Talk:State-sponsored terrorism/Archive 1

South Africa

In the section on South Africa, I added a brief sentence mentioning the arms sales to Loyalist terror groups in Northern Ireland. In the 1980s, Armscor, South Africa's government-owned arms manufacturer, sold a large number of captured PLO weapons that had been recovered by the Israelis to the UDA, UVF, and some other groups (see the Wikipedia entries on those groups for mention of the sale). So I think that qualifies. 193.61.200.145 18:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Cuba

The Cuba entry contains only allegations made by one source (the U.S. an avowed enemy of Cuba) which claims that some alledged terrorists live in Cuba. Does having people alledged to be terrorists by a self declared enemy of your country count? If so we would have to put any country that houses any individual denounced by Chavez, Castro etc. Surely your only a SST if you actively contribute (financially, logistically etc.) to acts of terrorism? Immanuel goldstein Since im not getting a response I'll leave it another day or to and then if I dont get a response I'll take Cuba off the list. Immanuel goldstein I note it now says "provide safe haven to people accused of terrorism" - this means virtually any country is terrorist because they have citizens in them that are labelled terrorist by any another country. Immanuel goldstein

Done Immanuel goldstein

historical context

To put this and state terrorism into historical context a passing reference to privateers might be appropriate. User:Jackiespeel

There needs to be some mention that although most of the nations accused of sponsoring terrorism are accused by the United States of America, the USA is actually one of the most active sponsors of terrorism: School of the Americas training assassins and hit squads; CIA operations bringing coke to inner-city addicts; the US push to 'get Osama' and 'get Saddam', etc.Pedant 16:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

After starting this page, Even I'd entirely forgotten about this one. Points raised above are interesting. Jackie's suggestion can be used in the right context. And Pedant suggestion of adding USA is also welcome, though care must be taken not to involve its support to purely guerilla organizations in some banana republics. But yes, any country that sponsors "terrorism" should come here, provided there's some sources to back it. Idleguy 17:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

"banana republic" to some but home to others. "Freedom fighter" or terrorist usually depends on if one is being blown up by the group concerned. For example were the Taliban freedom fighters or terrorists when fighting the Soviet and sponsored by the USA Pakistan? What about the Malayan People's Anti-Japanese Army (MPAJA) and its relationship with the post WWII Malay Races Liberation Army? This is a very POV area (see below). Philip Baird Shearer

The USA is the only country which has been subject by the world court of having perpetrated acts of terrorism. The World Court ruled against the USA for its actions in Nicaragua. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.177.183.210 (talk) 07:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

True, but not entirely relevant. Most countries generally recognized as supporting terrorism don't recognize the authority of the World Court. As the World Court only accepts cases where the "defendant" will accept the authority, this seems not particularly significant. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

To keep this article focused I think it needs to be bound by some dates. For example how far back is the term "state sponsored terrorism" (SST) a valid description? Since the modern definition of the state emerged at the end of the "30 Years War" (see Treaty of Westphalia)? Since WWII/ founding of the UN? I would go for the UN treaty myself otherwise were the British OSE and American OSS sponsoring terrorism? But see below about SST in war which is another issue.

If this is not done then the article will over time loose focus as people include all sorts of stuff from all sorts of times. -- Philip Baird Shearer 12:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Definitions of state sponsored terrorism with sources

Some definitions with sources of what SST is would help. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

War and SST

Is the sponsorship of clandestine organisations behind enemy lines in a war or armed conflict "state sponsored terrorism"? --Philip Baird Shearer 12:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I have not come across any such definition. Support for a guerilla army that targets enemy soldiers/installations but not civilians is not state sponsored terrorism as it does not involve terrorist activities per se in the rigid definition of what terrorism means. Idleguy 14:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

In total wars between industrial nations the distinction between civilian and combtant breaks down. For example what about bombing an arms factory? Is that terrorism or legitimate guerilla action? After all it would be a legitimate target for an air strike. What if there is a cresh in the factory? Is a civilian prison guard a legitimate target if letting out inmates hinders the enemy's war effort, particularly if some of inmates are captured guerillas? If enemy civilian police officer endangers a mission against a military targert are they a lawful target? What about a none uniformed enemy civilian who endangers a mission against a military targert?

I think in general it is better to exclude the sponsorship of clandestine organisations behind enemy lines in a war or armed conflict --Philip Baird Shearer 20:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Different types of state sponsored terrorism and not nPOV

Eg East Germany and its relationship with the Red Army Faction, Libya and the PIRA. Was the USA sponsorship of Afghan fighters during the Soviet Afghan War SST?

I see this area as full of "not neutral Points of View". :-( --Philip Baird Shearer 12:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • • I have added a section on accusations of the United States as being a state sponsor of terrorism. The article was previously flagrantly violating NPOV by focusing solely on state sponsored terrorism from the view of the US State Department Terror list, and required a place for viewpoints from the countries themselves that are accused as being state-sponsors of terrorism in order to make the article NPOV. I sincerely hope this provides ground for positive development and debate for the article, as opposed to automatic deletion and a dismissal of alternative viewpoints in the article. Hauser 03:25, 24 November 2005 (NZEST)

I am apalled by the mere mention of the USA in an article about state sponsored terrorism. I know there is a sizable leftie blame America first crowd out there but it exceeds the norm of decency for Wikipedia to give credibility to North Korea, a nation that has one of the worst track records in history in this matter, accusing the USA of SST. Terrorism is the indiscriminate targetting of civillians by groups not in a structured state/military organization for the sole purpose of instilling terror in its victims and to gain political advantage. Iraq paying families of Palistinian homicide bombers who blow themselves up in a pizza restaurant, that is SST. Libyian agents blowing up civillian airliners, that is SST. Syria, Iran and the like aiding and abetting groups like Hezbollah, that is SST. To even put the USA in the same article is perverse. --Kalsermar 02:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - though, I think qualifying statements about the nations involved in the accusations of the U.S. would help NPOV it. JG of Borg 21:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I updated the US section with a more recent example, fully supported by a NY Times citation, includign a link to an archived version.

I have taken this part out for now as the link provided admits that facts are not certain. Unless there is a more verifiable account of direct US involvement and US intent to expressly target civilians in a manner common to terrorist MO I don't think this belongs here.--Kalsermar 22:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Kalsermar, (1) Please tell me what in the NY Times article was stated to be "not certain." (I suppose nothing is truly certain in this world except tautligcal statements, but that has not stopped wikipedia.) (2) With respect to intent, could you cite ANY example of state terrorism where the intent of the policy makers can be shown let alone verified? The deliberate targeting of civilians for a political objective by agents supported by a state raises the presumption of terrorism. It would be up to the accused terrorist state to try to present evidence that it had no way of knowing that arming or funding the agents could result in terrorism. If ANY of the entries in this article are to be maintained, you must agree with me on the intent issue. (3) Wikipedia should not take a moral relativist stance: state terrorism is state terrorism regardless of the perpetrator, so long as the action meets the definition of a terrorist action and is perpetrated or backed by a state. I am giving you a chance to rebut, else I am retoring my contribution.

Thank you for giving me a chance to repsond. The article states in several places that the facts are uncertain:

• No public records of the bombing campaign exist, and the former officials said their recollections were in many cases sketchy, and in some cases contradictory.
• But whether the bombings actually killed any civilians could not be confirmed because (...) the United States had no significant intelligence sources in Iraq then.
• Regarding the schoolbus: Mr. Baer, a critic of the Iraq war, said he did not recall which resistance group might have set off that bomb.

As for citing intent, it was clearly the intent of Libya to blows up PanAm flight over Lockerbie, it was clearly the intent of Saddam Hussein to aid homicide bomber's families in the Palestinian areas and it is clearly the intent of the Iranian government to promote terrorism in the middle east, they admit, no make that boast about, that themselves. I'm sure I could name many more.

Moral relativism is grouping Libya, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, North Korea, Saddam Hussein et al in the same vein as the USA or other democratic states.

This piece does not state that the US Government directed a terrorist campaign against the Iraqi people, merely that the CIA has assisted (to which extent and with what success is not known) Iraqi opposition groups in their campaign against the Hussein regime. Terrorism furthermore, is targetting civillians, not governments. The whole idea of terrorism is to terrorize the population.

One final point, please sign your comments with four tildes (~) in the future.--Kalsermar 22:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Israel

I have removed Israel from the list of historical examples of state terrorism. The retaliation against the Munich Olympics terrorists does not qualify as terrorism of any sort. It is an example of covert military action, directed against people who were themselves combatants. It did not target innocent civilians. Bill 11:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

i think Bill is misled by the pro-zionist media. have you never heard of the attack on the USS Liberty? Have you never heard of the Lavon Affair? Or the bombing of the King David Hotel? israel is a terrorist state. a study showed that 45-50% of palestinian children had seen their fathers or parents beaten by israeli soldiers. ask them if as children they werent Terrorized. and what a suprise that you are jewish Bill. Keltik31 22:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

no, that's not terroroism, they just bulldoze down civilians homes, organize death raids into refugee camps and bomb civilians from helicopters. heavens above, however could that be mnisconstrued as terrorsm?! anyway, nice to see the pro-zionist loby hard at work on the wikipedia as usual

"Covert military action" it may well have been but it was carried out on the territory of nations who were supposedly allies and in a manner that was illegal under international law. I think the section should be reinstated but with a section on how it is contested. GiollaUidir 14:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I stand by the deletion. Supposing for the sake of argument that what Israel did was illegal, that doesn't make it TERRORISM, which is what is at issue here. If North Korea is guilty of counterfeiting US currency as is currently being claimed in the news, that is wrong and illegal, but it isn't terrorism and wouldn't justify including North Korea on the state terrorism page. Terrorism has a specific meaning - it isn't any sort of violence you consider unjustified. If the violence is targetted at specific people for a reason (whether or not you agree with the reason) and is intended as punishment, it is not terrorism. Bill 23:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Then by saying that, you are almost refuting the concept of terrorism completely. Your last point especially is absurd; you are more or less stating that as long as the violent attack is not completely arbitrary, then it is justified enough to avoid being labelled as such. Acts that are indeed labelled as 'terrorist' are rarely arbitrary. I oppose to the deletion, as it is state-based terrorism.

