m →Oppose |
→Oppose: ====Oppose==== |
||
Line 333: | Line 333: | ||
::::Its funny because instead of this long threaded ranting discussion all you had to do is produce the single source I am sure you have from Time magazine, New York Times, CNN etc that says the US commited acts of terrorism through the SOA. Not that the SOA commited terrorism, not that the US gave their countries economic aid. Simply that the US commited acts of terrorism through the SOA. Then I can change my post to go up there, instead all htese sources that dont actually say the US commited terrorism. Please read WP:OR, we cannot argue around the idea, you have to provide a source that says they commited acts of terrorism, it has to say that, the person saying that in the medium they are saying it has to meet WP:V and WP:RS. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Zer0faults|<font color="Red">'''zero faults'''</font>]]</span> [[User_talk:Zer0faults/Archive_1#Signature|''<font color="Blue"><sup><b>|sockpuppets|</b></sup></font>'']] 09:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC) |
::::Its funny because instead of this long threaded ranting discussion all you had to do is produce the single source I am sure you have from Time magazine, New York Times, CNN etc that says the US commited acts of terrorism through the SOA. Not that the SOA commited terrorism, not that the US gave their countries economic aid. Simply that the US commited acts of terrorism through the SOA. Then I can change my post to go up there, instead all htese sources that dont actually say the US commited terrorism. Please read WP:OR, we cannot argue around the idea, you have to provide a source that says they commited acts of terrorism, it has to say that, the person saying that in the medium they are saying it has to meet WP:V and WP:RS. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Zer0faults|<font color="Red">'''zero faults'''</font>]]</span> [[User_talk:Zer0faults/Archive_1#Signature|''<font color="Blue"><sup><b>|sockpuppets|</b></sup></font>'']] 09:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC) |
||
:::::Those particular newspapers will never say such a thing, regardless of any amount of evidence. However, that doesn't matter, because Wikipedia isn't just about repeating the opinion of CNN or Murdoch, it counts other opinions |
:::::Those particular newspapers will never say such a thing, regardless of any amount of evidence. However, that doesn't matter, because Wikipedia isn't just about repeating the opinion of CNN or Murdoch, it counts other opinions as well. Try [http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/07/0212242 (Democracy Now!)] for example. [[User:Seabhcan|Self-Described Seabhcán]] 09:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC) |
||
::::::That article does not say the US commited acts of terrorism either. I direct you after the above comment to WP:RS |
::::::That article does not say the US commited acts of terrorism either. I direct you after the above comment to WP:RS |
||
::::::<blockquote>Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them |
::::::<blockquote>Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.</blockquote> |
||
</blockquote> |
|||
::::::That kind of situation is exactly something WP:RS says to be careful of. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Zer0faults|<font color="Red">'''zero faults'''</font>]]</span> [[User_talk:Zer0faults/Archive_1#Signature|''<font color="Blue"><sup><b>|sockpuppets|</b></sup></font>'']] 09:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC) |
::::::That kind of situation is exactly something WP:RS says to be careful of. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Zer0faults|<font color="Red">'''zero faults'''</font>]]</span> [[User_talk:Zer0faults/Archive_1#Signature|''<font color="Blue"><sup><b>|sockpuppets|</b></sup></font>'']] 09:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC) |
||
:::::::The "prevailing view in the relavant academic community" is that US carries out acts of State Terrorism (See D. Ganser) I have seen no academic writings which say otherwise. [[Democracy Now]] is WP:RS. [[User:Seabhcan|Self-Described Seabhcán]] 10:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC) |
:::::::The "prevailing view in the relavant academic community" is that US carries out acts of State Terrorism (See D. Ganser) I have seen no academic writings which say otherwise. [[Democracy Now]] is WP:RS. [[User:Seabhcan|Self-Described Seabhcán]] 10:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC) |
||
Line 347: | Line 346: | ||
:::::::::::::You'll be asking me to prove the sky is blue next. SOA hasn't been closed, by the way, just renamed. [[User:Seabhcan|Self-Described Seabhcán]] 13:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC) |
:::::::::::::You'll be asking me to prove the sky is blue next. SOA hasn't been closed, by the way, just renamed. [[User:Seabhcan|Self-Described Seabhcán]] 13:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::::::I guess that means you have no sources stating that the US broke UK law by training soldiers and individuals in the School of Americas? Good then please stop using this as your reasoning since I prefer not to have arguements in which one party is violating WP:OR. However if you can present a source stating this feel free to continue the discussion by posting the source. Thank you. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Zer0faults|<font color="Red">'''zero faults'''</font>]]</span> [[User_talk:Zer0faults/Archive_1#Signature|''<font color="Blue"><sup><b>|sockpuppets|</b></sup></font>'']] 14:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC) |
::::::::::::::I guess that means you have no sources stating that the US broke UK law by training soldiers and individuals in the School of Americas? Good then please stop using this as your reasoning since I prefer not to have arguements in which one party is violating WP:OR. However if you can present a source stating this feel free to continue the discussion by posting the source. Thank you. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Zer0faults|<font color="Red">'''zero faults'''</font>]]</span> [[User_talk:Zer0faults/Archive_1#Signature|''<font color="Blue"><sup><b>|sockpuppets|</b></sup></font>'']] 14:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC) |
||
===Oppose part 2=== |
|||
One of User:Zer0faults tactics is to always have the last word: he gets the final say on anything that is said. Occasionally he gives up arguing, but he gives up by: |
|||
# threatening an [[ANI]], |
|||
# demands to move the comments to another page, or |
|||
# threatens a user not to respond anymore or he will call a [[ANI]]. |
|||
Let me summarize what I see here. User:Zer0faults, please correct me if I am wrong, and tell me that I am not "paying attention" (I guess when you run out of proof you can instead insult people). |
|||
User:Zer0faults argument here is another variation on the defintion game. He claims that he never plays the defintion game, but his edits say otherwise. User:Zer0faults argument is that the US never committed terrorism in these countries because they only sponsored the terrorism. They funded the terrorists, they trained the terrorists, they told the terrorists what to do, but since the terrorists were not actually US citizens, no terrorism happened. This is a summary of User:Zer0faults argument, so therefore it is overly broad and I am sure their are nuainces which User:Zer0faults will bring up in an attempt to discredit this summary. |
|||
I quote User:Zer0faults: |
|||
:"all you had to do is produce the single source I am sure you have from Time magazine, New York Times, CNN etc that says the US commited acts of terrorism through the SOA. '''Not that the SOA commited terrorism, not that the US gave their countries economic aid'''. Simply that the US commited acts of terrorism through the SOA...the better question since you are the one asserting it is illegal to train terrorists and asserting that terrorists were trained at SOA, then you need to prove that its illegal, actually that its an act of terrorism in and of itself...Further laws enacted after the closing of the SOA are obviously not applicable as laws are not retroactive...So your single source would have to be arguing your point that under UK Law the US commited an act of terrorism by training these soldiers who later went on to commit acts of terrorism...I guess that means you have no sources stating that the US broke UK law by training soldiers and individuals in the School of Americas?" |
|||
Guess what happens if you provide this source? User:Zer0faults will either: |
|||
:(a) ignore the source ''(See the [[Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America#Psychological_Operations_In_Guerrilla_Warfare]] section, User:Zer0faults still has not addressed what the manual actually said)''. |
