Wikipedia

Talk:Iran and state-sponsored terrorism/Archive 2

< Talk:Iran and state-sponsored terrorism
Latest comment: 3 years ago by HistoryofIran in topic Fixed some stuff
Archive 1Archive 2

Removed all content that are not verifiable facts

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

- Removed: "Since the declaration of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979, the government of Iran has been accused by members of the international community of funding, providing equipment, weapons, training and giving sanctuary to terrorists" Fact: An accusation without the backing of irrefutable facts is not a fact and should not be mentioned as evidence. Moreover the use of the term "International community" is incorrect as the linked source (CFR) does not in any shape or form represent the voice/opinion of the "International community", rather an unrepresented small group of individuals predominately from the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazareman (talk • contribs) 16:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Restored, as it is reliably sourced, see the message I left you on your talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The source is neither reliable nor verifiable as it has been caught lying and spreading misinformation many times in the past. An obviously biased political think tank, mostly made up of politicians and certain business leaders hardly qualifies as a trusted source for facts and good journalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazareman (talk • contribs) 17:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:INDENT. It is obviously verifiable, I just verified it after all. If you think it fails WP:RS then take it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and have proof for what you wrote above. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

By "Verifiable" I mean the information that is presented in the source cannot be verified to be accurate and true independently. The source has presented inaccurate information as facts previously, the information presented at the time could not have been verified independently by individual citizens but were proven false in subsequent years. I will do what you asked to prove my point as soon as I gather enough evidence. Once a source is proven to have lied before it can no longer be trusted as an accurate source of facts. Nazareman (talk)

POV tag

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I just tagged this article for a lack of NPOV. This is not because I am disputing the material that is in here, but rather for a lack of balance in what has been chosen to be placed in the article. For instance, several other articles about state terrorism give the rationale of the country carrying out the illegal acts, whether or not that rationale is justified. See United States support of Authoritarian Regimes. Also, if the article is mentioning the assassination of an Israeli diplomat, then it should logically mention the assassinations of Iranian atomic physicists that it was thought to be in retaliation for. In addition, the sources used to back up some of the accusations are inappropriate; how can the statement of a political rival of the Hamas be used for the provenance of their funding? Finally, the terrorist nature of several of the examples given are disputed; the Hamas is the best example. This should be noted, at the very least. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

POV

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Half of this article is a nonsense. Although Iran do sponsors Shia militias (including those in Iraq and Lebanese Hezbollah), Hezbollah itself is very autonomous to Teheran's decisions so blaming Iran for Hezbollah's attacks is like blaming USA for Al-Qaeda's attacks (USA actively supports Al-Qaeda related groups i.e. in Syria against Bashar al-Assad, most of the US aid got directly into Al-Qaeda's hands). Wahabi Al-Qaeda and the Taliban would never be supported by Shi'ite Iran as they on multiple occasions stated that Shia Iran is the enemy, they even engaged in terrorist attack against Iran and its citizens (i.e. the Taliban takeover of Mazar-i-Sharif in 1988 and the massacre that followed it). Iran gave US detailed maps in 2001 where to strike the Taliban forces to topple their ranks as clearly shown in this video [1]. Iran supported the anti-Taliban Afghanese Northern Alliance long before the US entered Afghanistan. On 9/11 Iranians massively took off to the streets to protest against the attacks and Iranian president condemned them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.57.129 (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Iran and state-sponsored terrorism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Iran and al Qaeda connection

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Ugh! This article asserts, repeatedly, allegations that Iran (1) is holding senior alQaeda officials (still?, holding them at a Holiday Inn?) as evidence of collusion, (2) presents a series of US Judicial rulings based on unclear evidence, (3) conflates revolutionary/anti-state actions with terrorism (e.g. cyberattacks) (I know they are hard to distinguish, but I see no effort here), and towards the end of the article, (4) when contrary evidence is presented, it is in the form of "He said, she said". A lot of this article smells of a Fox New level analysis. Iran has supported from very tough characters, and some of those characters have done bad things. But more than a few times Iran has been blamed for stuff that al Qaeda did, including Khobar_Towers_bombing. While a lot of this can be fairly questioned, I see no evidence here, although it is provided amply on other Wikipedia pages. Mixing the two (Iran and al Qeada) is silly, one is playing war by many means and the other seeks domination by anarchistic fear. If one assumes the word "terror" refers to the latter, then this article needs major revision.Jonathan Ames Fuller (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Iran and state-sponsored terrorism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iran and state-sponsored terrorism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iran and state-sponsored terrorism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Saudi claims that Iran was involved in 9/11

