Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:35, 9 December 2007

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Keep (no consensus), June 25, 2007, see discussion. Keep, March 30, 2007, see discussion. Speedy Keep, January 11, 2007, see discussion. Keep, December 12, 2006, see discussion. Keep (no consensus), August 9, 2006, see discussion. Keep (no consensus), November 25, 2005, see discussion.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Opposing views

Halperin et al. propose that one reason for the support, by the US and other Western nations, for certain right-wing dictatorships is that it is rare for democracy to exist in nations with low economic development. In these nations, the poor population without a middle class would vote for populist politics that would eventually fail, causing disappointment, and a return to dictatorship or even violent internal conflict. This, supporting a dictatorship that promotes economic growth and creates a solid middle class have often been seen as the best option available, anticipating that this will eventually lead to democratization. However, this view has been challenged recently by arguing that research shows that poor democracies perform better, including also on economic growth if excluding East Asia, than poor dictatorships. www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/5129.html Right-wing dictatorships in nations such as Portugal, Spain, Greece, Turkey, Chile, Brazil, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, and Indonesia eventually become democracies.

Research on the democratic peace theory has generally found that democracies, including the United States, have not made war on one another. There have been U.S. support for coups against some democracies, but for example Spencer R. Weart argues that part of the explanation was the perception, correct or not, that these states were turning into Communist dictatorships. Also important was the role of rarely transparent United States government agencies, who sometimes mislead or did not fully implement the decisions of elected civilian leaders.

Chomsky claims that the United States is a leading terrorist nation. However, actual empirical studies have found that democracies, including the United States, have killed much fewer civilians than dictatorships. Media may falsely give the impression that Chomsky's claim is correct. Studies have found that New York Times coverage of worldwide human rights violations is biased, predominantly focusing on the human rights violations in nations where there is clear U.S. involvement, while having relatively little coverage of the human rights violations in other nations. For example, the bloodiest war in recent time, involving eight nations and killing millions of civilians, was the Second Congo War, which was almost completely ignored by the media. Finally, those nations with military alliances with the US can spend less on the military and have a less active foreign policy since they can count on US protection. This may give a false impression that the US is less peaceful than those nations.

That US soldiers have committed war crimes such as rapes and killing POWs is a fact. However, such acts are not approved or supported by the US government or the US military. They are not the policy of the US government. The same applies even more to acts committed by to foreign groups supported but outside direct US control.

Niall Ferguson argues that the US is incorrectly blamed for many human rights violations in nations they have supported. For example, the US cannot credibly be blamed for all the 200,000 deaths during the long civil war in Guatemala.. The US Intelligence Oversight Board points out that military aid was cut for long periods because of such violations, that the US helped stop a coup in 1993, and that efforts were made to improve the conduct of the security services.

Suggestions

Great work on "Opposing Views" section! I suggest some minor, rewordings along the same lines.

Media may falsely give the impression that Chomsky's claim is correct. Studies have found that New York Times coverage of worldwide human rights violations is biased, predominantly focusing on the human rights violations in nations where there is clear U.S. involvement, while having relatively little coverage of the human rights violations in other nations.

Could be replaced with:

Studies have found that US media focus on countries where the US has an interest, and may not cover stories in other countries. Analysts argue that media coverage of human rights violations is dominated by stories from countries where the US is already involved, resulting (intentionally or unintentionally) in a biased portrayal of US involvement in human rights violations, which may incorrectly appear to lend support to Chomsky's claims.

I am trying to avoid having the article draw a new conclusion (does anyone know of a reference for the claim that someone reputable has made the final statement there?), and removed the inflammatory "falsely". Perhaps the word "biased" could be toned down as well?

Also, I would suggest a minor rewording in another paragraph

That US soldiers have committed war crimes such as rapes and killing POWs is a fact. However, such acts are not approved or supported by the US government or the US military. They are not the policy of the US government. The same applies even more to acts committed by to foreign groups supported but outside direct US control.

Niall Ferguson argues that the US is incorrectly blamed for many human rights violations in nations they have supported. For example, the US cannot credibly be blamed for all the 200,000 deaths during the long civil war in Guatemala..

Could be replaced with

US soldiers have committed war crimes such as rapes and killing of POWs. But these acts are contrary to US law as written in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and perpetrators are prosecuted. Niall Ferguson and others argue that the US is not responsible for human rights abuses committed by foreign governments or foreign nationals. One example of this reasoning is the assertion that the US cannot credibly be blamed for all 200,000 deaths during the long civil war in Guatemala.

