This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
I invite Travis505 to discuss their concerns here. 331dot ( talk) 12:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC) :Thank you for letting us discuss this, I am simply changing it as authority wise they are not a leader of NATO the only person who could be considered leader is the Secretary General Jen Stoltenberg.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Travis505 ( talk • contribs)
There is no fixed leader of NATO it is a joint effort not ran by the US or any other country, just because the US has the biggest armed forces does not make them the leader of NATO, by your logic if NATO membership is dictated by a country's armed forces size then Iceland doesn't deserve to be in NATO as they do not have an armed forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travis505 ( talk • contribs) 12:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I understand it now they're not "the" leader of NATO but they are a leader of NATO so let's meet in the middle and edit it so the top three contributors to NATO's efforts will be title as leaders. Travis505 ( talk) 12:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you I am glad we could come to an agreement. Travis505 ( talk) 12:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I am going to keep changing the page so it doesn't say the US is the leader is everyone OK with that decisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travis505 ( talk • contribs) 16:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I am probably going to get banned from putting the right information in this page unbelievable just because the majority say something doesn't make it correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travis505 ( talk • contribs) 16:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I can not see any mention of allied casualties numbers, only American. That is not acceptable. Mortyman ( talk) 10:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Could we consider adding North Korea to the War on Terror list as well as the countries that were added to the United States terrorist list? According to George W. Bush's speech on January 29, 2002, Iran and North Korea were added to the Axis of evil list. Wrestlingring ( talk) 02:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on War on Terror. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://www.nationalpost.com/arts/books/NATO+reaches+agreement+Libya+command/4498007/story.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Why War on Terror with no qualifiers from those on the receiving end such as Reign of Terror or US aggression? Keith-264 ( talk) 09:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
War on Terror | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Clockwise from top left: Aftermath of the September 11 attacks; American infantry in Afghanistan; an American soldier and Afghan interpreter in Zabul Province, Afghanistan; explosion of an Iraqi car bomb in Baghdad. | |||||||
| |||||||
Belligerents | |||||||
United States |
al-Qaeda | ||||||
Commanders and leaders | |||||||
Donald Trump Theresa May François Hollande Vladimir Putin Xi Jinping |
Osama bin Laden
† |
The infobox on the article seems to be a bit overcrowded, so i'm proposing an idea to simplify it the same way as the infobox on the World War II article. Any thoughts? 135.23.144.238 ( talk) 20:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
The section about the pharmaceutical plant is not introduced well. It talks about how the US plans to strike, but doesn't explain the sudden jump to the skepticism surrounding the pharmaceutical plant and why it is important. Separating the sentences about Operation Infinite Reach and the plant as well as some rephrasing would make this much clearer. Immichaelotoole ( talk) 01:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Also linking Osama bin Laden's Wikipedia Page would be helpful for those looking to read more. Immichaelotoole ( talk) 01:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Donald Trump has said multiple times before and after his inauguration that defeating ISIL is the highest priority of his administration and he will ake other offences against ISIS. After his administration a statement from white house also said "'Defeating ISIS and other radical Islamic terror groups will be our highest priority. To defeat and destroy these groups, we will pursue aggressive joint and coalition military operations when necessary". He also issued visa bans o 7 countries known to produce terrorists, which is yet to be approved in cour. He has also launched some new missions, like he latest airstrikes on ISIS strongholds in Syria. ( https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/22/dozens-dead-in-us-led-syria-airstrike-al-mansoura). Trump is also sending more troops and aircraft and renewing he war on terror with tighter actions. US and Russia under Trump will also carr joint actions against ISIL held territories. The following articles records some of his stances:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4142134/Trump-vows-wipe-face-Earth.html www.cnn.com/videos/politics/.../trump-tracker-defeating-isis.cnn http://time.com/4652696/president-trump-isis-review/ www.spokesman.com/stories/.../trump-orders-isis-plan-talks-with-putin-and-gives-/ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/22/trump-expects-to-speak-sunday-with-israel-leader-netanyahu.html https://www.c-span.org/video/?422418-1/president-trump-tells-cia-get-rid-isis
here are more numerous sources. This is a crucial article and is very backdated. I think the new strategies of the Trump administration and Donald Trump's promised and ongoing contribution to the war on terror in 2017 is a vital update that this crucial article needs to include. Terrorism is a global crisis, and is sadly far from over, new error attacks are happening almost regularly, so this war on error needs to continue and is continuing. I hope you consider the points I have made seriously, and include the new events in the war on terror in 2017 and include Donald Trump's role, promises, comments and operations being carried out under him. The war on terror is ongoing and needs to be updated after Donald Trump's announcements for further commitments to it, so the position of Donald Trump in the war on terror and the new developments in 2017 are vital and should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.230.107.22 ( talk) 07:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Under the commanders and leaders, there is a small subscript/caption describing who that person is. I am proposing this be removed because anyone can find out who that person is by simply clicking the bluelink. The captions are cluttering the infobox and making it look messy. CatcherStorm talk 15:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Obama rejected the term "War on Terror" during his administration, including on 23 May 2013.
Kim Jong Un took power in 2011 during the Obama administration. North Korea tested nuclear weapons, and also missiles, in 2013 and onwards ( 2014 North Korean missile tests, 2013 North Korean nuclear test).
Describing Obama administration's foreign policy in the Korea conflict as a "War on Terror" may not be supported by reliable sources, especially those that specialise in foreign relations or military subjects. The Daily Express is generally rejected by RSN.