|||
:(b) play the definition game, providing no sources for his defintions |
|||
::User:Zer0faults: "Also coups are not terrorism." |
|||
:(c) Repeating exactly what the source said, but saying the source never said that. |
|||
::User Sea: The amount of money Bolivia normally receives is small; '''much of it is used to train Bolivian military officers in the United States'''. |
|||
::User:Zer0faults: That specifically says the US gives Bolivia money, then Bolivia then spends to train soldiers in the US. That is not the US taxpayer funding the SOA. |
|||
::Huh? User Sea just provided a source which says: the US gives Bolivia money AND Bolivia then spends to train soldiers in the US. |
|||
:(d) ignore the question and do one of the 3 items above: |
|||
::# threatening an [[ANI]], |
|||
::# demands to move the comments to another page, or |
|||
::# threatens a user not to respond anymore or he will call a [[ANI]]. |
|||
::I can provide many examples of this behavior. |
|||
:(e) quote wikipolicy. [[WP:RS]] "D Ganser, the man who thinks the World Trade Center was blown up with explosives? I do not think he represents to the acedemic community." DemocracyNow fails [[WP:RS]], but User:Zer0faults allows on other wikipages, conservative online journals to be on wikipedia. Wikiepdia policy is selectively applied: articles which support User:Zer0faults POV are accepted with no problem, but sources which contradict his POV, User:Zer0faults insists they pass insurmountable hurdles. |
|||
The entire time, User:Zer0faults provides no sources for anything that he says. Not one. His opinion is to be taken at face value, whereas his opponents' opinions, there is no hurdle high enough which they can jump to satisfy User:Zer0faults. |
|||
Further User:Zer0faults please source this statment, or will you ignore this request also?: "From looking at the list of people SOA Alumni that is, you will be hard pressed to find someone arguing that, then again of the 60,000 alumni 20 have gone home to do bad deeds" |
|||
I think I have effectively summarized User:Zer0faults tactics. There will be no consensus on this page, because User:Zer0faults moto is "Don't relent. Don't back off." This is a quote from an ideological opposite, with the same tactics. |
|||
And User:Zer0faults, please don't quote wikipedia policy to focus on the article, not the editor. Your behavior is making it impossible to reach consensus '''on the article'''. [[User:Travb|Travb]] ([[User talk:Travb|talk]]) 03:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
===General strawpolls=== |
===General strawpolls=== |
Revision as of 03:27, 7 September 2006
RE: Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America
Current title
Allegations of state Terrorism by United States of America
Support
- --Weak keep.--Zleitzen 02:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- --Keep. JRSP 03:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- --Keep. Addhoc 17:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- --Keep. Jun-Dai 21:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- --Keep. User:Green01 3:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- --Keep. Mushroom (Talk) 00:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- --Keep. (best of bad options) Self-Described Seabhcán 08:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose (state suggested alternative)
- --State terrorism by the United States of America — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaveenS (talk • contribs) [1]
- --State terrorism by the United States, so there's no room for every allegations or opinion out there.--Kalsermar 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- --I agree with Kalsemar.--NYCJosh 23:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- --I agree with Kalsemar also. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- --Political violence by the United States, I guess. It really needs a defined purpose. Fagstein 06:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
*Support I strongly agree with User:Fagstein, a similar title change was a great comprimise which worked in another passionate contoversy. Please see:Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structures_which_can_imply_a_view where Zionist terrorism was changed to Zionist political violence. Plus, If this compromise title reaches a consensus, we can add this article to the policy page as another good example of compromise :).
In addition, "Allegations" violates WP:AWW. Travb (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Does political violence include violence sponsored by a state, e.g., Saddam Hussein offering money to the families of suicide bombers that attack Isreal or the US feeding money to rebel factions in other states? Jun-Dai 01:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- -Oppose. And i oppose even more Fagstein's proposal. So long as "terrorism" is a word being used in daily conversation, possessing a conventionally understood meaning, then i utterly oppose any and all attempts to water down the term by substituting more acceptable rhetoric so as to appease the fragile egos and tender sentiments that right-wing zealots indulge in when using their country's name. The simple fact is that the early Zionist movement utilized what we today unqualifiedly understand as **terrorism**, and by changing the title that fact has been distorted and hidden. Similarly, what is being attempted here is directly analagous; one need only change the word "Israel" with "United States" and the motives for the lie read precisely the same.
Furthermore, by limiting the page to "Allegations of State Sponsored Terrorism", the title limits us to *only* a discussion of currently evolving events. Unfortunately, whether the more sensitive among us here would like to admit it or not, there is a VERY LONG HISTORY of U.S. sponsored terrorism: the Indian Wars, raids against Indian villages shortly after the establishment of the Texas Republic, Civil War irregulars, the invasion of the Phillippines saw a good lot as well as Cuba, during the Spanish American war - the list goes on, i'm sure.
These are not *allegations*. These are flat-out fully documented *facts*, and whether or not people here *like* them is beside the point. There is simply *no* *possible* *means* to justify the change of the title to the sham that currently sits there.Stone put to sky 12:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment
If the name is US state-sponsored political violence, it is an invitation to original research, trying to collect factoids to prove a case. If it is American terrorism (term), or Allegations of state terrorism by (the) United States of America, then it is clear that we are writing an article about the allegetions. To me this seems central to having encyclopedic coverage of this topic. As long as the title makes it clear that we are writing about allegations, I have no great preference. I again point out that American terrorism (term) (now merged in here) was stable for several months under a similar model. Tom Harrison Talk 22:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hogwash. There is plenty of evidence out there to demonstrate U.S. sponsorship of terrorist groups in Cuba, Indonesia, Haiti, El Salvador, Columbia, and Nicaragua, and those are just the ones that i can recall unquestionable facts for immediately, off the top of my head. I suspect that there is similar evidence to support a case for U.S. involvement in terrorism in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cambodia, Burma, Laos, Iran (i know i've read at least three or four newspaper articles in the last year that detail U.S. sponsored groups carrying out bombing raids in Irani territory), Angola, and other African nations as well.
- The problem here is that a group of Wiksters has decided that they don't like the *sound* of "Terrorism Sponsored by the United States", and so they are insisting on the name being changed. The evidence to support the title is validated many, many times over, and the use of the word "terrorism" in this context is by no means stretched or forced. The problem here is simply politics; many citizens in today's United States like to pretend as if they have a moral high-ground over "terrorists" and refuse to accept that terrorist acts are far more often perpetrated by military organizations than they are by so-called "terrorist" groups. While it may not be the case that militaries must strap hidden bombs onto their fighters' backs and send them on missions-of-no-return, there is yet no *moral* or *tactical* difference between bombing civilian infrastructure from the safety of unassailable jets, sending a suicide bomber onto a crowded bus, or targeting major business centers, marketplaces, ports or tourist attractions.
