Talk:War on terror

Name Change

The House Armed Services Committee is banishing the global war on terror from the 2008 defense budget. [1] Might be worth adding, let me know if you would like me to edit the article. --Carl Von Clausewitz 11:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

anyone knows why seperate funding? where the the funding go? to the military? defense contractors? recontructions? i don't get where is the money going based on the article, can someone stick some FAQ in the article... Akinkhoo 01:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Where are the Terrorist Casualties?

Usually in an article on a war you have casualites listed by side. I see the US and other allied side casualties and the (supposedly) innocent bystander casualties. Where is the Terrorist and sympathizer body count? How many of the innocent bystander casualties was caused by the Terrorists and how many by the US and allies? Seems a fair thing to ask. Otherwise its pretty meaningless to tally the losses, keeping score on one side and not the other. Asiaticus 03:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

But this isn't a traditional war - not in any sense. How do you tell who's a terrorist, who's a sympathizer, and who's innocent when no one's wearing any uniforms? It's not like Al Qaeda keeps tallies with the International Red Cross. --Brasswatchman 15:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you know them by their actions. Caught or killed in arms or in aid of doing terrorist acts that seems pretty clear. They must have some estimates at least. Asiaticus 06:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There are no estimates for that, and if you want to, blame the US military because they "don't do body counts" of enemies killed (because in Vietnam they realized they couldn't easily distinguish the number of civilians killed from the number of enemy). That means the only body counts, besides those of US and coalition allies killed, are just counts of the number of other dead because outside sources that weren't involved in a battle have no way of knowing who exactly was a "terrorist". Presumably the counts include everyone from civilians- vast majority of dead- to insurgent fighters. 172.147.227.44 15:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably most of the casualties listed by the US as terrorists are actually civilians, not the other way round, the US military has always been notorious for its cover up of 'accidental' civilians deaths and 'collateral damage'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.201.30.74 (talk) 23:40, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Oh, is that so? One documented case does not make a trend, and those soldiers were dealt with. I would like you to show me (someone who has been in Iraq) proof that the US military regularly kills civilians and covers it up (and maybe you could do it while signing on, instead of hiding behind an anonymous IP address).PistolPete037 (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If you mean to count the actuall terrorist killed, how would you count suicide bombers? And if you mean to count civilians, then you have to take into consideration that one of the terrorist's methods is to use civilians as human sheilds. And in many cases of immediate danger, there is no choice but to fire at those civilians. How would you define these casualties in these cases? This may turn the casualties numbers into a completely meaningless and irrelavent factor. AviLozowick 19:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

POINTS OF ORDER It seems to me that "Pistol Pete" is using personal attacks, there, and that "AviLozowick" is recommending measures contrary to international conventions. I'd suggest also that presumption of innocence is incumbent on western govts and media, especially since the reverse appears like propaganda/disinformation. Hence I cannot see any reason here why, as Asiaticus suggests, separate tallies of civilians killed by either side be attempted, with whatever riders. Thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.228.239 (talk) 04:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy allows contributors to either use a login name or to post without one, tagged by their IP address. It is uncivil to berate someone for posting without a login name. I would say it's also a little silly to imply that using a made-up user name is somehow braver or less anonymous than an IP address. One could argue that having your IP address exposed to the whole world reveals more about your identity than a user name, as it indicates something about your geographic location. CosineKitty (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarification — I was referring to the above phrase "hiding behind an anonymous IP address" when I wrote this comment. CosineKitty (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Why are the Combatants listed as they are?

The US and Allied anti terrorist coallition is listed as ones conducting Operations while the Islamist Jihadi/Terrorist side are ones being operated on, as if they were just standing around idle, doing nothing, getting beat up on? Last I saw they were operating pretty well themselves. How about calling them by their names: Anti Terrorist Coallition and Islamist Jihadi (unless Osama & Co. has a prefered name)Asiaticus 04:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source on what Al Qaeda has been up to in the last few years, you should be talking to the FBI, not Wikipedia. --Brasswatchman 15:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats not an answer to my question.Asiaticus 01:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The answer to your question is that 1. They arent all Jihadist groups, 2. They arent all necessarilly working together, 3. They are being targetted in operations. This doesnt mean they are passively sitting by, the War on Terrorism is a campaign against these groups, and the groups being attacked will obviously fight back in the ways they do. Its the only label that can accurately represent whats going on. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That isn't necessarily true, I think a lot of people would argue that the Ba'athist insurgency and the Al-sadr's army in Iraq have almost nothing to do with the originally stated goals of the war on terrorism (and are thus not combatants in it but rather a separate conflict from the war on terror). It's only an opinion that Iraq is part of GWOT, an opinion that was recently removed from the Iraq War article itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.58.28.162 (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

As stated on this article, the "War on Terror" is a specificly defined campaign being waged by the USA and allies. This has been discussed, and things stating the Iraq War to be a part of the campaign have not been removed via discussion. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The user that removed them claim he did so in accordance with a "poll", I have no idea where or what this poll was but it was your user name that added it back. 68.58.28.162

Yes, I saw his edit summary. For one thing, polls are non binding, for another, the last poll was held in June 2006 and 24-4 agreed with the thesis that the United States can define what is and is not a part of a campaign it wages. While this in itself was not binding, the discussion eventually yielded a consensus. The "WoT" is not a war, its not a conflict, its a military campaign - ie a super operation. Within this super operation are other smaller operations, such as Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom. People do occasionally remove it from the infobox, and it is either reverted or they begin a discussion which goes on for a while before its finally decided to re-add it. Its probably the least interesting yet most common issue one has to deal with when working on these articles. ~Rangeley (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rangeley generally on this. Many of the same people who want to make it clear that the Bush Admin. declared and defined the WOT (true), perhaps too broadly and carelessly (POV) as Rumsfeld recently acknowledged, and then expanded it to include the war in Iraq (they did), are the same people who also want to say the Iraq war is not part of the WOT (POV and more important - logically inconsistent with the prior point as part of factual encyclopedia article). I think the most accurate and neutral thing to do in this article and similar ones is to make it clear that the terminology and the expansion to include Iraq were the choice of the Bush administation, for better or worse. See for example, the edit I made earlier today to the "Killed in..." section and heading.-JLSWiki 03:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of anywhere that lists even estimates on terrorist casualties. While it's an interesting point, there is no way to correct it so I don't think it can be expected to be put in there. Al-qaeda rarely releases tapes concerning their own casualties (apparently they agree with retired General Tommy Franks about body counts?) I'd be interested to here more on this but I don't think the US military does terrorist body counts and Al-qaeda statements are rare. The best I was able to find was a Netscape article [2] claiming 4,000 al-qaeda dead from the Iraq campaign. Whoblitzell

Well he isnt a reliable source. 4,000 is ridiculously low. I recall seeing a figure stating it to have been 67,000 jailed/killed in mid 2006. Dont have the source on me though. Its always going to be estimates, and they are out there if you look hard enough. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree he isn't a reliable source but I have never seen an Al-qaeda membership estimate over 18,000. The figure of 67,000 probably including Al-qaeda as well as other factions. Whatever their casualty figure is, as far as I'm concerned, it isn't high enough. Whoblitzell 00:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the terrorist casualties article reference. It seems self defeating not to have an terrorist casualty count when one is being run on the friendly side that is being used against them. No doubt part of the reason this conflict is not doing well politically. Asiaticus 08:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is France and Germany not on this list? It is insulting that countries which have contributed alot of resources have not been included on this combatants list. This is about the war on terror.. its NOT just about iraq. This list should be deleted.. its clearly impossible to create a fair and acceptable list to all.

I am amazed to find here the contention that, since the US govt latterly included the invasion of Iraq in "WOT", Wikipedia must follow. The reason first given for entering Iraq was a state with "WOMD", but without evidence of terrorist acts and without Saddam's govt. having been previously classed as a terrorist organisation. By this logic the US and UK govts are terrorists too. The phrase "war on terrorism" is a phrase in the English language that carries a definite semantic meaning, and it is within nobody's remit to redefine that clear and obvious meaning to include a declaration of pre-emptory war on a hostile or undemocratic state, or upon a native insurgency. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.228.239 (talk) 05:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

9/11 as cause needs POV check, citation

While this is taken for granted as a fact in America, a lot of the world doesn't feel that the 'war on terror' began with 9/11 but rather that it began with the US invasion of Afghanistan and/or prior covert activities in the region. This view has been notably expressed by Noam Chomsky in many of his writings. The view that 9/11 was caused by US foreign policy gone awry is also presented in Michael Moore's movie and numerous others. I think something a little more objective than the 9/11 attacks being listed alone without a citation can be forged out. I also believe OBL's issue of a declaration of jihad might also be considered the start of the war or perhaps the first WTC attacks. In short, to simply list 9/11 because it is the most common American POV, well thats not right.

"It all started on 9/11" is, more or less, an American perspective of GWOT, but not a global opinion. It seems sort of POVish to me and I think an alternate cause should be listed, however it seems to be routinely removed. I think we need a non-government citation for something like this.

Please note that this article does state that this campaign began on October 7th, 2001. Casus Belli is the justification put forward for a military campaign, or the stated cause. It was definately the stated cause for beginning this campaign. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I see, that was a vocabulary problem on my part -- disregard previous message. Thanks

I've been having a problem thinking about the infobox casus belli thing for a while. It seemed POV in some way because it was only providing the justification for one side in the conflict, right? That's unusual. We get America's reason but we don't get the three main reasons cited by UBL in his jihad message in the late 90s that we can assume inspired the 9/11 attacks, as well as much of the "terror" that followed (those being: US military presence in middle east; existence and policies of State of Israel and US-Israeli alliance; economic and cultural hegemony of the US and perceived influence over muslims worldwide). I added them in once and they were deleted. But then I realized what the oddity is. This article effectively presents one half of a war. As the intro states, the war on terror is defined to be whatever the US military says it is. This article is not POV (since late last year) because the intro says exactly what it's about. However it's still an oddity. I wonder what the fate of this infobox and this article (and this war, or at least its name) will be over the next five years. I can't imagine the war being defined in Wikipedia quite this way with a tiny more time passed.

In fact... umm, most Americans (echoing the Bush Administration and NATO) feel that Al Qaeda "declared war" on the US with the 9/11 attacks. So according to that view, the US should have JOINED an existent war, rather than launching it. But of course Bush wanted to pre-empt their war rather than joining it, so he declared his own, against them. Even though they had supposedly already started the war (arguably in the previous decade, in fact, and in continuation from previous decades before that). So in always going with Bush's own definition of his own war, and thus leaving out the causes that inspire the "other side" in it (both of these aspects could constitute pro-American government POV), in effect this article also presents the war as if the US concocted it. So it's not POV for either side. It's just weird. Illustrates how both sides need each other. If they were involved in the same war, they wouldn't, one would want to win, but neither of them actually wants to win their wars, because they are each THEIR wars/jihads, chosen and defined by their own side and even given separate wiki pages.

But I can't think of anything else that could be done with it really, short of renaming it global war on terrorism and restricting it very narrowly to the official US military campaign, and creating another article about the concept of war on terrorism. 172.147.227.44 15:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. It would certainly reduce a lot of the philosophical debates if the article was just about the "official US military campaign". --82.133.79.7 10:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hard to say what the "IT" is, that started on September 11, 2001. Any US terrorism since then? How about successful prosection of terrorists attacking the US? Any sanctions on Saudi Arabia of Yemen, where the terrorists originated? Pustelnik (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No point of view change needed

Here is why. THIS IS AN ENGLISH LANGUAGE WIKI. THIS IS THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE "NEUTRAL" POINT OF VIEW (i.e., "neutral as far as English speakers are concerned. FOR THE OTHER VERSION GO TALK TO THE FRENCH. Sallicio (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Sallicio

This is a clear contention of "a plurality of truths" - that English-speaking people ought to have a different "truth" (POV) from other people. It has no intellectual merit - neither does the contention that the facts are what the US govt says they are. If it comes to this, that "the war" was declared by the US and nobody else has any right to say when or why or what, then any responsible work of reference ought simply to refrain from reliance on headings such as "war on terror" that can mean whatever one wishes them to mean, imo. Other, that is, than as a discussion of US political rhetoric. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.228.239 (talk) 05:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda flag

On the infobox, Iraqi insurgency is listed next to the Al-Qaeda flag. However, Al-Qaeda (and other foreign combatants) form only a small minority (~1200 men) among the Sunni insurgents. Furthermore, even among the Sunni population Al-Qaeda is disliked.[3] I will remove the flag as misleading since it does not represent the true Iraqi insurgency.--JyriL ^talk 20:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Al qaeda in Iraq is a notable contingent of belligerent opposing the U.S. The flag should remain. --Tbeatty 20:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It is only one of many factions. Even more important, many of Sunni insurgency does not support Al-Qaeda. If fact, there are reports that Iraqi Sunnis and foreign fighters are fighting each other![4] Why use only one flag to represent all? It is very misleading and POV.--JyriL ^talk 21:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jyril - I would use the phrase "intentionally misleading suggestiveness". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.228.239 (talk) 05:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

True, and a lot of these Sunni insurgents have joined together in vigilante "Awakening movements in Iraq" that fight with the U.S. against al-Qaeda. (Course, when al-Qaeda is finally booted out of Iraq and the Awakening Movements are left to themselves, who's to say who they'll turn their guns on?)

The al-Qaeda flag should remain, simply because al-Qaeda is and remains our main enemy and our main target in the "global war on terror". Most of these other groups are combatants in the Iraqi civil war, not the war on terror - the two overlap but are not the same. You want to include the Sunni insurgents, go to "2003 invasion of Iraq". In the war on terror context, AQ is still one of the main enemies and should be listed as such. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Media influences

The "media influences" section, which was introduced in these edits, seems to assign a lot of significance to the views of one writer. Gazpacho 06:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Flags

Flags – as there is a link to ‘War on Terrorism: Allies’ the flags should be limited, in my opinion, to countries with armed forces involved combat operations against ‘terrorists’ (such as USA, UK, Canada, Netherlands) and or nations where terrorism is a significant part of their security situation (such as Pakistan, Afghanistan). If nations with just small contributions to operations like ISAF are included, the list would be too long and would negate the need for a ‘War on Terrorism: Allies’ link. Chwyatt 11:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Combatants

Hey, I really think that the combatants list in this page is biased and inconsistent. I think the list should be consistent with the combantants lists in the pages involving theatre of operation with nations organized by troop contribution and diplomatic support while the rest would be organized alphabetically, but Al Qaeda on top.23prootie 02:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree only those listed in the article should be included, but it should be in alphabetical order. --NuclearZer0 17:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just seen this page for the first time, and I also wondered about the order. Is it ordered by size of the respective countries' armed forces involved, or chronologically in the order in which they entered the "war", or some other order? It needs to have some rational basis, and for that basis to be stated at the head of the list. -- JackofOz 01:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The list is not complete, Where is France and Germany? and other European countries that are fighting in Afghanistan. The War on Terror is not just about Iraq... (This shows exactly the problem with the term "War on Terror"

Rename with "Global"

Te official name is "Global War on Terrorism." ~ UBeR 02:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Its not the most common name, however. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It is actually. Should we change the George W. Bush article name to Bush, because that's what most people use to refer to the current U.S. President? No. Lets please start thinking with rationality. ~ UBeR 19:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). It actually uses an example involving Bush, "George W. Bush (not George Walker Bush.)" And it states "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." Thats why we dont go with "Bush," but dont go with "Walker Bush" either. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia's policies. Global War on Terrorism is not only the official, proper, and more formal name, it also the more used. Again, rationality, please. ~ UBeR 21:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Rationality...

Google hits: War on terrorism: 1,320,000 Global war on terrorism: 1,040,000

War on terror: 16,500,000 Global war on terror: 1,050,000

Yahoo hits: War on terrorism:9,900,000 Global war on terrorism:876,000

War on terror:23,100,000 Global war on terror:1,360,000

I think that it largely apparent which is the more used term... Sfacets 05:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:GOOGLE. Funny, nonetheless. Whatever the case, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is no place to endorse ignorance. Now, of course, the term with the lesser amount of words will have more Web sites. Try it yourself. Look up "Bush", and then look up "George Bush". Quite simply, your point is moot. Mine is not. ~ UBeR 17:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course the search results are of indicative value only, but it is a step up on your attempt at justifying the name change. (also note the difference between searching for a single word (Bush) vs three words (war on terrorism).Sfacets 18:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it applies to nearly everything. To digress, try looking up "Operation Enduring Freedom" versus "Enduring Freedom." Case in point. ~ UBeR 19:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"Global war on terror" is a specific phrase used specifically by the American administration. It's an American thing, not a worldwide thing. Compare the use of the phrases in the British government: [5] [6]
In addition, "terror" makes even less sense than "terrorism" as something to declare a war on. Using the word Terrorism clearly makes more sense and fits better with the title of the article. --Mr. Billion 18:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Who said anything about "terror"? ~ UBeR 19:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what you changed the article to say. --Mr. Billion 05:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

And it's something I personally changed back. If you couldn't have noticed, it was the result of a revert of a previous, where it was changed. ~ UBeR 06:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This conversation is quite ludicrious Glen 22:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As is the proposition that started it. --Mr. Billion 05:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm so sorry for suggesting that the article be named after its proper name. ~ UBeR 06:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It's okay. Just don't do it again. --Mr. Billion 06:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, I fear starting this debate up again, but I was really surprised to find this article under "Global War on Terrorism". While I admit that that makes much more logical sense, my sense is that overwhelming usage--including by the administration--favors "Global War on Terror". Do you guys all really think that "Global War on Terrorism" is the better name for this article?? 57.66.52.44 08:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

17 March 2008 Google results: Actual phrase "global war on terror" - about 724,000. Actual phrase "war on terror" on pages NOT using the word "global" at all - about 748,000. Substituting "terrorISM", the figures were 3,970,000 (not global) and 517,0000 (global). The phrase "war on terrorism (not global)", for what it is worth, appears therefore by far the most used on the net. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.228.239 (talk) 06:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever y’all decide to name the article or whatever, I think it’d be nice if “Global War on Terrorism (GWOT)” were included somewhere in the article, as that’s the phrase the DoD uses. —Wiki Wikardo 18:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

India

Does anyone here realize how close India and Pakistan came to nuking each other in 2002? They called it the War on Terror (or at least India did), so I put in a section on the events in new Delhi, Kashmir and Gujarat. Ericl 03:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This isnt an article for everything ever called a war on terror, its for the specific us led campaign. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rangeley, the Gujarat Riots had nothing to do with the War on Terrorism, they were entirely linked to local tensions in India, therefore, it should not be included in the War on Terrorism article, it makes no real sense to do so ThaGrind 13:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

By the logic advanced before, if India SAYS it is "the war on terror" then it IS!! Thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.228.239 (talk) 07:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Common Sense

The chapter titled Common Sense is an opinion. This should be deleted. Does anyone agree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.167.107.118 (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Ba'athist Iraq as terrorist organisation

Why is Ba'athist Iraq included as "Enemy" in war on terror? I mean, by now it is quite clear that Saddam did not support Al-Qaeda, and that he didn't have no WMD, isn't it? --89.172.41.218 16:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well the Ba'ath loyalists are fighting america in the war on terror. So they are at that side. The Honorable Kermanshahi 11:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between the Iraq insurgency and the Baathist Iraq.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The former Ba'ath loyalists are regime thugs trying to survive, and they sure as hell aren't on al-Qaeda's side, or the Mahdi Army's, or most of the Sunni insurgents. They're another belligerent that should be listed in "2003 invasion of Iraq" rather than here. And besides, how much fighting are they actually doing? Most of them are too budy running for their lives. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"Enemies" - NPOV?

