Talk:USS Cole bombing

Motive

I've added the label that this article does not represent a world view. As it stands, the article focuses only on the USA's perspective of the bombing. For this reason, the article explains only the aftermath of the bombing. There should be some information detailing the events that might have triggered the aggression and bombing.iamorlando 11:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Was al Qaeda Responsible?

I'm not sure that al Qaeda was ever conclusively implicated in the attack. For an even-handed account of the attack and subsequent investigation, see http://www.al-bab.com/yemen/cole1.htm.

Definition of terrorist

Was this a terrorist attack, a destroyer seems like a Legitimate Military Target. It looks more like an act of banditism as the atackers ( didn't have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; weren't carrying arms openly;

I agree. The popular press (and president Clinton, if that quotation is correct) called this a terrorist attack incorrectly. That statement does not have to go, it should be balanced to make it NPOV. Since this was a military target, it should not be considered terrorism. See Terrorism, definition 1. Note that definition 2 is a pejorative characterization and does not describe anything concrete.

The article needs to be self-consistent. The first sentence says, "The USS Cole bombing was a terrorist attack" which conflicts with the later sentence about US law. There is also the categorization: Category:United States history (terrorism) which needs to be addressed.

There is also no mention of the people who committed the bombing. No reference to Al-Qaida. This article needs work, IMO. Thoughts? --ChrisRuvolo 22:51, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Made the terrorism changes. Still needs a big section on the investigation. It should mention these guys: [1] [2]. 5 arrests in Yemen, one guy in US custody. Start of trial: [3] --ChrisRuvolo 10:10, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I dispute the defintion of terrorism as written in the Terrorism article. The dictionary definiton of this term is "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." Based on this definition the use of the word terrorism is appropriate.

What dictionary is that from? Here is the definition from WordNet 2.0 (emphasis mine):

terrorism - n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear [syn: {act of terrorism}, {terrorist act}]

We could throw dictionary definitions back and forth all day.. but when it comes down to it, Wikipedia should at least be self-consistent. If you dispute the definition of terrorism, dispute that article. See Talk:Terrorism. It has been discussed extensively. Until that definition changes, I don't think you should dispute this article. --ChrisRuvolo 14:45, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• mumbles about "is that being hashed out again?* In other news: 10 USS Cole suspects escape Yemeni jail. Kwantus 04:39, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)

I have no interest in the debate re: terrorism or not but I did categorize in the Category:al-Qaida activities which I think we can all agree it was. They were the ones involved, no matter how you name it.--Hooperbloob 00:01, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is absolutely ridiculous to call this terrorism as this was an attack on a military vessel. Merat 09:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

1. The definition of terrorism is fluid and cannot be hammered down.
2. However you define it, Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization
3. Terrorists can commit acts of war and can also perform humanitarian roles
4. Al Qaeda perpetrated this attack and should be labeled as an act of violence by a terrorist organization (a fine line, I grant you) — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

So can we both agree that the "terrorist attack" infobox should be replaced with something else? --Merat 23:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I had reinstalled the terror incident infobox. As alluded to wrt rules of engagement, being a military target is not enough. More facts must be considered.

Let's imagine for a moment that the suicide bombers chickened out that day, and so there was no bombing. But let's also imagine that a sightseeing boat came alongside moments later. The Cole's watch sees something fishy among the sightseers, believes them to be terrorists, and its gunners destroy the boat. Then, an investigation proves the watch's judgement was incorrect. The fishy item was a lunch basket.

The ship's watch may have had good reason to think it was a bomb, but that's not enough. For one thing, this was a neutral port. For another, the sightseers were wearing civilian clothes. The crew needed a greater degree of certainty that a danger existed before they could defend themselves.

