Talk:State terrorism/Archive 2

Archives

• Talk:State terrorism/Archive 1

Please explain in detail whenever you remove some thing

Why aren't the US listed? i think that they can be considered State-terrorists, i mean what do u call the war in Iraq?

If you want insight into State Terrorism read: Alex Georges "Western State Terrorism" Noam Chomsky "The Culture of Terrorism" and "9/11"

I have mentioned earlier to Possible NPOV edits specially removal of material requires explanation on talk page. I'll appreciate if you follow wikipedia's rule.

Zain 21:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have explained; the article is about State terrorism, not that other stuff. Would you like to return to the version that existed before your massive edits of the past few hours? We can do that too. Jayjg 21:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think you should honor at least your own statements. You added a statement about condemnation I said you listed few countries then you asked and let me quote you.

Who are these? Please document exactly who they are. Jayjg 20:24, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So it was not me, it was you who asked for giving details that who condemned Israeli actions, with documents. So I added it as per your request!.

Zain 21:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was asking for information about countries condemning Israeli State terrorism. That is what the article is about. Please provide information about countries condemning Israeli State terrorism, not all that other nonsense you've thrown in there. Jayjg 21:30, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please Stop Edit war by removing Factual Data

I think removing of factual data is not correct. UN Resolution is very factual data and for ease I have provided links so you can verify it. If condemnation is irrelevalt why you put it your self? This question is very important to answer and explain in details. If you don't think some thing belongs here then why put it in the first place???

I simply can't understand your change of position. See the contridiction in your actions

1. Mentioning Condemnation your self.
2. Asked me to list more sources which condems.
3. Ask me for documents which show that.
4. Condemnation is irrelevant.

Your statement 4, controdicts with statement 1,2,3. can you explain why this controdiction exists?

and of course also stop negative edit war.

Zain 21:31, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The issue is about whether the information is relevant, not whether it is factual. Let's deal with that issue. The article is about State terrorism. Please remove the irrelevant information you have inserted. In the meanwhile, I will restore some of the information you deleted earlier today. Jayjg 21:36, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah right, which is relevant is more difficult to say then what is factual, so is the current version has any non-factual data in it? If non-factual is gone then we will concentrate on relevance

Zain 21:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps I could insert factual material about oranges as well, would that help the article? The article is about State terrorism, information in the article should deal with that, nothing else. Jayjg 21:51, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You didn't answer that why u added it in the first place? Please see all the questions which i rose earlier.

Zain 22:03, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let's talk about what belongs in the article, O.K.? I'm not interested in long discussions of who did what or why. Now, the article is about State terrorism, and therefore should have references to State terrorism, not all sorts of other things. Is my position clear? Jayjg 22:13, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am discussing the very same thing 'relevance'. If it is not relevant why u added it your not answering giving me the impression (may be I am wrong). that you are using double standards.

• Standard 1
  • if list of countries is few, say some countries condemed and try to say but they didn't call it state terrorism.
• Standard 2
  • If some body gets looong list of country who condemed and with aunthentic source. and Finds that many of them also call it state terrorism or worst words, Call it irrelvant.

Your addition about israel response was irrelvant (may be i am wrong) but I didn't remove because i didn't want to remove without explanation. (as you can see i never do such negative tactics) . I expect in 'good faith' that you will behave similarly.

Now please explain this 'double standard' of 'relevance'

Zain 22:40, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zain, I'm not going to get side-tracked into discussions about me, that's now what Talk: pages are for. I will discuss the article contents, that is what Talk: pages are for. Further attempts to discuss me, and not the article, will be ignored. Now then, the article is about State terrorism. Therefore links and/or information which equate Israel's actions with State terrorism are relevant. Do you agree or disagree? Jayjg 22:54, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Intresting, OK I am not talking about you, let's leave what you did. But let me ask u question, which can guide me better, in 'good faith'. As I believe you are more experienced them me in wiki. Question is (not at all related to you very general)

Can we ask explanations of user edits using Talk pages?

like if you add on this page. 'Osama bin ladin has a lot of support in palestine' Do I have right to ask why u did some edit. Or because you are more experienced or you are admin or you have many other editors which can revert my edits. I can't ask u why u make any edit?

So can i ask somebody explanation of any edit?

Asking in 'good faith' and expecting 'good faith' in return

Zain 23:06, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here's a page discussing Talk: pages: Wikipedia:Talk page. Returning to the subject at hand, this article is about State terrorism. Therefore only links and/or information which equate Israel's actions with State terrorism are relevant. Do you agree or disagree? Jayjg 23:13, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm a passerby, I'm not joining this long, serious discussion in which the topic I'm not especially "well-equipted", I'm just making a short comment. Let's be straight forward, towards your question, Jayjg, I DISAGREE. I AGREE, that sources, if has to be quoted or referenced to, should be relevant, but "relevant" not neccessarily means inclusion of such a word or phrase under discussion, especially in such a political topic, and especially one that's about making negative comment on nations. Politicians would be highly selective in their use of words, to avoid political risk(s) of whatever kind. It is, therefore, resonable to quote sources without appearance of the exact phrase "State terrorism".--samhau 03:57, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Lev Greenberg

Apparntly, someone bothered to quote Dr Lev Greenberg, a known far left looney, which was responsible for cheap incitement propoganda such as "The murder of Sheikh Yassin is part of an Israeli policy that can be described as symbolic genocide". [1] Greenberg was condamned by many in Israel and almost brought BGU to lose it donators. MathKnight 23:27, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, he can be described as far left. At least the information is on topic. I would prefer to remove all off-topic information, and just leave information which actually describes Israel as using "State terrorism". What are your thoughts? Jayjg 23:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Disputed section

In order to revent Edit and Revert Wars, I temporarly removing the section to the page. In my opinion, it is messy and incoherent in the begining and middle with mishmash of claims and no order. Two quotations have been added - one of extreme far left anti-Zionist Lev Greenberg (many will say 'who?' justfully) and one of the Turkish PM (which we should keep).

Please do not edit the section below, if you want to rewrite it - please rewrite a copy of it (you can post it in the talk page). MathKnight 23:36, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Original Disputed Section

Critics of Israel claim that Israeli "state terrorism" has caused more deaths (perhaps twice as many) than the terrorist attacks by the Palestinians, and that Israeli "state terrorism" in the 1948 War of Independence created millions of Palestinian refugees.

Civilian deaths during ‘al-Aqsa Intifada’

International Condemnation

European governments, the UN, 'mainstream human rights groups', many countries, specially Islamic countries, 'Palestinian Group' and many political analyst condemn Israel for disproportionate use of military force in populated areas.

On May 7, 2002, an emergency session of the United Nations General Assembly was called to vote on a resolution condemning Israel for its 'illegal' actions in Palestinian-controlled areas, and its refusal to accept a UN 'fact-finding' team to the Jenin refugee camp.

The Resolution was passed 74-4 Countries voting against were (Israel, USA, Marshall Islands and States of Micronesia. BBC News Link

Disagreement on the terms to describe Israeli Actions

The exact term to describe these actions varied between the different groups from genocide, slaughter and terrorism to ‘disappointment development’ while Israel mostly used the term self defense.

According to Dr. Lev Grinberg a political sociologist at Ben Gurion University, Israel's actions constitute state terrorism.[2] On June 4, 2004 Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan also accused Israel of state terrorism.[3]

What about describing them as "actions" in the article, and add the two paragraphs above as well, including the links to the sources (replacing the potentially POV-objections-attracting commondreams.org link with something more direct to Grinberg's publications)? --Shaddack 03:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Disputed Tactics

During the al-Aqsa Intifada, Israel has undertaken controversial military operations and tactics that have resulted in criticism of Israel's policy. European governments, the UN and mainstream human rights groups condemn Israel for disproportionate use of military force in populated areas but rarely accuse Israel of deliberately targeting civilians. They generally accept Israel's claims that its state violence is aimed against militants and suicide bombers but call some of the methods "unlawful" due to the disproportionate use of force and extensive civilian casualties. Israel counters that Palestinian terrorists hide in populated areas and use civilians as decoys in order to maximize the civilian death toll, and incite hatred toward Israel. Israel claims the IDF tries to minimize the civilian death toll but civilian casualties are nonetheless bound to happen due to the misconduct of Palestinian militias. Israel is not listed in the U.S. list of state sponsors of international terrorism.

Pro-Palestinian groups and Arab officials accuse Israel of "state terrorism" aimed against Palestinian civilians, protesters and members of organizations that it labels as "terrorist". Israel rejects this accusation outright, and state that those kind of accusations are only raised by radical anti-Israeli groups.

Some of the disputed Israeli tactics are:

• Israel's official policy of "targeted assassination" of purported terrorist leaders has been criticized as "extra-judicial execution". Palestinian spokesmen condemn the "target[ed] killing" as terroristic, while countries like the United States see them as legitimate self-defense measure against Palestinian terrorism.
• The use of bulldozers, explosives, helicopters and tanks by the Israel, which resulted in destruction of homes, businesses, farms, and schools, have been criticized as collective punishment and disproportionate use of force. Israel claims that destroyed property is owned by accused militants and their families, or that they contain terrorist infrastructure such as bomb labs, weapons or smuggling tunnels.
• A multitude of Israeli military operations conducted in urban areas and refugee camps such as the Qana Massacre, and attacks on Jenin and Jabalia have been condemned as terroristic by Palestinian and Arab spokesmen, although Israel maintains that their military attacks on civilian areas are always in response to terrorist activity in these camps. On April, 2002, Palestinian officials blamed Israel of massacring 500-3000 civilians in Jenin during Operation Defensive Shield, but those allegation were refuted by Human Rights groups and a UN fact-finding commission.
• Israel's policy of mass detention without charge or trial of Palestinian civilians suspected of terrorism and allegations of torture in Israeli prisons are also considered by some to be terroristic. Israel claims that mass arrests are sometimes necessary to protect Israeli citizens, and claims that "moderate physical pressure" of a type that many others, including B'Tselem and the United Nations Committee Against Torture, consider to constitute torture, are necessary [4].

The above is clearly propaganda -- Qana, for example, was not a "refugee camp" but a UN position. And "massacre" is a propaganda term -- the civilians were killed because the Israelis were firing at a Palestinian firing position specifically located there to use civilians as cover. Their rounds merely undershot their target by only 100 yards. Accidents of war happen, they aren't terrorism. The use of the term state-terrorism to apply to anyone shooting back at a terrorist is sheer propaganda. Quite frankly, unless this propaganda rampage stops, Wikipedia will lose its usefulness.

---

This a temporary template, it is minimalist and NPOV as possible in order to avoid any NPOV disputes and have it accepted by all parties involved as a temporary solution until a compromise is reached. MathKnight 23:46, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Temporary template

{{sectNPOV}}

This section is currently undergo a rewrite, please see talk page for the current rewriting efforts and discussion.

Critics of Israel claim that Israeli "state terrorism" has caused more deaths (perhaps twice as many) than the terrorist attacks by the Palestinians, and that Israeli "state terrorism" in the 1948 War of Independence created millions of Palestinian refugees.

This too is propaganda. It is now difficult to tell how many Palestinians were actually killed in this war, and how many were simply propaganda inventions. The infamous al-Durah case is a prime example.

During the al-Aqsa Intifada, Israel has undertaken controversial military operations and tactics that have resulted in criticism of Israel's policy. Some claim that these tactics consist of state-terrorism, but others see them as legitimate acts of self-defense.

---

When I accept your last edited version what's question of 'Edit war'.

Zain 00:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I didn't accept it, as my comments above make clear. It's full of unrelated nonsense, which you keep re-inserting as part of an edit war. Jayjg 00:29, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please Note Following

• Last Edit was done by you.
• Condemnation 'nonsense' (I don't call ie non-sense bcoz it directly related with indefada operations) was added by you not by me!
• Details of condemnation countries were asked by you!
• Reason for explaining edits were denied by you!

I expanded your entry. And then I added refrences as per your request. just cool down you are an experienced Admin. There is no point in Bringing other people to start edit war.

I requested you several times that please don't start edit war.

So please cool down. I'll suggest to keep a day or two off. If we can't get consensus let's ask for mediation or dispute resolution. There is no need of taking some thing personally.

Its best if we ask for mediation. No problem with that any body can be wrong. You can be Wrong i can be wrong.

Just take a break, Take a deep breath. try to be cool then ask for mediation. I have no problem with it.

Just keep your believe of 'good faith' in my edits. And let's sort it in a friendly way.

Don't use the words like 'nonsense'.

Cool Down

Zain 00:46, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This article is supposed to be about State terrorism, not other things

I'll make my objections clear yet again. I was asking for information about countries which condemned Israel as being involved in State terrorism. I am still waiting for links or information about countries or individuals which say Israel is practicing State terrorism. That is the only information that I believe is relevant to this page. Any information which does not explicitly refer to Israel practicing State terrorism is not relevant. The article currently contains a great deal of information which you have inserted which is not specifically about State terrorism, but which is about the U.N. condemning Israel for other things, and which is therefore not relevant to this page. I do not agree with this information being in the article. The only reason I have not removed it is because I will not violate the three revert rule. However, it still needs to go. Can you comment on that? Jayjg 01:07, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

When creating a definition that effectively conveys information, we can't eliminate things that condemn ourselves. I realize that self-incrimination goes against human nature, but we can resolve the discrepancy by taking incrimination out of our definitions. Terrorism, for instance, doesn't have to be pejorative. We can talk about it simply as a method of war or influence. If terrorism isn't evil, then it doesn't matter if Israel includes terrorism as one of its tactics.

You may think that stripping any implication of terrorism from Israel is good for the Jewish people, but let's look at the big picture. In the information age, we can no longer keep people from researching historical data. Trying to subvert this information only serves to show the bias of those attempts. With unrestricted global communication, manipulation of mass communication is passé. I believe I can make a case for it never having been a good thing, but that is beside the point. Regardless of whether it was ever good to suppress and change history, one thing is certain: it is increasingly harder to do so. --Zephram Stark 14:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

What list was asked for

I think this issue is bugging again and again as it can be easily be seen from talk let's fix this first. That what you asked far ?

• I claim you asked for list of countries condemning
• You claim you asked for list of countries using term 'state terrorism'

Now here is copy from Talk:State_terrorism/Archive_1#Limited_List_on_condemnation

Limited List on condemnation

In statement condemnation is limited only to European countries, UN and HR groups, missing many others they all condemned so all should be mentioned. (Islamic countries, Arab groups, political analysts etc) Zain 20:19, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Who are these? Please document exactly who they are. Jayjg 20:24, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So is this issue solved now? Zain 01:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

'good faith' Solution of the disagreement

I think it should be clear that you are changing positions. But doesn’t matter. So please let’s take some deep breaths. Let’s not make it personal I am not making any further edits for time being (although I see some content irrelevant , yes you have same position on some other content). Let’s call for neutral mediation and solve this issue in a more civilized way.

Thanks in advance for your corporation

Zain 02:16, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have requestion for mediation from 'dispute resolution'

I have requestion mediation from dispute resolution. Because me and you were not able to solve our differences on talk.

So let the mediators help us to solve it.