And, another one. Isn't the list in the infobox titled "Enemies" a bit POV? I mean, from Taliban fighter point of view, Taliban and not quite "enemies", are they? We all agree that Nazis were bad guys in WWII, but we still don't label them as "Enemies" in WWII infobox... --89.172.41.218 16:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

How about "bad guys"? --Bobak 00:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Aren't the americans the bad guys, you know, with hundreds of thousands of civilians killed by them in the last few years? With respect, Ko Soi IX 06:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

To accuse Americans of being the 'bad guys' for taking the lives of some (read some as opposed to your inflated hundreds of thousands) in order to save the lives of millions who would be killed by terrorists in the long run is ludicrous. On another note, there is little need to play a semantics game to avoid hurting someone's feelings by calling them an enemy. To refer to the opposing force as the enemy is common military practice, like it or not.

"Somewhere between 392,979 and 942,636" - Article 24.205.34.217 03:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Osama Bin Laden is reading Wikipedia so we can call them enemies.Spartytime 13:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That's like saying "Romans aren't reading wiki, so we can call them "Enemies" in the article about the Barbarian attack on Rome. 24.205.34.217 03:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop! this is not A FORUM!!! ÄND ENEMIES IS POV (POV OF THE COMBATANT OF THAT ¨enemies¨)

Template:War on Terrorism: include Iraq?

Reading over this page I see this issue has been discussed ad nauseum, but I'd like to get a conversation going over whether {{War on Terrorism}} needs to include events in Iraq. I feel that leaving our Iraq would leave an incomplete picture. However, unlike this article, which is quite nuanced about Iraq, the template needs to be a lot simpler, so I'm not sure if it would be excessively POV if it was just inserted in there.

For comparison, {{World War II}} includes such conflicts as the French-Thai War and the Ecuadorian-Peruvian War. The former is only slightly relevant to WWII at large (fall of France leading to weak position in Indochina), while the latter seems completely unrelated except for the date.

My personal opinion is that regardless of whether the 2003 invasion of Iraq can be reasonably included as a War on Terrorism campaign, the current situation in Iraq, as a training ground for jihadist groups, makes it the likely central focus of any present and future US counterterrorism anyways.

See Template talk:War on Terrorism#Inclusion criteria Kelvinc 03:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a part of the campaign, which this article is about. The campaign is a government program, basically, and we have already provided documentation showing that it is a designated part. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That was a lie of the Bush administration at the beginning, but know that's a real fact ..... Thus it deserves to be in the template. Mrpouetpouet 19:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Analogy: the reason the USA entered WW11 was so that the state of Israel would be founded in 1948. This is called "revisionism". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.228.239 (talk) 07:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Map Countries

There was a terror attack in China a few days ago wherein 16 police were killed by radical Muslim separatists. I don't know how to change the map listing countries that have been attacked but China should be lit up in red. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnfloyd6675 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Map caption

User:Sfacets decided to remove the word 'Islamist' from the caption showing the countries of the world that had been hit by international terrorism. Without the word Islamist it becomes meaningless - why not then include non-Islamist terrorist incidents in Colombia or Sri Lanka for example. I believe the term 'Islamist' is widely understood and accepted here, so can I have a concensus here that the word stays? Thanks Kransky 10:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Besides the fact that the term is highly controversial (See Islamism, how can we ascertain that the countries shown were solely the targets of "Islamist" groups? Perhaps we could name here the countries affected by this category of terrorism here and compare them to the map? Sfacets 20:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ireland involved in this war?

Ok once again Ireland has been added into the list of Combatants. I attempted to remove this error, when, again it was put back with the justification being that "They participate in ISAF", well I don't think the contributor quite gets the significance of Ireland being labelled as a participant in a war. The Republic of Ireland is a Neutral country it has not been involved in any war since it's independence, it has been involved in many UN peacekeeping missions, but not in wars.

Now as to the claim that Ireland is participating in the International Security Assistance Force, well the only source given for this is a 2002 article which claims that 7(!?!) Irish Defence Forces members would be going to Afghanistan as staff in the "information operations section" of ISAF HQ, and as liaisons. In other words, they are not by any means involved in any combat (as a "list of Combatants" would imply), So since when did 7 desk jobs constitute fighting in a war? I will state my reason for removing Ireland from this list again, Ireland is (or was) involved with the ISAF in an extremely minor way, that Does Not equate to saying that Ireland is engaged in a war! (i.e. the War on Terrorism).

To give an example, Irish troops were in the United Nations Protection Force in the Balkans, but the Republic of Ireland was not involved in the Yugoslav wars. It's quite a big difference from going on a Peacekeeping mission (especially one where they're not even armed...) and actively engaging in fighting a war. Likewise Ireland was in UNIFIL, but that does not make Ireland a Belligerent Party in the Lebanese Civil War or the 1982 Lebanon War, etc. Ireland's involvement with the ISAF is already listed in the ISAF article, and that is where it should be left. For these reasons I’ll be removing them again unless somehow, someone comes up with some very convincing reason why they shouldn't be removed. --Hibernian 03:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well said Hibernian. Ireland is not a combatant (engaged in combat operations). Even if Ireland is contributing to ISAF, it is not involved in combat operations as part of ISAF 3 in southern and eastern Afghanistan like the Canadians, Brits, Dutch and Americans are (Coalition combat operations in Afghanistan in 2006). And this is no disrespect to the good men and women of the Irish Defence Forces in Afghanistan (or indeed personnel from Luxembourg or Iceland). But list of combatants needs to be kept under control or it becomes meaningless. Chwyatt 10:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Luxembourg? Iceland? The list of ‘combatants’ is just silly.

Luxembourg makes it on a list of ‘combatants’ (now removed) because it has 10 peacekeepers in a relatively safe part of Afghanistan? This is just silly.

I think the list of combatants should be limited to nations that are currently involved in significant numbers in active combat operations (like the US, Canadians, Brits, Dutch etc). Or nations with significant domestic terrorism problems involving major domestic military forces (like India or the Philippines). Or were involved in past operations in significant numbers (like Germany in 2002).

Maybe larger ISAF contributors, but for goodness sake, not a dozen men and a jeep!

Chwyatt 10:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, also remember this is a WAR and by putting someone on the "combatants" side you obviously say they are not neutral. The war on terror is not a peacekeeping operation. Peacekeepers are usually considered neutral, even though obviously Iceland or Luxembourg or wherever is not going to be an Al Qaeda sympathizer, there is no reason necessarily to consider them a US/UK sympathizer either. Just because many nations may be supporting the official government of Afghanistan with a bit of manpower, does not mean they are engaged in this international "war". In fact to list them like this promotes a misconception that all Westerners=Americans, and is exactly what gets peacekeeping/aid workers of these countries who are only trying to do humanitarian work, targeted by terrorists there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.181.65 (talk • contribs)

Well, there are two questions. One is, are they combattants? Obviously yes, they contributed forces, they are a combattant. The more important question is, do we have to put every combattant into the infobox? The answer to that is no. Having every combattant is a bit much, instead the larger contributors and main nations should be put in the infobox, while the rest are linked to as "others." ~Rangeley (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Forces = combatants? I don’t think that automatically applies, especially if some forces are sent to Afghanistan to undertake reconstruction work, and not to seek out and combat Taliban/al-Qaeda. Some forces have been sent to Afghanistan with a remit to avoid active combat operations, only to defend themselves. And if they are not in a ‘hot’ area, then they don’t engage in combat. Military forces can do peaceful tasks so are not combatants, even if they are capable of combat. I think the task the unit does defines if it is a combatant, not the unit itself. I suppose it is a matter of interpretation. Chwyatt 13:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Its one thing if the troops are seperate from ISAF, but in this case all nations listed are a part of ISAF. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, even if a country invovled in the war on terror had 1 soldier in iraq or afghainstan, they are still part of the war on terror. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConnorIBurnett (talk • contribs) 05:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hyperbole? Perhaps. But not a rational argument - at least as far as Iceland is concerned. First of all, there were many American soldiers actively involved in World War 2 long before the June 7th 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor - however, that is the date that that USA is credited with 'joining'. Second of all, and more clearly on point to the subheading, there are no "Icelandic Soldiers" in Iraq or Afghanistan. Iceland? Doesn't have a military. Finally, and I'm going to back Rangeley's argument of over a year ago, if you head over to the Icelandic Embassy's own statement on the subject then you will find that although Iceland is officially helping (they provide primarily reconstruction help), they clearly state they are doing so because of the Bilateral Defense Agreement.

A country's own statement of involvement should be used. If there is evidence that such a statement does not represent the truth of the matter, that should be reported, as a counter-argument. BUT it is not in our purview to decide about the neutrality of a sovereign country in regards to war. It just...isn't. Elizabeth BY (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Why was Russia removed from the list of Combatants?

Because some people hold grudges against Russia, and they are not fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan, they are still a part of The Global War on Terror. I am so tired of people misunderstanding. People are removing Russia from there all the time, mostly because they think Putin is hiding Iraq's weapons. Wake up, people! Those are PRIVATE weapon dealers, and they exist everywhere. in the US too. Russia are fighting actively against terrorists in Chechnya, now you might disagree, but they are concidered terrorist due to their bombings and taking hostages(in schools and theaters and hospitals), and what Russia is doing in there is allowed, no matter how bad it is. The law says that Russia can do extreme measures, and anything she chooses to do to protect her borders and sovereignity. Therefore, Russia are active in fighting terrorists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.88.52.125 (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

No, Russia is not listed because they are not part of the specific campaign which this article is about. Every country that fights terrorists is not part of the United States' "War on Terror". Quadpus 12:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, explain then, what France do there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.245.171.138 (talk) 09:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Read the article. France is mentioned several times as participating in operations which are known to be part of the USA "War on Terrorism". Quadpus 20:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• If Russia would be on the list of countries participating in the Global War On Terror, then every country not having fully legalised narcotics should be on the list of countries participating in the War on Drugs. This is every single country in the world.--Victor falk 18:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

OK - got this far. So, let the article read;

War on Terror - name given by US govt to its strategy of invasion of the middle east after the decline of USSR influence there, with a particular view to surrounding and threatening Iran, the term having been taken from the propaganda issued to "sell" this invasion. OK? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.125.157 (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Other countries, outside of the West, have also engaged in their own anti-terror campaigns against islamist movements in their neighborhoods (Russia in Chechnya, Israel in Lebanon and Palestine, India in Kashmir). Those should be listed somewhere, though I'm not sure this is the place to do it. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

israel is the cause of terror

i seached for any accusations that us foreign policy that favors israel over the palestinians as the cause of terror against the US and i didnt find any. this article needs to include the fact that it is Israel and its control of US Foreign Policy in the Middle East and the mistreatment of the Palestinians as the true reason we are attacked by Islamic radicals and not because we are a free country. 208.39.128.10 18:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input - would you happen to have a citation supporting this view? Addhoc 19:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

yes, just ask the terrorists. nowhere in any of bin ladens speeches does he say he hates freedom or america because it is a free country. bush says it because heaven forbid you blame israel for the things they do to innocent people with america's military and financial support. we always just express regret if we say anything at all. oh, and you're welcome for my input. Keltik31 21:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You could add a quote of bin Laden. But it should be offered as his opinion or rhetoric. By your reasoning americans can reasonably expect to get blown up in a restaurant by a hassidic Jew if Hezbollah doesn't disarm. I personally don't think mass murdering clerical fascist are credible.

It's always nice to see the pro-terrorist anti semite view point well represented on wikipedia. Judgesurreal777 04:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I was asked for clarification one what I meant by this, so I will explain; I was disputing the posters claim that America and Israel are to blame for why they were attacked on 9/11, which is indeed because of the extreme views of the terrorists and their desire to subjugate the world to a kind of totalitarian Islam, and not the terrorists self proclaimed "grievances" which they change every year to justify their atrocities. To argue that the fault for the instigation of the War on Terrorism lies with the West, and not with the terrorist themselves, is false, and to argue so is playing into the hands of terrorists who wish us to castigate ourselves for our minor faults rather than defeat them for their atrocities. No one should support the terrorist view point of "Blame America First", or Israel for that matter. Hope that is a bit clearer. Judgesurreal777 11:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

i see. so you are antisemetic if you disagree with anything that israel does? that would make a lot of jews antisemetic. the irish republican army resists british rule in the north or ireland. it is the treatment of catholics at the hands of the protestant government which drives the things that the IRA does. just as the things that israel does in the occupied territories drives the things that the likes of bin laden do. islam does not cause terrorism. injustice causes acts of violence. if we have terror because of islam, then what do we have because of judaism? greed? tell me. israels treatment of the palestinians is the cause of terror in the middle east. lets not forget that the zionists used terrorism to get their state as well. i dont believe in killing innocent people. but i also do not agree with expecting people to sit on thier hands when their homes are destroyed and their children are shot like israel does on a regular basis as we in america say nohing. Keltik31 18:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

While it is true that Isael's actions have caused a blowback effect in the form of terrorism, you really can't say they are the SOLE cause for terrorism in the Middle East. Yes, Bin Laden and other anti-American terrorists complain of the U.S.'s support of Israel, they also complain of westen military imperialism and immoral behavior (like allowing women to dress in anything but a burka). The causes of terrorism in the name of fundamentalist Islam throughout the Middle East are much more complicated than simply the actions of the Isaeli government.

Totally agree. Terrorism is rarely motivated by one simple grievance. Even the Northern Ireland situation is much more complicated than that and that is comparatively simple. I agree though that support for Israel by the West and in particular the US could be cited as one of many grievances of the terrorists. In fact a section on this would probably add to the article. As long as it doesn't become a soap box for terrorist sympathisers. (Ajkgordon 07:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

Despite argument about the short term reasoning used by UBL and the like, the long term goal of Al Qaeda and similar (Salafist/Wahaabi) organizations is the restoration of the Caliphate and the spread of a worldwide facist Islamic empire akin to the government of Saudi Arabia. These are UBL's own words, as well as his blame for Israel. In a certain way, Islamic Extremists' opposition to religious freedom and paramount misogyny are a hatred of us "because we are free" as the US allows women dress themselves and worship how they please. 75.41.58.207 09:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Jees you guys really misunderstand islam, how come everyone is accused of trying to restore the caliphate when I think it is only a tiny minority of the Sunni Or Shi'a that wish to restore some kind of caliphate and neither of them agree who the caliph should be (should he be politically elected? Should he be descended from Muhamamed) sorry for getting my sides mixed up if I have but Im tired and only have a slightly less ignorant view of islam than the above user. I think one side is waiting for the madi to return to be their caliph at judgement day. Anyway the point is both Sunni and Shi'a are accused of wanting sharia law and restoring the caliphate but since either one or the other dosent want the caliphate unless its the madi, or does not support sharia law this makes no sense. I dont know if anyone else can see this and I pity those writing posts (like the one above) that obviously have no idea how stupidly unquestionig they sound, but this talk page is full of jingoism. No one knows the long term goals of Al'Queda for real so please everyone stop specculating they want world domination along with your average joe Iraqi man who is obviously wanting to destroy freedom by protecting himself from a percieved threat of invasion (just like America justifies its actions by protecting itself froma percieved threat of attack). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.201.30.74 (talk)

Oh and back to this 'world domination' idea and 'attacking freedom' The most I think it would be fair to claim is that Al'Queda wish for dominanace over islam in a shiite respect, possibly even the middle east, but there isnt anythign in islam (and it actually is scorned) about a islamic dictatorship or forced islamic submission of others in some kid of world caliphate. The most important thing for Al'Queda, and arguably the whole reason it was created was to regain the 'holy land' or Saudi Arabia financed by the Americans who were allowed to build bases and disregard cultural laws (which are very strict in Saudi, as you probably know) but then again it is the Muslim Holy land and in their eyes there isnt any reason for a on-practicing muslim or someone who disregards the culture should be allowed in the country. In reality it might e fairer to say Al'Queda wishes for dominance over Saudi Arabia. About the freedom aspect, even in this radicalist islam the genral idea is meant to be they dot give what other people in other countries get up to (free or not) as long as it dosent interfere with islam in predominantly islamic countries. Im in fact a practising Christian so dont accuse me of 'terrorist-islamofacismbutnotfacismreallybecauseidontknowthemenaningofthewordism' I simply like to tell the facts as they are, if that makes me a terrorist sympathiser then American politics must be pretty warped.172.201.30.74 00:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a political discussion site. Please take this somewhere else. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There's no doubt in my mind that al-Qaeda needs to get taken down, as, at some point, do all of the movements that use terror for political ends in the Middle-East. However, we would not be in this position had the United States not consistently taken the side of Israel in a history of occupation and war crimes that goes back decades. We need to distance ourselves from them as we did Apartheid South Africa in the Cold War, otherwise it's really, really going to come around and bite us in the ass.

The precedent here is Versailles and World War Two. It was clear to everyone that Hitler had to be killed, but it was also pretty clear that the conditions for his rise to power would not have happened if the French and British hadn't imposed the terms they did at the Versailles treaty (if the Germans had followed them, they'd have been paying war reparations all the way into the nineties for a war that they didn't start). That was corrected at the end of World War Two, when Paris and London very kindly agreed to listen to the U.S. this time and not create the conditions for another Hitler. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Why was my game link removed?