Besides, the infobox doesn't actually say it's a terrorist incident anyway.
-- Randy2063 22:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
-- Randy2063 20:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC) (reposted in different position)

I have begun looking for a different infobox. Apparently, Merat's objection is to the name of the userbox, not the contents, since the word "terrorist" does not appear in the infobox itself, only in the template's name. Note also that the template does not add the category of "Terrorist incidents" or anything similar to the page, so it appears to be semantics. Nonetheless, I'll see if I can find something similar, or I may just create a new template with the same information and a different name. Horologium t-c 21:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

See new section below. Horologium t-c 04:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Reporting of facts versus statements of fact

I've actually edited out the short section which discussed the non-terroristic nature of the USS Cole's attack. Whether it was a terroristic attack or not, Wikipedia cannot make bald assertions; we would need to write "However, some commentators (sources, sources) have argued that the attacks were not 'terrorism' according to (legitimate definition), as the USS Cole was a military target". And the (sources, sources) will need to be impressive, and I can't find any. There are plenty of highly partisan commentators which discuss this issue [4], [5] [6] [7], the ones on the left arguing that the USS Cole deserved to be hit in retaliation for the starvation deaths of Iraqi citizens, the ones on the right arguing that it was an act of war which fully justifies invading Iraq, and they all like to point out their own cleverness in being so perceptive. I cannot however find an impressive, simple news report or authoritative statement from a respectful source which illustrates the point we are trying to make; and I'm not even sure that I should be working backwards from a conclusion. -Ashley Pomeroy 22:30, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That is too many citations and anyway we shouldn't need citations to define the word terrorism correctly. It shouldn't be framed in the context of what the left vs the right are arguing about, the issue as I see it about having an accurate definition of an english word. zen master T 22:45, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry; I've added a section header to make my point more clear. I'm not debating the definition of terrorism; my point is that it's not for Wikipedia to make statements, it instead has to report the statements of others. -Ashley Pomeroy 22:50, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying we have to include a citation everytime someone says someone else has misused an english word? The definition of terrorism listed in this talk page above states equivocally that the targets must be civilians for it to fit the definition of terrorism, so in that light one needs only to cite a dictionary to prove clinton's usage was incorrect, right? zen master T 22:55, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't use an active, editorial voice; and in this particular case - a controversial one, involving the words of a President, no less - I argue in favour in citing credible dissenting viewpoints. At the very least, we need to specifically point out an agreed definition of terrorism or article of U.S. or international law, rather than simply stating "under U.S. law, this statement is incorrect". As the article was beforehand, it read as if an overly-enthusiastic commentator - presumably one of the chaps above - had lept into that section to baldly point something out, without using journalistic methodology. As for "the defintion of terrorism listed in this talk page above", put it in the article! -Ashley Pomeroy 23:06, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree that paragraph should be rewritten, the article should state directly that terrorism is defined this way by a dictionary and contrast that with how former president cliton uses it. What do you think about that? To a certain extent I agree about the U.S. law statement needing citations, but wikipedia generally does not require that from what i've seen for perhaps unconstroversial statements about the law (if there is even one counter citation that says U.S. law defines terrorism differently e.g. to include military targets then I'd say we should completely remove that statement). zen master T 23:24, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Restored sections

Picture was messed up by 69.202.29.27, which I fixed, then noticed several sections missing. Keep an eye out for anon edits. Leonard G. 17:35, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Suicide attacks

While at the time, (1943-44), Piloted aircraft attacks by the Japanese were called "suicide" attacks, self destruction was not the motivation of the pilots and these are now more appropriately called kamakazi attacks, which is the term used by the attackers. Will attacks against military targets such as that upon the Cole someday be called martyrdom or jihad attacks? Just food for thought. Leonard G. 17:35, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Common Sense

"a small craft approached the port side of the destroyer,"

i am not really familiar with the topic, but this seems to lack common sense to me. there is a small craft approaching a destroyer(!!!!), and everyone is asleep ? was there an inquiry in this security breach ? i guess not.... i don't want to come off as an conpiracy theorist here, but it just seems incomprehensible to me that such a floating array of guns just act like a sitting duck. Refueling or not, there has to be someone in the watchtower...

The rules of engagement prohibited the crew of the Cole from firing first. Stupid, but true. The rules of engagement should require warnings (radio, bullhorn), followed by warning shots and then fire for effect, within seconds if needed. I certainly hope the US Navy woke up after this incident, better late than never.