- If the United States is going to funnel money into groups like the Contras, the Maton Coute Coute, the Cuban Refugee groups down in South Florida, Indonesian militias, or -- as now -- Kurdish and Iraqi death squads (and there is more than enough evidence out there to justify this list alone), then there is no possible justification for allowing it to condemn the terrorist violence used by non-state groups as somehow extraordinary or beyond the bounds of human decency.
- The title "Allegations of State Terrorism" is nothing more than a cynical and hypocritical attempt to divert attention away from the root causes of today's world conflicts, and i -- as an American, a citizen of the United Staes, and a diligent and laborious expatriate -- am deeply offended by it. Stone put to sky 12:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The term American Terrorism
Support
- Seems notable--Kalsermar 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Travb (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Addhoc 17:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. User:Green01 3:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Mushroom (Talk) 00:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep--Hattusili 06:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Self-Described Seabhcán 08:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Qualifiedly keep. Depends on context.Stone put to sky 12:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
- I've never heard the term before this, and I don't know what it means. Jun-Dai 21:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. This shouldn't be an article about words or terms. It should be about the political pheonomenon known as terrorism perpetrated by a particular government, or allegations of its occurence. --NYCJosh 23:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Qualifiedly Oppose. Depends on context.Stone put to sky 12:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- NN term and Clearly POV phrasing --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
9/11 scholar for truth/Manual 30-31b section
Support
- Keep, but rephrase. Addhoc 17:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. --NYCJosh 23:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Mushroom (Talk) 00:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep (if this refers to Dr Ganser's work, then Keep. However, this has no known or cited connection to ST911.org, and this fake and misleading connection needs to be removed immediately) Self-Described Seabhcán 08:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
- --Non reliable group with a clear POV.--Kalsermar 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- --Non reliable group as above, clearly POV, they do not even try to hide it. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Definition of terrorism: FBI, UN and US Code definitions
Support
- --Iffy, too many different definitions but could be handy to keep--Kalsermar 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Travb (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Addhoc 17:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- -- Keep. User:Green01 3:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but maybe abbreviate and make more readable.--NYCJosh 23:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Mushroom (Talk) 00:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, but cut down. There are dozens of definitions of terrorism out there. There is already an article on this at Definitions of terrorism. I suggest we keep only the FBI definition here because it is interesting what definition US law enforcement maintain and because Dr Ganser has specifically connected this FBI definition to the CIA charter.Self-Described Seabhcán 08:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
- --
Criticism of the term
Support
- --Naturally --Kalsermar 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Travb (talk) 13:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Addhoc 17:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep in some form. --NYCJosh 23:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Mushroom (Talk) 00:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Self-Described Seabhcán 08:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and explain that the items in this article meet sometimes only 1 definition of the many many definitions, poitn to definitions of terrorism article. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
- --
Cuba/Church committee
Support
- --Church committee reports, yes. But needs an expanded account of verifiable, notable claims of CIA involvement in terrorist attacks against Cuba. There isn't any point arguing this - these act have been clearly described as terrorism by the perpetrators - the claims exist - they've been made in notable forums (UN) by notable people (leading politicians and ministers) - and are supplemented by a significant amount of evidence revealed in declassified documents.--Zleitzen 02:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep Travb (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Addhoc 17:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- --Keep. User:Green01 3:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Agree with Zleitzen. --NYCJosh 23:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Mushroom (Talk) 00:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. Self-Described Seabhcán 08:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
- --
Cuba/Northwoods
Support
- --Keep. Addhoc 17:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- --Keep. User:Green01 3:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but explain it was nixed by the president and never implemnted. Significant as to the lenghts the US military establishment was proposing to go. Provides modus operandi. --NYCJosh 00:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Mushroom (Talk) 00:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per NYCJosh. A mention of the USS Maine (ACR-1 wouldn't be out of place either. Self-Described Seabhcán 08:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
- --Never happened--Kalsermar 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- --I'm generally opposed to most Northwoods material. I think it is blown out of proportion. One could speculate on the possible connections between Northwoods and the terrorist attacks on Cuba but that would be original research - I don't know if anyone notable has ever made a case to explicitly link the two. Although many of the non-Black propoganda events cited in the Cuba project did in fact occur over time, the bombing of boats, planes, civilian sites, the murder of Cuban diplomats and so on.--Zleitzen 02:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Did not happen. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Nicaragua (Psychological Operations In Guerrilla Warfare)
Support
- Keep Travb (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Addhoc 18:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- --Keep. User:Green01 3:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep.--NYCJosh 23:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Mushroom (Talk) 00:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep--Hattusili 06:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Self-Described Seabhcán 08:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
- --Not terrorism by the US--Kalsermar 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- --Not terrorism, sources do not call it terrorism, people involved explain use of manual was to prevent terrorism etc. Been argued on talk page already and disproven to be terrorism with no counter arguement given. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Please see the debate here . Travb (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- As I said no counter arguements given. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Middle East
Support
- --Week keep of second part if there's a good source. Bagdad bombings are out--Kalsermar 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete 1st sct, Strong Kp 2nd Travb (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Addhoc 18:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep.--NYCJosh 23:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Mushroom (Talk) 00:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all sources material. Self-Described Seabhcán 17:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
- --
Gladio
Support
- Keep Addhoc 18:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Agree with Travb about forgery allegations.--NYCJosh 23:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Mushroom (Talk) 00:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep--Hattusili 06:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Self-Described Seabhcán 08:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
- --No terrorism occured nor was it a US operation but rather NATO--Kalsermar 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete, if it stays the forgery items need to be addressed, as per User:TDC Travb (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- --NATO operations belong in a seperate article. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Nicaragua v. USA
Support
- Strong Keep Travb (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Addhoc 18:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- --Keep. User:Green01 3:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. --NYCJosh 23:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Mushroom (Talk) 00:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Self-Described Seabhcán 17:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
- --No terrorism occured--Kalsermar 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- --Source does not state terrorism, one person that does not have a law degree cannot change the legal definition of unlawful force. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Yugoslavia v. USA
Support
