Talk:United States and state-sponsored terrorism

Pretty mindless and activistic article

• Indictement of David Carrett does not prove his factual involvement in anything. It is an allegation that resulted in no conviction. Because it's been made up.
• The Piazza Fontana inclusion as a whole in this article is a bunch of speculation, hearsay, insinuation and conspiracy theories that should not be contained in a factual article.
• The United States government was also criticized by Iran for its silence following the beheading of a child by the Islamist group Nour al-Din al-Zenki, a group that is a recipient of US military aid and is accused of many war crimes - The group is not a recipient of US military aid, and was not at the time either. Seems like someone really wants to hammer home some kind of a message he already made up in his mind.
• Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has also accused the United States of supporting ISIS in Syria, claiming Turkey has evidence of U.S. support for ISIS through pictures, photos, and videos, without further elaborating on said evidence - I have added "or providing any". Apparently someone doesn't like me pointing out such large swathes of this article are heresay and pointless allegations, so it's getting deleted.
• Orlando Bosch's alleged terroristic activities (unless you want to call assassinating Castro that) seem to be quite completely unrelated to USA government, and worse, would be actually at odds with its organisations, if the article's implications are to be believed. But we obviously need to stuff into this article all sorts of random stuff to make it look like USA is being bad through sheer volume of text.
• Luis Posada Carriles alleged terrorism seems to be consisting of things he was acquited for, or he retracted, and in which he was "implicated" without any real elaboration what is that supposed to be meaning. For some reason in an article about terrorism, an arrest for illegal crossing of border is included. We obviously need to stuff into this article all sorts of irrelevant stuff to make it look like USA is being bad.
• Yup that guy said it. Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles is WP:UNDUE
• Armed Forces Directive No. 200-05/91 does not seem to be actually involved in any terrorism despite a lot of text expended.
• Kosovo Liberation Army part: " In the following years, however, an ethnic Albanian insurgency emerged in southern Serbia (1999–2001) and in Macedonia (2001). The EU condemned what it described as the "extremism" and use of "illegal terrorist actions" by the group active in southern Serbia.[150]" - relation of this event to KLA and more importantly US government is where?
• Syrian Civil War portion is completely pointless and desperate and does not seem to actually include any instance of US sponsorship of terrorism. If arms ending up on black market is sponsorship of terrorism then I guess Bashar Al Assad and Russia sponsored Islamic State. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:83B0:797E:D5F6:465A:F79C:16A1 (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Kosovo Liberation Army

Is there any concrete evidence that KLA was directly supported by the USA and that they received military training? The sources provided in support of this claim appear to be based either on suppositions or an article in the Sunday Times that reports it claiming to have known through sources close to the CIA, but that does not prove the fact. Mmanu54 (talk) 11:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

About the part of original research

@User:Cambial Yellowing Well, this is the third time you reverted it. I don't want an edit warring, it's time for us to stop editing and talk this over. As I said, the original source did not advocate that the US provided weapons to ISIL, but editor looked upon them as evidence of the US supporting ISIL in this Wikipedia entry. According to the Wikipedia guideline, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." This part should be deleted. Can you give me a reason why you insist on preserving this part? I want to hear it. Kof2102966 (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

You quote a guideline that has no relevance here. No material has been combined from sources to reach a conclusion not in the sources. The material is attributed direct quotes from the report. The sources are the report itself and an article from a reliable news organisation about the report. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it has relevance here. Let's read the example it gives:

Here are two sentences showing simple examples of improper editorial synthesis. Both halves of the first sentence may be reliably sourced but are combined to imply that the UN has failed to maintain world peace. If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research.

N The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.

In this second sentence, the opposite is implied using the same material, illustrating how easily such material can be manipulated when the sources are not adhered to:

N The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, and since its creation there have been only 160 wars throughout the world.

This is what happened here, it combines the entry that

“United States and state-sponsored terrorism in syria”

and

“Another study conducted by private company Conflict Armament Research at the behest of the European Union and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit found that external support for anti-Assad Syrian rebels "significantly augmented the quantity and quality of weapons available to ISIL forces", including, in the most rapid case diversion they documented, "anti-tank weapons purchased by the United States that ended up in possession of the Islamic State within two months of leaving the factory.” 

to imply that the US provided weapons to ISIL.If it didn‘t mean that, than why these source are here, it should be off-topic. Kof2102966 (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The text that you proposed removing in no way resembles the examples of synthesis that you quote from the NOR policy. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

You insist that The text that I proposed removing in no way resembles the examples of synthesis that I quote from the NOR policy, then why don't you show me your process of argumentation？I have found the guideline,and pointed out the text that could be original research,I already do my part. When a party bearing the burden of proof meets their burden, the burden of proof switches to the other side. What you should do is proving your own viewpoint,showing your reason and evidence,instead of repeating your viewpoint time and again, it's mere opinion, mere opinion is weak. Kof2102966 (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

You write of "When a party bearing the burden of proof meets their burden". You haven't met any "burden of proof". The direct quotes from a reliable source do not represent a synthesis. As there is clearly no consensus for your edit, and the ostensible reason you've provided lacks merit, the process on this website is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal, until such a time as consensus changes. If you wish, you can follow your own advice and try to demonstrate why you perceive the quotes from a single reliable source (the report) to consitute a synthesis, and what you perceive to be similar to the examples in the npov policy. If you think the quotes need better contextualisation, propose such a framing here. Simply deleting reliably-sourced content with a spurious attempted justification is not a productive way forward. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