There is nothing stupid about prohibiting sailors from shooting at passing boats. The boat was not perceived to be a threat. Only an obvious military threat should evoke a military response. With terrorism that is rare. The solution isn't to shoot the locals indescriminantly (My Lai), but to operate a cordon, and search approaching vessels or people. Easily done. What actually happened was that there was no alert at all, despite the obvious security risk - rather like Pearl Harbour. The commander wasn't promoted, it is true - but he should have been court martialled.

Is it appropriate to shoot at anyone who comes within 200 yards of an American military post or vessel? American's already have a reputation for being trigger-happy, but that would be ridiculous overkill even for Americans.JohnC (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Other attacks

Cut:

• The attack was the deadliest against a US Naval vessel since the Iraqi attack on the USS Stark (FFG-31) on May 17th, 1987.

What's the best way to clue in readers that there was another attack? --Uncle Ed 14:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment in the Edit was "the kind of journalistic stuff we don't need". I don't consider relative comparison journalistic. 17 killed, 39 injured, as compared to what? Setting aside the obvious humanitarian consideration: is 17 a lot? ...does this type thing happen often? These are the obvious questions that follow the simple data. There have been three significant attacks on US warships in peace time, and they have occurred rarely. These are not journalist embellishments. The original statement is factually accurate, and relevant. Thaimoss 01:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a citation needed tag on the first paragraph. Citation: http://www.dod.gov/pubs/foi/reading_room/65rev.pdf

Would someone kindly install it? I'm not very up on installing citations to articles yet.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Current Precautions

Are there currently any precautions or defensible actions US naval ships can execute in situations similar to the USS Cole bombing? According to Al-Quaida's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahri, in a message released 9/11/2006, the US's risk of being attacked in the Persian Gulf will dramatically increase. If the US currently cannot strike water craft approaching their ships due to rules of engagement, what will the enlisted men and women do to defend themselves against assaults? 18:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Report confirming al-Qaeda involvement

These sentences -- "The Clinton Administration was heavily criticized for failing to militarily respond to the attack on the USS Cole. Others also fault the Bush Administration for not acting on the report's conclusions." -- seem to be referring to a report that confirms al-Qaeda involvement, but there doesn't seem to be any discussion of this beforehand. Instead, there's discussion of a Navy report afterward. I think some key discussion may be missing here. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to provide some context on how and when that involvement was confirmed, and have mostly rewritten and reordered the section on criticism to avoid that jarring segue. JamieMcCarthy 17:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Map

A Map of Yemen

Found a picture over on the Yemen page. Its a start at least.

New Infobox

I have reinserted a new infobox (Template:Infobox Al Qaeda operation) to address the concern about the name of the previous infobox template. It is the same infobox, but it doesn't have the word "terrorist" in its name. Hopefully, this will avert an edit war over something that is truly trivial. Horologium t-c 04:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I can accept this, but why not just use an ordinary combat infobox? Merat 02:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Because it wasn't a conventional battle, and the information was presented in a different format. Combat infoboxes are for battles, not asymmetric warfare incidents. (Working hard not to use the t-word...) Horologium t-c 02:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What's the principal diffrence between dropping a bomb from a plane and doing it this way? The suicide involved? Merat 03:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The 1998 bombing of Iraq for example. How much of a "conventional battle" was that? Yet there is still a combat infobox in that article. Merat 04:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The Bombing incident you mention above was not an example of asymmetric warfare; it was warfare between three clearly defined and universally recognized nations. That is why it has a combat infobox. (They may have been vastly different in combat capabilities, but nobody describes the German blitzkrieg of The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Denmark as "asymmetric warfare".)