- --Keep. These were allegations made by a country in an important international forum. It was a NATO operation but US war planes were doing much of the bombing and the US was a principal decision maker and participant in launching the campaign. --NYCJosh 23:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Mushroom (Talk) 00:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep--Hattusili 06:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Absolutely Keep. To claim that 'no terrorism occurred' is to foist a U.S.Government definition of terrorism off as the *only* definition of terrorism. Yugoslavia obviously considers what the U.S. did as terrorism, and i think that they of all people'd be in a position to know it if they saw it.Stone put to sky 12:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. While Zer0faults' opinion of Chomsky is not notable, Chomsky's opinion is notable. Self-Described Seabhcán 17:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
- --No terrorism occured--Kalsermar 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Travb (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Addhoc 18:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Not terrorism, tell Chomsky to get a law degree and we will accept his legal commentary. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Chomsky
Support
- -- I appreciate this article isn't about linguistics, however Chomsky has written books about politics as well. Addhoc 18:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- --Keep. User:Green01 3:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. --NYCJosh 23:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Mushroom (Talk) 00:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Chomsky's opinion is notable. Millions of people read his books. If Zer0faults can tell those millions that Chomsky isn't an expert, and they stop reading his books, then his opinion becomes not-notable. Self-Described Seabhcán 17:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please read WP:RS & WP:V, a persons popularity does not determine their ability to give legal commentary suitable for a source here on Wikipedia. Specifically states the person should be a journalist for a WP:RS source or an expert in the field. Chomsky is neither. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
- --Non reliable source on the subject, this isn't about linguistics--Kalsermar 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete chomsky quote in this section. Travb (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Person is not an expert in the field nor a journalist, hence he has no credibility here. Especially to be renaming legal definitions. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
McVeigh
Support
- --
Oppose
- --Not state terrorism, could be included in article about terrorism by US citizens--Kalsermar 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- --Not state terrorism. Unless there is something about the case i don't know.--Zleitzen 02:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- delete. Travb (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- delete, completely irrelevant. Addhoc 18:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Mushroom (Talk) 00:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not state terrorism. Self-Described Seabhcán 17:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Wounded Knee
Support
- --Keep. Explain that if part of war some would exclude on that basis. --NYCJosh 00:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, but expand. The context of the massacre and its implications for U.S. terrorist tactics in the Indian Wars is not made clear in the article. Moreover, there are many other examples that can be added to this, which was not an isolated incident. Kalsemar simply doesn't know his history and can't be bothered to find out the facts, and should not be indulged.Stone put to sky 12:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
- --Can't see the charge of terrorism substantiated--Kalsermar 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per User:Kalsermar. Travb (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Addhoc 18:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, stretching a bit here. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Vietnam
Support
- --Modify. These historic events are good illustrations of the general EXCEPTION that governments and others often urge for warfare. So we could tie in with (or make part of) the DEFINITION of terrorism section: acts most would no doubt consider to be terrorism (the deliberate targeting of civilians to achieve a political purpose), when done by a sovereign government as part of a war are thought by many to be excluded from that category. --NYCJosh 23:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep--Hattusili 06:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. War crimes, terrorism, and crimes against humanity are by no means distinct and discrete concepts. They overlap, and in the case of war crimes are hotly debated legal issues that have no clear resolution.Stone put to sky 12:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
- --War time military operation, not terrorism--Kalsermar 18:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. Travb (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - war crimes, terrorism and crimes against humanity are different concepts. Addhoc 18:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, its a war crime not terrorism. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Zerofaults. Self-Described Seabhcán 17:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ba'ath Party
Support
- --
Oppose
- --Easy, we don't exonorate Saddam's record because he says he didn't do anything wrong--Kalsermar 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Don't consider the Baath Party to be much of a victim. Addhoc 18:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Honduras
Support
- Keep. Travb (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Addhoc 18:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- --Keep. User:Green01 3:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- SOMEONE HAS DELETED THIS FROM THE ARTICLE. PLEASE RESTORE SO WE CAN READ AND VOTE.--NYCJosh 23:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Mushroom (Talk) 00:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
- --Not terrorism and not by the US--Kalsermar 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Not terrorism. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Iran v. USA
Support
- Weak Keep Travb (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Addhoc 18:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- --Keep. User:Green01 3:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
SOMEONE HAS DELETED THIS FROM THE ARTICLE. PLEASE RESTORE SO WE CAN READ AND VOTE.--NYCJosh 23:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Mushroom (Talk) 00:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Self-Described Seabhcán 17:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
- --Military incident during warlike scenario--Kalsermar 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
SOA and SOA Watch
There is already a lot of detail on these articles(SOA and SOA Watch), but I propose a brief mention here under the "Latin America" section.
Support
- Include - Self-Described Seabhcán 17:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong include. Travb (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- The merits of this vote should be weighed by below comments showing this user does not know who the SOA Alumni are by stating they may have been US officials. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- That is not what was said at all. It was pointed out that Zer0faults's opinion (that only those directly and officially employed by the US goverment may be considered as agents of US terrorism) is his own opinion and no supporting references for this opinion have been provided. Self-Described Seabhcán 18:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry but the allegation would be that they are US officials, that would require proof, not stating they arent. Nice try to twist it, but you are now asking to disprove an event that never happened ... So the logical problem with that? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- No. You are making the claim that a terrorist who is trained and funded by the US State, is not a US State Terrorist unless he is 'official'? You will have to support that claim with references. Self-Described Seabhcán 18:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- can I see proof that his actions in his country were funded by the US? Further that his actions were a direct result of the training in the US as well. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- No. You are making the claim that a terrorist who is trained and funded by the US State, is not a US State Terrorist unless he is 'official'? You will have to support that claim with references. Self-Described Seabhcán 18:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry but the allegation would be that they are US officials, that would require proof, not stating they arent. Nice try to twist it, but you are now asking to disprove an event that never happened ... So the logical problem with that? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- That is not what was said at all. It was pointed out that Zer0faults's opinion (that only those directly and officially employed by the US goverment may be considered as agents of US terrorism) is his own opinion and no supporting references for this opinion have been provided. Self-Described Seabhcán 18:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- The merits of this vote should be weighed by below comments showing this user does not know who the SOA Alumni are by stating they may have been US officials. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Include (now renamed) SOA. The US trained many a terrorist there. It's a regular who is who in Latin American milit/security establishment terrorism. --NYCJosh 21:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- How many of the 60,000 graduates are we talking about here? 10% or so? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 22:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
- Obviously anyone who opposes the inclusion of the SOA doesn't speak english well enough to know what "sponsorship" means. The SOA is a training ground where techniques of torture and policing by "informal" militias are taught to people who are: a) trained by the U.S.A, b) armed by the U.S.A.; c) Often *paid* by the U.S.A.; d) Aided and abetted in their activities through access to U.S. logistical and intelligence support, and e) Often aided in the support of their regimes through direct economic and military support.
