? Raggz (talk) 07:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We now have cites appearing in the lead. If you know how, please handle them because I don't know how. Probably my fault? Raggz (talk) 08:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone deleted this, why? I put this in because it explains why we have limited ourselves to only allegations and no facts. If we delete this, we remain limited to allegations and cannot include a single fact, read the definition of allegation. If we put this in the LEAD, ONLY then does the article make sense to a reader. If we put this in the LEAD, only then is the article likely to survive. So keep it - or not? Raggz (talk) 07:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "First, that statement is more appropriate on the State Terrorism page." Why? The phrase is in our title. Raggz (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: "Second, everything that is stated in that one sentence has been clearly addressed in the appropriate parts of the article." Where does it say that there is no crime known as state terrorism in any law? Raggz (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Your desire to shuffle this one particular sentence to the top of the page is clearly an attempt to weaken the article by reducing it to a single assertion that, taken out of the proper context, is quite simply false. "State Terrorism" as a phrase is clearly defined; if it weren't then we wouldn't be able to discuss the idea here." I agree. I don't really know what it is. Why doesn't this article explain this? Raggz (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Second, although it is not precisely defined as a legal term, international lawyers consider it an important and pressing topic of debate, not least because it has a clear and unambiguous (i.e. -- "exact") political or common definition. A reliable source, please. Raggz (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Finally, your statement that "Without any definition or specific law prohibiting it, state terrorism is only possible to allege and state terrorism can never be proven." is, quite simply, false. A reliable source, please, one that says that this exists and deals with the International Court of Justice ruling? Raggz (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Your personal opinion about his character is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.  Stone put to sky (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Proof that an editor is not engaged in a good faith effort for Consensus is VERY relevant. Consensus only applies to such a good faith effort. Editors that do not make a good faith effort to comply with Consensus may eventually be ignored for the purpose of Consensus. Raggz (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This line of talk is about an editor, not about the substance or issue at hand. As such its diversionary and a personal attack. I suggest we remove this line of distracting talk. This is all more the case given its directed at a very good long time editor to this article who has been very civil, and constructive. The alleged instance of incivility has been altered by the editor in question in line with acceptable norms. Thus, there is no valid basis for any of us to simply ignore him, or fail to assume good faith. Further attempts along these lines is clear evidence of not acting in good faith, and being disruptive.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While I disagree with much of the above, I do agree that it should have been on the user's discussion page (as it is) and not here. Raggz (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The LEAD 

message: Not sure who posted this, but an RFC should take the form of a specific question with specific answers.  This isn't even a vague question -- it's just a comment without context, made by an anonymous poster, and apparently serving no purpose.  If comments really are being requested, it might be better for the poster in question -- whoever he (she?  i doubt it) is -- to take a little bit of time and figure out what it is they're asking about. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) No, this article has a long and heated history, and most of the problems have been pounded out with sweat and blood.  It looks a lot better to me now than it did a few years ago.  (2) No, because different sources will define the term differently.  Wikipedia can not fix a definition that is considered superior to all other definitions.  That would be a violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV.  We have to use the definitions that the sources use. MilesAgain (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment: Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States 