Heya. I placed a disambig link at the top of the page for the game War on Terror, since War On Terror redirects straight to this page. The game, which is a satire on the concept of the war on terror, has received a great deal of international press, as well as some infamy for being banned from many major toy and game fairs etc.. D.valued 18:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Because noone except you sees the game as notable enough for a disambiguation link. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Now, I may not be agreed with here, but personally, anything worthy of a wiki article, that shares it's name with something more noteworthy, deserves, at least a "did you mean?" link somewhere, or alternatively, a link to a disambig page if there is more than 1 article. Now, that's not to say tail should have a link to the character from the sonic the hedgehog games, but anything with an identical name should have the disambig. 24.205.34.217 03:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with 24.205...., WP:D says "When there is risk of confusion, the page for an ambiguous term should have a way to take the reader to any of the reasonable possibilities for that term". Of course, you could argue that the game isn't notable enough to have an article (in which case the article should be deleted), but if it is going to have an article, there must be a way for visitors to the site to find it. D.Valued, I was going to put the link back, but I can't find the revision, did you edit the article using a different account or was it just a long time ago? Bistromathic 20:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

ISAF part of "War on terrorism"?

I'd say they are not. Can someone give me a source or something to support that ISAF actually is part of it? Otherwise I think they should be removed from this article. --Merat 22:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I checked with the ISAF homepage, the word "terrorism" isn't mentioned in the mission page. --Merat 11:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps if you look at the UN resolution that authorized the ISAF, you will see the following: "Supporting international efforts to root out terrorism, in keeping with the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming also its resolutions 1368 (2001) of 12 September 2001 and 1373 (2001) of 28 September 2001,", see here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1386 Fanra 07:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but that still doesn't mean that ISAF is part of the American led campaign "War on terrorism". --Merat 00:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say it does. That UN mandate’s context is a consequence and in many ways a continuation of the initial US led invasion of Afghanistan, especially considering the active combat operations ISAF forces (such as the Brits, Canadians, Dutch and others) are engaged in in the south. Chwyatt 08:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's very important to separate the US campaign the "War on Terrorism" (a campaign started by the current US president) from the more general struggle of Muslim Islamists/Fundamentalist against their enemies (a struggle/war that has been going on for a while).

My gut feeling is that the inclusion of the ISAF (and the countries participating in ISAF) is based in that they are also fighting Islamists in Afghanistan. However, the enemy of ones enemy is (encyclopaedically speaking) not ones friend; just because the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany fought against Poland together didn't mean that they were allied, and did absolutely not mean that they shared the same goals. Same with this one. I would agree with putting US forces and ISAF on the same side on the Afghanistan war article, but not in this one. Merat 23:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What about Colombia?

Is Colombia part of this war? I think so... [7] --((F3rn4nd0 ))^{(BLA BLA BLA)} 23:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What has Columbia to do with this? We might as well add the PRC on the "anti-terrorist" side and the Chinese democracy movement and Tibetian separatists as terrorists. Everyone will claim they are fighting a "War on terrorism" if they get a chance, even though most likely they are only fighting political opposition. Should Wikipedia support this crackdown on dissidents all over the world? --Merat 11:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well the whole notion of War on terrorism is controversial. Wikipedia should keep a NPOV on these cases and what I am looking at here is that "the other fronts" should be included, the US military clearly states this.. [8]--((F3rn4nd0 ))^{(BLA BLA BLA)} 19:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the difference between the FARC and AUC and the Chinese democracy movement are fairly obvious. The former two murder civilians. The Chinese movement does not. Hence, they would be considered "terrorist" but the Chinese would not. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

GWOT vs. GSAVE

At some point in 2005, I believe the administration officially changed the name from "Global War on Terror" to "Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism." Obviously, the name change didn't stick, but it's worth mention. Indeed, this article redirects from "GSAVE", yet GSAVE isn't mentioned in the article. Therefore I suggest someone add a piece to this article documenting this attempted name change. Here's a couple of links to get started: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4772826 208.64.241.229 17:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

merge

I suggest merging the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism article into the War on Terrorism article -- they are two names for the same thing, right? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC) I agree. Lets merge them. --Dumbo12 (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merge: The GSAVE article is just a stub, and both GWOT and GSAVE are rhetorical devices used in reference to the same...thing (whatever that thing might happen to be). Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Blackwater USA

The article should include Blackwater USA--F3rn4nd0 ^{(BLA BLA BLA)} 17:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Too superficial?

No doubt this article is a NPOV minefield, but it doesn't even mention oil. There needs to be some acknowledgement of the disconnect between the rhetoric and reality. Peter Grey 15:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no PROOF that oil has anything to do with the War on Terror, its just a theory and should not be mentioned in the article. Dunnsworth (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

To paraphrase Pascal: If we only accepted "proof," there would not be four articles left in Wikipedia. And whatever articles would be left, they'd probably be about mathematical theorems, because those are just about the only thing that can be "proven." The oil theory is certainly notable, so why not? As far as I'm concerned, go for it. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Commentary by crivers01

the war in iraq has completely dis-unified our country. people oppose this war because their loved one's and friends are being sent over their to create peace. their not creating peace their causeing more war. people blame the president for all of this. 9-11 was the only reason we should have gone over there, and we did we had to find the person behind it all. so ok we did that, then we wanted to start up a democracy over their. thats their own problem if they cannot get along with each other when it comes to politics. our first president george washington stated as a precendent " we as a country will not interfere with forgin affairs". we can argue about this war forever but it was a dumb move on the presidents part. we should get all troops out of iraq for good!!!! we are fighting for a bad reason. we should completely stay out of forign affairs and keep out of things.

why?!

why do we interfere with forign affairs. thats not what we are supposed to do. we do not need any more soilders dying over in iraq. we need to pull out all troops. our first president george washington stated as a presedent " we do not need to interfere with forign affairs". what makes this any different. our president is the one to blame. the only reason we needed to go over their was to find out who was behind the 9-11 atacks and we did. now we do not need to be helping to rebuild and create a goverment. thats their job not ours. if they can't get along when it comes to politics then thats too bad on their part. we need to pull troops out of iraq for good!!!! i would like to hear your opinions about this 'war on terror' User:crivers01

I don't think we're supposed to do that here, but what the hell.

Okay, opinions; if we do just pull our of Iraq, what do you think happens to the Iraqis? This was a dumb war, I think anyone with half a brain agrees to that. But you can't just go over and smash every government institution in Iraq to dust, then just leave and say "Hi guys, here's your country, we broke it now you fix it."

And yeah, George Washington had the good fortune to live in an age where things like 9/11 couldn't happen. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

responses

Excellent points, but an encyclopedia reports opinions of notable parties, not just anyone. The War on Terrorism slogan is, at best, weakly related to actual terrorism, and the article should not leave criticisms as an afterthought. I'm sure some prominent politicians or analysts have made similar points and can be corroborated with reliable sources. Peter Grey 03:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It's easy to sit at home on your computer and say we should pull all troops out of Iraq for good. but there are innocent Iraqi civilians just like you or me in that country who will be murdered by the republican army when the troops leave. The war on terror is a problem that exists over seas, but the inncoent people in that country are just like you or me, but they arn't protected like us. I think every innocent person in the world is intitled to some safety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleming 663 (talk • contribs)

But you think we should kill them for there own security? He was merely stating his opinion in what he believes in-as did you. I personally think your statement was incorrect, because when we leave (if we leave) they will retaliate. Its human nature to take that course of action. There affairs are there affairs, and the United States should not act as the world police. But thats just my 2 cents. ~Sage1989

i agree we should not be the world police. i think we are playing a game of chance. what extra security are we getting y not tell iraq that nobody should come over into america or we will have to dod something about it. crivers01

continued

ok but what are politicans doing absoutly nothing about it. people are dying every day over their and we are letting them. somebody should do something or let time go by with the troops in iraq until bush is out of office for good! — Preceding unsigned comment added by crivers01 (talk • contribs)

This is an encyclopedia, not a political action blog. This article can provide information about the rhetoric, the reality and the results of the compaign (quite different from each other in this case), but humans are the ones who will have to take action. Peter Grey 03:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

He is simply stating an opinion to which he has a right to. At least he didnt edit the main page with his comments. ~Sage1989

thank you someone will hear me out about this ===crivers01===

Not to pry, but werent you banned from wikipedia? ~Sage1989

i created another account with the same name again but different e-mail===crivers01===

Don't complain about a war if you can't even spell "Foreign". Also, Washington was EXTREMELY isolationist, and we have since established a much more involved foreign policy. Also...why are we there? Because if we don't try to battle terrorists on this scale, NOBODY ELSE WILL. Kang227 15:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, he is stating an opinion to which he has a right to. America has the right to free speech, right? It apparently also has the "right to be a nonentalite", as showing through you. Leave the kid alone-its not like he's damaging the site at all.

Global perspectives

Currently the "international" sections of this article detail only foreign (with respect to the U.S.) military involvement; there is little or no attention paid to International opinion/reactions to the War on Terror/Terrorism. This is inconsistent with the encyclopedia-wide effort to CSB. I will attempt to add relevant global perspectives to this article shortly, as well as do my part to clean up the entry in general, but I'm also interested in hearing others' thoughts about these issues. This is, of course, not a question of personal politics, but of making sure global vantages are successfully incorporated into major entries.Benzocane 21:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Length of intro and general organization

Does anybody else feel the like the intro is too long? Compared to other similar entries, it's lengthy indeed. I'm considering attempting a major restructuring--to make the intro efficient and to redistribute its more in depth comments to relevant sections and subsections. Most of the discussion on talk has consisted of political debates, but I'm concerned with the readability and encyclopedic nature of the entry. Benzocane 23:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've made a first pass--I've removed some redundant information, but basically I've tried to redistribute the lengthy introduction into more coherent sections. This article, to put it mildly, needs a ton of work, and what I've done constitutes no more than a very limited start. I welcome thoughts and help, of course! I will try to keep improving organization. Right now I'm focused almost exclusively on form, not content.

Removed unsourced paragraph

This paragraph seems like the opinion of one editor, not encyclopedic, source-based text. Also, because it comes so early in the entry, I feel like it's contributed to the general unencyclopedic tone of the entry, which I, along with others, have been trying to correct. Finally, a more authoritative version of this argument is already noted in other sections of the article:

"In a hard-headed Clausewitzian analysis, the phrase "war on terror" has no meaning; one makes war on an enemy, not on a method, although it logically could be used to indicate a war on the people who use such a method. The enemy may be an entity such as al-Qaeda. And the use of the term "jihadist" is also misleading, as there are a number of groups involved in asymmetric warmaking with secular or religious backgrounds and levels of willingness to engage in direct action."

Benzocane 01:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The section headed as 'Stated US objectives and strategies' is currently comprised of a series of bullet points regarding the US strategy in the war on terror, followed by two paragraphs that highlight the role of democracy in countering terrorism. Although these two paragraphs mention two strategy papers, they are unsourced and redundantly composed. The US strategy on countering terrorism seems adequately outlined in the series of bullet point, and, hence, I have removed the two unsourced paragraphs.

--Jimmyhogg 12:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Jimmyhogg--good to see your editing again. This article is coming along, but still needs work, and I'm glad to have another editor on the job. I agree with your edit above.Benzocane 16:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Heres a question for all you fools who support the war. How do we when this war? How long do we have to stay? Who do we have to kill? How many do we have to kill? What are our goals? What the fuck are we doing there? No one is stating goes and the president says "If we have a stated time line the terrorist win". Are you fools that dense. What the hell are we doing there?

New Title

The title of this article is a misnomer, a better term would be "War of Terror" The truth hurts only those who lie.

Cute, but not encyclopedic. See WP:NOT#OTHOUGHT and WP:SOAP. As of this comment, User:El C has vandalized this article in this way.

"The War of Terror ... is an umbrella term coined by the Bush administration..." El C must know that his term was not coined by the Bush administration.

"Both the phrase 'War of Terror' and the policies it denotes have been a source of ongoing controversy, as critics argue it has been used to justify unilateral preemptive war, human rights abuses, and other violations of international law." Critics of his term have said no such thing, at least according to the citations.

Don't vandalize Wikipedia. Not cool. IEdML 21:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If I could change the Main Title I would since there really lies the issue.

"War on Terror" is the name it's known by. Still, the ironic and/or Orwellian character could be expounded a little better. Peter Grey 22:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This page is pretty biased and obviously based off of opionion.

Who ever wrote this isn't writing about fact, they are finding information that contriibutes to their own outlook of the war.

I agre with you aNNoN. Best bishes, Miguel

The Global War on Terror

Global War on Terror, used repeatedly in the internal text of the October 16, 2003, memo written by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, entitled Global War on Terrorism, seems to be a new rhetorical device justifying expansion of the "war" and perhaps new agencies. Citing the memo:

"Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we
capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the
radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?" 

In this view, which is relatively new even for the Bush administration, the goal is not to end the threat posed by terrorist groups of global reach, the previously stated objective, but the eradication of all militant Islamic groups that cross the line from militancy into attacks on the USA and its allies, wherever they are, whether they have a right to be there or not. It is the eradication of a mind-set that is the objective, not specific groups.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_War_on_Terror

Chechen rebels ARE terrorists

To the moron who said: "not every rebellion is a part of War on Terror", you are really stupid. Tell to the parents of Beslan that Chechens are not terrorists! Sergei

This is article is very specifically about the US-led "War on Terrorism" campaign. The war in Chechnya is not a part of this specific campaign, it actually began years earlier and predates the campaign. Thats why its not a part of this specific one - it has nothing to do with the status of the rebels in Chechnya. ~Rangeley (talk) 05:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a source next to Russias flag that shows they are part of the war, so people stop removing them! Also, Russia is in Afghanistan.

Look, if this page has Estonia listed, who isn't doing a damn thing against the terrorists, Russia, who has 90, 000, 000 troops fighting in Chechnya DEFINATELY deserves at least some mention! Also, the government of USA has called Russia one of it's key partners in the war on Terror, and also expressed condolences for all the people that died as a result of Chechen extremism/terrorism. --24.87.7.43 22:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Sergei

... As I said, this is about the specific campaign begun October 7th 2001. The Chechen war, while arguably against terrorists, began before this and therefore was not begun under the campaign. Russia is definitately involved in other aspects of the US-led campaign, but the chechen war is not a component. ~Rangeley (talk) 05:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see how this thread qualifies as explanation for Mr 24.87.7.43 to re-insert this content. Rangeley has already explained to you why the Chechen war is not part of this campaign. Apart from Rangeley, three other users (me, User:Willy turner and User:Discospinster) have removed your content and you have not as much as followed up on this discussion nor had anyone else support your view - obviously there is no consensus to have this content it here. Whatever your view on Chechnya is, this is not the page for it, please see other articles, such as: Terrorism.--Konstable 07:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

To 24.87.7.43 aka Sergei, I will not leave this on your talk page as you have a shared IP, so I will put it here. An important reminder for you: you have made 3 reverts on this page, one more and you will be violating the three revert rule, which may lead to you being blocked. Please discuss first, even if you think we're all wrong - tell us why.--Konstable 07:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever!! I don't argue with hyppocrites! You people are so biased anti-Russia, it makes me sick! In your mind, only your precious US of A is fighting TERRORISTS, ands Russia, who as I said fought a bloody war in Chechnya, against extremists, who blow up schools, with children in them, murderers, who takle hostages, and slash their throats and videos of it, fucking barbaric sub-humans, who raped all women, and killed every single man in all Russian communities in Chechnya that they ever came in! But these are not TERRORISTS, these are "innocent Chechen civillians"! Boo hoo! Like I said, you are all hyppocrites and Russophobes, and this site is CRAP!!! --199.60.112.15 17:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Sergei

You're ignorant. Buy some uncensored books about all the stuff Russia has done in Chechnya. kai_ (talk) 01:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of France

Sorry if I've missed it but why is France not listed in the list of combatants? She's listed in the Operation Enduring Freedom article and I thought that the US government considered that as part of its WOT. (Ajkgordon 08:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC))

Probably because not every single nation can be listed, or should be listed in the infobox on this page. Thats what the other page is for. France's contribution has not been one of the largest, therefore it is probably misplaced in the infobox. ~Rangeley (talk) 05:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, France was a fairly large contributor to Operation Enduring Freedom if I recall correctly. Trouble is France isn't even listed under "and others" from the infobox. Is it possibly simple anti-French sentiment? There's a lot of it about :) (Ajkgordon 09:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

You can never know for sure why it was removed from there, but either way, it should definitely be listed on the "others" page. ~Rangeley (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Palestine

I love how Palestine, whose oppressed people are lucky if they can go a night without some US supplied F16 flying overhead and blowing up their homes, are listed as "terrorists" and the innocent, peaceful Israelis listed as the good guys.

The standard definition of "terrorist" seems to be as follows:

Terrorist (n) - Any man, woman or child blown up or otherwise killed by US or Israeli aggression. 203.49.216.12 00:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Palestine was removed, along with various others like Azerbaijan which certainly have not been targets of this campaign. ~Rangeley (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You guys are disgusting. If you would understand your history, you would learn that these poor Palestinians invited Hitler to complete his final solution of the Jews in Palestine. Jews who had been living in the region for millenia. The only homes that are getting blow up are those of dead combatants, family members of the combatants, and government officials who are combatants. There are hundreds of thousands of Palestinians living in peace in Israel, Judea & Samaria, Jordan, Syria, etc... The actual definition of a terrorist is a person who attacks non-military targets, ie. busses, schools, shopping malls, cafes. I'm sorry that in your little shell you can't realize that there are terrorists being bred in backwards-ville West Bank and Gaza. "Oppressed?" These typical Palestinians standard of living is better than it was 100 years ago, ironically, thanks to the creation of the state of Israel the so-called Palestinians live with much less disease, more running water, more energy, and more jobs. Unfortunately for them in particular, they are literally used as pawns in the larger Arab-Israeli conflict. Only to the benefit of larger Muslim countries like Egypt, Jordan, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, etc. who all want to see Israel's destruction. -BB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.6.19.162 (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, uh, BB, you're a dildo.

"If you would understand your history, you would learn that these poor Palestinians invited Hitler to complete his final solution of the Jews in Palestine."

Oh really. Gee, I wonder why. Could it be because the Irgun had been carrying out acts of terrorism against innocent Arabs, the British and Jews who disagreed with the Zionists for decades? Could it also be that the Zionist movement was exclusively composed of European Jews who hadn't had a living relative in the Middle-East for over a thousand years, and had no claim to the region whatsoever?

"I'm sorry that in your little shell you can't realize that there are terrorists being bred in backwards-ville West Bank and Gaza."

Give the Israelis a hand. They've done more to breed terrorism in the last fifty years than Osama ever could.

