Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zer0faults (talk | contribs) at 12:50, 3 July 2006 (→[]?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Military history: British / Canadian / European / French / North America / United States Start‑class

This page is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale. This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Associated task forces: /  British military history task force Canadian military history task force European military history task force French military history task force North American military history task force United States military history task force

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:TrollWarning Template:FAOL

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2
Archive 3

Oil as motivation for the war

Bush said several times that he believed that Iraq was associated with terrorism, which he used to emphasize why an Iraq with WMD's would be a nightmare. Now some intelligence is looking dodgy, and the White House has mysteriously shifted the motive to bringing democracy to Iraq. Still, it began as Part II of the War on Terror. (Not an official designation, my term for it--Afghanistan being Part I) Sir Elderberry 02:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I added the following criticism:

• Many have argued that the invasion of Iraq was intended primarily to stabilize and better control a region crucial to the world's oil supplies. "President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that 'Iraq remains a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US 'military intervention' is necessary." . Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world (Saudi Arabia has the largest reserves).

However, User:Copperchair seems to be unconvinced, since he's been reverting any attempts to put oil as one of the motivations for the invasion of Iraq. It is very easy to find references to the fact that many people think that the main motivation for the war in Iraq was oil. I included one link to a recent reference. What is the problem, User:Copperchair? What are the arguments? Luiscolorado 15:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

That this article is not about the Iraq war. Put that information where it belongs. Copperchair 02:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. This criticism is wide-spread and worthy of inclusion in the article. User:Copperchair, there is now an uncited section on oil and Afghanistan, which it seemed you wanted. However, as this article discusses both Afghanistan and Iraq, criticism about military action in either is fair game for inclusion in this section. You said: "The criticism section is for the War on Terrorism (Afghanistan)." Do you want references that refer to Iraq as part of the "War on Terror"? Do you oppose other parts of the article that refer to Iraq as part of the War on Terror? btm 08:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

This article only mentions that the War on Terrorism was an excuse to attack Iraq. I do not oppose other parts of the article that refer to Iraq as part of the War on Terror, as long as it is noted that it is controversial to include the war in Iraq as part of the War on Terrorism. Copperchair 02:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

So, Copperchair, let me see:

1. According to you, arguments against the war on Iraq should not be included here, because the Iraq War should not be considered part of the War on Terrorism. 2. A group of people (the US Government) affirms that the War on Iraq is part of the War on Terror. On the other hand, many people affirm that the War on Iraq didn't really address terrorism.

According to my point 2, the War on Terror was an excuse to invade Iraq, right? So, if we are argumenting against the War on Terror, shouldn't we put also the pseudo-reasons (terror), and the actual reasons (oil)?

I'm going to put it trying to follow your arguments. Let me see what you think, Copperchair. Luiscolorado 15:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

---

okay, so the fact that he makes critism validates it entirely. He is criticizing the war. It's not our job to censor that.

Scope of the War on Terror

If the first paragraph says this is the term used by the US Gov. and it's allies, shouldn't the US Gov. be able to define it, and include Iraq? Not including it seems incredibly POV. Including it, in a separate section of the article, INCLUDING the objections to its classification as part of the GWOT would seem to be the most NPOV thing possible. JG of Borg 04:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

My edit was NPOV - I restored it slightly reworded, but I maintain it was NPOV, though the entire Iraq debacle on this page (heck, on this site!) is clearly written from a liberal POV.

The ones that include Iraq as part of the War on Terrorism or support that illegal war are imperialistic fascists. The International Law was violated by the US when it invaded Iraq without a real motive (other than oil). If they read the UN Charter they would realize this. Copperchair 02:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not even saying that the war in Iraq (originally) should be part of the war on terrorism, I can concede that. However, if people can't realize that fighting members of al-Qaeda, no matter where they are, which is what is going on right now in Iraq, is by definition fighting terrorism, and thus part of the War on Terror... then there's nothing I can do to make them realize that. JG of Borg 15:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

There - I wrote a nice piece on the fight against Iraqi insurgents, some from al-Qaida.. JG of Borg 16:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks LeeHunter, for helping my edit get to the point. JG of Borg 19:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi JG,

If I may ask, do you think that every member of al-Qaeda is a terrorist? Regards, Ben Aveling 03:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Is that a rhetorical question? By definition, a member of a terrorist organization is a terrorist, no? JG of Borg 05:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

No, perfectly serious question and a perfectly good answer.

Would you then accept that Bin Laden's tea lady (lets assume he has one) is a terrorist?

Regards, Ben Aveling 06:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for my tone - yes, she is aiding and abetting a terrorist. Honestly, I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone associated with al-Qaeda... if bin Laden didn't have a tea lady, that'd make things harder for him. Same for a driver, physician, or an English teacher for his son, etc... They're all supporters of terrorism, they enable it to continue... and quite honestly, if one ended up in Gitmo, they'd deserve it. We actually had a constitutional rights lawyer come give a talk at my university that asked the exact same question... and he acted as if people like that were totally innocent bystanders. Terrorists depend on those people, who in turn are terrorists. IMO, of courseJG of Borg 06:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Then I guess my next two questions are:

1. what defines a terrorist organisation?
2. can an organisation have more than one purpose?

Regards, Ben Aveling 07:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Where are you going with this? A terrorist organization's primary purpose is to promote terror, either by killing, or threatening, or any other means they have. Sure, an organization can have more than one purpose. Suppose al-Qaeda had a humanitarian wing, as if- people who want to do good things as a part of that wing though are still terrorists, as they are members of an organization whose primary purpose is terror. al-Qeada, though, has no such redeeming qualities. JG of Borg 16:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

--Sorry for jumping in here, but according to the definition above, the US Government, the president, the people who voted for them and even the people who didnt vote for them are terrorists. For also according to the definition above, to attack innocent people without ligimate cause, kill thousands of innocent civilians, knock down their buildings, hold them without charge (kidnap), torture..... these are all acts of terorism. Be careful at your descriptions of what you believe terrorism to be, as the idea can work both ways. The "War on Terror" (or TWOT) can very quickly become "The war OF Terror". Just an observation.

-Richard

I'm suggesting that most things don't have sharp boundaries, including terrorism, including innocence and guilt, and very much including the war on terror.

Were I to I accept your above definition (A terrorist organisation's primary purpose is to promote terror...) I would not be able to accept that Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organisation - which it is. My sense is that al-Qaeda's primary objective is to remove foreign influence from Saudia Arabia and install itself as government. Secondary objectives are to remove foreign influence from other Arab countries, and other Muslim countries. Another, still lower priority objective is to conquer the whole world and subject it to Muslim rule.

In each of those objectives, Terror is a means to an end, not an objective in itself.

I think you can see where I’m coming from?

Regards, Ben Aveling 20:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I think I see what you mean. I still believe that anyone affiliated with Al-Qeada is a terrorist, as they are a member of a terrorist organization. So, what does this mean in the context of the article? JG of Borg 22:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

It comes back to the scope of the WOT. For example, should the whole of the Iraq war be included? Just the second part of it? None of it?

