Talk:War on Terror

Saddam Hussien under terriost commanders and leaders

The Iraq war was a part of the war on terror and I feel that as the main target in the Iraq war Saddam Hussien should included in the list of commaders and leaders. He was known for supporting terriost organizations and posseing WMDs.

GWOT Service Medal

In the introductory paragraph "US Army's Global War on Terrorism Service Medal" should be changed to reflect that it is awarded to all four branches and the Coast Guard.

Minsk?

2011 Minsk Metro bombing has nothing to do with "Islamic terrorism after 9/11". Please remove that entry.

I support this. Accoding to BBC News on the topic the suspects are natives and the motives are unclear. Also on the wikipedia article on Minsk Metro bombing no evidence of Islamist links exists. Editors with powers to edit the article, please respond. - Tikru — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikru8 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Terminology

It says that Bush came up with 'war on terror', however in the quote he uses 'terrorism'. Later he does say 'war on terror', it was four days later. Is it known who came up with the phrase 'war on terror'? Just as someone came up with Reagan's Berlin speech. Terror and terrorism are different things, it might be that Bush (or the speechwriter) thought of 'terror' as a state of mind. Yet, I wonder, is it known who exactly came up with this wording? 81.68.255.36 (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Terror is a tactic (Shock and Awe is related), not a group or a nation. Therefore we are currently in the Global War of Terror. (Or perhaps the Global Reign of Terror to note the French origins of the Arab Spring.) Hcobb (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The term "war on terror" was just a propaganda slogan concocted by a particular faction to cover their geopolitical agenda. It was usually put in quotes by others, or preceded by "so called". It was not "commonly applied". It should be described as "an expression" or suchlike, as we do with "American way of life", for example. It seems to be disused (judging by a Google News search), now that its proponents have themselves adopted terrorist tactics. Fourtildas (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTSOAPBOX. The scope of this article is clearly defined and referenced. Perhaps you can find what you are looking for in the Criticism of the War on Terror article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The scope section is referenced to a Bush speech and parrots what he says. That is SOAPBOXing. Can you give sources to show that this description of events was "commonly applied" (without "so called" or quotes, etc.) by other than supporters of the agenda, particularly outside of the "West"? Fourtildas (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The scope section is actually the terminology section, and yes it is very heavily defined by reliable sources that have used the statement in the Bush speech as a basis. It is not SOAPBOXing as it is not advocating anything, but only uses multiple reliable sources in order to create the definition of the term and create a scope of the article based off said definition. Furthermore, although the definition has been largely framed by the Bush speech, it has become common usage and remains fairly close to the original framing if you look at the multiple uses in books and news articles.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Now looking back, there have been previous uses of the phrase "War on Terror" prior to the 9-11, however given the weight of reliable source references that refer to the present common usage those previous usage of the term should be included in the Terminology section, with wikilinks to appropriate articles.

Per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification I will notify relevant WikiProjects of this discussion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Masonic hoax

9/11 and the War on Terror should be added to List of Masonic hoaxes. It has also produced the construction of 33 intelligence agency complexes in D.C. more devoted to preying on Americans than any engineered threat. {See: "Report: 3,100 firms, agencies involved in war on terror")

The Light Burns (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Gotta say 'no' to that one. Maybe you could point me to the place in that source you've given where the word "Masonic" appears. I've read it twice and I don't see it. SeanNovack (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 November 2011

Please add Operation Enduring Freedom to the Status section and put War in Afghanistan under it because Operation Enduring Freedom is a large part of the War on Terror.

Pieetr (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: This is shown as a link to the War in Afghanistan in the infobox, and Operation Enduring Freedom already has its own section as well as a link to its article. — Bility (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect commander listing

Under the list of commanders, John Abizaid is listed as the ISAF commander from 2009-Present. John Abizaid retired from the military in 2007 from the position of CENTCOM commander, succeeded by William Fallon who is listed correctly. Abizaid was never ISAF commander. The current ISAF commander is John R. Allen, who succeeded David Petraeus in 2011, who, in turn, succeeded Stanley McChrystal in 2010. Someone needs to correct this. Jantill (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC) I've fixed that. And also updated it. It now lists all CENTCOM commanders since the War of Terror began, as well as all ISAF commanders that were American (there were British ISAF commanders before the American ones, but I haven't added those). They are listed in chronological order, with all CENTCOM commanders first, then all ISAF commanders (with Gen. Petraeus listed in the CENTCOM section as he was both). So someone feel free to add the British ISAF commanders, and also, I forgot to put an edit summary, and don't know how to fix that. So if someone knows how to do that, please feel free to do so. - Ezuvian (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism after 9/11