When I get a chance, I will be subbing in the new template on all of the Al Qaeda incidents listed in the second (smaller) infobox, to provide consistency. Most of Al Qaeda's activities were unquestionably terroristic in nature, but a few of them might be disputed, so using Template:Infobox Al Qaeda operation will eliminate edit wars over semantic issues. Horologium t-c 18:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I personally object to this being considered terrorism, but there was absolutely nothing wrong with the original template (and its name). In April, the template was moved from Template:Infobox terrorist attack to Template:Infobox civilian attack (for a number of reasons). As a result, if you were to simply update the name of the template, where "terrorist" is not used, the name of the template would accurately describe the attack (because civilian refers to the perpetrators, not the targets). -- tariqabjotu 12:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It is Template:Infobox civilian attack, with a redirect to give it the "Al Qaeda operation" name. I saw the name change, but I was concerned that the new name might still cause issues (it is not clear that it meant whether the attack was perpetrated by or targeting civilians), so I came up with one that is unambiguous and can be used elsewhere, for both civilian and military Al-Qaeda targets. I personally have no problem with any of the three template names (they are all the same template), but an editor had twice removed the infobox over the name. If you want to RfD the redirect, go ahead, but my solution appears to solve the problem with a single redirect, and the name of the infobox should eliminate any other good faith efforts to improve the accuracy of the article. I may not agree with Merat, but I have no doubt of his sincerity. Others may share his views, and the "civilian attack" title could cause a similar issue with another editor at a later date. Horologium t-c 20:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This template is getting deleted because the only place it is used is this talk section. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Crew training section

There are no dates in this new section. When did the ceremony take place? When was the facility constructed? The only date appearing in the piece is in the third paragraph, where the year 2001 appears. A little Google searching seems to indicate that the facility just opened (in June 2007), but I'd like to nail down the date of the ceremony.

Additionally, the whole section reads like a press release, complete with the word "we", which is definitely a bad thing in any article space. I am not finding any web cites that indicate that it is plagiarized, but the first-person usage in the paragraph suggests a conflict of interest, at the least. Horologium t-c 17:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This section sounds like it was written by Congressman Kirk's campaign staff. I even voted for the guy, but sheesh - adding POV tag until it gets cleaned up. Ronnotel 14:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Google finally found the original, from Kirk's official website.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/il10_kirk/Kirk_Battle_Stations_21_Will_Save_Lives.html

I deleted the entire section. If someone wants to rewrite it instead of plagiarizing, have at it. Horologium t-c 15:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Nicely done. It would be interesting to track this down and see if the comment from Popkeene originated from within a Congressional office building. Just sayin' is all. Ronnotel 16:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yikes! I put a warning on the wrong page. I removed it from the IP user who edited after Popkeene, and I put in on pop's page. However, I don't know if he's going to contribute again, as his account was created 15 minutes before his first (and only) edit. We'll see. I wouldn't be surprised if he is a Kirk staffer, as congressional aides have been caught monkeying with Wikipedia entries that involve their bosses. This one was relatively benign, except for the copyright vio. Horologium t-c 16:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

SA-7

The following appears to be a talk page comment but was mistakenly placed on the main page. There are devices that can detect an infrared missile in flight. See also Infrared countermeasures in general and CAMPS for civil aircraft. --Dual Freq (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This final part would be impossible though leaving much of this story in doubt. The SA-7 is a man portable SAM system that uses a passive infared sensor to lock onto its target. Being passive it is impossible to actually detect when one is targeting a plane, helicopter, or for that matter any target at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.168.208.5 (talk • contribs) 20:48, January 11, 2008

Banner on the article page

I'm making a move to have the banner removed from the main page. Note that this is a matter with the U.S. hence the ship name USS Cole. Other countries were not involved, excpet for the terrorists which there countrys are unknown.Plyhmrp (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Plyhmrp

Suicide Bomber Names

I removed the names of the supposed executors of the attack. Until someone cites that information, it's not appropriate to put names up baselessly. -- Veggy (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks

Template:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Aude (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Why did we have a missile destroyer in Yemen

I was about 12 when the bombing happened. I don't remember hearing about it back then.

Did Clinton send troops to Yemen? Why were we there, especially with a battleship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightskye (talk • contribs) 04:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Because it was a safe port for ships sent to the dangerous Middle East. Hcobb (talk) 04:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The real culprit.

It's very difficult to really ascertained which were the true culprits. claims made by both US and Al-Qaeda are meant more to served their geopolitical agendas rather then trying to uncover the truth. It get so predictable, that i can almost always tell where the finger will be pointed each time after this kind of attack, even before the official announcement.

161.142.139.3 (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Size of the hole?

The article says 40x40' but this news video [8] at about 00:47 it says 60x40'. Just saying.... MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 21:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)