"typical Palestinians standard of living is better than it was 100 years ago, ironically, thanks to the creation of the state of Israel the so-called Palestinians live with much less disease, more running water, more energy, and more jobs"

Yet another lie. Palestinian standards of living were better 100 years ago for the simple reason that there weren't Israeli soldiers shooting and bombing them every time Ariel Sharon got horny. Yes, maybe they would have running water and energy and jobs if the Israelis didn't keep running them out of their homes. As they don't, I'm calling bullshit on your statement.

"You guys are disgusting".

Likewise, you hack. Go fuck yourself and get an education. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible Abbrieviation for the War Against Terror

TWAT, anyone? Henners91 08:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"Other" casualty numbers

Can't speak for the other countries mentioned, but Canada has lost 167 in Afghanistan, according to http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/casualties/total.html, and 24 on 9/11, according to http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/09/11/newyork-sept11.html. Unless I'm forgetting something (I imagine there were a few Canadians dead in Bali, for instance), that 1,222 number is a fantasy. These figures need to be checked!Martin McCarvill 21:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

War On Terror - Timeline

Since this article is disputed over its neutrality, and due to the fact that it's based off an ongoing event, then should this article be temporarily disabled, and/or deleted, until the information is accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhansond2007 (talk • contribs)

I'm not going to comment on the accuracy of the information in the article, but this variety of title change should really be discussed before being moved. I've gone ahead and reverted your change. If you wish to move this article from it's current name, please go to WP:RM and follow the process defined there. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Israel wrongly placed

Israel is fighting a separate war on terrorism, unrelated to 11 September. They are not fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan. JonnyLate 22:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Israel is also not part of the Coalition of the Willing. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2862343.stm JonnyLate 22:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

several articles in one

Reading the article, the Israeli and Hezbollah conflict is here but shouldn't be. Even if US President Bush says its a front of the war, such declaration has nothing to do with 9 11. Hezbollah is just a terrorist group who is bad but separate from bin Laden. JonnyLate 23:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not about a war, its about a US-led campaign. Things designated by the US government as a part of the campaign are parts of the campaign, just like subops are part of operations as designated by the respective government which began them. ~Rangeley (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Combatants - OR/POV?

Is there a source for this list or a criteria for inclusion? As far as I know this "War on Terrorism" is a phrase, or policy, of the American government rather than an actual specific war, so I don't quite understand this "list of combatants" or where it came from.--Konstable 00:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The "War on Terrorism" being referred to here is a US-led campaign, as stated in the intro. Just like suboperations are a part of a larger operation, operations can sometimes be a part of something larger, ie a campaign. The combatants that should be listed here are the major ones from the various smaller operations which have been designated, by the US government, as a part of this campaign. ~Rangeley (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

But how do you define "major"? --AJKGordon 09:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont know that there is a Wikipedia-wide consensus on that. It really depends on the operation. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but "War on Terror" is not a specific operation, nor a specific war - it is just a political term. Yet you have a conflict infobox here with a list of combatants. I doubt that half of the combatants even on the "American side" accept that they are fighting a "War on Terror". Iraq is meant to be part of this war on terror yet Russia there was planning to veto the UN resolution for this war - how does this place them on the same "side"? What about the groups on the right hand "side"? Do they accept that they are fighting everyone on the left? Do they agree that all this is one conflict? This very article cites that even UK, America's best friend, does not accept that this is a "war on terror" nor that terrorism is a military conflict. So what you have here is a POV. I think the conflict infobox should go altogether, I don't see how it is appropriate to label one country's political rhetoric as a world-wide "conflict" with well defined sides.--Konstable 23:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You are quite wrong in regards to it being merely a political term. While it is used as one often, this article is about the actual military designation under which many operations have been begun, ie a military campaign. In this sense, the article has a very specific focus, which has sadly been lost over the many months of editing. The infobox, originally, had qualifiers on each side. On one side, it was labeled "Participants in Operations," and the other, "Targets of Operations." Not every participant was in every operation, nor did they necessarilly agree with every operation, but they nonetheless participated in an operation and would be marked thus. Not every target of an operation was in every operation - in fact none of them were in every operation. Yet they were targets in an operation and were marked thus.

What has unfortunately happened is this article has become a mesh of several different concepts, some people try and focus on the term itself, others think its a war against terrorists and any battle against terrorists would automatically be a part of it. Neither of these ideas are quite on the money. As I said above, its an actual governmental campaign under which policies and operations have occured. I have often suggested a new article be made dealing specifically with the term, War on Terror, and its numerous applications throughout history. I have also suggested that an article be made about a supposed wider war/ideological struggle. But it doesnt seem like anyone makes these, instead this one gets cluttered and pretty darn confusing if you try to read it.

But maybe now would be a good time to do it, since there seems to be more interest in it. With an article on the governmental campaign named the War on Terror, an article on the term itself, and an article on a theoretical ideological struggle/conflict/war, things would be much cleaner and maybe the same problems would stop arising. ~Rangeley (talk) 05:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Instead of arguing about the participants in the "War on Terror" campaign we should list each operation that the campaign involves. That way in each operation's article we can list the specific participants instead of clouting them all under one banner when in fact they aren't all fighting the same enemies. ~Alex40045

We could use an idea similar to the one implemented on the War in Somalia (2006–present) article. They seperate their combattants by region, and this could easilly be implemented here. We would take the major combattants in the major operations, and identify them in that matter. ~Rangeley (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is sensible. Because the War On Terror is primarily an American political and ideological term rather than a specific military campaign with a varying amount of controversy among even some of her closest allies, combatants should only be listed in defined military campaigns associated with it. The article itself can easily describe the relationships between the US and generally aligned supportive countries without having to resort to a definitive list which, by its nature, can't differentiate the nuances and complex diplomatic relationships.

A case in point is the inclusion of France in the list of combatants. It appears to be a controversial inclusion and is constantly removed, probably because of anti-French sentiment fermented by France's refusal to accept American policy in Iraq (although Germany never seem to be singled out!), and yet they are major contributors to operations in Afghanistan, have a large military contingent in Lebanon, and have a sophisticated internal security policy to defend against terrorism.

Thus I move that the list of combatants is removed and replaced by a list of campaigns, which, in turn, can have their definitive lists. --AJKGordon 09:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't Iran in the combatants list on the terrorist side?

They have long been helping all kinds of terrorists. They should at least be listed on the terrorists side? Why not? --24.87.7.43 22:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Sergei

Iran may only be considered a partial terrorist, but only with/within Bush administration.

If somebody is interested in this link http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070720/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_terrorism its interesting he signed it,(to avoid criticism) somebody can put it under links. Iran may be connected to some form of insurgent support but only in iraq as they have majority shiite ties for centuries and saddam was that block until he was removed. And now Iraq can not do much on iran, since they have the upper hand. And do pretty much what they want in politics of the middle east.

So now that the Iranian Military is declared a terrorist organization by the US Senate, and the US Army and CIA declared terrorist organizations by the Iran can we now put both of them in the "Terrorist" side of the equation? For that matter anyone who uses violence to get their way should be put on the "Terrorist" side (i.e. Police, your boss, "anyone who gets in the way of freedom"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.59.159.226 (talk) 13:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Not the Iranian military. The Pasdaran, not the same thing, more like the Waffen-SS in old Germany. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Please can someone delete the table of "combatants"!

There is huge debate about who should be included on this list and who shouldnt. The war on terror like stated in the article is too general and relates to too many things, Such as the conflict in Iraq and in Afghanistan. The ISAF are fighting in Afghanistan, As are the French and Germans yet they are not included in the list, This is a serious factual error. As it is so hard to define, it should just be deleted to prevent people being mis informed. If i was French or German i would be insulted that after my country sends troops into a combat zone, its not included on the list.

I would delete the table myself if i didnt worry that id mess up the whole article. I will check back here in a few days time, if no one has replied or removed it i will attempt to myself. I hope by that time someone will of removed the table already, because it is useless and misleading information.

6:35 Sunday 22nd of July - British Summer Time

I agree. I'm afraid, although I'd love to assume good faith, that there is either anti-"Old Europe" bias or that some "Old Europeans" don't want to be associated with the WoT. Similar edits are made on the International_contributions_to_the_War_Against_Terrorism article that has multiple campaigns - NATO members are being systematically removed from NATO lists. --AJKGordon 11:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is the image of the Kosovo Liberation army's flag in the Combatants table so big? Hera52 13:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Shorten the list of combatants

I think the list of combatants should be shortened. The [[World War II] list is a good model: it lists China, France, the Soviet Union, the UK and the US with a link to a larger article on all the Allies at the bottom of the list. Likewise, the Axis column lists only the Germany, Italy and Japan.

Is there a consensus on exactly which conflicts are part of the War on Terror? Soviet Canuckistan 21:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I just removed the list of combatants and the casulties aswell as everything in that small info block on the top right hand side of the page. It provided no accurate information at all. Its been over a week and despite the fact its been pointed out France and Germany are not included on the list nothing has been done to change it.

Until in discussion a detailed list of these things can be agreed to, it should not be put on the article page.

Simon - 2:47am BST 31st of July 2007

Well someone undid the changes.. Do the people who make re edit pages actually read the discussion page? The amount of debate on the issue of whos on whos side shows this must be changed. This article is very insulting to countries that are putting 1000s of troops on the ground in dangerous locations.. to be "left out" of these lists.

Simon - 2:55am BST 31st of July 2007

Agree we should have the most complete information possible, splitting off to another article if needed -- since you seem to be interested, would you be able or willing to find some sourcing as to the other information you've mentioned? :) – Luna Santin (talk) 02:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

There is plenty of information / sources of this even on Wiki, the problem is the "war on terror" is such an open ended phrase its almost impossible to define with agreement from all sides. This is why i believe in an attempt to avoid clear bias and incorrect information the "Casualties and Combatants lists" should be removed. Im not very happy with the way some of the article is written but people look at the data on the right hand side thinking its the basic facts and go away believing the list as they are use to seeing it for other conflicts such as WW2.

Now there are huge arguments about who belongs on which side of the list and i really can not understand why some have been left out. The biggest problem i have is the fact ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) is not being included. The "War on Terror" began with the invasion of Afghanistan

"The War in Afghanistan (2001–present) began on October 7, 2001, as a response to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States of America (U.S.). This marked the beginning of the U.S. War on Terrorism"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)

The above page lists the ISAF as a combatant in the conflict along with Afghanistan and the Northern alliance who both appear on the combatant list of the "War on Terror" page but ISAF doesnt. If we can agree Afghanistan is part of the "war on terror" surely its common sense to include ISAF.

This would only offer a small improvement though, for some reason France and Germany are purposely being kept off this list of combatants which is what i have a major problem with. For example Slovakia is listed as a combatant the link below shows a list of current contributions to the ISAF

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force#Contributing_nations

According to this, Slovakia is providing 60 engineers, France 1000 troops and Germany 3000. How is it right a country with 3000 troops on the ground is not worthy of being named when Slovakia is? This really is insulting to many people, especially those with family serving in the military forces of those countries.

There are many questions, What is China doing on there? Should the United Nations, the European Union and NATO be included on the list? What about Saudi Arabia who have foiled plots by Al-Qaeda? (Listned on casualties but not combatants). Should Iran be listed as an enemy combatant as we have documented evidence they are providing support to other members on that list? What about Russia who are supply Iran with weapons? The list of enemy combatants suggests they are all on the same side, even though some of the groups listed fight each other aswell. These are just a few of many questions some people have.

This is not war its a phrase, therefor it should not have the combatant / casualties list. Unless someone can do a really good editing job with this without any bias i cant see any option but to delete it.

Simon - 12:02 PM BST - 31st of July 2007 (Sorry about the two boxes on part of the text i dont understand how they were added or how to remove them)

OK here is what I say about the shortening of the combatant list, use World war two as a model, they put only the major players in the box and a link to the list of all of the others. Also you are wrong War on terrorism is not just a phrase. It's a global conflict just like the Cold war was. Are you going to say that the Cold war was just a phrase. As for the combatant list, leave the link that is already there to the full list of players and put only the big ones, and here is the gys I recomend: United States, United Kingdom, Israel, Russia, Pakistan, Canada (because of the great contribution to Afghanistan), Iraq (post-Sadam), India, Saudi Arabia, Phillipines, Ethiopia (the Somali front against the ICU). And I think that is preaty much enough, anyone else want to add one or two more be may guest, but I think this is enough, if anyone doesn't abject by tomorow I will make these changes then. User:Top Gun

The Cold war was totally different, the enemy was clearly defined. (Soviet Union and Communist countries / ideals) Terrorism is just a tactic, used by different groups for different goals, for example

HAMAS want the destruction of Israel and to free Palestine, the terrorists who attacked the Russian school wanted to liberate their people from Russian occupation, Hezbollah was formed to resist Israeli occupation of Lebanon, while these groups may use some of the same tactics as Al-Qaeda they are totally different. Claiming they are all the same has made it harder for us to resolve the different issues.

Now you say "Canada (because of the great contribition to Afghanistan) What about France and Germany? What about Italy sending troops to the border of Israel / Lebanon? As Hezbollah is an enemy combatant surely Italy belongs on the combatant list aswell?

As for the Casualties lists in the info box, why include something that has to be updated almost everyday yet provides little important information. Some of the Casualties listed include FATAH, why is this on the list when its not on the combatant list? While there is genuine debate about who belongs on each side of the list or if its needed at all i think the Casualties list is just sloppy, and too hard to keep up to date. People can read the actual article and go on for further reading about deaths for specific conflicts in the "War on Terror"

I also took a quick look at the "Cold war" wiki page, it does not have the list of combatants, or casualties in an information box on the right. If there isnt one for a "war" thats finished and far easier to define the two sides how can we even consider having one for this? The changes you suggest would still leave the same problems, but i do agree it shouldnt have such a huge list of countries in the one box.

- Simon - 9:50pm BST - 31st of July 2007

Yet again I think you are wrong. The war on terrorism I would say is even much clearly defined. The enemy is RADICAL ISLAMISM (that is THE one point that connects all of the groups fighting the West, even if they differ in tactics and some points of their ideology they all belong to radical Islam). As for the casualties numbers, if it is such a big thing I will update the numbers every week or so, it's not your problem and I don't see how it is sloppy, the numbers are all verified, checked and sourced, and for the sake of the infobox I only included the military casualties. In regards to Fatah, they fight Hamas which is an enemy of the U.S. and the west, and if it is not on the combatant list then put it their yourself and don't make a fuss over it. AHH HELL ENOUGH OF DEBATE, I AM SHORTENING THE LIST, STOP TALKING AND START DOING SOMETHING, THERE IS ALREADY A LINK TO THE FULL LIST OF ALLIES SO WHAT FUNCTION DOES THIS LARGE LIST HAVE HERE?User:Top Gun

I did something yesterday, I deleted the Combatants list and Casualties list because both have too many problems and it appears no one agrees on who belongs where, Sadly someone undid the change so i simply ask someone to fix this article.

The war on terror is just a war on Radical Islam? If thats the case can you explain why the term "Radical Islam" is not even mentioned ONCE in the entire article? Perhaps the casualties list should be updated daily? It appears the list of combatants continues to grow, if we are going to have such a long list which includes something like "Fatah" the EU, NATO, ISAF and other such forces should be added.

One solution i could see to the problem is instead of listing countries in a combatant list, there could be a link to another page where it lists countries taking part in the "War on Terror" and what they actually are doing / did. For example : FATAH - Fighting the Terrorist organisation HAMAS. France - Taking part in the war in Afghanistan and playing a role in the ISAF. Lebanon - Fighting the extremist group Fatah al-Islam in a Palestinian refuge camp. Atleast that way listing all these "combatants" would be justified with a brief explanation of what they have done.

- Simon - 10:45pm BST - 31st of July 2007 -

There seems to be confusion about what this is actually about. This article does not talk about a conflict against Islamism. Its about a specific campaign being waged by the United States and allies. Its easy to define what is and isnt in the campaign by the comments of administrations and authorizations of war. Combatants are therefore easy to determine from this. Major combatants belong on this page, less major and minor combatants belong on the linked to page. ~Rangeley (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Major Combatants

I have been reverted twice already in my efforts to scale back the list of major combatants. Let me first clarify this point: We do not need to include every nation in the infobox combatant list - and further, excluding a nation does not mean they are not contributing to the campaign. We have seperate articles for the total lists of combatants, the infobox should only state the main combatants in order to save space.

Now, lets just settle once and for all who is, and is not, a major combatant.

• United States - 150k troops in Iraq, ~30k in Afghanistan, initiator of the campaign, contributor to nearly every component. Pretty obvious on this one.
• United Kingdom - 45k originally in Invasion of Iraq, ~5k in Iraq now, thousands involved in Afghanistan, another obvious one.
• Israel - 30k troops involved in 2006 Lebanon War which was begun and designated a part of the us-led WoT.
• Canada - Highly involved in Afghanistan, leading/led operations at one point.
• Australia - Highly involved throughout, had several thousand in Iraq invasion, still involved.
• Iraq - Has about 150k soldiers involved in Iraq War, army built for a counterinsurgency
• Afghanistan - Has about 40k soldiers involved in Afghanistan war.
• Pakistan - Thousands of troops involved in Waziristan war.
• Philippines - OEF Philippines occuring within it, many troops involved.
• Somalia - Thousands involved in Somalian War against ICU.
• Ethiopia - Thousands involved in Somalian War against ICU.
• Lebanon - Leading major operations in 2007 Lebanon conflict.

Now, here is for nations currently included, which should not be.

• Saudi Arabia - Saudi Insurgency is not a major component, and is not on the scale of the other nations remotely.
• Turkey - No significant troop contributions to any theatre. I have yet to see any proof that there have been any US-led operations against the PKK which had Turkish involvement.
• Russia - The Chechnyan war predates the campaign and was not begun under it. While Russia has contributed to the US-led campaign, it was hardly a major contribution.
• India - India has done anti terror raids in its own country, but so havent many others. They have not contributed significant forces to any theatre of conflict.

And now for one I am not sure about.

• Fatah - Is the Palestinian civil war a part of the WoT, or not? If it is, perhaps Fatah is a major combatant. If not though, it obviously cant be.

Now for an abbreviated look at the other side. Given the above, some of these dont really require further clarification.

• al-Qaeda - Obvious.
• Iraqi insurgency - Obvious.
• Taliban - Obvious.
• Ba'athist Iraq - Obvious.
• Islamic Courts Union - Obvious.
• Tribes in Waziristan - Obvious.
• Abu Sayyaf - Major target of OEF Philippines.
• Jemaah Islamiyah - Major target of OEF Philippines.
• Hezbollah - Obvious.

Those that should not be...

• PKK - Certainly not a major target of any conflict.
• Chechen separatists - Its very unlikely that a US-led attack will be waged in Russia any time soon, and one certainly has not occured yet.
• Patani separatists - These Thailand separatists are a target, but just like Thailand is not a major combatant, neither are the separatists.

And those that might be...

• Hamas - Just like Fatah, depends on whether its a part of the WoT.

Does anyone have any objections to these points? And what of the civil war? ~Rangeley (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the inclusion of the Palestinian civil war and associate combatants is contingent on whether or not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a front of the War on Terrorism. If it is, than Hamas and Fatah (I would leave it there; the PFLP and their ilk are all relatively minor players.) should be included. Instead of just "Iraqi insurgency," why not name one or two of the major insurgent groups, such as the Mahdi Army (I understand the degree to which Muqtada al-Sadr has disarmed is debatable.)? If you're going to include Ethiopia and Somalia, you should include the Islamic Courts, or whatever their current name is, as well. Like "Iraqi insurgency," "tribes of Waziristan" is kind of ambiguous. If they have a flag, there's probably some sort of centralised organisation. Hope that helps. Soviet Canuckistan 04:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The changes that have been made are a good improvement, but as this is a list of major combatants could NATO and flag be added to the list on the main page? I accept the "others page" shows members of nato who are taking part but NATO itself is now playing the lead role in Afghanistan. Including it would also avoid arguments of people saying members like France and Germany belong on the list. I agree with you about India, Russia and Saudi Arabia being removed. If HAMAS is to remain on the enemy combatants list which it probably should as both EU and US say its a terrorist organisation, FATAH should be kept on the good list.

Thankyou very much for the recent changes made, no doubt it is FAR better now than it was a week ago.

- Simon - BST 6am August 2nd 2007 -

The reason its Iraqi Insurgency as opposed to the various components is strictly a space saving measure. Waziristan tribes has been replaced with Islamic Emirate of Waziristan. And I dont know that putting NATO on there makes sense, because having the USA/Canada/UK up and NATO up is redundant, but leaving out these three countries and just having NATO would leave the three of the most major players from being shown. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not annoyed or anything, but why was my alphabetisation undone? I think having the list of combatants in alphabetical order is ideal because otherwise we have to start deciding who's more important than whom. Obviously the United States would be at the top, but it gets less clear after that. Soviet Canuckistan 23:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I am unsure why, but once again Top Gun has reverted every single edit to the infobox. If people could please participate in discussion if they have objections to something, that would be much better. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears that we all agree on on a group of core participants. As far as I can tell, they are:

On the OEF side: US, UK, Australia, Canada, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and Ethiopia

On the other side: al-Qaeda, Taliban, Somali Islamists, Waziristan, Iraqi insurgency

So, how about anyone with any additional suggestions say so here and include a reason for why their combatant should be included? Soviet Canuckistan 03:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like I'll start. In addition to the above, I would add Israel and Lebanon simply because they are respectively the chief adversaries of Hamas and Hezbollah, which are included.

I think that we need to remember that the War on Terrorism is a US-led initiative, and therefore we need to look at it from the American POV, so Russia, Turkey and Thailand and India shouldn't be included. Soviet Canuckistan 23:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the United States of America and the United Kingdom should be included on the list and kept at the top. Adding NATO to the list of combatants wouldnt change this at all, it is fact that NATO is carrying out operations in Afghanistan and is now playing the lead role. US and UK could be on the list for their action in Iraq just to avoid confusion anyway. I just think even though the list has been shortened, "NATO" deserves a place on the list so atleast all those providing alot of troops are represented.

Is there any reason why they "shouldnt" be included?

- Simon 6:16AM BST Sunday 05 of August 2007 -

Just the confusion/redundancy factor. As I said earlier, I dont really like the idea of having NATO and the US both on the infobox, and if I had to leave one off it, it would be NATO. ~Rangeley (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

If you have a problem with putting NATO on the list as USA / Uk etc are in NATO and it could cause confusion, perhaps putting "ISAF" on the list instead of NATO would be a better option. ISAF is the name given to the operation and what most countries contributing troops to Aghanistan fall under. (The USA still has some troops operating independently)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force

I think leaving them off the list is far more inaccurate and there for more important than the possibility of a couple of people being confused. It is fact Afghanistan was the first country to be attacked in the war on terror and fact the ISAF is the major combatant in that country. So there for ISAF should be on that list.

- Simon - 16:10 BST - Sunday 05 August 2007 -

That would be a good compromise. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

As Hamas is no longer part of the Palestinian government, can we changed "Fatah" to "Palestinian Authority." Soviet Canuckistan 05:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Size

Just like the Iraq War, this article is creeping up in size. Its around 85kb, which is nearly three times as big as the maximum size for articles, 32kb. Before it gets even more out of hand, we should prune it and get rid of some of the superfluity. The infobox was a nice first step, but the rest will be more challenging. Here are some things I think should be greatly pruned/removed.

• External Links, Further reading. I am never a fan of these sections in articles, and we should consider removing most if not all of them, keeping any bare essentials if they actually exist. These two sections take up 15kb of the 85kb article, and in my opinion, add nearly nothing. This is a solid place to shorten the article in my view.

• Casualties section. This is basically a verbatim representation of a study done by a newspaper. We should replace this section with one more syncronized with our own casualty count, and possibly split the content off to another article, leaving only a breif summary on this page. This is only 3KB, so its not that big, it just needs work.

• Criticisms, Role of US media. These two sections are 14kb combined, and had already been split off once to the Criticisms of the War on Terrorism article. They seem to have snuck back onto this page however, removing the purpose of the other page. A few things must be remembered here. One, this is not a pro/con article where the pros and cons are outlined. It is an encyclopedic article which describe what the War on Terror campaign is. The body of the article is not pro WoT, its encyclopedic. Having a large criticism section listing the "cons" in the name of balancing the article out is infact putting it out of balance, because there is no section listing the pros (nor should there be.) The War on Terror is a controversial topic, this is indisputable, and this should be noted. We can note some prominent opponents and critics, even cite quotations of them. But having a multi paragraph and multi header section as we do here, which merely copies talking points, is extremely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If we scaled things back, noted the controversy, reported the controversy, but abstain from parroting the entire arguments from one side or the other, we can save considerable space on this article. (For a fairly good example of what it should look like, take a look at Iraq_War#Criticisms. Its concise, notes the controversy, and leads people to other articles rather than taking up tons of space.)

And just pruning.

• Theatres of operations. We already have another article to go in depth on, and its time to scale some of the sections back here. We dont need to give lengthy summaries of the Iraq War, Afghan War, etc. We just need a basic, breif summary of important points, and their relation to the WoT. There are entire articles about those wars, we dont need to try and fit everything about them on this too. This entire section is 31kb, so theres a lot of potential to get things down.

There may be more areas, but if we focus on these ones, we can get a lot done. Any additional thoughts on this? ~Rangeley (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have begun to size things down, and reduced it 42kb to 43kb total. I moved the criticisms to the other article, moved casualties to the other article, and moved further reading to another article. I also began to shorten some of the theatre sections. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Im changing the external links to be in line with WP:EL and WP:SEH.

Still more can be done though Lihaas (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Russia???

The Template:War_on_Terrorism has Russia as "Participant in operations", with Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Chechens grouped together as "Targets of operations".

This is just weird and totally wrong:

1. In the Arab-Israeli conflict the US (and EU/NATO) supports Israel, while Russia supports Hamas and Hezbollah.
2. In the Russo-Chechen conflict everyone else is neutral (more or less), and "Campaigns and theatres of operation" do not include Russia, too.

Also, War on Terrorism - Theaters of operation article is a crap (compare with the main list here). --HanzoHattori 07:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

We dealt with this problem here already, the articles branching off arent all brought into sync with this though. The Chechen war is not a part of the US-led WoT campaign, but Russia has made minor contributions to the WoT elsewhere. Not major enough to warrant an inclusion in the infobox here, or the template there, however. And Chechens play no role whatsoever. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay. And actually, I don't know about Israel too. The Israeli-Arab conflict is pretty localised. Nationalist-Islamist Palestinians or Lebanese don't attack US or European targets (at least nowadays), and Israel didn't contribute to any American war ever. (The war "against terror" is actually the war against al-Qaeda and its immediate allies, just rather melodramatically named.) --HanzoHattori 18:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a whole is not a part of this, but specific portions of it are. The United States aided Israel under the WoT campaign in its war against Hezbollah, and both nations stated that it was part of the WoT. The WoT is not only against al Qaeda. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure it was not the usual U.S. support for Israel, as continued since many years before 2001? --HanzoHattori 22:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, from statements such as this [9]. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, okay. Hezbollah statements also related to Israel as the American proxy. --HanzoHattori 11:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

WOT Article

I know that this article was getting pretty large and we needed to cut it down but it seems as though over the past week or so we reduced the content to the point that its nothing but references and links to other articles. We have been cutting into muscle for some time now and if we lose much more this article will cease to be useful. I recommend we take a close look before making any more changes and reducing the content even more. --Kumioko 19:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, we are taking a close look. This section is devoted to the size issue, and I point out a few areas which were unecessarilly large (or totally unecessary.) No content has been removed entirely from Wikipedia, all has been outsourced to other articles, except some external links. The largest content section which was scaled back was "Criticism," using the method employed at the Iraq War article (touching on controversies, but leaving the depth for the separate article.) I completely outsourced the "further reading" section to another article, and scaled back external links, which exceeded by far what the guidelines of Wikipedia describe. The information on Pakistan has been exported to its own article, and scaled down. A few other theatre sections have been scaled back (their individual articles are for the depth.) I agree with you that the article is a bit sketchy as far as its usefulness goes, and is severely lacking in some areas. But this has nothing to do with the recent removals, though perhaps its easier to see just how few muscles and bones were holding the article together now that the fat is being cut away. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with the need to keep this article readable and admire most of the edits that have been made. However, I'm a little worried about the degree to which the criticisms section has been scaled back, especially as that section contained an important section on international support for the WOT. That section was added as a CSB attempt to make sure the article included global perspectives, which I now feel are underrepresented. Also, while I agree streamlining is important, I don't think we want to cut so much that basic information is missing from a section. For example, we now have the sentence: "The U.S. media has also received criticism for its coverage of the War on Terrorism." It seems like some indication of the origin and substance of the criticism should be given, however briefly. As is, it's a fragment, not a summary. I'll make no changes until I hear others' thoughts. Thanks for helping to improve the entry.Benzocane 00:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm having trouble confirming this statement: "No content has been removed entirely from Wikipedia." Can you refer me to the Int'l support section? Sorry if I'm missing something obvious. Benzocane 00:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I transferred the US media section to criticisms, but appear to have missed the international support section (added it now though). And as to criticisms, I dont view it as anything more than a placeholder at the moment. You are certainly free to add to it yourself, having to rebuild sections from the ground up alone is a somewhat daunting task. ~Rangeley (talk) 01:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Fatah-Hamas Conflict

I don't think it should be included in the War on terrorism. BTW Fatah's al-Aqsa Martyrs brigade is also considered a terrorist organisation. The Honorable Kermanshahi 11:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It's related with the war against terrorism but it's mainly a part of the israeli-palestinian conflict. Mrpouetpouet 19:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Islam in the target range

Which and how many, if any, of the WOT enemies are not Muslim groups, people or countries? Because it just seems to me like War on Islamist Terrorism might be a more factual name. VolatileChemical 18:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the name wasnt chosen by us for being descriptive, its the name given to the campaign by the US government. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Wow. That really doesn't answer my first and only question at all. Not even close. Absolutely no where near even being close. VolatileChemical 13:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I was clearly not answering your question, but responding to your second sentence. Accurate or not, this is what the campaign was named by the USA, and thats why we have it at this namespace - its their campaign, much like the Great Leap Forward is at that location even though it is laughably ill named. If you are just trying to initiate a discussion about what the USA should have named the campaign, this is the wrong place to do it. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Combatant list

I don't understand why Indonesia and Islamic state of Iraq cann't be added to the list of combatants, Indonesia may not have any mayor troop contributions on the main frontlines but has been under constant attack by terrorists and has played a wital role in the intelegence war and hunt for Al-Qaeda sleeper cells and agents. Also the Islamic state of Iraq is the largest Sunni insurgents group in Iraq, Al-Qaeda in Iraq is part of that group, it should be added also to the list.User_talk:Top Gun

As we established above, [10], leaving nations off the infobox list does not mean they are not combatants. The infobox list is just the major combatants, those nations or groups which are contributing thousands of troops to a theatre of the campaign. Lots of nations have done lots of work on the covert front, but this is hardly as major as sending thousands of troops into harms way. For this reason, Indonesia goes on the complete list of combatants (separate article) but not this list of major ones. Further, the "Islamic State of Iraq" is pretty much nothing more than a propaganda ploy and is hardly significant enough, in itself, to warrant inclusion in the list of major combatants. Al Qaeda in Iraq is, on the other hand, significant in and of itself to warrant inclusion. ~Rangeley (talk) 05:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

OK I can agree on the Indonesia part but highly disagree on the insurgent group, you don't want to include them because of their propaganda name? It doesn't matter what they are called, they are the largest Sunni insurgent group there is and should be included.User_talk:Top Gun

Its not the name that I take issue with, its that the "Islamic State of Iraq" is nothing more than a front group made by al-Qaeda in Iraq - essentially a propaganda ploy. There is no evidence of it existing in any true form, and none of the al-Qaeda in Iraq "claims" about it have beared any fruit (for instance its supposed "leader" turned out to be an Egyptian actor.) As you cant really target what is ostensibly an imaginary organization, it would be silly for us to think it a major target of this campaign. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The Islamic state of Iraq is an alliance of 8 Sunni groups and isn't really a group of it's own, otherwise we could also include NATO. The Honorable Kermanshahi 11:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a Few Thoughts...

First, I know there is a lot of criticism and controversy surrounding this issue, but can we consider offering a general definition as to what the War on Terror is in the first section, and put the controversy in its own secion later on?

Second, can someone please explain to me exactly why the Soviet Union is listed as an ally in the section on the right that explains who the fighting parties are?

Third, can we consider changing the wording of the first sentence to saying that it was a campaign begun by the U.S. Government and not just the Bush Administration, especially considering congress voted for the war which in turn kicked the campaign off? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.26.68.146 (talk) 19:27, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

First, No because this is an article about this peticular War on terrorism.

Second, that was vandalism.

Third, With that I agree because Bush's successors will continue this war. The Honorable Kermanshahi 10:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

ad 3. How do you know? Clairvoyant? --Raphael1 11:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, even if it continues beyond the Bush Administration, it will still have been "begun by the Bush Administration," no? ~Rangeley (talk) 13:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

That is true, the Bush administration started it but I think it is more of a U.S. campaign than a Bush administration campaign. The Honorable Kermanshahi 18:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Name Change (again)

I changed the title containing the text "War of Terror" to "War on Terror". The term "War on Terror" is a controversial, problematic and perhaps even Orwellian term, but that is nevertheless the term that is most often used by those who are leading this so-called war. The term "War of Terror" seems more like an editorial statement on the war than an appropriate title for this article.

See War on Terrorism (historical) for the quote from Bush that started this particular enterprise, and note that "War on Terror" is the phrase that was used.

If you think that the "War on Terror" is more accurately called a "War of Terror", then an appropriate place to note the reasons for this might be in the article Criticism_of_the_War_on_Terrorism.

Pconrad0 02:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I find "War on Terrorism" a lot more editorialised than "War on Terror," because it means editors deliberately chose not to name the article the way people name the subject of the article. The term War on Terror may be problematic, but it's the correct name. It's not Wikipedia who invented it, it was George W. Bush. The article says that. If people find this a problematic term, their problem is with George W. Bush and other people who like the term. Wikipedia will only be doing its job by calling the War on Terror by the name given to it by its creator. A.Z. 03:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I had misunderstood what Pconrad0 had said. When they wrote "War of terror", I thought they meant "War on Terrorism". A.Z. 04:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Guys this change is a very big problem. Every sub-article of this article has in its name "war on terrorism". It's totally confusing for the reader and do not suit to wikipedia quality. This title change is perhaps a good idea in theory but it can't work changing only the name of the main article.