Zain 22:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You started Edit war again

I think last time we were little stable about the contents. NPOV problem was very much fixed and ‘only’ relevance was required to fix. You made a change (although not very much agreeing with it) and I accepted. Discussion was continuing the change which was done was neither mine neither yours. It was from a third person. That third person made changes because of his ‘complete misunderstand’ of the situation. So reverting to his changes don’t make any sense.

I’ll request you to restore the edit which was done by you and I compromised on it for time being. It was the ‘temporary solution’ which we agreed, at least for a while. So please revert it, i don’t want to revert it without ur consensus because it will generate a useless ‘edit war’.

I have asked for official mediation but it will take some time so please revert it to the last change you did (although you didn’t agree with it fully). But it is best compromise.

Zain 23:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I didn't agree with any of it, so it's no compromise. My version is [5], which you reverted 3 times in your edit war. MathKnight's version is the compromise version. And I've explained many times before, the article is about State terrorism, not all that stuff that's in your version. Jayjg 23:33, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I and 'edit war' hmm at least i don't know about it. I think edit war is when i remove your edits you added content i added more. And New. Probably I am newer then you on wikipedia so don't understand the concept of 'edit war' that well. If I am starting an edit war then why i didn't revert your changes. (Just reverted once with explaining why) and reverted a version more then 24 hours old not which was put but you not me.

Any way i am asking a friend to revert what u 'claim' was right. After which I started 'edit war'. I am not doing it my self because will be acused of 'edit war'.

So Now you happy? your version stored.

I am trying to abstain from editing it until neutral party arives. Until then i'll request you to at least not edit your own version.

I am taking break I suggest you should do the same.

Zain 23:53, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

putting some words in bold is not neutral

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

The words are in bold because the are the key words from Art 25, 26, 27. Not every one who reads this article my be as sharp as you and notice that they are the key words hence the reason for embolding them. In my opinion there are articles in Hague IV which may have been broken with the dropping of the A-bomb. But as this article is meant to be about state terrorism, and not law of war, this whole section should be rewritten to emphases that and the mention of the laws of war removed. Philip Baird Shearer 20:25, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

State terrorism vs state sponsored terrorism

The top section needs some work. "State Sponsored Terrorism" (SST) redirects to "State Terrorism" (ST), where it is noted that ST is separate from the more common term SST (which is linked, but because of the redirect we come back to the same article). The difference between the two is never really explained. Is ST a subset of SST, or the other way around?

BeavisSanchez 02:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vague Definition

Seems to me that the biggest problem here is that the definition is to vage and encompassing: "State terrorism is defined by some as violence upon a national population committed by national governments or their proxies." I think any war falls under this definition. Perhaps the limiting factor is supposed to be "national population", meaning civilian deaths, but this still puts (just for example) WWII, Vietnam, the Korean War (in which countries deliberately bombed civilian targets and killed millions upon millions), etc under this category. Either change the definition or add these events. Even better would be a discussion of what exactly is controversial in sofar as labeling an action with this label. For example, its pretty clear that Hiroshima/Nagasaki is violence, it is upon a national population, and it is commited by the national government. But how does one decide wether this is deemed national terrorism? I think it has to do with the perceived motivations and intentions of the country. Or perhaps it has to do with the balance of power being completely lop-sided. Either way, if this page merits a seperate page and listings per country, this needs to be discussed before anything is resolved here. Perhaps a semblance of an official concensus on a definition can be found somewhere in historical research/etc. -Feb 9.

Cuban State Terrorism

"Under the dictatorship of Fidel Castro, Cuba has been accused by nearly every human rights organization in the world of various abuses of human rights. This includes extrajudicial killings, political imprisonment, and coercion of its population through control of basic resources."

Weasel term in bold, also ore information needs to be provided; examples, etc... --Mr. Moogle

I'm no defender of the Cuban regime. Wikipedia is supposed to be educational. Vague assertions and generalities are not helpful. Who accused them? Please provide specific citations.

Often liberal

Quote from the current version of the article (note the words "often liberal"):

Other controversial examples include the U.S. intervention in Chile, and many other U.S. foreign interventions. Vietnam, and the Korean War are also cited as terrorism by some, often liberal, critics because of the large number of civilian casualities and diproportionate American military power.

I am not sure why the words often liberal are here. As European I am more or less aware of the US meaning of the word liberal. In many countries the word liberal points to a different political stream, see Liberalism. In the quoted phrase the word seems to be used in the US meaning and degrades the weight of the issue by turning it into an internal US dispute between political parties. So it should be taken out (which I am going to do now). Taka 18:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

well, I would be one of those American Liberals, and I was just trying to keep it NPOV.. but I see what you are saying and I agree it should be there, was just trying to guard against a backlash. =] Freshraisin 02:53, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I think the "often liberal" qualifier should go. --AladdinSE 04:11, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

oops! I agree, I meant to say "should not be there".. no objections here, sorry Freshraisin

Waco

Removed:

The 1993 siege of Waco by the FBI is also sometimes referred to as an act of state terrorism.

I removed this because

1. I don't see how this is considered state terrorism.
2. It doesn't explain how this is terrorism.
3. It doesn't attribute this to a source.

I view this as a case of sloppy enforcement of stupid laws. How is this terrorism? Were Davidians assaulted because they were a religious minority? Did the Feds intend to burn down the entire building? Were these claims made in that semi-popular movie about Waco? AdamRetchless 03:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I checked the article about the Waco siege, and there is no mention of "terrorism." AdamRetchless

Admittedly, the definition of state terrorism is quite vague, bordering on arbitrary. Two of the definitions appearing in the article are "violence upon a national population committed by national governments or their proxies" and "The use or threat of violence by the state or its agents or supporters, particularly against civilian individuals and populations, as a means of political intimidation and control (i.e. a means of repression)". The events at Waco clearly meet the first definition -- pretty much anything does -- and many people would say that it meets the second definition, too. As it happens, none of the accusations against the US in this article are sourced, although I would be happy to come up with a source for this one by doing a google search ("state terrorism" waco). - Nat Krause 03:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I won't object if you want to put Waco back in there, but I think it illustrates the big problem with this article--"state terrorism" is defined so broadly that it could include almost anything. In such a case, it is pointless to make a list of events because it will be essentially infinite. I still don't see how Waco is qualitatively different than anything else that the state enforces with threats of violence (drug prohibition, taxes, etc). The Branch Davidians were not political activists (unlike MOVE). If there is going to be a list of instances of "state terrorism", it should be using the most strict definition of the term. AdamRetchless 21:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Branch Davidians were an unusual religious minority who bought a lot of guns. I would say that has clear political implications. - Nat Krause 04:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, you don't have to be political to be terrorised. He who says zonk 03:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Definition for the list

In light of the above discussions, and the fact that the list is too inclusive to be useful (or unbiased), I propose that a very narrow definition of terrorism be used for this list. I think Garzón's definition is good for this purpose, and should be applied to territories where the state in question has control. The current list includes a lot of cases that can be (sub)categorized in other ways, such as "international terrorism" (including state-sponsored international terrorism), War Crimes, and Human Rights Violations. Perhaps there could be one list that uses a narrow definition of state terrorism, followed by the more general list. That's just my suggestion, I actually don't have the expertise on this topic get deeply involved in this. AdamRetchless 21:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, I despair of ever getting a really good definition of the term, and thus of ever having a very good list available. Garzón's definition, for reference is: "State terrorism is a political system whose rule of recognition permits and/or imposes a clandestine, unpredictable, and diffuse application, even regarding clearly innocent people, of coercive means prohibited by the proclaimed judicial ordinance." This at least has the advantage of excluding something, but it still has flaws. What is "clandestine"? A lot of people know -- or at least think they know -- that Saddam Hussein used poison gas at Halabja ... is that clandestine or not? What about "unpredictable"? The Nazis were pretty consistent about who they killed in the Holocaust, and they had made their disdain for Jews evident long before coming to power

The Nazis killed a lot of others, many of whom disappeared in the middle of the night without any explanation or warning (clandestine and unpredictable). Ernst Rohm may be a good example of this. Of course, he was deeply involved in the Nazi party, but they would eliminate anyone who they felt was a political threat. AdamRetchless

... is that really relevant? As for "diffuse", I'm not really sure what the Garzón means by that at all. My concern here is that we not end up, in practice, with a definition tailored to describe some forms of violence as "terrorism" while arbitrarily excluding others. That is to say, the distinction must not be arbitrary. - Nat Krause 04:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is there any way to prioritize them, from most commonly agreed to be terrorism to least commonly agreed to be terrorism?AdamRetchless

suggestions for the list

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

Great idea, I'm surprised there isn't already an entry on the subject. There's plenty of material, and I can't imagine anybody arguing with this inclusion. illWill 18:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WHAT ABOUT SERBIA IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY? THEY DEFINE THE TERM STATE TERRORISM!

TotallyDisputed Template

From History:

this article is such a hot potato, it needs a POV tag. right now it reads like it was written by Noam Chosky or Vladimir

on second though, the totally disputed tag needs to be there - no one can agree what "state terrorism" really is user:69.58.249.133 12:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UCT)

User:69.58.249.133 Please list your specific grievances otherwise they can not be discussed and/or fixed. Philip Baird Shearer 16:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No response in over a week so I am removing the template. Philip Baird Shearer 16:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NI

I have reverted this

Loyalist paramilitaries, supported and aided by unauthorized elements of the British security forces , killed scores of Republicans and civilians as part of their campaign against Irish unity. While there are no documented cases of this collusion being official British government policy, it was widespread and continued for decades. The British government still refuses to release documents pertaining to these deaths.

back to

Loyalist paramilitaries, supported by unauthorized elements of the British security forces, have been blamed for the deaths of Republicans as part of a counter-terrorist operation. There are no documented cases of this being British government policy.

I think that the words of the are more succinct, accurate and less emotive. "Scores" is at least 40 but a very wooly term. Republicans are civilians, making a distinction, implies an armed conflict which is not something the governments of Ireland and the UK ever claimed that the recent troubles were. If anyone objects to the term "counter-terrorist" and would like to substitute "counter-insergency" or something similar, I would not have an objections. Philip Baird Shearer 16:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why does the section on United Kingdom keep reverting to remove the word 'unauthorised'? - neither of the sources provided supply sufficient evidence to justify the removal of the word.illWill 01:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

United States

User:Lapsed Pacifist wrote @ 13:42, 20 Jun 2005 UTC:

The U.S. government has tightened its immigration rules since the 9/11 attacks and has deported a number of men living in the U.S. who have or are assumed to have terrorist backgrounds, e.g. former members of the IRA or the INLA. Usually these men have lived peacefully in America for years and resent their deportation strongly, pointing to the troubled history of Northern Ireland. Other people have been refused entry to the U.S. on similar grounds. These restrictions do not apply to right-wing terrorists from Latin America.

Please can you source this information? Philip Baird Shearer 18:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will certainly try. Which part do you mean?

Lapsed Pacifist 19:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All four sentences Philip Baird Shearer

See [6], [7], [8],[9], [10]. It points up the difference between the U.S. government's approach to the perpetrators of violence it sponsors and similar violence against its allies.

Lapsed Pacifist 22:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Eichman, Galíndez, Trotsky

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

Treatment of Cuba V US

Since this has the potential to become a POV playground, I think the standard for writing, as well as documenting this section has to become much better than it is.

The WHO link about the dengue hemorrhagic fever, for example, places the source of the epidemic from "increased migration of people from endemic countries to the municipality". Keep in mind, tens of thousands of Cuban troops were in Angola, rotating in and out of theater, during the outbreaks.

With that said, would acts of the Cuban government, including arming, training and providing asylum to Puerto Rican separatist; 15 years of work in Nicaragua to destabilize Managua's government; the assassination attempt of Turner Shelton, or the funding of the FARC, ELN etc, be considered "acts of state terrorism"?

---

When I first looked at the article it looked like it had been written by a Cuban because the English grammar was quite bad, and is quite POV. I tried to improve it a bit but did not have much time. Kingal86 17:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Black and Tans

I was very surprised to see that the Black and Tans have not been added to the page (under the United Kingdom header of course!). They were a Text book example of State terrorism, anyone up for putting them under the UK section? Superdude99 13:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that they should be in here, as all the examples given are post World War II, with most being post 1970. Philip Baird Shearer 14:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Really? Ok I suggest then that we remove the part about Sturmabteilung on account of your reaction. Or we could keep it, and put the Black and Tans on the page together with all the other examples of state terrorism. Superdude99 18:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the Black and Tans should be included. They were notorious for the indiscriminate nature of their attacks. In Cork city they burnt down the centre of the city including 300 homes.

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

"As a suggestion" how about a historical section to cover events which occurred before 1948: would include privateers. Jackiespeel 15:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Apartheid South Africa

How about including Apartheid South Africa as a state terrorist? I could easily make the argument right here in about 20 pages. Rian

South Africa was added on 24 January 2006.Phase1 12:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge Israeli Terrorism

I propose that Israeli Terrorism article be merged into State terrorism. Any objections? Coqsportif 21:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a good idea. My first thought would have been to merge it with anti-zionism, but then of course, you're right. --Hillel 12:23, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Has this merge not already been proposed and rejected? Perhaps after the article in question was split from Zionist terrorism? I would support a merge and redirect, providing no material is lost in the transition, although the addition of material to this article might cause friction. There are also some issues to do with overlap between this article and State sponsored terrorism following a merge. illWill 14:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

We shouldn't merge it untill we can agree the contents. 62.252.0.7 19:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense. The contents are pretty similar as it is, and once everything in the Israeli terrorism article is properly cited, they will no doubt be identical. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

As most people seem to agree that the articles should be merged, I'm going to ahead and do that within the next day or so. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:26, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Total Anti-American Bias

This seems to be used as a method of casting dispersions on all wars fought by the United States of America, including political actions taken through the U.N. Can anyone give clear reasons why wars are included as State Sponsered Terrorism and not under a separate heading? Please leave personal accusations off this page. Hierogre 05:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Im trying to cleanup and neutralize the article; probably have the in use tag for a short while longer. I had finished rewriting it yesterday but my browser mysteriously disappeared...:(...so i try again once more. freestylefrappe 21:21, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

If the UN supports a given action, does that make it non-terrorist? What the UN is doing in Haiti right now is textbook terrorism: Killing political opponents (the general population) because they support their right to life and dignity, their democratically elected president, and oppose the terrorism of the UN/US in kidnapping the president. anonymous 00:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Problems with France and Italy being on this list

Italy

The Gladio can hardly be labeled as Italian State terrorism. Greek defence minister Yannis Varvitsiotis, French minister of defense Jean-Pierre Chevènement, the CIA, and NATO, were all actively involved in the network. At best it is international...which would then make it defunct under the definition of state terrorism.

... Given that SISMI agents were found guilty of messing with the investigation into the Bologna massacre, and the numerous other strategy of tension accusations I'm putting Italy back on the list. Chaikney 15:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

France

From the Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior page:

• "Greenpeace was opposed to testing and had planned to lead a flotilla of yachts to the atoll to protest against the test, including an illegal incursion into French military zones."
• As a consequence the United States was in the process of withdrawing from its ANZUS treaty obligations to protect New Zealand from foreign attack.
• Calculations aimed at explosions sufficient to cripple the ship, but precise and small enough not to take life.