If by WOT we mean War on al-Qaeda, then I would think that we mean only that part of the Iraq war after al-Q became involved, and maybe not all of that. Anything else would be background material.

I don't think that outcome would please anyone.

CopperChair's POV, if I understand it correctly, is that the insurgents fighting in Iraq should not be considered as terrorists, in the same way that a school janitor is not considered a teacher, even though their contribution to teaching is important. And therefore, none of the war in Iraq should be considered part of the war on terror. (Copperchair, is that a fair representation?)

To me, that doesn't feel sensible either. To me, the war on al-Qaeda and the war in Iraq overlap, and the war on terror is bigger than both of them put together.

For example, some of the objectives of "Bush's war", such as promoting democracy abroad, have nothing to do with preventing terror. That leads me to think that either we should find another label instead of "war on terror", or we should accept that "war on terror" is only a label, one that approximately but not exactly defines what the war is about.

What do you think?

Regards, Ben Aveling 02:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to concede that the ant-terrorist grounds for the Iraq War were less than solid, though Operation Iraqi Freedom kind of overlaps with Operation Enduring Freedom. I do think the war was important and worthwhile, yes. The current anti-terrorism efforts in Iraq, post-Invasion, should be considered part of the War on Terror as they are against terrorist insurgents. I noticed Copperchair changed the link from Iraq War to Iraq - that's ok with me, because it lets people see what a difference we have made in Iraq in a nice, not quite as biased article as the Iraq War one. Personally, I don't think having a War on Terror article is fair to any of the operations or anti-terrorist activities, as they are all for somewhat different aims. That got a little long-winded... but overall, to sum it up, I think the current anti-terrorist fighting in Iraq does belong in this article as stands. JG of Borg 02:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Detentions at Guantanamo Bay

Many have suggested that all prisoners summarily executed by Military Tribunal. Who suggested that? 141.53.194.251 09:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

End of the War on Terror

I'd like to remove the whole "End of the War on Terror" section because it seems like a load of original research (i.e. a lot of tangential and unsupported musing). --Lee Hunter 03:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually I just noticed that this bit has a link to an opinion piece in the Washington Times so it's not exactly original research. Nevertheless this section is lifted almost verbatim from the one column and presented as if it represents the accumulated wisdom of "analysts" rather than a single opinion piece in a newspaper that has fairly serious credibility issues. --Lee Hunter 04:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Exaggeration of threats

Cut from intro:

terrorist threats have been exaggerated; ...

If they have (or someone outside Misplaced Pages claims this), let's have a sentence or two about this somewhere. Uncle Ed 19:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

-I would like to add that taking the statement "terrorist threats have been exaggerated" out is only your opinion and should not mean that everyone to see this page does not see this. Many feel that all of "9/11" is a setup by the United States of America's governing body.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.36.66.240 (talk • contribs)

It's true that many people do feel that terrorist threats have been exaggerated, including myself. But many more disagree, and we have to respect that.

BenAveling 07:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The biggest problem that I see not only with the article itself, but within this discussion is the overuse of the word "many." In most every case many should be replaced with some as many gives the false impression of a majority, since many is relative to something whereas some is not. There are not, as stated, many people that feel 9/11 was a setup by the United States...there are only some. 70.106.211.122 10:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

How do you prove or disprove that terrorism threats have been exaggerated? And (my opinion) how can you possibly make the claim when terrorism has advanced in scale and occurance since y2k? WTC/Pentagon, Madrid, Bali (multiple), London (multiple), Chechnyan attacks (I forget the school name)... exactly what on that list is "exaggerated"? Or did someone claim something worse? If so, what did they exaggerate? Did they claim that a nuke was set off in a major city? Minor city? Village? Is someone claiming that they didn't happen? (Similar to holocaust denial?)If you (whoever) make such a claim then support it with facts. - Tεxτurε 15:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Given that we are talking about the future threats that we don't know about, you can't prove or disprove very much at all. All we can do is look at what has happened in the past, adjust for changes that we know about and make a guess.

9/11 = less than 3000; Madrid, Bali 1, London, hundreds; Bali 2, a few 10s. Chechnya, Iraq, Afganistan don't (IMHO) count for this purpose, because that's us going to them, not them coming to us. Events in those places don't tell us much about the threat at home.

You can also look back to the Red Menace and the Black Panthers and Tim. McVeigh and other urban terrorists and again there is a real but low level threat.

Given all the measures that have been taken already, one would hope that we are safer than we used to be? And if not, we should ask if more of the same is what is needed?

So, assuming the future is much like the past, we are probably in for occasional loss of life in the tens and hundreds, maybe very occasionally thousands. Which is dreadful.

But everything that has been suggested so far would not have stopped London (cleanskins), or either Bali (overseas). And maybe not even 9/11 or Madrid (a few bits of hard data in a sea of noise).

So you have to balance the reduced (not eliminated) risk of an attack against the increased chance of abuse of powers. And we know that most cops and most politicans are good people, but we also know that there are always a few bad apples.

I personally don't think we've got that balance right, but that doesn't matter. I don't have to convince you that I'm right. And you don't have to convince me that you're right for me to respect your right to your POV. We just have to find a NPOV that we can all live with.

BenAveling 02:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Battle Box

Is the overall WOT worth a battle box?

Absolutey not! It's not a war. The so-called "war on terror" is a polical initiative. To put in a Battle Box would be an insult to actual battles that have taken place in proper wars. Arcturus 13:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Military/diplomatic campaigns

Note to self/wikignomes: This section would be nicer as a table.

Ben Aveling 07:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Opposition and criticism

Note to self/wikignomes: This section should be merged into the existing main article: Criticisms of the War on Terrorism and only a summary left here.

International Support

"At the same time, NATO and Russia intensified their cooperation."

I don't know what cooperation this is talking about, so I've chopped it.

I've chopped "reputation of the U.S. was severely harmed" because I don't see the connection between foregin governments going against their own public will and the us reputation.

I've introduced a few extra paragraph breaks.

I've trimmed the bit about which countries were members of the coalition of the willing, and made clear that a UN resolution was more of a symptom of agreement than anything else. I injected the word 'explicit' because some resolutions were claimed to /imply/ approval.

The Gitmo bay bit doesn't really seem to fit here, but I've left it anyway.

Regards, Ben Aveling 04:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

BenAveling -- You should not have removed "At the same time, NATO and Russia intensified their cooperation." Instead, this section should have been expanded. In the aftermath of September 11, Russia cooperated extensively with the United States. U.S. military flights were routed through Russian airspace to military bases in Central Asia. Military assistance was routed through these bases, culminating in the overthrow of the Taliban government in Afghanistan. At the same time, the U.S. position concerning the rebels in Chechnya also began to change to a position which was more supportive of the Russian government's view of Chechnya rebels as terrorists. The United States also expanded its military assistance to Georgia.

The entire section "International Support" should perhaps be relabeled "International Dimensions". The United States is not the only country which is fighting a war on terror, and the United States does not have have an exclusive right to define the dimensions of the war on terror. Other countries have, rightfully or wrongfully, pursued different wars on terror and it would be very interesting to compare and contrast these countries' wars on terror with the United States' war on terror.

While the above quotation may not have been cited, it is certainly not hard to verify. A Google search with the keywords "US Russia cooperation "war on terror" overflight" turned up over 10,000 hits, many of which describe increased cooperation between the US and Russia in the aftermath of 9/11. Two such links which were quickly found include: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011021-3.html http://www.rice.edu/energy/publications/docs/PEC_JaffeSoligo_10_2004.pdf

sidebar listing

i am mystified by the inclusion of 'Anarchist' in the types of terrorism section.

all the other links in this section go to specific articles about a particular brand of terrorism. this link goes straight to the article on Anarchism – this certainly leaves the impression that all anarchists are given the terrorist designation. perhaps the lack of a separate article indicates the worthiness of the link. there is a small section of Anarchism that relates to the short nineteenth century trend of Anarchism#Propaganda_by_the_deed which deals with this topic. i would be for deleting the link altogether, but a more accurate link would be better.

R7 23:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

sorry for the messiness, just getting to grips with wiki

Good point. I've fixed the sidebar template to add a new anarchist terrorism article (mostly lifted from anarchism). --Lee Hunter 01:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Medals and Decorations

Let's take a look at this logically:

Since 2002, CHECK the United States military CHECK has authorized several new military awards and decorations CHECK to recognize those who serve in the War on Terrorism. CHECK

The following awards are, *by definition*, classified as such by the aforementioned military service:

... Iraq Campaign Medal

Whether you consider it part of the war or not, the medal is, wait for it - classified as such by the aforementioned military service. Therefore, unless you can prove the U.S. Military does not consider them medal part of the category, which it is by definition (see the actual article), it fits. It (additionally) replaces the GWOT Expeditionary Medal.

See, it doesn't MATTER if you think the Iraq War is not part of the War on Terror. That is your POV. The U.S. Government considers it part of it. Therefore, it is NPOV to say that the medal is - wait for it, again - classified as such by the aforementioned military service. It is stating a fact, that the government considers it such, that is why it fits in the category. Please, stop removing a NPOV reference. JG of Borg 06:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

FACT - The fact that the US government considers it such is the POV of the government. However, FACT, regardless of the POV of the government, they are not God or some twisted communist government, and therefore, their opinion is not definitive, and does not represent the truth. Therefore, in reality, that medal is not based on the War on Terrorism, therefore it must be removed. Therefore, I will remove it, as wikipedia gives the facts, not POV. The Wookieepedian 08:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

You made my point for me. FACT - The U.S. Government considers the medal part of the War on Terror. That is a fact. That sentence could also read "It is the POV of the U.S. Government that the medal is part of the War on Terror." That is a fact, that that is the government's, the ISSUING AUTHORITY's POV. It is a NPOV statement to say that that is a POV. You are welcome to add the "Iraq is an illegal war blah blah, it's not the truth" POV as an attempted disclaimer, but that does not change the fact that it falls under that category. If we did not include it, we would be ignoring a fact. You are removing a FACT. How many times do I have to say it? Go back and read the Misplaced Pages NPOV regulations.

Finally - including that fact is NPOV. Please stop removing it. You are, again, welcome to quantify it, but it is a fact. JG of Borg 15:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I think you'll find what I changed acceptable. If not, please REVISE my statement instead of just doing a removal based on your POV, as, again, it's categorization by its' issuing authority is a FACT. JG of Borg

Seeing as how the WOT is largely the invention of the US military, I don't see how anyone can dispute whether their WOT medals are "real" WOT medals. If the Pentagon says "We're having a war on terrorism, we're fighting it in Iraq (even though the terrorists who threaten us are elsewhere) and these are the medals", that's their perogative. The validity and scope of the war on terrorism are discussed elsewhere in the article. I can't see any reason to revisit that issue in this section. --Lee Hunter 17:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

If the Iraq medal technically has othing to do with this war on terrorism, then, regardless of opinion, it has nothing to do with the War on Terror, therefor I will remove it again. The Wookieepedian 17:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

You miss the point - technically, it is a characterized as a War on Terror medal. Whether the Iraq War is part of the War on Terror or not is already covered and argued for/against by the article. Your statement is unnecessary (and incorrect). Take a look a few edits back at the paragraph I had suggested. Even that is unnecessary, as LeeHunter said. JG of Borg 19:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

Having suggested to Wook that he use the "see also..." wording I guess I should add some words here.

Given that there is some debate about the extent to which Iraq is part of the war on terror, I don't see it as a problem to alert the reader to the debate, so long as its done in a neutral way.

Regarding the official status of the medal, on my reading of Iraq Campaign Medal it seems to me that the move away from having a GWOT medal to have an Iraq medal does suggest that the Iraq medal is, how can I put this, for service in Iraq, rather than for service in some Global War on Terror. In other words, the GWOT is in some ways over, having been replaced by a handful of smaller wars.

I'm not sure I accept that, but then, I'm not sure that GWOT is a war on terror any more than WWI was a War to end all wars. It's just a label that sells well domestically. As I think I've said elsewhere, Terror is a tactic, not a philosophical position. You might as well call Vietnam the War on guerilla warfare. Again, guerilla warfare was a means to an end, nothing more.

Anyway, that's my view.

Regards, Ben Aveling 02:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see your post on his talk page. Thanks for posting this here. I still think the link is unnecessary, but we can keep it in (though again, it's already covered by the article). Sounds good. JG of Borg

Opening

the War on Terrorism has largely been dominated by the use of special forces, intelligence, police work and diplomacy. I don't think that's really an accurate reflection when two countries have already been 'invaded' by the US Army in the name of the War, and one of the chief complaints has been the lack of diplomacy involved. </endRant> Sherurcij 01:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

POV edits

It is important edits are accurate and NPOV. I just removed an entry that stated the Bush Administration had moved away from seeing a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda. This is simply not true. For more information, see the section discussing the Senate Report on Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence did a review of prewar intelligence on Iraq and concluded that Saddam offered safehaven to members of al-Qaeda and trained them in terrorist operations but there was no "formal operational relationship." I have interpreted this to mean they have not shown that Iraq has directed or cooperated in any specific terrorist attacks. While some in the Bush Administration (Cheney and Wolfowitz) thought Iraq was responsible for 9/11, that has never been the official position of the Bush Administration. RonCram 21:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

If the hair you're splitting (both you and Reddi) isn't in the article then it should be. (But not in the intro.) I've heard both sides of this before and doubt if you two will settle it here. Consider adding a section to detail both sides. - Tεxτurε 21:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

This hair does not need to be split here; it is already split - again and again - on the discussions concerning Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. I do not see why we need to re-have the debate with Reddi and RonCram on every page tangentially related to terrorism.--csloat 01:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

-- I am a little concerned that this article and certainly the discussion page, talks more about the perspective of America and American´s point of view, rather than the International community´s perspective of TWOT. There seems to be a defensive non neutral questin and answer session going on between Americans and non Americans (judging by the spelling of words). A little more citation from non involved world leaders, NGO's and the UN might be helpful in achieving a balance. -- Richard

Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda reverts

RonCram and Reddi have both offered very deceptive edits about Iraq's supposed connection to al-Qaeda. This stuff is discussed in depth in Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda and it should not be repeated here. However, having lost the debate on that page, these editors are moving their little jihad to this page in order to get these false claims in somewhere. I am attempting to create a compromise version of the paragraph that responds to the deceptive claims made by Ron and Reddi. I do not have time to carry this debate all over wikipedia like they want to do -- I do not think all the details about the Saddam-al-Qaeda "link" need to be rehashed here since they are well spelled out and discussed on the appropriate page. A simple summary of the conclusion of every major investigative body would be sufficient. --csloat 23:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Looking it over after my edits, I don't think any of this belongs in the introduction to this article. This article is about the war on terrorism, not about Iraq, and not about the Saddam-al Qaeda connection (or lack thereof). If an edit war is started over this I will have no part of it and I will limit my further participation on this page to slapping a "disputed" tag on it. I hope there are other editors looking at this page who are more interested in the truth than in proving some kind of (now thoroughly discredited) ideological point.--csloat 23:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Your edits do a good job of giving information without promoting a view. They do not belong in the intro, however. I have moved the background history to a "history" section and out of the intro. I also added information about the invastion of Afghanistan as the starting point of the war on terror per the article of that name. (If it's wrong you need to make a correction in both places but I think it is stated accurately.) - Tεxτurε 00:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree - this does not belong in the intro. It was put there by other editors who seem to be pushing a POV that they were not successful in pushing on the page Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, since that page goes into enough depth to actually respond to the various examples given. Ron and Reddi keep bringing in vague references to examples ("giving safe haven", "training", etc.) for which there already exist copious detail on the proper page discussing in depth what is wrong with these examples. Every major investigative body and intelligence agency that has looked into the Saddam-AQ connection has determined there is nothing there. Every single one. At one point RonCram claimed the Israelis and Egyptians had contradicting intel but he has never backed that up (and I have since learned that at least the Mossad came to the same conclusion). Yet he insists (along with Reddi, though not quite as often as Ron) in putting claims into every page he can find that is even vaguely related to terrorism that make it seem like there is more evidence of a Saddam-AQ conspiracy. *sigh*--csloat 01:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

If Ron and Reddi's intention is to spread some sort of propaganda, THEN we could perhaps settle the thing once and for all, by making a Ron and Reddi wikipedia page and put a link to it every time they make their "suggestive" edits..... simply some of the stuff exposing them written above would do the trick!! Thanks to those of you who did the background work exposing them for what they are up to on other wiki pages.

--Richard

Picture at the top?

The picture of Bush is very weird to have at the top of this page. True, he does "lead" the current "war on terror" but that's not representative of anti-terror operations - I'm surprised it's even on here because most liberals don't consider Iraq/etc part of that war (and that's seen, for now, as his "legacy").

We need to have something else - what best symbolizes the war on terror? I would have some troops hunting through Afghanistan for bin Laden, but I don't think the liberals would let me do that.

What would be a good generic war on terror picture to have up there? Maybe baggage screeners? Troops guarding an airport? Not an image OF terror like an attack, but of war ON terror. As the article says, it's hard because it is abstract. Opinions? JG of Borg 23:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The twin towers? Ben Aveling 08:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

But that's more the war by the terrorists, not against them. I mean, at first glance, it's just look weird. What would be a good generic image of war ON terrorism? There's a pretty image of a multi-national fleet on the Afghanistan war page participating in Operation Enduring Freedom that caught my eye... very little disagreement over that being part of WOT, and it's a nice picture of international cooperation against terror. JG of Borg 08:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I see your point. I guess I have to respond with a question; what is 'terror'? Regards, Ben Aveling 09:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

In a way, this whole page is only about 'our' half of the war. What we're doing. How we're responding. The results of our actions. It's a bit as if the page on WW2 was written up as "The war on Nazi Germany". Regards, Ben Aveling 21:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there no global organization against terrorism? - Tεxτurε 21:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, there's always IMF. ;) JG of Borg 00:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

What was the name of the organization in that puppet movie made by the South Park people? - Tεxτurε 20:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps International defense organization ? Regards, Ben Aveling 21:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

;) Found it: Team America: World Police! JG of Borg 23:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

What about the international criΜinal court; they are the Μost successful organisation in the world at catching and prosecuting terrorist criΜinqls: Richard

tweak to latest edit

I cut this:

• and there are implications in the independent Volcker Report that countries such as France, Germany, and Russia, none involved in the Iraq War, may have been involved in shady oil dealings with former dictator Saddam Hussein through the program.

Not because it's not true, but because it's unbalanced. For example, American and Australian companies have also been implicated. It would be possible to add a reference to the Oil for food article somewhere in this article, but I don't think its needed.

Regards, Ben Aveling 03:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Iraq war-only information doesn't belong here

I have removed information regarding exclusively the Iraq war because all the arguments that intended to make it part of the War on Terrorism have been proven false. Copperchair 08:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

But Copperchair, what about the terrorists that are now in Iraq?

Regards, Ben Aveling 08:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

They entered because of the US-led invasion. It's the US's fault they’re there now. Copperchair 06:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose it is important to differentiate between 'the reasons for invading Iraq' and the current situation (ie. ongoing violence and insurgency against non-combatants). In other words only a subset of current and future actions in Iraq could be considered as part of the WOT.216.208.211.42 12:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't see any reason to exclude current and future action in Iraq. I can see arguments in both directions regarding the initial invasion. In a large part, that's because I don't actually have a definition I like for the WOT. How would you define it? Regards, Ben Aveling 19:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I would define the war on terror the way those who invented the term would define it. If the 'inventors' choose to modify their definition or decide to give it another name, such as the GSAE, then so be it. The invasion of Iraq was based on certain claims - when those claims turned out to be false, their justification that it was part of the WOT was judged to be false as well. Since then, events have unfolded not quite as predicted (ie. Iraq becoming a training ground for terrorists), and so the current situation now appears to fit their definition after all. I see no reason to deny the 'inventors' the fruits of their incompetence. 216.208.211.27 02:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Just a minor correction; the neocons did not invent the term "war on terrorism"; its modern usage goes back to the Reagan Administration, and the phrase itself was used as long ago as 1881.--csloat 03:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

This brings up another point - if the WOT was 're-invented' might the same be true for the invasion of Iraq? Some say the original invasion was drawn up by Paul Wolfowitz in the 1980's, but never got acted upon. These kinds of rumours/arguments floating around damage US credibility.206.172.127.84 21:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I would define it (the military aspect) as a war against regimes that harboured terrorist groups. And that was not, and is not, the case with Iraq. Copperchair 06:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

What I like about that definition is that it makes it clear that we are talking about War - that is, conflict between states. What I'm not completely comfortable is that it excludes civil war, or other forms of conflict. For example, the attack on the twin towers would not be part of the war on terror. Then again, so long as we are talking about war on terror, rather than war with terror, perhaps only what we do is included, and what they do is not? Regards, Ben Aveling 11:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

International Support

"England and Australia have since re-elected their Bush-supporting leaders - Tony Blair and John Howard, respectively." I have removed this sentence as it implies that the electorate of the UK and Australia now endorse their Prime Minister's decision to back President Bush. This is not true, in the UK at least, the ongoing war was a significant election issue and Blair's majority was significantly reduced. In addition, the main opposition party was also pro-war. Tellkel 16:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Good point, thanks for explaining it - I added it back in with some of the caveats you mentioned, along with some detail on Spain, Germany, etc... if you want to work in the election issues/other party was pro-war too stuff too, feel free... I tried to summarize, but that's good information we should get in somehow. I'm not good with wordiness. ;) JG of Borg 19:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for rewriting the section: it's much improved. I've opted not to add in additional info regarding the elections - I think what we've got is sufficient within the constraints of the article. I have made a couple of minor changes, but nothing major. Tellkel 20:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Supporters / criticisms inconsistencies

The supporters/criticisms sections aren't very consistent with eachother. For example:

Criticisms: Over 200 U.S soldiers died and more than 500 have been wounded in Afghanistan since the War on Terrorism began. In Afghanistan, aid workers, personnel of the new national army, and international observers have also died in the conflict.

Supporters: Supporters point out that the casualty toll between the wars (less than 2,500) is meager compared to past foreign wars. The death toll in the War on Terrorism is almost 200x smaller than that of World War II, and about 50x smaller than Vietnam.

Facts in criticisms are stated as facts, and everything under supporters have "Supporters" unnecessarily tacked on to the front.

Facts should be stated as facts without garbage leading into them, and it may be wise to rename the sections by opposites. I.E.: Supporters/Critics, Appraisals/Criticisms, etc.

GSAVE - minor point

During the few days when the term GWOT had supposedly given way to GSAVE, the Pentagon and White House website still referred to the "war on terrorism" and that terminology was everywhere; Bush and Rumsfeld both referred to it. I don't think it's really accurate to say the name actually changed during that period, though I'm not yet sure how to reword that.--csloat 12:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Minor vandalism noticed

Someone changed the caption for the bush picture to "bitch of the century". It should be fixed.

Introduction, copyedit

I have begun reading through this article, beginning to end to see how it reads. The introduction looked okay and readable, until I got to the paragraph:

Critics of the "War on Terror" have called for the U.S. to withdraw troops from Iraq and Afghanistan immediately. "Wanton killing of innocent civilians is terrorism, not a war against terrorism", Prof. Noam Chomsky said. Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, does not believe withdrawal provides the best chance for peace. "There is no option other than victory," Pace said. "You need to get out and read what our enemies have said ... Their goal is to destroy our way of life."

In the introduction, the article had yet to even talk about any of the criticisms of the War on Terrorism; Also, it's debatable as to whether Iraq is part of the War on Terrorism. The paragraph seems like just a bunch of fragments put together and really isn't readable as part of the intro (out of context). Thus, I have removed it and suggest it belongs in the "Critique" section, if anywhere. --Kmf164 15:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

History section

In reading the "History" section of the article, it also looks like hodgepodge put together (see below).

The United States' "War on Terrorism" started after the September 11, 2001 attacks, with the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001.

Though the US government initially portrayed the invasion and occupation of Iraq as part of the "War on Terrorism", admissions by senior Bush administration officials have revealed that the evidence used to link the attacks of 9/11 to Saddam Hussein was incorrect. There may have been contact in the 1990s but intelligence and police agencies (such as the NSC, CIA, DIA, FBI, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and the independent 9/11 Commission) have found no evidence of substantial cooperation between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

Other incidents that have been cited as contributing to the focus on terrorism include the World Trade Center bombing of 1993, the 1998 US embassy bombings, the USS Cole bombing of 2000, suicide bombings in Israel, and the Lockerbie bombing.

Major terrorist incidents which occurred after the September 11 attacks include the Bali nightclub bombing, the Madrid train bombings, and the London Underground bombings. The country most affected by terrorism is Iraq. Since the US invasion, thousands of Iraqis have been victims of bombings, kidnappings and assassinations. Suicide bombings with dozens, even hundreds of victims, are a regular occurence.

I think the relationship between Iraq and the "War on Terrorism" should be discussed separately from the History section. The mention of "other incidents that have been cited..." sounds okay and on the right track. I think the history section should also give a *brief* summary of how the U.S. responded (or lack thereof) to those incidents. I don't think we need to list the "major terrorist incidents which have occurred after the September 11 attacks...". That can be covered elsewhere. I also think the section on "Historical usage of the phrase" ought to be made a subsection of the "History" section, and reordered before the "Conceptual challenges" section.

I don't want to make unilateral changes to the article without first making note of my intentions here. Do you agree with these suggestions for the history section? If not, why? My intention is to make the article more readable rather than hodgepodge statements thrown together in a seemingly haphazard way. Thanks. --Kmf164 15:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Somehow it needs to be made clear all of the incidents, events, etc, that the U.S. Government considers part of its War on Terrorism - objections to such should be stated as well. Feel free to make changes, be bold, if people think you're on the wrong track they'll just edit your edits! JG of Borg 13:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Go for it. This article is an incoherent mess. There's not much you could do which would make it worse. --Lee Hunter 14:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Page name: War on Terror/War on Terrorism.

Hi,

Any reason for the page to have moved?

Both the old and new name show up in Google, but War on terror gets over twice as many hits.

Regards, Ben Aveling 07:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Satire links

I have moved these two links here to the talk page. The second one links to a blog and I think doesn't meet the Misplaced Pages External links guidelines. As for the first link, I think a "See also" link to that Misplaced Pages article is sufficient. The external link belongs there.

• Get Your War On; Angry, satirical and political web-comic about "The War On Terrorism", stridently left-wing. (Misplaced Pages link: Get Your War On.)
• Bush Administration Renames “War on Terror” for Second Time in a Week; Political satire about renaming of the War on terrorism

Any thoughts or objections regarding removing these links? —Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 19:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Linking to Get Your War On (the Misplaced Pages article) somewhere in the article seems relevant to me, but inclusion of these external links does not. Rama 19:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Scare quotes

Anyone else bothered by the ubiquitous use of scare quotes around the term "War on Terrorism"? I think it's POV. Rhobite 17:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be at least as POV to remove them, as controversial as the term is. Sarge Baldy 00:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not bothered either way. You could try removing them and see what happens. --Lee Hunter 00:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Removing would be very POV, because the term is not widly accepted outside the US (unless I'm wrong)

The scare quotes are POV, I found it very odd when I first came here and saw quotes around each term, even the official term for the war. And it doesn't matter if the term isn't widely accepted outside the United States. World War II isn't everyone's name for that war, but we don't see "World War II" in that article. GreatGatsby 21:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

rm link

• http://spaces.msn.com/members/thelostgoldenage/

Hi, I removed this link because there's no obvious reason for it to be here. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

International support - Angela Merkel

As a German, I must admit that right after the attacks, Mrs Merkel really had an opinion rather different from that of the current chancellor. In 2005 elections, however, war on terrorism did NOT play a significant role. There were disputes amongst the SPD (Schröder) and the CDU (Merkel) concerning internal ("homeland") security and fighting terrorists within Germany, but there were no (and if, only insignificant) disputes concerning war on terrorism. That was in the 2002 election, which was lost by the CDU. The fact that Merkel did not succeed completely is not due to lacking support for a "war on terrorism", but other parts of the CDU programme, such as education and energy (proposed longer running times of atomic power plants). I would hence ask to rectify the statement in the "Internation support" section that Merkel has backed the USA in her position as opposition leader (as chancellor, there have not yet been statements concerning this matter).

She has even critised President Bush openly on the detention of suspects on Guantanamo during her state visit to Washington, and stated since she took office that there will be no German troops deployed in Iraq. Germany will help in the reconstruction efforts, even help in training police, allow American troops to further use of air-flights and troop transportation on its territory (Base at Ramstein for example), help in Afghanistan, but in the German opinion and its government this is already far enough and more than the Americans can possibly ask for. Gryffindor 13:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Police state

It's been suggested that a section from the article police state which is about reductions in civil liberty in western countries in response to the war on terror is merged to this article, in its own section called Civil Liberties and the War on Terror. DJ Clayworth 18:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Long War ?

This name does not seem to be in any kind of official use. Why is included in the lead section of this article? Merecat 05:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well, as put forth in the article, it's been used prominently in the 2006 QDRR and by leading US officials as of February 2006. Whatever the merits of such a "rebranding" of the war on terrorism, I think it's worth a mention in the terminological introduction; inside the parenthesis that contains "official" names for the conflict. -- Sandstein 06:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

See also Google News for recent use of the term. -- Sandstein 06:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I still object to it on the basis of it being inherently POV and not notable enough. Those who are anti-war raise the spectre of great length as a bogyman to make their point. I would support a re-direct using that term and pointing here, but I object to that term being in the front section of the article itself. It's not notable enough and it's too POV. Also, my reading of Donald Rumsfeld's use of this term is that his use was not as a proper noun (which is what it would be if he were saying it as a title), rather than what it was - a description of the War on Terror's likely length. Merecat 06:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• I don't see the POV bias either way: the term is being pushed by Rumsfeld and the DoD, who are (we can assume) pro-war, but as you point out, anti-war advocates can use the "long war" catchphrase as well to emphasise their own concerns about the conflict. As to notability, the "Long War" rebranding appears to have generated a very substantial public echo (see Google results); so a terminological note is warranted, I think; and terminology belongs to the start of the article. I'm open to suggestions on where else the reference could be placed in the article, though. Finally, whatever Rumsfeld's intentions in the interview, the public reactions seem to use "Long War" more often in the sense of a proper name, like "Cold War". See also the 2006 QDRR (search for "long war"). I agree, though, that the term is new and warrants further monitoring with respect to notability. Sandstein 10:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: Even if the term were to be POV, its use here is not, as it's clearly being attributed to "U.S. foreign policy circles", and not being used as an objective descriptor. Sandstein 10:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent Event Section

I'm putting back in the links to the recent events in Iraq. Mr Adequate, if you have any objections to this, don't just delete the links as that violates Misplaced Pages policy. You must justify why it is "not appropriate" to have these external links. And your justification has to be better than that you don't like the wording or format, cause that can be changed. Every article about ongoing wold events has a recent event section, and the links I have provided are highly newsworthy. Furthermore, video by definition is not biased in any way. Video cameras record the actual events that happen by reading the actual photons and sound waves produced. So no bull about the camera lying.

Futhermore, both America and Britian have equated the war on terrorism with the war on Iraq. Regardless of whether or not you or I agree with them, it is clearly true that the two are influencing each other. So these links do provide important information about the so called war on terror. In fact, the video shows exactly why "they" hate "us".

If you want to present your own personal point of view and biases go ahead. But do NOT delete the objective, hard video footage that I'm putting back on the page. Add your own links if you want to paint a rosey picture of the war on terror. But leave the undesputable facts in! I will take this up with administrators if necessary. And quite frankly it makes Misplaced Pages look bad if there is blantant censorship in an article.

Oh, and one last thing Mr. Adequate. Stop following me around like a stalker. You follow me to every article I go to.

All editors should watch Nightline tonight, Feb. 15

Nightline is going to report on the "Saddam Tapes."

Reportedly armed with 12 hours of Saddam Hussein's audio recordings, the organizers of an upcoming "Intelligence Summit" are describing the tapes as the "smoking gun evidence" that the Iraqi dictator possessed weapons of mass destruction in the period leading up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has already authenticated the tapes. These are the same tapes mentioned in Duelfer's Report that had not been translated at the time of the report. For some reason, the tapes were released through a very unusual manner - possibly because some in the intelligence community did not want the truth to come out. Read news story here. RonCram 15:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Network telivision spam! Haha, seriously though, aint a bad idea. What time?--Oni Ookami Alfador 21:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

In southern California, it comes on at 11:30 pm but you will have to check your local listings. Also, the news story said it will be on "Wednesday" when the story could have said "tonight." So it could possibly air Wednesday of next week. I am going to DVR the show so I can watch it repeatedly. RonCram 21:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Saddam Tapes Cause Government to Reexamine WMD in Iraq

Apparently the post-war intelligence has been as bad as the pre-war intelligence. According to a news story in the New York Sun titled Furor Erupts Over Recordings of Saddam, some in the Intelligence Community are now willing to reexamine the issue of WMD in Iraq. Misplaced Pages articles should reflect this new information. Here is some excerpts from the story:

The 12 hours of recorded conversations are part of a vast trove of untranslated documents, recordings, videotape, and photographs captured in Iraq during the war. Whether this information will be examined for clues to the whereabouts of WMD stockpiles is a matter of debate within the intelligence community.

The CIA, FBI, and directorate of national intelligence have resisted calls from Congress to reopen the hunt. But an interagency outfit known as the Media Exploitation Center, administered by the Defense Intelligence Agency, last month started its own search of these materials to attempt to discover the location of the weapons of mass destruction.

"There are elements in NSA and DIA that believe there is enough evidence to warrant further re-examination and a relook at all the material," a congressional staff member told The New York Sun yesterday. "This includes the imagery, documents, and human sources. They also think a more extensive debriefing of knowledgeable human sources and third party nationals is in order."

The quiet re-examination parallels efforts from the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Rep. Peter Hoekstra, a Republican of Michigan, who is in the early stages of his own review. He told the Sun last week that he checked the authenticity of Mr. Loftus's recordings with the intelligence community and confirmed that it was Saddam's voice on them.

