Talk:State Sponsors of Terrorism (U.S. list)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Misc.[edit]

I must admit, it does seem a little silly to have an actual government document that is by and large arbitrary. Oh no, I'm on the United States's big scary terrorist list! What ever will I do! Randall00 10:29 11-4-2006

How is this at all neutral ? If a list of nations that the US accuses of 'sponsoring international terrorism', in the interests of neutrality we would either have to delete this page or create pages of nations that Cuba, North Korea and Iran accuse of 'sponsoring terrorism'. Hauser 1 October

The US opinion may be biased, but this is a faithful reproduction of an official and factual US government document, just as any other US federal departmental report. - Loweeel 05:13, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

O.K., It's a reproduction, but so what ? Why does this even need to be here ? If other nations don't have their lists of nations that 'sponsor terrorism' here, then it makes the inclusion of this article inherently biased Hauser 2 October 2004

Then start pages of other nations' lists, if you want them. Nobody's stopping you from doing the research or making the wikipedia articles. Loweeel 15:32, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

IMHO the article is a factual reporting of a list, albeit a subjective list. On those grounds it is certainly NPOV. And the list is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. The lack of similar lists from other countries might mean that the Wikipedia needs more articles but not that this article is biased. --Jll 14:21, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

true, but this page should be removed from the terrorism template. The terrorism template already has references to the FBI most wanted list and the US stat dept. list. The link to this page is presented like it contains a general overview of state sponsors of international terrorism, but this list is only about anti-american state sponsored terrorism --Mixcoatl 15:02, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Rather than a US govt. list of present state sponsors, lets rework it a bit and make a list of all past and present state sponsors of terrorism. That way we can include Israel and their backing of the stern gang and the contras. --Uncle Bungle 04:25, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Mixcoatl that this list is not appropriate for a definitive "State sponsors" link the Terrorism template. Either the link should be deleted or set to point to the new article listing all those states which have supported terrorism at some time which Uncle Bungle proposes. It will be a long list. I would not change this article into that one though as this is a specific notable list that people want to find out about. It just happens to be about one government's view of state sponsored terrorism. An equally notable list about, say fruit, would also deserve its own article. --Jll 23:44, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out loud, this is an official US government list with official US government ramifications regarding the law, especially regarding export controls and financial aid. To quote from the US State Department website:

State Sponsor: Implications

Designating countries that repeatedly support international terrorism (i.e., placing a country on the "terrorism list") imposes four main sets of US Government sanctions:

  • A ban on arms-related exports and sales,
  • Controls over exports of dual use items, requiring 30-day Congressional notification for goods or services that could significantly enhance the terrorist list country's military capability or ability to support terrorism,
  • Prohibitions on economic assistance; and
  • Imposition of miscellaneous financial and other restrictions, including
    • Requiring the United States to oppose loans by the World Bank and other international financial institutions;
    • Lifting the diplomatic immunity to allow families of terrorist victims to file civil lawsuits in US courts;
    • Denying companies and individuals tax credits for income earned in terrorist list countries;
    • Denial of duty-free treatment for goods exported to the United States;
    • Authority to prohibit any US person from engaging in a financial transaction with terrorism list government without a Treasury Department license;
    • Prohibition of Defense Department contracts above $100,000 with companies controlled by terrorist list states.

-US State Department page

If you don't like the US government actions or otherwise have an axe to grind, that's fine, but this list is an objective fact with real-world implications (NPOV, in other words), and wishing otherwise is plainly POV. --Calton 05:02, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have no problems with placing this list, but there shouldn't be linked to it in the terrorism template. --Mixcoatl 14:30, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree. The article is fine, but not the link from the terrorism template. That just labels the link as "State sponsors", as if this is the definitive list. I would be happy with it in the template if it had a more accurate label.
ps. There was no real need to quote from the State Department website in full as the information is in the article anyway (I put it there) --Jll 21:32, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rename entry to "states which U.S. States Dept considers sponsors of terrorism"[edit]