I would be for removing Daily Express sources as not reliable (per RSN consensus) and only using Bush speeches that use the term "War on Terror" (not the media using the phrase loosely). -- Callinus ( talk) 19:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on War on Terror. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Methinks, the type of infobox used in the article is misleading, and perhaps creates a bias, as it presents the ideological/propaganda cliche cum metaphor as a real military conflict complete with belligerents, etc. Same goes for categorisations. Frankly, at this stage, i would much rather refrain from any proposals, but I urge every one interested to have a fresh look at what this article is about. Axxxion ( talk) 15:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Currently the infobox lists "Main participants", "NATO participants", "Non-NATO participants" and "Other participants". Aren't the latter two categories the same? Is the fourth category meant to be countries who participated in a non-combat role? — dukwon ( talk) ( contribs) 11:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on War on Terror. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on War on Terror. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=208509When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
The Leaders section for Pakistan erroneously lists the Army Chiefs instead of Presidents and Prime Ministers of Pakistan. Pervez Musharraf I understand, because he was both President and Army Chief but why are Raheel Shareef and Qamar Bajwa listed there as leaders instead of Asif Zardari, Nawaz Sharif and Shahid Khaqan Abbasi? I corrected the names and flags (From Standard of Pakistan Army to standards of Presidents and Prime Ministers) but the changes were for some reason reverted by SlaterSteven and Garuda28. Is there some specific reason for that? It is inconsistent even in that, because it misses General Ishfaq Kiyani who succeeded Musharraf as Army Chief. -- Aeg0n94 ( talk) 09:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Would anyone care to explain what is going on? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Just recently, the Costs of War project at Brown University’s Watson Institute offered a new estimate of what America’s wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Pakistan will cost the country through fiscal year 2018 and it’s a figure ― $5.6 trillion ― that should make your head spin. It certainly leaves Lindsey’s and Daniels’s estimates in a ditch somewhere on the road to Baghdad. Put another way, we’re talking at a bare minimum about a cost per American taxpayer since September 12, 2001, of more than $23,000. Good for the economy? Hmmm. And the Costs of War report’s estimate doesn’t even include interest on the borrowing that’s taken place to pay for those wars, which, it suggests, is “projected to add more than $1 trillion dollars to the national debt by 2023.” |
The link in the above quote goes here:
As of late September 2017, the United States wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria and the additional spending on Homeland Security, and the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs since the 9/11 attacks totaled more than $4.3 trillion in current dollars through FY2017. Adding likely costs for FY2018 and estimated future spending on veterans, the costs of war total more than $5.6 trillion. This report focuses on US federal budgetary costs and obligations for America’s wars since 9/11. |
This Google search pulls up more articles:
Various articles use the above total cost to come up with the number of $23,000 per taxpayer. It would be more accurate to say per adult U.S. resident. $5.6 trillion divided by $23,000 equals 243.5 million people. See: Demography of the United States: "There were about 125.9 million adult women in the United States in 2014. The number of men was 119.4 million." That totals 245.3, close enough for government purposes. :) -- Timeshifter ( talk) 15:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on War on Terror. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
No other president has been so significantly quoted as former President Obama in the section about "history of use of the phrase...". A summary of the former president's usage would be better, and fit with that administration's preferred term. Additionally there is no information about the current administration's usage policy.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 17:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
This new article may be helpful here
John Cummings ( talk) 09:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
In view of the hijacking of four airplanes of US Airways and American Airlines, the airlines published the photos of the crew members in the newspapers, and also published the boarding cards of all passengers, incl date of birth, in the print media, before the 11 October 2001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WiseWiso ( talk • contribs) 05:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
The list of participants shows the Hezbollah on the one side but Iran on the other. Iran supports Hezbollah and yes Hezbollah is a terrorist organization but they sometimes fight other terrorist organizations. Iran also combats some terrorist organizations directly, but does support Hezbollah. Due to the complex nature of the issue might it be better to make a note specifically labeling Iran as supporting Hezbollah and another note specifically labeling Hezbollah as combating other terrorist organizations beside Iran while also conducting terrorism? While you are at that it might be good to also make a note clearly stating the fact that the organizations labeled as terrorist do not all like each other and fight each other. E.G. al-Qaeda's disagreement with ISIL and etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.20.45.140 ( talk) 00:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
What about the US and it's allies aren't they terrorists too? They used violence & killed far more innocent people than all what listed here as terrorist groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.166.91.31 ( talk) 22:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
To justify China's place as a main participant in War on Terror, The provided references are woefully short. One is about Philippines' invitation to China for combating Abu-Sayyaf Group's piracy network and the other one is just a link about Chinese persecution of the Ethnic Uyghur minority in Xinjiang (China confiscating their passports). How does that make China a main participant in this war? It's War on Terror, not War on Muslims so state persecution against Muslim minority doesn't really make you a *main participant* in War against Terror. The Chinese haven't undertaken any major commitment so far against Terrorism globally since 2001. Even a small country like Afghanistan has contributed more to the War on Terror than China has. Instead of listing the permanent members of the Security Council as main participants, I propose that we should list the countries who are actually the largest contributors and main participants in the war which would be US, UK, France, Russia, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan and Afghanistan. -- Aeg0n94 ( talk) 07:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I accept the mission for China as a main partcipant Ericrashm ( talk) 16:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Northern_Mali_conflict Further they have no more role against terrorism Shadow4dark ( talk) 02:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Why is Russia mentioned twice, why is the golden dawn not under terrorists, why is this such a mess? Slatersteven ( talk) 16:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
It should be revert back to below version. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=War_on_Terror&oldid=898144129 Shadow4dark ( talk) 01:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm talking about the list in the infobox. I tried to do it myself multiple times, but I'm getting a 404 error. Thanks. William2001( talk) 18:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I accidentally reverted an IP edit because I failed to see the edit summary. I have corrected the mistake, but I do want someone with knowledge on this subject to check the location of Hamas to make sure it is not misplaced. Thank you. William2001( talk) 01:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
The term War on Terror is an oxymoron since war itself involves terror. The big governments which has waged the war are themselves the terrorists, possessing immense military and using cruel means to achieve domination like Asymmetric Warfare, Torture Chambers etc. The term, similar to the terms peacekeeping missile, preemptive strike etc., is meant to mislead the people of the world and gain their support for world domination. With over 10,00,000 recorded casualties caused by the proponents of the War on Terror, if indeed the war has to be carried on terror, it has to be waged back on those who have caused the damages in its name. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
122.164.156.40 (
talk)
21:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Reference: David Morley, Director of the Warwick Writing Programme, leads you through a series of creative writing challenges designed to help you develop your creativity and talent as a writer and reader.
The Campaign for Real Language - Creative writing's capacity for the creation of illusion-as-truth can make it a dangerous tool.
https://warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/podcasts/media/more/writingchallenges/?podcastItem=writing8.mp3
Hey, Argentina is not involved. -- Misionense12 ( talk) 13:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Please remove Argentina from the list. If their armed forces do not participate in anything. This has no sources nor references, so it cannot appear in the list. By other part, Argentina is neutral. -- Misionense12 ( talk) 13:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Please add casualties of both sides Ryan Okhla ( talk) 17:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
But atleast add something Ryan Okhla ( talk) 16:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I think it violates the neutrality of Wikipedia's policy. It seems like the US political perspective, not a common one. And I want to ask why they add that paramilitary groups? If we start adding all paramilitary groups, then it is unlimited. My opinion is that we should delete that part and I think we could give more information in the main article. 웬디러비 ( talk) 13:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Why is the Prime Minister and King of Belgium mentioned as among the principal leaders in the infobox? Considering that that is one of 3 places Belgium is mentioned at all in the whole wiki page, it seems Belgium has no important contribution to the War. Spykryo ( talk) 03:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:War on Cancer which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 22:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Material from this page has been copied to Wikipedia page 2010s political history. Michael E Nolan ( talk) 19:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bush's folly. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm ( talk) 18:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
The section on Libya does not explain why the 2011 military intervention in Libya is included in this article. The article for that war in Libya also does not identify it as part of the "war on terror". The later American intervention in Libya (2015–present) seems to fit because it is part of International military intervention against ISIL. I propose we remove the 3 paragraphs on the 2011 war. I am open to adding a sentence about the 2011 war in the paragraph about the 2015-present military intervention as background, although I'm leaning against it (I don't think it is necessary, especially as the main article does not mention it). BananaCarrot152 ( talk) 19:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
What has this to do with the war on Terror? Slatersteven ( talk) 13:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Too much of leaders, former leaders of every single involved country fighting within it's own relevant front. I'm going to trim the box soon. Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk) 07:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The infobox is used in descriptions for conflicts like the World Wars, I don't see it can not be used on the page here. User:Coolmans97 —Preceding undated comment added 06:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Reliable sources do refer to it as "the War on Terror" (note capitalization), making it a proper noun. Similarly, note the capitalization of "Vietnam War", "World War II", etc. - SummerPhD v2.0 02:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.A Google search shows that a large proportion of sources don't capitalize it, and Google Ngrams shows that a substantial majority don't: [5]. Unless there's good reason and consensus for an exception, the title should remain as it is, and usage in the article should be made consistent with it. I've changed the lead sentence. -- IamNotU ( talk) 03:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
War on terror has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add new bullet point with reference below in 'Further reading' section:
Mikulaschek, Christoph and Jacob Shapiro. (2018). Lessons on Political Violence from America's Post-9/11 Wars. Journal of Conflict Resolution 62(1): 174-202. Owl of Minerva 21 ( talk) 12:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I object to the removal of the military conflict infobox. The "War on Terror" is clearly a military conflict, so why did the infobox get removed? The removal was also premature - a few users in favor of an opinion does not constitute a consensus. We have infoboxes for protracted, extensive miltiary conflicts, such as the Afghanistan conflict (1978–present) and Iraqi conflict (2003–present), so we should re-instate the infobox for this article. Without the infobox, it is difficult, if not outright impossible, to present a visual summary of the statistics and the main developments of this conflict. If the infobox had a problem, it could have been fixed without throwing out the whole thing. An infobox in this article is better than having none at all. LightandDark2000 🌀 ( talk) 19:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
This is a section for, what I will anticipate to be, a debate over if the war ended in 2013. The sources I have found indicate that President Obama attempted to declare and end to the WOT in 2013, however that did not happen. Global War on Terrorism linked conflicts continue to this day in Afghanistan and against ISIL. The following are a sampling of sources that indicate that the WOT is ongoing, and also linked to ISIL.