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Beyond this fairly obvious sockpuppetry by an indeffed user who most likely did not bother to examine the content before reverting an edit of mine, if anyone can think of a good reason to cite a Saudi outlet for allegations that Iran was somehow involved in the September 11 attacks—despite Saudi Arabia's geopolitical rivalry with Iran and the 15 hijackers of Saudi nationality that perpetrated the attacks—I'd love to hear it. From where I'm standing, it's hard to imagine content any more WP:UNDUE than that. Either way, let's not edit war this back into the article without talk page consensus, per WP:BRD.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Saudi claims can be significant, however in this particular case the Saudi coverage is based on previous western coverage from November 2017, e.g. - Trove of Bin Laden documents reveal Iran's secret dealings with al-Qaeda, Telegraph, Analysis: CIA releases massive trove of Osama bin Laden’s files, Long Wars Journal, IRAN’S SECRET FUNDING FOR AL-QAEDA IN EXCHANGE FOR ATTACKS ON U.S. TARGETS EXPOSED IN BIN LADEN FILES, Newsweek - and others which would be a much better source for this than Al-Arabiya.Icewhiz (talk) 11:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Iran and Al-Qaeda / Taliban

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

It is annoying to see that half of this article is dedicated to blaming what AQ/Taliban has done on Iran. Iran's government has done many wrong things (particularly in 80's), and Iran's borders are not "AQ" tight so some AQ or Taliban may manage to get into Iran and live in Tehran (as many Mexican's can manage to get into USA); but saying that Tehran's gov. supports AQ or Taliban is as stupid as saying that Israel supports "Neo-Nazi" groups in Germany.MikeEcho (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

All of that is sourced and attributed, although in my opinion it makes more sense to say that Iran has supported the Taliban (to fight the Americans) than al-Qaeda.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
The sourcing is appalling. It is also false that Iran supported the Taliban. Actually the Taliban murdered many Iranian diplomats when it took over Afghanistan, and Iran provided the US with intelligence against the Taliban when the US invaded. Much of what is in the article is just US propaganda. The use of court rulings is ridiculous as US courts do not have the expertise or knowledge to make such judgments. Citation of charlatans like Steven Emerson makes the article look stupid. Zerotalk 01:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Trimmed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Notwithstanding the very tentative consensus on this talk page, a lot of the UNDUE content has since been restored. Thoughts? Note that the content in question is not supported by any academic citations, and that giving equal coverage to al Qaeda and Hezbollah in an article on Iranian support for terrorist/paramilitary organizations appears to dramatically misrepresent the main thrust of all RS on this topic.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Fofo235 has declined to explain his revert; I see no support for it in the discussion above.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

It's back in again. I still don't think it makes sense to include it. The US Treasury is not perhaps the most reliable source we could have, especially given the persistent US sabre-rattling at Iran, and the following section which is well cited is an entirely overweight restatement of material covered immediately afterwards in the section "Opposing View". Pinkbeast (talk) 06:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Lead POV

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

The statement in the lead:

According to the United States State Department, Iran supports terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and conducts terrorist-related activity including cyberterrorism, with their foreign terrorist operations largely cultivated and conducted by the Quds Force

is not neutral. Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a clearly attributed statement (not that support for Hezbollah or the role of Quds force really needs attribution - both could be easily sourced from a source that doesn't require attribution), and quite relevant to the topic of the article, how is this not neutral? Icewhiz (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm not disputing reliability, relevance, or attribution. The statement meets all the aforementioned criteria (although it could be argued that the source is WP:PRIMARY). My main concern is that it is given undue weight and using a language that is not neutral: "terrorist groups such as Hezbollah" and "conducts terrorist-related activity", as well as this sentence "with their foreign terrorist operations". Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece of the US government. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Would it be better according to you if lede says "... groups accused of terrorism such as Hezbollah, etc"?--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Al-Andalusi, I've tried toning down the language as Yaniv proposed above. Does this rectify your concern?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Much better now. Thanks. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Do you think that the tag can be removed now, or are there any other issues in the lead that should be addressed first?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Tag has been removed by another editor. But I made another change to statements that treat the groups as though their terrorism is a given (e.g. "that engage in insurgencies or terrorist acts"). Al-Andalusi (talk) 03:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Source in question regarding 1995 conference

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm wondering about the source posted for the following statement:

"In 1995, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard held a conference with worldwide organizations accused of engaging in terrorism including the Japanese Red Army, the Armenian Secret Army, the Kurdistan Workers' Party, the Iraqi Da'wah Party, the Islamic Front for the Liberation of Bahrain and Hezbollah in Beirut for the sole purpose of providing training to these organizations supposedly to help in the destabilization of Gulf States and aid assistance to militants in these countries to replace the existing governments with Iran-like regimes.[5]"

Following the posted source to https://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/iran/qods.htm provides an article that makes the claim of a report concerning this event, but the sources they site don't seem to mention it at all. Maybe someone more able than me can track down something in the news from 1995. As it is, the wiki page (as quoted above) is stating something with certainty, but isn't supported by its source. Dhuumite (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Iran and Al-Qaeda / Taliban

