Talk:2011 raid on Camp Ashraf

Small edits

Made a few small edits. They included adding the Iraqi government claim of death numbers to the existing PMOI claims, as it is at this point essentially their words against each others. I did not edit the number of wounded, since this does not seem to be disputed by the Iraqi government. I think it is important to keep in mind that neither party involved in this can be considered neutral due to the former Iraqi regime's use of the PMOI to crush the uprising of '91, which included several massacres of civilians. This background has understandably caused quite some tensions between both parties over the years since the overthrow of Saddam. Pavuvu (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You need to cite reliable sources if you are going to include such information. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

What information? I didn't add anything of what I wrote in the talk page about likely bias between the groups. The only thing I added was the death toll provided by Iraqi authorities, and those were already sourced by the same article that was the source for the current death toll. Pavuvu (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

POV title

I have never before seen, on wikipedia, an attack by government forces against a terrorist organisation, which killed only members of this terrorist organisation (as is recognised by Iran, Iraq and even the United States), as a "massacre." Now, I understand ofcourse that the word terrorist is a controversial word and should be used as little as possible on wikipedia in relation with neutrality policies, however, would we ever have an article referring to an attack by US forces against an al-Qaeda camp, or Israeli forces against a Hamas camp called a "massacre"? That would not be allowed and in this case the double standard is enormous. The article name should be changed as soon as possible.Kermanshahi (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, being a member of the Mujahedeen-e Kalq, already automatically makes you a combatant, because you are a member of a violent, armed organisation responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians in both Iran and Iraq, but even if you disagree with that, it at least makes them militants, or combatants, not "civilians." The use of "infobox civilian attack" is completely outrageous. Terrorists that target Iraqis and Iranians are civilians now?Kermanshahi (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Article beginning

First of all, simply labelling MKO as terrorists would be POV, however, removing the sourced fact that the MKO is recognised as a terrorist organisation by Iran, Iraq and the US from the beginning of the article and simply refering to them as "Iranian opposition" is purposely misleading and POV. Secondly, when adding a part that says "is desiginated as a terrorist organisation by ..." it is usual to name the countries which recognise them as a terrorist organisation rather than to say "but it is not recognised as a terrorist organisation by ..." More importantly, however, the claim that it is not designated a terrorist organisation by the EU and UN is not even mentioned in the source. Not only that, it is not even true, the UN doesn't have a list of designated terrorist organisations! Now, as for the categories, it is simply unacceptable to add categories such as mass-murder or massacre for a clash between security forces and members of a terrorist group, especially since that claim is so disputed. I would like you, Mr.Plot Spoiler to add the "massacre" tag to every single US raid against al-Qaeda, Taliban, Mahdi Army or al-Shabaab bases, before you apply such double standard here.Kermanshahi (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Including the terrorist label in the lead is arguably POV well-posioning. And the NYT source says exactly this if you actually bothered to look at it: "The Iranian group has been branded a terrorist group by the United States, Iraq and Iran, though not the European Union or the United Nations."

Secondly, Iraq may have designated the MKO as a terrorist group but it that doesn't change the fact that the Iraqi army murdered (massacred) 34 defenseless individuals. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Including the terrorist label in the lead is not POV-pushing, but is what is always done on wikipedia. Also, even if your anti-Iranian NYT source says "though not the European Union or the United Nations" - that doesn't change the fact that the United Nations does not have a list of designated terrorist organisations, so it should not be mentioned on any article. We can mention the fact that the EU repleaed the MKO's terrorist designation, if you insist, though. However, usage of labels such as massacre and mass murder for an operation against an insurgent/terrorist group is unacceptable and just makes this place a propaganda outlet for terrorist MKO.Kermanshahi (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Plot spoiler, do you have a source which says this was a massacre? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You clearly see the sources in the article in addition to others not mentioned e.g. [1]. The incident also clearly suits the category definition of massacre in Wikipeda: Category:Massacres. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It does not in any way suit the definition of category:massacres. I see no other article about a raid against a terrorist base on that list. Massacre is what MKO terrorists did to Iraqi people in 1991, this was a crackdown by security forces against terrorists. Massacre is a killing of civilians, but Camp Ashraf is a terrorist base, all of who's inhabitants are members of the terrorist group Mujahedin e-Kalq. If this is a massacre, than every single US raid against al-Qaeda or the Taliban must be called a massacre aswell. Once you categorise every anti-terrorism raid by US, UK or Israeli forces as a massacre, than come back hear and apply the same standards. Until then, no baseless anti-Iranian/anti-Iraqi propaganda on wikipedia.Kermanshahi (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Kermanshi's POV failure

Oh dear -- Kermanshi is being particularly vicious in depicting the mass murder of unarmed civilians at Camp Ashraf as simply a military raid. I can only conclude that Kermanshi is so blinded by his hatred of the MEK he considers it "terrorism" on the part of MEK by being massacred by Iraqi military forces -- he inexplicably added the CATs "terrorism," "battles involving Iraq," and "terrorism" [2] to described the murder of unarmed MEK members -- as described by reliable sources. That's pretty open and shut POV pushing to me.