I would encourage any user who wishes to contest this to do so here, rather than in the article space. Garuda28 ( talk) 22:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I will write what you need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.221.111 ( talk) 20:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the section War on terror#Criticism adequately summarises information from Criticism of the War on Terror and maybe United States war crimes. -- Tslawrk ( talk) 00:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Ever since the Capitol Riot of January 6th, right-wing groups have been labeled as "Domestic Terrorists" by the federal government. It's been almost a month since the event and perhaps domestic terrorism ought to be included in the discussion of this article. W.C Cross ( talk) 01:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
No sources are presented showing why, for example, Operation Pacific Eagle should be considered part of the War on Terror declared by George W. Bush in 2001. Logically, not every conflict by the US against terrorists is part of the War on Terror. At least setting the end-date in 2013 allows a much easier identification of what should be included in the article - as it is every instance of terrorism might be included here. FOARP ( talk) 21:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The US president was not the first, after 9/11, to invoke the term on September 16. And open letter was issued to Senator Feingold on the USENET on September 13 calling for a formal declaration of war on terrorism, here https://groups.google.com/g/alt.radio.talk/c/rzyBpaqSef8/m/scbDSbUXPbAJ, using language that was later mirrored in the President's speeches, a few hours before Congress took up discussion of a possible declaration, before settling on an authorization under the War Powers Resolution on the 14th. The President's remarks were also made on the 18th, as part of the process of signing the act of Congress, S.J. Res. 23, into law.
Other attributions post-dating the attack preceding President Bush's announcement and Congress's response might also exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6000:AA4D:C5B8:0:F7E5:9DA4:9E8C ( talk) 03:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
It is the "War on Terrorism" not the "War on terror"! Blockhouse321 ( talk) 14:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
War on terror has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Mexico should be added to the list of nations involved in the War on Terror since it's been involved in counter-terror operations especially during the Mexican Drug War. 172.58.27.6 ( talk) 10:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
War on terror has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Update dates for War in Afghanistan Dman677879 ( talk) 05:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
War on terror has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change List of military operations in the war in Afghanistan (2001–present) to List of military operations in the war in Afghanistan (2001–2021) since the war is officially over Dman677879 ( talk) 17:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
War on terror has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It says on that page that the date is (2001-2021) and that all of their troops were pulled out on Aug 30th! Dman677879 ( talk) 18:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm on mobile but there is a minor typo in the infobox about the War in Afghanistan. It reads "evaluation" instead of evacuation. vegaskukichyo ( talk) 05:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
☑ Corrected. vegaskukichyo ( talk) 19:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
War on terror has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
SomethingIAm ( talk) 20:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Change "20 years, 1 week, 1 day" to "20 years, 2 weeks, 5 days", or "20.05 years".
I'm noticing some inconsistencies with the spelling of Al-Qaeda. Is the first A capitalised or not? There's one section in the middle of the article that uses exclusively "al-Qaeda" but the rest is mostly "Al-Qaeda". Fudge Mobile 08:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
What is Wikipedia's opinion on the formal end date of the war? -- WR 14:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Immichaelotoole, Rosi3fish.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 12:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
As a definitive historical event/series of events, the War on Terror should be capitalized, no matter the fact that it is a 'war' on a concept. Kaleb David ( talk) 19:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Agree, plus common parlance capitalizes Terror in the phrase War on Terror.
Hussierhussier1 ( talk) 23:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
All of the captions are complete sentences, but some have a period at the end and some do not. I would change it, but i'm not sure if that is by design. Some feedback would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.254.222.252 ( talk) 21:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Most captions are not complete sentences, but merely sentence fragments, which should not end with a period or full stop. If any complete sentence occurs in a caption, then all sentences, and any sentence fragments, in that caption should end with a period or full stop.
- The Conservatory during the festival (No final period or full stop for lone sentence fragment), not The Conservatory during the festival.
- The stage was spotlit for the festival. (Period or full stop ends complete sentence)
- The Conservatory during the festival. The stage was spotlit for the occasion. (Period or full stop on each when they appear together)
This
edit request to
War on terror has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "On 20 September 2001, during a televised address to a joint session of Congress," to "On 22 September 2001, during a televised address to a joint session of Congress,".
This speech was given on the 22nd of September, not the 20th.
I submit this link as proof. Editor40209 ( talk) 03:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
The "War On Terror" is estimated to have killed at least 6 million. This seems to be more or less covered in the article, but refugees seem to not be mentioned. The 2015 "refugee crisis" in Europe was caused by the WOT. But it's just a small part of the total number of refugees.
"The U.S. post-9/11 wars have forcibly displaced at least 38 million people in and from Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, the Philippines, Libya, and Syria. This exceeds those displaced by every war since 1900, except World War II. [...] 38 million is a very conservative estimate. The total displaced by the U.S. post-9/11 wars could be closer to 49–60 million, which would rival World War II displacement." https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2021/Costs%20of%20War_Vine%20et%20al_Displacement%20Update%20August%202021.pdf
The article isn't necessarily bad (other than what's already mentioned on the article), but it fails to present the enormous scale of the war, in my opinion. This war seems to rival at least WWI in scale and magnitude.