Because Niall Ferguson has a reputation as a biased commentator, I believe it would be useful to refer to others who say the US is not 100% responsible for the abuses of governments it is involved with. If there are studies showing that US involvement has lead to better human-rights outcomes than if the US had not been involved, these would support the opposing view.

I also noticed that the article has some counterarguments embedded in the "opposing views" section. These should get a proper airing. They should have proper citations, and the language should be carefully written to make it clear exactly what is being claimed.

Counter Arguments

Critics of these arguments claim that the US does not take strong enough action to limit human rights violations by US-supported governments. Others claim that semi-transparent, or non-transparent United States government agencies, such as the C.I.A. have sometimes rendered misleading intelligence or failed to implement the policies of elected government officials, thereby usurping constitutional authority. Still others claim that elected and appointed officials routinely approve misleading intelligence and unsavory operations, then deny all knowledge of the abuses when they eventually come to light.

Japan

Some legal scholars, historians, other governments, and human rights organizations have accused the United States of having committed acts of State terrorism as a result of the nuclear attacks against the Empire of Japan at the end of World War II. The 'atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki', remain the only time a state has used nuclear weapons against concentrated civilian populated areas. Some critics hold that it represents the single greatest act of state terrorism in the 20th Century. Some academics also consider that these bombings represent a genocide.

The role of the bombings in Japan's surrender, as well as the effects and justification for them, has been subject to debate. In particular, the claims that these attacks were acts of state terrorism remain a matter of controversy. However, University of Chicago historian Bruce Cumings states there is a consensus among historians to Martin Sherwin's statement, that "the Nagasaki bomb was gratuitous at best and genocidal at worst."

The arguments center around the targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal. Specifically, the fact that the Target Committee on May 10–11, 1945, rejected the use of the weapons against a strictly military objective, choosing a large civilian population to create a psychological effect that would be felt around the world. They also center around claims that the attacks were militarily unnecessary, and transgressed moral barriers.

Historian Howard Zinn wrote, "if 'terrorism' has a useful meaning (and I believe it does, because it marks off an act as intolerable, since it involves the indiscriminate use of violence against human beings for some political purpose), then it applies exactly to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

Zinn quoted the sociologist Kai Erikson:

Similarly, Michael Walzer wrote of it as an example of "...war terrorism: the effort to kill civilians in such large numbers that their government is forced to surrender. Hiroshima seems to me the classic case."

Mark Selden, a professor of sociology and history at Binghamton University and professorial associate in the East Asia Program at Cornell University, author of “War and State Terrorism: The United States, Japan, and the Asia-Pacific in the Long Twentieth Century (War and Peace Library),” writes, "This deployment of air power against civilians would become the centerpiece of all subsequent U.S. wars, a practice in direct contravention of the Geneva principles, and cumulatively 'the single most important example of the use of terror in twentieth century warfare." He also wrote, "Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan."

Selden writes: “Over the next half century, the United States would destroy with impunity cities and rural populations throughout Asia, beginning in Japan and continuing in North Korea, Indochina, Iraq and Afghanistan, to mention only the most heavily bombed nations...if nuclear weapons defined important elements of the global balance of terror centered on U.S.-Soviet conflict, "conventional" bomb attacks defined the trajectory of the subsequent half century of warfare." (Selden, War and State Terrorism).

Heads of State have also repeated the claim. President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez paid tribute to the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, calling the dropping of the A-bomb, "the greatest act of terrorism in recorded history."

Richard Falk, professor Emeritus of International Law and Practice at Princeton University has written in some detail about Hiroshima and Nagasaki as instances of state terrorism. He states that “The graveyards of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the number-one exhibits of state terrorism.” Falk discusses the public justifications for the attacks, as follows:

These claims have prompted historian Robert Newman, a supporter of the bombings, to argue that the practice of terrorism is justified in some cases.