In light of the comments in the above (unnamed) section above the table of contents of this discussion page as well as the "won't put itself on the list" it's certainly legitimate to include information about what the U.S. State Department says, however the article's title needs to match the meaning. With over 100 countries in the world it's possible and perhaps likely that other countries use the same 4-word phrase of "sstate sponsors of terorrism" whether formally or informally. The entry of "states which U.S. States Dept considers sponsors of terrorism" would not consist merely of but would include the relevant U.S. law and language and would link to (and be linked to from) other wikipedia pages on what other countries consider terrorist states. Harel (talk) 02:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

State Sponsors of Terrorism is a proper name indicating the U.S. State Department designation. Note the capital letters.
State sponsors of terrorism is down the hall, to your left. – RVJ (talk) 07:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. obviously won't put itself on this list[edit]

Could someone create List of U.S sponsored international terrorism? Kingturtle 21:31, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, like that wouldn't be inherently POV.--KrossTalk 11:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We sponsor terrorism? Well, I guess we did help out in the Bay of Pigs, and with that assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem (I don't even know if you can call them terrorists though). But, if we do "sponsor" terrorism (which I doubt), it would be classified, no wikipedian would know about it.--Porsche997SBS 21:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The term to 'sponsor terrorism' is highly POV. If you ask those on the receiving end of these 'sponsorships', the survivors will almost certainly tell you that the supporters of those groups are sponsors of terrorism. The supporters of those groups will tell you they're supporting freedom fighters or training people to better defend themselves. Also consider the history of the School of the Americas, School of the Americas Watch, and of Osama bin Laden#Afghan_Jihad_resisting_the_Russia_invasion and the Mujahideen#Afghan_Mujahideen. And consider Operation Northwoods, described in Wikipedia as "a 1962 plan to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government of Fidel Castro as part of the U.S. government's Operation Mongoose anti-Castro initiative. The plan, which was not implemented, called for various false flag actions, including simulated or real state sponsored terrorism (such as hijacked planes) on U.S. and Cuban soil.", and also Operation Ajax, a 1953 covert operation by Great Britain and the United States that overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran (1951-53) Mohammed Mossadegh, and put the Shah (Pahlavi) back in power. In Nicaragua, consider the story of Sandinistas and the Contras. In the continental US, look at Native American history and read about the Indian Removal, the Trail of Tears, Chief Joseph, and the stopping of the fleeing of the Nez Perce to Canada. Per Wikipedia's Freedom fighters article, "Historically, people who are self-described "freedom fighters" tend to be called assassins, rebels, or terrorists by their foes. During the Cold War, the term 'freedom fighter' was widely used by the United States and other Western Bloc countries to describe rebels in countries controlled by communist states or otherwise under the influence of the Soviet Union, including rebels in Hungary, the anti-communist Contras in Nicaragua, UNITA in Angola and the multi-factional mujahideen in Afghanistan." (i.e. the USSR would have probably considered the US to be a state sponsor of terrorism in Afghanistan.) A lot depends upon the eye of the beholder; things are rarely black and white; viewing events from the other side's shoes can often be enlightening.--Kaze0010 08:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for that, you're looking for United States and state terrorism. – RVJ (talk) 08:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i wish they do Madooo12 (talk) 11:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to add a "Criticism" section to this article with the appropriate journalistic and scholarly sources. Vandergay (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't there a link to the actual list included here?[edit]

And why aren't there more links to the relevant government documents? From a citations' standpoint, this page is a wreck needs to be cleaned up. Stone put to sky 13:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Can anyone tell, if there is a decent source for the provided timeline. The Reports from the State Department online only date back to 1995. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glockenspiel12345 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea[edit]

The US has removed North Korea from the list because of them stoppin gtheir nuclear program. The Honorable Kermanshahi —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That statement will be effective in next 45 days. At the moment the North Korea is still on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.128.198.163 (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas[edit]

why is every instance of Hamas in this article in full caps?

the listed countries[edit]

here are the currently listed terrorism sponsoring countries. theyre 6, and libya might be officially taken off, but usa immigration still wanted to keep it on the list.