- That's sponsorship. Cry how you like, zerofaults/kalsemar, but it's a simple fact that the SOA is demonstrable proof that the U.S. *sponsors* terrorism.211.72.233.6 13:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your opinion however no WP:RS source is stating that, also the article isnt about sponsorship is it? read the title its about state terrorism, that means acts of state terrorism by the United States, so even proving sponsorship it still would not fall under the title. As I stated, since they are not government employee'sn officials, soldiers, or under contract of receiving pay from, acting on behalf of the US government, there is obviously no acts of terrorism being commited by the US, and no sources stating so. Please be mroe civil. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's sponsorship. Cry how you like, zerofaults/kalsemar, but it's a simple fact that the SOA is demonstrable proof that the U.S. *sponsors* terrorism.211.72.233.6 13:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- You know User:Zer0faults, for claiming that you don't play the definition game, I find your comments here rather confusing. Look at User:Zer0faults edits, User:Zer0faults is attempting to define the article so narrowly that nothing is including in the article. "State terrorism" only means "state terrorism" by US staff (and even if US staff does it, User:Zer0faults can fall back on selective use of wikipedia policy to keep the information out). Proxy acts of terrorism, are not to be included in the article, nevermind that the soldiers are: a) trained by the U.S.A, b) armed by the U.S.A.; c) Often *paid* by the U.S.A.; d) Aided and abetted in their activities through access to U.S. logistical and intelligence support, and e) Often aided in the support of their regimes through direct economic and military support. So User:Zer0faults, do you admit that the US has done a through e? You stated "Stating the US trains terrorists at the SOA is actually false, because they are not terrorists till some time after they leave the SOA." So even though the staff are trained with torture manuals and how to terrorize the population by US staff, the US is not culpable (guilty) at all? Please clarify your incredibly narrow definition of terrorism (which you have not provided one source for). If your other messages are any guide, please also insult me with such statments as: "Your inability to understand anything is quite amazing...You seemed to have jumped in the middle of something you do not understand the points of...I am starting to wonder if you are paying attention...why does WP:OR seem to evade you and Travb..." I guess when you run out of proof you can instead insult people. Travb (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- -SOA are not US soldiers or government officials or people acting on behalf of the US or employed by the US etc. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The SOA is run by the United States Army. Self-Described Seabhcán 17:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes but the people who attend are not US personnel, US employees, US soldiers, under contract by the US, members of the US government, under orders of the US government etc. Their acts are not permissable as US terrorism. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- As with Nicaragua above, I disagree. These 'studies' are paid for by the US Government and these 'students' are trained by the US military. They are thus US agents. Anyway, it doens't matter what I think. There is no shortage of notable sources expressing the opinion that this is a case of US state terrorism (for example [2]). If you have sources expressing a contary opinion, those can also be presented in the article. That is the way Wikipedia works.Self-Described Seabhcán 17:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- It very much does matter as we are tryibg to build a concensus lol. Also they are not US agents, and you cannot prove they are, which is the problem with all SOA related material, there is no proof these people worked for the US, just that they trained in a US facility. Hence not US terrorism, I think you need to look up info about straw polls cause if people are gonig to take unilateral action then I can withdraw my votes and go back to deleting. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- First, a suggestion on a straw poll is not 'unilateral action'! Second, Wikipedia isn't interested in 'proof' of anything. 'Proof' is OR. Wikipedia is based on notable opinion and citations. If the Guardian and others say something is US terrorism, then that opinion is notable and has a case for inclusion. Wikipedia is not a court of law. Self-Described Seabhcán 17:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Gaurdian is not saying the US commited those acts, just that it trained the people who went on to do it. Did you read the article? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- By that logic Bin Ladin isn't a terrorist because he didn't personally commit any acts of terrorism. He just trained the guys who did. That may be your opinion. Others may have a different opinion. The US is not a person and cannot 'bodily' commit acts of terrorism. However, if the US state trains a supports others who do, then that is US state terrorism.Self-Described Seabhcán 18:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- They were not terrorists when they entered the US, again maybe you should look up information about the topic. They later became terrorists. Its almost like saying "Yale graduates are presidents" because some have become presidents later. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ever heard of Plausible deniability? The US uses Plausible deniability all the time, so those who desperatly cling onto the American civil religion can argue on wikipedia talk pages and elsewhere that America is never really responsible for terrorism. The problem for the faithful is that the FOIA and wistle blowers are two weapons which very effectively and consistently shatter this myth.
- User:Zer0faults, please provide sources for you allegations. You consistently criticize the research of others, but in a month of arguing, you have not provided one source for your opinion. "SOA are not US soldiers or government officials or people acting on behalf of the US or employed by the US etc." Really? Says who? Where is your source User:Zer0faults, it goes both ways: if you are going to demand that others document and source their POV, the least you can do is document and source your own POV. You have been marginally effective at quoting wikipedia policy, but I have yet to see any of your research and sourcing skills on this wikipage. Travb (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- You seemed to have jumped in the middle of something you do not understand the points of. Osama bin Laden has admitted to picking out the 9/11 hijackers for the purpose of 9/11, now if you can prove the US sent these people to commit crimes then your all set, but the Guardian does not argue the US did that either. Just that they trained them in bad things, which isnt an act of state terrorism. Also if you read the page on the SOA or the Guardian article it says they are not US employees, please do research before attempting to argue with me simply to argue. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- "now if you can prove the US sent these people to commit crimes then your all set" Thank you, then by your "reasoning" we have already proved our point. Now it is your turn to actually provide sources to counter this claim.
- Can I see this proof you claim to haev of the US sending these people back to their countries to commit terrorist acts? Telling someone how to kill is not the same as sending them out to kill people. Also if you do not stop your taunting I will take this to AN/i as you are becoming moer and more uncivil. Please refrain from attacking the editor and all. Some would say ... Well its been said. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- LOL This is so FUNNY! "Just that they trained them in bad things, which isnt an act of state terrorism." As we point out the fallacies in your argument, one by one, your "rationalizion" becomes more and more absurd. Not that you will answer my question Zer0faults, because you never do: but what "bad things" in your mind qualify as terrorism. And BTW, please provide sources, which in a month you have never, ever provided. 18:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I guess when you run out of proof you can instead insult people. However this comment has been noted.
- You are accusing the US of terrorism, what sources can be provided that would prove otherwise? You are asking for me to prove something never happened. Hmm lets see I can account for the location of every US official that day, or simply see if you have a source for your claims, which you have yet to produce on the other talk page. You keep asking for sources, yet you are making the accusations without sources. So what do you keep asking me for sources of for the past month? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I count 60 references in the article. How many have you contributed? Self-Described Seabhcán 18:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I am starting to wonder if you are paying attention. I am saying these events did not happen as US terrorism, how can I produce source for that view, you have to produce sources stating its true, not vice versa, your accusations not mine. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- You seem to have an exaggerated sense of your own importance. We have dozens of citations saying that SOA is a US State supported terrorist training ground, and opposing them is you, alone, with no citations. Tell me again your reasons for opposing inclusion????Self-Described Seabhcán 19:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Noone is arguing its not a terrorist training ground, my point is I have yet to see a article stating that the people who come out of SOA are acting on the behalf of the US government. They can train them all day, however they are not acting on their behalf so its not US terrorism. Instead of ranting here and arguing with me because I oppose you, why dont you produce such a source instead of that Guardian page that simply says its a training camp, not stating the US is commiting acts of terrorism. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I would just like to point out that under British law (and probably US law too, I'm not an expert) the training of terrorists is considered terrorism in itself. Self-Described Seabhcán 08:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- It is not considered terrorism itself, it is however against the law. However it very specifically states that a person is guilty only if he provides instruction or training that he knows that a person receiving that training intends to use those skills for or in connection with the commision of act of terrorism, or for assisting the commission of others in an act of terrorism. However there is no proof that I have seen that states the US knew these people would go commit terrorist acts, feel free however to present some, and then to further present a source stating its illegal under UK law, since its synthesizing evidence to take two seperate sources and connect them to make your point. And thats UK law not US or international law. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Would you like me to also present evidence showing that it is illegal on the crazy planet you live on? Self-Described Seabhcán 15:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- When you are willing to act civil again please get back to me. Oddly enough because I do not know what you are actually addressing. You cannot show anything, why does WP:OR seem to evade you and Travb? YOu need to show a source arguing your point of it being terrorism by the US, that is how Wikipedia works, noone cares what you think you can prove through a smashing up of multiple sources. Read WP:OR please. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- You seem to have an exaggerated sense of your own importance. We have dozens of citations saying that SOA is a US State supported terrorist training ground, and opposing them is you, alone, with no citations. Tell me again your reasons for opposing inclusion????Self-Described Seabhcán 19:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I am starting to wonder if you are paying attention. I am saying these events did not happen as US terrorism, how can I produce source for that view, you have to produce sources stating its true, not vice versa, your accusations not mine. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I count 60 references in the article. How many have you contributed? Self-Described Seabhcán 18:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- "now if you can prove the US sent these people to commit crimes then your all set" Thank you, then by your "reasoning" we have already proved our point. Now it is your turn to actually provide sources to counter this claim.
