Talk:State terrorism

Archives

• Talk:State terrorism/Archive 1

Please explain in detail whenever you remove some thing

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)

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] (http://www.maarivintl.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=printArticle&articleID=5519) 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 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1974389.stm)

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] (http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0401-04.htm) On June 4, 2004 Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan also accused Israel of state terrorism.[3] (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1231094,00.html)

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] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/353491.stm).

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.

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)

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

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] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=State_terrorism&oldid=8689453), 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

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)

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)

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)

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)