Cuba - Havana - HAV Iran - Tehran - THR Libya - Tripoli - TIP North Korea - P'Yong Yang - FNJ Sudan - Khartoum - KRT Syria - Damascus - DAM

The government of these countries supports terrorism. There are more suspicious countries (29 of them), but the government doesnt have anything to do with support, at least its not proven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A lil wee tiny bee (talk • contribs) 16:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact if these countries are actually guilty is irrelevant, this is an American list and Libya isn't on it, Syria, Cuba, Iran, North Korea and sudan are.

BTW, the US has recently also threatened to add Venezuela to the list. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 12:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US state dept. website material[edit]

It should go without saying, but to copy and paste whole sections from one website is not acceptable, esp. when not all the material is about State sponsorship of terrorism. Wikipedia is not a mirror site for state.gove. I removed the off topic material, and tried to keep the material that is at least on topic. However, it should be sumarized and other sources used, as well.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the material is from a chapter called "State Sponsors of Terror Overview".Ultramarine (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you created a very strange and POV section, removing for example from the Sudan section all explanations for why US consider it to be a sponsor of terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Untrue. What was relevant, just barely, to the subject was this: "Sudan's history of having played host in the mid-1990s to al-Qaida leader Usama bin Ladin continues to weigh heavily in the objective assessment of Sudan's role in international terrorism, but there is no indication that al-Qaida elements have had a presence in Sudan with the knowledge and consent of the Sudanese Government for at least the past five years." Can you explain how the material that I trimmed is relevant to State Sponsorship of Terrorism?Giovanni33 (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would mean that Sudan should not be on the list. The deleted material mentioned support/presence of other terrorist organizations.Ultramarine (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Give me the quote where it claimed that Sudan's policy supported terrorist activity, i.e. engaged in state sponorsed terrorism. If there is such a claim then I would agree it belongs, but I saw no such claim. Quote here, where you think it says this, exactly.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Continued focus was placed on Sudan for its role in contributing fighters for the Iraqi insurgency." Ultramarine (talk) 07:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the full paragraph in context: "Continued focus was placed on Sudan for its role in contributing fighters for the Iraqi insurgency. Sudanese and foreign nationals who transited Sudan have been captured as foreign fighters in Iraq. The Sudanese have taken steps, through self-initiation and encouragement by the United States and other international actors, to disrupt jihadists both traveling to and returning from Iraq; however, significant gaps in knowledge and capability to identify and capture such individuals remain." This makes it clear that its not a state sponsored action; instead Sudan, according to this source, has taken steps to "disrupt jihadists both traveling to and returning from Iraq." Also, I note that you did not put in this part, that you think belongs. You put back EVERYTHING yet again, which is all off topic material, that you never explained why it belongs. You should self revert and keep this on talk until there is some agreement.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still an area of "Continued focus" with problems remaining. You never explained all your deletions.Ultramarine (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An area of focus, says nothing about any allegations of state sponsorship of terrorism. So that doesnt belong here. I have kept the material that was relevant and removed the off topic material. You have yet to quote anything that you restored that shows its valid for inclusion per the topic. I showed you above how your quote is not state terrorism. You have no responded to that or removed to from the article. Explain your revert or self revert. This article is not a dumping ground for your copying and pasting from state.gov websites as you are doing on this and other articles.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That, as well as several other paragraphs, is what the US state regarding Sudan. Your selective quotation gives the impression that this quote was all the US stated regarding Sudan. Either all the material should be quoted in full, or it should be stated that this is selective quotations leaving material out, or the content should be fully paraphrased. Currently I am considering paraphrasing the material and replace the outdated statements at the top.Ultramarine (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree is should be summarized, with the relevant quote included. That makes sense. But your edit on the article which was to restore the full copy and past of all the material was much worse than the possible interpretation that this was all that was said about it. I don't think anyone would make the interpretation. What is logical to be assumed is that this was all that was said relevant to this topic, subject matter. Why would quoting the relevant part make anyone assume that was all the US had to say about the country? Since the subject is state sponsors of terrorism, we would only assume this is all they said on the subject matter, which is the case.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, your selective quotation give a misleading presentation of what the US states on this and does not mention that it is selective. Better to add a link to the report as I have done. Also, I discovered a newer report, so both of our versions were outdated.Ultramarine (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's all in the name. Wouldn't something like "States accused of Terrorism by the US" be more applicable? Ok perhaps not so catchy. Many modern states have dabbled in terroristic methods at some time, so the page could explore that more. Currently it reads like an echo of US Govt materials... DanBri (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