While I dont think France should be removed from this list permanently considering less-than-orthodox tactics that lead up to and occured during Algerias independence, the Rainbow Warrior incident is too controversial be the base for France's position on this list. I propose removing France (temporarily;or replacing the info) and Italy. freestylefrappe 00:01, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I would disagree. The Rainbow Warrior incident is widely consider to be the first (and only as of yet) act of terrorism to occur within NZ by NZers. You seem to be missing the point that the vast majority of acts of state terrorism are disputed by many people as not act as state terrorism. If an act has been widely cited as an act of state terrorism then I don't see why it should not be included. There is no universal understanding of state terrorism and the only generally accepted part is that it most involve violence (which does not have to include intended death)

Kofi Annan quote

Did any one see the Kofi Annan quote? --

United Nations General Assembly A/59/2005 21 March 2005

Report of the Secretary-General, Kofi Annan: In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All

91. It is time to set aside debates on so-called "State terrorism". The use of force by States is already thoroughly regulated under international law. And the right to resist occupation must be understood in its true meaning. It cannot include the right to deliberately kill or maim civilians. I endorse fully the High-level Panel's call for a definition of terrorism, which would make it clear that, in addition to actions already proscribed by existing conventions, any action constitutes terrorism if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act. I believe this proposal has clear moral force, and I strongly urge world leaders to unite behind it and to conclude a comprehensive convention on terrorism before the end of the sixtieth session of the General Assembly.

AnonMoos 18:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The ties in with http://www.un.org/secureworld/report.pdf (WARNING: it's big) which includes the paragraph:

"any action, in addition to actions already specified by the existing conventions on aspects of terrorism, the Geneva Conventions and Security Council resolution 1566 (2004), that is intended to cause death or seriously bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such an act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act".

See Wikipedia:Use of the word terrorism (policy development)#Proposed UN Definition of Terrorism for a previous discussion on this. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Links

Freestyle, what's the point of having the linked references at the bottom of the page? It means the reader has to scroll down (assuming they know to, and why should they, because there are no links to footnotes?) and even then they can't immediately see which link is for which quote. Links to quotes should appear after the quote, or there should at least be a footnote. See Wikipedia:Cite sources. As it stands, we have neither. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:54, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Footnotes are fine with me. freestylefrappe 21:45, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Footnotes are fine for references to books. Online references should be in the article itself, for convenience. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Recent Removal Of USA vs Cuba

• Official documents from U.S. government, formerly classified as Top Secret and Eyes Only for the President were recently declassified and made public, thanks to the Freedom of Information Act. These documents indicate that only between October 1960 and April 1961, the CIA introduced 75 tons of explosives in 30 secret aerial missions and 45 tons of weapons and explosives in 31 marine infiltrations, with which were perpetrated 310 attacks with bombs, 6 trains derailed, and 150 factories and 800 plantations were set to fire.

No source provided for such contentious allegations-removed.

• Between 1959 and 2003 more than 800 attacks were allegedly performed including 78 bombings against civilian population and 61 Cuban airplanes were hijacked.

No source provided for such contentious allegations-removed.

• Biological attacks were also launched, such as the alleged introduction of African Swine Fever Virus forcing the sacrifice of half a million pigs. In Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations, the dengue hemorrhagic fever affected about 344,203 persons, with the record case of 11,400 falling ill in a single day July 6 1981 [11][12].

WHO source describes outbreak, but does not (sot surprisingly) lay blame at the CIA or US's feet. Second source is vague and strongly points to original research to connect the two.

• These documents also link Cuban exile Luis Posada Carriles, on the CIA's payroll, with many attacks, including the bombing of a Cuban civilian airliner in Venezuela in 1976, killing 73 people [13][14]. Posada has apparently been given asylum in the U.S. The United States Justice Department has refused a request for extradition from Venezuela, but in 2005 Posada was apparently arrested for entering the U.S. illegally.

Posada was a CIA employee in the early 60's, but any actions taken since then are his own, unless more documentation exists that would point to his continued employment by the CIA in 1976. Unless Posada was employed by the CIA in 1976, this was not an act of "state terrorism", just the non state kind. TDC 23:05, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Are you joking? Posada was a CIA employee, the CIA is a governmental agency, this is a clear act of state terrorism. Even a declassified report to Kissinger from the CIA includes that "We are going to hit a Cuban airliner." This is not an invention from European and Latin America journalists (and NY Times), you can find better source for the facts in this recently removed ("censured") section, from The National Security Archive.

The removal of this section with these weak reasonings attempts against the international neutrality of the wikipedia. --Asierra 15:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

USA firebombings

The article on US firebombings of Japan specifically states that these don't fit the earlier definition. Firstly, this is unnecessary since this issue is already discussed earlier. Secondly, definition earlier is as follows "use or threat of violence by the state or its agents or supporters, particularly against civilian individuals and populations, as a means of political intimidation and control (i.e. a means of repression)". Clearly the US (and all) firebombings fit this definition since they were aimed primarily at civlians in an attempt to intimidate the citizens, soldiers and leaders of the countries...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.234.141.76 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

One of the aims of war is to use force to impose one's will on the enemy. If actions are taken within the laws of war are to defined as terrorism one would have to define all actions in war which used force as terrorism. This is clearly not what most people mean when they use the term "state terrorism". To do so is to stray into the region of R. J. Rummel's democide idea.

To be cynical: When the Nazis were dishing out more than they were receiving they did not use the term "Terror Bombing", but when they Allies started to devastate German cities suddenly aerial bombardment was "Terror Bombing" in Nazi propaganda.

As to legal position on bombardment of civilians see International Review of the Red Cross no 323, p.347-363 The Law of Air Warfare (1998)

In examining these events [aerial bombardment] in the light of international humanitarian law, it should be borne in mind that during the Second World War there was no agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument governing the protection of the civilian population or civilian property, as the Conventions then in force dealt only with the protection of the wounded and the sick on the battlefield and in naval warfare, hospital ships, the laws and customs of war and the protection of prisoners of war.

And to cover the use of nuclear weapons during World War II. In 1996 International Court of Justice ruled in legality of the Threat or use of nuclear weapons (8 July 1996) the in 1996 "There is in neither customary nor conventional international law any comprehensive and universal prohibition of the threat or use of nuclear weapons as such; That is a conclusion drawn about the use of nukes in 1996 with all the Humanitarian Law which has been built up since Word War II. So one can conclude that it was not against the laws of war in 1945 and so the use of atomic weapons in 1945 was not a terrorist act because they were used withing the laws of war in use at that time. Philip Baird Shearer 13:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Lead

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

Pro-Israeli slant

I have not followed the terror pages for quite some time (3 months) but it seems very sad that the "pro-Israeli" camp has triumphed and just a little paragraph was included on Israeli state terrorism. Simply because it is classified under the “state terror” category does not mean it should not be more thoroughly discussed in a separate page. Such organizational issues should not stop Wikipedia to expand on issues. Many research papers are written on the topic of Israeli terror and it is no “propaganda” for the Palestinians. Why would there be a Palestinian terror page, wouldn’t that be classified as propaganda also? Prior to that there was an entire page devoted to the issue of Israeli terror and it was very well documented and written by some members of Wikipedia. Why is it that the Syrian terror paragraph is longer that the Israeli? There have been hundred of books written on the latter and it is sad and rather bias on the part of Wikipedia who claims to be an honest "encyclopedia" not to even go into more depth regarding that issue. One must look at all the facts and the facts are that Israel has committed acts of terror on the Palestinians. It is also a fact that Palestinians have done so on Israelis. So, it is imperative we present the facts to the people and not just one bias side, because this is how it looks now. And, also, if Palestine were to obtain a state tomorrow, then the article would be trimmed down to a paragraph and included under “state terror?” Well this is the case for the Israeli terror page. --Doge120 14:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

So...in other words...you're whining about Wikipedia at large not being level-handed with Israeli and Palestinian terrorism...but your comments actually have nothing to do with this particular page...perhaps instead of complaining that the "Israeli paragraph" is shorter than the "Syrian paragraph" you could add content supporting your position. freestylefrappe 20:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

"Whining"

So, now simply even proposing the idea of expanding upon the “Israeli terror” subject raises objections? How about the Sabra and Chatilia massacres? “In three days, Israel’s allies had butchered more than half the total number of fatalities of the World Trade Center” (“Pity the Nation, Robert Fisk). How about the killing of Elie Hobeika, phalangist leader, murdered just 17 hours after he said he was going to testify against Sharon in a Brussels court. “Operation Grapes of Wrath” in 1996 where a hundred refugees had been blown to pieces by the IDF in the UN camp of Qana. Also, the countless numbers of Palestinian homes buldozed by the IDF. And the Israeli “neighborhoods” (settlements) built on Palestinian occupied territory, or as I am sure, the media would prefer to call it “disputed” territory. Isn’t kicking Palestinians out of their homes terrorism? Should the article elaborate on that subject more? It is rather reassuring to see that there are countless other websites on the Internet discussing these subjects and not just Wikipedia. I also like the use of the term “whining” when one wants to raise a point in this ever-bias encyclopedia. So prove you are not bias and expand upon the subject. Because if you do not then let the little measly paragraph speak for itself: Wikipedia doent want to elaborate on state terrorism because...the answer is rather predictable: Bias... --Doge120 07:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, please review WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Wikipedia doesn't decide what is or isn't "terrorism"; rather, it quotes reputable sources on the subject. If you have any reputable sources which describe Israeli actions (or even the actions of Lebanese militias) as "state terrorism", please bring them forward. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

And it is easy to find such references. Google ["state terrorism" Israel EU] about 62,100 English pages for "state terrorism" Israel EU. In the first half dozen pagee returned three articles which are pertanant accusations of "Israeli state terrorism". Is Jeff Halper a reputable source now that he is funded by the EU? [15]? What about The secretary general of the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), Abdulrahman al-Attiyah, who urged world nations to provide "international protection for the Palestinians, who are subjected daily to all kinds of state terrorism".[16] or "The prime minister of Turkey, Israel's closest ally in the Middle East, has accused Ariel Sharon of "state terrorism" against Palestinians and likened their treatment to that of Jews under the Spanish inquisition." [17]. This page reports that the EU Parliament passed an article (whatever that means) "accused[ing] Israel of engaging in "acts of terror" by launching anti-terror military operations that on occasion result in collateral damage among the largely terror-supporting "Palestinian" population."

Someone is still blaming the Israelis for killing Elie Hobeika?? What paranoid nonsense. Why not blame them for the death of Ali and Hussein?

Reason for Edit?

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

There are parents who terrorize their children, teachers who terrorize their students, bosses that terrorize their employees, politicians that terrorize their constituents, governments that terrorize their own people and governments who terrorize one another. It is hypocrisy to describe another government's actions as terrorism when one's own government is engaging in the same behavior OR in hiring others to conduct that behavior for them. 12.217.172.250 06:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Stuff that should be incorporated

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

HRW report on opportunism This reference to post-9/11, so-called "opportunist legislation" should be incorporated. freestylefrappe 03:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Post 9/11 Patriot Actish laws in Europe Found here

Alleged use of thermobaric chemical weapons in Falluja, Iraq by American forces The Guardian

Merge from State sponsored terrorism

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

why? ---Philip Baird Shearer 09:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Because the distinctions between them are political. State terrorism is (naturally) state-sponsored. 'State-sponsored terrorism' can likewise be considered to be equivalent to 'state terrorism' (ie. "those who harbor terrorists" - 'we're a'gonna git you'). Hence either the two are statically linked and well differentiated, or the distinction is treated as minor and they are integrated. I suggested the merge off the cuff, but Im having second thoughts - given that the state terrorism article is bound to grow. -St|eve 20:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. State terrorism is carried out by servents of the state at the beheast of the government of the state. State sponsored terrorism is carred out by third parties under contract to a state or in league with a state. These are as much a legal as political distinction and in the case of a party in league with a state it may be much greater than just legal and political. For example no doubt the Russians thought of the Afgan resistance as terrorists, but they were not USA terrorists, just in league with the USA at that time because it suited both parties interests. Another example was the Malayan People's Anti-Japanese Army which morfed into the Malay Races Liberation Army. An other example would be Khmer Rouge who at various times allied with the Chinese and later trained and supplied by the USA/UK[18]. And just to finish off the Red Army Faction was not an East German terrorist organisation, and PIRA was not part of the Libyan secret service althouth they recived many tons of armaments from Libya. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Philip. Both articles are bound to increase in size and each one has a similar sounding but different meaning. Thus I suggest there is no need to merge the articles. Idleguy 05:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Philip as well; the distinction between the two is important. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Laughable

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

US Section too short!

When I saw that the US section was so small, I almost died laughing. However I am not the type to imediately dive into the main page with my point of view. I see that alleged terrorist acts by the US against Cuba have been removed. Given the covert nature of many of the incidents it is unreasonable to have to prove them 100%. I believe that the least that should be done is that they should be listed with the qualification that they are allegations. After all, many of the items listed for other countries can also be brought into question.

Certainly we should not just pick on the United States and ignore the crimes of others (even if the countries are small-fry by comparison), but to have the US section shorter than most others surely cannot be correct. For example, consider Operation Northwoods, which is a declasified plan to stage terrorist acts and then blame them on Cuba. The existance of the plan is in little doubt and although it was not carried out, it is surely highly relevant and should be included in the US entry as an abandoned plan.

As the page stands it just looks like it has been edited by the CIA. There is a link to a full page regarding the US but it also seems largely inadequate. The US should be treated just like the other countries and its alleged terrorist acts listed. Only groundless allegations should be removed e.g. "The CIA carried out 911 using remote controlled aircraft.".

But compared to Cambodia slaughtering 1/4 of their population in the 1970s, the US section is very big (as there is no Cambodia section). And the US section is shorter because there is as much state-sponsored terrorism conducted by them, compared to, say, Syria or Iran. As to Operation Northwoods, having a plan is not the same thing as carrying it out.CJK 22:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

So you are saying that the US section is large compared to a section no-one has bothered to write. Well yes, but that in no way indicates the US section is too large. People are naturally more interested in the crimes of democracies because we in some sense expect them to do no harm, and since we vote for these governments, it perhaps makes us partly responsible. In contrast we almost expect dictators to wipe out millions of their own people and sadly people are less interested. It is of course true that Northwoods was never carried out, but it is certainly relevant to the discussion and certainly makes for an interesting read. One thing about Northwoods is that we know the plan existed, it was released under the FOI act so it is not open to debate as many of these accusations are. Imagine you were writing an article about assassination attempts, and the KGB had a well documented plan to assassinate Nixon with an exploding cat, which was never carried out. You would certainly include it in your article since it shows that such things were being considered and because it is interesting. As long as it is made quite clear that no part of the plan was ever carried out, I believe it should be added as it is relevant and certainly very interesting.

I have contributed very little to wikipedia and I wonder how these sorts of disputes are resolved. Do people just continually add and remove items in a kind of word war? I certainly think suggested changes should be put here before diving into the main page. I will draft a small section on Northwoods, which links to the main Northwoods Wikipedia article, and post it here.

How about this.

Operation Northwoods

Although never carried out, Operation Northwoods was a US DoD plan proposed in 1962 to stage terrorist acts (mainly against US assets) with a view to generating support for military action against Cuba. The plan was declassified due to a Freedom of Information Act request by the National Security Archive. A variety of different attacks were proposed. Some were to be faked, such as blowing up an empty aircraft and pretending it was full of people. Others would have been genuine acts of terror, such as the plan to sink Cuban refugees.

Then go write an article about Operation Northwoods, oh wait there already is one! Stop misusing and misinterpreting the word terrorism by conspiracy theorists such as Alex Jones and Michael Ruppert.--Antispammer 21:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

True there is already a good article on Northwoods. My point is that it should be refered to in the US section. I get the impression that you disagree with the whole concept of State Terrorism. Is that your position? Anyway it seems that someone has already edited the US section and made a reasonable mention of Northwoods. It is certainly worthy of a mention, even though it was never carried out. StevenJMUK 17:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

My fundamental problem with this state terrorism article is that after 9/11 many people think the word terrorist and its variants is a pejorative. In other words, this article can be used as an outlet for intellectual hate-speech directed at all these countires. Instead of saying "I hate X country! They are terrorists!", you can write "Some people believe that X country sponsors terrorism" Having said that, I do not get the impression that you are in favor of any sort of hate-speech but you are like a friend I have that after 9/11 he has so much Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD) that he turned to conspiracy theorists to give him answers. However, he does not understand that some of these conspiracy theorists are just people trying to make a dollar out of any demoralizing means necessary.--Antispammer 21:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Why was the example of U.S. sponsored terrorism I added today about the American bombing campaign that included civilian targets in Barghdad 1992-1995, deleted? It was supported by former U.S. officials as reported in the NY Times? Does the deleter have a reason? GB in NY Jan 9, 2006.

I didn't delete it. But obviously by reading what you wrote here I can see you cannot discern between war and terrorism.--Antispammer 19:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

If you re-read what I wrote, you'll realize that the terror operation in Baghdad was between 1992 and 1995, after the peace agreement between the US and Iraq. Further, even if there had not been a peace agreement signed in 1991, suppose Iraq had decided at that point to blow up a school bus in downtown Washington, do you think it should/would have been called "state terrorism" or at least that most reasonable people would termed it thus?

I think you would have to provide citations for this terror operation in Baghdad. Again, I did not delete this but I can see why someone would.--Antispammer 20:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I provided a NY Times article citing several former U.S. officials who were involved first hand in the operation and a link to an archived version of the article. Here is the LA Times reporting of essentially the same story: "Born Under a Cloud of Irony The New, Free Iraq May Officially be in the Hands of a Former Terrorist" LA Times June 29, 2004 (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0629-03.htm). Two of the leading newspapers of the country are not enough?

All that article says is And although the interim prime minister is a former member of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party who later conducted anti-Hussein terrorist operations on behalf of the CIA — operations in which innocent Iraqi civilians may have been killed — his anointment as leader of a "free Iraq" is being hailed by President Bush as a great victory in the war on terror. It does not give any evidence of these terrorist operations. This is just anti-US propaganda. Give me a break...--Antispammer 01:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

No evidence? The article cites several former U.S. intelligence officials who provide specific terrorist actions in Baghdad, including car bombs, planting a bomb in a movie theater and blowing up a school bus with people on board. What kind of "evidence" were you hoping for in a newspaper article? Notwithstanding my neocon friend's "NY Times and LA Times are anti-American propoganda" charge, I still would like to ask the editor to restore my contribution to the page. GB in NY

Antispammer's edits reverted

Before I get accused of anti-Americanist POV, or someone points out the anti-Bush credentials on my user page. I'd like to explain why I reverted Antispammer's changes to this article.

• The article linked to, Operation Northwoods, reiterates the claims made in the blanked section in more detail, and quotes a number of notable references. While I haven't checked these references, I have no suspicion that this is a hoax or attack article, unless someone claims or proves otherwise.

• Antispammer has less than 10 edits - mostly attacks on users and articles which criticize US policy. While the attacks aren't hugely destructive, they do show extreme POV tendency.

• The same user has a user page that basically consists of a huge American flag - confirmative, based on my reasoning above, that the user is trying to suppress the backed-up criticism of American foreign policy. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 11:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Because most people will never understand history, and never understand why someone would come up with such a stupid plan.--Antispammer 11:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Excuse the typo, it wasn't 10, but 100 edits. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 11:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The US mining of Nicaragua's harbors is proven. The World Court found so and ordered the US to stop. See the cites I provided. There is no reason to water it down by writing "alleged." If there are claims that the Sandanista's perpetrated terrorism, let's see the citation, please.

Operation Northwoods

Given the reason given this time for the removal of Operation Northwoods (that it was planned, but never executed), I'm prepared to leave it in this time without any revert. The tendency to remove United States entries while putting in ones for other countries is a worrying one, indicative of pro-US bias, but since I have nothing to back this claim up with and it is just my view, I'm going to leave it. What does everyone else think? Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 17:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I am the one who originally added Operation Northwoods to this article. I feel strongly that although it turns out that the Kennedy Administration decided not to implement it, the fact that it was proposed by the Joint Chiefs says a lot about the US defense esablishment. Northwoods remains a proposed state terror campaign whether or not it was actually implemented. It shows that the US military establishment was willing and able to perpetrate a campaign of terrorist actions on US soil killing American citizens. If they proposed it once in America, there is no reason to think they would not propose it again, if they thought it could help to manipulate American public opionion to support launching a war. It would be irresponsible to deprive American readers of this aspect of their government's sensibiliy and capacity. GB in NY.

I agree with you, but I also detect a subtle hint of POV in your reasoning. As you say, there's no reason to doubt that they would propose it again (even though it was not to be disclosed), but then again there's no reason to believe they would either - it's pure speculation. It didn't actually show the US was "ready" to do this (although, as I say, my personal opinion is that they would), just that two joint chiefs proposed Northwoods. Nobody really knows how far along this got. The reason I deleted Antispammer's edits was because I knew he had a history of wiping anything that looked remotely critical of America. 155.84.57.253 had a different rationale however - he or she (correctly) stated that entries for other countries only list incidents of state terrorism that were actually carried out, and it was a bit unfair and POV to start sticking in terrorism that "nearly" happened. If I'm wrong, get some sources together and we can work something out. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 12:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

French entry POV

I have a serious issue with this phrase:

France can be considered the originator of state terrorism.

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

Iraq's attack on Israel

I removed the dubious claim that the Iraq's Scud attack on Israel somehow constituted a case of "state terrorism". It was reverted by User:CantStandYa under a purposedly misleading summany "rv van", without any explanations, so I remove it back.

Iraq also attempted to terrorize the population of Israel (a noncombatant), during the Gulf War, with Scud missiles.

This claim is extremely weird, as the attack happened during the war, and if we included that then all wartime attacks on civilian populations would have to be classified as terrorism. It doesn't seem that any other attacks on civilians are listed on this page. Israel's claim to be a "noncombatant" is dubious, as it was one of the closest allies of the USA (Iraq's main enemy in the war), and it doesn't seem that there was any peace treaty between Iraq and Israel. This claim also doesn't seem to be very relevant. Taw 09:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

War crimes & state terrorism ; moved content here

I moved this from the intro:

"Although attacks on non-combatant civilians may occur during a time of war, they are usually considered terrorism, especially if these are not attacks on the enemy's war fighting capacity (for example an industrial port)."

It is my understanding that this qualifies as war crimes. Not that it is entirely false to categorize it as state terrorism, but not really true either. State terrorism is usually carried in official peace-time by covert agents and paramilitary organizations. Can their be state terrorism during war times? I think this would be more precisely categorized as war crimes, because - at least this specific example - is a case of not respecting jus in bellum. However, the claim can - and has been - made that we now live in a continuous state of exception, where distinction between war & peace have been erased. Hence, war crimes may qualify, in this sense, as state terrorism. Whatever is decided, i'm of the idea that if it does enter the entry, at least we should'nt put it in the introduction. Tazmaniacs

United Kingdom - Northern Ireland

I am bringing this here as a responce to this appeal for consensus. The disputed phrase is this:

In Northern Ireland, members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and British army, have been involved in the deaths of Irish republican terrorists at the hands of different loyalist paramilitary groups. The victims included members of the PIRA, Sinn Féin and those perceived to be aiding them, including solicitors.

I proposed the part: "Irish republican terrorists" be reworded as: Irish republicans.
My reasons for this are as follows:

1. The word "terrorist" is a judgemental one, bearing obvious negative connotations. Who is a terrorist for one is a freedom fighter for another. NPOV policy dictates that we stick to the facts and let readers decide for themselves whatever conclusions they will take. And the facts is that they were Irish Republicans who by many are considered terrorists. So I believe that a term such as "Irish Republicans" is NPOV, as long as it is clarified in the immediately following sentence that these include members of PIRA.
2. The immediately following sentence makes clear that the victims were not only PIRA militants but also solicitors and those "pereived to be aiding them". Solicitors can in no way be labelled as terrorists for defending their clients. Also, given the tension of the events it is highly likely that those "percieved to be aiding" PIRA members could well be completely unrelated to terrorist actions, or that they could be mere supporters of PIRA's actions, which does not make them terrorists but sympathizers. Therefore I think that using the blanket term "terrorists" for group A (all the killed) in the first sentence only to say in the following sentence that group A is comprised of groups B (PIRA) and C (others), where group B can be considered as terrorist while group C cannot be considered as such is not accurate and biased. What groups B and C have in common is that they are both made of Irish Republicans, militans (group B) and not militants (group C), so I think that the way to describe group A=B+C is by using plain "Irish Republicans".

--Michalis Famelis 15:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• If we are able to call the RUC terrorists, but not able to call the IRA terrorists, then we should drop this section entirely. Otherwise it is just self serving IRA propaganda. 155.84.57.253 16:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me quote from the article with my own bolding: "...members of the RUC and British army, have been involved...". No-one calls the whole of the RUC a terrorist organization. Rather actions by members of the RUC constitute state terrorism. Is that not clear enough? And apart from that, did you not read my comment? Not all victims were IRA, there were also sympathizers and solicitors. And they cannot be named terrorists, can they? --Michalis Famelis 17:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I object to the proposal on a purely semantic point of view. I think using Irish Republicans instead of Irish Republican terrorists would have a completely opposite effect to what you're suggesting - writing Irish Republicans would insinuate that any Irish Republican is by default inclined towards violence, which of course isn't true. By writing Irish Republican terrorists, you really do make sure that the terrorist element is singled out. Of course, I wouldn't disagree with putting in an alternative to clarify this - perhaps extreme elements of the Irish Republican movement? Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 08:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The Stevens Enquiry in the UK investigated allegations of collusion between elements of the security forces in NI and Loyalists in murders there. They found that allegations of collusion in the murder of Pat Finucane, a Catholic solicitor, were indeed correct. However the vast bulk of the report was with-held from the public, for some reason... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevens_Inquiry , 02:46 (GMT) 01 April 2006

Maybe the whole opening could use a rewrite for the shake of clarity. Note that all that I know of the matter is this piece of wikitext. And from what I understand of it, there were two kinds of victims: combatants and non-combatants. If we are to have a term that covers both grous in the first sentence we must find something that on the one hand does not label non-violent victims as terrorists and on the other hand does not sanctify violent militants. --Michalis Famelis 11:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Civilians?

The previous version does not say that the target is the civilian population. This is crucial.

playground

from just scanning through the heated discussion it seems to me that this article could benefit from taking all the examples out.

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

Protest against removal Of USA vs Cuba

The fact that Cuban population has been suffering terrorism attacks since decades has been well known in all the World, including informed Americans (facts covered by European and Latin American news agencies). The allegation that these acts were performed by US sponsored agents was also known and only lacked the official confirmation from US side. This confirmation just came recently with the declassification of some documents from the CIA and the FBI. Perhaps the grammar was not good (I'm not a native English speaker) or the sources not well cited, but the full removal of a section with facts well known outside USA is really disaponting about the seriousness and maturity of the Wikipedia.

By the way, I am not a Cuban, I am a Mexican and I use to write Science and Computing History articles at the Spanish edition of the Wikipedia. --Asierra 16:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

What is it - State Terrorism?

Could anybody explain in plain English?

For example, speaking on the first item - Albania:

Enver Hoxha's dictatorship was one of the most oppressive and isolationist in the world. - true

Religious practice was prohibited through imprisonment, and no political dissent was allowed. - true

It has been estimated that up to one third of Albanians were interrogated by his regime's secret police at one time or another. - may be

Sure, Enver Hoxha was a bad guy, and Albanian regime was a bad regime. But why it was the terrorist state?

... And so on. Just read every item in the list of terrorist states. --HenryS 05:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout "Separate discussion topics, with new topics at the end"

The article quotes Baltasar Garzón:

"State terrorism is a political system whose rule of recognition permits and/or imposes a clandestine, unpredictable, and diffuse application, even regarding clearly innocent people, of coercive means prohibited by the proclaimed judicial ordinance."

Here are 3 examples from the last 100 years which fit this description:

• Stalin and the purges
• Idi Amin and his time as "King of Scotland" in Uganda.
• Pakistan Government during and before the 1973 Bangladesh War
• (The bad, mad and ruthless) But there are lots of other cases of state terrorism eg Third Reich to name another obvious one. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

playground

from just scanning through the heated discussion it seems to me that this article could benefit from taking all the examples out.

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

state violence

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

The entries for StateViolence and StateTerrorism should be different pages. State Violence might include:

 Use of death penalty 
 Aggression against other countries (Illegal Wars)
 Repression of ones people (Polpot, China's culture revolution, Mugabe, etc...)
 Police brutality

This article is on state "terrorism". Terrorism, violence, sabotage and war are all different. It is not the player, but the act. A state can commit terrorists acts - such as the US car bombings in Lebanon in the 1980's. That was intended to terrorise and intimidate. The French bombing of the Rainbow Warrior was however not an act of terrorism but sabotage. It was intended not to terrorise a people but to prevent the ship from sailing. The Americans shooting down Iran Air 655 was reckless and legally murder (of course no Americans were every charged, or even criticised for having committed mass murder), but it was not intended to intimidate Iranians, so was not an act of terrorism.

Organizing this article

The best way to keep individual countries state terrorism from confusing the intent of the article, I propose that we create individual articles on each country such as State terrorism in Sudan, State terrorism in Sri Lanka.... please discuss the merits it. Then this whole article can be a high level article dealing with what state terorism is and link to each countries culpabilitiesHuracane 16:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Huracane, I think this is a good idea, otherwise this article is going to become quite unwieldy and it is hard to keep discussions organized as well since there are so many differing threads going on.--Realstarslayer 17:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

One way to organize this article is define state terrorism and list of types of state terrorist actions such as ethnic cleaninzing, massacres, disappearances, torture. and then link to individual countries state terrorist practices ?RaveenS 17:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have moved Syria to Sri Lanka to appropriate sectionsRaveenS

How about a Category:State terrorism by country ? That will organize this even better.IMHOHuracane 19:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Protest against removal Of USA vs Cuba

The fact that Cuban population has been suffering terrorism attacks since decades has been well known in all the World, including informed Americans (facts covered by European and Latin American news agencies). The allegation that these acts were performed by US sponsored agents was also known and only lacked the official confirmation from US side. This confirmation just came recently with the declassification of some documents from the CIA and the FBI. Perhaps the grammar was not good (I'm not a native English speaker) or the sources not well cited, but the full removal of a section with facts well known outside USA is really disaponting about the seriousness and maturity of the Wikipedia.

By the way, I am not a Cuban, I am a Mexican and I use to write Science and Computing History articles at the Spanish edition of the Wikipedia. --Asierra 16:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The US section is constantly vandalised by unquestioningly pro-US wikipedians who can see no wrong in their countries actions. I have not the time to engage in a revert war with these people.GiollaUidir 23:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If you're referring to the references to Posada Carriles and Bosch in connection with the 1976 attack on Cubana de Aviación, I removed that section once, not because I am "pro-American" or refuse to believe that the United States would sponsor terrorism, but because all that was mentioned in this section was that the United States has refused to extradite Posada Carriles, and such a refusal does not seem to me in itself to constitute an example of "state terrorism". As for the attack itself, while there is no doubt that Posada Carriles and Bosch had long-standing connections with elements in the U.S. government, in order for the attack on Cubana de Aviación to be an example of "state terrorism," it would be necessary to put forward some evidence that the United States had somehow sponsored or encouraged this particular act, not merely that it did business with criminal thugs who also engaged in acts of terrorism. I have no difficulty calling Posada Carriles and Bosch terrorists and I agree that the refusal to extradite is hypocritical, but unless some evidence is brought forward of a state's encouragement or support of acts of terrorism, I don't believe the example meets the definition. I would encourage you if you wish to restore this section to locate evidence of particular acts of terrorism promoted by the United States.

Rrburke 20:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Major change

I have created a list List_of_acts_labelled_as_state_terrorism_sorted_by_state

to reduce this article edit wars, please revert it if the consensus is to have it all here. My apologies if people are pissed off :-(((RaveenS 14:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

i already stated my opinion that i would even go the step further and delete the list, but i support this move. this way editing can concentrate on actually improving the definition. --trueblood 17:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I actually oppose giving this topic its own article, for the reason that the article has not been created because the subject, on its own merits, deserves a separate article, but merely because doing so solves an editing headache for another article, namely State terrorism. I'm not persuaded of the usefulness of the list even as a subsection of State terrorism: a good many examples are tendentious, giving no further insight into the definition of the term, but merely afford space to writers with axes to grind. That said, a few well-chosen illustrative examples, insofar as they help illuminate the definition of State terrorism, are obviously welcome. Obviously, the examples will be loudly disputed, but so it goes.

Rrburke 22:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

an illusion to think to have a short list of well-chosen examples. how is it going to be different from now? if you have examples, sooner or later someone will come along, feel strongly about some act of state terrorism and add it, and before long we back with the long list and the edit wars. --trueblood 11:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That's probably true, but no truer than it is for a great variety of articles on contentious topics, and they seem somehow to manage. People can resolve that additional examples will be reverted unless generally accepted to be better than those already included. Reversion wars have never really killed anyone anyway.

--Rrburke 19:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Original research

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

What is it - State Terrorism?

Could anybody explain in plain English?

For example, speaking on the first item - Albania:

Enver Hoxha's dictatorship was one of the most oppressive and isolationist in the world. - true

Religious practice was prohibited through imprisonment, and no political dissent was allowed. - true

It has been estimated that up to one third of Albanians were interrogated by his regime's secret police at one time or another. - may be

Sure, Enver Hoxha was a bad guy, and Albanian regime was a bad regime. But why it was the terrorist state?

... And so on. Just read every item in the list of terrorist states. --HenryS 05:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout "Separate discussion topics, with new topics at the end"

The article quotes Baltasar Garzón:

"State terrorism is a political system whose rule of recognition permits and/or imposes a clandestine, unpredictable, and diffuse application, even regarding clearly innocent people, of coercive means prohibited by the proclaimed judicial ordinance."

Here are 3 examples from the last 100 years which fit this description:

• Stalin and the purges
• Idi Amin and his time as "King of Scotland" in Uganda.
• Pakistan Government during and before the 1973 Bangladesh War
• (The bad, mad and ruthless) But there are lots of other cases of state terrorism eg Third Reich to name another obvious one. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the definition by Baltasar Garzón (and, I think, with the term itself) is that virtually every act of any government could be named the State Terrorism, according the quote. It depepends of Point Of View only. Is there any meaningful definition?

--HenryS 10:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC) i agree, the problem with this article is that it treats the term as if it were a very clear term that could be used in an objective way. i don't think that we are going to find a meaningful definition. that's why i proposed to delete the whole list of acts labelled as state terrorism, since such a list can never be free of pov. maybe we could rather have a few examples were the term was used in general discussion, this list could be clearly pov and it should be stated, that it's purpose is to illustrate how the term was/is used. trueblood 12:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and currently I consider the term "State terrorism" as a nonesense. So, before asking to delete the whole article, I try to find out if there is a meaningful definition of the term. According alleged Baltasar Garzón's definition, every state is the Terrorist State. Period. --HenryS 14:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

i don't know about deleting the whole article, but just leave it with some kind of definition, that states that it is a highly controversial term. but there are a lot of people that seem to like this article because it is a platform to fight it out if a certain us american, israelian, cuban etc action is to be considered state terrorism or not. i don't know how to go about. trueblood 17:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the term State terrorism is nothing but propaganda. Most people agree, that terrorism is evil, so propagandists use the term State terrorism against the states they dislike. I'm still waiting if anybody could explain difference between regular state violence and state terrorism. --HenryS 18:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

so having stated this several times, what do you propose trueblood 11:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for bulging in like this, but controversial and vague as the term may be, it is an existing term, used by far more people than Mr Garzon. A google search for "state terrorism -wikipedia" brings up 98 million hits. So any talk of proposing the article for deletion is in my opinion out of the question. I think that under the terms of NPOV the best course to take would be:

• In the opening paragraph, describe the term. Describe the different interpretations authoritative sources give to the term. Mr Garzon could be used as one of these.
• For each one of the instances described in the article as state terrorism, editors must say who described the specific incident as state terrorism, with proper citations.

For example:

In June 2004, Israel assaulted Rafah, Gaza. As a result about 60 Palestinians, including many civilians and children were killed. PM of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan described this as state terrorism (source: The Guardian).

Note the important aspects of the above paragraph:

1. The characterization is not given because the wikipedian (in this case, me) thinks it applies, but rather because someone else applied it.
2. The characterization was applied by someone notable (Turkey's PM).
3. The characterization is sourced from a respected newspaper (The Guardian).

I believe that if every instance referenced in the article as state terrorism was built in a similar manner, the article would be pretty NPOV. Thoughts? --Michalis Famelis (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point

The Guardian is respected source, so I believe that Mr. Erdogan said that.

Mr. Erdogan is highly respected Turkey's PM

But:

He is a politician, not scholar, so as a politician he may and he will use the controversal definitions and even coin them. Just to reach his political goals.

So until we have any rational definition, which shows the diference between any military or police actions by state and the acts of State Terrorism, it is clear for me, that the term State Terrorism is nothing but propaganda. I would not object if the article would start with words

State Terrorism - the term used in propaganda, which describes some violent acts by a state. What states and/or acts are considered terroristic depends on POV

After that statement one could place any idea with his/her POV.

--HenryS 15:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me begin by quoting you, phpbb-style:

"He is a politician, not scholar, so as a politician he may and he will use the controversal definitions and even coin them. Just to reach his political goals."

I daresay that you seem to misunderstand an important aspect of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Let me quote a phrase from it:

"assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves"

It is a fact that Mr Erdogan used the term. Our job is not to say why he did it, or what were his motives, or political outlook that drove him to do it or even to infer that ourselves. It would be part of our job to report such things, if someone else, eg a political commentator, made this analysis. Mr Erdogan, or Mr Garzon have every right to express their views, even if it is completely for propagandistic reasons. And any wikipedian can report those news (properly cited of course). It is Wikipedia policy to leave it to the reader to decide for themselves if these opinions are propaganda or not.

I hate to bring up the most worn out argument in the history of the internet, but for example, on Wikipedia we do report the Nazi opinions regarding Jewish people. These are clearly nothing more than the worst kind of propaganda, but it is a fact that an (once) existing political entity expressed them. Wikipedia does not endorse these opinions. Actually Wikipedia is not supposed to endorse anything. But Wikipedia reports them.

We as wikipedians, are not here to present our opinion of what State Terrorism is. We are here to report that politicians, commentators, reporters, writers, political entities etc have used the term to describe a range of situations.

--Michalis Famelis (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

hey, this is what i had in mind only you put it more eloquently, rather than a list of instances of state terrorism we would have a list of examples of usage of the term state terrorism. but there seem to be a lot of people who are very fond of this list. it seems a bit bold to just delete the whole list, that would surly start an edit war. --trueblood 17:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This could be solved wiki-style, with a straw poll. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It does not matter how do you name it State Terrorism or State Violence. The point is that you must provide reliable sources for the term. --HenryS 11:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I am really tied. That is Wikipedia official policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Beware false authority

Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise
in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with 
academic institutions. The most reputable have written textbooks in their field: 
these authors can be expected to have a broad, authoritative grasp of their subject.  
In general, college textbooks are frequently revised and try to be authoritative. 
High school and middle school textbooks, however, do not try to be authoritative 
and they are subject to political approval.

What postgraduate degree has Mr. Erdogan? What academic institution is he affiliated with? Why is he allowed to coin definition for encyclopedia?

My other question is, who are we? Reporters or encyclopedians? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryS (talk • contribs)

We are not reporters. Reporters can write about things they witnessed themselves. They can write about things someone else witnessed , but has never told anyone before. We can only write about things someone else has already written about. See WP:NOR.

Now, as for the postgraduate degrees. Mr Erdogan could have majored in rocket science, we couldn't care less. We are not referring to him for his expertise or his degrees. Actually we are just referring to what he said, to his opinion. We do not expect any scientific analysis or absolute truth from him. But on this article we are trying to demonstrate how the term is used. And one of its uses is political, by politicians who may have majored in rocket science, accounting or nothing at all.

Of course if one could provide an academic resource for term, that would be of much greater importance than what Mr Erdogan said, and should take up more space in the article. But that is quite a different sotry. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 09:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well.

Before talking we have to undersdand what we are talking about. Right?

If we are talking about the "State Terrorism" we have to understand what is the "State Terrorism".

Hence, there should be a definition. Right?

Please, show me one which is reliable according Wikipedia Standards (Mr. Erdogan is not authorative, accordind standards)

BTW. That was me, who wrote the unsigned comment above. (I was tied). But how could you recognise me?--HenryS 11:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

please reread the argument that was made, the proposal was that since it is a rather vague term, that there would be a definition that also states that it depends on the speakers political standing would he defines as state terrorism. the examples are not supposed to be npov, they will be very pov. they are only to illustrate the fact the state terrorism is not a term that has a clear and scientific definition. i feel like the same argument gets repeated other and other again here.--trueblood 18:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I recently took a course on terrorism and governmental responses to terrorist acts, and we had several discussions on this very topic. The professor iterated that some peoples and governments felt that there was such a thing as "state terrorism", as exampled in the article. However, he also made it clear many in the international community felt that there is no such thing as state terrorism per se, rather "terrorism" is carried out by rogue agents and non-state actors, and that state violence or state-sponsored violence upon another state is an act of war, and therfore, the examples in the article of torture, etc. would fall under "state-sponsored terror", if the perpetrators are backed or supported by a nation's government. These acts of torture would be classified as war crmes, rather than "state terror", or crimes against humanity, etc. if members of the government or members directly controlled by the government (such as military)perform these acts. No counter-point is really addressed in this article; and I believe that i is at least worth addressing that some in the international community feel differently, or at least address that this idea is not held in consensus of thinkers. I will help discourse, and retrieve some of the texts we used in class, and a list of articles and papers cited by the professor as soon as possible. [that is not to say that "terrorist-states" do not exist, (such as Stalinist Russia, brought up in earlier discussions,) but rather that "state on state terrorism" would fall under the realms of "an act of war"] -Evan 05 July 2006

"State Terrorism" is those systemic and spontaneous acts perpetrated by a State against a defined (largely civilian) population that if done or attempted by an individual or non state organisation would be otherwise labeled as terrorist acts by the US Government (as The world leader" in "The War Against Terrorism"). Linking the definition of "State Terrorism" to a widely accepted definition of "individual and non-state terrorism" avoids some of the hypocrisy implicit in the misuse of the terrorist label in propaganda. Labeling the phrase "State Terrorism" as merely propaganda ignores and diminishes the fear and suffering experienced recipients of acts of terror. One may note that most terrorist acts perpetrated by individuals and non-state organisations appear, to be in direct response to acts of "State Terrorism", or insufferable state opression and might in previous centuries be described as revolutionary, or guerilla warfare. jw 31july 2006

I do not see how this is a controversial term. It is political plain and simple to exclude it and that terrorism is something only done by individuals or groups. If country X sends, hires, or arms someone to go blow up a dam in country Y or kill some villagers, if not war crimes destroying civilian infrastructure during an officially declared and legal war, then it is terrorism carried out by state X, i.e. state terrorism. Not that difficult to explain. One could go to church or humanitarian groups for hundreds or thousands of examples state terrorism rather than state sources with definitions of terrorism as defined by the state or state actors including those that represent states at international bodies, leaving themselves out of the bad light. The afore mentioned church or humanitarian groups or even individuals should be the ones defining state terrorism, not states themselves or groups of states who obviously have an interest in down playing such acts or definitions. SupaSnazzedF 14:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor Change, but not

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

Original research

The article has almost no sources and seems to someone personal opinons regarding what "state terrorism" is.Ultramarine 16:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the lead speaks for itself, "State terrorism is a controversial term, with no agreed on definition". --MichaelLinnear 04:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Do people intend to add in a researched version of Acts labelled as state terrorism, sorted by state to replace what was removed from it? If not, then I think the section header should be removed and ther list be included under the See also heading. I didn't include a reference beyond the OED for the bit on the invention of terrorism during the French Revolution, but I felt a sentence of explanation of what happened was needed for readers not up on their French history. If someone wants to track down a reference, then please do. The wiki articles on revolutionary France don't have sufficient inline referencing for me to pick out a source.--Peter cohen 11:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Notice of possible deletion of Category:State terrorism

Cgingold 12:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer review requested

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

recent removal by Ultramarine

I"m not sure why the reference to Chomsky's analysis within the conceptual framework of State Terrorism was removed. It was not only well referenced but a pivitol point. Moreover, Chomsky is a pioneer on state terorology. I will restore this.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Utrramarine just blanked that sourced section again, that two editors worked on, which adds relevant information about this article's topic. His rationale is that there are other article for it. Fine. But that is no excuse to delete it here, where it does fit. If it also fits elsewhere, then lets put that information there, too. I hope someone reverts his recent blanking. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Why should two out of the three paragraphs in the lead section be about the USA? Why make specific allegations about and by one state in the lead. If I had seen that I would have been tempted to stick {{worldview}} on the article. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that there are main articles on alleged ST by USA and Iran etc., I would think it best to confine material in this article to no more than a paragraph per state, but with at least some mention of each alleged perpetrator which has an article. Ideally, there would be a reference to an author who distinguishes between the trend of the Western establishment to accuse opponents (Iran etc. of ST) and for dissident Western authors to accuse the US, and for Moslem states to accuse Israel. The reference to Stalin and Hitler in the lead could probably do with some expansion in the body of the text. There is a delicate task of balancing the emphasis given in the lead, (which should be very brief mentions of each instance,) the body of this article, and the separate detailed articles.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine then the quote and point should be moved down into the body, then. Note that its not about a country, the US, per se. Its about the conceptual framework of state terrorism, specifically the literature that advances it, and names Chomaky and others as pioneers in the field. That is why it is a perfect fit for this article. Giovanni33 (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I restored it to the body of the article since no one has raised an objection to that.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No need to have this in the intro or give undue weight. There are other articles for that.Ultramarine (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, which is why I moved it down into the body--not the intro. But you still blanked this quite relevant sourced material without explanation.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight as stated. Other articles for criticizing specific nations. No room to discuss all nations having done state terrorism, with the worst being the Soviet Union, China, and Nazi Germany. Actually, we should remove the remaining criticism since this is still undue weight against the US. Objection with explanation, please.Ultramarine (talk) 07:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

But your ignoring the point I already raised that my addition was not specific to any country. I said: "Note that its not about a country, the US, per se. Its about the conceptual framework of state terrorism, specifically the literature that advances it, and names Chomsky and others as pioneers in the field. That is why it is a perfect fit for this article." Because this article is on a particular topic, we should mention the pioneers of the conceptual framework the lead the way to the mass of academic literature we now have on the subject. Again, this is not about any specific country, and its irrelevant that Chomsky, et al. focus much of their writing on US State Terrorism--the material I included is not about that at all.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your text included "the global rise in state terror was concentrated among Third World states in the U.S. "sphere of influence," and provided extensive information on the terror occurring in the U.S. client states in Latin America." Again, other articles for such criticisms. Undue weight to mention the US so prominently many times when worse nations are not at all.Ultramarine (talk) 08:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually that is not undue weight since it characterizes the basis of Chomsky's work that the source says pioneered the field (what this article is about). The US is not mentioned so prominently so many times. That is false. It mentions it with proper weight for the introduction of Chomsky to the topic of State Terror. Specifically introducing his series of books that influenced mainstream human rights organizations and other writers. To not mention that they were about the US because it would be "undue" weight, is absurd. Here is the full text, so that readers can see the proper and completely valid context of it:

"Chomsky has been described as a pioneer in the literature of state terrorism. The introduction to Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror edited by Jeffrey A. Sluka states:

At the end of the 1970's, at the same time that Amnesty International and other human rights organizations were first beginning to present alarming reports of a new "global epidemic" of state torture and murder, the first academic studies also began to emerge about this, led by the pioneering work of Chomsky and Herman. In a series of important books, they reported that the global rise in state terror was concentrated among Third World states in the U.S. "sphere of influence," and provided extensive information on the terror occurring in the U.S. client states in Latin America."

Giovanni33 (talk) 08:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edit included more than this. Chomsky and the US already mentioned in the article. Even if mentioning Chomsky, as the article already do, no need to mentioning the US so many times since it gives undue weight when nations having done much worse are not mentioned at all.Ultramarine (talk) 08:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, my edit was the info above. The other parts were already in the article and were not my additions. It is your opinion that other nations are much worse. This is not relevant. This article is not, so far, doing some kind of compare/contrast about nations. The US is mentioned because that was the focus of Chomsky's work that played a significant role in the development and study of State Terror. Again, that is the point and that is the relevant reason for the validity of its inclusion. If we disagree, then no point to keep arguing. Lets get another editors in here, maybe a third editor as a tie breaker. I'll abide by consensus.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Not simply my opinion, see for example Rummel's work. The Great Terror alone killed more than all the allegations against the US added together.Ultramarine (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This disputed view is besides the point (the real point you are ignoring). But I await for other editors input. If others agree, it should be restored. If I am alone on this issue, then I will not restore.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The quote from Jeffrey A. Sluka's excellent academic volume on state terrorism is essentially a quote about the historiography of the literature on state terrorism. It even makes sense to develop an independent section on the evolution of the concept in the literature on terrorology. This is a "start class" article. It is in its early stages of development, as such Ultramarine's objections about undue weight do not hold water. If he thinks that pertinent balancing views about the evolution of the bibliography are lacking, he should simply work on including topical material from reliable sources.BernardL (talk) 03:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No need to mention the US so many times. Take it to the US allegations article.Ultramarine (talk) 06:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you BernardL for your considered view on this dispute. I agree with you. Ultramarine, there is no need to remove a referenced discussion of State terrorism just because it happens to mention the US. WP is not censored. This is about the topic of State Terrorism in general, not the US. Stop removing it for poor reasons, esp. now that you are alone with your objections to this material and another editor has agreed the material is quite aprops.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Material can be expanded without mentioning the US numerous times.Ultramarine (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with mentioning the US in proper context, i.e. Chomsky's pioneering work on State Terror. Its not undue, but proper weight, to give him credit, and mention the books that impacted the historiography of the literature on this topic. You can be reported and blocked for edit warring even if you do not violate 3RR, in case you dont know. While I said I would respect consensus on this dispute, you don't seem willing to.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, undue weight against the US. Historiography and even Chomsky can be mentioned without having to mention the US numerous times. There is already an article about the US and state terrorism. As you well know since you are one of the editors there.Ultramarine (talk) 07:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

My recent edits

I've cut a certain amount of material today because I thought there was too much discussion of terrorism in general rather than stste terrorism. Also a paragraph-long definition was repeated. It is also rather odd just hjaving the one substantive section called scope and definition.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I moved this and more material to the Definition of terrorism article.Ultramarine (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting out a bit more. There now needs to a split to create a second section covering inatances and alleged instances of ST.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

revert

I looked over the changes and like the other editor, the version by Dr.Gabriela is better. She added lots of very good information, and I noticed your changes added some weasel words. You also restored Hitler and Stalin, when it was removed asking why these two are singled out as examples of state terrorism? I agree, it adds a bias that a State must be authoritarian in order for it to engage in state terrorism, when the literature on the topic actually says the opposite. Also, the intro was moved down and replaced by this emphasis on the legal issue, saying "it it not an international legal concept." I don't think that is so important and should be in the body where its covered, and is not an introduction.Giovanni33 (talk) 02:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You deleted sourced information like the UN rejection of the concept. If we mention the US we can mention Hitler and Stalin. The intro should not pick a winner regarding definition so Britannica should not be there. Mentioned later.Ultramarine (talk) 11:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Your may be right regarding "the not a legal concept", so removed from the intro.Ultramarine (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit war like you are doing, but I will point out that improvements in this article are being halted by your reversion--which you always do first---instead of taking it to talk for a resolution. Its not the way to go. Among other problems you keep introducing when you revert back, is redundancy, and thus undue weight, by repeating something many times. For example, even though you removed the legal definition from the top, we still find this in the article many time:

• "is a controversial term, used when arguing that terrorism can be carried out by governments."
• "Like the definition of terrorism and the definition of state-sponsored terrorism, the definition of state terrorism remains controversial."
• "There is no international consensus on what terrorism, state-sponsored terrorism, or state terrorism is."
• "The UN Member States still have no agreed-upon definition on terrorism by non-state actors." And:
• "It is controversial whether the concept of terrorism can be applied to to states."

I can probably find more examples of this, but five times saying the same thing in a small article? How many times do you need to say the same thing?! The redundancy makes it not fun to read. The organization is bad, too (even thought it was improved by other editors you revert them). I suggest talking more before you simply revert. And, please review WP:OWN.

Your insertion about Stalin and Hitler has not context, its not used to explain or illustrate a point like the material the references the US. So its seems POINTY content, and POV simply to mention them without any content issue that they are used to address. This article is not a list. Would it make sense if I started adding to that by adding Sri Lanka, Israel, et al? You get the point. So, the other editor was correct to remove this. It doesnt fit into the article. I can probably find a way to put it in within context of a discussion of state terrorism, though.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit war like you are doing With all due respect, Giovanni, you know that you can't edit-war (unless you count 1 revert a week edit-warring). John Smith's (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I can, and your wikistalking me here only to bicker with me on an off topic issue to this article talk page is disruptive. I suggest you review your behaviors, with all due respect.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you cannot if you don't want to get blocked again. If you are going to hold yourself out as avoiding conflict when you know you face severe consqeuences for such actions anyway I am hardly wikistalking - I'm setting the record straight. Oh, and that's the only interest I have in this discussion. I hope you reach a consensus with Ultramarine. John Smith's (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You have a point about the comment regarding Stalin and Hitler not discussing a definition so I removed that. Thanks for pointing out some duplication. I trimmed it. Regarding the controversy, it is quite significant. See this UN document: [19]. Most of the statements regarding controversy are from this source. I reorganized into sections to improve readability.Ultramarine (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

In your edit you say you are restoring, but in fact you are deleting sourced information that was added by another editor. Your edit summary is misleading. The article now is harder to read,follow,and one is left with a worse understanding of State Terrorism, after you edits. The changes/deletions seen here, for example:[20] are continued until we have the current state of the article.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with user Giovanni33 on these points. However, I wish to be sensitive to Ultramarine who wants to hightlight the legal and political controversial nature of the concept of terrorism as applied to state actors. That is a legitimate point. Naturally, States, most of whom could be construed to be guilty under the broader construct of State-Terrorism--and indeed are so by these analysis--would be hard pressed to embrace the concept unanamiously. Ultramarine, do you have objections to the material you removed? I will try to improve the article again, and hope to understand your other objections you may have. Much thanks.DrGabriela (talk) 07:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have effected my several changes to improve its focus and readability; the article now is more centered on the actual subject: state terrorism.

I removed this statement to more appropriate for the article on the Defintion of Terrorism than on this article about State terrorism:

"Terminology consensus would be necessary for a single comprehensive convention on terrorism, which some countries favour in place of the present International conventions on terrorism...The lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been an obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures.." It should be moved to the definitions of terrorism article.

I also removed some repetitions, as noted above. Among them, I found this curiously inaccurate sentence and removed it: "The concept is of state terrorism controversial and is usually applied to non-state groups." Actually the concept of state terrorism is usually applied to state groups. (big smile).DrGabriela (talk) 07:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks very good! Thank you. Finally the article is reading like an actual readable article on of all things, its actual subject matter! How apropos! Ultra, please lets discuss issues and proposed changes here on the talk page before going back and forth to the usual patterns. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You made numerous unexplained changes like deleting the UN statements regarding state terrorism. As well as picking a winner in the intro when there is no consensus regarding a correct defintion. As well as inserting quotes not mentioning state terrorism but only speaking about terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 09:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I find her changes to be explained. She cut out the UN statement and placed it above saying it belongs in the article on definitions. The section already states there is no one agreed legal definition, and that point is made clear, and referenced. Quoting the above from the UN is distracting and bloating. About picking a winner, I don't see that: the definition offered is the very basic definition that no one disputes. Do you have a source that disputes that definition? You seem to imply that because states don't agree upon a legal definition there is no agreement at all about a basic definition. That is a logical fallacy, and not true.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of the UN material spoke direcly about state terrorism. There are many other definitions mentioned besides Britannica which is one of the more unimportant compared to UN or academics.Ultramarine (talk) 09:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

"Former US Secretary of State George Shultz elaborates on this conceptual framework shift: "What once may have seemed random, senseless, violent acts of a few crazed individuals has come into focus...We have learned that terrorism is, above all, a form of political violence. It is neither random nor without purpose...The overarching goal of all terrorists is the same: they are trying to impose their will by force." ("Terrorism and the Modern World," address in Current Policy 626, Oct. 25, 1984)." No mention of state terrorism. Only terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 09:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You miss the point. The section is talking about a shift in applying the definition and scope of Terrorism to States. That quote elaborates on that shift, into State Terrorism. What is the problem?Giovanni33 (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The quote says nothing about that. No mention of state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 09:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have looked at Shultz original speech. No mention of state terrorism. No elaborating on claimed shift.Ultramarine (talk) 09:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

"In contrast a broader interpretion of the nature of terrorism has been increasingly discussed within the literature. It establishes a meaning to account for the concept of state and state-sponsored terrorism.The term structural terrorism is sometimes used to describe state terrorism pointing out the existence of 'a form of political violence" in the structure of contemporary international politics. That is policies or actions by governments that encourage the use of fear and violence in pursuit of political ends. As such state terrorism is conceived to have become an integral element of many state's foreing policies." Unsourced and should be removed.Ultramarine (talk) 09:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I beg your pardon. The source for that is Prof. Micahel Stohl and George A. Lopez book "Terrible beyond Endurance? The Foreign Policy of State Terrorism." 1988. They are leading academics who write on the subject.DrGabriela (talk) 09:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That is not the source given. The only possible source is a quote by another person not speaking about "structural terrorism" etc.Ultramarine (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow you here Ultramarine. The statement you quote above can be sourced to the book I have given you as the answer of where it comes from. I guess you mean to say that it is not clear in the article? I will be happy to remedy that.DrGabriela (talk) 09:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Then you have to give a ref to the book after the statement including the page number of the book cited. Many other problems as mentioned above, as a completely irrelevant quote by Schultz not discussing "state terrorism" at all.Ultramarine (talk) 09:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Its on page 14. I have added a few more sources to the article. I'm sorry I don't know how to add references properly. But I will learn. About the Shulz quote, I'm afraid you don't understand. As the other editor has mentioned it is an elaboration on the wider scope of State Terrorism over the traditional definition. It is such broader scope that enables the concept to embarace State actors. I believe the article makes this rather clear.DrGabriela (talk) 09:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict). Ulra, how can you say its irrelevant? Its at the center of the issue: the narrow definition of terrorism found in the traditional view of it (as the cited information shows), and the expanded conceptual shift to encompass governments, not "crazed individuals, deviant behavior.' So the Shulz quote is completely relevant, in context, and well placed. This discussion, introduced by this new material, is actually, centrally discussed within the literature. Stolhl and Lopez who discuss this are excellent sources.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have looked at the speech and no mention of state terrorism. Nor any "the expanded conceptual shift to encompass governments" Source does not support claims given in article.Ultramarine (talk) 09:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you say the source does not support the claims given in the article? I have the source now and Im looking at it. You are mistaken.DrGabriela (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read the speech itself. See below. Please continue the discussion there.Ultramarine (talk) 10:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Problems

With DrGabriela latest version:

1. "Former US Secretary of State George Shultz elaborates on this conceptual framework shift: "What once may have seemed random, senseless, violent acts of a few crazed individuals has come into focus...We have learned that terrorism is, above all, a form of political violence. It is neither random nor without purpose...The overarching goal of all terrorists is the same: they are trying to impose their will by force." ("Terrorism and the Modern World," address in Current Policy 626, Oct. 25, 1984)." Looked at original speech. No mention of state terrorism. Only terrorism.[21]

That point is not relevant. The quote that Shultz elaborates on is the shift in the concept of terrorism from the traditional view of the deviant criminal, to the more expanded view of political violence. Shultz doesnt need to mention state terrorism for it to support the point its making. Also, if you look at the sources Dr.Gabriela added, its clear the the Shultz quote is being used this way by the source she is citing, to make the point. This makes it fine for inclusion.Giovanni33 (talk) 10:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Shultz does not mention state terrorism or any shift to terrorism by governments. This quote my have been used by another source but then it is a misquote. You can read the original speech in my link above.Ultramarine (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ultra, you are doing OR. Its not up to you to dispute the meaning of that speech. You may not agree that Shultz is talking about a shift, but the speech to me does do that. However, the only thing that matters is that the qualified source makes this claim and cites Shultz as an example of someone who is elaborating on this before and after conception shift.Giovanni33 (talk) 10:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Then we should correct the quote to what Schultz actually said. Not the very misleading selective quotations now used.Ultramarine (talk) 10:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that the quote is fabricated, or are you arguing that its misleading based on your own reading? If the former, the point needs to be looked at, but the latter would be OR (unless you have a source that disputes the claims of this source?)Giovanni33 (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Only saying we should give a more complete quote.Ultramarine (talk) 10:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Like "We have learned a great deal about terrorism in recent years. We have learned much about the terrorists themselves, their supporters, their diverse methods, their underlying motives, and their eventual goals. What once may have seemed the random, senseless, violent acts of a few crazed individuals has come into clearer focus. A pattern of terrorist violence has emerged. It is an alarming pattern, but it is something that we can identify and, therefore, a threat that we can devise concrete measures to combat. The knowledge we have accumulated about terrorism over the years can provide the basis for a coherent strategy to deal with the phenomenon, if we have the will to turn our understanding into action.

We have learned that terrorism is, above all, a form of political violence. It is neither random nor without purpose. Today, we are confronted with a wide assortment of terrorist groups which, alone or in concert, orchestrate acts of violence to achieve distinctly political ends. Their stated objectives may range from separatist causes to revenge for ethnic grievances to social and political revolution. Their methods may be just as diverse: from planting homemade explosives in public places to suicide car bombings to kidnapings and political assassinations. But the overarching goal of all terrorists is the same: they are trying to impose their will by force--a special kind of force designed to create an atmosphere of fear."Ultramarine (talk) 10:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm glad to know that the quote was accurate, then. I don't see it as being misleading, though. The larger speech obviously has other points and thoughts, but I have two problems with expanding it: We are using the speech to make Shultz points that we want or feel should be made to address a point we want to make. This has the danger of OR, since the quote as it exists, is not by an editor, but by a third party source that uses it to make a larger point, of which Shultz only touches on in this speech. The other danger is that it gets off topic and distracts from the distilled point that is needed, and should be kept very concise and clear: that there was a shift in thinking regarding terrorism. So I support not altering the quote as it was cited in that way.Giovanni33 (talk) 11:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Just being more comprehensive regarding the quote. The reader may interpret it themselves.Ultramarine (talk) 11:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I would not oppose adding a link to the larger speech, if readers want to the whole thing. But modifying the quote ourselves other than the way its was selected by the source would be problematic for reasons mentioned above.Giovanni33 (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is best to not quote that speech at all. Instead simply state "The authors cite former US Secretary of State George Shultz who allegedly elaborates on this conceptual framework shift in this speech"Ultramarine (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem with presenting the case as the source presents it. Maybe we should get a third (fourth?) opinion from someone uninvolved but knowledgeable about the subject? I find the ideas better conveyed with the way it is.Giovanni33 (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

2. "The term "Establishment" and "Structural terrorism" is sometimes used to describe state terrorism, which posits the existence of 'a form of political violence" in the structure of contemporary international politics. This includes policies or actions by governments that encourage the use of fear and violence in pursuit of political ends. Here state terrorism is conceived to have become an integral element of many state's foreign policies." Unsourced.

Untrue. Take a look. It is sourced!Giovanni33 (talk) 10:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The only possible source if a quote by Conor Cruise O'Brien who does not mention for example "strucutural terrorism".Ultramarine (talk) 10:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify this point? I don't understand it.Giovanni33 (talk) 10:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The only source given is "The academic Conor Cruise O'Brien has argued, for example: "Those who are described as terrorists...make the uncomfortable point that national armed forces, fully supported by democratic opinion, have in fact employed violence and terror on a far vaster scale...."("Liberty and Terrorism," International Security 2 (Fall 1988), pp. 56-57.)" That quote does not talk about "structural terrorism" or "a form of political violence", for example.Ultramarine (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. O'Brians was cited by M. Stohl's book, that makes the argument along those lines. I have made that clear in the text now. Thank you.DrGabriela (talk) 11:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

3.Wikipedia should not decide which definition is correct. So Britannica's definition should not be picked and listed as the winner in the intro. Also less relevant than UN or academic definitions.

4. It is controversial whether the concept of terrorism can be applied to to states. It is usually applied to non-state groups.[22] The Chairman of the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Committee has stated that the Committee was conscious of the 12 international Conventions on the subject, and none of them referred to State terrorism, which was not an international legal concept. If States abused their power, they should be judged against international conventions dealing with war crimes, international human rights and international humanitarian law.[23] Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said that it is "time to set aside debates on so-called 'state terrorism'. The use of force by states is already thoroughly regulated under international law"[24]" Sourced information deleted.

That point is already made. Its undue weight here to expand that. It belongs in the Definitions of Terrorism article that it links to.Giovanni33 (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Talks about state terrorism. Obviously the view of the UN should be mentioned. Not excluded totally.Ultramarine (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

5. There is no "Universal Definition of Terrorism" so incorrect to have such a title heading. Also those listed are just two of several others mentioned in the article.

As the section discusses it does mention the work of a universal definition. So obviously you are wrong. You seem to be confusing the legal consensus among states for adopting one agreed upon definition with its existence. Two different things.Giovanni33 (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Does not dicuss any work towards a universal definition at all. Only lists some definitions.Ultramarine (talk) 10:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect to being able to be applied irrespective of perpetrators, its universal. The sections point is that the definitions divisions are artificial and applies a universal one: "Analysts have attempted to formulate definitions which are seen as neutral with respect to the perpetrators of the act, thus permitting, a logically consistent application of the definition to both non-state and state actors alike..." What title would you prefer instead that makes this point?Giovanni33 (talk) 10:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

"Analysts have attempted to formulate definitions which are seen as neutral with respect to the perpetrators of the act, thus permitting, a logically consistent application of the definition to both non-state and state actors alike..." is unsourced. The three given definitions are very different. No mention of "The sections point is that the definitions divisions are artificial and applies a universal one".Ultramarine (talk) 10:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What title would you suggest instead of "Universal..."? How about 'Towards a Universal..."?Giovanni33 (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Not in source either.Ultramarine (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

6. "Many scholars argue that the institutionalized form of terrorism carried out by states have occurred as a result of changes that took place following World War Two." Only one scholar is listed.

Yes, but the one scholar listed may be making the claim, which is then valid. However, I agree with you we should have more than one source for that. Let me look for one and add it.Giovanni33 (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

7. "Chomsky has in turn been criticized for allegedly ignoring or justifying terrorism by states such as Communist China, Vietnam, and Cambodia.[25] Herman responded to such accusations in Z Magazine." Sourced information deleted.

Good, this is not about Chomsky. That is an attack piece on Chomsky and it has been removed as such in other articles where you have inserted it.Giovanni33 (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV requires the inclusion of views from all sides.Ultramarine (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but on the subject matter: State terrorism--not Chomsky. If you have a source that disputes Chomsky view or particular claim, then I'd be ok with it. But, not a logical fallacy attacking Chomsky, please.Giovanni33 (talk) 10:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Article does not mention any specific allegations against the US. So no need for this material.

Looking again I see that he is "described as a pioneer in the literature of state terrorism," POV requires some opposing views. "Linguist and US policy critic Noam Chomsky, described by some as a pioneer in the literature of state terrorism, criticized regarding his research by others" would be NPOV.Ultramarine (talk) 10:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.Ultramarine (talk) 10:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 8. "The manual Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflict states: "Low intensity conflict is a political-military confrontation between contending states or groups below conventional war and above the routine, peaceful competition among states. It frequently involves protracted struggles of competing principles and ideologies. Low intensity conflict ranges from subversion to the use of armed force. It is waged by a combination of means, employing political, economic, informational, and military instruments. Low intensity conflicts are often localized, generally in the Third World, but contain regional and global security implications.""successful LIC operations, consistent with US interests and laws, can advance US international goals such as the growth of freedom, democratic institutions, and free market economies.""US policy recognizes that indirect, rather than direct, applications of US military power are the most appropriate and cost-effective ways to achieve national goals in a LIC environment. The principal US military instrument in LIC is security assistance in the form of training, equipment, services and combat support. When LIC threatens friends and allies, the aim of security assistance is to ensure that their military institutions can provide security for their citizens and government.""The United States will also employ combat operations in exceptional circumstances when it cannot protect its national interests by other means. When a US response is called for, it must be in accordance with the principles of international and domestic law. These principles affirm the inherent right of states to use force in individual or collective self-defense against armed attack."[26]" Sourced information clarifying Chomsky's definition deletion.Ultramarine (talk) 10:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I did not even know that was in there, before. No wonder it was hard to follow what the article was about. This information belongs in the article about Low Intensity Conflict. Its a rather verbose description of LLC from globalsecurity. It does not say anything about Chomsky's claims that its akin to state terrorism. If it does, and I missed it, then we can use it but it has to be distilled to that point. Otherwise with all this information on LLC the point gets lost (if it was ever in there).Giovanni33 (talk) 10:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It is quoted from the US manual on the subject. Since this is the definition Chomsky uses it should be described.Ultramarine (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that is why we have wiki-links to the main article that discusses it. It not talking about Chomky's view either, its talking about what LLC is, from their perspective. Doesn't mention Chomsky or State terrorism. Its OR to use it in any other way. But you can put it in the article for LLC, and you can have a wikilink to LLC to that main article. Here it only bloats it with an off topic tangent.Giovanni33 (talk) 10:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Will add a link.Ultramarine (talk) 10:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have made a couple changes. I removed the excessive repetitions about controversy noted by Giovanni33. But I have kept the section for controversy to highlight that point in deference to Ultramarine. Per the discussion above, the actual quote cited of Shultz is favored so I have restored it. I agree it does convey an understanding of the ideas in a much better way with the quote. The introduction should state the basic definition. The Britanica quote and refernece does this.DrGabriela (talk) 06:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You deleted sourced material without explanation like some of the UN viewpoint. As well as restored the Britannica definition as winner in the intro without discussing the objections regarding this above. Wikipedia should not give misleading information. There is no agreement regarding definition so a winner should not be stated. Please discuss your changes above.Ultramarine (talk) 08:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I looked over the differences, and your claims are not correct, Ultramarine. Dr.Gabriela did NOT delete your UN reference, even though I think it over plays the point. In fact she relented on that and relented on a whole section just for controversy. But you insist on a redundancy by stating the same point many times. So while she is making compromises and leaving in much of your edits, you insist in reverting her back to your original version. Per the discussion above, consensus was to keep the Shultz quote for the reasons I explained, instead of your "alleged" butnot explaining or showing what the source quotes.

Lastly, you are wrong about a definition. Its a simple concept and easily understood with a very basic definition as provided by Britannica. Its only the details and legal issues of applying it that are controversial. State terrorism, simply put, is terrorism of the state. How to define terrorism is a matter of controversy and discussed int he article. I see no problem with the intro providing the basic definition that no one disputes as not applicable. You say its picking a winner, but that is not true since the article talks about the controversy and the elements of the changing definitions. Also, if you say the basic definition is being contested, then please cite a source that says this Britannica definition is wrong, being opposed? On whole the version you reverted is far better.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I must concure with these thoughts but it would appear that we have reached an impasse with Ultramarine at this stage. Is there a way to have this looked at by other editors? I think we can have better chance for obtaining progress by involving more editors to address the disagreements. Ultramarine, I think you should hold off on reverting until we get more impute, yes?DrGabriela (talk) 06:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is. You can have this article listed on a Request for Comment and then see what other editors think about it. I agree Ultramarine should not edit war about this since currently consensus is against him.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I said part of the UN material was deleted. "has stated that the Committee was conscious of the 12 international Conventions on the subject, and none of them referred to State terrorism, which was not an international legal concept." Excluded and obviously very important. Still no agreement on what the correct definition is so wrong to have one in the intro. Lots of other sources disagree with the Britannica one.Ultramarine (talk) 09:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Many of the other problems mentioned above has not been solved either.Ultramarine (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

More than one editor is acting as if they WP:OWN this article and are rolling back changes to the previous edits by them ignoring the fact that other editors have made changes in the mean time that have nothing to do with the issue that they are arguing about. I am reverting such edits. If the editors can't be bothered to sort out which changes are which, I don't see why the rest of us have to redo work caused by their laziness.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have explained what the problems are. Please state what your explanation is to the problems I have pointed out. Please give a diff showing that "other editors have made changes in the mean time that have nothing to do with the issue that they are arguing about".Ultramarine (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday, I made this change [27], It being important to distinguish between a statment made by an ex-Secretary General and one who actually had the post at the time he made the statement. Giovanni also made this change [28] correcting poor grammar ("a institunionalised"). Gabriella then reverted both as part of this change [29]. I then reinstated my change [30]. Giovanni made an additional change [31] and then you go and make this rollback [32] to your preferred historic version of the article. If you and Gabriella cannot be bothered to examine each of the intervening edits between your last efforts and your next attempt to edit the article then your are both acting in a selfish manner in which you dismiss efforts of third parties without actually noticing that some of these changes are uncontroversial. And if that is how you act, then the article is better without you.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni33 did not correct a poor grammar or "a institunionalised". Your own diff states that he changed "a institutionalized form of terrorism carried out by states " to "the institutionalized form of terrorism carried out by states". Thus implying that an allegation is in fact an undisputed fact. Giovanni33's later addition was in fact in my last edit that you reverted. "at the time" regarding Kofi will be inserted. Anything else? If not, and if you have no response to the problems with the version you reverted to, like it deleting part of the UN view and incorrectly picking a winner in the intro, then I will restore the more correct verions.Ultramarine (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do Kofi Annan's views matter?

He's sure no expert on terrorism, and has displayed himself to be both stupid and biased in the past. Jtrainor (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but he is still notable.Ultramarine (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps in his own right, but the question is, are his views on terrorism noteable? Jtrainor (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

When his is speakign as the senior official of the UN, then they are.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Brittanica

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

Logical. Good work.Giovanni33 (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Zimbabwe

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

Is anyone planning to fill in the by country stuff??

\All those empty by country subsectiosn look a bit messy.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Herald.jpg

The image File:Herald.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

Obviously, as all of you who have been reading, or editting this article understand its very notion is imbued with controversy. The term however is used commonly. It has had scholarly, though controversial books written about it for over a decade. The article should show how the term has been used in media. Rather than removing everything controversial (the article exists and would therefore need content) disputed POV would be attended with opposing POV.

The recent edit I have made to Israel is appearing to some as anti-semetic. Bill Moyer is a reputable voice. His recent statements are not unfounded and lend some credibility to voices that for years have been written off as merely anti-semetic. I would prefer that editors made changes, or additions to my edits rather than simply deleting them. Another possible solution is to get rid of the ==By country== thing altogether, which I do not endorse.

Lastly, my recent edits are the new material to the Israel section only. All of my edits were intended to be reinclusions of this material only. I currently have no specific interest in the India/Pakistan dispute. - Steve3849 ^talk 07:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not include your edits to the main article on allegations fo Israeli "terrorism" by anti-semites instead of this one? An attempt to exploit google page ranks, perhaps?72.179.45.108 (talk) 07:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

My primary edit was to an empty Israel section. - Steve3849 ^talk 08:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What relevance has anti-Semitism here? This is an article about state terrorism. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Emphasis on Pakistan

I propose deleting most the of Pakistan section; its size is unlike any of the other brief country sections.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The same goes for India; if needs be the content can be moved to State terrorism in Pakistan and State terrorism in India.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 09:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. It's absurd to think that this page represents a balanced assessment of the idea when Pakistan's entry is so long, while Israel's has been reduced to essentially a set of statements by its enemies. The recent massacre of innocents undertaken by Israelis in Gaza should obviously be included here. Why isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.165.216.198 (talk) 04:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

merge controversy and definition section

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

incoherence and organization problems partly repaired

I've just attempted to improve the coherence of this article. It remains a mess, primarily because of the long 'definitions' section, which seems to be about many things, not all of them reading comprehensible. Perhaps a short history section would be good just after the lead, introductory section? By the way, the beginning of a 'state terrorism' article should not read like a polemic against the existence of state terrorism. That argument should, however, have its own section, which is what I've done.Haberstr (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You've also attempted to push a POV, please read WP:NPOV. The flow and style of what you added was also quite poor, please familiarise yourself with the manual of style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.39 (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

So now you and your POV are chasing me from article to article, and still not signing your name? The article had a vast number of blockquotes, which violates WP:STYLE. Removed POV rejecting RS that was prominent in second lead paragraph. Please read WP:NPOV.Haberstr (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No i check known vandals and POV pushers edit history, you've added POV, Please read WP:NPOV

Again the very serious but evidence-free charge of vandalism. Since you don't present any specific, concrete evidence of POV, and refuse to read WP:NPOV or, apparently, WP:Civility, I guess we have nothing to discuss.Haberstr (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

recent edits

Have added large ammounts of poorly written and sourced POV material in the definition and particularly is state terrorism terrorism? section which at present presents a POV that it is. The democide section should either be expanded and poorly sourced, or rolled into a more general section on the topic, the factual accuracy of some sources may be dubious as the editor making these changes has a history of such pov pushing activity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.42.108 (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Your characterization of the "Is state terorism terrorism" section is false, almost the opposite of what readers will read when they read that section. However, if you have any specific concerns with POV in the section, why don't you state those? Then the section can be repaired if it is broken.Haberstr (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well its your writing Haberstr you push a left wing POV you need to write in a more neutral tone, bit hypocritical of you to be removing tags though isn' it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.141 (talk) 07:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please articulate more what you consider to be left-wing is in the article as a whole? The left-leaning references section is somewhat disconnected from what is now used in the text and listed in the notes. Conversely the one illustration is a right-wing cartoon referencing left-wing state terrorism and the selective by country material has been lost.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

In trying to understand the histgory of what is going on between the two of you I have noticed this [[33]]. I also notice that the accusation of left-wing bias here appeared shortly after an accusation made by Haberstr in elsewhere of right wing bias. NTL/Virgin-user could you please therefore detail your complaint of left-wing bias here. Without a clear explanation it becomes easy not to assume good faith and suspect that a WP:Point is being made. --Peter cohen (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

requires alot more sources, for such a controversial subject, has the encyclopedia voice has gained an overtly leftwing tone, its badly written, and some of it misrepresents sources and facts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.181.188 (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Oh and i'm not with Virgin or NTL, i'm with BT we dont have cable in my street. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.181.188 (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

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

No definitely BT its who i pay my bill to, also i checked because i hadn't hear NTL in a while it stopped operating in 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.182.21 (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

List of State Terrorism

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

Indian State Terrorism: Assam, Kashmir, Gujrat, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.120.49 (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources regarding Israel

I've checked some of the recently entered sources regarding Israel.

This source[34] does not directly state that Israel engages in State terrorism. Plus, it's a very marginal rather than reliable source.

This source[35] consists of an op-ed piece in Pravda. Not a reliable source of information, nor is this columnist significant.

This Amnesty report on Israel does not even use the word 'terror' so it does not support that proposed text.[36] Same problem with this article about the UN.[37]

This source was inaccessible.[38]

This BBC coverage, of Amnesty's views, also does not use the word terror or terrorist state. Amnesty concerns with 'war crimes' is not the same as state terror. [39] [40]

For these reasons, the following statement is not supported by any reliable sources: "Political commentators and several government officials[4][5] have also deemed the state of Israel, a terrorist state [6][7] due their acts of violence against the Palestinian people[8][9], and more recently in the 2006 Lebanon War[10][11]."

I will remove the footnotes, which are used in an inaccurate manner, and tag the sentence. Then next step would be to delete the statement because it lacks adequate referencing. Please do not revert but, instead, discuss the issue here. Thanks. HG | Talk 05:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

During my scan through Google's first 100 references each to "human rights watch"+Israel+"state terrorism" and the equivalent for amnesty, I did notice that Arab and Islamic leaders, including Western-inclined ones such as Mubarak, did make the accusation. I think I saw an HRA report on Iran quoting an Iranian government response to the USA's accusation against Iran in return accusing Israel. It is also hardly surprising if Western radicals such as Finkelstein, Pilger or Chomsky would make similar accusations. I think I did spot at least one doing so. However, I think the latter would be best described as "some" commentators as the bulk of Middle East commentators in the "free" world, don't seem to make such accusations.

Another point raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration is that the lead should be a summary and material should be discussed mainly in the article body. This also applies to the accusations against Iran.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Israel is viewed by many groups as a state sponsor of terror due to countless civilian deaths including most recently the flotilla incident. Other left groups (Chomsky, Finkelstein, otehrs) in the West and mainstream opinion in most of the third world seem to fall in line with this. I don't completely agree with this viewpoint myself but its neccessary to show all points of view. I think we should maybe add a section giving their point of view credence that it sponsors terror and then give in a criticism section of all the responses that show to the contrary. Not including it is not showing all angles and complexities of ideas such as these. The US also seems added to the list - which I'm sure many many people object to as well.

Achamy (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

"Definition"

Coming here from the reliable sources noticeboard. I would have to disagree almost entirely with this series of edits. That there is no universally accepted definition for "terrorism" is not in dispute, see our own article for Definitions of terrorism. However simply because there is no accepted definition for terrorism itself, it does not logically follow there is accepted definition for "state terrorism". The current version is like saying there is no accepted definition for Islamic terrorism, state terrorism is quite clearly terrorism conducted by a state against a foreign state or people, or its own people. Where the disputed definition part comes in is whether a particular act by a state fits the definition of terrorism or not. O Fenian (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, that was my edit, (actually a restoration of previous material) "However simply because there is no accepted definition for terrorism itself, it does not logically follow there is accepted definition for "state terrorism""I wholeheartedly agree, however the assertion was that there was no consensus as to what the definition of "state terrorism" is. The the U.N. conventions against terrorism addressed that and indeed, the term "state terrorism" is one of the reasons why there wasn't a consensus as to how to define "terrorism", "State sponsored terrorism" or "state terrorism". At any rate, I added a couple more references which specifically use the term "state terrorism" in relation to why there wasn't a consensus.

"state terrorism is quite clearly terrorism conducted by a state against a foreign state or people, or its own people. That's in dispute though, for instance the USA defines "terrorism" as only something that non-state ("subnational") groups can do. The legal definition of terrorism specifically excludes the concept of "state terrorism". It maintains that "terrorism" committed by the state constitutes an act of war or a war crime, etc. V7-sport (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Changed the statement. Note, "UNITED NATIONS, Dec 1 - As predicted, the world body has once again failed to agree on the 14th -- and perhaps the final -- international convention against terrorism, primarily because delegates remain deadlocked over definitions relating to "terrorists," "freedom fighters" and "state terrorism". ..... etc. V7-sport (talk) 10:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't say that there is no international consensus. It says that there was a deadlock at the UN meeting in question. What does that say about scholars, government officials, etc. who weren't at that meeting (i.e. most of the world)? Answer: nothing. It doesn't even say that a large majority of countries at the meeting didn't support the inclusion of state terrorism in the definition (perhaps they did, but such a definition was just blocked by the US). The sources you've cited would however back the following statement: "Attempts to legally define terrorism and state terrorism have deadlocked at several UN meetings." Then the issue of misrepresentation of sources could be set aside, and the only issue left to deal with would be one of weighting (which could be dealt with later, once we've gathered more material). Also, could you please point out how you think the other sources support the statement, so we can deal with those too? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That was a UN convention, one of a series, not just a "meeting". "Scholars and academics" who are pushing this neologism don't have the weight of legitimacy in international relations that governments do.V7-sport (talk) 10:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Considering that the term has been used since the 1970s, it's hardly reasonable to call it a "neologism". (And on a side note, the Reagan administration regularly used the term while he was in office). And, contrary to your personal opinion, scholarly work is generally considered the most reliable type of source on Wikipedia (To quote WP:RS: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources."). Anyhow, I'm glad you've finally (at least indirectly) acknowledged that the sources cited didn't back the statement, which is all I'm really interested in. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Where did Reagan use the term "state terrorism"? Who "regularly" used it in his administration? There was no misrepresentation of the sources, the word "consensus" is backed by the sources and was placed here by a previous editor. Stop following me around and being a pest. V7-sport (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

NSDD 138 is a prominent example. He also applied the term to Iran, Korea, Cuba, and Nicaragua (the last one always gives me a good laugh). And again, please stop using turnspeak and implying that I'm "following you everywhere". You've come to 5 pages that I've edited before you so far, including this one, starting disruptive conflicts on 3 of them. I haven't followed you anywhere, so your accusation is not only baseless, but also absurd. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Funny, if I tried to cite that you would no doubt call it "state sponsored terrorism". Your characterizing my edits as disruptive and repeatedly calling me a liar part of the bad faith in which you operate. Evidentially you feel that the pages you have edited are yours and any attempt to improve them is disruptive. That's incorrect and kind of pathetic. V7-sport (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

No, they clearly differentiated between state terrorism and state-sponsored terrorism. And I think that this is worthy of inclusion in articles regarding Iran and state terrorism. Nowhere did I say that "pages I have edited are mine". That's as absurd as your false claim of me stalking you. I pointed out that you shouldn't claiming that I'm following you around when it is not only clearly false, but in fact the converse is true. I'd welcome you to try to explain to me how this implies that I'm saying "pages I have edited are mine". Anyhow, I think I'm done here. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere did I say that "pages I have edited are mine".That's not what I wrote, you are deliberately taking words out of context again which is tantamount to lying. Do you think that's clever? Here. I'll repeat it for you: "Evidently you feel that the pages you have edited are yours and any attempt to improve them is disruptive."

"I'd welcome you to try to explain to me how this implies that I'm saying "pages I have edited are mine" I don't doubt it, how else would you spend your Saturday afternoon? You behave like a yipping little dog defending a lawn it's previously peed on. Does that clear it up?V7-sport (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding "Evidently you feel" before "that the pages you have edited are yours" (evident means that something is clearly true) and another false statement afterwards doesn't make a very convincing case for you not having said it. Well I'm off for now. I probably won't waste my time with anything more than a one or two word response from now on, because I'm rather bored with you now. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

No, evidently doesn't "mean that something is clearly true', your wikilink doesn't even say that. Yet another lie on your part.

ev·i·dent·ly adv

\ˈe-və-dənt-lē, -ə-ˌdent-, especially for 2 often ˌev-ə-ˈdent-\

Definition of EVIDENTLY

1: in an evident manner : clearly, obviously

2: on the basis of available evidence

So no, you are mischaracterizing what I wrote, you are doing so to lie. Here, I'll reiterate with out ambiguity: On the basis of available evidence you feel that the pages you have edited are yours and any attempt to improve them is disruptive. That's incorrect and kind of pathetic. V7-sport (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Clearly/obviously what? And what evidence? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I really am done this time, and won't be responding to whatever you cobble together. I'll have to admit, you're very tempting :). Take care. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Methods slant

As a researcher, writer, and someone who tries to use a little common sense, I think it unabashadly biased to only list Hamdi v. Rumsfeld as THE example of state terrorism. This is ludicrous hypocracy, for a number of reasons, designed to make the United States look bad--plain and simple.

1. There is no legal discussion on his status. Although one can go to the article, alone it leaves a gravely mistaken impression. The way it is written implies he was simply a citizen of the US who was thrown in jail, not charged, and had to petition for habeus corpus. In fact, he was caught with a group of Taliban on foreign soil (presents legal issues), was thought to be fighting with them against a UN-sanctioned multilateral operation (again presents questions), and was not immediately identified as a US citizen.

2. Here, the courts worked and acted as a check on presidential authority. Does this really sound like State terrorism? Did the high court of the Soviet Union declare illegal Stalin's murder of 40 million people? Did the indepenent judiciary shoot down China's imprisonement, torture, and execution of political dissidents, writers, Wikipedians, journalists, and democracy advocates? Has the UN or court system in Sudan done anything to stop the Khartoum-supported militias that have killed over 1 million in Darfur? In this case, the US system worked for Hamdi--yet somehow the author has managed to twist it into anti-American propoganda.

Some people may view the US actions as State terrorism--however ridiculous that might be--however, we need to look at it in context. Doing so should make you laugh at this citation. Even the author supports my ideas--he cites an Amnesty Int. report on torture. Despite the fact that there are 82 countries that torture (according to AI), his example of State terrorism is a successful lawsuit by a US citizen caught fighting with the enemy to be brought into the US legal system and stand a citizen's trial. Does the the US system sound like terrorism, considering he was allowed to petition the courts, much less win?

Based on these observations, I'm simply taking all the references out--they can be biased and lend nothing to the definition. If anyone adds this one back, I'll simply try to make a fair and representative display by citing courts cases, executions, torture, wrongful imprisonement, etc, etc in every other country, including Western Europe. Would love to hear discussion...

You seem to be quite sure of your position that the US has not being involved in State Terrorism. By the very definition of the term though they have been. You only need to look so far as the wars in Indo-China and the bombing campaigns of WW2 to see gross examples of State Terrorism. Perhaps not the worst excesses of the wars in question, but state terrorism nonetheless. But I do agree, focusing on one citizen who has been denied certain liberties seems a little disengenous. For starters, thats not a clear example of state terrorism and moreover the examples I just listed killed millions and 'terrorised' entire countries. Did this example even kill 1?--Senor Freebie (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Israel

Why is Western Media privileged over other sources? This needs a much more global approach.93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Israel is viewed by many groups as a state sponsor of terror due to countless civilian deaths including most recently the flotilla incident. Other left groups in the West including some New Historians within Israeli itself and mainstream opinion in most of the third world seem to fall in line with this. I don't completely agree with this viewpoint myself but its neccessary to show all points of view. I think we should maybe add a section giving their point of view credence that it sponsors terror and then give in a criticism section of all the responses that show to the contrary. Not including it is not showing other views exist.

Achamy (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Disregarding the civillian deaths: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair Israel openly admitting to a failed terrorism attempt in egypt. Citations and sources can be seen on the wikipedia pagge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.187.208 (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

[untitled section]

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