1. Weart, Spencer R. (1998). Never at War. Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-07017-9.p. 221-224, 314.
2. No Lessons Learned from the Holocaust?, Barbara Harff, 2003.
3. Report on the Guatemala Review Intelligence Oversight Board. June 28, 1996.
4. Frey, Robert S. (2004). The Genocidal Temptation: Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Rwanda and Beyond. University Press of America. ISBN 0761827439. Reviewed at: Rice, Sarah (2005). "The Genocidal Temptation: Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Rwanda and Beyond (Review)". Harvard Human Rights Journal. Vol. 18. {{cite journal}}: |volume= has extra text (help)
5. Dower, John (1995). "The Bombed: Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japanese Memory". Diplomatic History. Vol. 19 (no. 2). {{cite journal}}: |issue= has extra text (help); |volume= has extra text (help)
6. Cumings, Bruce (1999). Parallax Visions. University Press of Duke. p. 54. Sherwin, Martin (1974). A World Destroyed: The Atomic Bomb and the Grand Alliance.
7. "Atomic Bomb: Decision — Target Committee, May 10–11, 1945". {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
8. Eisenhower, Dwight D. (1963). The White House Years; Mandate For Change: 1953-1956. Doubleday & Company. pp. pp. 312-313. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
9. "Hiroshima: Quotes". {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
10. "Bard Memorandum". {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
11. "Decision: Part I". {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
12. Freeman, Robert (2006). "Was the Atomic Bombing of Japan Necessary?". CommonDreams.org. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
13. "United States Strategic Bombing Survey; Summary Report". United States Government Printing Office. 1946. pp. pg. 26. {{cite web}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
14. Walzer, Michael (2002). "Five Questions About Terrorism" (PDF). 49 (1). Foundation for the Study of Independent Social Ideas, Inc. Retrieved 2007-07-11. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |name= ignored (help)
15. Newman, Robert (2004). Enola Gay and the Court of History (Frontiers in Political Communication). Peter Lang Publishing. ISBN 0-8204-7457-6.

Edits

1. Remove the uncited paragraph in the lead.

2. Add El Salvador

3. Add Japan

4. Replace Opposing views

5. Rename the article to State terrorism by the United States

American Civil Religion

The "US terrorism prophets", who are stoned by patriotic Americans, don't realize that the vast majority of Americans have a belief in American which is religious. This religious belief is especially strong for those Wikipedians who vigorously attempt to remove this page. See American Civil Religion.

Ever attempted to convert someone to another religion? It rarely works. Attempting to change a person's faith with factual arguments are usually the least successful. A good majority of Americans still believe that man came from Adam and Eve. You simply can't reason with this kind of belief system.

Tens of millions of Americans, who neither know nor understand their own country’s bloody crimes, march in the army of the night with their Bibles held high. And they are a strong and frightening force, impervious to, and immunized against, the feeble lance of mere reason.

–-Alteration of a quote by Isaac Asimov

After the Lodge Committee which revealed to the entire US the torture, concentration camps, and mass killings of the Philippine-American War, the American public quickly forgot.

Travb (talk) 01:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back Travb! Just one slight correction--really just change in emphasis. Most Americans at the time barely heard of the revelations of the Lodge Committee. Most of the damning material was buried inside the newspapers and hardly referred to again. Some things never change.--NYCJosh 00:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Good to hear from you NYCJosh. I respect your work. We should work together in other projects. If you ever need another opinion on any page or topic, please let me know.

I have to disagree with you, the large majority of Americans did know about the atrocities of the Philippine-American War. There was collective amnesia shortly later. Please see: User_talk:Travb/Archive_7#Ward_Churchill_addresses_the_issue

I have the Stuart Creighton Miller book which Ward Churchill quotes. I can provide quotes from the Stuart Creighton Miller book. Excellent book, which I quote a lot on the American Empire page.

Maybe I should collect all of those quotes in one place.

On a similar note, I have strongly considered making a National guilt page. Which I have a scholarly book on. Travb (talk) 06:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

By "national guilt" page do you mean creating an article listing major US attrocities? --NYCJosh (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the idea is whether a person should feel guilty for the past war crimes of their country.

One of the many examples in the book I have talks about Australia's treatment of the aborigines.

The aborigines want reparations just like some blacks in the US.

The book says there are five ways to justify having no national guilt, as illustrated by the comments of Australian Prime Minister John Howard.

You may think this has nothing to do with this page, but like American Civil Religion, National Guilt goes to the very essence of why this page is on Misplaced Pages, and why so many users want it deleted.

For example:

1. I probably feel much more guilty about the actions of my country in the past and present then those who want to delete this page.
2. I also have much less religious belief in America than those who want to delete this page.
3. I am also probably less traditionally religious than those who want to delete this page.