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

First of all, Iran support for Al-Qaeda and Taliban is NOT "US propaganda". Iran is accused by Afghan government to supply Taliban with weapons. Also Iran is accused of supporting terrorism by: Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Egypt, Bahrain, Israel, Argentina, India, Thailand, Kenya, Somalia, Morocco, Canada, Panama, Senegal, Yemen, Belgium etc.. So basically not only the United States accuse Iran of supporting terrorists including Al Qaeda and Taliban. There are many Al-Qaeda leaders inside Iran, and this is not opinion or theory they are official and facts and Iran played a role in 9/11 attacks, and it was accused by American government. Second, in Politics all what governments care about is there own good. Iran have a lot of common enemies with Al Qaeda like the United States and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia have been targeted by Al-Qaeda and ISIS hundreds of times , it is really un logical to say that Saudi Arabia support ISIS and Al Qaeda while Saudi Arabia is a victim of there terrorism. However it is rare to see a terrorist attack in Iran committed by Al Qaeda and ISIS. The Question is why Al Qaeda, Taliban and ISIS never or rarely attack Iran. Third, about ideological differences if you think that is a prove that Iran does not support Al Qaeda than the United States also does not support terrorism because you know Americans have completely different ideology from terrorists . But that is not the case, for example communist China have supported jihadist in Afghanistan against communist soviets , china supported a group with completely different ideology against a group with the exact same ideology, why? Because it is politics, no body care about ideology, religion, race etc... all what they care about is there own interest. Another example is Iran support for Christian Armenia against Shitte Azerbijan, because Iran have more common interest with Armenia than Azerbiajan despite having common religion. So basically Iran can have a relation with Al Qaeda when this relations can be good for Iran's interest. American government accuse Iran to be behind 9/11 attacks, many Al Qaeda terrorists passed through Iran to do many terrorist attacks , and today Iran host major Al Qaeda leaders. Also Bin Laden documents found in Pakistan and Afghanistan prove its warm relations with Iran. Also Al Qaeda never launch a terrorist attack in Iran which mean that both sides have agreement with each other. Any way, this is not my opinion, it is clear evidence from several governments around the world. So please do not mention opinions or theories. And the information that were deleted were supported by numerous sources. I hope you Understand and I am ready to discuss this topic more if you want Mhhossein <--- CU blocked sock, see SPI Ehsan iq

Lmao what Al Farwazirip (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Fixed some stuff

Latest comment: 3 years ago15 comments3 people in discussion

Why the hell were attacks that occurred before hezbollah's formation marked as attacks by hezbollah? Also since the US and Israel claimed hezbollah were responsible for attacks that occurred before hezbollah's formation, I wouldn't consider them reliable sources Al Farwazirip (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but you didn't fix anything. Please try to avoid adding your personal opinion to articles. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
There were blatantly false statements such as Ansar Allah being a Palestinian organization, or the fact that attacks that occurred before hezbollah's formation were listed. How is that "personal opinion" Al Farwazirip (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Blatanly false according to whom? --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houthi_movement

https://www.google.com/search?q=when+was+hezbollah+created&oq=when+was&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j35i39l2j0i457j0.2974j0j4&client=ms-android-hmd-rev2&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8 Al Farwazirip (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

You there? Al Farwazirip (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Now I am, I was at work. What am I to do with those links? --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
You asked "blatantly false according to whom" Al Farwazirip (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Look, I'm not interested in doing detective work, just be clear with me please instead of giving me vague links. At the end of the day you removed sourced information, which is usually a no go. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay... It's still false info in the article Al Farwazirip (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

No offense, but thats not for you to decide. Please read WP:JDLI. HistoryofIran (talk)
@HistoryofIran: Actually it is the responsibility of editors who want material in the article to be sure it is supported by the sources. I'll refer to the claim "Ansar Allah, a Palestinian affiliate of Hezbollah" which appears twice in the version you reverted to. In both cases, the claim is cited to the book "Hezbollah - The Global Footprint of Lebanon’s Party of God" by Matthew Levitt. However, Levitt does not make this claim but instead denies it. Page 344 says "The claim of responsibility was issued under Ansar Allah, or Partisans of God, a well-known cover name for Hezbollah’s IJO." The identity of Hezbollah's IJO was explained earlier on page 68: "Sometimes referred to as the Special Security Apparatus (SSA) or the External Security Organization (ESO), it is referred to here as the Islamic Jihad Organization (IJO, or Islamic Jihad)—not to be confused with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)." (my emphasis, page numbers in the epub edition that might not match the printed edition). So this is one claim you should stop making. Zerotalk 08:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I also found that Levitt's book does not mention the 901 flight for which it is cited, so I removed that citation too. Zerotalk 09:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
No, it is the responsibility of the user who added/removed it that it is supported by the sources or not. Al Farwazirip's argument wasn't exactly based on that, otherwise I would have looked into it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
"The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" (boldface in original). I agree that Al Farwazirip didn't provide good arguments, but in the case of the Palestinian connection s/he happened to be right. I'm not much impressed by either of you. Zerotalk 01:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
His main argument was "blatantly false" and a Google link when questioning the source, and yet I am supposed to do his research for him? Surely there's something missing here. And I think I'd surive. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism/Archive_2&oldid=1039055367"