That's enough, you just keep repeating your opinion and stressing the correctness of your opinion, without any proof or argumentation.You are even unwilling to point out which part of my argument lacks merit. This is not a discussion, it's just a monologue.This is too arrogant . I'll take this to DRN, we're done here. Kof2102966 (talk) 09:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The groundless and childish personal attacks you insert amongst your incoherent posts detract from an already weak position. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Is this your self-introduction? Who is the guy that keeps rolling? who is the guy that keeps labelling? You can charge other guys with “personal attack” and "deleting reliably-sourced content with a spurious attempted justification", but no one can say anything about you. You really think you own the Wikipedia, huh? By the way, according to your logic, "incoherent posts" and "groundless and childish" are "The personal attacks",too.If you have anything to say, talk to me in DRN. And don't let I find that you edited my message here, again.Got it? Kof2102966 (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Kof2102966: If you refrain from making personal attacks against other editors, no-one will edit your posts. If you make personal attacks again, they will be removed, and if you continue you will lose editing privileges. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Talking to yourself, let people see "This is too arrogant" , "deleting reliably-sourced content with a spurious attempted justification" and "groundless and childish",Which belong to "personal attack". And watch out, you are threatening me now, maybe you will be removed first. Kof2102966 (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm explaning the policy about refraining from personal attacks which you apparently have a problem following. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are you disputing part or all of the quote that "anti-tank weapons purchased by the United States that ended up in possession of the Islamic State within two months of leaving the factory,” is wrong or misleading, or is there something in that wording of that section that you think needs to be clarified? --Onorem (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I also am confused. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

In general, when opening a discussion thread it would be helpful to explain what it was about. While the other involved editor would know this, other visitors to this page would not. If you don't want other editors to comment, it's probably best to discuss with the other editor on their talk page. TFD (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

RfC for United States and state-sponsored terrorism#Syria

Does the following sentence in United States and state-sponsored terrorism#Syria constitute disallowed original research in the sense that it is an editorial synthesis of published material that implies a new conclusion?

Another study conducted by private company Conflict Armament Research at the behest of the European Union and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit found that external support for anti-Assad Syrian rebels "significantly augmented the quantity and quality of weapons available to ISIL forces", including, in the most rapid case diversion they documented, "anti-tank weapons purchased by the United States that ended up in possession of the Islamic State within two months of leaving the factory"

Kof2102966 (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC) (Question rewritten Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC))

I think it imply that the US provided weapons to ISIL, but the source did not advocate that the US provided weapons to ISIL. According to the Wikipedia guideline, This would be an improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research.The text should be deleted.Kof2102966 (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• Fails WP:RFCNEUTRAL – epically. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  Someone starts his Casting aspersions again. But as I said, It's not up to you to decide whether my word break the rule or not. And this time I will ignore your patent nonsense. Kof2102966 (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  OK. Everyone is going to ignore your improperly written and formatted attempt at an RfC. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - This is not a Request for Comments because it is a comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
• User:Kof2102966 - It would have been better to ask me for advice before starting this, rather than starting it and then asking for advice because it is complicated (which it is). It also would have been a good idea to use my talk page in the way that talk pages are designed to be used in Wikipedia, bottom-up. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  So, change it or start a new one? Kof2102966 (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  @User:Robert McClenon Wait, my first part is not comments,it's my Request for Comments,it looks like this on the lists of RfCs. Can‘t I Comment after Request for Comments？ Kof2102966 (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  User:Kof2102966 - When you say that the first part of your RFC is not a comment but a Request for Comments, are you trying to confuse me, or trying to confuse the other readers? You changed the beginning of your RFC after it was initially listed and after I responded to it. Are you trying to make it look as though I am responding to something that isn't there? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  User:Robert McClenon Oh, before I saw your answer, my editing was already done. I thought it was the last version you were talking about at the moment. It seems that you were talking about the first version. So, how about this version? Kof2102966 (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• There is no explicit connection made between the weapons provided and terrorist activity. Insurgency by itself is not terrorism, although ISIL uses terrorism more than most insurgents. In order to mention this support, a source directly establishing a connection between the U.S. government and state-sponsored terrorism would be required. TFD (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  I agreed about "There is no explicit connection made between the weapons provided and terrorist activity." That's why I think it shouldn't under the section “United States and state-sponsored terrorism # syria”. Kof2102966 (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• I'm responding to the newly re-written question, which asks what I believed the original versions to be intending. I have read the relevant parts of the report, and I am concerned that the summary in the article represents a type of POV pushing. The source says, for example:
  • "CAR documentation shows that the most rapid case of diversion following unauthorised retransfer was that of an advanced anti-tank guided weapon (ATGW). The weapon was manufactured in the EU, sold to the United States, supplied to a party in the Syrian conflict, transferred to IS forces in Iraq, and documented by a CAR field investigation team following its recovery from IS forces. The full chain of transactions occurred within two months of the weapon’s dispatch from the factory."
• Note the word I highlighted: They are talking about a case of US-purchased weapons ending up in the hands of IS forces without the US authorizing it. They later explain exactly how most of these "unauthorized retransfers" happen:
  • "These weapons originate in transfers made by external parties, including Saudi Arabia and the United States, to disparate Syrian opposition forces arrayed against the regime of President Bashar al-Assad. Supplied into Syria through the territories of regional proxies—notably Jordan and Turkey—this materiel was rapidly captured by IS forces, only to be deployed by the group against international coalition forces."
• So there you have the real story (according to this source): The US and Saudi Arabia give weapons to anti-Assad forces, the anti-Assad forces lose (some) engagements, and the winner loots the weapons left on the battlefield by its dead and fleeing opponents. This process has been going on since prehistoric people first started throwing rocks at each other, and it should be comprehensible to any kid who has played a game of Dodgeball. And it is not adequately or fairly described in the article right now.
  I think that an adequate and fair description would probably sound a lot more like "The US supplies weapons to anti-Assad forces, and sometimes IS forces capture those weapons and use them against the anti-Assad forces" than what we've got there right now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)