The big question is, how does a person change someone else's opinion about their country? So many leftist organizations attempt to show the darker side of America which the vast majority of Americans, frankly, don't want to hear. In fact most Americans are hostile if you attack their Civil religion, as they would be if you attacked their traditional religion. Travb (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There's also the possibility that the people defending this page are simply wrong. That the "darker side" is simply propaganda myth created by those ideologically opposed to the form of government in the United States. Occam's Razor. You decide. --DHeyward (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What about all the factual evidence? The truth not good enough for you? Pexise (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, there is no factual evidence that the united states systematically engages in state terrorism. Certain people would like it to be true but it simply isn't. If you think about the simple and benign "subversive" activities that the government can't pull off (i.e. oral sex in the white house or WMD in Iraq) you would see how ludicrous it is to postulate sophisticated operations that require secrecy. Non-lethal waterboarding of a single individual can't be kept quiet but conspiracies to kill thousands of civilians can? Seems silly to even postulate. --DHeyward (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: Occam's Razor Please don't misapply scientific methods, popularized by Carl Sagan to bolster an empty counterpoint, which completely ignores every single point of what I wrote. Explaining away the views of millions possibly billions of people's opinion as a "propaganda myth" is as simplistic. Unfortunately people often gravitate towards simple, one sentence answers to complex and troubling questions.

I am not talking about "conspiracies" please don't add simplistic derogatory labels to respected concepts. I am talking about Sociology as it applies to the United States.

In my experience, I find those who add simplistic derogatory labels to a conversation first usually have the weakest argument.

There is no point in rolling out examples, I think the Isaac Asimov misquote explains why.

You can't reason with an ideology, and thats why the American lefts tactics have been fruitless. I think the American left ignores the religious underpinnings of patriotism.

Indeed, for the majority of people (mostly Americans) who read this page, what this page's protectors are trying to "prove" is an exercise in futility.

"Perhaps the most significant moral characteristic of a nation is its hypocrisy." Reinhold Niebuhr, those Americans who are the most condescending of the actions of the 9/11 terrorists are often the most forgetful of their own countries atrocities. Why?

User:DHeyward I acknowledge that I may be influenced by a "propaganda myth", do you acknowledge that your beliefs may also be a "propaganda myth"? T (talk) 06:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

State Terrorism against Native Americans?

I believe this subject would make for a good section in this article. We need to find sources that describe the actions of the US govt as state terror, of course. It could point to the main article on the subject, too.Giovanni33 21:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I would support provided the sources are solid.--NYCJosh (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Lack of Good Faith

This whole article is disingenuous and does not cover anything that isn't covered in the appropriate separate articles that establish context critical to understanding the events. And for the record, violence of any kind can be abstracted to the point of being called, "terrorism". Until there is a separate article about every major country and it's alleged support of terrorism, this article serves only to cherry pick historical events out of context to serve as an oversimplified, biased political statement. This article is not worthy of Misplaced Pages.

Where is Spain's acts of terrorism in South America and Europe? Or the former Soviet Union's support of terrorism in Afghanistan? Or Russia's in Chechnya? Or every day in Cuba? The list goes on and on but yet only America is being singled out. This article has existed for how many years now and only one country gets it's own page? This is hypocrisy being hidden behind the justification that the facts are facts, even without context to show that smaller acts don't convey the entire picture.

And all that aside, the moment we start listing any time one group of people have been attacked by another group of people and call that "terrorism", we might as well list every group, country, race, religion, etc. throughout history and across the globe. Regardless of what happened to the Native Americans of North America, it was not terrorism. A tragedy yes, but not terrorism by any reasonable definition and even if that were debatable (and I don't mean in a college classroom), that issue is explored at length in more specific articles dealing with the events in a detailed and better way.

This is just a laundry list of historical mistakes lacking any real justification to have their own article and one might infer that only the United States has made them in it's past and furthermore, has done nothing positive for other nations and groups of people ever.