Furthermore, Kermanshi continues to reject this reliably sourced statement by New York Times: "The Iranian group has been branded a terrorist group by the United States, Iraq and Iran, though not the European Union or the United Nations." Instead he is providing his own original research in claiming that the United Nations does not label terrorist groups.

Lastly, mass murder and even a "massacre" clearly seem to be accurate CATs for this raid. Iraqi military forces killed 34 unarmed civilians and injured hundreds more. Because Iraq and Iran has labeled the MEK terrorists, Kermanshi simply cannot accept the reliably sourced view that this was wanton murder against defenseless individuals. Please be reasonable. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all, this was not a "massacre" of unarmed civilians, as you say in your anti-Iranian POV, but an attack on members of a terrorist organisation. An organisation responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iranian servicemen and civilians, as well as contributing in Saddam Hussein's genocides against the Kurds and the Shi'as, which is why it has rightfully earned it's status as a terrorist organisation. Many al-Qaeda members were killed or captured by US forces while unarmed, but that doesn't make them civilians either.

Now as for the UN designation and my "original research." Please would you care to provide a source proving the UN has such list? Because it is simply not true. Nowhere on the internet can you find such list of UN designated organisations. If you are right, and such list does exist (and MKO is not included), it won't be too difficult to find, won't it? US terror list is easy to find on google, so is the EU's list. Can you provide proof for the existance of a UN list of designated terrorist organisations on which MKO is not included?Kermanshahi (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed Category:Mass murder in 2011 & Category:Massacres in Iraq. There is no policy based argument for these or evidence of a consensus here. Personal views about military forces killing and injuring many unarmed civilians whether it's in Camp Ashraf, the Gaza Strip or anywhere else doesn't justify the use of Mass murder and Massacre categories. Categories must comply with both WP:V and WP:NPOV. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Saba Haftbaradaran

Added link to related article of victim of the raid, along with references from trusted sources. Regardless of afiliation, this person was a confirmed victim and died as a consequence of the raid, so information on this person is notable to support the article's confirmed facts.Kronnang Dunn (talk) 07:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

No longer considered Terrorist by US

This is from the main MEK article: "The European Union, Canada and the United States formerly listed the MEK as a terrorist organization, but this designation has since been lifted, first by the Council of the European Union in January 26, 2009 (following what the group called a “seven-year-long legal and political battle”),[15][16][17] then by a decision by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton[12] on September 21, 2012 and lastly by a decision by a Canadian government on December 20, 2012." This contradicts this article.200.75.114.165 (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

"Undo pro-terrorist propaganda by Plot Spoiler. Talk already concluded your "massacre" and "mass-murder" have no place on this article about military raid against terrorist group" Seriously? Try discussion rather than calling others of writing terrorist propaganda. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, it seems there was another raid in September this year, should that be added here? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

If this is a massacre than I want to see every single raid by US and Western militaries against al-Qaeda, Taliban or any other terrorist group as mass-murder. But since no raid in which solely members of a terrorist organization are killed are referred to as massacres, there should be no double standard in this case. We already discussed this and these tags were removed. Plot Spoiler is the one who vandalised without any consensus.Kermanshahi (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that although US removed MKO from terrorist list after the group had stopped carrying out terrorism against Americans (and only against Iranians), it was still on the Us list of designated terrorist organizations at the time when this raid took place.Kermanshahi (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It was described as a massacre and that was attributed, I see no consensus on this page for removal of that. Also, read WP:VAND. PS edits are not vandalism. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I removed the categories before and explained why. No one responded. The categories were put back without discussion. This seems wrong. In the meantime, Plot Spoiler was topic banned from WP:ARBPIA for 3 months (see here), and as far as I'm aware, that ban is still active. Meanwhile, Plot Spoiler carries on apparently using Wikipedia to fight the Iran–Israel proxy conflict, here at this article for example. In previous topic bans, admins have confirmed that things like the Iran–Israel proxy conflict are also covered by ARBPIA topic bans (e.g. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive135#IranitGreenberg), so that is something that needs clarifying in Plot Spoiler's case. Back to the content though, categories are unattributed and in the voice of the encyclopedia. I don't think a evidence+policy based case has been made to justify their inclusion so far. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

This article is about Iran/Iraq though? Does it fall under ARBPIA? If cats need attribution then surely adding the terrorist cat would not work for the same reason? But the only reason I reverted was the edit summary and the removal of the content. I am not really all that fussed about cats, an RFC ought to be the way forward for that. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Sean, this has nothing to do with Israel. Quit hounding me and making unsupported attacks that violate WP:AGF. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

@DS, MEK is an alleged Israeli proxy...so the story goes. Yes, it might be covered by ARBPIA, as odd as that might sound. I shall check when I get a chance. Plot Spoiler, if it had nothing to do with Israel and it's perceived enemies, I don't think you would be here. I'm familiar with your work. And if you remember, I documented your highly problematic editing at this article here, so there will no assuming good faith. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

And if you were familiar at all with the Mujahedin-e Kalq terrorist organization or any of it's 50,000 victims, you would be striking a far different tone than you are now.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with your work as well, disrupting the work of a charitable organization to push a certain vendetta. Pathetic. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

In addition to pushing the fringe theory that the MEK is an alleged Israel proxy. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

You are angry. If you were familiar with my edits you wouldn't able to say those things honestly. If you want to accuse someone of disrupting a charity you should supply supportive evidence. I genuinely don't know what you are referring to. It's not my "fringe theory" ([3][4]), I don't care whether its true or false and I haven't pushed it. You shouldn't argue with me, it's pointless. You should be concerned about your editing. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been quite carefully watching my editing thank you and been very happy with my stay out of the ARBPIA area. Personally, I dislike the MEK, but I did feel compelled to factually report the murder of 34 of their members, reportedly unarmed, by Iraqi military forces. I haven't really edited the MEK issue otherwise. I am interested in this subject as a simple human rights issue -- one that relates to Iraq-Iran issues. Furthermore, America is also often accused of being an Israeli proxy - that doesn't mean everything America does in relation to Iraq is also an ARBPIA issue - or indeed, any of it. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

You say that the "murder of 34 of their members" is a massacre, but since when is any American or Israeli military raid against al-Qaeda, Hamas, Taliban, in which only members of a designated terrorist group are killed, referred to as a "massacre"? Sometimes they are not armed either when US drones or helicopters, missiles, take them out, but it's never called massacre when a Western country does. This is completely against wikipedia policies and marks an extreme form of anti-Iranian bias. Also note how User talk:Plot Spoiler has consistently vandalised by removing sourced information about MKO's involvement in the 1991 uprisings in Iraq which is extremely relevant since this is the nr.1 cause of contempt for the group among Iraqi citizens and one of the main reasons why the post-Saddam government has designated them as terrorist and why there is so much public pressure in Iraq to evict the group. Also there is no such thing as a UN list of designated terrorist organizations, and unless you can provide any evidence of this imaginary list, other than 1 mistake by a blogger on nytimes. Also, User talk:Plot Spoiler has consistently tried censor the fact that MKO used to be on US and EU terror lists as well, before they removed Saddam Hussein. Kermanshahi (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

You need to stop calling good faith edits vandalism. It does not matter what happens elsewhere, othershitexists is not an argument. We have reliable sources, which are also attributed which say it was a massacre, so that obviously goes into the article. What this group did in 91 has no place here, at all, the article is about the killings at that time. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Your sources say only that terrorists were killed by a military raid. The leader of that terrorist group and one of the Iran War cheerleaders Kerry called it massacre. If this is a massacre every US raid against al-Qaeda is a massacre as well. Why the double standard? Are you only a terrorist if you kill white Americans now? Lives of non-white people like Iranians and Iraqis are worthless? Kermanshahi (talk) 12:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

You call one more editor a "terrorist supporter" and I will bring the matter to ANI. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Bring it to wherever you want: You are wrong.

1.In 2011 the MKO was still designated as terrorist organization by the United States. Designation was removed a year after this happened. Removing this fact from the article is vandalism.

2. MKO helped Saddam Hussein suppress the 1991 revolt, there is a source confirming this, and if you ahve problems with the source, there are many hundeds of sources confirming this. Removing this sourced information from the article to present MKO terrorist organization in more favorable light is vandalism.

3 No military raid against a terrorist organization has ever before been labelled as masscre by wikipedia. Doing so here is clear anti-Iranian POV pushing.

You have not replied to any of these points, only blindly vandalized the article by removing information without discussing.Kermanshahi (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

What they did in 91 has no place here, it is POV pushing to add it. This was already explained previously. It does not matter when the designation as a terrorist group was lifted, it has been. You point 3 is not even worth responding to, it has no foundation in policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

So Iraqi Shi'as attack MKO. But MKO's massacre against Iraqi Shi'as in 1991 has no place here? Why? Because you want to push pro-terrorist POV. Your refusal to respond to any of the 3 points proves you are a troll. I will not let you intimidate to promote MKO terrorists on wiki.Kermanshahi (talk) 13:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)