China[edit]

I am deleting the mention of China from this list. The People's Republic of China was never a state listed on the US State Department's State Sponsors of Terrorism list, and certainly not in the period that is mentioned. See 1999 Overview of State Sponsors of Terrorism here and the 2000 Overview of State Sponsors of Terrorism here. China is definitely not on the list, and the word "China" doesn't even appear in the report. Therefore, the China mention (with no citations) should be considered vandalism, original research, or a subject matter beyond the scope of this article, and shall be deleted. Konchevnik81 (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shocking POV problems[edit]

This article has a dire problem with POV. In essence it is a dumping ground for US State Dept statements, with no critical analysis or opposing points of view. This explains the placement of the tags at the top of the article and they shouldn't be removed until such analysis and opposing POV are introduced and expanded upon. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 20:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. There seems to be no critical commentary at all. Esn (talk) 11:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan[edit]

I know Afghanistan was never on this list, but how come? Does anyone have/know of a good explanation for this, considering that Afghanistan was very active in sponsoring terrorism in the late 1990s/early 2000s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.235.86.70 (talk) 08:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that the US never recognized the Taleban as the government of Afghanistan. Béka (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is relating to a US list and not a Worldwide list, like a UN one[edit]

It doesn't need to be considered as having a worldwide view. The list is enforced by the US State Department. It also doesn't appear to be a non-neutral article from what I have seen.75.72.35.253 (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"widely considered hypocritical"[edit]

I started out by dialing back this sentence in the lede: "The list is widely regarded as hypocritical because, as former State Department official William Blum, Noam Chomsky and many others have pointed out, the US has sponsored more terrorism than most other states put together." The "widely", the implication that it's settled fact that the US is the world's biggest terrorist, etc., seem a little much, especially when relying on such minor publications and figures to make the point. Chomsky's a big one, obviously, but I had to look up who Blum was; if he's the second-most famous/respected person to have this opinion, I think "widely regarded" is an overreach". After those two, it seemed to just be miscellaneous nonnotable commentators; if we start listing sources to that level of obscurity, we'll also have to deal with the ten thousand gallons of essays and blog posts that don't consider the US a terrorist state.

But looking at the first two sources here--the Blum and Chomsky links--they don't appear to mention this list at all. Whether or not the US is itself a terrorist state seems to me a discussion for another article, unless we find it discussed in the context of this list. Otherwise it's original research, right? Seems better to keep this article about the list focused on discussion of this list, criticisms of this list, etc.

So I've pulled the statement for now until we find some better sourcing. Fair enough? Let me know what you think. Khazar2 (talk) 07:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the above more carefully, I see the link for United States and state terrorism, which seems like a better home for this material. Perhaps that article could be added as a "See Also"? That would allow this discussion to be properly focused, while also linking the reader to this potentially related issue. Khazar2 (talk) 07:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan? really wikipedia?[edit]

Pakistan is NOT currently labeled a state sponsor of terrorism (and has never been that I know of)... see your own chart... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.23.86.221 (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taking Cuba off the blacklist[edit]

With regards to the notion of Cuba being taken off the list of terrorism-sponsoring nations, it's interesting to note that Cuba is facilitating dialogue between FARC and the Colombian government on its own territory. Since the talks are ongoing in Havana, it's not implausible that Barack Obama could ask the State Department to delist Cuba in return for the island nation breaking ties with FARC --- a possible guarantee that FARC will get involved in the Colombian political process (a similar precedent happened in 2008, when the Bush administration followed on its promise to take North Korea off the blacklist in return for the Hermit Kingdom making progress in verifying its nuclear activities). In doing so, Barack Obama could go to Cuban-American members of Congress and say, "Look, Cuba's not a terrorist-sponsoring nation anymore. We know that they're by no means a democracy yet, but we applaud the Cuban regime for making substantial progress in anti-terrorism efforts." 68.4.28.33 (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

similar lists by other countries[edit]