If the war was over by 2013, as implied in the introduction, who won? And what war has been fought since? 89.253.73.146 ( talk) 21:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed the lead section is pretty much about just criticism, like there never was any terrorists so it is just one side doing bad stuff like there never was any Islamic state group for example. Some stuff should go to the Criticism section, some stuff should be removed and sources checked (for the example, the Hill source in the lead section, is opinion just) as the lead is pretty undue weight. Especially for the lead section care is needed to be balanced. For example there is mention of torture, and extraordinary rendition, and drone strikes but no any mention of the Al Qaeda and the Islamic State crimes and even huge atrocities Genocide of Yazidis by the Islamic State, to almost whole Middle east was under threat in 2014. Also health and enviro. effect just caused by one side hmmmm how nice. Sometimes is not enough to some scholar for example write something but that what he/she wrote needs to have impact and to be accepted by wide community. Balance needs to be established and nonsense pov content must to go out of the lead section or if notable to criticism section as it is now just one side undue weight things in the lead. 178.223.34.96 ( talk) 22:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
War on terror has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to add Sri Lanka to the participants list of War on Terror. 2402:4000:2381:C522:9DEE:DC56:323E:4E98 ( talk) 17:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I removed the rationale from the article head, and am copying it here; I do not take credit or blame for this message, but do not believe the average user needs to see this: "Multiple theaters are described yet none are particularly detailed, and definitions of terrorism related activities must be tightened up." ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 18:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
It feels a little weird to add taliban to the terrorist group list while the Taliban is not really recognized as one internationally isnt it? ProgrammerinEZ ( talk) 07:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
I might be wrong about this but tmk its not in there ProgrammerinEZ ( talk) 07:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello @ Slatersteven: My text names the specific government, a specific body of that said government, the specific type of threat and the source names specific agents which are of concern. The source is certainly WP:RS. I did not name the specific agents because that would probably be excessive detail because there are several. Invasive Spices ( talk) 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Major non-NATO allies they are something else and have nothing to do with this. Many of them never even sent troops and never made official support to the War on Terror. For example, countries such as Argentina never fighted in this war. And, by the way, we also need to cite sources supporting that. If we include MNNAs, we also need to include all NATO global partners. Henderson Grumicker ( talk) 18:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
And no other version of Wikipedia (none in other languages) places countries in this article even without having participated. No other Wikipedia put Argentina on this list and without sources. -- Henderson Grumicker ( talk) 00:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay I understand that but I disagree with you due to war on terror and Argentinas supportive actions in the war on terror as a major non-nato ally also you cannot just go and revert the edits until we come to some type of situation and if I am being honest it seems that you have some poltiocal motivation behind these edits due to some of your previous edits. You also cannot use IP address to back up your point to make it seem like you have more people supporting you then you do WP:SOCKPUPPET. DiSantis19 ( talk) 01:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
War on terror has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the first sentence of the lede, change the "is" to "was," as the infobox has an end date of 2021. For conformity. 2601:85:C100:46C0:456E:4EAE:503E:6EA1 ( talk) 23:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC) 2601:85:C100:46C0:456E:4EAE:503E:6EA1 ( talk) 23:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
So on 11 July 2023, there was a revert removing important content from the Lede backed up in the body of the article. The user (Richard-of-Earth) who did the deletion claimed "The lead should be a summary not a restatement of the body to make some WP:POV point."
This is ironic since MOS:LEAD clearly states that lede should "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". Apparently, the deletions removed contents related to casualties of the war and controversies regarding it. Check the article of other wars like Second World War or Iraq War; casualties and controversies are clearly mentioned in the lede. These are all noteworthy points to be included in the lede.
Moreover, this is written as a summary, not as a close paraphrase/copy-pasta from the body.
The user also asked "Discuss on the talk page before making this drastic a change to the lead". This is ironic since it was the user who made "drastic changes". The contents were in the long-standing version of the page. So it is the user who should have started the discussion before he blatantly removed large-amounts of content removal of Reliably sourced material. Also take a look at WP:CENSOR. "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable"
Thank you. Shadowwarrior8 ( talk) 08:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
All but the shortest articles should start with introductory text (the "lead"), which establishes significance, includes mention of significant criticism or controversies, and make readers want to learn more. The lead has no heading; its length should be commensurate with that of the article, but is normally no more than four paragraphs
The lead should establish significance, include mention of consequential or significant criticism or controversies, and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more... The following paragraphs should give a summary of the article. They should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, including its more important controversies
The redirect 911 War has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 14 § 911 War until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 12:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
I stumbled on this article while researching another subject, but the "Anti-terror campaigns by other powers" section doesn't seem relevant to the article itself.
It does not provide any information on the war on terror itself and seems fairly out of place, especially calling "war on terror" operations by other countries which can be confusing for readers and presents these operations as being implicitly similar to the war that is the subject of the article.
I didn't want to outright remove it without asking what the community thinks of this, though, hence this message. MrTimscampi ( talk) 12:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
The number of participating countries should be reduced and limited to those that participated effectively and fundamentally. This is too much filling for a big encyclopedia. Any information without a source should not remain. Dl.thinker ( talk) 22:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
As the lead states backed up by sources, the "war on terror" is not a conventional war but a series of efforts to combat terrorism. So how exactly do we define the end of this then? The date still says 15 Sep 2001-present, but it's clear to me that something at least needs to change. Obama himself officially declared the GWOT over in 2013 [1] which is more official than anything saying the "war on terror" is ongoing since 2001.
What do other people think? WR 19:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Wouldn't the arming of the IDF by the Biden administration to "destroy Hamas" have some contribution of the war on terror? 2600:8801:FB13:6B00:2C74:717:1F33:8D2C ( talk) 22:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Hey guys, In my personal opinion, I think we should list Dec 31 2022 as the end of the War on Terror. The US military announcing that date as the last day the National Defense Service Medal would be awarded for the War on Terror is the most meaningful declaration the US government ever made of the War on Terror being over. As far as the US military is concerned, that date marks the end of the campaign. Also many notable events happened between August 2021 and December 2022 such as the end of Coalition combat operations in Iraq against ISIS (Dec 2021) and the killing of Al-Zawahiri in Afghanistan (July 2022). To use August 2021 as the end date feels premature. Additionally, to use the end Operation Freedom's Sentinel, which ultimately was a train/advise/assist mission, as a sign of the entire War on Terror being over seems disproportionate . OFS was one of several US operations and at the time of its ending, America was still actively conducting combat operations against ISIS in Iraq and Syria and Al-Qaeda off-shoots in Somalia. How is the War on Terror "over" in August 2021 if the US was still fighting the War on Terror in three countries and awarding the National Defense Service Medal for the conflict? To be fair, there is a case to be made that there should be no end date at all since America is still engaged in low-level fighting in Syria and Somalia against ISIS and Al-Qaeda.
What do you guys think?
Jab1998 (
talk)
23:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Wouldn't "Operation "Prosperity" possibly fit the classification as a part of the "War on Terror"? 2A02:3035:600:D032:3349:AF33:D3E1:A614 ( talk) 12:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the
help page).
