hi, sorry for interruption, could you please see to the NPOV of exclusion of Brazil from this article. It was there until a month ago, and some guys keep excluding South America
and Brazil from what I believe is its just place (and I am not alone, since these previous edits were there
long before, to include Brazil). thanks Perroot 21:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
---
Hello Luis, welcome to Wikipedia. Here's some tips:[reply]
- If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
- You can sign your name using three tildes, like ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
- If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
- If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page.
Other useful pages are: how to edit, how to write a great article, naming conventions, manual of style and the Wikipedia policies.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Angela. 02:07, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
Hi, I admire your articulate discourse on Talk:Violence against Israelis and wish at times I had your patience and eloquence. Viajero 13:04, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hi Luis! You definitely do not need admin privilegies to revert a page. You simply click on "Page history" then you click on the date of the version that you wish to revert to. Then "Edit this page" and "Save page" and voila! But personally, I wouldn't bother. Trolls like him comes and goes. Sooner or later he will realise that he cannot permanently damage the project and will leave. He is not worth getting upset about. :) BL 13:53, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
Luis, thanks for ur creation of the cult media wiki. Andries 15:58, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
By the way, I have doubts about including Osho/Rajneesh including to the purported cults because the there seems to be no strong hierachical movement anymore but I may be mistaken. I do agree that his teachings can be destructive. A colleague told me that she was the sole survivor of a group of 20 people who originally lived in the pre USA ashram in Pune. Andries 15:58, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I've just been reading your debate over at the talk page for Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2004. When I look at your contributions, I see statements that I would regard as morally bankrupt. You seem to avoid answering the question as to whether Palestinian suicide bombers murdering Israelis constitutes acts of terrorism. You also seem to deliberately dodge the issue over Penta's definition of terrorism.
- Really? I hoped to have made myself clear already, but since you insist - I really don't see any moral deficiency on my stand; suicide bombers are probably not terrorists (since they are after all denying themselves any benefit from their acts); terrorism is too loaded a word (both politically and emotionally) to be of any real objective use anyway except as a pejorative. For wikipedia use it is undesirable and very close to useless, since it completely undercuts the goal of NPOV. Penta's definition is useless and undesirable and I said so in no unclear terms - it relies too much on arguable technical details with no real meaning in order to make some things "not terrorism". I don't want to endorse such patently political definitions of such a powerful word that involves criminal acts. Luis Dantas 02:02, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Now, just to let you know, I consider Palestinian suicide bombings that kill Israeli civilians as terrorism. I consider what happened in Madrid last week terrorism. I consider 9/11 terrorism. I consider that Jewish guy who massacred 29 Arabs ten years ago to be a terrorist. I actually subscribe to Penta's definition.
Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade are not state actors.
- What difference would it make if they were? What difference does it make that Israel is considered a state when it destroys Palestinian houses? Luis Dantas 02:02, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The Palestinian Authority does not directly engage in terrorism so that particular dodge of Penta's definition doesn't hold up.
- So what? Penta's definition, as I said, is too custom-made to be seriously considered in general use. Luis Dantas 02:02, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
So, do you believe that Palestinians murdering Israeli civilians is terrorism?
David Newton 08:27, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I don't really care whether it is terrorism or not. Terrorism is defined by the expectations of the people who describe the act, not by the act itself and certainly not by the belief of the perpectrator himself. In the end of the day death is death, violence is violence, and terrorism is just a word all too often twisted to further political agendas. I want no part in that. To act otherwise would be a most morally bankrupt and repreensible behavior of my part. Have I made myself clear now? Luis Dantas 02:02, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Terrorism is certainly defined by the act itself. 9/11 is terrorism whatever people may say. The IRA blowing up London is terrorism whatever people may say. McVeigh's demolition job in Oklahoma is terrorism whatever people may say. Shi'as getting mown down in Iraq by explosions during religious festivals is terrorism whatever people may say.
- That is simply not true, not even remotely close to true. Sorry to disappoint you. Luis Dantas 03:25, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- You have a fundamental misunderstanding of international law if you think that terrorism is defined by the expectations of the people who describe the act.
- Maybe I do. Then again, how would you know? Who defines that international law? Who agreed to it? Why am I expected to recognize it? Who else does? Unless you have very good answers to these and other questions you are just wasting my time trying to prove a substanceless point. Luis Dantas 03:25, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- My Lai was not terrorism. It was murder and it was a war crime, but it was not terrorism. Madrid last week was terrorism. I would also classify it was a war crime, since I believe we are at war, and have been for over two and a half years. Blowing up Palestinian terrorists with Hellfires fired from Apaches is not murder nor a war crime nor terrorism if reasonable precautions are taken. If the force used is of a reasonable level, and if civilians are not targetted then such actions are perfectly legal. On the other hand, using artillery to level Gaza City would be a war crime, but still not terrorism.
- Good for you, I suppose. Once again, let me tell you that there is no real point to using the word at all other than instilling feelings of hate. Death is death, political motivation is political motivation. Using labels such as "terrorism" lends the situation an appearance of clarity and one-sidedness that has no real meaning at all. Luis Dantas
- Terrorism is the application of illegal force by non-state actors
- Strike one: "non-state" means "those that I don't recognize as states". Pretty arbitrary, really. Even more so if Israel/Palestine is involved. Luis Dantas
- to achieve a particular objective.
- Strike two: violence rarely makes clear sense. It is risky at least to claim to know the "objectives" of a violent act. Not to mention that most real life actions have several goals instead of just one. Luis Dantas
- States can support terrorist groups, but states themselves cannot engage in terrorism.
- By some definitions of the word anyway. Myself, I would rather not toy with such serious matters and dabble so deep in hipocrisy. Killing is killing, plain and simple, no amount of clever wording changes that. And as I already explained, the concept of "state" is itself quite artificial. You have _no chance at all_ of convincing me by going that way. Luis Dantas
- I use illegal force in its Geneva and Hague Convention sense, ie force that does not comply with the four rules set down in the Hague Conventions. A guerilla group blowing up an army convoy is not terrorism so long as said guerilla group follows the four rules. The moment that said guerilla group deliberately targets civilians or otherwise breaks the laws and customs of war, it becomes terrorism. David Newton 03:05, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Much as I respect the intent behing the Geneva convention, the emotional results of misuse of words such as "terrorism" is much too serious to be overlooked. That settles the matter for me, for reasons that hopefully are twice clear already. Luis Dantas 03:25, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)