Grow up and stop believing that a handful of facts is the same as the whole story. For example, Che Guevara was a terrorist and a murderer (by any definition), not a hero. But somehow I get the sense that the same people that fight for an article like this, believe he was a revolutionary martyr. Think about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.94.246 (talk) 06:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it, if you feel some articles are missing you know that you should create them. Starting with the US makes sense as most people willing to edit the article are from there. KungFuMonkey (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There are several articles on state terrorism by countries other than the US. Check out: State-sponsored terrorism, State-sponsored terrorim by Iran, etc.--NYCJosh (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"Perhaps the most significant moral characteristic of a nation is its hypocrisy." Reinhold Niebuhr Travb (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

By definition, it's only called "terrorism" when "they" do it.--NYCJosh (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually "hypocrisy" is a better word for these actions that "terrorism". Most of these items are simply alleged hypocrisy where the United States supports elements that on its face are at odds with the stated goals and policies. They aren't terrorism but that doesn't seem to sway anyone. Should we rename the article to "Allegations of Hypocrisy by the United States"? --DHeyward (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to DHeyward: I agree the actions of the US are hypocrisy, as I stated above. Sigh, for the 1 millionth time, "alleged" is a weasel word. For the love of God, don't open up the name change debate again.

Response to 76.204.94.246:

Until there is a separate article about every major country and it's alleged support of terrorism, this article serves only to cherry pick historical events out of context to serve as an oversimplified, biased political statement.

A carbon copy of #4: Four techniques used to ignore American foreign policy history: Focus on the rival...the moment we start listing any time one group of people have been attacked by another group of people and call that "terrorism", we might as well list every group, country, race, religion, etc. throughout history and across the globe...etc...

This is hypocrisy being hidden behind the justification that the facts are facts, even without context to show that smaller acts don't convey the entire picture.

A variation of #3: Four techniques used to ignore American foreign policy history: A plea to focus on the positive

This is just a laundry list of historical mistakes lacking any real justification'

A common argument of apologists, ignoring 200 plus years of American foreign policy. Chomsky and other American leftists, attacks this apology well, but I don't have the quotes.

But somehow I get the sense that the same people that fight for an article like this, believe he was a revolutionary martyr.

I agree, see my hypocrisy quote.

User:76.204.94.246 entire post can be summed up by Alexis de Tocqueville

"History is a gallery of pictures in which there are few originals and many copies."

T (talk) 07:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a soap box. Would you and the anon please knock it off? Thanks, Ice Cold Beer (talk) 10:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see you on the talk page ICB. If you are going to make mass deletions (or additions) as you recently did please discuss them here first (or at least after the fact). This is good form in any article, but is practically necessary in an article as contentious as this one. I have not looked closely at what you removed and probably will not anytime soon, but if you provide a rationale for your edits they are much more likely to stand than if you simply make changes without discussing them. There are all kinds of problems with this article--the primary one being that most editors interested in it have been unable to work with one another. Good faith communication has been, and remains, the best solution for moving forward. Undiscussed edits (from both sides of the debate) have often only created more difficulties.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 11:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought my edit summaries adequately explained my edits, but I have no problem discussing future changes here. I have removed two sections and one paragraph that were not adequately sourced. The sources provided did not accuse the U.S. of state-sponsored terror. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, the edit summaries were fine, it's just that mass deletions and mass additions to this article tend to provoke controversy (and edit wars), so dropping a note here is usually a good idea.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Ice Cold Beer, Misplaced Pages is also supposed to be a site were there is no WP:NPOV. Your POV deletions are nothing novel, it has been done for years on this article.

My comments are directly related to this article and its three year plus stormy history. I am simply trying to understand why so many people blindly hate this article, and why so many people so blindly defend it.

People don't like big picture, forest for the trees explanations of complex arguments. It takes much less energy to paint simplistic labels on each other (Such as calling the two groups here POV deletionists and POV defenders).

Dozens of editors have tried your POV deletions in the past, and been thwarted by POV defenders of this article. The last big push to have this article deleted was this summer, after most of the central moderates had given up on this article in disgust. After a ingenious month of this article being protected, all of the POV deletionists left to fight somewhere else, and the POV defenders stayed.

When the POV deletionists left, it was bad for this article in the long term. For example, the Japan argument got into the article unopposed, along with Native Americans genocide argument. The article has become even more radical and repugnant the majority of readers. POV defenders are simply making it easier for POV deletionists to delete the article later.

For two years I have attempted so many tactics to stop the stupid edit wars, including removing the name "terrorist" form the article.

If the history of this page is any guide, User:Ice Cold Beer, the POV deletions will ultimately fail.

They say insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

User:Ice Cold Beer, do you have any sane new ideas on how to stop the edit wars? T (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class United States articles
• High-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of High-importance
• WikiProject United States articles