- You seemed to have jumped in the middle of something you do not understand the points of. Osama bin Laden has admitted to picking out the 9/11 hijackers for the purpose of 9/11, now if you can prove the US sent these people to commit crimes then your all set, but the Guardian does not argue the US did that either. Just that they trained them in bad things, which isnt an act of state terrorism. Also if you read the page on the SOA or the Guardian article it says they are not US employees, please do research before attempting to argue with me simply to argue. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- By that logic Bin Ladin isn't a terrorist because he didn't personally commit any acts of terrorism. He just trained the guys who did. That may be your opinion. Others may have a different opinion. The US is not a person and cannot 'bodily' commit acts of terrorism. However, if the US state trains a supports others who do, then that is US state terrorism.Self-Described Seabhcán 18:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Gaurdian is not saying the US commited those acts, just that it trained the people who went on to do it. Did you read the article? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- First, a suggestion on a straw poll is not 'unilateral action'! Second, Wikipedia isn't interested in 'proof' of anything. 'Proof' is OR. Wikipedia is based on notable opinion and citations. If the Guardian and others say something is US terrorism, then that opinion is notable and has a case for inclusion. Wikipedia is not a court of law. Self-Described Seabhcán 17:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- It very much does matter as we are tryibg to build a concensus lol. Also they are not US agents, and you cannot prove they are, which is the problem with all SOA related material, there is no proof these people worked for the US, just that they trained in a US facility. Hence not US terrorism, I think you need to look up info about straw polls cause if people are gonig to take unilateral action then I can withdraw my votes and go back to deleting. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- As with Nicaragua above, I disagree. These 'studies' are paid for by the US Government and these 'students' are trained by the US military. They are thus US agents. Anyway, it doens't matter what I think. There is no shortage of notable sources expressing the opinion that this is a case of US state terrorism (for example [2]). If you have sources expressing a contary opinion, those can also be presented in the article. That is the way Wikipedia works.Self-Described Seabhcán 17:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes but the people who attend are not US personnel, US employees, US soldiers, under contract by the US, members of the US government, under orders of the US government etc. Their acts are not permissable as US terrorism. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The SOA is run by the United States Army. Self-Described Seabhcán 17:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
"Noone is arguing its not a terrorist training ground" Great, so the US trains terrorists. I am glad that we have this established. So we can state that the SOA is a terrorist training ground in the article. I am glad that we now have your permission, as User:Seabhcan wrote "You seem to have an exaggerated sense of your own importance."
But wait, this contradicts what you wrote before: "Just that they trained them in bad things, which isnt an act of state terrorism." So which is it Zer0? Are you arguing that the SOA is a "terrorist training ground" or not? Is "bad things" really terrorism? Should we change the title of the article to Allegations of bad things by United States of America?
In addition, we have already established that the Guardian is a WP:RS correct?
Talking about souces, I am interested what source you base this sentence on: "SOA are not US soldiers or government officials or people acting on behalf of the US or employed by the US etc." Can you cite your source? We have cited plenty of sources, and in one month, you have provided absolutly none, your opinion is well known on these pages, but your ability to back up your claims is seriously lacking. Instead, you play the definition game, you play the wikipedia policy game, you repeatedly threaten others, you refuse to apologize for insulting other wikiusers, you criticize other's sources, etc. Hardly conductive to consensus. Everything is supposed sourced on wikipedia, and thus far, you have provided zero sources for your opinion.
"You are asking for me to prove something never happened. Hmm lets see I can account for the location of every US official that day, or simply see if you have a source for your claims, which you have yet to produce on the other talk page." Isn't that exactly what you are doing? We have consistently provided sources, and you say "wait" this source really doesn't say that, it says this. And if that fails, and we give you a source which specifically says terrorism, you either (a) ignore the source, or (b) you fall back on WP:RS, WP:OR. I have already shown your interpretation of WP:OR is completely different from what WP:OR says. When I have pointed this out, you repeatedly ignore this.
"You keep asking for sources, yet you are making the accusations without sources. So what do you keep asking me for sources of for the past month?" Wait, I thought the Guardian was a WP:RS now you are saying that the Guardian isn't a source? Or is this some broad generalization which has no basis in fact?
So where are you getting your sources Zer0?:
"SOA are not US soldiers or government officials or people acting on behalf of the US or employed by the US etc."
(removed personal attack and documented the dif)
Travb (talk) 01:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- And you asked me if I knew english. Training people in terrorist tactics is not an act of state terrorism, as it doesnt involve actually terrorizing anyone. Next point, you have not given a single source that states that SOA members were employed by, under the orders of, financially supported by, under contract of, or direct members of the United States. Asking me to produce a source that states a negative is a logical fallacy. When you produce a source that says they were government employee's I will attempt to find one that says otherwise, however producing a source that refutes a claim that only you make will be quite hard.
- Yes the guardian is a WP:RS source, however the guardian does not state the US commited acts of terrorism, just that it trained these people in bad things, not really acts of terrorism specifically. Further your constant attacks on me show you have no sources to support your claims, your constant asking for sources to prove claims that are never made false is even more illogical. Again I ask you actually read your sources, we can go back to this game if you like. In the articles in the page you still have yet to answer who is making the accusations that the US is guilty of state terrorism, what exactly they said and what their position is. Of course you cannot answer this because your only proof is a headline, noone actually says the US is guilt yof state terrorism in the articles themselves.