I oppose the deletion as well. Not only are several definitions of terrorism, like the literal US & European Union definitions being ignored, being completely ignored in this article, but Israel deletion makes it completely biased. Remember the definition of terrorism is not written in stone, its actually quite debated. And in many such definitions, Israel has repeatedly engaged in state-sponsored terrorism, the same the United States has done and the Soviet Union did in its time. --Clementduval 07:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Clementduval, please add an "Israel" section with allegations of state-sponsored terrorism (with citations of course). I just happened upon this article and was surprised Israel isn't listed. There must be claims. That said, if the only Israel-SST claim in the article was the hunt for the Munich killers, I would have to agree with Billposer's first argument for deletion. Tempshill 20:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I support the deletion of the Israeli SST section... if the Munich reprisals are terrorism, then this list should include almost every covert military action ever. I think that at that point terrorism would lose its meaning. Unless the objective is to convey that terrorism is omnipresent... which I don't think is a credible assertion.

--72.240.201.51 03:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Bias?

Glad I came across this beauty of an article. I didn't realize the US and the UK were the biggest state sponsors of terrorism in the world. Iran gets 2 sentences??--Looper5920 12:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it a bias to say that the UK and the US can't/didn't/wouldn't sponsor terrorism ? If one finds a proof about the activities currently depicted in the UK section, that paragraph deserves a new article on its own. Saying Hamas sponsors terrorism needs one line, no discussion needed. Talking about the US, UK etc... deserves far more than that. THe article says nothing more that these countries were accused of things.

To devote far more space to supposed Anglo-American support for terrorism than to real state-sponsors of terrorism -- Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria and Sudan (the last four of which have nothing at all on this page) -- is absurd, it certainly violates NPOV, and it extraordinarially unhelpful and unecyclopedic. -- User: Spock 20:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is the beausty of Wikipedia: that you can add any information you have on this subject.GiollaUidir 21:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

And nothing gets editors on WP going as much as the opportunity to write negatively against those who dare spread the scourge of freedom and democracy to those happily oppressed peoples in worker's paradises and Muslim fundementalist havens. It doesn't surprise me at all that North Korea/Sudan etc aren't even mentioned here.--Kalsermar 14:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Kalsemar, why did you remove my contribution about terrorism in Iraq sponsored by the United States? Calling it "irrelevant" is hardly sufficient. --JustFacts 19:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I called it irrelevant because it does not constitute state-sponsored terrorism nor is it backed up by hard facts, making it irrelevant info that doesn't belong in the article. According to former U.S. intelligence officials as quoted in the New York Times hardly makes it established fact. Read the article, no official record, sketchy memories that are also contradictory etc. Mr. Baer who recalls the schoolbus being blown up is a critic of the war, (why do I keep thinking Amb. Wilson here....) who doesn't know who set off the bomb. Another one says there wasn't much killing going on. That just about covers the reasons I deleted it. There is nothing to indicate that the US Government specifically targeted civillians as part of a terrorist campaign, au contraire, that is what "we" are fighting against. In other words, it is not SST.--Kalsermar 14:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to make three points. (1) The NY Times is one of the leading daily newspapers, and arguably the leading newspaper in the United States. It's pretty reliable when if reports facts (whether you agree with its editorials or with the topics it chooses to ignore is another matter). See Wikipedia rules on sourcing. To put in another way, if you don't accept as facts about world events that which the NY Times, Wash Post and other major media present as facts then you must live in some sort radical isolation from knowledge about world events. This is especially so in this article, since former US intelligence officials are cited by name. Several corroborate the story, although not all of them know all the details. (2) The fact that one of the US officials happens to be against the current war (I am taking your word for this) does not impeach his credibility on things that happened 10 years before the war (or for that matter about anything else, just as the credibility of individuals who are for the war is not impeached by their views on the subject when they describe things they know about first hand). (3) It's state-sponsored because the US gov't orchestrated it using US funding and CIA assets like Allawi. It's terrorism becuase it targeted civilians for a political purpose. I am giving you one more opportunity to present some real reasons for not re-posting this. --JustFacts 16:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

(1)One report in the New York Times does not an established fact make. Can you cite more than this one source? (Not copies of the exact same story in other papers of course) I could give you a laundry list of newspaper reports that turned out to be misrepresentations of the facts. (2) His stance on the war is in the article and it does throw off his credibility and this article appeared after the start of the war. (3) Read the article. I'll quote some key sections:

• • Iyad Allawi, now the designated prime minister of Iraq, ran an exile organization intent on deposing Saddam Hussein that sent agents into Baghdad in the early 1990's to plant bombs and sabotage government facilities under the direction of the C.I.A., several former intelligence officials say
  • The Iraqi government at the time claimed that the bombs, including one it said exploded in a movie theater, resulted in many civilian casualties. But whether the bombings actually killed any civilians could not be confirmed because, as a former C.I.A. official said, the United States had no significant intelligence sources in Iraq then
  • One former Central Intelligence Agency officer who was based in the region, Robert Baer, recalled that a bombing during that period "blew up a school bus; schoolchildren were killed." Mr. Baer, a critic of the Iraq war, said he did not recall which resistance group might have set off that bomb.

In other words, the program was under the CIA direction to sabotage govt. facilities according to this report, ie not SST. The Iraqi govt at the time, ie Saddam Hussein's govt said..... you get the picture with this one. Finally, Mr. Baer's piece.

If you can honestly present this piece as evidence that the United States Government specifically targetted innocent civillians in the general Iraqi population for no other reason that to instill terror in said civillian population (in other words to sponsor state terrorism, the topic of this article) that with all respect sir/madam, it is you who lives in radical isolation from knowledge about world events.--Kalsermar 19:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

(1) Please see Wikipedia rules as to whether the NY Times is a reliable source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you can cite to another reliable source that disproves the NY Times story you can come back then. (2) His stance on the war is irrelevant. (3) Blowing up gov't buildings for a political purpose is terrorism, as is blowing up a school bus with people on board. Consider the following thought-experiment. Suppose that during the same period (1992-1995) Iraqi intelligence had sponsored a campaign using Iraqi intelligence assets to blow up government buildings in Washington. Would that have been terrorism? Is it only terrorism when THEY do it? Unless your're some of radical moral relativist who believes anything YOUR gov't does is justified, you have to accept that my hypothetical bombing campaign would have satisfied the definition of terrorism just as the US sponsored bombing campaign against Bagdhad did. --JustFacts 21:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

(1)It does not say "The New York Times is a reliable source". It does say that even if verifiable a source does not have to be true (2) No it is not, it may affect his statements to suit his agenda. (3) Is blowing up a govt bldg terrorism? Usually, unless during wartime. Is deliberately blowing upo a schoolbus with children terrorism? You betcha! (MY government, I'll have you know, is not the US government BTW... surprise!) Your hypothetical bombing campaign would be terrorism and if the US government sent out a directive to knowingly blow up a schoolbus full of people then it too would be terrorism. If you read from this article of yours that that is what transpired then I really don't know what to say or think. There is however absolutely no proof that that happened in any way shape or form. At worst it can be said that the CIA conducted a shady but defensible operation against an enemy government whereby it supported groups in Iraq who may have commited terrorism without their explicit approval, that does not make this SST. People blowing themselves up in a pizzaparlour and being supported for that by Saddam Hussein in the form of payments, with Libyan agents under the direction of their government blowing up airliners, With certain countries knowingly sheltering Al Qaida elements, with North Korea's campaign against South Korea, etc. etc. etc. that is state sponsored terrorism and Anyone who claims that the passage I removed belongs in the same breath as those examples is morally challenged in my humble opinion.--Kalsermar 18:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I am going to try one last time. (1) Wikipedia rules do not list all acceptable primary and secondary sources. It would be impractical to do so. But the NY Times qualifies as an independent third party source. "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references." (2) Already covered. (3) Please read the first sentence of the article: "Iyad Allawi, now the designated prime minister of Iraq, ran an exile organization intent on deposing Saddam Hussein that sent agents into Baghdad in the early 1990's to plant bombs and sabotage government facilities UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE C.I.A, several former intelligence officials say." (emphasis added). Going back to my hypothetical, suppose a reliable source had stated: an exile organization intent on deposing the U.S. goverment sent agents into Washington in the early 1990's to plant bombs and sabotage government facilities under the direction of Iraqi intelligence, several former Iraqi intelligence officials say. Since you've already conceded that the latter is terrorism, you must concede the foremr is too.--JustFacts 20:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

As for (1) and (2), you get out of those one very cheapily indeed. You do not go into the specific concerns, namely that the source need not be correct and that Mr. Baer's opinions do cast a different light upon his claims (think Wilson again for a minute). The article in the NYT also says there are no official documents supporting what those so called intelligence officials are saying, just a report which may or may not be totally untrue (and given the NYT's reputation in reporting the facts these days that is entirely up in the air) yet you boldly claim the US government conducted a bombing campaign. The part you put in reads: ... the United States government conducted a bomb and sabotage campaign that included civilian targets... thereby implying that the US government wilfully was targetting civillians for terrorist purposes. This is a gross and despicable misrepresentation of what the facts are, according to the article quoted.--Kalsermar 21:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Gov't targets are civilian targets (unless they are military). If I blow up the White House or the Dep't of Commerce for some pol. motive don't you think that's "terrorism"? I've changed "conducted by the US gov't" to "under the direction of the C.I.A." as you suggest. As for your Ambassador Wilson example, I am not sure what you're trying to say. If Ambassador Wilson had stated that in his capacity as a US diplomat he observed X in 1992-95, given his current views on the war should his statement be deemed completely untrustworthy? Should reports by US officials who are currently FOR the war in Iraq about events in the 1990s be dismissed as completely untrustworthy? Also, the article is not based on the testimony of just one former US official but several. Further, even if no US officials had been quoted by name, a NYT article would be prima facie evidence because it's a major paper with editors who vet their sources and dot their "I"s. --JustFacts 22:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Libya

Add Libya to the historicaql section. Robin Hood 1212 22:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

UK????!!!!!!!!

How can one justify that the UK is a state sponsor of terrorism? I can admit that British authorities showed a preference to Protestant groups over Catholics ones in the Northern Ireland Troubles, but to claim that the Her Majesty's Government actively assisted such groups cannot be proved! The loyalist paramilitaries attacked and killed members of the UK armed forces, just as the republicans did, so why would the government support such groups? Any comment regarding 'alledged' or 'suspected' support are a matter of opinion that I shall not argue against, but to explicitly suggest such ideas is wrong unless backed by several non-conflicting sources. Many thanks, I do not want to edit such changes, but I hope that my views may at least impact the forms of allegations within this article. toughjet 10:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It is well known that certain elements of the UK's security services did support loyalist terrorist gangs throughout the period. The paricular cases of the murder of Pat Finucane and the 'unsolved' Dublin and Monaghan Bombings have well documented UK security forces connections. Please see these aticles for details and links. Of particular note are the two cases taken against the UK in the European Court of Human Rights in connection with the Finucane murder by Pat's widow and in connection with the 1974 bombings by the Irish Government.