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
I invite Travis505 to discuss their concerns here. 331dot ( talk) 12:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC) :Thank you for letting us discuss this, I am simply changing it as authority wise they are not a leader of NATO the only person who could be considered leader is the Secretary General Jen Stoltenberg.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Travis505 ( talk • contribs)
There is no fixed leader of NATO it is a joint effort not ran by the US or any other country, just because the US has the biggest armed forces does not make them the leader of NATO, by your logic if NATO membership is dictated by a country's armed forces size then Iceland doesn't deserve to be in NATO as they do not have an armed forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travis505 ( talk • contribs) 12:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I understand it now they're not "the" leader of NATO but they are a leader of NATO so let's meet in the middle and edit it so the top three contributors to NATO's efforts will be title as leaders. Travis505 ( talk) 12:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you I am glad we could come to an agreement. Travis505 ( talk) 12:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I am going to keep changing the page so it doesn't say the US is the leader is everyone OK with that decisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travis505 ( talk • contribs) 16:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I am probably going to get banned from putting the right information in this page unbelievable just because the majority say something doesn't make it correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travis505 ( talk • contribs) 16:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I can not see any mention of allied casualties numbers, only American. That is not acceptable. Mortyman ( talk) 10:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Could we consider adding North Korea to the War on Terror list as well as the countries that were added to the United States terrorist list? According to George W. Bush's speech on January 29, 2002, Iran and North Korea were added to the Axis of evil list. Wrestlingring ( talk) 02:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on War on Terror. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://www.nationalpost.com/arts/books/NATO+reaches+agreement+Libya+command/4498007/story.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Why War on Terror with no qualifiers from those on the receiving end such as Reign of Terror or US aggression? Keith-264 ( talk) 09:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
War on Terror | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Clockwise from top left: Aftermath of the September 11 attacks; American infantry in Afghanistan; an American soldier and Afghan interpreter in Zabul Province, Afghanistan; explosion of an Iraqi car bomb in Baghdad. | |||||||
| |||||||
Belligerents | |||||||
United States |
al-Qaeda | ||||||
Commanders and leaders | |||||||
Donald Trump Theresa May François Hollande Vladimir Putin Xi Jinping |
Osama bin Laden
† |
The infobox on the article seems to be a bit overcrowded, so i'm proposing an idea to simplify it the same way as the infobox on the World War II article. Any thoughts? 135.23.144.238 ( talk) 20:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
The section about the pharmaceutical plant is not introduced well. It talks about how the US plans to strike, but doesn't explain the sudden jump to the skepticism surrounding the pharmaceutical plant and why it is important. Separating the sentences about Operation Infinite Reach and the plant as well as some rephrasing would make this much clearer. Immichaelotoole ( talk) 01:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Also linking Osama bin Laden's Wikipedia Page would be helpful for those looking to read more. Immichaelotoole ( talk) 01:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Donald Trump has said multiple times before and after his inauguration that defeating ISIL is the highest priority of his administration and he will ake other offences against ISIS. After his administration a statement from white house also said "'Defeating ISIS and other radical Islamic terror groups will be our highest priority. To defeat and destroy these groups, we will pursue aggressive joint and coalition military operations when necessary". He also issued visa bans o 7 countries known to produce terrorists, which is yet to be approved in cour. He has also launched some new missions, like he latest airstrikes on ISIS strongholds in Syria. ( https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/22/dozens-dead-in-us-led-syria-airstrike-al-mansoura). Trump is also sending more troops and aircraft and renewing he war on terror with tighter actions. US and Russia under Trump will also carr joint actions against ISIL held territories. The following articles records some of his stances:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4142134/Trump-vows-wipe-face-Earth.html www.cnn.com/videos/politics/.../trump-tracker-defeating-isis.cnn http://time.com/4652696/president-trump-isis-review/ www.spokesman.com/stories/.../trump-orders-isis-plan-talks-with-putin-and-gives-/ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/22/trump-expects-to-speak-sunday-with-israel-leader-netanyahu.html https://www.c-span.org/video/?422418-1/president-trump-tells-cia-get-rid-isis
here are more numerous sources. This is a crucial article and is very backdated. I think the new strategies of the Trump administration and Donald Trump's promised and ongoing contribution to the war on terror in 2017 is a vital update that this crucial article needs to include. Terrorism is a global crisis, and is sadly far from over, new error attacks are happening almost regularly, so this war on error needs to continue and is continuing. I hope you consider the points I have made seriously, and include the new events in the war on terror in 2017 and include Donald Trump's role, promises, comments and operations being carried out under him. The war on terror is ongoing and needs to be updated after Donald Trump's announcements for further commitments to it, so the position of Donald Trump in the war on terror and the new developments in 2017 are vital and should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.230.107.22 ( talk) 07:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Under the commanders and leaders, there is a small subscript/caption describing who that person is. I am proposing this be removed because anyone can find out who that person is by simply clicking the bluelink. The captions are cluttering the infobox and making it look messy. CatcherStorm talk 15:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Obama rejected the term "War on Terror" during his administration, including on 23 May 2013.
Kim Jong Un took power in 2011 during the Obama administration. North Korea tested nuclear weapons, and also missiles, in 2013 and onwards ( 2014 North Korean missile tests, 2013 North Korean nuclear test).
Describing Obama administration's foreign policy in the Korea conflict as a "War on Terror" may not be supported by reliable sources, especially those that specialise in foreign relations or military subjects. The Daily Express is generally rejected by RSN.