So either we change the name of every template and sub-articles (I mean the pro-title-change have to do it) or we have to change the title back. Mrpouetpouet 16:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Title

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. "War on Terror" seems to be the more common name, and there seems to be general support for applying WP:COMMONNAME here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Has there been any discussion about the title? I believe it's more commonly known as "War on Terror"? A.Z. 17:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Google has more hits to "war on terror". A.Z. 17:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, A.Z. There are extensive discussions above on the title of the article. As a newcomer to this article, I'm going to reserve my opinion for now, but it does seem like you have a point. Stanselmdoc 16:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I read the discussions I found, and they don't seem extensive. I think that the only way we're ever going to reach a conclusion is if people state their opinion, not reserve them. A.Z. 19:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha, you're quite right, A.Z. The reason I didn't offer my opinion before was because this particular issue seems to be discussed constantly on this talk page, and I didn't want to jump into the middle of it without reading the previous discussions (and actually forming my own solid opinion). Well, my opinion agrees with yours, I have to say. When discussing the war in the real world, I don't think I've ever heard it referred to as the "War on Terrorism". I definitely consider it the "War on Terror", and was very surprised to be redirected to this page when I looked up War on Terror. Stanselmdoc 19:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I was surprised and disappointed. I think we should wait for Pconrad0's response to my post above. I think I have shown that their arguments are flawed. They wrote "The term 'War on Terror' is a controversial, problematic and perhaps even Orwellian term, but that is nevertheless the term that is most often used by those who are leading this so-called war." It's not only the term most often used by those who are leading the so-called war, it's also the term most often used by everyone, including opposers of the war. Of course, opposers will criticize the term as they criticize the war. While supporters will take the term and the war seriously, opposers will be ironic towards both. If they think the name is Orwellian, the most likely is that they also think the war is Orwellian, but PconradO hasn't suggested that we rewrite the entire article so it doesn't look like we're talking about an Orwellian war. And to say that the war on terror is a war on terrorism is obviously original research. We should document, not judge. We should delete the page War on Terror and move this page to that title. A.Z. 20:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I crossed part of the post above because Pconrad0 was actually referring to "War of terror", not "War on terrorism". A.Z. 04:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support move 2 Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism. Ewlyahoocom 07:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The true name is "War on Terrorism", War on Terror was first used as metaphor by pro-war journalist. "It's not only the term most often used by those who are leading the so-called war. it's also the term most often used by everyone, including opposers of the war." Sorry but I never heard an opposer using this term. It's useless to change a good title to use a controversial and not NPOV one AND remember the name "war on terror" is quoted on the first line of the article. Mrpouetpouet 10:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Who said that the true name (whatever that means) is "War on Terrorism"? As I said above and below and now here, opposers refer to this event as the war on terror, though they make it clear that they don't agree it is one. Wikipedia conventioned to use controversial terms for names of articles, if they are the words normally used to refer to the subject. A.Z. 17:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• I added mention of Borat's wisecrack (War of Terror) as it is a very wildly held belief outside the US. I also note that War of terror is a redirect to this page. Though popular fiction, its use to expose something to one audience (non-US) as well as to ridicule a real US audience at a rodeo offered a stark display of attitudes, understanding and the state of play. This remark may well need to be moved lower in the article, but I think it does have merit. His phrase War of Terror can be looked at as ridicule or commentary - either way it has some frightening implications.24.7.91.244 05:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• It is also worth noting that many non-US media outlets use the phrase so-called War on Terror. The inherent problem here is that the subject's name was crafted very deliberately to mislead or to deliver a one-sided POV, so as to make the public believe the war is about something other than old-fashioned empire building. Of course the classic Wiki Fudge would be Allegations of a War on Terrorism which would be utterly daft and I am not proposing that. It would be nice if it was a War on Terror, but sadly I think Borat hit the nail on the head. I don't think we can rename the article, but I do think it should be made less biased and also to draw attention to the spin/doublespeak in the name - as I think almost everyone would agree that since its start, terrorism globally has skyrocketed. 24.7.91.244 05:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the naming convention according to which "if there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view" applies here. Strangely, someone added as an example of the use of that convention the title "War on Terrorism", even though Google gives six times more results to "war on terror" than to "war on terrorism". I think opposers do call it the war on terror, using quotation marks or saying "the so-called war on terror," as mentioned above. A.Z. 17:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree we should call it war on terror, not because google gives more results though -(this is not a reliable source to give the war a name). The US, who initiated the war call it 'war on terror' thus we should call it war on terror addy gAddy-g-indahouse 04:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If the US called it some name but a different name somehow became established in all the rest of the world, we should call it the second name. A.Z. 04:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with A.Z. For instance, the American Civil War is still known by some as the War of Northern Aggression, but because the Civil War, or the American Civil War, have become more widely used, that is what it is called. So in this article, it should be titled War on Terror, with notes mentioning what other countries/groups/journalists call it. Stanselmdoc 03:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Support for the war on terror

There should be a mention of how Al Qaeda and Bin Laden's support continues to fall throughout the middle east. Judgesurreal777 21:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Scope of article

This may sound stupid, but I'm very confused about what the scope of this article is supposed to be. From the introduction, it appears to be exclusively about the "campaign initiated by the United States government under President George W. Bush...following the September 11, 2001 attacks". However, it then goes on to discuss various acts of terrorism, anti-terrorism operations and conflicts that don't seem to have anything to do with this. For example, the section about India talks about various terrorist acts in India and anti-terrorism measures implemented by the Indian government, and doesn't even attempt to tie this in with the "campaign initiated by the United States...", indeed it states that "India's war against terrorism precedes the American war on terrorism". Some other sections appear to have the same problem (no assertion of the relationship with the "War on Terror"): Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Indonesia.
Actually, I have a couple of other random questions:

• Under Horn of Africa, what is "The regions and areas of Operation Iraqi Freedom." supposed to be saying? Should this be "...from the regions and areas..."?
• What about "Somalia became the mother of all operations..." - is this a quote?

Bistromathic 16:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The whole article is in a bad state and there seems to be a confusion about what it actually is about. It seems that people are confusing USA's campaing with... everything else related to terrorism.--Sir Anon 22:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Globally

I don't understand what the word "globally" means in the sentence: "The phrase "War on Terror" started being used globally to refer to the U.S. campaign in Iraq and elsewhere by members of the American Republican Party, who were advised to do that by Frank Luntz." a.z. 03:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Image caption

The infobox image caption is absolutely ridiculous. It currently reads:

• US Soldiers attempting to destroy al-Qaeda and Taliban forces in the Shahi-Kot Valley and Arma Mountains southeast of Zormat during the Operation Anaconda

This is what it should be:

• US Soldiers boarding a CH-47 Chinook helicopter in Afghanistan during Operation Anaconda

I think the current caption is totally loaded and inaccurate. I understand that they were undergoing a mission to destroy al-Qaeda and Taliban forces, but that's certainly not what they're doing in that picture. They're getting on a helicopter! Look at the picture. Do ya see any US Soldiers destroying or "attempting to destroy" anything in that picture? No. KDR 14:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with a slight modification :)

• US Soldiers boarding a CH-47 Chinook helicopter in Afghanistan during Operation Anaconda in the Shahi-Kot Valley and Arma Mountains southeast of Zormat.

Mrpouetpouet 22:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least someone agrees. I am going to change it to your version. KDR 03:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, someone did it already. Haha. Good! KDR 03:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Turkey-PKK conflict

I have a proposition, should we maybe add the Turkey-PKK conflict to this article. But not the entire conflict. Just only the part of the conflict this year (2007) that has been conducted since it was proposed for the first time to invade northern Iraq. The PKK is a terrorist organisation on the US terror list and also if Turkey invades Iraq, which is most likely since yesterdays killing of 17 soldiers and capturing of 10, the US will most probably be involved to some degree. And also the terrorist PKK is based in Iraq which is part of the WoT. So what does everybody say.Top Gun —Preceding comment was added at 14:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The war is against al-quadia and its allies since 2001. The situation of the PKK is different and is only related to Irak war and not to the war on terrorism. Remember also that the PKK is an ennemy of the US only on paper, and that wikipedia is more interested in facts.

Mrpouetpouet 16:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

War on Terrorism

This article should be renamed War on Terrorism since that is the more proper term and is only 3 less letters, WP:PRECISION. "War on Terror" is a very informal, unencyclopedic term that misrepresents what the war really is about, terrorism. The article is not categorized as Terror but instead Terrorism. I feel the article was moved a month ago unjustly and I will move it back to its rightful name.--Southern Texas 03:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The name of the article should be the name that is in common use. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). I'll give you an opportunity to respond, but unless you do so in a convincing way, I will move this page back tomorrow. –RHolton≡– 04:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Do not overdo it. I feel "War on Terror" is a misrepresentation of what the content of the article is really about. A google search finds that twice as many results come up for "War on Terror" than "War on Terrorism" but we cannot be sure that the usage is uniform. Terror can denote many things but terrorism is more specific and is what represents this article. Although "War on Terror" shows more results in the search engine the difference from "War on Terrorism" is only three letters, WP:PRECISION. War on Terrorism is closer to its actual name, "Global war on terrorism" and represents the subject. I don't feel that consensus was reached to change the name but if I am wrong I do apologize.--Southern Texas 04:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• How about moving to Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism? just kidding--victor falk 06:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

As an outside observer, neither entry even seems better or worse to me. I've heard the phrase "War on Terror" a bit more, so I would be slightly inclined to prefer it. I think the three most important things to consider are the burden for changing the name, which term is more relevant to the current article, and which term is being used in other articles (for consistency). Just my two cents. --69.210.15.210 02:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Fix Overview Section

With Firefox the boxes are overlapping the text and [edit] link. I looked at it but don't know wiki html well enough to fix it. Carol Moore 14:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Fixed

Mrpouetpouet 23:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The Infobox

The infobox list a whole bunch of numbers without citations.

1. I don't understand how it is even possible to obtain a definite list of numbers of "targets" as the list of targets seems to be ever-expanding and I somehow doubt that they advertise their numbers.
2. "Military casualties only"? Most of these groups listed in "targets" are not military.
3. "Over 200,000 civilians killed" - how was this figure arrived at and what does it include? Surely if you count all of USA's operations, you'd get significantly more than that.--Sir Anon 23:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Look at the specific articles Mrpouetpouet 23:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Those articles are not very well written and have major citation problems. And it still does not explain most of the things.--Sir Anon 03:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Russia was added

Russia was added. The War on Terrorism is the war against the Islamic Jihad Terrorism, and Russia probably fits more then anybody. Should we remond you that USSR were the first who started a war against the Taliban and bin-Laden (rased by the USA, by the way). Russia today fights against the Chechenian Terrorists, which are financed and hiven weapon by Al-queda. Russia should be here (and by the way, i'm not the first stating that. Many stated that before me, but it seems a minority holds this article hostage not giving any change they dont like to stick.

And by the way, in what campaigns against terrorism did Canada and France take part in?? Those are states i dont understand why they are here! No Free Nickname Left 18:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC) [edit]

Russia should not be added here, second Chechenian war is cleary not part of war on terrorism, Russians were already at war with Chechen for centuries before 2001 Mrpouetpouet 23:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Russians are crazy. Since when is a fight for independence terrorism? Almost every in the country in the world has in its past fought for independence. - PietervHuis (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

YEAH, I'M ADDING RUSSIA AS WELL: TECHNICAL OIL (the war on terrorism is about): In simple principles. Russia via the taliban-government-legal |Turkish R| disconnected geographical-bhuddas as a message to america to realise technical oil on that hermes. America in failing to realise this mercury automatically legalised the Taliban to encourage this readout towards there being technical estate. The Iranian iotollah already having sealed attorney towards the changeling of industrial to technical revolution applies the realisation of technical islam to the UN. America, in failing to realise the UN iotollah places sanctions on technical iran. Indonesian Afghanistan… —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.235.232 (talk) 10:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

(Regarding [11]) There are plenty of neutrality issues in this article. And I'm not the one who brought most of them up. To name a few sections already on this talk page just from a quick look: List of Combatants..., Scope of article, The Infobox, Israel wrongly placed, etc, etc. And I may add that the article is pretty one sided, focusing on the people behind the political campaign, almost completely forgetting the damage and the victims, as well as the view of the other side (labelled as "targets").--Sir Anon 23:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is not a bad for NPOV is one might expect, but 'Combattants' definitely does not have a place. "War on Terrorism" is not the name of a war, it is a marketing slogan, and an obsolete one at that. Peter Grey 03:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"List of Combatants..., Scope of article, The Infobox, Israel wrongly placed"

I agree there are some problems with this article. Points like participation of Israel or the structure of the article itself aren't clear, and that can be confusing. The list of combatants problem is also an important one. However most of minor problems [Talk:War on Terrorism#Scope of article|Scope of article]], The Infobox, Israel wrongly placed were resolved.

However, there is no major POV problem on this article. I agree most of military informations concern allied side, but it's very difficult to find reliable sources from the other side. There are also specific sections about allied side, like the role of us media or the allies' population mind. In this case, sections about the arab vision of the campaign and perhaps role of arab media will be useful. It's the only real problem in this article with the NPOV.

"it is a marketing slogan, and an obsolete one at that." Yeah and ? Since when a war cannot be derived from the marketing slogan ? The name, which must be used according to wikipedia policy is the most common name.

Mrpouetpouet 22:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

List of combatants (again)

Sorry people, but this keeps coming up. The list of combatants, as it currently stands, is OR and should be removed. Unless you can find a source from the US government that says which states are helping them in their "War on Terrorism" campaign, then the list should be removed and replaced by a phrase which describes a number of individual campaigns for which lists of combatants can be cited. ᴀᴊᴋɢᴏʀᴅᴏɴ«» 11:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely, it is one (or several) of unverified/confused/original research and needs to be removed.--Sir Anon 11:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I see the list comes and goes. Could somebody please explain the rationale for having one? AJKGORDON«» 19:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria?

This has been raised by others before but nobody has addressed the issue. Why are the following on this page:

1. Lebanon
2. Saudi Arabia
3. Gaza Strip/West Bank
4. India
5. Indonesia
6. Philippines

This Wikipedia article is the first time I've heard of any of these countries co-operating with USA on the same conflicts. "War on Terrorism" is a US policy/campaign/slogan - so I don't see how these belong on this page. If they do belong here, where are the references that say that they are part of the US campaign? --Sir Anon (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That's just the thing this is not only an American conflict, it's an international conflict, maybe the phrase war on terror was started by the Americans, but the war shure is not only an American war. Just like World war two it has many fronts and many combatants.(talk) 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I have put up a {{contradiction}} tag. This is not what the introduction states, the introduction clearly states that the article is about an American campaign and not about the global problem, yet the body of the article goes on about the global problem.--Sir Anon (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Then just rewrite the introduction. Again this may have started as an American campaign but has since become international. Again I am drawing parallel to WWII, it started of first as only Germany on one side and Poland on the other but became international later on.(talk) 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the introduction needs to be rewritten, I think it is the rest of the article that's the problem, and I will re-write neither of them. But as it stands the article contradicts itself and will remain tagged as so until it is corrected one way or another. On a separate issue of the infobox that you keep on reverting without discussion, please stop, I did not remove it on my own innitiative or without discussion, I can name a handful of editors who have agreed to remove the infobox and none who have defended it. If you want to put it back please discuss it here first.--Sir Anon (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Listen, obviously you have not reserched this conflict enough, I have been studying it for the last 6 years. The article and the infobox have been the way they were for the last two years. And nobody except for you Sir Anon and Ajkgordon complained. The list of combatants is there because AGAIN LISTEN UP AMERICA IS NOT THE ONLY COMBATANT. Since the very start other coutrys supported them. And later on in other conflicts the Americans gave, maybe not help in manpower but in military supplies and training like Lebanon, Somalia and Gaza. This has already been discussed months ago and the decision was for the list of combatants that was in the infobox. Half a dozen editors were involved in that discussion. Also like you said nobody defended the infobox before. That was because nobody saw your discussion. You should wait as long as it takes for people to be involved in the discussion. Do not whatch at this conflict as a one-sided conflict that is just an American one. Again learn more about it before you make desicions to edit this article.(talk) 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Then give citations! Verifiability not truth. If what you say is right, find some sources and use them to justify the statistics and list of combatants. This page is disputed, and unless you are acknowledging that I don't exist, that Victor falk does not exist, that Ajkgordon does not exist, that Bistromathic does not exist then the tag that there is a dispute stays up - there is a dispute and the article will be marked as such until it is resolved.

Since you prefer revert warring to discussion, and seem to have problems communicating without capitals or ad hominems, I will go right ahead and file a mediation request. Accept it or not, the tag stays up until we all agree that this article is the way it should be.--Sir Anon (talk) 05:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is OR - pure and simple. If you cannot provide a credible source for a list of combatants then it cannot be included whatever any consensus might say. AJKGORDON«» 08:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all I donn't know what ad homines means and donn't talk all high and mighty. And for God's sake what are you talking about it is common knowledge that the US is not the only one in the fight here, what are they taking on the whole terrorism world alone like Rambo. Since the very start the British, the Australian, the Polish and others have been in this fight. And there is no need for sources on this in the infobox because it is all explained in the lower parts of the article in the Iraq war section, the Waziristan war, the Somali war, the Afghan war, etc. Also the war is were al-Qaeda is OR their allies like the Taliban, Iraqi insurgency, the Islamists Somali Courts, etc. There is no need for this to be sourced in the infobox because this is already explained in the article.(talk) 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't wish to be condescending, TopGun, but your arguments would made better if you wrote in a calm methodical style without reverting to emotive and shrill language. Asserting all these things is not the same as proving through citation that these things are true.

Let's go over it again. Yes, the War on Terror does have lots of combatants in different theatres and parts of the world. But the War on Terror is not a defined military campaign say like the Iraq War. It is more a political campaign sponsored by the US government where different countries get involved depending on their ideologies and political support.

Take two examples of where it becomes difficult to define combatants in this US campaign.

• The UK, often quoted as being the US's staunchest supporter. Yet from within the highest levels of government, even the phrase "War on Terror is not acceptable. It's not seen as a formal war and therefore doesn't have a list of allies or enemies.
• France, often quoted as being one of the US's harshest critics. Very vocal in its opposition to the invasion of Iraq. Yet it has been involved in Afghanistan, swaps intelligence information with the US, and vocally supports any fight against terrorism.

What you would have to show to support having a list of combatants for this US campaign is a credible source that lists them. Not for the individual campaigns, some of which are well defined. But for the WoT specifically. Otherwise it's OR and subject to POV.

I hope that helps. AJKGORDON«» 16:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think people might be interested in reading what I wrote at Talk:Taliban_insurgency#Combatant_flags--victor falk (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok I give up, I wonn't fight with you over the combatant list BUT I will not give up on the casulties list. That should stick. We have already created a whole article on the casualties of the WoT on all fronts. (talk) 21 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, TopGun, can you explain to me how you create those casualty figures without indulging in original research? Are they sourced or are they added up? AJKGORDON«» 20:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't create those figures, Rangley did the estimate based on the Wikipedia article that IS sourced, check the article War on Terrorism casualties and it will be all there. All of the military and civilian casualties have been broken down between sides, countrys, military and civilian. And all ahve references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.170.203 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll tentatively (very tentatively) concede that the casualty figures for this article are not OR. But it's pushing it. What you have done to add up all these figures is, of course, research. Question is, is it original? AJKGORDON«» 22:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Its important to note that the "War on Terror" as defined here is not a conflict or war, but rather a campaign, or a "super operation." I dont think that we need to find a source which explicitly states "these however many nations are contributing to the campaign;" if we can find a source which says "these operations are part of this campaign" and then other sources saying "these nations are a part of this operation," it would suffice without being original research. While it is true that nations such as Britain no longer refer to it as the War on Terror, this is a semantic issue - perhaps we should provide their new name for it (if they have provided one) as an alternative name for this campaign. And it is also true that France has been a key contributor to Afghanistan, while being highly critical of Iraq - but this doesnt make them not a contributor to the WoT, or preclude them from being included in a list of combatants. This is because despite their political opposition to part of the campaign, it did not lead them to withdraw from the campaign entirely. If this happened, perhaps removing them would be justified, but as for now it would not be.

