Talk:United States and state terrorism/Archive 7

message: i think that it's important to mention the united states' funding of israel in this article. israel has been convicted of a number of human rights violations by the UN etc, especially in the recent conflict with lebanon. as israel's biggest ally, the united states had a major role in facilitating the acquisition of munitions. has there been previous discussion on this issue, and a decision not to include it in the article? i will refrain from making any changes until i know that other people here feel that this controversial topic warrants posting. User:anriar
:Human rights violations are not acts of terrorism. --NuclearZer0 15:10, 30 November 2006 (UC:)
Why not?
:Because they are ... Human rights violations ... --NuclearZer0 23:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it wasn't.  --Tbeatty 03:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What did those poor children do, exactly? Nlsanand 03:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Terrorism is attacking with the intent to cause terror rather than direct damage. For instance, the Holocaust was not an act of terrorism - its intent was to actually destroy the Jewish people. It was evil, it was human rights violations, it was murder, but it wasn't terrorism. In comparison, something like the attacks on the WTC towers primary purpose was not to destroy the towers (or the Pentagon) but to cause terror in the American populace. Titanium Dragon 13:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Israel?

message: I'm sorry, but this just will not do.  You have moved the Ganser material out of the section where it is most relevant.  You must find a  better place for it than where it is. Stone put to sky 15:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a life, please allow for more then 1 hour before you run off and assume there will be no response at all. If you find yourself becoming impatient you can always go out for a walk or something. Again, please be more careful when editing and more patient, thank you. --NuclearZer0 17:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ganser Material, Redux

message: Can someone explain why this article is entitled "allegations..." rather then "Govt sponsered terrosism by US>>" Also, is their a page for non goverment terrorism in us,that would cover from the right wing kkk to the leftwing ? Cinnamon colbert 20:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a compromise reached after loooonnnnnggg discussion with the Bushites. The page went through half a dozen names and got put up for deletion more than once. We settled on this name for the sake of a quiet life. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 20:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I suspected - terrorism of an intellectual sort; the right wingers refuse to accept reality. Why should sensible people give up on this ? It's not to far to say that the long term credibility of wikipedia rests on not giving in to fanatics. It seems wikipedia needs some alternate mechanism of resolving disputes - like alternate versions of articles.Cinnamon colbert 22:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Cinnamon -Some editors are still arguing, on Wiki, that Saddam was virtually part of Al Qaeda, had stockpiles of WMD's, nukes ready or in the works, and represented a grave and present danger not only to the the U.S. but the entire planet, and humanity's very existance! 'baby steps' - F.A.A.F.A. 01:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I give up on you, I cannot believe you would go on after the RfA and use a term like "Bushites." How about it was a compromise that prevented it from being deleted based on not meeting its own requirements, since we are dealing with "allegations" its only appropriate the title says so. I really no longer care of you are desysop'd and am done defending anyone on that RfA since its obvious that even in the face of that the behavior continues. --NuclearZer0 20:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give criteria for deciding between "allegations" and "events" ? IF this were not criticsim of the us, I can't believe this would be a topic for discussion even on wikipedia Cinnamon colbert 22:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All articles about state terrorism by specific countries are named 'State terrorism by...', except the U.S. article. Despite the U.S. article being the longest one and properly sourced. Give me one reason not to rename it. --Nyp 09:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it deals with accusations/allegations of state terrorism, so the article is named by what it contains, allegations of state terrorism. I wrote this above I am not sure why you are ignoring it. If the other articles only contain accusation and not prosecutions of "state terrorism" then those articles should be renamed to "allegations of state terrorism by ..." we don't break a fixed article because others are broke ... --NuclearZer0 11:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not ignore it, I did not see it as a sufficient answer to my question. Regardless of this, do for simplicity compare this article to the Syrian one, State terrorism in Syria. Despite that both articles deal with nothing but allegations, the article about Syrian state terrorism both lacks the 'Allegations...' in the title and contains the category State terrorism. In difference to the U.S. one. If you believe that the other articles are the ones that are broken, I will go and fix them. I also would like to remind you of that the USA is the only country on Earth that has been condemned for international terrorism. --Nyp 11:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article on Syria should be renamed to be more precise in what the article covers, which is why this one was named as such. As for the category there was much debate and admins decided that if people felt the state terrorism category was bias to be attached to an article in particular, to remove it. I find the state terrorism cat to be bias because it does not contain the relevant items as per WP:WTA, which is a citation, a reference to who is calling the act terrorism etc. If it was listed on a list with the proper items that would be fine, however a category lacks the necessary items required to maintain such a title. --NuclearZer0 17:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your opinion is noted but any country-perspective is dismissable here. We do not allow bias to show favor on depictions of any nation. VigoDeutschendorf 23:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow arent you rude. When the article no longer deals in accusations then it can be renamed something other then allegations ... So instead of making factually wrong articles the goal should be to fix the Syria article, not break everything else to be like the broken ones. Not really sure where bias comes in, its like stating if we call one white man a racist we need to call them all racists, its wrong to do so, but we need them all to be wrong so they match ... that makes little sense and if you are going to ignore my arguement it shows you have no counter claim. --NuclearZer0 00:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not rude, and not personal. Personalities have no basis on the encyclopedia and are not a consideration. Please go ahead and repair the others; if you feel they are in error. This one is an article about alleged state terrorism by America. I fail to see why that is an issue. VigoDeutschendorf 00:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure who said it was personal. There also is no issue, the article is currently named correctly, it deals with allegations and is named so. This was covered in the AfD and admins stated the article should be renamed to a neutral term as "State terrorism by the United States" was a statement of fact, which allegations are not. --NuclearZer0 00:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thus we are in agreement. However, the category is appropriate and required. VigoDeutschendorf 00:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um no its not because per WTA, stating something or someone is a terrorist/terrorism requires a citiation to who said it as well as noting Person X states event Y was terrorism/a terrorist, which is not possible in categories. If you are not going to use policy or a guideline I am just gonig to ignore you. --NuclearZer0 00:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are wrong. This article deals with state terrorism, so instead of creating a pointless category such as 'Allegations of state terrorism' we might as well use the existing 'State terrorism'. Using this category does not insinuate that the United States have committed acts of state terrorism, but merely makes it easier to find for those interested in the subject. I am going to add it in the article once again as it does belong there. I am also going to fix the mess the last editing back and forth caused. --Nyp 09:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um no, I am glad you have an opinion but we have policies that trump your personal feelings, when you have something to say based on WP:WTA or another guideline/policy, let me know. --NuclearZer0 11:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read WP:WTA and still have the opinion that it not is applicable in this case. The category 'State terrorism' has nothing to do with if the article itself does or does not insinuate anything. Allegations of state terrorism is clearly a part of the subject State terrorism, e.g. the category is to be used. Compromising with the article name is one thing, doing it with the categories is another. --Nyp 12:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As pointed out to you and as you read in WTA, accusations or labeling of terrorism/terrorist needs citations and it needs to be attributed to who, not possible with a cat, hence it doesnt belong. If you care to argue based on a policy and not your personal opinion let me know. --NuclearZer0 16:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the sake of simplicity... My point is that using the category State terrorism neither is an accusation nor an insinuation against the US, but a tool to categorize the article. That is the whole point with categories on Wikipedia. Categories should not be seen as content of the article. If we disagree on that, there is little else I can say. Nothing but 'How the *beep* do you add citations to a category?' Also, you are aware of the the only remaining category ironically is about the US' anti-terror policy? Now that's one that truly doesn't have anything to do with the article. --Nyp 16:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I get your point, however its not based on policy or guidelines, I am asking you to understand that the cat violates those policies, and your revert warring violates the good faith assumed to the person that argued for keeping the cat by the admin who closed it. The fact that you cannot add citations to the cat is the very reason the inclusion of this article violates WP:WTA. Again please use policies and guidelines, not your personal opinion to state why it should stay. --NuclearZer0 23:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: title