That this support sometimes backfired in the form of UVF/UDA murders of the UK armed forces should be of no surprise; The US training and support of Bin Laden in the 1980's led to September 11 2001. In fact, this is so common that a term has been coined to describe it: Blowback. Questions such as "why would the government support such groups?" would be more fruitfully addressed to your local MP rather than on wikipedia. Seabhcán 11:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Please provide sourced material of accusations of state terrorism in those terms or the section will be removed. I'm not interested in opinions but citations of formal accusations of state terrorism against the UK 10:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weggie (talk • contribs)

The section is already ref'd. Removal of sourced material is considered vandalism.GiollaUidir 19:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I replaced "government" with "security forces" with regards who it was that allegedly colluded with the Loyallist Paramilitaries. This is more consistent with what was actually said in the Stevens report. It can be argued that "government" at some level may have been involved, but that is not what the cited source says. Epeeist smudge 12:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Can we have some sources please? I've tagged Cuba mercilessly but there are many claims that don't have any sources at all. Also, at present the US is apparently accused of "protecting Luis Posada Carriles, and North Korea". Good grief! That must be some job!--Zleitzen 09:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I copy edited the USA section and the above is now gone. Tempshill 20:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

India

Idleguy rightly removed an anon's POV rant against India (diff) which is actually also a copyright violation (see here). But it would be nice to get some proper, sourced info on India. It would balance the Pakistan section. Anybody out there know something about this? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 14:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No country has accused India of state sponsored terrorism; not even Pakistan has done so formally IIRC. India is already listed in State terrorism. Many, including governments and media, confuse these two terms. Idleguy 04:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

i think the following text is ok for the article. I have added only one ref. as yet more ref. will add later on. "India has been accused of supporting terrorist groups by Pakistan and Sri lanka .It has been stated by Pakistani media that india is sponsoring the Balochistan Liberation Army. India did train the Mukti Bahini against pakistan's occupation of Bangladesh during the 1971 Bangladesh atrocities. Pakistan also alleges that India is massacring thousands in Kashmir on the pretext of combating Terrorism in Kashmir. Sri Lanka also alleges that India covertly supports the LTTE in the region."User talk:Yousaf465

You are confusing one term for another and haven't provided any source for the Sri Lanka allegation. For all you know it was the Indians who were supporting Sri Lankan govt. and even sent its peace keeping troops that ended up fighting the LTTE by a strange twist of events. 1971 war involved guerilla fighters and not even Pakistan called them terrorists. If anything, the 71 atrocities were a case of Pakistani documented state terrorism. The genocide of Bengalis is a case in point. Now going by your standards, the First War of Indian Independence in 1857 would have to be called a massive terrorist uprising! Ewww. I I Hope you don't continue to call apples as oranges and plaster the same incredulous information everywhere. Idleguy 05:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this term was not as common in usage as it it now after the media is using it for every extremist organization.But the Balochistan Liberation Army link i think is ok.they have been already labeled as such by most desired sources e.g the British.So why remove India form this list . State terrorism i think is massacre of it's own citizen while state sponsored one is the act funding and supporting in any other way of terrorist groups/organization.Pakistan in it's print media Use the term "dasth gard" for the Mukti Bahini's members.User talk:Yousaf465

Mukti Bahini has not been classified as a terrorist organization, atleast not by any credible source. It's like calling the Viet Cong a terrorist organization. I see that you've yet to understand the difference between a terrorist group and a guerilla force. Now you're confusing State terrorism with state-sponsored terrorism. First differentiate the terms before you edit. Also the links provided are hardly credible and they don't talk about the LTTE nexus at present. And Musharraf hasn't provided any "evidence" as you claim but it was just a claim that money is being sent. So pl don't falsify sources. Thanks. While I've used Wikipedia:Reliable sources, you are using anything but. There needs to be strong official statement linking India with "terrorism" in Balochistan. All that you're doing is indulding in WP:OR. Idleguy 07:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Pl elobrate which links were"hardly credible".The bbc or the afghan news agency.In the bbc article it's clearly mentioned "Pakistan army" and "Pakistani officals" .ABout the "Musharraf hasn't provided any evidence" the afghannews clearly mention it was not at all my own research to find the evidence! I already have answerd your query about the two terms.I also have added cbc which might make it more reliable.User talk:Yousaf465

Atleast first learn the difference between state-sponsored terrorism and state terrorism before you edit. Defence Journal and Pakistani media aren't what you'd call credible. An official statement from Pakistan stating so would be. Also the links that you've provided either don't work or say something else than what you're trying to say. That's WP:OR to indulge in conjecture. Idleguy 12:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Pl back up your comments with the links which you say don't work.I checked all of them before adding.User talk:Yousaf465

That link http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/srilanka/tamil-tigers.html%7C as you've given in the article doesn't work. btw, India's role in tamil tigers was before they were classified as terrorist. Which means it is neither "current" as you are adding it under that section, nor is it terrorist training. IIRC, you are confusing the era when India supported the guerilla troops of the tigers with the phase where they involved in terrorist actions. A case is valid only if the state has indulged in state-sponsored terrorism, if the group itself is declared as a terrorist when supported by that state. It was only from the late 80s and 90s that LTTE was proscribed as a terrorist outfit. By that time India had ceased to help it. Idleguy 07:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What about the india involvement with Bla.?User talk:Yousaf465

Let's see. The only link BBC which is the one that talks about the baluch problem says "The army has accused India of financing and arming the Baloch rebels". The baloch rebels weren't specifically the BLA. Unfortunately ONLY the BLA has been labelled as a terrorist group, but so far no reliable source has been provided that links India with the BLA. In fact, the BLA's links seem more with the al-qaeda, as a Pakistani papers says.[1] Idleguy 14:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all who was the head of BLA? The news item of "the Nation" also said "On-going anarchy in Afghanistan is helping the Balochistan Liberation Army as it was being supported by different elements across the border".The common belief is that india is playing some game of terror in western province.Although this news item didn't mentioned the india's involvement in Afghanistan but the common belief is that several officials knew that Indians were fanning the discontent in Balochistan, they desisted from naming it publicly. You needed the what Prsident said then here it is what General Musharraf told CNN, there is a “conspiracy going on against Pakistan in [Karzai’s] ministry of defence and his intelligence set-up and I passed on information about it to Karzai. He better set that right.”

Indian diplomatic missions serve as launching pads for undertaking covert operations against Pakistan from the Afghan soil. Particularly, the Indian consulates in Kandahar and Jalalabad and their embassy in Kabul are used for clandestine activities inside Pakistan in general and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and Balochistan in particular.

RAW has established its training camps in Afghanistan in collaboration with the remnants of the Northern Alliance. Approximately 600 Ferraris, or Baloch tribal dissidents, are getting specialized training to handle explosives, engineer bomb blasts, and use sophisticated weapons in these camps.User talk:Yousaf465

Without sourcing the statements or giving any official links between the BLA and India, much of what you're saying amounts to merely speculation and what is politically termed as "baseless allegations". I don't know what the Ferraris have to do with terrorists, but let me tell you that even in India 600 ferraris don't ply. :D Idleguy 03:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No Israel?

Come on, there's plenty of state sponsored terrorism on Israeli part. Far more than Iran.

i couldnt agree more. wikipedia talks about being neutral and no POV, but if it is terrorism when Usama Bin Laden does it, then i feel it is terrorism when Israel does it. but if you say this, people on wikipedia accuse you of being anti semetic. israel is the reason we have terrorism in the middle east and our government leaders who are owned and operated out of israel, who undyingly support israel are the reasons we were attacked on 9/11. Keltik31 23:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

By "NPOV", wikipedia means, that it is not against the official POV of the US government. You are "anti-semitic" if you disagree with Israeli government policy. The fact that Arab people are semites too, and that thus, Bush is the biggest anti-semite since Hitler, is POV.... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 23:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

you cannot be serious. you are anti-semetic if you disagree with israeli government policy? if the policy was sexual expolitation of children and i opposed it i would be considered anti-semetic? then consider me the biggest anti-semite of all time because i do oppose the israeli government. am i understanding your point correctly? Keltik31 17:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You are certainly not anti-Semitic for opposing Israeli government. Anyone has a right to oppose any government. You are also free to add a section about allegations of Israel's SST, provided it's substantiated. However, simply stating your opinion ("far more than Iran") would most certainly not pass the POV check, and alleging that "our government leaders" are "owned and operated out of israel" is very likely to be interpreted as anti-Semitism. IgorSF 05:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

very likely to be interpreted as anti-Semitism indeed. especially because it's true. Keltik31 18:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Cuba

Someone has added an extraordinary section on Cuba. It is large, entirely unsourced and deals with many complex issues that must have reliable sources. I have removed it. All unsourced material should be removed from this page immediately. I hope other editors understand this and follow my lead.--Zleitzen 01:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Iran

i have removed the line"It has openly funded organizations recognized as terrorist groups by the UN such as Hamas and Palestine's Islamic Jihad." as both organstion don't seem to be recognized as such by the United nation.Pl dicuss here.User talk:Yousaf465

Mujahedin in afghanistan?

How exactly where the mujahedeen in afghanistan terrorists whilst they were fighting the soviet union? {Truth 06}

I think that if these 'mujahedeen' were trained and armed by CIA in neighboring Pakistan, they couldn't be called resistance movement, since patriots are usually not get paid with US dollars and armed with american weapons that is sold to terrorists and tyrannic governments such as Pakistan. You need to learn the difference between two words Talibs and Mujahedeen. Mujahedeen is a partisan. Considering you are Australian, I suggest you the following situation. The Australian aborigines are trained in Vietnam by Russian instructors and armed with Russian weapons, and paid with Russian rubles. Do we call these aborigines soldiers, partisans, freedom fighters? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.184.225.28 (talk) 08:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

France

Does the Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior, in which French Government agents murdered a political opponent in New Zealand, count as terrorism? If so, France should be added to the Historical section. Hypnopomp 10:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

By the terms of the definition, this would arguably be "State Terrorism" rather than State Sponsored Terrorism. Epeeist smudge 12:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of Israel

Israel is guilty of state-terrorism. Here's some:

In October 1956, the Israeli air force shot down an unarmed Egyptian civilian plane, killing 16 people including four journalists, in a failed attempt to assassinate Field Marshall Abdul Hakim Amar, second to President Nasser, at a time when the two countries were not in a state of war. This was a preplanned operation, thus unlike Israel's downing of a Libyan civilian airliner with 110 killed as it was lost in a sandstorm two minutes flight time from Cairo, towards which it was heading. This February 1973 action took place while Israeli airborne and amphibious forces were attacking Tripoli in northern Lebanon, killing 31 people (mainly civilians) and destroying classrooms, clinics, and other buildings in a raid justified as preemptive

In February 1973, Israel shot down a civilian jet over the Sinai, killing 110 people. The plane was then lost in a sand storm. It was about 2 minutes flight time away from Cairo. No confusion, no ambiguity. The orders came from the highest center of the high command. Now this was sort of noticed, there were a couple of references to this in the middle of the KAL 007 business. Predictably, a series of lies were produced, in the New York Times and elsewhere, saying that the situation was totally different because Israel has taken responsibility and paid compensation. If you look back, you find that Israel did not take responsibility, and refused to pay compensation.