Likewise, I dont think its original research to, after we have sources stating "this this and this" are operations within the campaign, to add up their casualty totals to get the full number. I agree that one source which spelled it all out would be much easier, but it isnt necessary if we have this other stuff, which I beleive we do have for quite a few of the operations. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't want to duplicate my posting in the section below which answers your post above, Rangeley. AJKGORDON«» 07:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed list of combatants

I have removed the list of combatants. TopGun, your edit remarks are telling:

• (diff) (hist) . . War on Terrorism‎; 18:41 . . (-69) . . Top Gun (Talk | contribs) (Removing the Netherlands and the Check republic, not that big of a number of soldiers participating in the war)

This is entirely arbitrary and subjective. This is the perfect example of why there shouldn't be a list. It is subject to your own OR and your own POV. Wikipedia is not in the business of defining what goes in any lists. We can only report verifiable information from reputable sources. AJKGORDON«» 17:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You are sort of right here. If we have something trying to be a comprehensive list of all nations contributing, you cant just say "hmmm, this nation didnt do as much as this nation, so I will remove them from the list. Their contribution wasnt big enough to count." The criteria for including nations into a comprehensive list of contributors would be the following. 1. The nation is participating in an operation, 2. This operation is identified as a part of the WoT campaign. This is for a comprehensive list, mind you. For a list that appears in the infobox, you do inevitably have to whittle down the nations you show right there to the main contributors, while linking to a comprehensive list of all contributors elsewhere where space is not an issue. They did this to the World War One article, where they outsource the total list while keeping the major contributors in the infobox. Doing this here is perfectly fine, we would need to come to a consensus as to which nations constitute major contributors. In the past I recall it was contributing over 1,000 troops to an operation, or having an operation occur in the nation. This is an editorial decision which I am pretty sure falls within the realm of things we can do, so long as we use verifiable sources in establishing whether the nations pass or fail the criteria we set forward.

So to re-iterate, one cant take nations off a comprehensive list just because they didnt pass their "arbitrary" qualification, but when space is a concern in an infobox and you simply cannot display all involved parties, it is an accepted practice to set up criteria (which is yes, essentially arbitrary) to whittle this list down to the major ones. I still think the old criteria was pretty good, but if we want to come up with a new one thats fine with me. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds sensible, Rangeley. Although I'm suspicious that this would still break the OR policy. The problem, as I see it, is that the WoT is not a well defined military campaign with various countries declaring war on each other or even signing up to the campaign itself. It's more a political campaign of the US government explicitly - "bumper sticker" politics as many (including some in GB's admin) have called it. There are, of course, actual campaigns - either by individual countries or by collective bodies like the UN - that are well defined, have uncontested lists of combatants, and can be sourced in Wikipedia articles. I'm not sure, however, that the leap from listing combatants in those articles to adding them all up and sticking them in here isn't OR. Has the US government, the owner of the WoT, declared which of these campaigns are included in the WoT? I may be wrong but I don't think they have. Or, if they have, they probably won't include all the campaigns listed in this article! Wouldn't this problem vanish if the WoT wasn't treated as a traditional military campaign or war in this article, but instead more like a state of conflict like the Cold War? AJKGORDON«» 07:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem arises from conflating "War on Terror" the slogan with actual efforts to combat terrorism. ("Neither Global, nor a War, nor on Terrorism") I think you if consider a list of "combatants" for the War on Drugs or the War on Poverty, it's easy to see how little sense there is to a list of combatants here. Peter Grey (talk) 03:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think putting UnNited States et.al, and al-Quaeda et.al will suffice for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.86.85 (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Origins of War on Terrorism

The phrase "War on Terrorism" did not begin after 9/11. In 1998, after the African Embassy bombings, in an address from the White House, President Clinton said America needed to continue its "war on terrorism." Apartcents (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

War on Terrorism vs. (informal) "War on Terror"

The Category for this topic is currently named with the informal "War on Terror". It should be changed back to the formal name "War on Terrorism".

Most all US formal documents on this subject refer to "War on Terrorism".

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/nationalsecurity/faq-what.html - FAQ - What is the War on Terrorism?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/100dayreport.html - The Global War on Terrorism - The First 100 Days

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nsct/2006/ - National Strategy for Combating Terrorism

http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/progress/ - Progress Report On the Global War on Terrorism.

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/cia-the-war-on-terrorism/index.html - CIA & The War on Terrorism

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/cia-the-war-on-terrorism/terrorism-faqs.html - Terrorism FAQs

To find official Whitehouse documents on the War on Terrorism , use the search:

google: site:whitehouse.gov "war on terrorism"

google: site:cia.gov "war on terrorism"

To find quotes and press releases by the current president and others, with references to the informal "War On Terror", use the search:

google: site:whitehouse.gov "war on terror"

google: site:cia.gov "war on terror"

The Wikipedia title and categories should use the formal name, Even if the current president often uses the informal name.

GodWasAnAlien 22:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 16:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Um... the article was moved to War on Terrorism on October 27 (UTC), without first establishing consensus on the talk page. This happened despite, and without apparent regard for, a previous consensus established one month before. Now, in September, there was a consensus to move the article to War on Terror, while there has been no consensus established to move the page to War on Terrorism.

I'm partly inclined to move the article back to War on Terror, and ask that those who prefer War on Terrorism go through the proper procedure of establishing consensus for the rename. Alternatively, we could just leave it where it is until someone complains that the previous consensus was disregarded by the October mover, and then maybe we'll have another move discussion.

At any rate, you requested on my talk page that I re-open the discussion, or alter it to a "no consensus" - that makes no sense. What happened happened. You're welcome to open a new move discussion, but the one in September ended with a consensus for the shorter title, per WP:COMMONNAME. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see why the term used in US government documents should be the considered the correct standard. It should really be which term is used most widely/frequently, which I would personally suggest (in lieu of research) is War on Terror. Electric Farmer (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to support your alternative suggestion. Leave it where it is, and have another move discussion if there is a complaint.

I do have several more comments for this discussion.

The September consensus was based on comments on 5 logins/IPs. Two noted the results of a Google search. One had only heard the abbreviated phrase in the "real world". One supported GSAVE. And One mentioned that "War on Terror" ("so-called") is often referenced in ridicule of the US. I don't think there was consensus, and if there was, I think it was premature. The unspecified Google results are likely invalid, as I don't think they excluded wikipedia.(see below)

Official Name: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/nationalsecurity/faq-what.html - FAQ - What is the War on Terrorism?

Common Name

From Wikipedia:Search_engine_test: "The Google test. Using Google's advanced search option, search for each conflicting name and confine the results to pages written in English; also exclude the word 'Wikipedia'"

2007-12-14 Google results:

"War on Terrorism" -wikipedia :: 6,870,000

"War on Terror" -wikipedia :: 1,040,000

Though even with some other result, there are a few other wikipedia conventions that should be noted:

• "On Wikipedia, neutrality trumps popularity".
• Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Prefer_spelled-out_phrases_to_abbreviations

(Examples: "X Windows" has 6 million google hits, and "X Window System" has 3 million, Wikipedia uses "X Window System", over the abbreviation. "Central Intelligence Agency" has 3 million hits, "CIA" has 14 million hits...)

• Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(common_names)#Do_not_overdo_it

"In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative."

I would argue that "War on Terror" is misleading and less neutral, as a war against Terror (extreme fear) is more ambiguous and more emotive than a war against Terrorism.

According to: http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,2213959,00.html, [UK counter-terrorism officials] say the term "war on terror" will no longer be heard from ministers. Instead, they will use less emotive language, emphasising the criminal nature of the plots and conspiracies.

• Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(precision)#Conflicts_over_precision

"A conflict over the precision of a word may arise. The best way to handle such conflicts is through authoritative dictionaries".

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O48-waronterrorism.html - A Dictionary of World History 2000, Oxford University Press 2000.

http://www.bartleby.com/65/te/terroris.html - Columbia Encylopedia.

Perhaps compare "Terror" and "Terrorism" in any dictionary...

GodWasAnAlien (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is where you want it to be now. It would have made sense to make a case for the name before moving it, but whatever. If someone wants to move it back to the short name, they're welcome to build a new consensus for it. I would remind everyone to please not just move pages where the naming is disputed in any way. It's very rude, and kind of a slap in the face of people who worked to build a previous consensus. The more respectful approach is to talk about it first. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not rename the main article, and was originally not aware of the name flip-flop (my fault). I was just surprised that the category seemed to have the shortened name, so started a discussion to have the category match the official name, like the article. As part of that, I was informed of the September name consensus. I thought there was some facts not involved in that discussion, so I wanted to re-open that discussion. It seems there is no formal process to do this currently (perhaps I misunderstood DRV). Opening a new consensus discussion to keep the name that it currently has, and has had for years made less sense to me. That is why I wanted to re-open the old discussion if possible. I was trying to get more information out there, to have a more informed discussion on this. Oh well. I will watch the page and try to be involved in any future discussions on the topic. thanks.GodWasAnAlien (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I realize you didn't move the page. I was speaking generally.

It's true that DRV is just for reviewing deletion decisions. As for moves, you really are welcome to open a discussion on any article's title at any time. I think you've stated the information you wanted to; it just turns out there's no particular way to make it "official", but that's okay. The process you're looking for is to just do what you're doing: state your argument here so people can see it. Good work. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Go up and read the now closed "Title" section. No consensus was ever established for the shortened name. I moved it back to the name that had consensus for years and which is more proper. Read Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 2#Category:War on Terror, there was an overwhelming concensus to rename the category "War on Terrorism" but the closing admin decided there was "no concensus". We need to be careful what we label as "the consensus". A few day's discussion with a few editors never merits a change in consensus, especially when the discussion shows "no consensus" (to many editors) to change the name of an article which has had a name that has had the consensus of different users for years. User:GTBacchus take your own advise (remembering what you did in September): "It's very rude, and kind of a slap in the face of people who worked to build a previous consensus." Thank you.--STX 22:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Take my own advice? I didn't move any page sans discussion; I closed a move request, using my best judgment to read what people seemed to want. I read the discussion as a consensus for the shorter name, and I'm not aware of any previous discussion that I discounted or ignored. You're welcome to disagree with my reading of the discussion. I do think that, before moving a page that's been moved in the past, it's a good idea to build something resembling a consensus for it. Just moving it without doing so is kind of like saying that earlier discussion never happened, or that the people involved don't deserve to have their stated views taken into consideration. If there was a previous discussion that was ignored when we went through with the move request above, then I apologize, but I didn't see it.

In the section above, "War on Terrorism", you stated that "War on Terrorism" is "more proper", one editor disagreed with you, and you replied to them, but I don't see a group of people arriving at a decision there. I'm not sure why you read the "Title" section above as a no consensus, but you didn't do anything like ask me why I closed it the way I did. I'm not married to either name, but I think it's cool to discuss more rather than less, and to try to build a clear consensus on the talk page before moving the article. It appears to me that someone disagreed with you, and you said "oh well" and moved the page anyway. Am I wrong? It's at your preferred title now, so I'm not sure why we're still talking about it.

I'm not wrong to ask that people use talk pages to establish consensus when there was an apparent previous agreement that they wish to go against. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I was just being BOLD in editing. When you take into account 5 years of consensus versus a discussion among a few editors a month before (which I interpreted as "no consensus") I'd have to side with the editors from the past 5 years. I didn't say "oh well" to the opposition, I gave a complex explanation citing the policies of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Do not overdo it and WP:PRECISION. However, silence is the best consensus.--STX 23:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you interpreted the discussion as "no consensus". Others didn't. Silence does not actually imply consensus, and consensus can change. We move pages every day based on week-long discussions that people have. According to your argument, how would one establish consensus to move a page that's been in one place for five years? Would one have to survey every editor who's worked on the page? I really don't understand what you're claiming I did wrong, nor what you would have had me do better, other than telling the people in the above discussion, "sorry, your agreement fails to outweigh years of silence".

Silence can imply consensus, or it can imply apathy. The best way to tell the difference is by having a discussion. I still haven't seen the discussion where general agreement is arrived at that "War on Terrorism" is the best title. On the other hand, the page is where you want it to be, so what are you complaining about? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Not complaining, just explaining why it shouldn't have been moved in September and why I moved it back in October. The only basis for the move in September was WP:COMMONNAME, every other policy was disregarded (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Do not overdo it and WP:PRECISION). The real problem now with the move is with the Category name. Its been brought to WP:Categories for discussion four times since October and I don't see it changing back to its original name anytime soon. It appears that the category name has consensus to reflect the name of this article but that has to be sorted out. I think that an RFC should be started and we should see what the community thinks. Then I think an administrator should change the category's name to match what the community believes the name for this article should be.--STX 03:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't accept that it "shouldn't" have been moved in September. I think I acted in accordance with usual practices for changing an article name. That doesn't mean I don't support the current name. I agree with that that an RfC would be appropriate on the name of this article vis-a-vis the name of the related category. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

THIS PAGE IS A MESS AND VERY ONE SIDED (ON THE TERRORIST SIDE)

US Military casualties ~25,500 dead ~51,600+ Injured

WRONG!

Let's be less than we can be with image selection

The current helicopter boarding image used in the article is an interesting action shot, but at the same time it's propagandic to the extreme. Can't we find an image that doesn't look like it's straight out of an Army brochure? 74.75.233.150 (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

How is it propagandic? It's US troops boarding a helicopter.Prussian725 (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Does not look 'propagandic' to me. In fact to me, it looks far from like it is from a brochure, being that it is less polished, and therefore more realistic than any brochure image. Chwyatt (talk) 07:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Legality

Shouldn't there be more on the legality of the war and associated moral issues? Numerous leading intellectuals have questioned the legality of the war (e.g. Noam Chomsky has compared the pre-emtive American invasion of Iraq to the Nazi invasion of Poland.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.6.73.127 (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You should look for a more coherent source of informantion. For one thing, I don't think Noam Chomsky has any education in law. Also his political writing are doubious, to put it mildly. Your example is a case in point. Hitler was a racist madman bent on global domination. I don't think Poland was voilating an armistace from a privious war, was thumbing its nose at the international community, and had anything like the 17 UN resolutions that Iraq had against it.

I read an article Chomsky wrote January 2005 where he stated that THE purpose of the Iraq war was for the US to deny the Iraqi people autonomy. Later that month they had elections. Then he wrote an article stating that the US didn't originally intend to have elections--that that wasn't their original intentions. He doesn't feel beholden to logic. What he writes, at least regarding politics is religion. So I don't think he is at all a good source for an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.44.230 (talk) 06:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add what you believe is relevant. Equinox137 (talk) 23:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Lebanon

I'm quite surprised to see this here. Why would that be part of the War on Terrorism? The citations really don't do much for the assertion--they appear to be conclusions drawn by the authors. Is there a more compelling argument for this? It just looks like a couple articles twisting his Bush-speak to make news, rather than an actual point of policy. DBaba (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Undue Weight at Role of US Media

Just my two cents, but the seems like the US media section devotes a little too much space to the Kuyper's analysis. There have been lots of post-mortems of the media coverage-- Kuyper's just one among them but a very lengthy block of text discusses his opinion. That said, I'm not active on this page, so I'll leave it in for others to chop or fork to a differ article. --Alecmconroy (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of Iraq

Can somebody legitimately explain why there is a section on Iraq here? Grsz11 (talk) 05:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain why you are trolling this talk page?--STX 04:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not trolling, asking if anybody here can actually give a coherent explanation. There's no mention of why Iraq was considered an extension of the war on terror. Grsz11 (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My point is, there is very little discussion of actions pre-war that lead to consider Iraq part of the war on terror. Grsz11 (talk) 05:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between discussing why Saddam Hussein was dangerous and how he is a terrorist. In order to be included here, this section needs to discuss the latter, as him simply being a threat to the US does not constitute him being a terroristic threat. Grsz11 (talk) 05:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I will not discuss whether or nor Saddam Hussein was a terrorist since it is irrelevant to this article per WP:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves. Anti-Terrorism measures are occurring in Iraq since al-Qaeda and other groups have stationed there and that is all that is pertinent to this article. I will not discuss the merits of the Iraq War on this talk page.--STX 05:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Nor am I! But there is a difference between the war to remove Saddam, and the war against the insurgency. While this article should include the insurgency, as this is against what can be considered terrorists, I'm simply trying to establish what purpose the initial war serves here (as it wasn't intended to eliminate terrorists). Grsz11 (talk) 05:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The section is simply giving a description of how it got to the point of where it is now. Regardless of one's definition of terrorism, the "war on terrorism" in its definition involves the United States' invasion of Iraq and its rationale for doing so regardless of whether or not "terrorism" was involved.--STX 05:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This entire entry is rubbish

The war on terrorism should not be treated as a traditional 'war' at all and the combatants/casualties list should be removed since it is far too inaccurate to warrant entry into an 'encyclopedia'.

This article groups a number of disparate US actions as some kind of unified plan to fight some kind of common enemy, when in reality, this is not the case at all.

We might as well replace 'conflict ongoing' with 'total US defeat' since the pathetic objectives which the title of this war implies will NEVER be fulfilled. War on terrorism implies that we are warring on terrorism, a god-damn guerrilla tactic!

Oh wikipedia. What a joke you have become. Vlad Dracula (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. Why doesn't WP have a War on Hunger article? Because it is a meaningless political slogan. Like the 'War on Terrorism'. Dlabtot (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is meant to be on the political slogan. But due to the very common misconceptions about this slogan it is a near-impossible job of maintaining this article at a factual level.--Sir Anon (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the war on terrorism is more of an Ideal ĞavinŤing 17:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No References

I will delete every unreferenced sentence on this page 2 times a day untill the day i die. Which is fully condoned by wiki policies. "Any unreferenced materiel may be removed at any time without discussion". If this upsets ypu, add credible references! Willy turner (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, doing anything 2 times a day until you die is contrary to various wiki principles, such as WP:POINT and WP:SPIDER, not to mention WP:DUH. The way to make progress is to discuss with people, build consensus, and go forward from there. Slow edit warring will get you just as blocked as fast edit warring, no matter how right you are. Being right doesn't excuse being blinkered about how you approach collaborative work. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. If this page was edited by people who were very well informed about international relations, like myself, I could indeed have a reasonable discussion. Following Wiki guidelines will not get anyone "blocked". If you have bothered to read the archives you will know there is no sentiment on the part of the US military apologists to achieve consensus. My entire point is that there is a point blank refusal to make this page a "collaborative work" by many editors. Let me say this very slowly and simply so the FOX News viewing simpletons can understand. I dont give a monkeys what this page says, so long as what it says is supported by in-line credible references. Say the WOT is the best thing since sliced bread, that it is occuring everywhere on the planet, and that all governments completely support it, but PLEASE provide a credible reference, otherwise original research will be deleated. I am not the unreasonable one here. Willy turner (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you. In fact, I agree with you strongly. That's why I'm suggesting you pursue a strategy that will get you less blocked. You're right; don't screw it up by losing. There are very effective ways to get things done on this Wiki, and edit warring isn't one of them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Note to new users who are reverting this header without discussion: There is an existing discussion here, please participate if you feel the material has a place in the article. I won't even touch on the accuracy of the page as it violation of Wikipedia's verifibility not truth policy and can be removed by any editor. As the policy states, the burdern of proof lies on the person putting in the material not on those removing unsourced material. I understand that the users doing this are new users who perhaps don't understand Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, but please be careful in the future with unsourced material.--Sir Anon (talk) 04:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:IGNORE ĞavinŤing 17:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The WOT is a concept originated by President Bush. Therefore any conflict which has not been publicly deemed part of the WOT by the current US administration should be removed from this page, which is the policy i am following. Willy turner (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you don't need references for the infobox for the participants of the war, and if you want you can find them in the linked articles, second what's an article about a war without a infobox. Third, if you understand so much about international relations you should now that Bush went on television on all three ocasions during the Lebanon war with Israel, Lebanon war with islamic militants and the Gaza conflict and stated all three times those wars were new fronts in the War on Terrorism. Also in two of those three conflicts the U.S. provided military hardware to the side it saw as an ally. This war is like the Cold war, not only there are wars between the U.S. and it's enemies directly, but there are proxy wars between them, just like during the Cold war. These things have already been discussed numeres times here on the talk page and you should discuss these things before making deletions on your own. (talk) 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If the material is controversial and is challenged or likely to be challenged you need references. Anyone can remove challenge and unverified material. Don't bother trying to argue about the actual article - until it gets references the infobox is not staying.--Sir Anon (talk) 10:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Broken infobox.