message: In a brief reading of the article, I was struck by how only recent, webable (neologism meaning things that can be check via web available info) were cited. One could certainly include many events relating to native indians, the spanish-american war and the philippines (google smedley butler), etc etc. IF one were to include acts by agents provacateurs, one could certainly add a lot of material from Vietnam, the red scare of the 20s, the labor movement going back to the 1800s. 
The section on vietnam seems awfully skimpy. There is a lot of material (eg, recent articles about the tiger unit from newspapers in ohio) that would certainly imply there was large scale murder by US forces in nam, and , at best, the chain of command turned a blind eye. And this is just the stuff I know off the top of my head - surely just the tip of the iceberg.
I think the main point of the article shold be that all goverments, by their very nature, frequently engage in things like terrorism, and what distinguishes good and bad govements is the degree to which they recongize their own problems and try to fix them. As a new comer, have I missed loooong discussions on this to ?Cinnamon colbert 22:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: lack of history

message: I saw that mentioned above, and it does need something, if it can be sourced. Have any sourced, valid counter claims been found previously? Nothing that is OR? As mentioned also, on the AfD, we cannot exlude sources from governments simply because the US doesn't recognize that government (!!). The US view in regards to Cuba is sadly antiquated, and also a minority viewpoint. They have a seat in the United Nations, and are viewed as a legitimate government by other nations. 
Ultimately, if no counter claims exist that can be sourced, they are simply excluded and not mentioned/alluded to. Is that not our way? An article does not need to be 'balanced' if no material observes to balance it. By that notion, we would need to give due weight to a certain Adolf from Germany having been a pleasant chap some of the time. Ludicrous. · XP · 17:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Counter claims?

message: It's very nice to see the new faces -- and probably some of y'all're old faces, because actually i'm rather new around here.  Sorry i haven't been around of late;  i'm preparing to go back to the States for Xmas, and between work and those preparations things have gotten busy.  I'll be popping in and out to try and help hammer out a few of these issues that've been mentioned.  Peace -- Stone put to sky 10:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hey, all 

message: Please do not delete referenced material.  Thank you. Travb (talk) 04:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please do not delete referenced material

message: I added info on the CIA coup in Guatemala to lead off this section. - F.A.A.F.A. 02:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added more info on Guatemala 

message: This needs to be rewritten, because I have no idea what it means:
:The phrasing of the following unrelated links reflect the pejoritive use of the term American terrorism 
Thanks. Travb (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: removed sentence in external links