message: State terrorism is an undefined phrase without any exact meaning within international law that means anyone may allege that any action by any state for any reason is state terrorism. Without any definition or specific law prohibiting it, state terrorism is only possible to allege and state terrorism can never be proven. 
Someone deleted this, why? I put this in because it explains why we have limited ourselves to only allegations and no facts. If we delete this, we remain limited to allegations and cannot include a single fact, read the definition of allegation. If we put this in the LEAD, ONLY then does the article make sense to a reader. If we put this in the LEAD, only then is the article likely to survive. So keep it - or not? Raggz (talk) 07:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We now have cites appearing in the lead. If you know how, please handle them because I don't know how. Probably my fault? Raggz (talk) 08:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone deleted this, why? I put this in because it explains why we have limited ourselves to only allegations and no facts. If we delete this, we remain limited to allegations and cannot include a single fact, read the definition of allegation. If we put this in the LEAD, ONLY then does the article make sense to a reader. If we put this in the LEAD, only then is the article likely to survive. So keep it - or not? Raggz (talk) 07:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "First, that statement is more appropriate on the State Terrorism page." Why? The phrase is in our title. Raggz (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: "Second, everything that is stated in that one sentence has been clearly addressed in the appropriate parts of the article." Where does it say that there is no crime known as state terrorism in any law? Raggz (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Your desire to shuffle this one particular sentence to the top of the page is clearly an attempt to weaken the article by reducing it to a single assertion that, taken out of the proper context, is quite simply false. "State Terrorism" as a phrase is clearly defined; if it weren't then we wouldn't be able to discuss the idea here." I agree. I don't really know what it is. Why doesn't this article explain this? Raggz (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Second, although it is not precisely defined as a legal term, international lawyers consider it an important and pressing topic of debate, not least because it has a clear and unambiguous (i.e. -- "exact") political or common definition. A reliable source, please. Raggz (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Finally, your statement that "Without any definition or specific law prohibiting it, state terrorism is only possible to allege and state terrorism can never be proven." is, quite simply, false. A reliable source, please, one that says that this exists and deals with the International Court of Justice ruling? Raggz (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Your personal opinion about his character is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.  Stone put to sky (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Proof that an editor is not engaged in a good faith effort for Consensus is VERY relevant. Consensus only applies to such a good faith effort. Editors that do not make a good faith effort to comply with Consensus may eventually be ignored for the purpose of Consensus. Raggz (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This line of talk is about an editor, not about the substance or issue at hand. As such its diversionary and a personal attack. I suggest we remove this line of distracting talk. This is all more the case given its directed at a very good long time editor to this article who has been very civil, and constructive. The alleged instance of incivility has been altered by the editor in question in line with acceptable norms. Thus, there is no valid basis for any of us to simply ignore him, or fail to assume good faith. Further attempts along these lines is clear evidence of not acting in good faith, and being disruptive.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While I disagree with much of the above, I do agree that it should have been on the user's discussion page (as it is) and not here. Raggz (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The LEAD 

message: OJ Simpson could have been the subject of an article right after the double murder titled “Allegations of murder committed by the OJ Simpson”. He was initially not charged for any crime, a situation analogous for the allegations in this article because the US has not been charged for state terrorism. We could immediately find many reliable sources SPECULATING that (1) he would be charged, and that he (2) would be convicted, and (3) that he was guilty of a double murder. We would find no reliable sources that were not speculation, as is the case with the subject of our article. WHEN he was charged, only then could we move beyond mere speculation and only then could we find a reliable source that could support the allegations.
Is there any legal charge for state terrorism against the US by any judicial tribunal anywhere in the world? If so, THEN we may move beyond the mere unsupported allegation stage to the supported allegation stage. Is this the case?
Has the US been tried on this charge, or convicted on this charge? If so, these two facts support the mere unsupported allegations we now have in the article.
:"Allegations...." was a gimme to people who were contending that the article be deleted outright, nothing more.  The facts that are presented here are uncontroversial and widely admitted;  the only thing that is open to any sort of debate is whether or not the concept of "State Terrorism" is applicable to matters of international law.  The article makes it quite clear that this is, in fact, a valid concept currently being debated by the international legal establishment.  It further makes clear that the facts presented here are widely attested to and uncontroversial.  Thus, your assertion that they are "unsupported" is utterly laughable. Stone put to sky (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no consensus that this article presents the facts. For this reason, reliable sources are required which are presently missing. Do not revert or edit without consensus. Raggz (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "The facts that are presented here are uncontroversial and widely admitted..." Fine, offer one example please? Raggz (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We have tact consensus on this point. Raggz (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know you have problems with your memory, so let me refresh it.  Above, Stone put to sky responded to you, clearly indicating that there is explicitly not consensus on whatever point you are trying to make.  Please stop claiming to have consensus. I find this childish, tendentious, and disruptive.  By definition, consensus does not exist because you mandate it, but as a natural part of the editorial process.  Please go and re-read WP:CONSENSUS until you feel you have understood it.  Silly rabbit (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  An analogy: