Talk:State terrorism/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Archives 2 Please explain in detail whenever you remove some thing 3 Please Stop Edit war by removing Factual Data 4 Lev Greenberg 5 Disputed section 5.1 Original Disputed Section 5.1.1 Civilian deaths during ‘al-Aqsa Intifada’ 5.1.1.1 International Condemnation 5.1.1.2 Disagreement on the terms to describe Israeli Actions 5.1.1.3 Disputed Tactics 5.2 Temporary template 6 This article is supposed to be about State terrorism, not other things 7 What list was asked for 8 'good faith' Solution of the disagreement 9 I have requestion for mediation from 'dispute resolution' 10 You started Edit war again 11 putting some words in bold is not neutral 12 State terrorism vs state sponsored terrorism 13 Vague Definition 14 Cuban State Terrorism 15 Often liberal 16 Waco 17 Definition for the list 18 suggestions for the list 19 TotallyDisputed Template 20 NI 21 United States 22 Eichman, Galíndez, Trotsky 23 Treatment of Cuba V US 24 Black and Tans 25 Apartheid South Africa 26 Merge Israeli Terrorism 27 Total Anti-American Bias 28 Problems with France and Italy being on this list 28.1 Italy 28.2 France 29 Kofi Annan quote 30 Links 31 Recent Removal Of USA vs Cuba 32 USA firebombings 33 Lead 34 Pro-Israeli slant 35 Reason for Edit? 36 Stuff that should be incorporated 37 Merge from State sponsored terrorism 38 Laughable 39 US Section too short! 40 Antispammer's edits reverted 41 Operation Northwoods 42 French entry POV 43 Iraq's attack on Israel 44 War crimes & state terrorism ; moved content here 45 United Kingdom - Northern Ireland 46 Civilians? 47 playground 48 Protest against removal Of USA vs Cuba 49 What is it - State Terrorism?

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)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.