Mr. Hoekstra has also been pestering the directorate of national intelligence to translate and make public what he claims are nearly 36,000 boxes of captured documents and materials from Iraq that may shed clues on the WMD front.

The Defense Department now appears to be working on the directorate to make other Iraq files public as well. A February 6 letter from Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to Senator Santorum, a Republican of Pennsylvania, said Mr. Rumsfeld is working with the director of national intelligence, John Negroponte, to release Iraqi files sought from the Harmony database, which catalogs material on terrorism secured since September 11, 2001.

The story can be found here.RonCram 21:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

By all means, read the story. Here's something Ron leaves out of it: "A spokeswoman for the Directorate of National Intelligence would not comment on the resignations of Messrs. Deutch and Woolsey. About the Saddam recordings she said, 'Intelligence community analysts from the CIA and the DIA reviewed the translations and found that while fascinating from a historical perspective, the tapes do not reveal anything that changes their postwar analysis of Iraq's weapons programs, nor do they change the findings contained in the comprehensive Iraq Survey Group report. The tapes mostly date from the early to mid-1990s and cover such topics as relations with the United Nations, efforts to rebuild industries from Gulf War damage, and the pre-9/11 situation in Afghanistan.'"--csloat 22:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Bill Tierney says ABC News cut a key part translated Saddam Tape

This news could be as big as the Dan Rather forged documents debacle. Tierney, the former weapons inspector, says ABC News cut a key portion of the translated tape to make Saddam sound much less sinister. Here is an excerpt from the news article:

"He was discussing his intent to use chemical weapons against the United States and use proxies so it could not be traced back to Iraq," he told Hannity. In a passage not used by "Nightline," Tierney says Saddam declares: "Terrorism is coming. ... In the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. What if we consider this technique, with smuggling?"

Now that comment, ladies and gentlemen, should have made the news. RonCram 00:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

My response to the above. Ron, let's not mirror the same argument on multiple talk pages; just use a link to let other people come to the argument if they want to.--csloat 01:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

War on terrosism

Will the war on terror spread to other places?, have the united states prevented another terror attack. Will the war on terror be an universal one?. E-Series 21:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Luis Posada Carriles

From this article: "CIA agent Luis Posada Carriles is wanted for a 1976 bombing of a civilian airliner that killed 76 people."

From the main Posada article: "...he served in the U.S. Army and developed a relationship with the CIA." "He was also on the CIA payroll from the 1960s until 1974."

War on Terror?

What's next, the war on war? The War for Peace? The War on Peace? The Peace on War? The Peace on peace? The War on the the War on Peace? The War on the war for peace? The Peace on the War on the War of the Man behind the hedges?

There is a TV show in Australia that has a "War on Everything"

Falun Gong photo should be removed

The wiki entry on Falun Gong doesn't mention terrorism once. However, there is a photo in this GWOT article and accompanying caption: Demonstration against treatment of Falun Gong terrorists in PRC.

Photo and caption should be removed.

Weasel words

All of these instances of 'Some argue...', 'supporters note that...', 'many say...' have got to go. In addition, slanted claim and counter-claim pairs like 'Supporters claim...' followed by 'However, others point out that...' need to be rewritten in a more balanced style. Tom Harrison 16:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Opening

"Unlike earlier concepts and definitions of war—with defined nations, boundaries, standing armies, and navies—the "War on Terrorism" has largely been dominated by the use of special forces, intelligence, police work, diplomacy, and propaganda." I wasn't aware that propaganda was a part of the war on terror. Evidence? Support? KevinPuj 23:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "War On Terror" can be considered a propaganda ploy. The citing of the "War On Terror" for many actions taken by the Bush Administration can be considered propaganda.

Ronald Reagan's WoT

I think there should be a section about Ronald Reagan's war on terrorism. President Reagan did not just coin the term, he actually started it all with the bombing of Libya. _└  / _talk  06:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, President Reagan was responsible for getting al-Qaeda off the ground, by training them in insurgency tactics during the war in Afghanistan. 24.13.86.24 08:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I heard that the mujahaddin training started with President CarterMrdthree 01:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Iraq figures

I removed the uncited "more than 200,000 Iraqis" figure since the Iraq war article quotes civilian casualties for the entire war (including initial invasion) as 30,000 - 100,000 and the figures as they stood here suggested hundreds of thousands of Iraqis had been killed by terrorists which doesn't appear to be the case. I realise "kidnapped" was one of the options, but I've not heard any figures for kidnappings. If someone can get accurate figures for all terrorist victims in Iraq and cite reliable sources, the information should go back in. Otherwise I've replaced it with "a large number". -- Zagrebo 09:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Navigate Through History window

I'd like to suggest adding former Canadian prime minister Jean Chretien to the "United States and allies window," as one of the first leaders to commit to the invasion of Afghanistan.

Also, I fail to see what current PM Stephen Harper has contributed to the War on Terror, as he has only been in office for two months.

What's with Hezbolah, Mahmood Abbas, and Ismael Haniyeh?

Robin Hood 1212 19:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Amnesty International on the War on Terror

Governments have sacrificed principles and ignored human rights in the name of the "war on terror" -- noosphere 17:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Iraq War Poll

There is a poll going on at the Iraq War article that is related to this article. You can add your vote here: -- Mr. Tibbs 05:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

There is also a second poll about whether to include a summary of the War on Terror in the Iraq War article. You can add your vote here: . Mrdthree 22:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Supporters of War

I removed this line "Supporters downplay civilian casualties by arguing that many who live near terrorist cells are likely to support them materially" because it makes no sense. By definition, a terrorist cell need not be confined to a locality which could be targeted by bombs. A cell could have members across a wide area. Therefore, this cannot be used as a justification for collateral damage.

Surely whether you believe in the justification or not is irrelevant. If that's one of the arguments that supporters use, then it should be included. Ajkgordon 14:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute: War on Terrorism

I have to admit I'm rather tired of the kind of argument that is used to claim bias in this article: that War on Terrorism is a slogan and therefore is not inherently neutral. It is common WP policy to name an event after its most common name. The term "war on terrorism" is not only used by the US government, NATO officials, the members of NATO and supporters of WoT (like Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, the Philippines, Japan, etc. etc.) but by its critics and by the "Fourth Estate" (national or international media, whether supporting or criticising WoT doesn't matter) as well. There is ample evidence of the widespread use of the term "War on Terrorism" both among supporters and critics on the Weblinks page of the article. A large section of the article is dedicated to outlining the criticisms against the war on terrorism; there is even a seperate article on it (Criticisms of the War on Terrorism). The article itself is written in a comprehensive and unbiased way. There is no reason whatsoever that this important part of current politics should have the stain of bias on it. It has been flagged for quite some time now and there are no new arguments supporting the suggestion of bias. I'd strongly opt to remove the POV flag as there is really no need for it. If the only criticism is the use of the term "War on Terrorism".. just take a look at the Google hit-list. There are over 19 million hits for the term. It is not a propaganda term but a widely used (even by its critics) term to describe the current NATO campaign as well as one of the most important factors in post-Cold War politics. Cheers, Something Wicked 21:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Iraq and the War on Terrorism