They agreed to something else, what's called ex gratia compensation, meaning just sort of pure humanitarian aid, which is easy enough because we paid for it. But they refused to pay compensation, because that would imply responsibility, and they refused any responsibility. In fact, what they did is exactly what the Russians did: they put a couple of pilots on television, and they told how what they did was exactly right and just, and they tried to blame the French pilot, he didn't know how to fly... Couple of days after that, Golda Meir came to Washington. She was asked no embarrassing questions about this; the press didn't bother. And she returned home with new military aircrafts. That's the way the US responded in that case. There was also editorial comment. The New York Times, which was outraged beyond anything about the Russians, it also had something to say in this case. It had an editorial saying that "No useful purpose is served by acrimonious debate over assignment of blame". That was the phrase in this situation of tension...

For the New York Times's treatment of the Israeli airplane atrocity, there's Editorial, "After Sinai," New York Times, March 1, 1973, p. 40 ("No useful purpose is served by an acrimonious debate over the assignment of blame for the downing of a Libyan airliner in the Sinai peninsula last week"); Editorial, "Tragic Blunder," New York Times, February 23, 1973, p. A32 ("there simply was a series of dreadful blunders"); Terence Smith, "Israelis Down A Libyan Airliner In The Sinai, Killing At Least 74; Say It Ignored Warnings To Land," New York Times, February 22, 1973, p. A1. An excerpt:

The Israeli Cabinet in a communiqué said that the jetliner had been intercepted as a "last resort. . . ." The Cairo radio . . . [said] the pilot reported that he had been having radio difficulty and had lost his way because of bad weather. Shortly afterward, the radio said, the pilot radioed that the Israelis were demanding that he land. . . . Official reaction was guarded. Premier Golda Meir expressed it in a statement issued last night that said: "The government of Israel expresses its deep sorrow at the loss of life resulting from the crash of the Libyan plane in Sinai and regrets that the Libyan [sic; the pilot was a Frenchman subcontracted from Air France] pilot did not respond to the repeated warnings that were given in accordance with international procedure."

On Prime Minister Meir's smooth visit to the U.S. after the airplane bombing, there is for example, John W, Finney's "Mrs. Meir In U.S. For 10-Day Visit," New York Times, February 27, 1973, p. A1; John W. Finney, "Ms. Meir Says Israel Feared a Suicide-Bombing by Airliner," New York Times, March 2, 1973, p. A4 ("Mr. Nixon gave assurance to Mrs. Meir, who is seeking $515-million in new credits and aid from the United States for additional weapons, 'of continuing United States support'").

After numerous lies -- including that the French pilot was not authorized to fly the jet plane -- Israel confirmed that there had been an "error of judgment" and agreed to make ex gratia payments (which were paid by the United States) to the families of victims "in deference to humanitarian considerations," while denying any "guilt" or Israeli responsibility. I have sources for this too, like Terence Smith's "Israel Erred in Judgment On Libyan Jet, Dayan Says," New York Times, February 25, 1973, p. A1 ("'we erred -- under the most difficult of circumstances -- but that does not put us on the guilty side'"); Terence Smith, "Israel Decides To Pay Families of Crash Victims; Government Move Avoids Any Implication of Guilt," New York Times, February 26, 1973, p. A1; "Israelis Announce Payments In Crash," New York Times, March 7, 1973, p. A8 ("Israeli officials have not accepted full blame although they have stated that several mistakes were made, including some by the French pilot of the airliner").

For false claims by apologists that Israel "immediately accepted responsibility" and "paid reparations," see for example, Michael Curtis, "Flight 7: Faulty Analogy," New York Times, October 2, 1983, p. E18; Martin Peretz, "Washington Diarist," New Republic, October 24, 1983, p. 50.

There should be a section for Israel. Like pre-independence when Palestine was occupied by Britain.

In 1943 PM Yitzhak Shamir wrote the article Terror for the paper of Lehi, where he proposed to “dismiss all the ‘phobia’ and babble against terror with simple, obvious arguments.” “Neither Jewish morality nor Jewish tradition can be used to disallow terror as a means of war,” he wrote, & “We are very far from any moral hesitations when concerned with the national struggle.” “First and foremost, terror is for us a part of the political war appropriate for the circumstances of today, and its task is a major one: it demonstrates in the clearest language, heard throughout the world including by our unfortunate brethren outside the gates of this country, our war against the occupier.” There's plenty of Zionist terrorist acts we can refer to, such as those referred to in our pages on Irgun and Lehi

Including regarding the 2006 conflict with Hezbollah and before in it's invasion of Lebanon from 1982-onwards. For example:

In March in occupied Lebanon, reaching new depths of "calculated brutality and arbitrary murder," a Western diplomat familiar with the area observed, as Israel Defense Forces (IDF) shelled villages, carted off the male population, killed dozens of villagers in addition to many massacred by the IDF's paramilitary associates, shelled hospitals and took patients away for "interrogation," along with numerous other atrocities. - The Guardian, March 6, 1985

---

“Israel has located most of its army camps, weapons factories and military installations near or inside civilian communities. If a Hizbullah rocket slams into an Israeli town with a weapons factory, should we count that as an attack on civilians or on a military site?”

“it can be known beyond a shadow of a doubt that Israeli army camps and military installations are based in northern Israeli communities.”

“is that the 12 soldiers who were killed on Sunday in Kfar Giladi by a Hizbullah rocket were, under Egeland’s definition, “cowardly blending” with the civilian population of that community. We know there are still civilians in Giladi because their response to the rocket barrage was quoted in the Israeli media.”

“On Tuesday, the BBC’s Katya Adler reported from the northern community of Kiryat Shmona” “she had to shout over the rythmic bark of what sounded like an Israeli tank close by firing into Lebanon.” “it does raise the question of how much of a civilian target Kiryat Shmona really is.” “Throughout the four weeks of fighting, the BBC have had a presenter and film crew at the top of an area of Haifa known as the Panorama, above the beautiful Bahia Gardens. As the name suggests, from there the film crew have had an unrestricted view of the port and docks below and the wide arc of heavily developed shoreline that stretches up to Acre.” “If Hizbullah’s primary goal is to kill as many civilians as possible in Haifa, it seems to be going about it in a very strange manner indeed -- unless we are to believe that none of its rockets could be fired the extra 1km needed to hit central Haifa. Instead, as is clear from the view shown by BBC cameras, the port includes many sites far more “strategic” than the roads, bridges, milk factories and power stations Israel is destroying in Lebanon: it has the oil refinery, the naval docks and other installations that, yes, I cannot mention” “The shrapnel can kill civilians nearby, of course, but it can also kill soldiers -- as we saw at Kfar Giladi” - Hypocrisy and the Clamor Against Hizbullah, How “Indiscriminate” is Hezbollah’s Shelling?, JONATHAN COOK, Counterpunch, August 9, 2006

‘"found numerous cases in which the IDF [Israeli army] launched artillery and air attacks with limited or dubious military objectives but excessive civilian cost. In many cases, Israeli forces struck an area with no apparent military target. In some instances, Israeli forces appear to have deliberately targeted civilians."

“In fact, of the 24 incidents they document, HRW researchers could find no evidence that Hizbullah was operating in or near the areas that were attacked by the Israeli air force. Roth states: "The image that Israel has promoted of such [human] shielding as the cause of so high a civilian death toll is wrong. In the many cases of civilian deaths examined by Human Rights Watch, the location of Hezbollah troops and arms had nothing to do with the deaths because there was no Hezbollah around." “to anyone living in Nazareth, it was clear the rocket attack on the city was not indiscriminate either. It was a mistake -- something Nasrallah quickly confirmed in one of his televised speeches. The real target of the strike was known to Nazarenes: close by the city are a military weapons factory and a large military camp. Hizbullah knows the locations of these military targets because this year, as was widely reported in the Israeli media at the time, it managed to fly an unmanned drone over the Galilee photographing the area in detail -- employing the same spying techniques used for many years by Israel against Lebanon.

One of Hizbullah's first rocket attacks after the outbreak of hostilities -- after Israel went on the bombing offensive by blitzing targets across Lebanon -- was on a kibbutz overlooking the border with Lebanon. Some foreign correspondents noted at the time (though given Israel's press censorship laws I cannot confirm) that the rocket strike targeted a top-secret military traffic control centre built into the Galilee's hills.

There are hundreds of similar military installations next to or inside Israel's northern communities. Some distance from Nazareth, for example, Israel has built a large weapons factory virtually on top of an Arab town -- so close to it, in fact, that the factory's perimeter fence is only a few metres from the main building of the local junior school. There have been reports of rockets landing close to that Arab community.

How these kind of attacks are being unfairly presented in the Israeli and foreign media was highlighted recently when it was widely reported that a Hizbullah rocket had landed "near a hospital" in a named Israeli city” “very "near" that hospital is an army camp” - Israel, Not Hizbullah, is Putting Civilians in Danger on Both Sides of the Border, War of Media Deception, JONATHAN COOK in Nazareth Counterpunch, August 3, 2006

User:Green01 9:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Sources Used in United States Section

I am looking at the kinds of sources used to cite the examples of U.S. state-sponsored terrorism and they include references from Commondreams and Democracy Now, both of which are known to have a blatant left-wing slant. For that matter, neither am I comfortable with the reference to the Free Republic message board. Is there any way we can support this information with sources that don't have such an obvious lean to them? --Sidestreamer

Totally disputed

I had carefully gone through the article and corrected numerous factual errors and unsourced POV claims. Everything carefully explained in edits summaries. This was reverted without explanation. Please explain.Ultramarine 09:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Merger

I propose that List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state should be merged into this article. Both articles seems to deal with an identical subject and much material is duplicated on both pages. Thoughts? Ultramarine 09:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The two terms per se have differences. State terrorism is basically the state's actions against its own civilians whereas Sate sponsored terrorism is about activities directed towards an enemy state's military and/or civilian population. Only a "List of acts labelled as State Sponsored terrorism" would fit the bill for a merger, if approved, into this article. Thanks. Idleguy 02:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? Regardless, the contents of the articles make no such distinction.Ultramarine 08:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I dont agree with the merger, it only makes the article about state sponsored terrorism that much more difficult to maintain. Wikipedia needs clarity on these definitional articles but aboutthe examples such as lists, the pov pushers can have the heart out in reverts and counter reverts and fight it out. Thanks Taprobanus 20:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I support the merger, as long as large portions of the text dont disappear, as they have on List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state. Maybe someone other than the moderator should merge the text. 68.90.182.192 23:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Serbia Yugoslavia JNA where are they???

Why not mentioned??

Jordan?

Hezbollah is a major part of Jordan's government...

This Article is Worthless =

Wikipeida needs a new category that flags articles as worthless. This one could cut its entire list of countries, which is both incomplete and inaccurate, and not suffer. Belgium as a state sponsor of terror? That's inane. Gaintes (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian authority

The Palestinians aren't really part of a state (except maybe Israel, but that's streching it). Thus the "Palestinian authority" isn't a state like Afghanistan or the United Kingdom. It should be moved elsewhere.Vice regent 20:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the following from the article per my comments above (and because it is completely unsourced).Vice regent 14:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The Palestinian Authority has sponsored terrorism against Israel. Yasser Arafat's Fatah made an alliance with Hamas and Islamic Jihad and it contnued until the civil war, which was really a power struggle. Though, they made a unity government and had some clashes with the Hamas parliment. The Palestinian Authority has encouraged terrorism against Israel to destroy the state of Israel. Some groups that are part of and commanded by the rest of fatah such as al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades were established in the second intifada and committed suicide bombings against Israeli civilians and have fought Israeli soldiers. Arafat, while he was president of the Palestinan Authority, was seen on PA TV publicly encouraging a jihad against Israel. But unlike al-Qaeda wich is commonly considered terrorist many muslims and muslim nations don't see these organisations as terrorist but as legitimate recistance.

Weasel List

I belive the purpose of this list is to educate people about state-sponsired terrorism, not to make political statements. The Middle East is obviously home to many examples. On the other hand, the list shouldn't include such fallacies as the UK being indentified by Iran. It should be obvious that Iran uses this to retaliate against Europe and America. Therefore, the nations of France, the UK, and the US should be removed, since they are being accused of these crimes by the terrorist states themselves. What good is our list if we equally punish France with Iran, when France is a free, democratic country, and Iran is a dictatorship that does not respect human rights. Please discuss, (209.7.171.66 22:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC))

The sections you removed were sourced properly and meets our policies WP:V and WP:RS. Removing them was against our policy on WP:NPOV. Having these countries on this list is firstly, not a weasel list, secondly, does not constitute a political statement. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 22:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

My dear Canadian friend. I believe it is a weasel list. Please understand that nations which are regarded by the international community as supporters of terrorism, do NOT have the same credibility to accuse free, democratic nations of the same crime. If I call you a name, you cannot call me back one just because I did it. It must be supported by evidence. Iran is a terrorist-sponsoring nation. It may accuse the UK or the US of the same crime to retaliate, but the Wikipedia community should realize how foolish it is, and thus, disregard it. I hope you understand my logic. Let me know what you think. (209.7.171.66 22:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC))

Here at Wikipedia, we treat all states, nations and countries on the same level no matter what they have or haven't done. That means if it is notable and it is sourced, we added it. One being democratic and the other one not, does not give the democratic nation precedence over the other. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 23:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Besides that, France has more or less admitted to sponsoring terrorism in this specific instance. They called it terrorism when it happened and they latter admitted they were involved in planning it. If anything, France is probably the worst example anon could use since they are oen of the only ones who beyond any shred of doubt should be on this list even if what they did may seem minor to many of the other accusations Nil Einne (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversial Statements

This article contains a number of controversial, unreferenced statements. The way to address these is to add citations or to remove these statements - simply removing the {{fact}} tags that highlight WP:V issues is NOT the way forward Socrates2008 (talk) 11:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Alleged South African Sponsorship of Loyalist paramilitaries

The citation added this to support this allegation mentions a poor attempt by the South Africans to procure missile technology from the Loyalists (not the other way round).

"When three Loyalists were arrested in Paris in April 1989 in the company of a South African diplomat, in the subsequent court case the French judge treated the Loyalists leniently. He did so because what they had been handing over to the diplomat was just a display model of a Shorts missile and not anything that could have been of any value to the South African military."

So this citation contradicts, rather than supports the statement in the article that "In the 1980s, the apartheid regime was alleged to have supplied arms to loyalist paramilitaries in Northern Ireland such as the Ulster Defence Association and Ulster Volunteer Force" Socrates2008 (talk) 13:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the actual section that the citation supports:

"I had been deliberately targeted by an agent of South African Military Intelligence. This agent had somehow got hold of the security-force file about Mr X and then changed the details, inserting my name and address. He had then shown the file to the Loyalists."

     GiollaUidir (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No, haven't missed it. That link you've mentioned does not mention or substantiate arms sales by South Africa. Please find a reliable source that backs up the sale of arms by South Africa to the Loyalists or the unsubstantiated statement to that effect in the article may be removed.

Please do not make further edits until this has been resolved. Socrates2008 (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The second ref link is being a bit dodgy but the page is cached here. Quote: "During this period, Nelson also travelled to South Africa at the behest of McMichael, to procure arms for the UDA. He was central to securing weapons in January 1988 including 200 AK47 assault rifles, 90 Browning pistols, 500 fragmentation grenades, 30,000 rounds of ammunition and 12 RPG 7 rocket launchers.

Divided out among the UDA, UVF and Ulster Resistance, the weapons helped to fuel a loyalist murder campaignfrom1988 to1994in which more than 200 people died.The deal with SouthAfrican agents was known to Nelson's handlers and is thought to have been cleared by at least one unnamed British government minister. "

Regards, GiollaUidir (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I don't see why you regard adding references to a section as being "controversial edits". While I appreciate that you are probably editing in good faith your removal of references that support the material is starting to get irritating. I suggest you read the FULL source before removing it in future. Regards, GiollaUidir (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The reference did not support the statement - simple as that. Your citation was about an alleged assassination plot and attempt by SA to procure rocket technology and would therefore support a statement about SA buying, not supplying arms. You can't make a claim, then back it up with an contradictory citation. I raised this issue here on the talk page specifically so that you could have the opportunity to resolve it. This is a controversial article, so reliable and verifiable references are required, even if you may find this "irritating". Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree strongly with Socrates2008 and I have reverted the addition by GiollaUidir. The one reference does not work and the other does not support of even mention the supply of arms by any party. --Deon Steyn (talk) 09:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

South Africa

I have once again had to correct this section. I would remind User:Phase4 to refrain from adding POV content. The references to the South African Border War or political assassinations fall outside of the definition of terrorism or state sponsored terrorism. None of these activities targeted "non-combatants". --Deon Steyn (talk) 09:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I in turn have had to correct Deon's edits. Hopefully we can now put these issues to bed.Phase4 (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Phase4 is a POV alias of Patrick Haseldine

Phase4 is an alias of Patrick Haseldine is for making POV edits non attributable to him. Please see the talk page Socrates2008 (Talk) 02:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Herald.jpg

Image:Herald.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

POV and Patrick Haseldine

I have removed a bad case of POI, namely "Conspiracy theorist Patrick Haseldine" This is opinion. I have changed it to fact, which is he was a diplomat.

That term was there because he is the chief proponent of an unproven conspiracy theory about South African involvment in the Lockerbie bombing. Furthermore, his edit of his own biography suggests that he himself is happy with this term. Socrates2008 (Talk) 01:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Labelling somone a conspiracy theorist is certainly POV:- it is a pejorative term used it discredit the theories expressed by that individual (and I'm not expressing support for SA involvment.) In contrast his position as a diplomat is fact. The link you gave in no way proves Patrick Haseldine is happy to be labelled a conspiracy theorist. All it shows is that someone who registered as PJHaseldine, and linked himself to this article, did not change the description. This is not support as anyone could claim on Wikipedia to be him, and it is policy that Wikipedia is not used as its own reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.217.219 (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion continued here Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Fact tags and deletions

I'm familiar with most of the facts on this article, and will start to work to add references to support the claims. So please do not make any further deletions. One section on Chile about Operation Condor that user Raggz deleted as "OR," is actually not OR but well known, and there are many good sources to support the claim. So I'll restore that bit and expand on it with a source. An excellent source I have the supports the claims is from the journal Social Justice. Article Title: Operation Condor: Clandestine Inter-American System by J. Patrice Mcsherry Volume: 26. Issue: 4. Publication Year: 1999. Page Number: 144. COPYRIGHT 1999. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

New sources required

This article is big on claims but short on citations in places. Some sections have no references at all, which is just not on. I have removed one paragraph from Belgium as that had been tagged for nearly a year. I won't remove any more for the moment, but quite honestly I could see entire sections going if good references don't appear. John Smith's (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess you ignored my request above not to remove more items from this article as I am working on finding the best sources for these claims, and that these claims are valid. I hope this is not more of your wikistalking, JohnSmiths but its odd that you come here and delete right after I posted a message asking editors not to.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You posted your request over 12 hours before I made the deletion - that is hardly wikistalking, given I'd been editing for a lot longer last evening. I did miss it, but you can restore it very easily when you find your citations. John Smith's (talk) 12:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Herald.jpg

Image:Herald.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Soviet Union

An important part of this chapter is actually not concerned with "international" terrorism, as is claimed to be part of the definition in the heading. If the heading is not changed, that part should be deleted. As it is, this part is only there to push POV and support the existence of the "communist terrorism" articles.

Clear examples of this "communist terrorism" POV: mentioning China as a country liberated by the Soviet Army.

The main problem with the rest is (as has been pointed out in the other communist terrorist articles) that it is all based on the controversial statements of one man: Pacepa, who had a clear motive to claim these things. You need more substantiation, or else WP:UNDUE could be invoked.