I would be for removing Daily Express sources as not reliable (per RSN consensus) and only using Bush speeches that use the term "War on Terror" (not the media using the phrase loosely). -- Callinus ( talk) 19:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on War on Terror. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Methinks, the type of infobox used in the article is misleading, and perhaps creates a bias, as it presents the ideological/propaganda cliche cum metaphor as a real military conflict complete with belligerents, etc. Same goes for categorisations. Frankly, at this stage, i would much rather refrain from any proposals, but I urge every one interested to have a fresh look at what this article is about. Axxxion ( talk) 15:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Currently the infobox lists "Main participants", "NATO participants", "Non-NATO participants" and "Other participants". Aren't the latter two categories the same? Is the fourth category meant to be countries who participated in a non-combat role? — dukwon ( talk) ( contribs) 11:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on War on Terror. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on War on Terror. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=208509When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
The Leaders section for Pakistan erroneously lists the Army Chiefs instead of Presidents and Prime Ministers of Pakistan. Pervez Musharraf I understand, because he was both President and Army Chief but why are Raheel Shareef and Qamar Bajwa listed there as leaders instead of Asif Zardari, Nawaz Sharif and Shahid Khaqan Abbasi? I corrected the names and flags (From Standard of Pakistan Army to standards of Presidents and Prime Ministers) but the changes were for some reason reverted by SlaterSteven and Garuda28. Is there some specific reason for that? It is inconsistent even in that, because it misses General Ishfaq Kiyani who succeeded Musharraf as Army Chief. -- Aeg0n94 ( talk) 09:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Would anyone care to explain what is going on? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Just recently, the Costs of War project at Brown University’s Watson Institute offered a new estimate of what America’s wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Pakistan will cost the country through fiscal year 2018 and it’s a figure ― $5.6 trillion ― that should make your head spin. It certainly leaves Lindsey’s and Daniels’s estimates in a ditch somewhere on the road to Baghdad. Put another way, we’re talking at a bare minimum about a cost per American taxpayer since September 12, 2001, of more than $23,000. Good for the economy? Hmmm. And the Costs of War report’s estimate doesn’t even include interest on the borrowing that’s taken place to pay for those wars, which, it suggests, is “projected to add more than $1 trillion dollars to the national debt by 2023.” |
The link in the above quote goes here:
As of late September 2017, the United States wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria and the additional spending on Homeland Security, and the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs since the 9/11 attacks totaled more than $4.3 trillion in current dollars through FY2017. Adding likely costs for FY2018 and estimated future spending on veterans, the costs of war total more than $5.6 trillion. This report focuses on US federal budgetary costs and obligations for America’s wars since 9/11. |
This Google search pulls up more articles:
Various articles use the above total cost to come up with the number of $23,000 per taxpayer. It would be more accurate to say per adult U.S. resident. $5.6 trillion divided by $23,000 equals 243.5 million people. See: Demography of the United States: "There were about 125.9 million adult women in the United States in 2014. The number of men was 119.4 million." That totals 245.3, close enough for government purposes. :) -- Timeshifter ( talk) 15:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on War on Terror. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
No other president has been so significantly quoted as former President Obama in the section about "history of use of the phrase...". A summary of the former president's usage would be better, and fit with that administration's preferred term. Additionally there is no information about the current administration's usage policy.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 17:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
This new article may be helpful here
John Cummings ( talk) 09:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
In view of the hijacking of four airplanes of US Airways and American Airlines, the airlines published the photos of the crew members in the newspapers, and also published the boarding cards of all passengers, incl date of birth, in the print media, before the 11 October 2001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WiseWiso ( talk • contribs) 05:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
The list of participants shows the Hezbollah on the one side but Iran on the other. Iran supports Hezbollah and yes Hezbollah is a terrorist organization but they sometimes fight other terrorist organizations. Iran also combats some terrorist organizations directly, but does support Hezbollah. Due to the complex nature of the issue might it be better to make a note specifically labeling Iran as supporting Hezbollah and another note specifically labeling Hezbollah as combating other terrorist organizations beside Iran while also conducting terrorism? While you are at that it might be good to also make a note clearly stating the fact that the organizations labeled as terrorist do not all like each other and fight each other. E.G. al-Qaeda's disagreement with ISIL and etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.20.45.140 ( talk) 00:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
What about the US and it's allies aren't they terrorists too? They used violence & killed far more innocent people than all what listed here as terrorist groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.166.91.31 ( talk) 22:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
To justify China's place as a main participant in War on Terror, The provided references are woefully short. One is about Philippines' invitation to China for combating Abu-Sayyaf Group's piracy network and the other one is just a link about Chinese persecution of the Ethnic Uyghur minority in Xinjiang (China confiscating their passports). How does that make China a main participant in this war? It's War on Terror, not War on Muslims so state persecution against Muslim minority doesn't really make you a *main participant* in War against Terror. The Chinese haven't undertaken any major commitment so far against Terrorism globally since 2001. Even a small country like Afghanistan has contributed more to the War on Terror than China has. Instead of listing the permanent members of the Security Council as main participants, I propose that we should list the countries who are actually the largest contributors and main participants in the war which would be US, UK, France, Russia, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan and Afghanistan. -- Aeg0n94 ( talk) 07:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I accept the mission for China as a main partcipant Ericrashm ( talk) 16:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Northern_Mali_conflict Further they have no more role against terrorism Shadow4dark ( talk) 02:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Why is Russia mentioned twice, why is the golden dawn not under terrorists, why is this such a mess? Slatersteven ( talk) 16:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
It should be revert back to below version. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=War_on_Terror&oldid=898144129 Shadow4dark ( talk) 01:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm talking about the list in the infobox. I tried to do it myself multiple times, but I'm getting a 404 error. Thanks. William2001( talk) 18:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I accidentally reverted an IP edit because I failed to see the edit summary. I have corrected the mistake, but I do want someone with knowledge on this subject to check the location of Hamas to make sure it is not misplaced. Thank you. William2001( talk) 01:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
The term War on Terror is an oxymoron since war itself involves terror. The big governments which has waged the war are themselves the terrorists, possessing immense military and using cruel means to achieve domination like Asymmetric Warfare, Torture Chambers etc. The term, similar to the terms peacekeeping missile, preemptive strike etc., is meant to mislead the people of the world and gain their support for world domination. With over 10,00,000 recorded casualties caused by the proponents of the War on Terror, if indeed the war has to be carried on terror, it has to be waged back on those who have caused the damages in its name. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
122.164.156.40 (
talk)
21:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Reference: David Morley, Director of the Warwick Writing Programme, leads you through a series of creative writing challenges designed to help you develop your creativity and talent as a writer and reader.
The Campaign for Real Language - Creative writing's capacity for the creation of illusion-as-truth can make it a dangerous tool.
https://warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/podcasts/media/more/writingchallenges/?podcastItem=writing8.mp3
Hey, Argentina is not involved. -- Misionense12 ( talk) 13:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Please remove Argentina from the list. If their armed forces do not participate in anything. This has no sources nor references, so it cannot appear in the list. By other part, Argentina is neutral. -- Misionense12 ( talk) 13:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Please add casualties of both sides Ryan Okhla ( talk) 17:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
But atleast add something Ryan Okhla ( talk) 16:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I think it violates the neutrality of Wikipedia's policy. It seems like the US political perspective, not a common one. And I want to ask why they add that paramilitary groups? If we start adding all paramilitary groups, then it is unlimited. My opinion is that we should delete that part and I think we could give more information in the main article. 웬디러비 ( talk) 13:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Why is the Prime Minister and King of Belgium mentioned as among the principal leaders in the infobox? Considering that that is one of 3 places Belgium is mentioned at all in the whole wiki page, it seems Belgium has no important contribution to the War. Spykryo ( talk) 03:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:War on Cancer which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 22:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Material from this page has been copied to Wikipedia page 2010s political history. Michael E Nolan ( talk) 19:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bush's folly. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm ( talk) 18:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
The section on Libya does not explain why the 2011 military intervention in Libya is included in this article. The article for that war in Libya also does not identify it as part of the "war on terror". The later American intervention in Libya (2015–present) seems to fit because it is part of International military intervention against ISIL. I propose we remove the 3 paragraphs on the 2011 war. I am open to adding a sentence about the 2011 war in the paragraph about the 2015-present military intervention as background, although I'm leaning against it (I don't think it is necessary, especially as the main article does not mention it). BananaCarrot152 ( talk) 19:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
What has this to do with the war on Terror? Slatersteven ( talk) 13:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Too much of leaders, former leaders of every single involved country fighting within it's own relevant front. I'm going to trim the box soon. Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk) 07:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The infobox is used in descriptions for conflicts like the World Wars, I don't see it can not be used on the page here. User:Coolmans97 —Preceding undated comment added 06:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Reliable sources do refer to it as "the War on Terror" (note capitalization), making it a proper noun. Similarly, note the capitalization of "Vietnam War", "World War II", etc. - SummerPhD v2.0 02:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.A Google search shows that a large proportion of sources don't capitalize it, and Google Ngrams shows that a substantial majority don't: [5]. Unless there's good reason and consensus for an exception, the title should remain as it is, and usage in the article should be made consistent with it. I've changed the lead sentence. -- IamNotU ( talk) 03:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
War on terror has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add new bullet point with reference below in 'Further reading' section:
Mikulaschek, Christoph and Jacob Shapiro. (2018). Lessons on Political Violence from America's Post-9/11 Wars. Journal of Conflict Resolution 62(1): 174-202. Owl of Minerva 21 ( talk) 12:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I object to the removal of the military conflict infobox. The "War on Terror" is clearly a military conflict, so why did the infobox get removed? The removal was also premature - a few users in favor of an opinion does not constitute a consensus. We have infoboxes for protracted, extensive miltiary conflicts, such as the Afghanistan conflict (1978–present) and Iraqi conflict (2003–present), so we should re-instate the infobox for this article. Without the infobox, it is difficult, if not outright impossible, to present a visual summary of the statistics and the main developments of this conflict. If the infobox had a problem, it could have been fixed without throwing out the whole thing. An infobox in this article is better than having none at all. LightandDark2000 🌀 ( talk) 19:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
This is a section for, what I will anticipate to be, a debate over if the war ended in 2013. The sources I have found indicate that President Obama attempted to declare and end to the WOT in 2013, however that did not happen. Global War on Terrorism linked conflicts continue to this day in Afghanistan and against ISIL. The following are a sampling of sources that indicate that the WOT is ongoing, and also linked to ISIL.