[12] It seems that the infobox was broken. I've restored to the rev just before it broke. Would someone fix it as im not familiar with the terrorism infobox. Thanks ĞavinŤing 17:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the infobox has no place here and re-inserting it without discussion is disruptive.--Sir Anon (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay :) I removed it anyway. ĞavinŤing 18:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

IMO the infobox isn't really that good anymore, a lot of changes have tanke place.The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a current event???

Twice I put a "current event" tag on this article, and twice it was removed. How can anyone in their right mind claim this is not a current event? Equinox137 (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• The guidelines for use of the template {{current}} are that an article is edited by many, perhaps a hundred or more in a day. The template is a warning to editors that the article is under intensive editing, and to not step on each other's edits: not an advisory to readers.
• If all articles in Wikipedia were marked because the topic of the article were in the news, many hundreds of thousands of articles would have the banner/template, with zero new information to inform the reader of the topics in question. The prose and citations in the article are perfectly adequate means of expressing the changing nature of the topic. For more information, see Template:Current#Guidelines, and, if your desire is to see a topic noticed by many, Wikipedia:How the Current events page works.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Equinox137 (talk) 23:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Military Infobox without references

Should the War on Terrorism be headed with a "Military Conflict" infobox and have lists of combatants, commanders, casualties and locations? Is the verifiablity policy satisfied without citations inside the infobox but with links to other Wikipedia articles? (as seen in this version) 11:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I realy don't understand what's the problem with the infobox. It's been like that for more than four years. And it had been discussed over and over againt what should be included and a consensus was reached on numeres times. It's stupid to want references for something that is common knowledge that much that there are no references. And there are but they are in those wikipedia articles that are linked to the WoT. This is a war like any other a war that is more like the Cold war than any other. There are conflicts directly between the U.S. and it's enemies and proxy wars. Top Gun

No you need references even if you decide to declare it common knowledge (which it's not).--Sir Anon (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite as simple as that, since in part it's not a war and in part it doesn't target terrorism, but until historians have it properly figured out it makes sense for the article to have more information, not less. Peter Grey (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You want references, there I added your references, I added references for all of the combatants on the coalition side. Now if you still want to push your POV on this issue I don't know what to do with you Sir Anon. This isn't the first time you tried this. The previous times you were overruled by a mayority of editors. You are only trying this now because by some chance one more editor showed up and did the same thing you did.Top Gun

My problem is that this is a political campaign. Which means 1) that it's not really a military conflict and 2) Most of those countries that are listed as supporters do not support the entire campaign, usually just some parts of it. If you look at the criticism section of this very article you will find that even UK, the closest ally, does not support the name "War on Terrorism", and I don't see it is as being neutral to just plainly list a bunch of countries as allies (they are not labelled as allies but grouping them together makes the same implication).--Sir Anon (talk) 08:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't like it to have a warbox. Cold War doesn't have one.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Me neither, I do like the picture though maybe you can just use that. - PietervHuis (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The references currently in the infobox don't explicitly state that the "war on terrorism" as a whole is a military conflict. They only deal with the individual military conflicts. Also, the White House reference violates WP:SELFPUB: A source in an article about itself is only reliable if not contentious or unduly self-serving. You'll need to find a secondary source if you want to uphold that claim. Cambrasa confab 14:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It may just be me, but I always see the "War on Terror" as very similar to the old policy of containment. It is effectively a political campaign, attempting to limit the progress of a specific group - in this case, terrorism. As you can see, the Containment article does not have a military template. The Cold War article, which can also be seen as similar to the War on Terror, is also without a military template. They can both be seen as political policies, as opposed to primarily military ones - • The Giant Puffin • 15:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, maybe it's best to create a different type of infobox for this page. - PietervHuis (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No , there should not be such an infobox. The "war on terror" isn't a military conflict just like the "war on drugs" isn't, even it if entails individual military conflicts (that already have their own infoboxes). "war on X" is simply a figure of speech used by government. If you look at the box, the right column makes no sense becuase it places Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden on the same side. However, they never were on the same side. They were simply two random unrelated enemies of the US. The column gives the false impression that they were allies or that they were fighing for the same cause. Cambrasa (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Precisely, the WoT is far too complex a conflict to be summarized in an infobox. Use an infobox for specific military engagements where the basic facts are discrete and generally agreed upon. Fritter (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

War on Terrorism
U.S. Soldiers boarding a CH-47 Chinook helicopter in Afghanistan during Operation Anaconda in the Shahi-Kot Valley and Arma Mountains southeast of Zormat.
Date October 7 2001 – present Locations of military operations Middle East, South Asia, Southeast Asia, Horn of Africa, United States, United Kingdom, Europe, more...
Participants / Targets
United States United Kingdom Pakistan Israel China Afghanistan Ethiopia Algeria Philippines Germany Netherlandset. al	al-Qaeda Taliban Baathist Iraq Baath Party Loyalists Islamic Courts Union
Military casualties and losses
~25,500 dead ~51,600+ Injured More...	~54,114 to 58,864+ dead More...
Civilian casualties
Several hundred thousand civilians killed worldwide (exact number unclear, many accidental resulting from bombings.

As I said, I would preferer to have it gone altogether, but as this is against the wishes of some editors I have drafted an alternative infobox. It is based on the military infobox, and is still focused on the military operations, but it has been reworded to keep in mind that it is not a solely military conflict and that it is not a traditional "war" with clear sides (the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq could probably class as wars, but this is a more general article). Apart from the visual changes some fields have been renamed in the templates to better reflect this specific use. Comments? Any alterations?--Sir Anon (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, this looks great to me.Top Gun

When I said a different infobox I meant a completely different infobox, not of a war, but simply one that lists the campaigns of the war on terrorism. - PietervHuis (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest not evening putting a info box in. This whole thing is exactly like the War on Drugs. Would a military info box be appropriate on that article? БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 23:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I added some citations and cleaned up a few others in the infobox, in case this example above is dropped into the article. Alcarillo (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

To Pietervhuis and BonesBrigade - this is a highly controversial issue that has been going on for months. Any major changes are difficult.--Sir Anon (talk) 10:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Outside view from a westerner: NO, and for the record I don't think there should be one for Cold War article. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Abu Sayyaf and MILF is part of the war on terror

Abu Sayyaf, Rajah Soliman and Moro Islamic Liberation Front is part of War on Terror (who else do you think the Philippines is fighting!?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.180.86 (talk) 04:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As the introduction clearly states, this article is not on terrorism in general, it is on the American campaign that is called "War on Terrorism". For the general article see: Terrorism.--Sir Anon (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Question: so you mean that the Americans are not fighting Abu Sayyaf or MILF? If so what do you think the Americans are doing in my dad`s country (Philippines) I thought that was the only reason they are there. PS:my mom is American so thats why I didnt put my parents country, just incase u/anyone is wondering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.180.86 (talk) 03:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The War on Terrorism chiefly refers to the United States' actions in the Middle Eastern theater as a response to the September 11th attacks; the Phillipines actions, as far as I know, are a separate campaign. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 04:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Not true. The article clearly articulates that the WoT campaign extends well beyond the Middle East. Indeed, this was mentioned from the outset -- see this source (note 1 in the article), and this PDF from 2003 (note #26). Moreover, with regard to the Philippines, the United States has been quite active there, and not just engaged by proxy through the Philippine government. Check out this article for more details on the proposed scope of US involvment, also here and here for details about how the US is directly engaged. Alcarillo (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Whole article needs to be re-done

This whole article is rubbish. The section "criticism of the war on terror" needs to be deleted. InTheRed (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? Why is this war not allowed to be criticized? After all, we want to present a "fair and balanced" treatment of it. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 03:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree w/ Veinor. This is about a very significant topic that has (for better or worse) guided the foreign polices of nearly every country and non-state actor. So naturally, there is going to be dissent over the strategy and execution of the GWoT. Moreover, there is an entire article devoted to it: Criticism of the War on Terrorism. Perhaps the section here should be pared down? Alcarillo (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is too long as it is. Since there is separate article devoted to criticism why not just post a link? By the way I think the article shows the war on terror from a left wing bias.InTheRed (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The general principle is to at least include a certain amount of criticism in the main article; otherwise, people will tend not to see it, via the old 'out of sight, out of mind' principle. People tend not to clickthrough to links, they just read the main article. It's a subtle psychological effect, but it's still there.

As for your perceived left-wing bias, I think that the article is at least fairly balanced. Though my viewpoint is of course tainted due to my own left-wing bias. Indeed, articles like this are probably some of the hardest to balance. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

ENOUGH WITH THE CHANGING!

Now that a source is up that shows Russia are in the war against terrorism, it is no right to move it. See? There is a source! Now stop with the changing!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamlin Hodgkinson (talk • contribs) 10:12, 16 April 2008

The only "source" I saw you inserting was a strange mess of words, which I removed. But that's irrelevent, no "source" can change the fact that the whole Chechen mess started half a decade before the American mess.--Sir Anon (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This is totally biased. It's shame so many people will be uninformed. The war in Iraq has some positive aspects to it. How about a country being liberated from a tyrant who killed his own people. No you people only want to bash America and the Bush administration and put us under a harsh light. It's very disappointing, I can't place anything positive in this article without it being deleted 5 minutes later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.97.157 (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You're removing sourced criticism of the article without any explanation; you're merely stating that the al Qaeda-Iraq link is disputed without providing any evidence that it is so. You're also removing the entire 'Casualties' section; why is this information not appropriate? Basically, you're removing sourced information without providing any sort of adequate reason. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

'Perpetual war' issue

Since the edit summary is neither adequate nor intended for discussion, I wanted to address more fully the reason why I removed the reference to perpetual war in the introduction. The statement it was removed from posits that there is criticism of the GWoT because it justified perpetual war. However, none of the sources for that passage even mentioned perpetual war. One editor did find an op-ed piece that talks about perpetual war (referred to as 'eternal war') and added it to the text (thanks, BTW), but I found that to be an inadequate for several reasons.

One was that, as an op-ed piece, it expresses the author's opinion that the US government is engaging in perpetual war. Another, it was focused almost entirely on drawing analogy between a fictional representation of perpetual war (Orwell) and the Iraq War. It doesn't go far enough to argue the case that the GWoT = perpetual war. Surely there are policy papers or scholarly essays that that have approached this issue.

While I'm on the subject (which is slightly OT, I admit), there are problems with the article on perpetual war as well. I think if a case were to be made here that critics of the GWoT are labeling it a perpetual war then that article's glaringly non-encyclopedic content needs to be addressed. Alcarillo (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What about Australia, Canada and New Zealand

Can someone please put Canada Australia and New Zealand on the military infobox. I mean arent they part of the war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.180.86 (talk) 03:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. What is the criterion (or criteria) for that list of involved nations? I think Canada is definitely identified as part of the "war on terror" in Afghanistant, considering its very high level of involvement. Srnec (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Canada is not one of the "Belligerents", they didn't not join the US in the Iraq invasion, and are only in Afghanistan as peace keepers. pjh3000 (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Commanders

Tommy Franks retired in 2003. Given how that section hasn't been updated in what looks like 5 years, I'd check on the other commanders in the list as well.71.167.90.246 (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Rendering Wikipedia Redundant

Once Internet2 steamrolls over its predecessor, and only the gatekeepers and bootlickers have access to it, Wikipedia will be rendered redundant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamNZDat (talk • contribs) 16:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Proof of Russias involvment

Here is an article that Russia is part of the war on terror [13]. Now can someone pls put Russia in the infobox?

I support that --TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Move criticisms to "critics" section

From the first paragraph, it's obvious that this article was written by critics of the war. "...stated to be a response to the September 11 attacks"; "According to the government..."; "critics argue..." All reasonable people know that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would not have occurred but for 9/11. I suggest keeping the article factual and moving criticisms to a "critics" section or to an entirely different article altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave148109 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

War on terrorism

I'm going to include the list of countries that this article say is part of the war on terrorism

   * 4.1 Africa
         o 4.1.1 Horn of Africa 
   * 4.2 Europe
   * 4.3 Middle East
         o 4.3.1 Iraq
         o 4.3.2 Lebanon
         o 4.3.3 Saudi Arabia
         o 4.3.4 Gaza Strip/ West Bank
   * 4.4 Central Asia/South Asia
         o 4.4.1 Republic of India
         o 4.4.2 Afghanistan
         o 4.4.3 Pakistan
               + 4.4.3.1 Waziristan
   * 4.5 Southeast Asia
         o 4.5.1 Indonesia
         o 4.5.2 Philippines
   * 4.6 North America
         o 4.6.1 United States of America

How was this list compiled , it would appear any conflict with Islamic connects is now being added which is WP:OR. What are the criteria to be part of this war from my point of view this article reflects the US lead war which has taken place in Afghanistan,Iraq Gnevin (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, whats the differnence?!

I think Al-Qaeda in Iraq should be taken off the list and just stick with Al-Qaeda. Because Al-Qaeda is all over the world and Al-Qaeda in Iraq is just the same terrisot group its just saying its in Iraq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConnorIBurnett (talk • contribs) 21:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

U.S. foreign policy too tough

Shouldn't be like that.

U.S. soldiers & citizens deserve a better political command structure & friendlier foreign policy; where military intelligence comes from the Department of Defense and not the C.I.A. . It doen't say anywhere in the U.S. constitution that power is vested with the C.I.A. and it shouldn't, so the U.S. needs a reform towards the better. America is supposed to be a free country not a fascist country, people who disagree with this don't belong in America.

Here are some words rarely heard of but which are relivant to the war on terror.

War on Terror: Discrimination of Social Exclusion, Combating poverty, Scientific & technological advance over the enemy. This is exaclty what is happening in Iraq & Afghanistan, but these are actually quotes from the European constitution.

So who is the U.S. military to follow the E.U. constitution?

Next thing you know, Europeans blame it on America. But the U.S. constitution would not do such a thing, so these are all lies, money & false premises to go to war.

Become a better person and show some respect.

Phalanx Pursos 17:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Help needed from graphics-savvy: Pictures floating on text

The graphics in the mid-top of the page (see under heading "use of phrase...") are floating on the text. Grr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EBY3221 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Vietnam

I dont think Vietnam is actually part of the war on terror. I mean their actually neutreal. Sure their doing joint counter-terrorist operations with the Philippines but thats only to strengthen diplomatic relations between the Philippines and Vietnam. If any thing Vietnam is actually an ally of China, North Korea, Belarus and (possibly) Iran, 3 countries which are potential enemies of the US, Philippines, South Korea, Japan and NATO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.107.236 (talk) 04:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Just something I heard

I've heard from a friend that a group of almost 5000 soldiers in Iraq are refusing to fight the Iraqis. They have gone completely AWOL and they are being hunted down (but so far not found) by other Iraqi troops. I'm not sure if this is true, but if it is, it's definetely worth noting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.139.17 (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Read the WP rule on reliable sources. If you find a publication that states such a fact, come back.--NYCJosh (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Alongside "The Axis of Evil!1111 muahahaha!", an outright propaganda term

An insult of intelligence the criticism section to not include the COUNTLESS of instances in Media calling it an outright propaganda term, going alongside that trash and insult of intelligence of the average person with half a brain "Axis of EVIL!!1". --Leladax (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

battle box

Can we add NATO and/or ISAF? And the KIA list on the war box i know a lot of people have die in the current conflict but it make it seem it's mostly American Anglo were killed.--66.229.12.186 (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

As this article is on the war from 2001, and not just current situation, this link, Operation Enduring Freedom Allies, contains useful info. To just have the US, UK and Pakistan is not enough. Chwyatt (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama as Terror Leader ?

Why is Barrack Obama listed as a Leader of the "Confederate States of America" ? Maybe someone should lock this article as it seems to be tampered with alot. 91.3.232.223 (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's vandalism don't worry i took care of it. If you find more BS about that kind of stuff fell free to delete it.

List of sources

FYI, a list of sources on this subject can be found here: [14]. Cla68 (talk) 03:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Spelling of al-Qaeda

Seriously, I've seen at least 4 different variations of the spelling here. I know a consensus can be tricky, but can we at least be consistent? 209.105.207.74 (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Who cares how it's spelled if we all know what it means? --TrekCaptainUSA (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait what the Heck?!

Hey people yeah..... akward but does anyone know how to take a picture from an article here and put it up on say myspace? Sorry I know this isnt relevant but I know Ill get an answer fast on this article--Lord Haw Haw29 (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The Effects Section

I noticed that the effects just have two sub-headings underneath the section, but no content. Was this intentional, or has nobody came forward with information? -- TrekCaptainUSA (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge with war on terror

The war on terror article does not present sufficient information to stand on its own. As it pertains to a British objection to the phrase "war on terrorism", it makes most sense to merge it into the corresponding section on this article. Neelix (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

You can't call someone terrorist on Wikipedia even if 99% of world population believe so. I recommend you to read NPOV policy again. Here is a start.--Abuk78 (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial; for examples and explanations that illustrate key aspects of this policy, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ."

Welcome to the jungle Wikipedia, where beautiful theory often fails to turn into reality. NPOV sounds nice and all, but have a look at the discussions above and the other beautiful theory of consensus to get a picture of why this page will never be NPOV.--Anon 12:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• So editors of this page decided who is terrorist and who is not and other other editors silence means consensus? Then why not prepare a category called Wikipedia:Terrorist organizations list which includes groups such as IRA, ETA, PKK, PJAK, Tamil Tigers etc. Wikipedia:Consensus can not and must not override the NPOV policy. Consensus policy says Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality. Name of this article has to be changed and the relevant pages need complete revision.--Abuk78 (talk) 01:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)