Obviously, as this article is a POV magnet, the other chapters suffer from similar problems. I have already and easily dealt with an anti-British fragment, but I am sure there must be more.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 10:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

India

I would like to remove for following reason: - Only one of the citations provided is working, which shows Musharraff blaming India for Balochistan separatism. Even if India did support separatists, there is no evidence in the links provided that these separatism in Balochistan(which is a completely lawless area in itself) can be classified as terrorism(ie, deliberate targeting of innocent civilians). Suigeneris (talk) 08:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be a hasty remark to blame India as a tit-for-tat for the Kabul bombings in which both India and US accused Pakistan's ISI for their involvement. Surprisingly as this link indicates Pakistan countered by accusing US too of aiding terrorism in Balochistan, along with India of course, because these 2 nations were able to expose the Kabul terrorist attack. Idleguy (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

No he said it even before this Incident he is saying this since 2006.so i'm reverting it.another link Tariq Azeem this time if link doesn't work then here is the text "Arms supply to Bugti, Baloch rebels to be taken up with India, Afghanistan, says Tariq Azeem.

Islamabad, September 05 (PPI): Minister of State for Information Senator Tariq Azeem has said that Pakistan would take up the issue of arms supply to Akbar Bugti and other Baloch tribal chieftains with India and Afghanistan at an appropriate time. In an interview, he said Bugti was not himself..."

[2]

There is ample evidence to support this if it's not Internet this doesn't mean that India is not sponsoring terrorist. User talk:Yousaf465

I reverted your edits for following reasons:

It is immaterial who said and when it was said - support/sympathy for separatism(in itself) does not equal terrorism. Such support may result in armed conflicts between rival parties - but cannot be equated with deliberate and ruthless targeting of civilians like it happenned in Bombay or Karachi.

Your links are mostly not working - You can't copy paste contents of the links to talk page and provide it as reference

There is ample evidence to support this if it's not Internet this doesn't mean that India is not sponsoring terrorist. - Wiki doesnt publish OR. See WP:Original_Research Suigeneris (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is about sponsoring terrisot organzation.The link provided is working and if any link is not working copy it and search it in google.If you think they are not terroist see thislink declares BLA terrorist organisation I pasted that bcz in case that link didn't work but it's working fine.That or was just for the talk page.

Many civilians haved been killed in attacks by these groups. User talk:Yousaf465

• Except the rediff link, the links in my talk page give a 404 error. btw, don't you find it a bit amusing that after India, Afghanistan, and most importantly Pak's ally in the "War on Terror", the USofA accused ISI for its involvement in the recent kabul blasts, we have pakistan reporting of these three nations' (including US) trying to support terrorism in Pakistan? US backing terror networks in Pakistan This only proves that Pakistan is hell bent on accusing those who have criticised Pak by counter allegging them with state-sponsored terrorism. Idleguy (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Again we are seeing disruptive edits by User talk:Yousaf465. Seeing the amount of typos and comments in the user page, I even suppose that these could even be good faith edits by an inexperienced user. The user keeps on adding the OR "Pakistan has accused India of support to terroist groups within Pakistan". The user fails to provide one or more reliable, working links which states the above sentence or an equivalent sentence. I am not interested in an edit war, but if the user keep on adding this OR, this could be considered as vandalism and a WIki admin will have to look into his/her edits.

After providing a link which never works, there is no point in challenging other users to search in google and find themselves about the OR. Suigeneris (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

All of these links are working and I will also check in a day or two if there is some problem with them.User talk:Yousaf465

OK here you go - 1)Statement - Pakistan has accused India of supporting terrorist groups such as BLA.Citation - http://www.dawn.com/2006/07/18/top5.htm. I could never find the statement in the link provided - this is a pure OR

2)Statement - Suppling them with arms and ammunition. Whether this is terrorism is debatable - try to discuss here if there is a dispute before you add something.

3) Statement - Indian Intelligences Agencies have also carried bomb attacks in 1990's. Citation -'http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4789260.stm'. Again I could not find the statement you added in the link provided - this is pure OR constructed based on a different incident

4) Statement - Organizations such as Tamil Eelam Liberation Organization have been trained and supported by India. Pure OR - will be deleted

Please dont vandalise by adding pure ORs with irrelevant or non functioning links, that too with full of typos. You are just making unconstructive edits that disrupt the quality of the article as a whole. I recommend that you try to use Wikipedia:Sandbox to experiment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zencv (talk • contribs) 09:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is the reply

1)The dawn link was only for proving that Bla is a terrorist group.The Hindu link was there to support that India is supporting them.The Asia times link mentioned that Bla was been supplied with arms by India

2) This article is about States supporting terrorism.Whether it's through arms supply or being trained in that country.

3)carrying out four bombings which killed 14 people in Pakistan in 1990.

4)Pure Or then see this [3] and what is this Pure OR it wasn't written by me [4]

I don't need sandboxes for such edits when I know that I'm doing it correctly.User talk:Yousaf465

200 typos in 1 sentence, non functioning links, links provided with no proper heading and pure Original Research - if someone read your edits about India, they would realize how desperate you are - oh wait, it is real Madrassa edit indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zencv (talk • contribs) 20:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm always in hurry as right now I'm.User talk:Yousaf465

I understand that some people have concerns about certain statements and quotes in the India section. They, however, can easily be fixed, only with some sufficient research and just rubbing out the whole section is totally pointless and yet also unconstructive. Also, I must say that just completely erasing everything about India has no reason. It is a fact that India has been accused and alleged of certain acts and trying to get India out of the article does not help. In that case, if you read the Pakistan section, apart from facts, there a a number of accusations such as Pak's so-called role in the Assam conflict. Shouldn't these be removed too, then? Furthermore, if some people are very keen on removing Indian content (mostly typical pro-Indian users), it would be better of you that you DO NOT REMOVE FACTS. India's involvement in events such as the Bangladesh insurgency of the 1970's, as well as support for the terrorist organisation Tamil Tigers were TRUE (read history if you are short of knowledge), and you can find some articles about this on the net too. If users are still concerned about the information, then perhaps you can help by doing research and adding correctly verified info to the India section. The fact that Indian RAW spies who were caught, such as Kashmir Singh, have no reason to be removed,and once again, I question: Why remove that? I hope that these irresponsible edits will be stopped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strider11 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, as someone has listed that Pakistan supports the ULFA, let me remind you that India in that case also funds the Balochistan Liberation Army which is also a terrorist organisation., and there are accurate links provided for this in the article.

Very intersting material

However, many - including media reports from Pakistan, feel that these counter-allegations launched by Pakistan's President came in the wake of a war of words between India and Pakistan on the suicide attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul, which New Delhi has blamed on Islamabad-based Inter-Services Intelligence agency. Check the date of this article and compare it to the time of attack on Indian embassy in Afghanistan.[5]

See this before reverting any edits."The National" clearly mentions that concerns are being voice well before embassy bombing.User talk:Yousaf465

There is ample evidence that the Pakistani accusations of india supporting BLA is directly linked with immediately preceding Kashmiri accusations of terrorism (a fact that even US has started supporting) even in the past and as well cited it has been used as a tit for tat accusation. I don't wish to say any further because these citations were also removed. whereas the issue on Sri Lanka and much of what's been included as sponsored terrorism is directly from the most biased and pakistan-military publication called "Defence Journal". Half of the info is original research trying to paste erstwhile support to LTTE when they were not banded as "terrorist" with current situations and producing a thesis in here. See WP:OR for what I mean.

Presently the only ally that is being directly hounded in the war on terror is Pakistan. A cursory glance at the newspapers will reveal that Pakistan harbours terrors who spill over to Afghanistan that US troops bombs Pakistan and the latter is issuing ultimatums not to disturb the "peace". The ISI again has been accused by everyone from NATO, to Afghanistan, to even USA for their support to the terrorists and the user Yousaf465 only adds information on India as a weak and futile attempt to somehow avenge all the current happennings with articles dated from 1993 to paint India as the new sponsor of terrorism, when it's Pakistan which is under fire. Talk about timing. Idleguy (talk) 06:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well if that is the case then why [6] is dated 2006.I think Indian knew that a bombing will take place in 2008 ! .Whether India was sponsoring LTTE in 60 or 80 it doesn't matter what matter is that it was sponsoring thus it needs to included here. The were are other links,such as [www.fas.org] So read the article before slaughtering the facts.Remember the Jain Commission. Before it was just the embassy bombing now it moved to Kashmir.Are you going to stop or then it will be Hyderabad. If you have some reservation tag it as I have done it. User talk:Yousaf465

Introduction is a disaster

It should, at a minimum, attempt to state what state-sponsored terrorism is, per WP:MOS. Ray (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. However, it should be more than a definition (from something more than a dictionary) per WP:NOTDICDEF.VR _talk 04:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That section applies to the article as a whole, not the first sentence. It is only good encyclopedic style to start with a definition of the topic. Ray (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Israel section and state terrorism vs state sponsored terrorism

The statement by the prime minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan speaks about "state terrorism" NOT "State-sponsored terrorism". To include an Israel section please provide evidence of the State of Israel providing support for non state actors who undertake acts of terrorism. Otherwise the content belongs in a different article, if it belongs any where at all.

I believe this artile and the State terrorism article do a decent job of explaining the difference between the two concepts. Only the concept of State-sponsored terrorism is a legitimate accusation against a state. States can do massive damage but there are other words for that, and well recognised international definitions and concepts in international law. The entire concept of articles on specific states and listing allegations of "state terrorism" is not encyclopedic - any military action could be called "state terrorism" by someone. The forks from this article providing evidence of states funding, training or otherwise supporting non state actors who comit terrorist acts is a different story and worth having.

Oboler (talk) 06:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Important link india

http://www.alternet.org/audits/112761/india_has_to_take_a_look_in_the_mirror_to_understand_the_mumbai_attacks/?page=entire

India section removed

A user just removed the India section, saying this was in accordance with talk.[7] Can someone point me to such a consensus?VR _talk 15:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Here [8]24.28.83.178 (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

They call it consensus.then what is this [9].User:Yousaf465

That is what one would call taquiyya.24.28.83.178 (talk) 11:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

We are not discussing religion here.User:Yousaf465

Removing material on state-terrorism not state-sponsored

A fair bit of material in here seemed to be about state-terrorism on the part of Israel, Apartheid South Africa and the Soviet Union, not about their sponsoring terrorism. All the material on SA, for example, seemed to be about government agencies taking part in assassinations not their sponsoring other organisations (e.g. UNITA) to carry out terrorism. Similarly the allegations against Israel were about terrorist acts committed by Israeli government agencies not their funding other organsiations to carry out terrorism for them. The first half of the Soviet Union was again about government terror whilst the second half was more about their support for the PLO etc. which is appropriate.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the distinction drawn above. However, if apartheid South Africa and the former Soviet Union practised state terrorism, shouldn't they appear in that article (Israel is already listed there)?---PJHaseldine (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to add stuff there, bearing in mind the sepecial need for referencing to reliable sources in battleground articles.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

NPov India

Npov has been added if somebody has some concerns they should discuss it here.User:Yousaf465

Synthesis

If you feel that Indian section contains Or then you should discuss it here.Instead of removing it.User:Yousaf465

Contast removal

LTTE and BLA are terrorist and both are/were being sponsored by India.AS Links support that.So edit it instead of removing it.See these links if you can't understand the edits.1.[ http://www.cfr.org/publication/17707/raw.html] 2[10] 3[11] 4.[12]User:Yousaf465

disputeed lines

India has also been extremely active in fomenting ethnic violence, breakdown of law and order and religious tensions in neighboring Pakistan. RAW agents have been caught by Pakistani security apparatus on a regular basis and put behind bars as India continues to ignore the existence of Indian nationals in Pakistani jails for fear of compromising its intelligence agency's actions. Two high-profile cases of Indian spies who languished in Pakistani jails have been those of Kashmir Singh and Sarabjit/Manjit Singh, with Kashmir Singh even acknowledging up on his handover to India that he was indeed a RAW-trained spy who had infiltrated into Pakistan to carry out sabotage & instigate ethnic violence while also claiming that 100 other RAW-spies remained behind bars in Pakistan.

Even though India, via Indian Armed Forces & RAW financing of Mukti Bahini terrorists aided significantly to the creation of Bangladesh; RAW activities did not subside once that objective was achieved. RAW was assigned to increase its activities in post-independence Bangladesh so as to make sure a weak & subdued Bangladesh could not pose the same threat to Indian designs in the region as Pakistan did. RAW has been consistently been accused by successive Bangladeshi governments and defence analysts for financing and arming the 'Shanti Bahini' - an organisation that is fighting for the creation of an independent state named Jhumland in Chittagong Hill Tracts region of Bangladesh.

User:Yousaf465

Ad reflist:

Dear reviewers, Kindly note the references contains an article by DAILY MAIL. Its actually Daily Mail (Pakistan) and not Daily Mail (UK)! I was mislead by te name...hence added this bit of info fo others. --KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 15:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

A question to Yousaf. How is the arrest of an Indian spy got anything to do with terrorism? --KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 15:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That is same as asking what role enzymes have in biological reactions.User:Yousaf465

Previous version.[13].User:Yousaf465

Most of the sources provide the info that an Indian Spy was arrested. They say nothing about India supporting terrorism. The mediamonitor is just a paper clipping agency, they faithfully reproduced an article from Daily Mail (Pakistan). They have not done any additional fact checking. Thus, the only source for the info is Daily Mail (Pakistan) that is not a particularly reliable source, does not explain the source of their exclusive information and comes from a country with a long history of conflict with India. While the information might be notable enough to include it into the Research and Analysis Wing article as an attributed opinion it is certainly not reliable enough to include it here as a fact unless much more reliable sources of information are provided. I would recommend User:Yousaf465 to stop the disruption Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What is mentioned above has been "clipped" from the article because it's disputed.Removing that is disruption then I don't know what is going to happen to wikipedia.

On to main part,CFR confirms this see [14],and for Indian support for LTTE see Jain Commission at http://www.thehindu.com/fline/fl1424/14240260.htm.And for ISPR's view see the latest here [15]and [16]. Remember that He is a soldier and can't speak in clear terms until ask to do so.User:Yousaf465

For further reading see.

1.[17] 2.[18] 3.Finally President himself speaking here [19].If you have doubt about BLA see[20]. User:Yousaf465

• Thanks for the references. I am still not convinced that accusations by an involved party are reliable enough to include the allegations as facts into this article. Although they are strong enough to include into the Research and Analysis Wing. I would like to hear from other users to see their opinion and where the consensus is Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • This addition was an example of POV-pusing. How? Clubbing various references together to prove a point, where many references does not support the point. For example, check this part: "with Kashmir Singh even acknowledging up on his handover to India that he was indeed a RAW-trained spy who had infiltrated into Pakistan to carry out sabotage & instigate ethnic violence while also claiming that 100 other RAW-spies remained behind bars in Pakistan.[2][3][4][5]", here ref 2(ndtv), 3(times of india) and 5(rediff) publishes the same news provided by PTI (Press Trust of India) and they say that Kashmir Singh acknowledged to be a spy and there are 100 others so in Pakistan and so; but the news story does not support/claim that they 'had infiltrated into Pakistan to carry out sabotage & instigate ethnic violence'. Spying is not terrorism and many countries have spies in other countries. I do not see how spying is found equivalent to terrorism by someone.--GDibyendu (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.We can see other users other opinions also.User:Yousaf465 (talk)

• Come out of Kashmir singh.It's not about him that is why he has been removed from article.It's about indian support for LTTE and BLA.

1.[21]

2.http://www.thehindu.com/fline/fl1424/14240260.htm.

3.[22]User:Yousaf465 (talk)

[23]Another indian source.User:Yousaf465 (talk)

I would suggest that we keep the discussions contextual. This section discusses the text on two topics in two paragraphs and there is no mention of LTTE or BLA here. --GDibyendu (talk) 11:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Support for Mukti Bahini and BLA terroist link

Thanks for removing 'Support for Mukti Bahini' but you did made a mistake.The Dawn link labeling BLA as terrorist was to cite that this organization is indeed a terrorist organization.It wasn't for proving India's link with it.User:Yousaf465

Rv blocked user

Other editors have also contributed their edits doesn't come under same heading. And stop reverting sourced material.There is enough evidence that it need a mention here.User:Yousaf465

Recruited by RAW, trained by Army: LTTE

Even this is clubbing sources together ? Recruited by RAW, trained by Army: LTTE.User:Yousaf465 (talk)

United States of America

Why this article doesn´t talk about the terrorism of the USA?--88.0.45.70 (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Why would the nation fighting the war against state sponsors of terror be on the list of state sponsors of terror? Are they fighting themselves? Try to make your contributions make sense next time. With an IP address out of Spain it is no surprise.

The answer is that someone removed without explanation the section dealing with allegations on this matter. I have now restored that section.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan

The Pakistan section is very big compared with the others. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree... The information is a little out of order as well... It goes back and forth between the western and eastern borders... First Taliban, then kashmir then back to taliban then back to LET... It needs to be sorted out... The info should be a little more brief and to the point... Adil your (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree again. Potentially there are a lot more countries to be added. We should follow WP:summary style and have no more than three or four short paragraphs per country with separate article sfor those that have enough material to merit it.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The Pakistan section is absurd. Looks like Indian editors have been working exceptionally hard at it. Many of the articles cited are from non-credible sources and some are even from Op-Ed articles. I smell a clear WP:NPOV violation. And to top it off, the article has been made 'semi-protected' so that no one can make it more balanced. Lets be clear about this, someone has to take a stance and allot each country a small sizable para for its involvement in 'state-sponsored' terrorism instead of having one country take up half the space while others barely get a 3-sentence mention.Ron Pitz (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the Pakistan section as absurd at all. In fact, there are plenty of issues not even discussed, for example alleged Pakistani support of terrorist groups operating in neighboring Iran as well. These are not unsubstantiated rumors. I would say that the statement that Pakistan is the world's most important sponsor of non-state terrorist groups is probably broadly accepted in academic and intelligence circles.jackbrown (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, Ron Pitz's assertion that this is somehow the result of sneaky Indian editors doing down Pakistan is a pretty wild assertion.jackbrown (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

India

I have restored the Indian Section as follows...

1) BLA has been noted to carry out various terrorist attacks in Pakistan such as carrying out Bomb blasts, Kidnapping, Assassinations e.t.c....

2) Newspaper clipings have been referenced in other sections as well, then why delete it from the Indian section...

3) Lahore terror attack was a very big incident, its details are worth mentioning since it is alleged that Raw sponsored those attacks....

4) Regarding the paragraph of LTTE, the government not taking steps is not the important line, read the next lkine where it says that these government officails actually sponsered the terrorists....

I am open for corrections...Please give your constructive inputs....Adil your (talk) 04:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't actually see the restoration you report. Please bear in mind that we're wanting to control the size of country sections per the comments on the Pakistan section above, though I haven't seen that yet being reduced. Also please bear in mind that at certain periods Pakistan was under military dictatorship and various freedoms were reduced. Newspaper articles from those times are unlikely to be regarded as reliable sources except for how the regime wanted things to be seen.

It is probably best to argue here in detail for ther text you want included first as other editors seem keen to chop things out and we're going to have to achieve consensus through discussion in the end.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha, so silly of me.... I forgot to edit the page... I guess I was too involved with another article... I am actually surprised that all the editors who chopped off the indian section were all Indians, it looks a bit like POV to me... Yet they seem a bit reluctant when editing out the unnecessary bits in other sections... BTW the Media in Pakistan is completely free as far as I know.... Calling it biased is untrue, and biased towards a dictator is a really a shocking remark... Dawn is actually the no.1 english newspaper in Pakistan and is pretty reliable.... Anyway, I don't know why the India section has to be so small when all the other sections are at least as long as three paragraphs... Adil your (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a suggestion... Libya section is a pretty standard size section... I think we should take it as a standard when looking at the length of the sections from now on.... Adil your (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the rough sort of size. BTW, I think that 8, or even 5, references is a bit excessive. I can see you might want to adopt a belt-and-braces approach when you think you might be reverted, but it does affect readability. Let's see what the initial response of other editors is and then look to trim the references once we reach a stable version.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has problems with partisan editorship in articles related to all sorts of disputes. I've seen admins strongly suggesting that people ought to start WP:Writing for the enemy in relation to another nationalist dispute - I think the Israeli-Palestinian one and ARBCOM have demanded an enforced resolution to both the dispute on the naming of the Ireland articles and on the use of the "Judea and Samaria" terminology. Sooner or later they will progress to other conflicts including the India-Pakistan one.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It may seem like a partisan editor problem to the two of you but the reality is that the sourcing for the material added to the India subsection is atrocious. Take for example the statement about Indian support for Balochistan rebels. It may well be the case that India is pumping arms and ammo into the region but the support provided in the article is as follows:

1. one article (this) that is presented as stating the pakistani government but really only says that a Sri Lankan paper says that RAW is supporting the Balochistan rebels.
2. one article (this) from an online news site (is this supposed to be WP:RS) that attributes 'media reports' and a pakistani online news service (news international) for a mostly speculative story. How is one to interpret Media reports on Tuesday did not directly quote Musharraf, except saying he did not rule out a foreign hand in the developments in Balochistan, and it was alleged and not citing any source in particular? Are we to conclude that unattributed speculative statements published in a single newspaper are to be given a hefty weight by wikipedia?
3. one source (this which is apparently a travel blog of sorts that says that a Sri Lankan paper is saying that .....