I would invite all who are interested to partake in the discussion that is taking place on this page. Rangeley 16:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think "The George W. Bush administration also considers the Iraq War part of the "War on Terrorism"" is correct. Some people question its neccessity, some question its wisdom; neither has anything to do with it. Tom Harrison 20:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Stating they consider it to be a part is misleading - it is a part. If you dont like the "some question its necessity," feel free to remove it. But it is part, and we reached consensus on this issue at the link I gave you. Rangeley 20:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think its misleading to state Bush considers it, perhaps there is a middleground that we can reach? Tom, are you stating that its not part, or you just want to phrase it show controversy over it? --zero faults 20:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I misread it. What is there now is an improvement over what I wrote. I might change 'claimed' to 'said' as more neutral. Thanks, Tom Harrison 20:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

My issue is I do not know whats being implied. The war did, factually, begin as part of the WOT. This is not simply because its target is terrorists but because the res 114 states war on terror repeatedly. To say Bush says, it wrong. The United States says it was started as part of the WOT. Seeing as the US is also the agressor in the war, they get to state why they are doing something, The authorization to use force specifically states they are doing it as part of the war on terror. --zero faults 12:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Issues

After reading through the article I have found some issues that I would like to present and get feedback on. The first issue is the World War 3 mention in the article header and later in the first section "Conceptual Challenges." It states:

While the administration had previously avoided use of the term, in May 2006 President George W. Bush began referring to the campaign as "World War III."

I was unable to find any mention of "World War 3" in the article provided in the source. Furthermore I think a claim that Bush began calling it "World War 3" should require 2 sources at least with a gap to show its not just a name he used 2 days in a row and never again.

The next issue is with the first paragraph of "Conceptual Challenges", it seems to be a work of original research. While I do understand what it is saying, the question becomes who's idea is this? It also seems to be counter to the heading of the article that states what exactly the WOT is, stating its against terrorists and terrorist sponsoring nations. There is even a military definition shown that further explains what terrorism is. This section then goes to call that very specific definition "abstract", its as if the 2 portions were written without consideration for eachothers contents.

The paragraph following the above one states the WOT is not confined to a conflict between nation states, this seems like a misunderstanding of the situation. The War on Terror involved the attack on Afghanistan, OEF-Philippines and OEF-Horn of Africa & Operation Active Endeavor, as far as I know. Of all of these OAE is the only one not relegated to a conflict between a member state, however its also not a conflict, its a military patrol and boarding situation. OEF-P involves the nation of Philippines asking the United States to remove what it feels is a terrorist influence in its country, and provide humanitarian aid. OEF-HOA involves training soldiers in the surrounding area and humanitarian programs. OEF-A is the only full on conflict, except for OIF which I will get to, and as such was waged against a non-nation. At the point of the invasion no nation under the UN recognized the rule of the Taliban in Afghanistan, however the fighting was limited to the geographical limits of Afghanistan. OIF if considered part of the WOT is also limited to a certain geographical confinement. If its criticising how the war went from OEF-A to OIF, then the sentence does not make sense as WW2 as it states was not limited to one location, and the reason for attacking Poland was not the reason for attacking every nation Germany invaded afterwards.

The next paragraph goes on to mention Hamas, however if you look at the beginning paragraph of this article again, it clearly states the WOT is limited to what US and NATO define as terrorists and state sponsor of terrorism. This passage explicitly states Hamas is seen as a terrorist organization by both these groups. This paragraph also is not sourced, a link to a list of terrorist groups perhaps from the government agencies that designate them would be sufficient. Also a mention of who other then Hamas themselves has argued for their political status instead of terrorists status would be useful.

The next 2 paragraphs speak against the WOT without providing an opposing view, such as people who content Chomsky is wrong or the linguistics professor who is talking about War on Terror and not War on Terrorism. Almost the entire section except these two paragraphs needs sources.

Comments? --zero faults 15:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism(sp?)

Can we get this section sourced. People seem to have added tons to it over time and more then half are not sourced. It looks very bad. I am gonig to put the tags on everything and hopefully sources can be found. --zero faults 12:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Spurious redirect

Why does War on Democracy redirect to this page? Critics of the War on Terrorism might say that the Bush administration is conducting it as if it were a war on Democracy, but even if so, War on Democracy should either be in a separate article, or it should be explicitly discussed in NPOV in this article. Anomalocaris 00:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Without looking, I'm guessing that someone probably made an article at that title which was a biased ("POV") rant, and was deleted and redirected. But I'm not sure. These days, to find the history of a given title you have to be an admin with access to deletion history. --FOo 02:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

American English?

This sentence in the introduction is incorrect:

The War on Terrorism or War on Terror (also the "Global War on Terrorism" or "GWOT") is a campaign by the United States, NATO and other allies, ......

It means that WOT is initiated by the US AND NATO. However, if it is a joint venture there is no need to mention the US, since it is a NATO member. This is called a tautology. If however, it is a US campaign in which NATO participates the current text is saying otherwise and infers the wrong idea. To convey that message we should alter the text into:

.... is a campaign by the United States, supported by several NATO members and other allies, ....

As it stands this article claims that WOT is a campaign fought by NATO. Nomen Nescio 11:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong why do you have to be told this on 3 different articles. The GWOT contains campaigns where only the US is involved such as OEF-P, then it contains operations where its an entirely NATO operation such as Operation Active Endeavor, then there are operations where the US began them and NATO is filling a role, such as training of Iraqi Security Forces. Then there are operations where the US leads, however NATO provides support such as OEF-HOA where NATO is currently guarding the oceans providing support for the US troops on the ground and preventing smuggling into the OIF zone. Hence the need for distinction. I would like to point out that you just edited an article today removing the War on Terror template from the NATO page. I hope this is not a case of WP:POINT, however I will assume good faith and wait for an explanation of how you can feel its Bush's war, yet also feel its NATO's war. --zero faults 11:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read the cited sentence, it clearly is not saying it is a US campaig. The current sentence says a US AND NATO campaign, while you yourself admit NATO is only providing support. English is apparently difficult to understand. compare the two sentences I wrote above! Nomen Nescio 12:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Again I will say this, quoting from above: "The GWOT contains campaigns where only the US is involved such as OEF-P, then it contains operations where its an entirely NATO operation such as Operation Active Endeavor, then there are operations where the US began them and NATO is filling a role, such as training of Iraqi Security Forces. Then there are operations where the US leads, however NATO provides support such as OEF-HOA where NATO is currently guarding the oceans providing support for the US troops on the ground and preventing smuggling into the OIF zone. Hence the need for distinction." --zero faults 12:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class British military history articles
• British military history task force articles
• Start-Class Canadian military history articles
• Canadian military history task force articles
• Start-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• Start-Class French military history articles
• French military history task force articles
• Start-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• Start-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics