Talk:Death squad
From Academic Kids
Don't forget Israel's roving, global death squads. They announced them in early 2003;[1] (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/15/172506.shtml)[2] (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30513) Australia noticed[3] (http://www.themercury.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,5856444%5E401,00.html) but apparently thought it was SEP[4] (http://www.rense.com/Datapages/moss.htm) until the spies New Zealand captured leaked that Israel kills cripples for their passports.[5] (http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/israeli_agents.html) 142.177.24.141 16:20, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC) (This is just one of the reason I thought Arik Sharon should be a see also under chutzpah)
| Contents |
Correction on USSR
Stalin's NKVD did not employ death squads, except for a few special clandestine murders (Trotsky, Mikhoels, allegedly Kirov). It's nowhere near the million figure. Almost all arrests and shootings were conducted as official routine by regular operatives.
anon comment
A disagreement by one person: I consider this phrase to be meaningless. It is typically used by news organizations any time that a person is killed for real or apparent political purposes. It is used to conjure up certain images which may or may not actually apply to a given assassination. [24.177.166.137, 16:06 3 April 2005]
Haiti
please stop re-editing in BS about Haiti. it makes no sense for the Clinton administration to be supporting FRAPH when a) Aristide was granted asylum in the U.S., b) thanks to the military regime we had to deal with a massive refugee problem, and c) Aristide was only restored to the presidency thanks to U.S. intervention. J. Parker Stone 22:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This is at best personal research and speculation. When you provide evidence and citations, as per Wikipedia policy, then I'll let the material stay. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
it's not original research, it's common knowledge. the "U.S.-backing" is just a cheap attempt to give the impression of U.S. support while ignoring the actions taken in favor of Aristide. J. Parker Stone 22:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
- I've changed the header to remove the silly reference by User:Trey Stone to another editor; I've also replaced the comment removed by Viajero (well, I tried, but after an edit conflict found that I was beaten to it).
- "Common knowledge" is not an acceptable ground for editing. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:27, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
...? I don't need a source to prove that Clinton restored Aristide to power any more than I need a source to prove that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor or that the Nazis killed Jews. J. Parker Stone 22:29, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
- But that isn't what's at issue, as has been explained before. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore, the burden of proof is on you. Constant says that the CIA paid him to provide them with intelligence on Lavalas. That does not mean they paid him to go hack off people's arms or rape women. J. Parker Stone 22:34, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Apology
Trey Stone: I am sorry for deleting a comment of yours [6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_squad&diff=prev&oldid=13529529); it was an accident. Normally, I never touch other peoples' comments on Talk pages. -- Viajero 00:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
ATTN Davenbelle (again)
Please stop re-editing in supposed U.S. "support" for FRAPH. Being on the CIA payroll at one point does not mean the agency endorses everything you do -- it's an intelligence agency for chrissakes. Chilean DINA chief Contreras was accidentally paid once by the CIA while the U.S. cut off arms shipments to the country in 1976; and Noriega was on the payroll before, and we overthrew him in '90 (or '91, I can't remember.) Your tactic is nothing but a cheap attempt to smear the U.S. by oversimplifying and distorting the situation. J. Parker Stone 07:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- So then would you say that the US never supported Noriega, because we eventually arrested him? That's absurd. Support is support. Overturning a bad policy doesn't mean you ignore the fact that the bad policy existed. --FCYTravis 00:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
well i haven't seen any good info that we really supported Noriega anyhow, aside from having him as an intelligence asset at one time. J. Parker Stone 04:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Unprotecting
No discussion since 14 May, article protected far too long. Unprotecting. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
History and Latin America
I think there should be less history and more Latin America. The situation in Latin America isn't really well represented. Sarcelles 02:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
U.S. English
The article is at the moment couched in a mixture of British, U.S., and probably other forms of English. I started making it consistent, but then thought that I'd better check the edit history. The first five versions were neutral between forms, but the sixth might have been U.S. English ("traveled") — though other typos, especially missing letters, makes that judgement tentative. Still, assuming that it was U.S., I'm not qualified to bring it into consistent U.S. style; could a U.S.-English user do the honours? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