One hopes that your standards for inclusion of material in wikipedia is a bit higher than this. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The third source actually cites the first. I've therefore removed the third and placed the first where it was as evidence of Sri-Lankan media making accusations.

The initials IANS at the end of the second source indicate that it is from the Indo-Asian News Service, a reliable source. Googling on the title shows that this article is used by several services. Unfortunately the IANS archive requires a log in to read. So I can't cite the original. Given the next paragraph in our article contains multiple sources for further Pakistani accusations against RAW, I don't think that the vagueness is an important issue.

Oh and I carefully have not said that one side or the other is being partisan here. I did however find this edit odd, given that the BLA is listed as terrorist not just by Pakistan but by the UK (and I think the US).--Peter cohen (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should be blindly quoting speculative news articles that are referring to other inaccessible news articles, especially when this article itself says that the other article 'alleges' without 'citing any source in particular'. This should not pass muster in any respectable source of information. Do I need to point out that the next paragraph in the article contains multiple sources that say the same thing (that the pakistani police allege that they foiled a terrorist plot of humungous magnitude and that that these alleged terrorists were funded by RAW). The multiplicity of sources means nothing. Perhaps my ideas are quaint and antiquated but an 'independent source' that lends authenticity to some of these claims would be nice. (BTW, here I see that it is the CIA that is funding the Baluchis, no mention of an Indian connection. I'm not saying there is or isn't Indian support for the BLA but rather that we'll have a hard time separating facts and fiction if every time anyone alleges something it shows up on a wikipedia page!)

Re the YellowMonkey comment: I don't see any sources that state the the UK and US have labeled the BLA a terrorist organization. Even if they had, the weakness of the current sources for these two sentences is quite obvious. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess your problem is with allegations of Police and Intelligence of Pakistan cited in the newspaper... But you must keep in mind that almost all the countries mentioned in this article, have only been accused, not proven to be sponsoring terrorists... Almost all the citations in the the entire article are allegations not proof... So as far as I can see, its alright to put an allegation if you can provide the source... Or you would have to delete the the entire article like YellowMonkey [24] has been deleting the indian section, just because it contains allegations.... Adil your (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Re the YellowMonkey comment: How can YellowMonkey being an admin do this edit and state that "these Balochis aren't widely recognised as terrorists unlike Jihadists and LTTE".... Shouldn't he do some research before Editing an encyclopeida....Visit this...this and this and you will get the answer to your question... Adil your (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

How big are the Taliban compared to BLA? How big are these alleged spies that never did anything compared to the Mumbai attacks??? What a joke YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 18:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well if you want know then please visit the area for yourself. Situation is more griever than mumabi attacks. I will not edit this article as I have too many links to this conficlt and my edits cross WP:OR. You can't travel without army escort, my classmates don't feel safe there. Chinese engineer was kidnapped from a car owned by my relative, some of my raltives are in security forces working agianst BLA. So I'm not editing it. Another news Dr.manmohan singh has mentioned in his talks with our Prime minsiter acknowledgement by New Delhi that India has a hand in what is going on in Balochistanyousaf465'

So you do accept that BLA is supported by the Indian agencies... Now whether it is small or big doesn't matter... What matters is that india is actually sponsoring a group which is labeled as a terrorist organization internationally... Hence putting it in the article makes perfect sense... Adil your (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

A terrorist is a terrorist, whether big or small..... And this is no excuse that because BLA is smaller then Taliban hence it is OK for India to supports it.... You are saying that If People in USA die then it is a big issue but if BLA kills innocent Pakistanis then it is not a big issue because BLA is a smaller terrorist organization.... And if it is so harmless then why is it labeled as terrorist internationally... Adil your (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It's undue weight. If your section is as big as that some of the rest need to be 10X bigger. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Also the sources are weak and don't point to a reliable link between India and the BLA. An 'expert' says that she's been told by a reliable government source and a loose statement by the Pakistani President don't add up to a lot. About the massive Lahore terror plot, the less said the better. And your 'Holbrooke' remarks were not made by Holbrooke but by a 'former intelligence officer' and the same article goes on to quote a South Asia expert who says that all that does not square with 'his observations and sources even though most Pakistanis will say it is true'. We can scarcely build an encyclopedia based on unverified statements made by 'former intelligence officers'. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

First, I'm uncomfortable with the use of a term like "state sponsored terrorism" in an encyclopedia and think verbiage indicating that this article documents only documents accusations and doesn't document, as fact, instances where countries have sponsored "terror". That said, even these accusations need to be credible and backed up by just sources emanating from a solitary country.

Now, as far as User:Adil your's inclusion of BLA. Of the sources provided, one is a Pakistani newspaper, and the other was written by a Pakistani correspondent of a fringe Sri Lankan newspaper. That, in and of itself, doesn't preclude it from being included; however, there are no verifiable sources from other nations that have assets in the region, including the US, UK and the UN indicating India's involvement. In addition, the Asian Tribune article is incredulous and provides no sources for its presentation of the usual Pakistani "crusader-kafir-zionist" conspiracy theories that are cooked up. Hardly WP:RS.

The user has also unearthed a bunch of "Indian sources" about India's "involvement" in Pakistan. To be clear, all these sources are doing are reporting Pakistani claims of India's involvement, and not reporting India's "involvement" as a matter of fact. Which brings me to Laura Rozen's roundtable on Foreignpolicy.com. Laura's article was the subject of much ridicule in India, and came hot on the heels of her other diatribe against India in which she claimed that India's "stealth lobbying" ensured that Holbrooke's portfolio in Af-Pak didn't include India. Never mind that no lobby so far, not even the powerful Israeli lobby, has been very successful in their efforts in influencing US foreign policy. Furthermore, perhaps User:Adil should put aside his enthusiasm to paint India as the Evil Empire and actually read the article he quotes from. Nowhere in the article does it say that Richard Holbrooke stated that "[t]he Indians are up to their necks in supporting the Taliban against the Pakistani government in Afghanistan and Pakistan". The article clearly says that the quote was attributed to an "unnamed intelligence source". Not Holbrooke. The official was unnammed probably, because he or she doesn't exist.

I will gladly review any reliable sources (including Pakistani sources, in conjunction with neutral sources backing up their claims) that support the user's claim on India's alleged "terrorism" in Pakistan. The fact that the user has only unearthed Pakistani sources, or Indian/Sri Lankan newspapers quoting Pakistani sources shows that there really isn't much there to write about. AreJay (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Adil your, I request you not to continue POV pushing related in India section. For the obvious reasons, please add only those backed by reliable and neutral sources. For the same reasons, It is unaccepatable to source these allegations by Pakistani newspapers and channels. Another humble request, please do not waste everybody's time fighting for this single article. There are 100s of Pakistan related articles that needs significant improvement of quality. Lots of Pakistan related stuff are still unwritten in Wikipedia. Write them and improve them. I guarantee my support anything related to this. Please make Wikipedia a better place rather than continuing the prejudiced lobbying here -- Tinu Cherian - 06:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"It is unaccepatable to source these allegations by Pakistani newspapers and channels" So does this mean that the pakistani article needs a massive overhaul as it is infested with Indian newspapers secondly your second stupid sentence "There are 100s of Pakistan related articles that needs significant improvement of quality" yes and most of these articles have been vandalized by Indian pov pushers its Adils decision what to edit and what not to edit you cannot simply say go elsewhere as it seems to me you yourself have a pov and cannot stand anything critical of Hindustan 86.153.128.250 (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ironic to see India-sympathetic lads ganging up on one Pakistan-sympathetic user. The entire section on India, written by an Indian user was deleted by user YellowMonkey citing extremely ridiculous reasons. And it is quite paradoxical to see users stressing the need to not quote any Pakistani sources with regards to Indian-sponsored terrorism; while they have nothing to say about the Pakistan section in the article which is littered with Indian sources. Certainly WP:POV violation. I will be speaking to a few admins with regards to this Indian gangup going on in here.Aaron Pris (talk) 06:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC) — Aaron Pris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .. The above A/c was created just 3 days ago ! -- Tinu Cherian - 10:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought this was a sock of Truthseekerx, but I decided to let it go for a day or two to see what it was up to. Guess it was actually him. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The question isn't who wrote it, the question is how was it sourced. As has been pointed out, the refs listed above for Pakistan's claims, in and of themselves, are not WP:RS. I am willing to examine any additional WP:RS that you or any other user may present that would validate or lend light to claims made by the Pakistani sources. I've been involved in editing several India-Pakistani articles (including the wars), and can tell you that accusations based on the nationality of the editor(s) (as opposed to a discussion on the reliability of the source) cuts no sympathy with anyone and leads nowhere. AreJay (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I have anything left to say now.... Aaron Pris said everything there was to be said... Adil your (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Mughalnz (talk) additiional cridible information Mughalnz (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore info on Bal0cc infomtion from reuters said by expert from Jamestown University saying that U.S saying they got no info on indian involvement as they do not want look for info indian ionvlovemnt becasue they are india ally http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN18122957

Other instances of alleged collusion include the testimony of a former IRA man who claimed his unit had been aided by a soldier in the Irish Army, and Garda collusion in the IRA's murder of twelve people. Historically the four Presidents of the Dáil Éireann - Cathal Brugha, Éamon de Valera, W. T. Cosgrave, Arthur Griffith - had all been involved in the Easter Rising in which the Irish Republican Army was founded. Arthur Griffith was the founder of Sinn Fein, Cathal Brugha was the IRA's Chief of Staff, De Valera was a member of the Irish Republican Brotherhood, and W.T. Cosgrave had played a significant role in the Easter Rising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.129.72 (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

In the United Kingdom section there are allegations of State collusion between RUC members and Loyalist Paramilitaries, in fairness there is equal evidence to suggest that British Military intelligence prevented the murder of Gerry Adams, now leader of Sinn Fein, and actively supported or organised the INLA's murder of Billy Wright. Evidence for the former is pointed to by Henry McDonald in his book UDA: Inside the Heart of Loyalist Terror, and the latter by the substantial evidence in the book The Billy Boy: The Life and Death of LVF Leader Billy Wright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmloyal (talk • contribs) 00:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)