- Just a last point so you realize something. I can create a terrorist manual, but that does not mean I am guilty of state terrorism. Your bin Laden example fell on its face because bin Laden states he sends those people to do XYZ. If you can produce sources state that the SOA actually sends those people back to South America to be terrorists that would be something else, but even then they are still not members of the US, so they are not under orders by the US. The 9/11 hijackers as stated by bin Laden during the zacharias trial were al-Qeada members and hence under his direct orders. Again please read before you comment, and please read your sources before you start claiming something. They acticle you presented said the Nicaraguan people were responcible for terrorist attacks, it did not says they were working for the US. Your second source states that they were funded by the US, however their acts were not under orders by the US. Your attempts to meld these two sources is WP:OR, O no, there goes those policies again. Instead of complaining about them being pointed out to you, maybe you should actually read them. Last point, don't ever attack me like this on a straw poll page again, I have a right to my opinion, too bad there is no concensus here =/. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 08:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- You asked for a source for the claim that the US taxpayer funds SOA terrorism: (Int. Heald Trib.) "Less than a month after an assertively anti-American president took office in Bolivia, the Bush administration is planning to cut military aid to the country by 96 percent. The amount of money Bolivia normally receives is small; much of it is used to train Bolivian military officers in the United States. But the cut holds the potential to anger the powerful Bolivian military establishment, which has been responsible for a long history of coups."
- What else would you like? I'm working today, but I can always find time to back myself up with sources... Self-Described Seabhcán 09:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- That specifically says the US gives Bolivia money, then Bolivia then spends to train soldiers in the US. That is not the US taxpayer funding the SOA. Also coups are not terrorism. The US gives aid to many countries are you saying then the US is funding anything they do with that aid? So the US giving economic aid to North Korea is the US funding a nuclear weapons program in North Korea? There seems to be this jump you guys are willing to make, skipping B and jumping right to C from A.--zero faults |sockpuppets| 09:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- You should read a little about the realities of aid. Most aid is 'tied aid' meaning it is given for a specific purpose and cannot be spent on something else. A famous example is the "bushes Legs" 'food aid' to Russia in the 1990's. The US gave 'aid to Russia on condition it be spent only on buying US chicken which couldn't be sold in the US due to food safety laws. Self-Described Seabhcán 09:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- That specifically says the US gives Bolivia money, then Bolivia then spends to train soldiers in the US. That is not the US taxpayer funding the SOA. Also coups are not terrorism. The US gives aid to many countries are you saying then the US is funding anything they do with that aid? So the US giving economic aid to North Korea is the US funding a nuclear weapons program in North Korea? There seems to be this jump you guys are willing to make, skipping B and jumping right to C from A.--zero faults |sockpuppets| 09:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Its funny because instead of this long threaded ranting discussion all you had to do is produce the single source I am sure you have from Time magazine, New York Times, CNN etc that says the US commited acts of terrorism through the SOA. Not that the SOA commited terrorism, not that the US gave their countries economic aid. Simply that the US commited acts of terrorism through the SOA. Then I can change my post to go up there, instead all htese sources that dont actually say the US commited terrorism. Please read WP:OR, we cannot argue around the idea, you have to provide a source that says they commited acts of terrorism, it has to say that, the person saying that in the medium they are saying it has to meet WP:V and WP:RS. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 09:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Those particular newspapers will never say such a thing, regardless of any amount of evidence. However, that doesn't matter, because Wikipedia isn't just about repeating the opinion of CNN or Murdoch, it counts other opinions as well. Try (Democracy Now!) for example. Self-Described Seabhcán 09:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- That article does not say the US commited acts of terrorism either. I direct you after the above comment to WP:RS
Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.
- That kind of situation is exactly something WP:RS says to be careful of. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 09:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- The "prevailing view in the relavant academic community" is that US carries out acts of State Terrorism (See D. Ganser) I have seen no academic writings which say otherwise. Democracy Now is WP:RS. Self-Described Seabhcán 10:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- D Ganser, the man who thinks the World Trade Center was blown up with explosives? I do not think he represents to the acedemic community. I will not argue over this because he is known for Gladio also. However DemocracyNow article as I stated does not say that the US commited an act of terrorism. The arguement wasnt that it failed WP:RS, to quote myself That article does not say the US commited acts of terrorism either. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- The "prevailing view in the relavant academic community" is that US carries out acts of State Terrorism (See D. Ganser) I have seen no academic writings which say otherwise. Democracy Now is WP:RS. Self-Described Seabhcán 10:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Those particular newspapers will never say such a thing, regardless of any amount of evidence. However, that doesn't matter, because Wikipedia isn't just about repeating the opinion of CNN or Murdoch, it counts other opinions as well. Try (Democracy Now!) for example. Self-Described Seabhcán 09:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- It is your opinion only that training terrorist is not an act of terrorism in itself. As I pointed out above, under UK law training terrorists is legally defined as being terrorism in and of itself. This is probably the case with US law too, however, I'm not an expert. So, can you provide an academic reference which disagrees with UK law? Can you provide one which says training terrorists is not an act of terrorism? Self-Described Seabhcán 12:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Stop asking me to disprove things you make up off the top of your head, provide a source backing what you are saying before asking anyone to disprove it. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Wouldnt that require a source arguing that training of SOA soldiers is an act of terrorism in itself then? I havent seen a source stating that either. Further laws enacted after the closing of the SOA are obviously not applicable as laws are not retroactive. So to even argue that point you would have to show someone arguing that the SOA still chruned out terrorists as you call them after the law was passed. From looking at the list of people SOA Alumni that is, you will be hard pressed to find someone arguing that, then again of the 60,000 alumni 20 have gone home to do bad deeds and people still argue its the schools fault, imagine if we looked at my old high school and out of 60,000 calculated how many gone on to commit crime then argued that the school trains people how to commit crimes. Again, please present sources or we are just clogging up this page. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- You keep asking me to prove negatives, the better question since you are the one asserting it is illegal to train terrorists and asserting that terrorists were trained at SOA, then you need to prove that its illegal, actually that its an act of terrorism in and of itself, under UK law to train South American soldiers, if those soldiers later returned to their countries and commited acts of terrorism. So your single source would have to be arguing your point that under UK Law the US commited an act of terrorism by training these soldiers who later went on to commit acts of terrorism. I would like to see this, and please make sure it follows WP:RS and WP:V. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- You'll be asking me to prove the sky is blue next. SOA hasn't been closed, by the way, just renamed. Self-Described Seabhcán 13:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- I guess that means you have no sources stating that the US broke UK law by training soldiers and individuals in the School of Americas? Good then please stop using this as your reasoning since I prefer not to have arguements in which one party is violating WP:OR. However if you can present a source stating this feel free to continue the discussion by posting the source. Thank you. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- You'll be asking me to prove the sky is blue next. SOA hasn't been closed, by the way, just renamed. Self-Described Seabhcán 13:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- You keep asking me to prove negatives, the better question since you are the one asserting it is illegal to train terrorists and asserting that terrorists were trained at SOA, then you need to prove that its illegal, actually that its an act of terrorism in and of itself, under UK law to train South American soldiers, if those soldiers later returned to their countries and commited acts of terrorism. So your single source would have to be arguing your point that under UK Law the US commited an act of terrorism by training these soldiers who later went on to commit acts of terrorism. I would like to see this, and please make sure it follows WP:RS and WP:V. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- It is your opinion only that training terrorist is not an act of terrorism in itself. As I pointed out above, under UK law training terrorists is legally defined as being terrorism in and of itself. This is probably the case with US law too, however, I'm not an expert. So, can you provide an academic reference which disagrees with UK law? Can you provide one which says training terrorists is not an act of terrorism? Self-Described Seabhcán 12:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose part 2
One of User:Zer0faults tactics is to always have the last word: he gets the final say on anything that is said. Occasionally he gives up arguing, but he gives up by:
- threatening an ANI,
- demands to move the comments to another page, or
- threatens a user not to respond anymore or he will call a ANI.
Let me summarize what I see here. User:Zer0faults, please correct me if I am wrong, and tell me that I am not "paying attention" (I guess when you run out of proof you can instead insult people).
User:Zer0faults argument here is another variation on the defintion game. He claims that he never plays the defintion game, but his edits say otherwise. User:Zer0faults argument is that the US never committed terrorism in these countries because they only sponsored the terrorism. They funded the terrorists, they trained the terrorists, they told the terrorists what to do, but since the terrorists were not actually US citizens, no terrorism happened. This is a summary of User:Zer0faults argument, so therefore it is overly broad and I am sure their are nuainces which User:Zer0faults will bring up in an attempt to discredit this summary.
I quote User:Zer0faults:
- "all you had to do is produce the single source I am sure you have from Time magazine, New York Times, CNN etc that says the US commited acts of terrorism through the SOA. Not that the SOA commited terrorism, not that the US gave their countries economic aid. Simply that the US commited acts of terrorism through the SOA...the better question since you are the one asserting it is illegal to train terrorists and asserting that terrorists were trained at SOA, then you need to prove that its illegal, actually that its an act of terrorism in and of itself...Further laws enacted after the closing of the SOA are obviously not applicable as laws are not retroactive...So your single source would have to be arguing your point that under UK Law the US commited an act of terrorism by training these soldiers who later went on to commit acts of terrorism...I guess that means you have no sources stating that the US broke UK law by training soldiers and individuals in the School of Americas?"
Guess what happens if you provide this source? User:Zer0faults will either:
- (a) ignore the source (See the Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America#Psychological_Operations_In_Guerrilla_Warfare section, User:Zer0faults still has not addressed what the manual actually said).
- (b) play the definition game, providing no sources for his defintions
- User:Zer0faults: "Also coups are not terrorism."
- (c) Repeating exactly what the source said, but saying the source never said that.
- User Sea: The amount of money Bolivia normally receives is small; much of it is used to train Bolivian military officers in the United States.
- User:Zer0faults: That specifically says the US gives Bolivia money, then Bolivia then spends to train soldiers in the US. That is not the US taxpayer funding the SOA.
- Huh? User Sea just provided a source which says: the US gives Bolivia money AND Bolivia then spends to train soldiers in the US.
- (d) ignore the question and do one of the 3 items above:
- (e) quote wikipolicy. WP:RS "D Ganser, the man who thinks the World Trade Center was blown up with explosives? I do not think he represents to the acedemic community." DemocracyNow fails WP:RS, but User:Zer0faults allows on other wikipages, conservative online journals to be on wikipedia. Wikiepdia policy is selectively applied: articles which support User:Zer0faults POV are accepted with no problem, but sources which contradict his POV, User:Zer0faults insists they pass insurmountable hurdles.
The entire time, User:Zer0faults provides no sources for anything that he says. Not one. His opinion is to be taken at face value, whereas his opponents' opinions, there is no hurdle high enough which they can jump to satisfy User:Zer0faults.
Further User:Zer0faults please source this statment, or will you ignore this request also?: "From looking at the list of people SOA Alumni that is, you will be hard pressed to find someone arguing that, then again of the 60,000 alumni 20 have gone home to do bad deeds"
I think I have effectively summarized User:Zer0faults tactics. There will be no consensus on this page, because User:Zer0faults moto is "Don't relent. Don't back off." This is a quote from an ideological opposite, with the same tactics.
And User:Zer0faults, please don't quote wikipedia policy to focus on the article, not the editor. Your behavior is making it impossible to reach consensus on the article. Travb (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
General strawpolls
Exclude military operations by national armies (even if considered war crimes by certain units)
Support
- --National armies engaged in wartime can commit warcrimes but not terrorism--Kalsermar 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- --War crimes, terrorism and crimes against humanity are widely considered to be different concepts. Addhoc 18:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- War crimes are not terrorism, cause then unlawful combat would be the charge not war crimes if we are to both except Chomsky and that war crimes and terrorism are the same thing. See the problem with Chomsky and linking of two different charges? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
- --Military forces can committ terrorism. The Allied air campaigns against German cities in WW@ is an example. Killing civialins for political purposes. The air campaigns in South Vietnam, Operation Mongoose was a terrorist campaign(Mai Lai massacre a small part of it). User:Green01 3:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but DISTINGUISH. Go into reasons for and agains excluding in the definitions section. See my comment about about Vietnam. The reader should draw his/her own conclusions based on the info and the defitions presented. We report, they decide. --NYCJosh 00:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Terrorism is a tactic. If an army goes into a region and kills every male child over the age of ten -- as the U.S. did in its invasion of the Phillippines -- then that is flat-out, unqualified terrorism. Moreover, the U.S. army has only recently become a "professional" army; prior to about fifty years ago, it was a draftee- or volunteer-army.Stone put to sky 12:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Exclude assasinations
Support
- --In general I oppose including them--Kalsermar 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- --Not state terrorism by my definition of the term.--Zleitzen 02:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
- --Not always, especially where there are civilian casualties. Addhoc 18:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- --Assasinations of high-profile political activists is terrorism. The assasination of Archbishop Romero(1980), or Fred Hampton(1969). User:Green01 3:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, unless explicit military target (e.g. Pentagon on Sept 11.) --NYCJosh 00:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The CIA has an explicit policy against political assassinations, so that if groups supported and trained by the U.S. engage in them it is obviously a transgression of the public standard of conduct espoused by the United States Government itself. Assassinations in which U.S. sponsored groups are involved thus become important measures of how well the United States abides by its own public legal and political assertions.Stone put to sky 12:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Exclude plans and other non-implemented material
Support
- --Of course this is out as nothing happened. A foiled attack is one thing a plan is nothing more than that.--Kalsermar 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- --They did not happen so they cannot be terrorism, they are being accused of commiting a terrorist attack that never happened ... That does not even make sense. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
- --Case by case basis. Addhoc 18:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- ditto Jun-Dai 21:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- --Should be included, US offical definition includes intent. Therefore US plans for example must be included in the page. User:Green01 3:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep if important enough. See Northwood comment. Official plans, proposals and policies can be quite instructive as to institutional direction and motivation for terrorist actions, political appointee oversight (Northwoods proposal killed by pol. appointee), legislative v. executive branch checks and balances (Church Committee review of CIA assassination policy) etc. The article should make quite clear whether or not it was known to be implemented. --NYCJosh 00:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)