I would encourage any user who wishes to contest this to do so here, rather than in the article space. Garuda28 ( talk) 22:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I will write what you need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.221.111 ( talk) 20:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the section War on terror#Criticism adequately summarises information from Criticism of the War on Terror and maybe United States war crimes. -- Tslawrk ( talk) 00:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Ever since the Capitol Riot of January 6th, right-wing groups have been labeled as "Domestic Terrorists" by the federal government. It's been almost a month since the event and perhaps domestic terrorism ought to be included in the discussion of this article. W.C Cross ( talk) 01:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
No sources are presented showing why, for example, Operation Pacific Eagle should be considered part of the War on Terror declared by George W. Bush in 2001. Logically, not every conflict by the US against terrorists is part of the War on Terror. At least setting the end-date in 2013 allows a much easier identification of what should be included in the article - as it is every instance of terrorism might be included here. FOARP ( talk) 21:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The US president was not the first, after 9/11, to invoke the term on September 16. And open letter was issued to Senator Feingold on the USENET on September 13 calling for a formal declaration of war on terrorism, here https://groups.google.com/g/alt.radio.talk/c/rzyBpaqSef8/m/scbDSbUXPbAJ, using language that was later mirrored in the President's speeches, a few hours before Congress took up discussion of a possible declaration, before settling on an authorization under the War Powers Resolution on the 14th. The President's remarks were also made on the 18th, as part of the process of signing the act of Congress, S.J. Res. 23, into law.
Other attributions post-dating the attack preceding President Bush's announcement and Congress's response might also exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6000:AA4D:C5B8:0:F7E5:9DA4:9E8C ( talk) 03:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
It is the "War on Terrorism" not the "War on terror"! Blockhouse321 ( talk) 14:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
War on terror has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Mexico should be added to the list of nations involved in the War on Terror since it's been involved in counter-terror operations especially during the Mexican Drug War. 172.58.27.6 ( talk) 10:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
War on terror has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Update dates for War in Afghanistan Dman677879 ( talk) 05:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
War on terror has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change List of military operations in the war in Afghanistan (2001–present) to List of military operations in the war in Afghanistan (2001–2021) since the war is officially over Dman677879 ( talk) 17:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
War on terror has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It says on that page that the date is (2001-2021) and that all of their troops were pulled out on Aug 30th! Dman677879 ( talk) 18:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm on mobile but there is a minor typo in the infobox about the War in Afghanistan. It reads "evaluation" instead of evacuation. vegaskukichyo ( talk) 05:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
☑ Corrected. vegaskukichyo ( talk) 19:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
War on terror has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
SomethingIAm ( talk) 20:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Change "20 years, 1 week, 1 day" to "20 years, 2 weeks, 5 days", or "20.05 years".
I'm noticing some inconsistencies with the spelling of Al-Qaeda. Is the first A capitalised or not? There's one section in the middle of the article that uses exclusively "al-Qaeda" but the rest is mostly "Al-Qaeda". Fudge Mobile 08:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
What is Wikipedia's opinion on the formal end date of the war? -- WR 14:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Immichaelotoole, Rosi3fish.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 12:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
As a definitive historical event/series of events, the War on Terror should be capitalized, no matter the fact that it is a 'war' on a concept. Kaleb David ( talk) 19:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Agree, plus common parlance capitalizes Terror in the phrase War on Terror.
Hussierhussier1 ( talk) 23:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
All of the captions are complete sentences, but some have a period at the end and some do not. I would change it, but i'm not sure if that is by design. Some feedback would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.254.222.252 ( talk) 21:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Most captions are not complete sentences, but merely sentence fragments, which should not end with a period or full stop. If any complete sentence occurs in a caption, then all sentences, and any sentence fragments, in that caption should end with a period or full stop.
- The Conservatory during the festival (No final period or full stop for lone sentence fragment), not The Conservatory during the festival.
- The stage was spotlit for the festival. (Period or full stop ends complete sentence)
- The Conservatory during the festival. The stage was spotlit for the occasion. (Period or full stop on each when they appear together)
This
edit request to
War on terror has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "On 20 September 2001, during a televised address to a joint session of Congress," to "On 22 September 2001, during a televised address to a joint session of Congress,".
This speech was given on the 22nd of September, not the 20th.
I submit this link as proof. Editor40209 ( talk) 03:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
The "War On Terror" is estimated to have killed at least 6 million. This seems to be more or less covered in the article, but refugees seem to not be mentioned. The 2015 "refugee crisis" in Europe was caused by the WOT. But it's just a small part of the total number of refugees.
"The U.S. post-9/11 wars have forcibly displaced at least 38 million people in and from Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, the Philippines, Libya, and Syria. This exceeds those displaced by every war since 1900, except World War II. [...] 38 million is a very conservative estimate. The total displaced by the U.S. post-9/11 wars could be closer to 49–60 million, which would rival World War II displacement." https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2021/Costs%20of%20War_Vine%20et%20al_Displacement%20Update%20August%202021.pdf
The article isn't necessarily bad (other than what's already mentioned on the article), but it fails to present the enormous scale of the war, in my opinion. This war seems to rival at least WWI in scale and magnitude.
