Jump to content

Talk:War on terror

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 75.31.106.58 (talk) at 03:20, 22 March 2011. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Somali PIRATES ARE TERRORISTS?

Since when did thieves become part of the war on terror? Somali pirates steal to live a lavish life, they have nothing to do with terrorism. could someone delete it pls? Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The war on terror is to reduce threats toward countries against terrorism. I think is to remove anything, that supposedly causes terror by being a threat, regardless whether it is for wealth (pirates) or revenge (insurgents). The pirates creates threats towards transporting ships and makes them a source of terror. 66.183.59.211 (talk) 08:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A "source of terror" - yes. Do they belong in this particular article, which is focused on the "War on Terror" stemming from the events of 9/11? IMO: nope. Just sayin'... Doc9871 (talk) 08:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"A source of terror" is not the same thing as being a terrorist. The Somali pirates do not meet the definitions of a terrorist as given in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist#Types_of_Terrorism. They are thieves. They do not use "terror" as a coercive political tool, it is solely based on monetary gain.Jbower47 (talk) 13:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the war against pirates is part of Operation Enduring Freedom, then it is considered part of the War on Terror by the US Gov't, and since the US Gov't coined the War on Terror, and since the War on Terror is US-led, if the US Gov't considers it part of the War on Terror, it should probably be part of the article. Also, the first sentence of the Wikipedia article on terrorism says, "Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion." It doesn't specify political goals. To continue on this, in the section cited by Jbower47, there are actually types of terrorism described that are non-political, such as "Terrorism that is not aimed at political purposes but which exhibits “conscious design to create and maintain a high degree of fear for coercive purposes, but the end is individual or collective gain rather than the achievement of a political objective,” " which is called Non-Political Terrorism by that article. Finally, according to the U.S. Navy, Combined Task Force 150, an international force created to fight piracy carries out operations which "complement the counterterrorism and security efforts of regional nations," showing that there is an international consensus that piracy is terrorism.Supergeek1694 (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's why we have articles on Terrorism and Counter-terrorism. This article is supposed to be about the reaction to 9/11, and should not be expanded beyond that; other articles can be created. Pirates hijacking ships off the coast of Somalia to feed their starving families in a basically lawless country ten years after the fact have nothing to do with 9/11. Jus' sayin'... Doc talk 04:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But it is classified by the United States--the country that basically runs the war on terror--part of said war. Also, just because something can be argued to be not linked to 9/11, that does not mean that it is not part of the war on terror. Many debate how much the war in Iraq is related to 9/11, but it is widely considered to be part of the war on terror.Supergeek1694 (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is badly in need of repair and has been for a long time. We simply cannot confuse "War on Terror" with "War on Terrorism" - it's been done and has been corrected. We cannot have every terrorist "event" post-9/11 in this article, and it needs even more "culling". The Shoe Bomber? He was attempting to blow up an airplane over U.S. soil on behalf of al-Qaeda shortly after 9/11: he qualifies for inclusion in this article. Muhammad/Malvo? No chance. Pirates who hijack any ship from any nation in their waters? It's piracy. Rather than expand this article to something it was not intended to be, we need to keep it focused. I'm glad you're talking here, Supergeek1694, as there are 740+ "watchers" of this page besides you and I who don't seem to want to speak up. Anybody out there besides us two? Come on, now... Doc talk 05:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen it seriously suggested that the Somali pirates are supporting terrorists, much less that they're terrorists themselves. As such, I agree with excluding them from the article. Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I could possibly hope for a better opinion: administrator, 14 FA's, military expert... and "troutable"! Thank you, sir :> Doc talk 07:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading the article in question and in the military section it does mention the war on terror under its connect to the subject under CTF 150, and is also mentioned in the article Operation Enduring Freedom – Horn of Africa. Therefore, the idea that piracy in the waters off Somalia is somehow connected to the War on Terror does not appear to be without merit. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The trappings of success may be new, but piracy has been a problem in Somali waters for at least 10 years - when Somali fishermen began losing their livelihoods."[1] The situation of pirates in Somalia is not terrorism: it is piracy for economic reasons. If they were blowing up boats and people in the name of some "cause" it would be one thing, but they instead are robbing them and holding them hostage for ransom for their own economic gain. Piracy has been around for a very long time, whereas terrorism is a relatively new concept. And its connection to the events of 9/11 that sparked the War on Terror is something I firmly fail to see. Perhaps the articles mentioned should be changed to reflect that as well... Doc talk 21:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That maybe the case; however, given the introduction of the article, which defines the scope of the article, seeing as how a Operation Enduring Freedom mission is ongoing that is directly connected to piracy in the region then it should be included. To maintain a neutral POV both sides of the matter should be included with appropriate references placed in the article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some powerful pirates want fame and terror, and enjoy being well known and feared throughout nearby societies. There are definitely pirates who deliberately cause terror, and therefor pirates should at least be mentioned. Not all pirates want to cause terror, and neither do most Middle Eastern terrorists; many of them simply want pay from organizations since they're homeless and starving due to war, or want revenge for their friends accidentally killed. Even if not everyone regards pirates as terrorists, they are still related to the war on terror in the sense that measures against them in Somalia has been taken regarding the war on terror. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 08:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add a section on Hamas and Hezbollah

These two groups should be added as Western Allie Israel is fighting against terrorist tacks from both groups.Nbaka is a joke (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Britain is fighting agains the real IRA, should they be added too?Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they should but the fact that two islamic terroor groups responsible for deaths in several countires is a major ommission.Nbaka is a joke (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas fights INSIDE a country that they run themselves. They only shoot on the soldiers coming into Palestine. Hizbollah got support of the government in Lebanon. The Israeli bombings and building of settlements in Gaza, West Bank, South Lebanon, East Jerusalem and all the other places. To shoot on soldiers that comes into their own country, is that terror?! So when the USA invaded Grenada, the Grenadan government shall be called terrorists because they shot against the USA? And when the SSSR invaded Czechoslovakia, the Czechoslovaks should be regarded as terrorists because they shot against the SSSR? I haven't heard that the Gaza War is a part of the War On Terror either. Here Hamas and Hizbollah both stays as "allied with Al-Qaeda and Taliban". None of them got any relations with any of the group. Citation please? (for that Hamas and Hizbollah got positive relations with Al-Qaeda/Taliban?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.113.91.110 (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hamas and Hizbollah are widely considered terrorist organizations. I don't think that this is the place for a political discussion, but there's a difference between firing on Israeli soldiers, and bombing Israeli civilians, which has also been done and is the main reason for their classification as terrorists.Supergeek1694 (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, for those of you uncertain, rule of thumbs: INSURGENTS = TERRORISTS. Hamas and Hizbollah are clearly insurgents as they use irregular tactics, and therefore terrorists. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 08:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add the Netherlands to NATO belligerents

I see that the Netherlands are missing from the list of NATO belligerents. The Netherlands operated in both Iraq and Afghanistan and is named several times throughout the article so I think they should be added. Armorad (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Kingdom of Regano to List of Beligerents

There is a small island in the Pacific that has contributed to the war by sending troops to support NATO actions. Thanks--67.126.87.201 (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Typo

Hi, I just wanted to tell you guys that in the caption for the page image, Afghanistan is spelled wrong on one of the lines. It says "Afghanistam" instead.
Corrected - see below. It's really a shame it took so long to correct this: it looked extremely unprofessional as it was. Cheers :> Doc talk 19:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for re-write

This article has numerous issues that merit attention. Therefore, it has been tagged with a request for re-write. Some of the deficiencies that motivated this request are as follows:

  1. It appears that the article is documenting a phrase as initiated by a United States president, but there do not appear to be any citations connecting phrase to any legal, social, or historic foundation of presidential authority. Consequently, there is nothing to establish this article's use of the phrase as encyclopedic, other than its basis as a well-established U.S. political catch-phrase, similar to "Axis of Evil".
  2. It appears that none of the cited references define the terms: "Terrorism" and "Global Terrorism" within the context of this article. This is a serious deficiency, since there is no scholarly, legal, structural, social, textual, ethical or logical basis to distinguish which operations against "Terrorism" by which world governments (or organizations of any size) merit inclusion in this article.
  3. It appears that the article does not include any reference to the economic, psychological, political, social and legal categories of operations and structures that can be equally associated with this catch-phrase, and instead focuses narrowly on military deployments of combat troops. On that basis, the article title should at least be re-considered, since it does not even seem to authoritatively address the various elements associated with the political catch-phrase.
  4. It appears that no one has offered a citation containing a singular authoritative definition of the term, apart from its existence as a well-known catch-phrase. Absent this, there is no foundation for establishing a Neutral Point of View. An authoritative definition of the concept "War on Terror" is absolutely essential for:
    1. 1) evaluating the credibility of the citations offered in support of the broader concept as presented in this article;
    2. 2) evaluating the accuracy and internal consistency of the content of the article itself; and
    3. 3) establishing the fundamental purpose of the article and its direction, independently of the purposes and motivations of those who may view the undefined catch-phrase as either favorable or unfavorable.

For these reasons and others, this article and its contents may merit review. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, a reminder, maintain a Neutral POV when editing this page. This article is very well cited by reliable sources or linked to articles that maybe considered sub-articles which they themselves are well referenced by reliable source. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings RightCowLeftCoast, thanks for publishing that reminder. Do you know of any reliable source that defines "Terrorism" and "Global Terrorism", for the purposes of this article, in order to establish a baseline for what actions by which world organizations of any variety merit inclusion in this article? dr.ef.tymac (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thankfully the Terrorism article is relatively well cited, there is an article about terrorist events, Patterns of Global Terrorism; also if you're POV is towards documented alleged state sponsored events which others consider terrorism by the United States, there is an article for that.
However, this article based on its defined parameters/scope set forth in the lead and the first section is specific to the current conflict between the United States and her allies (current and previously active) against certain organizations that adhere to a form of militant Islam. Therefore, although it doesn't speak about terrorism itself, or the alleged reasons one side of the conflict has state for why they choose to use a certain tactic, within its scope it is sufficient. Furthermore, there appears to be sub-articles that already exist that address your concern, including the one linked in the criticism section. I hope this helps. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT REQUEST

in the box underneath the picture on the right, it says "Afganistam" when it should say "Afganistan" which it later says several times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.208.85 (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Good catch! Doc talk 18:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Title of page

Currently it says on top of the page "The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject" : if that is the case, which after reading the entire page - it sure is. Why is the page not titled "American War on Terror" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LorienN (talk • contribs) 19:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a long-standing topic of debate, and a perusal of the archives of this page will show that. This move came during a massive cleanup of the article, as it was really a bloated mess before many changes were made to it. JokerXtreme (talk · contribs) (who unfortunately hasn't worked on it in awhile) helped with this, and I wish he would return :<. The "War on Terror" was a term that President Bush used, and the article should remain focused on that: the reaction following the 9/11 attacks on American soil. I hope further clarification is unneeded, and I truly hope that it doesn't become a quagmire of unrelated conflicts against terrorism like it previously was. Doc talk 20:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Post 9/11events inside the United States

Per this discussion, it was previously determined that the Muhammad/Malvo DC sniper attacks and the Ford Hood killings were not related to the War on Terror but rather "spree killings" unrelated to either 9/11 or the War on Terror. I am dismayed to see them back here: and I intend to remove them again. The recent shootings in Arizona - should we add them as well? This is the problem that the article faced before the cleanup, and we don't need these things here. Anyone have any input on this issue? It's been decided by consensus before to keep them out of this article, and I have no problem boldly removing them (as well as the picture of the caskets of the victims of the Fort Hood shootings) once again. Thank you. Doc talk 20:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks sensible to me Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clear NPOV violation

This article was tagged for re-write and neutrality problems, those tags were removed, but it appears that the underlying substantial NPOV issues have not been addressed, rendering this article inconsistent with WP:NPOV. Please resolve the following before removing the NPOV flag.

Foremost, please note this is not intended as an invitation to political discussion either for or against a particular viewpoint on the subject matter of this article. I love my country and honor those who do the difficult and solemn work of defending her against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. This issue is not about my personal views, however, but about Wikipedia policy.

At issue: What is this article about?

  1. ) The catch-phrase initiated and made famous by a United States president
  2. ) The literal fight against the concept/tactic of Terror and the international deployment of military assets to combat and eradicate this concept/tactic
  3. ) Both of the above

If this article is about 1) only, then clearly the content of the article in its present state is misleading, and incapable of neutrality, since it documents an international military campaign as combating the concept/tactic of terrorism, with no neutral basis for impartially documenting how the military operations factually coincide with the meaning of the catch-phrase. It would be like taking the article Axis of evil and then trying to document how the nations described by that catch-phrase are actually, in fact, evil.

If this article is about 2) only, then clearly the content of the article is irrevocably inconsistent with WP:NPOV, unless and until a reasonable, neutral, and logically-consistent argument can be made for why a politically contentious and U.S.-U.K. centric viewpoint of an international issue merits any more prominence than other viewpoints on this international issue. If it is truly possible to have a neutral Wikipedia article on the use of military force to eradicate the concept/tactic of terrorism, then it should be possible for a disinterested third-party to read the article and honestly say that it does not give favorable bias toward any organization or nation affected by the concept/tactic of terrorism. I do not see how such an article could possibly be neutral, consistent with Wikipedia policy.

If this article is about 3) (both) then clearly the content of the article is beyond repair, because there is no supporting neutral definition of either terrorism or the war on terrorism that can allow a disinterested editor to determine which military operations by which world organizations or groups merit inclusion in this article. More organizations and nations are affected by terror than just the U.K. and U.S. If a neutral definition of this concept is even possible at all, then it would necessarily have to include definitions that may not coincide with the opinions of any given president or leader of any given nation.

For these reasons and others, this article should at least be flagged as an NPOV violation, and remain so until someone can actually address these issues. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the previous consensus, that appears to be changing with time, is that this article was about several things:
  1. ) The terminology of the statement made by Former President Bush
  2. ) The conflicts that began during the previous administration's term, in part or directly due to the attacks on September 11th 2001, that it had defined under either Operation Enduring Freedom (and its sub-operations) and/or Operation Iraqi Freedom (which is debatable whether it is a separate or connected conflict depending on ones POV). The primary opponent for the operations were those directly connected to, or related to Al Qaeda (usually Islamists).
Due to the nature of that previous consensus scope of the article (or at least as I understood it), and the differing opinions/POVs that related with the article's scopes events (irregardless of how NPOV one attempted to have while editing) the article ended up as it is today. By the previous scope the article was going to be centered around an American/Anglo/Western/NATO point of view, as the conflicts that would be included within the consensus would be tagged as such by them.
Obviously because of the controversy relating around all parts of the conflict there is significant room to dispute all of it.
There is also, or at least was, a similar debate regarding the scope of World War II, some placing the start date with the beginning of the Second Sino-Japanese War, others with the initiation with open conflict in Europe, and same goes with the end date, with various sources recognizing various end dates (whether it be VJ-Day, the signing of the Treaty of San Francisco, or as recently as the end of the Allied Control Council). However because there has been more time to debate the matter amongst historians, and that certain conflicts are compartmentalized within the general terminology, there is less argument regarding what conflicts fall under the general term. Thus, since this is either an ongoing, or recently concluded conflict (depending on your POV (as we have seen in recent edits that removed the tags and changed the introduction paragraph)), the definition of what is covered under the general term is up for a greater amount of debate, and thus why it is hard to maintain a consensus (as users come and go, active users to the article change, etc.) as to what the scope of this article should be. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Points well taken, perhaps a suitable approach is this: allow the article to remain flagged for neutrality concerns, and take no otherwise adverse action against the content of the article, so that interested parties and the article's principal contributors might have opportunity to step in and give input, and perhaps still obtain some measure of benefit for their work, despite the apparent difficulties. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That might be best. Personally, I am of the opinion due to the controversies surrounding this article's subject that there may never be a consensus as to what would maintain a neutral POV while keeping all the content (especially the well cited stuff) of this article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

War against Islam

I propose to merge War against Islam into this article. Rationale: 'War against Islam' is nothing more then an interpretation of War on Terror mostly because active warzones of the war on terror are located in predominantly Islamic countries. It should be located in paragraph 9 (criticism). --Pereant antiburchius (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly Oppose - The scope of this article is clearly defined, and although the main antagonist in the conflict (at least from the American POV) are Islamists that does not mean that the conflict is itself against Islam, the faith itself. That would be like saying an article about the criticisms of atheism should be merged into the Cold War because the Communists nations were officially the largest organized effort against religion. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The War on Terror is the ongoing military campaign by the US and Allies. The War on Islam is a "perceived campaign to harm, weaken or even annihilate the religion of Islam, using military, economic, social and cultural means". Open to inclusion of a reference under criticism that the War on Terrorism is percieved by some as part of a war against Islam itself. Also think that the opening line of the War on Islam page which refers only to the War on Terror is misleading, as the article itself is highlighting other causes such as: the crusades, western support for Israel, cartoon controversies, incidents in East Timor, actions by Serbia, Russia and India (none of whom are participants in the US-led War on Terror), etc. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Undo

I recently undid this addition, as I don't feel we need the "For more plots click [[Category:Failed_terrorist_attempts|here]]." It's just not necessary, IMHO. I almost undid the other addition by the same editor, as it seemed to be adding a lot of material at once without discussion. So, let's discuss! I've seen only a handful of editors comment here (thank the Lord for them), and it would be great to get some other opinions from some of the many watchers of this page. Where do we want the article to go? It changes from one main version to another, then changes again. Another "split" proposal? Thank you for your time :> Doc talk 01:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frankfurt

Should the recent shootings in Frankfurt be included in this article? If so should it be listed under the casualties section, like how the Fort Hood and Little Rock shootings are presently listed? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any secondary sources that describe it as part of the "War on Terror"? IQinn (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although sources generally agree the act was an act of terrorism, the largest support for it being considered as part of the "War on Terror" is its inclusion in the journal Foreign Policy's section on the War on Terror.
Also, even though some do not consider Fox News as a reliable source, it has been mentioned by one of its contributors as part of the War on Terror, in some smaller news sources, as well as by an interviewed service member. This expands when you consider "War on Terror" now has been replaced by the present administration's term "Overseas Contingency Operations".--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not hearing further objection, does this mean that we have consensus to add this event to this article? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope no consensus but i am not going to edit war for that one. :) Feel free to add it. This article is anyway almost ridiculous and there is no "War on terror" under Obama. IQinn (talk) 12:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libyan Civil War

Should US/NATO/UN intervention in the Libyan Civil War be included in this category? Gaddafi has historically been an enemy of the U.S., and there has been renewed talk and speculation of Gaddafi renewing his past support for terrorism and restarting his nuclear program if he wins this civil war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.106.58 (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_on_terror&oldid=420087090"