Are there similar lists by other countries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.32.211.131 (talk) 10:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Israel[edit]

Was Israel ever on the list? After the "Operation "Wrath of God"" and other assassinations - which are on-going even today - Israel must surely meet the criteria of a state sponsor of terrorism.Royalcourtier (talk) 03:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. The US list is a list of countries that have US-imposed sanctions on them because their governments do (or formerly did) support groups on the Foreign Terrorist Organization list. The list is not an exhaustive, objective list of every country that has committed alleged acts of state terrorism.Konchevnik81 (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Cuba[edit]

There was an announcement today that Cuba would be taken off the list. Before Cuba gets moved back and forth too much, it only comes off the list after a 45 day waiting period, and that's assuming that there isn't congressional pushback (which there might be). I've clarified the language, so let's watch this space and see if it officially comes off the list or not. Konchevnik81 (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2015[edit]

Please remove Cuba from the list of countries still listed. It still says "The countries currently on the list are Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria." 27.32.118.72 (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: See above. Cannolis (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba, Official[edit]

As of today, Cuba is officially off the list. I have made the switch and added the necessary updated information and reference. Please do not completely delete the Cuba information - just because it is now off the list doesn't mean the information under its entry has no historic value.Konchevnik81 (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the critical commentary?[edit]

I added Template:Too few opinions to the top of the article. As it says, "the examples and perspective in this article may not include all significant viewpoints." But in fact, this isn't quite accurate: there are actually NO viewpoints included at all. It seems to me that there should be a section about the reasons for this list's existence, as well as criticisms for it and against it at various times made by noteworthy figures, both domestic and foreign. The complete absence of any critical commentary is striking. Esn (talk) 11:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's fair. From looking at a lot of the past comments on this talk page, I'd say the issue is to keep the history of and criticism of specifically this list, as opposed to state sponsorship of terrorism in general. For a starter, some specific criticism of the list from experts can be found in |this Al Jazeera English article, so I'd welcome anyone who wants to build that section. Konchevnik81 (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a criticism section, including a quote from the Al Jazeera article. Tim Smith (talk) 08:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be renamed something which indicates state sponsors of terrorism according to the US government or US country[edit]

This article has misleading headline. When I clicked on this article I thought names of countries like Pakistan will be there which is the biggest sponsor of terrorism. Even US government's most wanted terrorist Osama was living there comfortably. But then I noticed it is list of those countries who sponsor terrorism from US point of view and not from any other country's. So please rename this misleading title article.

North Korea should be in light green in picture of States Sponsors of Terrorism[edit]

North Korea is no longer on the State Sponsor of Terrorism list. It is still in dark green, it needs to be changed to light green, which means they used to be on the State Sponsor of Terrorism list. I'm not sure how to change it, but is there someone that does know?--Ameet12345 (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Taken care of, should revert back in a little while. SamaranEmerald (talk) 00:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The last two bullets should be taken out of sanctions section[edit]

The last two bullets should be taken out of sanctions section. I do not want to take them out myself, but rather seek out to other people as well if they agree with me. The Visa Waiver Program and the travel ban are not correlated at all to the State Sponsors of Terrorism list.--Ameet12345 (talk) 00:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the U.S. being represented in blue[edit]

It is never actually clarified in the article what a blue classification means. AndrewOne (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea ISIS links[edit]

Please do not keep re-adding this into the article. There is no empirical proof apart from a baseless British tabloid article from a newspaper known for misinformation. North Korea has no verified ties with ISIS and has never supplied them with weaponry --TF92 (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sudan[edit]

It has not been removed yet. Fix the map.--Drako (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We should add Russia.[edit]

Title. For obvious reasons. 2A00:102A:5006:B70E:CCBF:92FF:FEF8:23A6 (talk) 07:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:State_Sponsors_of_Terrorism_(U.S._list)&oldid=1210545327"