This part tells about Islamic terrorism after 9/11, but it should be removed or changed. Many of these have not much to do with the war on terror because they weren't attacks by al Qaeda or related terrorist groups. Examples are: List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2011 and other attacks of Palestinians on Israel. and also others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.204.100.196 (talk) 10:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Debatable aspects of Iraq War II as being part of the War on Terro

Shouldn't there be mention in this article that although the Bush administration claimed the invasion of Iraq was part of the War on Terror, that in fact 1) Iraq had absolutely NOTHING to do with the 911 terrorists 2) Al Qaeda was not in Iraq while Saddam Hussein was in power, as he actively kept them out and 3) the other claimed reason that invading Iraq was justified by the War on Terror - that Iraq was developing or holding onto WMDs has been thoroughly debunked? After Saddam Hussein was removed Al-Qaeda in Iraq did appear, and caused havoc for a time until the Sunni Awakening. So in fact, if the War on Terror was supposed to be a War on Al Qaeda, invading Iraq had just the opposite effect. If the purpose of the War on Terror was to fight against militant Islamists, then Saddam surely was our ally in this fight, because he hated and suppressed them. Something has got to be said in this article that the original reasons given for invading Iraq by Bush have since been shown to be every bit as false as the Gulf of Tonkin incident was for escalating the war in Vietnam. DarthRad (talk)

Perhaps a better place for this would be at the Criticism of the War on Terror. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

remove campaignbox

This article is not about a specific military campaign. It is about a political term used to tie a number of campaigns together under an ideological denominator. As such, Wikipedia is guilty of losing its encyclopedic focus if it succumbs to using propaganda terms as if they denoted something real. Note how even Great Patriotic War redirects to Eastern Front (World War II) (in this case, the term refers to an identifiable conflict, it is just less than neutral). As an encyclopedia, we do not call wars by the propaganda terms used by any involved sides. We do not call articles on military conflicts "holy war", "just war", "war against evil", so why should we use "war against terror" as if it was a neutral term?

In this case, I am sure a lot of interesting things can be said on how the apotropaic nature of the term "war on terror" reflects the psychological situation in the US in the years following 9/11. The term is even touching in a way in its baffling, apparently unreflected, naivete. But it doesn't refer to a military conflict. It describes the efforts of a political administration to come up with an ideological framework to group the various military adventures it found itself entangled in after people decided "something had to be done" in reaction to 9/11.

I am not complaining about the state of the article, it is fair enough. It just needs to make clear that "war on terror" is not an identifiable "war", but instead a highly interesting exercise in rationalisation during the early to mid 2000s. So I suggest there should not be a "campaignbox", which suggests that this is about a military conflict. --dab (𒁳) 10:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

'War on Terror' is the most commonly used English-language term for this series of conflicts, including in countries other than the US (here in Australia, for instance). Australians don't normally lump the war in Iraq in with this term though; I'm not sure what the situation is in other English-speaking countries. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Global War for Jobs

Current.tv refers to a "Global War for Jobs." But a visit to Europe or South Korea reveals that this is really a "Global War for American Jobs." How many people have been killed in the Global War for Jobs? Was Jobs killed in the Global War for Jobs? How many Foxconn employees have been killed so far? And if an Obamamutant from Globalistan gives all the jobs to his friends, is it really necessary to win such a war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.109.2.24 (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thats nice, but please pass the joint now ... you are clearly high enough already. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Grammar Issue. Paragraph two.

Although the term is not officially used by the administration of US President Barack Obama (which instead uses the term Overseas Contingency Operation)

Here the issue is that the President is not an object, he is a person. This is my recommended change. Simply one word:

Although the term is not officially used by the administration of US President Barack Obama (who instead uses the term Overseas Contingency Operation)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.71.218 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 13 February 2012‎

In the sentence in question the "object" is "The administration of US President Barack Obama" and does not speak about the present individual in the office of The President of the United States, but his admistration. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)