If the war was over by 2013, as implied in the introduction, who won? And what war has been fought since? 89.253.73.146 ( talk) 21:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed the lead section is pretty much about just criticism, like there never was any terrorists so it is just one side doing bad stuff like there never was any Islamic state group for example. Some stuff should go to the Criticism section, some stuff should be removed and sources checked (for the example, the Hill source in the lead section, is opinion just) as the lead is pretty undue weight. Especially for the lead section care is needed to be balanced. For example there is mention of torture, and extraordinary rendition, and drone strikes but no any mention of the Al Qaeda and the Islamic State crimes and even huge atrocities Genocide of Yazidis by the Islamic State, to almost whole Middle east was under threat in 2014. Also health and enviro. effect just caused by one side hmmmm how nice. Sometimes is not enough to some scholar for example write something but that what he/she wrote needs to have impact and to be accepted by wide community. Balance needs to be established and nonsense pov content must to go out of the lead section or if notable to criticism section as it is now just one side undue weight things in the lead. 178.223.34.96 ( talk) 22:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
War on terror has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to add Sri Lanka to the participants list of War on Terror. 2402:4000:2381:C522:9DEE:DC56:323E:4E98 ( talk) 17:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I removed the rationale from the article head, and am copying it here; I do not take credit or blame for this message, but do not believe the average user needs to see this: "Multiple theaters are described yet none are particularly detailed, and definitions of terrorism related activities must be tightened up." ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 18:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
It feels a little weird to add taliban to the terrorist group list while the Taliban is not really recognized as one internationally isnt it? ProgrammerinEZ ( talk) 07:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
I might be wrong about this but tmk its not in there ProgrammerinEZ ( talk) 07:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello @ Slatersteven: My text names the specific government, a specific body of that said government, the specific type of threat and the source names specific agents which are of concern. The source is certainly WP:RS. I did not name the specific agents because that would probably be excessive detail because there are several. Invasive Spices ( talk) 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Major non-NATO allies they are something else and have nothing to do with this. Many of them never even sent troops and never made official support to the War on Terror. For example, countries such as Argentina never fighted in this war. And, by the way, we also need to cite sources supporting that. If we include MNNAs, we also need to include all NATO global partners. Henderson Grumicker ( talk) 18:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
And no other version of Wikipedia (none in other languages) places countries in this article even without having participated. No other Wikipedia put Argentina on this list and without sources. -- Henderson Grumicker ( talk) 00:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay I understand that but I disagree with you due to war on terror and Argentinas supportive actions in the war on terror as a major non-nato ally also you cannot just go and revert the edits until we come to some type of situation and if I am being honest it seems that you have some poltiocal motivation behind these edits due to some of your previous edits. You also cannot use IP address to back up your point to make it seem like you have more people supporting you then you do WP:SOCKPUPPET. DiSantis19 ( talk) 01:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
War on terror has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the first sentence of the lede, change the "is" to "was," as the infobox has an end date of 2021. For conformity. 2601:85:C100:46C0:456E:4EAE:503E:6EA1 ( talk) 23:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC) 2601:85:C100:46C0:456E:4EAE:503E:6EA1 ( talk) 23:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
So on 11 July 2023, there was a revert removing important content from the Lede backed up in the body of the article. The user (Richard-of-Earth) who did the deletion claimed "The lead should be a summary not a restatement of the body to make some WP:POV point."
This is ironic since MOS:LEAD clearly states that lede should "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". Apparently, the deletions removed contents related to casualties of the war and controversies regarding it. Check the article of other wars like Second World War or Iraq War; casualties and controversies are clearly mentioned in the lede. These are all noteworthy points to be included in the lede.
Moreover, this is written as a summary, not as a close paraphrase/copy-pasta from the body.
The user also asked "Discuss on the talk page before making this drastic a change to the lead". This is ironic since it was the user who made "drastic changes". The contents were in the long-standing version of the page. So it is the user who should have started the discussion before he blatantly removed large-amounts of content removal of Reliably sourced material. Also take a look at WP:CENSOR. "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable"
Thank you. Shadowwarrior8 ( talk) 08:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
All but the shortest articles should start with introductory text (the "lead"), which establishes significance, includes mention of significant criticism or controversies, and make readers want to learn more. The lead has no heading; its length should be commensurate with that of the article, but is normally no more than four paragraphs
The lead should establish significance, include mention of consequential or significant criticism or controversies, and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more... The following paragraphs should give a summary of the article. They should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, including its more important controversies
The redirect 911 War has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 14 § 911 War until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 12:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
I stumbled on this article while researching another subject, but the "Anti-terror campaigns by other powers" section doesn't seem relevant to the article itself.
It does not provide any information on the war on terror itself and seems fairly out of place, especially calling "war on terror" operations by other countries which can be confusing for readers and presents these operations as being implicitly similar to the war that is the subject of the article.
I didn't want to outright remove it without asking what the community thinks of this, though, hence this message. MrTimscampi ( talk) 12:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
The number of participating countries should be reduced and limited to those that participated effectively and fundamentally. This is too much filling for a big encyclopedia. Any information without a source should not remain. Dl.thinker ( talk) 22:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
As the lead states backed up by sources, the "war on terror" is not a conventional war but a series of efforts to combat terrorism. So how exactly do we define the end of this then? The date still says 15 Sep 2001-present, but it's clear to me that something at least needs to change. Obama himself officially declared the GWOT over in 2013 [1] which is more official than anything saying the "war on terror" is ongoing since 2001.
What do other people think? WR 19:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Wouldn't the arming of the IDF by the Biden administration to "destroy Hamas" have some contribution of the war on terror? 2600:8801:FB13:6B00:2C74:717:1F33:8D2C ( talk) 22:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Hey guys, In my personal opinion, I think we should list Dec 31 2022 as the end of the War on Terror. The US military announcing that date as the last day the National Defense Service Medal would be awarded for the War on Terror is the most meaningful declaration the US government ever made of the War on Terror being over. As far as the US military is concerned, that date marks the end of the campaign. Also many notable events happened between August 2021 and December 2022 such as the end of Coalition combat operations in Iraq against ISIS (Dec 2021) and the killing of Al-Zawahiri in Afghanistan (July 2022). To use August 2021 as the end date feels premature. Additionally, to use the end Operation Freedom's Sentinel, which ultimately was a train/advise/assist mission, as a sign of the entire War on Terror being over seems disproportionate . OFS was one of several US operations and at the time of its ending, America was still actively conducting combat operations against ISIS in Iraq and Syria and Al-Qaeda off-shoots in Somalia. How is the War on Terror "over" in August 2021 if the US was still fighting the War on Terror in three countries and awarding the National Defense Service Medal for the conflict? To be fair, there is a case to be made that there should be no end date at all since America is still engaged in low-level fighting in Syria and Somalia against ISIS and Al-Qaeda.
What do you guys think?
Jab1998 (
talk)
23:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Wouldn't "Operation "Prosperity" possibly fit the classification as a part of the "War on Terror"? 2A02:3035:600:D032:3349:AF33:D3E1:A614 ( talk) 12:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the
help page).