![]() | 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 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
Any proposals to improve the article? We should clean up what we can and ask for a peer review. -- JokerXtreme ( talk) 15:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Factual Error on Side Frame under "Commanders" incorrectly lists Gen. John Abizaid's Command responsibility and date. Correct info is "CENTCOM Commander 2003-2007" I cannot seem to edit the side box in question. Please correct the error. Commodore2009 ( talk) 17:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Is Operation Active Endeavour part of War on Terror after all? I can't find any sources connecting the two. -- JokerXtreme ( talk) 11:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
how do u edit the wot info box. Islamuslim ( talk) 05:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Adding
Caucasian militants in Belligerents other targets section. They have been involved in bombings.
AmazingAthiest (
talk)
05:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think they should be added. Keep in mind that the War on Terror is something very specific. We should not be adding any terrorist organization and any counter-terrorist action. A thumb of rule to consider if something is to be included is to ask the question: "Is it related to an action taken by the US under the banner of War on Terror?". -- JokerXtreme ( talk) 07:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
If its specific then title should be US War on Terror only my opinion. AmazingAthiest ( talk) 19:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
ok AmazingAthiest ( talk) 22:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
i know somebody who was in nato —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.161.85.154 ( talk) 22:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks to Nikkimaria for recommending possible improvements to be done in this article. Everyone is welcome to read Wikipedia:Peer_review/War_on_Terror/archive1 and contribute by editing the article. -- JokerXtreme ( talk) 15:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't have any specific suggestion, unfortunately, but having just read the article it strikes me as polemic, not neutral or encyclopedic. It seems an unremitting attack on the term, to the exclusion of talking about the conflict.
I'm no supporter of Bush's Global War on the English Language, but the article as is besmirches Wikipedia's reputation as a a place to go for the full picture on a topic, instead of a fox-news style version of 'fair and balanced'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.121.23 ( talk) 01:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
My short PTSD suicide thinking. Example, of my VA hospital 3 month stay. http://www.18-va-suicides-per-day.blogspot.com/
1. President Obama’s speeches on or about Aug. 2, 2010 to disabled Veterans. http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/index.php/whats-new/1843-president-barack-obama
2. Please have All low income veterans to be able to benefit from the upgraded disability decision-making your committee will be examining. All low income veterans, not just soldiers from a particular time period. All low income Veterans to be able to get education compensation. Example: Free Internet, computers, cell phones with unlimited services. Also all low income Veterans to Free Internet software courses which are already setup by respectable companies like Microsoft and Adobe. Not the rip off schools under resent investigation.
I say All low income Veterans not just those with previous recognize disabilities. I say this because of the changing times and need for jobs and or the ability to at least interact with others not just veterans. Including all low income Veterans even with out a recognizable disabilities would help Vietnam Veterans like me and others like me. I say this because at the age of 60 I was in a mental ward (suicidal) of a VA hospital. I make my requests because my thinking in a positive way helps me because my criticisms and suggestion might be helpful to others. I’m now getting help from a civilian Doctor. My blog below helps to understand why a chose a civilian doctor over a VA hospital. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.72.48 ( talk) 18:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
there using dogs now The term "War on terror" has been officially dropped by the US government, while it was never used by the other side (whoever that is). Obama's cabinet has claimed that the United States and its allies are at "War with Al Qaeda and its allies", while the "War on Terror" is over. How about renaming the article "War on Al Qaeda" or "War on Al Qaedism". The term "War on Terror" isn't used anymore by any of the combatants. On the other hands, the two terms I am proposing are closer to the reality of the conflict as well as the current official American position —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnymanos arc ( talk • contribs) 21:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
US War on Terror is more specific and defines US goals. AmazingAthiest ( talk) 19:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the article needs to be renamed, but it should not use the term "war on terror" as if there actually was such a thing. The phrase itself is a rhetorical device and WP needs to make its neutrality clear at every mention of the term.
Wegesrand (
talk)
17:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe the lead paragraph needs rewriting, to be in consistence with
WP:LEAD. --
JokerXtreme (
talk)
14:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
In progress Currently working on it.
Swarm
Talk
13:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Canada I think should also be listed as a country, while technically not in iraq, it has military operations all over the world relating to this article i beleive. Anyone else have an opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.132.22 ( talk) 17:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how to edit the info myself but the infobox is incorrect regarding the dates of service of General Abizaid as ISAF commander. cheers, 173.66.178.76 ( talk) 22:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
== US Homeland?
Almost no American would use the word 'Homeland' to describe attacks on the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeland#Various_connotations —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gam3 ( talk • contribs) 02:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
The September 11th attacks have been the most distructive acts of terrorism in modern history.
74.249.219.52 ( talk) 03:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I propose removing India as a non-NATO belligerent, because it is not participating in the millitary campaign. If this has been discussed previously, would request someone to please direct me to the discussion. While I dont know why exactly India has been included, I offer my reasons below to what I think would have been the most likely reasons.
1. Part of Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa / Combined Task Force 150
I think this may have been the primary reason for inclusion, since India was previously listed as a belligerent in the OEF-HOA page and the CTF 150 page as a CTF 150 member. Since India was conducting its anti-piracy operations independently (just like several other non-CTF-150 countries including China, Russia, Greece, Saudi Arabia, etc), I had corrected this last month in both of those pages.
2. Has ongoing military activities against terrorists
Yes, India is engaged in military activities against terrorists, but definetly not as part of this campaign. Quoting from the article, while this campaign "was launched in 2001", Indian operations have been on prior to that. As the article currently says, and as is normally understood otherwise also, the term 'War on Terrorism' refers to the campaign led by the US/UK only. There are no Indian troops deployed in any of the theatres where such missions are going on. Apart from sharing of intelligence, I am not aware of any other co-operation between India and US in this area. The Indian government has, in fact, passed a resolution in parliament condemning the invasion of Iraq. Link here: http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/exclusive/iraq/resolution1.htm.
So, unless anybody has conflicting thoughts, I would propose to remove India as a non-NATO belligerent. Chocolate Horlicks ( talk) 14:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
I think '* 2003 Istanbul bombings and Islamabad Marriott Hotel bombing in Turkey' in the section 'Islamic terrorism after 9/11' is supposed to be:
and
Bye, Robert
188.98.34.4 ( talk) 19:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
The D.C. Sniper incident after 9-11 was conducted by Islamic extremists. The Fort Hood Shooting was also conducted by a radical (terrorist). These events should be written in the War on Terror article under a "Home Front" section. It is also important to show the total casualties from this war: United States suffered over 8,000 killed (including the 9/11 attacks, the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Military operations in other regions of the world). The casualties of other parties should also be shown in the top box on the right-hand side.
I disagree with two points. First: the D.C. Snipers, John Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, may have converted to Islam, but that does not make them "Islamic extremists" unless the killings were religiously motivated and I don't believe there is enough evidence to support this. Second: in order to be balanced, a report of the "total casualties" that you call for would include not only American lives lost, but also Coalition casualties, Iraqis and Afghans. And foreign fighters as well. The wide range of reporting on the numbers makes this logistically difficult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.100.112.239 ( talk) 08:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
The map shown [1] does not correspond to the section "Islamic terrorism after 9/11" - it doesn't show in yellow (countries where there were terrorist bombings/attacks) Russia (with this already in the infobox), India, Israel and maybe others. Alinor ( talk) 08:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I had put up the revised map, but yes, I agree - they do not match. I guess we could include countries like Russia, India, Israel and Turkey under the yellow category. But I dont know if this would be exhaustive - I dont claim to have knowledge of all countries where islamic terrorist attacks have happened. We may also want to clarify that most of these countries have their own independent ongoing military operations against terrorists, distinct from the US-led "War on Terror" campaign. Let me know if you agree and if you have more countries to add to the list. Chocolate Horlicks ( talk) 09:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I see that the Netherlands are missing from the list of NATO belligerents. The Netherlands operated in both Iraq and Afghanistan and is named several times throughout the article so I think they should be added. Armorad ( talk) 23:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
There is a small island in the Pacific that has contributed to the war by sending troops to support NATO actions. Thanks-- 67.126.87.201 ( talk) 05:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
This article has numerous issues that merit attention. Therefore, it has been tagged with a request for re-write. Some of the deficiencies that motivated this request are as follows:
For these reasons and others, this article and its contents may merit review. dr.ef.tymac ( talk) 23:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
in the box underneath the picture on the right, it says "Afganistam" when it should say "Afganistan" which it later says several times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.208.85 ( talk) 19:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Currently it says on top of the page "The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject" : if that is the case, which after reading the entire page - it sure is. Why is the page not titled "American War on Terror" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LorienN ( talk • contribs) 19:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Per this discussion, it was previously determined that the Muhammad/Malvo DC sniper attacks and the Ford Hood killings were not related to the War on Terror but rather "spree killings" unrelated to either 9/11 or the War on Terror. I am dismayed to see them back here: and I intend to remove them again. The recent shootings in Arizona - should we add them as well? This is the problem that the article faced before the cleanup, and we don't need these things here. Anyone have any input on this issue? It's been decided by consensus before to keep them out of this article, and I have no problem boldly removing them (as well as the picture of the caskets of the victims of the Fort Hood shootings) once again. Thank you. Doc talk 20:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Since when did thieves become part of the war on terror? Somali pirates steal to live a lavish life, they have nothing to do with terrorism. could someone delete it pls? Iwanttoeditthissh ( talk) 19:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
"A source of terror" is not the same thing as being a terrorist. The Somali pirates do not meet the definitions of a terrorist as given in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist#Types_of_Terrorism. They are thieves. They do not use "terror" as a coercive political tool, it is solely based on monetary gain. Jbower47 ( talk) 13:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
If the war against pirates is part of Operation Enduring Freedom, then it is considered part of the War on Terror by the US Gov't, and since the US Gov't coined the War on Terror, and since the War on Terror is US-led, if the US Gov't considers it part of the War on Terror, it should probably be part of the article. Also, the first sentence of the Wikipedia article on terrorism says, "Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion." It doesn't specify political goals. To continue on this, in the section cited by Jbower47, there are actually types of terrorism described that are non-political, such as "Terrorism that is not aimed at political purposes but which exhibits “conscious design to create and maintain a high degree of fear for coercive purposes, but the end is individual or collective gain rather than the achievement of a political objective,” " which is called Non-Political Terrorism by that article. Finally, according to the U.S. Navy, Combined Task Force 150, an international force created to fight piracy carries out operations which "complement the counterterrorism and security efforts of regional nations," showing that there is an international consensus that piracy is terrorism. Supergeek1694 ( talk) 04:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I was reading the article in question and in the military section it does mention the war on terror under its connect to the subject under CTF 150, and is also mentioned in the article Operation Enduring Freedom – Horn of Africa. Therefore, the idea that piracy in the waters off Somalia is somehow connected to the War on Terror does not appear to be without merit. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 14:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
This article was tagged for re-write and neutrality problems, those tags were removed, but it appears that the underlying substantial NPOV issues have not been addressed, rendering this article inconsistent with WP:NPOV. Please resolve the following before removing the NPOV flag.
Foremost, please note this is not intended as an invitation to political discussion either for or against a particular viewpoint on the subject matter of this article. I love my country and honor those who do the difficult and solemn work of defending her against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. This issue is not about my personal views, however, but about Wikipedia policy.
At issue: What is this article about?
If this article is about 1) only, then clearly the content of the article in its present state is misleading, and incapable of neutrality, since it documents an international military campaign as combating the concept/tactic of terrorism, with no neutral basis for impartially documenting how the military operations factually coincide with the meaning of the catch-phrase. It would be like taking the article Axis of evil and then trying to document how the nations described by that catch-phrase are actually, in fact, evil.
If this article is about 2) only, then clearly the content of the article is irrevocably inconsistent with WP:NPOV, unless and until a reasonable, neutral, and logically-consistent argument can be made for why a politically contentious and U.S.-U.K. centric viewpoint of an international issue merits any more prominence than other viewpoints on this international issue. If it is truly possible to have a neutral Wikipedia article on the use of military force to eradicate the concept/tactic of terrorism, then it should be possible for a disinterested third-party to read the article and honestly say that it does not give favorable bias toward any organization or nation affected by the concept/tactic of terrorism. I do not see how such an article could possibly be neutral, consistent with Wikipedia policy.
If this article is about 3) (both) then clearly the content of the article is beyond repair, because there is no supporting neutral definition of either terrorism or the war on terrorism that can allow a disinterested editor to determine which military operations by which world organizations or groups merit inclusion in this article. More organizations and nations are affected by terror than just the U.K. and U.S. If a neutral definition of this concept is even possible at all, then it would necessarily have to include definitions that may not coincide with the opinions of any given president or leader of any given nation.
For these reasons and others, this article should at least be flagged as an NPOV violation, and remain so until someone can actually address these issues. dr.ef.tymac ( talk) 19:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I recently undid this addition, as I don't feel we need the "For more plots click [[Category:Failed_terrorist_attempts|here]]." It's just not necessary, IMHO. I almost undid the other addition by the same editor, as it seemed to be adding a lot of material at once without discussion. So, let's discuss! I've seen only a handful of editors comment here (thank the Lord for them), and it would be great to get some other opinions from some of the many watchers of this page. Where do we want the article to go? It changes from one main version to another, then changes again. Another "split" proposal? Thank you for your time :> Doc talk 01:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Should the recent shootings in Frankfurt be included in this article? If so should it be listed under the casualties section, like how the Fort Hood and Little Rock shootings are presently listed? -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 17:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
These two groups should be added as Western Allie Israel is fighting against terrorist tacks from both groups. Nbaka is a joke ( talk) 19:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes they should but the fact that two islamic terroor groups responsible for deaths in several countires is a major ommission. Nbaka is a joke ( talk) 21:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Should US/NATO/UN intervention in the Libyan Civil War be included in this category? Gaddafi has historically been an enemy of the U.S., and there has been renewed talk and speculation of Gaddafi renewing his past support for terrorism and restarting his nuclear program if he wins this civil war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.106.58 ( talk) 03:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I move the Gaddafis be taken off the list of belligerents when he nor Libya are not mentioned anywhere in the article. It just seems someone added it without knowing much about the War on Terror.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Hawk ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 30 March 2011
http://blogs.forbes.com/kenrapoza/2011/05/01/under-obama-no-more-osama-and-with-him-goes-the-war-on-terrorism/ claims that the War might end. If so, what are the implications for troops, education vs. defense funding, and airline security inspections (www.infowars.com/no-escape-from-the-tsas-sexual-molestation-and-naked-body-porno-scanners/ infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used e.g.])? 173.8.151.126 ( talk) 06:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Did the war end when Hitler killed himself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.114.227 ( talk) 13:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Japan has contributed troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan totaling 1,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.114.227 ( talk) 13:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
shouldn't it be changed from "War on Terror" to "War on Terrorism" 165.124.212.186 ( talk) 18:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
"the War on Terror, which has resulted in a total of between 80,000 and 1.2 million civilian deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia between 2001 and 2007."
Those figures don't appear here 190.51.182.32 ( talk) 16:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
it says "... War on Terror, which has resulted in a total of between 80,000 and 1.2 million civilian deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia between 2001 and 2007."
that's the range? imagine if I was going to get somewhere between 8 gallons of gas or 120 for a trip i was planning. I guess wittgenstein would say that sentence has very little sense. it's gramatical. it's meaning is conveyed clearly. but it's value or significance can't be put into a proper context. S*K*A*K * K 09:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
This report should be included. It suggests that around 95% of the war on terror casualties have been Iraqi civilians.-- Aa2-2004 ( talk) 15:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
The article states that Bin Laden was killed on 2 May 2011, but Bin Laden was killed on 1 May 2011. The original article used for the citation does not state the date that Bin Laden died, it may be appropriate to find another article that lays out the date and time of the operation rather than the one currently used. 96.228.177.100 ( talk) 16:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
The term "War on Terror" is a phrase in broken English which "has been used by" a former US administration plagued by functional illiteracy. It is not in official use, and it is an eyesore. So can the article please be moved away from its now-obsolete title?
Please make sure to note that I am not commenting on the merit of these operations, merely on the article title. -- dab (𒁳) 10:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the article should remain under the present title. This question has been discussed before, showing that the term is problematic. Therefore I think it's necessary to make clear right from the start that it is and there is no undue weight in stating this. -- Borsanova ( talk) 19:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
This new alternate name appears to be a typo, however, seeing as it is referenced, I will not remove it regardless of my personal reservations of its inclusion in the terminology section. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 19:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
So do we list what is said or what is correct? Hcobb ( talk) 21:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WP:RSN#littlegreenfootballs. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 07:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC) (Using {{ pls}})
The Netherlands had 2000 soldiers stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan, they also have been instrumental in keeping the Horn of Africa save, why aren't they under participants? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.212.46.48 ( talk) 15:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
The Iraq war was a part of the war on terror and I feel that as the main target in the Iraq war Saddam Hussien should included in the list of commaders and leaders. He was known for supporting terriost organizations and posseing WMDs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernardini2011 ( talk • contribs) 10:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Turkey-PKK_conflict — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.7.95 ( talk) 16:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The line that reads-
Such thwarted attacks include: The 2001 shoe bomb plot
The shoe bomb plot was not thwarted and should be removed from the list. He got through security, on the plane and in the air. Only because he failed to get it to explode is why he got caught. when you click the link for 2001 Shoe Bomb Plot this is what yo get: The 2001 shoe bomb plot was a failed bombing attempt that occurred on American Airlines Flight 63 98.18.39.136 ( talk) 03:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I propose to merge War against Islam into this article. Rationale: 'War against Islam' is nothing more then an interpretation of War on Terror mostly because active warzones of the war on terror are located in predominantly Islamic countries. It should be located in paragraph 9 (criticism). -- Pereant antiburchius ( talk) 19:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Support, per Pereant . V7-sport ( talk) 19:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
NO reason has been given for the removal of the Netherlands from the list of Combatants. OEF-A, is still operated under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. The nation of the Netherlands has not withdrawn from NATO. NATO as an organization is a combatant, per Article 5 all nations are considered to have been attacked legally per the treaty, when one nation is attacked and the article is envoked.
The Netherlands may not presently have active combatants in theater, but they have been (at least) a combatant, and should be kept for at least that reason. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 23:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:CANVASS#appropriate notification I am notifying interested editors of the fact that I have posted an invitation to comment at the MILHIST talk page. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 16:40, 8 August 2011 ( PDT)
The editor who made the initial edit has been involved in edit warring in the past, and has been edited in a disruptive manor on the Operation Iraqi Freedom article.? -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 23:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
The 2011 Spokane Bombing Attempt is listed under Islamic terrorism after 9/11.. except if you read the article page of the bombing itself it appears more to be a racially motivated bombing, and has NOTHING to do with Islamic terrorism. Just because an act of terrorism is committed, doesn't mean a Muslim's done it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.226.60 ( talk) 23:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't Iraq and Afghanistan be listed there? NO!THEY SHOULDN'T! YOU DUMBY! I would've simply added them myself, but the hidden text there said not to. CuboneKing ( talk) 00:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
From New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/26/world/americas/26iht-terror.html Washington recasts terror war as 'struggle' By Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker Published: Wednesday, July 27, 2005
In recent speeches and news conferences, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the country's top military officer have spoken of "a global struggle against violent extremism" rather than "the global war on terror," which had been the catchphrase of choice.
"a global struggle against violent extremism" Please add this is addition to the name change attributed to Obama Administration. Neither have gained any wide acceptance as nearly all media still refer to the "Global War on Terror". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.103.213 ( talk) 05:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
>>> I think when the Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld uses the term "global struggle against violent extremism" in "recent speeches and news conferences" back in 2005 as noted in the NYT article that it is important enough to be considered (and listed) as a viable alternate name to "Global War on Terror", if nothing but for completeness. (btw this is my 1st proposed edit - any other reference to "struggle" was not made by me.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.103.213 ( talk) 01:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Why is the Muslim Brotherhood added on the list of the belligerents? The Brotherhood doesn't have an armed military wing and it is not part of any conflict Its also not designated as a terror group by any country in the world including the United States and Britain. -- Riuken ( talk) 05:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
In the background section, should a mention of the Khobar Towers bombing also be included? -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 00:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Just a simple edit needed - change the crucifix symbol to the abbreviation KIA or deceased. This is in keeping with other such articles and reflects a wider cultural respect. Jls68 ( talk) 10:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
2011 Minsk Metro bombing has nothing to do with "Islamic terrorism after 9/11". Please remove that entry.
I support this. Accoding to BBC News on the topic the suspects are natives and the motives are unclear. Also on the wikipedia article on Minsk Metro bombing no evidence of Islamist links exists. Editors with powers to edit the article, please respond. - Tikru — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikru8 ( talk • contribs) 13:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
9/11 and the War on Terror should be added to List of Masonic hoaxes. It has also produced the construction of 33 intelligence agency complexes in D.C. more devoted to preying on Americans than any engineered threat. {See: "Report: 3,100 firms, agencies involved in war on terror")
The Light Burns ( talk) 17:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add Operation Enduring Freedom to the Status section and put War in Afghanistan under it because Operation Enduring Freedom is a large part of the War on Terror.
Pieetr ( talk) 05:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Under the list of commanders, John Abizaid is listed as the ISAF commander from 2009-Present. John Abizaid retired from the military in 2007 from the position of CENTCOM commander, succeeded by William Fallon who is listed correctly. Abizaid was never ISAF commander. The current ISAF commander is John R. Allen, who succeeded David Petraeus in 2011, who, in turn, succeeded Stanley McChrystal in 2010. Someone needs to correct this. Jantill ( talk) 05:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC) I've fixed that. And also updated it. It now lists all CENTCOM commanders since the War of Terror began, as well as all ISAF commanders that were American (there were British ISAF commanders before the American ones, but I haven't added those). They are listed in chronological order, with all CENTCOM commanders first, then all ISAF commanders (with Gen. Petraeus listed in the CENTCOM section as he was both). So someone feel free to add the British ISAF commanders, and also, I forgot to put an edit summary, and don't know how to fix that. So if someone knows how to do that, please feel free to do so. - Ezuvian ( talk) 12:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be mention in this article that although the Bush administration claimed the invasion of Iraq was part of the War on Terror, that in fact 1) Iraq had absolutely NOTHING to do with the 911 terrorists 2) Al Qaeda was not in Iraq while Saddam Hussein was in power, as he actively kept them out and 3) the other claimed reason that invading Iraq was justified by the War on Terror - that Iraq was developing or holding onto WMDs has been thoroughly debunked? After Saddam Hussein was removed Al-Qaeda in Iraq did appear, and caused havoc for a time until the Sunni Awakening. So in fact, if the War on Terror was supposed to be a War on Al Qaeda, invading Iraq had just the opposite effect. If the purpose of the War on Terror was to fight against militant Islamists, then Saddam surely was our ally in this fight, because he hated and suppressed them. Something has got to be said in this article that the original reasons given for invading Iraq by Bush have since been shown to be every bit as false as the Gulf of Tonkin incident was for escalating the war in Vietnam. DarthRad ( talk)
This article is not about a specific military campaign. It is about a political term used to tie a number of campaigns together under an ideological denominator. As such, Wikipedia is guilty of losing its encyclopedic focus if it succumbs to using propaganda terms as if they denoted something real. Note how even Great Patriotic War redirects to Eastern Front (World War II) (in this case, the term refers to an identifiable conflict, it is just less than neutral). As an encyclopedia, we do not call wars by the propaganda terms used by any involved sides. We do not call articles on military conflicts "holy war", "just war", "war against evil", so why should we use "war against terror" as if it was a neutral term?
In this case, I am sure a lot of interesting things can be said on how the apotropaic nature of the term "war on terror" reflects the psychological situation in the US in the years following 9/11. The term is even touching in a way in its baffling, apparently unreflected, naivete. But it doesn't refer to a military conflict. It describes the efforts of a political administration to come up with an ideological framework to group the various military adventures it found itself entangled in after people decided "something had to be done" in reaction to 9/11.
I am not complaining about the state of the article, it is fair enough. It just needs to make clear that "war on terror" is not an identifiable "war", but instead a highly interesting exercise in rationalisation during the early to mid 2000s. So I suggest there should not be a "campaignbox", which suggests that this is about a military conflict. -- dab (𒁳) 10:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Current.tv refers to a "Global War for Jobs." But a visit to Europe or South Korea reveals that this is really a "Global War for American Jobs." How many people have been killed in the Global War for Jobs? Was Jobs killed in the Global War for Jobs? How many Foxconn employees have been killed so far? And if an Obamamutant from Globalistan gives all the jobs to his friends, is it really necessary to win such a war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.109.2.24 ( talk) 14:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Although the term is not officially used by the administration of US President Barack Obama (which instead uses the term Overseas Contingency Operation)
Here the issue is that the President is not an object, he is a person. This is my recommended change. Simply one word:
Although the term is not officially used by the administration of US President Barack Obama (who instead uses the term Overseas Contingency Operation)— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.8.71.218 (
talk •
contribs) 10:33, 13 February 2012
It says that Bush came up with 'war on terror', however in the quote he uses 'terrorism'. Later he does say 'war on terror', it was four days later. Is it known who came up with the phrase 'war on terror'? Just as someone came up with Reagan's Berlin speech. Terror and terrorism are different things, it might be that Bush (or the speechwriter) thought of 'terror' as a state of mind. Yet, I wonder, is it known who exactly came up with this wording? 81.68.255.36 ( talk) 11:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
The term "war on terror" was just a propaganda slogan concocted by a particular faction to cover their geopolitical agenda. It was usually put in quotes by others, or preceded by "so called". It was not "commonly applied". It should be described as "an expression" or suchlike, as we do with " American way of life", for example. It seems to be disused (judging by a Google News search), now that its proponents have themselves adopted terrorist tactics. Fourtildas ( talk) 20:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
This part tells about Islamic terrorism after 9/11, but it should be removed or changed. Many of these have not much to do with the war on terror because they weren't attacks by al Qaeda or related terrorist groups. Examples are: List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2011 and other attacks of Palestinians on Israel. and also others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.204.100.196 ( talk) 10:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Palestinian attacks on isreal should NOT be considered Islamic terrorism. they have long been fighting over occupation of land. There are also Afghanistan bombings listed that are arguably in the same category. there is no evidence in any listed source of who the bombers were. therefore it is incorrect to give them the convenient title of "islamists" Jokerkd ( talk) 22:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
The Iraq war was a part of the war on terror and I feel that as the main target in the Iraq war Saddam Hussien should included in the list of commaders and leaders.
The bias of this article is an underlying feature. it won't be changed. get used to it Jokerkd ( talk) 04:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Add saddam. MohammedBinAbdullah ( talk) 14:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Should we add the year in front of the title like 2001-2012 war on terror. here are the examples
MohammedBinAbdullah ( talk) 14:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
About 2007–2012 global financial crisis. 2012 doesn't means it ended but its the latest year only. In 2013 it will be changed to 2007–2013 global financial crisis if the crisis was to continue. MohammedBinAbdullah ( talk) 15:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Dude read what I said above ok I'll explain you in different terms. You agree we live in the present and the currently year is 2012. If so then 2012 will be the last year represented in the title like 2007–2012 global financial crisis but if the crisis continues to 2013 we will have to the move the article to 2007–2013 global financial crisis. Please read it carefully otherwise it will make no sense. Thanks MohammedBinAbdullah ( talk) 16:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
This article currently claims that Iraq was only listed as a State Sponsor of Terrorism "after Saddam Hussein fell out of U.S. favor". However, the U.S. vehemently opposed the Ba'athist takeovers of Syria and Iraq in 1966 and 1968, respectively. The U.S. made arms sales to Iraq formally illegal in the seventies. It armed Kurdish rebels in the Second Kurdish Iraqi War. It denounced Iraq repeatedly for its support of terrorism, as many airplanes were hijacked straight to Baghdad in the seventies, and Abu Nidal lived there while he was the most-wanted terrorist in the world. Iraq was designated a State Sponsor of Terrorism on the very first day the list was created, back in 1979. The U.S. sold Iraq 1% of its arms in the war with Iran. To make this possible, President Reagan did take Iraq off the list. Ostensibly, this was because of improvement in the regime’s record, although former United States Assistant Secretary of Defense Noel Koch later stated, "No one had any doubts about [the Iraqis'] continued involvement in terrorism... The real reason was to help them succeed in the war against Iran." As it is, you would think that the allegations against Saddam Hussein were a complete fabrication. If so, then why did British, Israeli, German, and many other intelligence agencies also accuse his regime of ties to terrorism? TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 03:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The congressional report referred to in this section is critically incomplete. Not only did it omit non-DoD “off budget” items like the State Department, CIA, and USAid as Wikipedia presently notes, but it also omits all domestic spending, the vast bulk of veterans' expenses, and any interest (including that already paid to date.)
As such, I request that this:
A 2011 Congressional Research Service report, “The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11," analyzed the financial outlays that have been made for the conflicts during this nearly decade-long period. The report focuses on expenditures related to Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) Afghanistan and other counter terror operations; Operation Noble Eagle (ONE), providing enhanced security at military bases; and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). The report’s total does not include supplementary economic, food and military aid to Pakistan or assistance to several countries in Africa. The report states that the price tag through fiscal year 2011 for such purposes as military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care will be $1.283 trillion. If the fiscal year budget for 2012 is approved, the total global security and conflict-related costs will be $1.415 trillion. If deployed troop levels come down to 45,000 by 2015 and stay there through 2021, the total two-decade cost is estimated to be $1.8 trillion.<ref>{{cite web|url = http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/international/cost-iraq-afghanistan-terror/ |title = Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Anti-Terrorism Operations |publisher = Journalist's Resource.org }}</ref>
Be replaced with this:
An academic report in 2011 summarized total conflict-related costs over the 2001-2020 period at $4.81-$5.59 trillion.<ref>{{cite web |url = http://costsofwar.org/article/economic-cost-summary |title = Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Anti-Terrorism Operations |author = Eisenhower Study Group |publisher = [[Watson Institute for International Studies]], [[Brown University]] |year = 2011 |accessdate=2012-06-24 }}</ref> Counting just expenditures to fiscal year 2011 for such purposes as military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, domestic security, veterans’ care, related social expenses and interest paid, estimates are $3.2-$3.9 trillion. Further direct expenses from 2012 to 2020 were estimated at $453 billion, plus another $1 trillion of interest payments for war debt, and economic opportunity costs of $154 billion. These figures do not account for off-[[United States Department of Defense|DoD]] spending beyond 2012, state and local expenses not reimbursed by the federal government, nor reimbursements made to foreign coalition allies for their expenses.
72.235.213.232 ( talk) 19:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Costofwar.org does not appear to be a reliable, and neutral, source. The CRS report is such a source. I would not support the change requested. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 19:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Very well then, I've cited a Reuters news story, please replace the aforementioned section as follows:
Reuters reported in June 2011 that total conflict-related US government costs over the 2001-2020 period could be as high as $5.4 trillion.<ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.reuters.com/subjects/cost-of-war |title = Cost of war at least $3.7 trillion and counting |author = Daniel Trotta |publisher = [[Reuters]] |place = [[New York]] |date = 2011-06-29 |accessdate=2012-06-24 }}</ref> {{Quotation| FINANCIAL TOLL:<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/29/us-usa-war-fb-idUSTRE75S25H20110629 Factbox: Highlights of "Costs of War" research]</ref> * Congressional war appropriations to Pentagon since 2001: $1.3 trillion * Additions to Pentagon base budget: $362 billion to $652 billion * Interest on Pentagon war appropriations: $185 billion * Veterans' medical claims and disability: $33 billion * War-related international aid: $74 billion * Additions to Homeland Security base spending: $401 billion * Projected obligations for veterans care to 2050: $589 billion to $934 billion * Social costs to veterans and military families to date: $295 billion to $400 billion Future spending requests: * 2012 Pentagon war spending: $118 billion * 2012 foreign aid: $12 billion * 2013-2015 projected war spending: $168 billion * 2016-2020 projected war spending: $155 billion ESTIMATED TOTAL: $3.7 trillion to $4.4 trillion<br /> ADDITIONAL interest payments to 2020: $1 trillion}} Note that these figures do not account for off-[[United States Department of Defense|DoD]] spending beyond 2012, economic opportunity costs, state and local expenses not reimbursed by the federal government, nor reimbursements made to foreign coalition allies for their expenses.
72.235.213.232 ( talk) 18:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
A March 2011 [[Congressional Research Service]] report states that through fiscal year 2011 for such purposes as military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care will be $1.283 trillion; additionally if the fiscal year budget for 2012 is approved, the total global security and conflict-related costs will be $1.415 trillion.<ref>{{cite web|url = http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/international/cost-iraq-afghanistan-terror/ |title = Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Anti-Terrorism Operations |publisher = Journalist's Resource.org }}</ref> Another study by the Watson Institute of International Studies at [[Brown University]] reached a much higher figure with an estimated total of $3.7 to 4.4 trillion, with an estimate of 224,475 total deaths.<ref>{{cite news |title=Factbox: Highlights of "Costs of War" research |author=Daniel Trotta |author2=Cynthia Osterman |url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/29/us-usa-war-fb-idUSTRE75S25H20110629 |newspaper=Reuters |date=29 June 2011 |accessdate=25 June 2012}}</ref>
Providing both sources provides balance and neither is given undue weight.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 19:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
A March 2011 Congressional report<ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/29/us-usa-war-idUSTRE75S25320110629 |title = Cost of war at least $3.7 trillion and counting |author = Daniel Trotta |publisher = [[Reuters]] |date = 2011-06-29 |accessdate=2012-06-25 }}</ref> estimated spending related to the war through fiscal year 2011 at $1.2 trillion, and that spending through 2021 assuming a reduction to 45,000 troops would be $1.8 trillion. A June 2011 academic report<ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/29/us-usa-war-idUSTRE75S25320110629 |title = Cost of war at least $3.7 trillion and counting |author = Daniel Trotta |publisher = [[Reuters]] |date = 2011-06-29 |accessdate=2012-06-25 }}</ref> covering additional areas of spending related to the war estimated it through 2011 at $2.7 trillion, and long term spending at $5.4 trillion including interest.<ref group="note">Among costs not covered by these figures are off-[[United States Department of Defense|DoD]] spending beyond 2012, economic opportunity costs, state and local expenses not reimbursed by the federal government, nor reimbursements made to foreign coalition allies for their expenses.</ref> {| class="wikitable" |'''Expense''' || '''[[Congressional Research Service|CRS]]/[[Congressional Budget Office|CBO]] (Billions US$):'''<ref>{{cite web |url = https://opencrs.com/document/RL33110/2010-07-16/ |title = The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 2011 |author = Amy Belasco |publisher = [[Congressional Research Service]] |date = 2010-07-16 |accessdate=2012-06-25 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url = https://opencrs.com/document/RL33498/ |title = Pakistan-U.S. Relations |author = K. Alan Kronstadt |publisher = [[Congressional Research Service]] |date = 2009-02-06 |accessdate=2012-06-25 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url = http://cbo.gov/publication/21982 |title = Long-Term Implications of the 2011 Future Years Defense Program |author = [[Congressional Research Service]] |date = 2011-02-11 |accessdate=2012-06-25 }}</ref> || '''[[Watson Institute for International Studies|Watson]] (Billions [[Constant dollars|constant]] US$):'''<ref>{{cite web |url = http://costsofwar.org/article/economic-cost-summary |title = Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Anti-Terrorism Operations |author = Eisenhower Study Group |publisher = [[Watson Institute for International Studies]], [[Brown University]] |year = 2011 |accessdate=2012-06-24 }}</ref> |- |colspan="3" style="text-align: center;" | '''FY2001-FY2011''' |- |War appropriations to [[United States Department of Defense|DoD]]||1208.1|| 1311.5 |- |War appropriations to [[United States Department of State|DoS]]/[[United States Agency for International Development|USAid]]|| 66.7 || 74.2 |- |[[United States Department of Veterans Affairs|VA]] medical|| 8.4 || 13.7 |- |VA disability|| || 18.9 |- |Interest paid on DoD war appropriations|| || 185.4 |- |Additions to DoD base spending || || 362.2-652.4 |- |Additions to Homeland Security base spending || || 401.2 |- |Social costs to veterans and military families to date || || 295-400 |- |'''Total:''' || '''1283.2''' || '''2662.1-3057.3''' |- |colspan="3" style="text-align: center;" | '''FY2012-future''' |- |FY2012 DoD request || colspan="2" style="text-align: center;" | 118.4 |- |FY2012 DoS/USAid request || colspan="2" style="text-align: center;" | 12.1 |- |Projected 2013-2015 war spending || colspan="2" style="text-align: center;" | 168.6 |- |Projected 2016-2020 war spending || colspan="2" style="text-align: center;" | 155 |- |Projected obligations for veterans' care to 2051 || || 589-934 |- |Additional interest payments to 2020 || || 1000 |- |'''Total:''' || '''454.1''' || '''2043.1-2388.1''' |- |'''Subtotal:''' || '''1737.3''' || '''4705.2-5445.4''' |}
== Any way to change the crosses? == I'm still relatively new to editing here on Wikipedia, so I'm just asking for advice from people smarter than me. Is there any other way to show that certain leaders in the belligerents on the article's sidebar have deceased - without using the cross symbol? I just found it really... ironical to see a cross - a Christian symbol - next to the name of fundamentalist Islam leaders (I'll refrain from judging whether they were terrorists, freedom fighters, or somewhere in the shades of gray between the two) who displayed quite an intolerance towards Christianity. While I'm personally not offended by it, I sense that both some Muslims and some Christians may be. Tho really, it's just an idea, and I was wondering if there is a way around this? [[User:Nusy|Nusy]] ([[User talk:Nusy|talk]]) 01:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC) :It's not a "cross", it's a [[Dagger (typography)|dagger]]. The cross, or dagger, has had many meanings, both before and after Jesus' crucifixion. [[User:TomPointTwo|TomPointTwo]] ([[User talk:TomPointTwo|talk]]) 15:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC) ::Could you give a reliable source for "Jesus' crucifixion"? Failing that, and assuming your myth occurred around 33 CE, could you give any a reliable source for using the "dagger" before said date, and several non-trinitarian sources which used it before, say, 1500 CE? --[[Special:Contributions/129.125.102.126|129.125.102.126]] ([[User talk:129.125.102.126|talk]]) 21:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC) :::The place for such a discussion, IMHO, is at [[Dagger (typography)|dagger]].--[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|RightCowLeftCoast]] ([[User talk:RightCowLeftCoast|talk]]) 00:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC) :::Good grief. [[User:TomPointTwo|TomPointTwo]] ([[User talk:TomPointTwo|talk]]) 01:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC) == Notes == {{Reflist|group=note}}
A March 2011 Congressional report estimated war related appropriations through fiscal year 2011 at $1.283 trillion for such purposes as [[Operation Noble Eagle]], [[Operation Enduring Freedom]], [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]], base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care; also estimating that if the fiscal year budget for 2012 is approved and troop deployment is reduced to 45,000 in 2015, expenses through 2021 would total $1.8 trillion.<ref>{{cite web |url = http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/international/cost-iraq-afghanistan-terror/ |title = Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Anti-Terrorism Operations |author = John Wihbey |publisher = Journalist's Resource |date = 2011-05-03 |accessdate=2012-06-25 }}</ref> A June 2011 academic report estimated war related spending through fiscal year 2011 at $2.7 trillion when additionally covering veterans' disability, war-related increases to the basic military and domestic security budgets, obligations for future veterans' care, social costs to veterans and their families, inflation, and interest on debt. Not accounted for were off-[[United States Department of Defense|DoD]] spending beyond 2012, economic opportunity costs, state and local expenses not reimbursed by the federal government, nor reimbursements made to foreign coalition allies for their expenses. Beyond 2011, long term costs were estimated at a total of $5.4 trillion including interest.<ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/29/us-usa-war-idUSTRE75S25320110629 |title = Cost of war at least $3.7 trillion and counting |author = Daniel Trotta |publisher = [[Reuters]] |date = 2011-06-29 |accessdate=2012-06-25 }}</ref>
My understanding is that most people call them the September 11th Attacks not the 11 September Attacks. I changed one link, but now am questioning whether or not it was the right move. I notice that throughout the whole article it is referred to as 11 September. Was there already a discussion on this? Can anyone point me towards it so I can read the arguments on both sides. If not, then I think there ought to be. I don't really want to change that particular bit of wording throughout the article until I know I have established consensus. Zell Faze ( talk) 14:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The US support of the Islamist mujahideen established, the remaining issue now is substantiating, through sources, that the Islamist guerillas laid the foundation for al-Qaeda, a key diplomatic error on the part of the US.
Meanwhile, if you want to modify your sentence to include the actual citations, please do consult here before adding to the main page. ViriiK ( talk) 13:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
![]() | 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 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
Any proposals to improve the article? We should clean up what we can and ask for a peer review. -- JokerXtreme ( talk) 15:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Factual Error on Side Frame under "Commanders" incorrectly lists Gen. John Abizaid's Command responsibility and date. Correct info is "CENTCOM Commander 2003-2007" I cannot seem to edit the side box in question. Please correct the error. Commodore2009 ( talk) 17:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Is Operation Active Endeavour part of War on Terror after all? I can't find any sources connecting the two. -- JokerXtreme ( talk) 11:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
how do u edit the wot info box. Islamuslim ( talk) 05:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Adding
Caucasian militants in Belligerents other targets section. They have been involved in bombings.
AmazingAthiest (
talk)
05:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think they should be added. Keep in mind that the War on Terror is something very specific. We should not be adding any terrorist organization and any counter-terrorist action. A thumb of rule to consider if something is to be included is to ask the question: "Is it related to an action taken by the US under the banner of War on Terror?". -- JokerXtreme ( talk) 07:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
If its specific then title should be US War on Terror only my opinion. AmazingAthiest ( talk) 19:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
ok AmazingAthiest ( talk) 22:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
i know somebody who was in nato —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.161.85.154 ( talk) 22:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks to Nikkimaria for recommending possible improvements to be done in this article. Everyone is welcome to read Wikipedia:Peer_review/War_on_Terror/archive1 and contribute by editing the article. -- JokerXtreme ( talk) 15:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't have any specific suggestion, unfortunately, but having just read the article it strikes me as polemic, not neutral or encyclopedic. It seems an unremitting attack on the term, to the exclusion of talking about the conflict.
I'm no supporter of Bush's Global War on the English Language, but the article as is besmirches Wikipedia's reputation as a a place to go for the full picture on a topic, instead of a fox-news style version of 'fair and balanced'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.121.23 ( talk) 01:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
My short PTSD suicide thinking. Example, of my VA hospital 3 month stay. http://www.18-va-suicides-per-day.blogspot.com/
1. President Obama’s speeches on or about Aug. 2, 2010 to disabled Veterans. http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/index.php/whats-new/1843-president-barack-obama
2. Please have All low income veterans to be able to benefit from the upgraded disability decision-making your committee will be examining. All low income veterans, not just soldiers from a particular time period. All low income Veterans to be able to get education compensation. Example: Free Internet, computers, cell phones with unlimited services. Also all low income Veterans to Free Internet software courses which are already setup by respectable companies like Microsoft and Adobe. Not the rip off schools under resent investigation.
I say All low income Veterans not just those with previous recognize disabilities. I say this because of the changing times and need for jobs and or the ability to at least interact with others not just veterans. Including all low income Veterans even with out a recognizable disabilities would help Vietnam Veterans like me and others like me. I say this because at the age of 60 I was in a mental ward (suicidal) of a VA hospital. I make my requests because my thinking in a positive way helps me because my criticisms and suggestion might be helpful to others. I’m now getting help from a civilian Doctor. My blog below helps to understand why a chose a civilian doctor over a VA hospital. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.72.48 ( talk) 18:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
there using dogs now The term "War on terror" has been officially dropped by the US government, while it was never used by the other side (whoever that is). Obama's cabinet has claimed that the United States and its allies are at "War with Al Qaeda and its allies", while the "War on Terror" is over. How about renaming the article "War on Al Qaeda" or "War on Al Qaedism". The term "War on Terror" isn't used anymore by any of the combatants. On the other hands, the two terms I am proposing are closer to the reality of the conflict as well as the current official American position —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnymanos arc ( talk • contribs) 21:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
US War on Terror is more specific and defines US goals. AmazingAthiest ( talk) 19:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the article needs to be renamed, but it should not use the term "war on terror" as if there actually was such a thing. The phrase itself is a rhetorical device and WP needs to make its neutrality clear at every mention of the term.
Wegesrand (
talk)
17:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe the lead paragraph needs rewriting, to be in consistence with
WP:LEAD. --
JokerXtreme (
talk)
14:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
In progress Currently working on it.
Swarm
Talk
13:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Canada I think should also be listed as a country, while technically not in iraq, it has military operations all over the world relating to this article i beleive. Anyone else have an opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.132.22 ( talk) 17:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how to edit the info myself but the infobox is incorrect regarding the dates of service of General Abizaid as ISAF commander. cheers, 173.66.178.76 ( talk) 22:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
== US Homeland?
Almost no American would use the word 'Homeland' to describe attacks on the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeland#Various_connotations —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gam3 ( talk • contribs) 02:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
The September 11th attacks have been the most distructive acts of terrorism in modern history.
74.249.219.52 ( talk) 03:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I propose removing India as a non-NATO belligerent, because it is not participating in the millitary campaign. If this has been discussed previously, would request someone to please direct me to the discussion. While I dont know why exactly India has been included, I offer my reasons below to what I think would have been the most likely reasons.
1. Part of Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa / Combined Task Force 150
I think this may have been the primary reason for inclusion, since India was previously listed as a belligerent in the OEF-HOA page and the CTF 150 page as a CTF 150 member. Since India was conducting its anti-piracy operations independently (just like several other non-CTF-150 countries including China, Russia, Greece, Saudi Arabia, etc), I had corrected this last month in both of those pages.
2. Has ongoing military activities against terrorists
Yes, India is engaged in military activities against terrorists, but definetly not as part of this campaign. Quoting from the article, while this campaign "was launched in 2001", Indian operations have been on prior to that. As the article currently says, and as is normally understood otherwise also, the term 'War on Terrorism' refers to the campaign led by the US/UK only. There are no Indian troops deployed in any of the theatres where such missions are going on. Apart from sharing of intelligence, I am not aware of any other co-operation between India and US in this area. The Indian government has, in fact, passed a resolution in parliament condemning the invasion of Iraq. Link here: http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/exclusive/iraq/resolution1.htm.
So, unless anybody has conflicting thoughts, I would propose to remove India as a non-NATO belligerent. Chocolate Horlicks ( talk) 14:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
I think '* 2003 Istanbul bombings and Islamabad Marriott Hotel bombing in Turkey' in the section 'Islamic terrorism after 9/11' is supposed to be:
and
Bye, Robert
188.98.34.4 ( talk) 19:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
The D.C. Sniper incident after 9-11 was conducted by Islamic extremists. The Fort Hood Shooting was also conducted by a radical (terrorist). These events should be written in the War on Terror article under a "Home Front" section. It is also important to show the total casualties from this war: United States suffered over 8,000 killed (including the 9/11 attacks, the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Military operations in other regions of the world). The casualties of other parties should also be shown in the top box on the right-hand side.
I disagree with two points. First: the D.C. Snipers, John Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, may have converted to Islam, but that does not make them "Islamic extremists" unless the killings were religiously motivated and I don't believe there is enough evidence to support this. Second: in order to be balanced, a report of the "total casualties" that you call for would include not only American lives lost, but also Coalition casualties, Iraqis and Afghans. And foreign fighters as well. The wide range of reporting on the numbers makes this logistically difficult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.100.112.239 ( talk) 08:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
The map shown [1] does not correspond to the section "Islamic terrorism after 9/11" - it doesn't show in yellow (countries where there were terrorist bombings/attacks) Russia (with this already in the infobox), India, Israel and maybe others. Alinor ( talk) 08:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I had put up the revised map, but yes, I agree - they do not match. I guess we could include countries like Russia, India, Israel and Turkey under the yellow category. But I dont know if this would be exhaustive - I dont claim to have knowledge of all countries where islamic terrorist attacks have happened. We may also want to clarify that most of these countries have their own independent ongoing military operations against terrorists, distinct from the US-led "War on Terror" campaign. Let me know if you agree and if you have more countries to add to the list. Chocolate Horlicks ( talk) 09:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I see that the Netherlands are missing from the list of NATO belligerents. The Netherlands operated in both Iraq and Afghanistan and is named several times throughout the article so I think they should be added. Armorad ( talk) 23:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
There is a small island in the Pacific that has contributed to the war by sending troops to support NATO actions. Thanks-- 67.126.87.201 ( talk) 05:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
This article has numerous issues that merit attention. Therefore, it has been tagged with a request for re-write. Some of the deficiencies that motivated this request are as follows:
For these reasons and others, this article and its contents may merit review. dr.ef.tymac ( talk) 23:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
in the box underneath the picture on the right, it says "Afganistam" when it should say "Afganistan" which it later says several times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.208.85 ( talk) 19:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Currently it says on top of the page "The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject" : if that is the case, which after reading the entire page - it sure is. Why is the page not titled "American War on Terror" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LorienN ( talk • contribs) 19:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Per this discussion, it was previously determined that the Muhammad/Malvo DC sniper attacks and the Ford Hood killings were not related to the War on Terror but rather "spree killings" unrelated to either 9/11 or the War on Terror. I am dismayed to see them back here: and I intend to remove them again. The recent shootings in Arizona - should we add them as well? This is the problem that the article faced before the cleanup, and we don't need these things here. Anyone have any input on this issue? It's been decided by consensus before to keep them out of this article, and I have no problem boldly removing them (as well as the picture of the caskets of the victims of the Fort Hood shootings) once again. Thank you. Doc talk 20:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Since when did thieves become part of the war on terror? Somali pirates steal to live a lavish life, they have nothing to do with terrorism. could someone delete it pls? Iwanttoeditthissh ( talk) 19:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
"A source of terror" is not the same thing as being a terrorist. The Somali pirates do not meet the definitions of a terrorist as given in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist#Types_of_Terrorism. They are thieves. They do not use "terror" as a coercive political tool, it is solely based on monetary gain. Jbower47 ( talk) 13:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
If the war against pirates is part of Operation Enduring Freedom, then it is considered part of the War on Terror by the US Gov't, and since the US Gov't coined the War on Terror, and since the War on Terror is US-led, if the US Gov't considers it part of the War on Terror, it should probably be part of the article. Also, the first sentence of the Wikipedia article on terrorism says, "Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion." It doesn't specify political goals. To continue on this, in the section cited by Jbower47, there are actually types of terrorism described that are non-political, such as "Terrorism that is not aimed at political purposes but which exhibits “conscious design to create and maintain a high degree of fear for coercive purposes, but the end is individual or collective gain rather than the achievement of a political objective,” " which is called Non-Political Terrorism by that article. Finally, according to the U.S. Navy, Combined Task Force 150, an international force created to fight piracy carries out operations which "complement the counterterrorism and security efforts of regional nations," showing that there is an international consensus that piracy is terrorism. Supergeek1694 ( talk) 04:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I was reading the article in question and in the military section it does mention the war on terror under its connect to the subject under CTF 150, and is also mentioned in the article Operation Enduring Freedom – Horn of Africa. Therefore, the idea that piracy in the waters off Somalia is somehow connected to the War on Terror does not appear to be without merit. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 14:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
This article was tagged for re-write and neutrality problems, those tags were removed, but it appears that the underlying substantial NPOV issues have not been addressed, rendering this article inconsistent with WP:NPOV. Please resolve the following before removing the NPOV flag.
Foremost, please note this is not intended as an invitation to political discussion either for or against a particular viewpoint on the subject matter of this article. I love my country and honor those who do the difficult and solemn work of defending her against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. This issue is not about my personal views, however, but about Wikipedia policy.
At issue: What is this article about?
If this article is about 1) only, then clearly the content of the article in its present state is misleading, and incapable of neutrality, since it documents an international military campaign as combating the concept/tactic of terrorism, with no neutral basis for impartially documenting how the military operations factually coincide with the meaning of the catch-phrase. It would be like taking the article Axis of evil and then trying to document how the nations described by that catch-phrase are actually, in fact, evil.
If this article is about 2) only, then clearly the content of the article is irrevocably inconsistent with WP:NPOV, unless and until a reasonable, neutral, and logically-consistent argument can be made for why a politically contentious and U.S.-U.K. centric viewpoint of an international issue merits any more prominence than other viewpoints on this international issue. If it is truly possible to have a neutral Wikipedia article on the use of military force to eradicate the concept/tactic of terrorism, then it should be possible for a disinterested third-party to read the article and honestly say that it does not give favorable bias toward any organization or nation affected by the concept/tactic of terrorism. I do not see how such an article could possibly be neutral, consistent with Wikipedia policy.
If this article is about 3) (both) then clearly the content of the article is beyond repair, because there is no supporting neutral definition of either terrorism or the war on terrorism that can allow a disinterested editor to determine which military operations by which world organizations or groups merit inclusion in this article. More organizations and nations are affected by terror than just the U.K. and U.S. If a neutral definition of this concept is even possible at all, then it would necessarily have to include definitions that may not coincide with the opinions of any given president or leader of any given nation.
For these reasons and others, this article should at least be flagged as an NPOV violation, and remain so until someone can actually address these issues. dr.ef.tymac ( talk) 19:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I recently undid this addition, as I don't feel we need the "For more plots click [[Category:Failed_terrorist_attempts|here]]." It's just not necessary, IMHO. I almost undid the other addition by the same editor, as it seemed to be adding a lot of material at once without discussion. So, let's discuss! I've seen only a handful of editors comment here (thank the Lord for them), and it would be great to get some other opinions from some of the many watchers of this page. Where do we want the article to go? It changes from one main version to another, then changes again. Another "split" proposal? Thank you for your time :> Doc talk 01:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Should the recent shootings in Frankfurt be included in this article? If so should it be listed under the casualties section, like how the Fort Hood and Little Rock shootings are presently listed? -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 17:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
These two groups should be added as Western Allie Israel is fighting against terrorist tacks from both groups. Nbaka is a joke ( talk) 19:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes they should but the fact that two islamic terroor groups responsible for deaths in several countires is a major ommission. Nbaka is a joke ( talk) 21:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Should US/NATO/UN intervention in the Libyan Civil War be included in this category? Gaddafi has historically been an enemy of the U.S., and there has been renewed talk and speculation of Gaddafi renewing his past support for terrorism and restarting his nuclear program if he wins this civil war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.106.58 ( talk) 03:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I move the Gaddafis be taken off the list of belligerents when he nor Libya are not mentioned anywhere in the article. It just seems someone added it without knowing much about the War on Terror.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Hawk ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 30 March 2011
http://blogs.forbes.com/kenrapoza/2011/05/01/under-obama-no-more-osama-and-with-him-goes-the-war-on-terrorism/ claims that the War might end. If so, what are the implications for troops, education vs. defense funding, and airline security inspections (www.infowars.com/no-escape-from-the-tsas-sexual-molestation-and-naked-body-porno-scanners/ infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used e.g.])? 173.8.151.126 ( talk) 06:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Did the war end when Hitler killed himself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.114.227 ( talk) 13:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Japan has contributed troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan totaling 1,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.114.227 ( talk) 13:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
shouldn't it be changed from "War on Terror" to "War on Terrorism" 165.124.212.186 ( talk) 18:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
"the War on Terror, which has resulted in a total of between 80,000 and 1.2 million civilian deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia between 2001 and 2007."
Those figures don't appear here 190.51.182.32 ( talk) 16:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
it says "... War on Terror, which has resulted in a total of between 80,000 and 1.2 million civilian deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia between 2001 and 2007."
that's the range? imagine if I was going to get somewhere between 8 gallons of gas or 120 for a trip i was planning. I guess wittgenstein would say that sentence has very little sense. it's gramatical. it's meaning is conveyed clearly. but it's value or significance can't be put into a proper context. S*K*A*K * K 09:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
This report should be included. It suggests that around 95% of the war on terror casualties have been Iraqi civilians.-- Aa2-2004 ( talk) 15:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
The article states that Bin Laden was killed on 2 May 2011, but Bin Laden was killed on 1 May 2011. The original article used for the citation does not state the date that Bin Laden died, it may be appropriate to find another article that lays out the date and time of the operation rather than the one currently used. 96.228.177.100 ( talk) 16:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
The term "War on Terror" is a phrase in broken English which "has been used by" a former US administration plagued by functional illiteracy. It is not in official use, and it is an eyesore. So can the article please be moved away from its now-obsolete title?
Please make sure to note that I am not commenting on the merit of these operations, merely on the article title. -- dab (𒁳) 10:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the article should remain under the present title. This question has been discussed before, showing that the term is problematic. Therefore I think it's necessary to make clear right from the start that it is and there is no undue weight in stating this. -- Borsanova ( talk) 19:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
This new alternate name appears to be a typo, however, seeing as it is referenced, I will not remove it regardless of my personal reservations of its inclusion in the terminology section. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 19:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
So do we list what is said or what is correct? Hcobb ( talk) 21:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WP:RSN#littlegreenfootballs. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 07:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC) (Using {{ pls}})
The Netherlands had 2000 soldiers stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan, they also have been instrumental in keeping the Horn of Africa save, why aren't they under participants? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.212.46.48 ( talk) 15:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
The Iraq war was a part of the war on terror and I feel that as the main target in the Iraq war Saddam Hussien should included in the list of commaders and leaders. He was known for supporting terriost organizations and posseing WMDs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernardini2011 ( talk • contribs) 10:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Turkey-PKK_conflict — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.7.95 ( talk) 16:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The line that reads-
Such thwarted attacks include: The 2001 shoe bomb plot
The shoe bomb plot was not thwarted and should be removed from the list. He got through security, on the plane and in the air. Only because he failed to get it to explode is why he got caught. when you click the link for 2001 Shoe Bomb Plot this is what yo get: The 2001 shoe bomb plot was a failed bombing attempt that occurred on American Airlines Flight 63 98.18.39.136 ( talk) 03:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I propose to merge War against Islam into this article. Rationale: 'War against Islam' is nothing more then an interpretation of War on Terror mostly because active warzones of the war on terror are located in predominantly Islamic countries. It should be located in paragraph 9 (criticism). -- Pereant antiburchius ( talk) 19:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Support, per Pereant . V7-sport ( talk) 19:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
NO reason has been given for the removal of the Netherlands from the list of Combatants. OEF-A, is still operated under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. The nation of the Netherlands has not withdrawn from NATO. NATO as an organization is a combatant, per Article 5 all nations are considered to have been attacked legally per the treaty, when one nation is attacked and the article is envoked.
The Netherlands may not presently have active combatants in theater, but they have been (at least) a combatant, and should be kept for at least that reason. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 23:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:CANVASS#appropriate notification I am notifying interested editors of the fact that I have posted an invitation to comment at the MILHIST talk page. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 16:40, 8 August 2011 ( PDT)
The editor who made the initial edit has been involved in edit warring in the past, and has been edited in a disruptive manor on the Operation Iraqi Freedom article.? -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 23:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
The 2011 Spokane Bombing Attempt is listed under Islamic terrorism after 9/11.. except if you read the article page of the bombing itself it appears more to be a racially motivated bombing, and has NOTHING to do with Islamic terrorism. Just because an act of terrorism is committed, doesn't mean a Muslim's done it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.226.60 ( talk) 23:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't Iraq and Afghanistan be listed there? NO!THEY SHOULDN'T! YOU DUMBY! I would've simply added them myself, but the hidden text there said not to. CuboneKing ( talk) 00:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
From New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/26/world/americas/26iht-terror.html Washington recasts terror war as 'struggle' By Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker Published: Wednesday, July 27, 2005
In recent speeches and news conferences, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the country's top military officer have spoken of "a global struggle against violent extremism" rather than "the global war on terror," which had been the catchphrase of choice.
"a global struggle against violent extremism" Please add this is addition to the name change attributed to Obama Administration. Neither have gained any wide acceptance as nearly all media still refer to the "Global War on Terror". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.103.213 ( talk) 05:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
>>> I think when the Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld uses the term "global struggle against violent extremism" in "recent speeches and news conferences" back in 2005 as noted in the NYT article that it is important enough to be considered (and listed) as a viable alternate name to "Global War on Terror", if nothing but for completeness. (btw this is my 1st proposed edit - any other reference to "struggle" was not made by me.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.103.213 ( talk) 01:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Why is the Muslim Brotherhood added on the list of the belligerents? The Brotherhood doesn't have an armed military wing and it is not part of any conflict Its also not designated as a terror group by any country in the world including the United States and Britain. -- Riuken ( talk) 05:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
In the background section, should a mention of the Khobar Towers bombing also be included? -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 00:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Just a simple edit needed - change the crucifix symbol to the abbreviation KIA or deceased. This is in keeping with other such articles and reflects a wider cultural respect. Jls68 ( talk) 10:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
2011 Minsk Metro bombing has nothing to do with "Islamic terrorism after 9/11". Please remove that entry.
I support this. Accoding to BBC News on the topic the suspects are natives and the motives are unclear. Also on the wikipedia article on Minsk Metro bombing no evidence of Islamist links exists. Editors with powers to edit the article, please respond. - Tikru — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikru8 ( talk • contribs) 13:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
9/11 and the War on Terror should be added to List of Masonic hoaxes. It has also produced the construction of 33 intelligence agency complexes in D.C. more devoted to preying on Americans than any engineered threat. {See: "Report: 3,100 firms, agencies involved in war on terror")
The Light Burns ( talk) 17:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add Operation Enduring Freedom to the Status section and put War in Afghanistan under it because Operation Enduring Freedom is a large part of the War on Terror.
Pieetr ( talk) 05:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Under the list of commanders, John Abizaid is listed as the ISAF commander from 2009-Present. John Abizaid retired from the military in 2007 from the position of CENTCOM commander, succeeded by William Fallon who is listed correctly. Abizaid was never ISAF commander. The current ISAF commander is John R. Allen, who succeeded David Petraeus in 2011, who, in turn, succeeded Stanley McChrystal in 2010. Someone needs to correct this. Jantill ( talk) 05:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC) I've fixed that. And also updated it. It now lists all CENTCOM commanders since the War of Terror began, as well as all ISAF commanders that were American (there were British ISAF commanders before the American ones, but I haven't added those). They are listed in chronological order, with all CENTCOM commanders first, then all ISAF commanders (with Gen. Petraeus listed in the CENTCOM section as he was both). So someone feel free to add the British ISAF commanders, and also, I forgot to put an edit summary, and don't know how to fix that. So if someone knows how to do that, please feel free to do so. - Ezuvian ( talk) 12:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be mention in this article that although the Bush administration claimed the invasion of Iraq was part of the War on Terror, that in fact 1) Iraq had absolutely NOTHING to do with the 911 terrorists 2) Al Qaeda was not in Iraq while Saddam Hussein was in power, as he actively kept them out and 3) the other claimed reason that invading Iraq was justified by the War on Terror - that Iraq was developing or holding onto WMDs has been thoroughly debunked? After Saddam Hussein was removed Al-Qaeda in Iraq did appear, and caused havoc for a time until the Sunni Awakening. So in fact, if the War on Terror was supposed to be a War on Al Qaeda, invading Iraq had just the opposite effect. If the purpose of the War on Terror was to fight against militant Islamists, then Saddam surely was our ally in this fight, because he hated and suppressed them. Something has got to be said in this article that the original reasons given for invading Iraq by Bush have since been shown to be every bit as false as the Gulf of Tonkin incident was for escalating the war in Vietnam. DarthRad ( talk)
This article is not about a specific military campaign. It is about a political term used to tie a number of campaigns together under an ideological denominator. As such, Wikipedia is guilty of losing its encyclopedic focus if it succumbs to using propaganda terms as if they denoted something real. Note how even Great Patriotic War redirects to Eastern Front (World War II) (in this case, the term refers to an identifiable conflict, it is just less than neutral). As an encyclopedia, we do not call wars by the propaganda terms used by any involved sides. We do not call articles on military conflicts "holy war", "just war", "war against evil", so why should we use "war against terror" as if it was a neutral term?
In this case, I am sure a lot of interesting things can be said on how the apotropaic nature of the term "war on terror" reflects the psychological situation in the US in the years following 9/11. The term is even touching in a way in its baffling, apparently unreflected, naivete. But it doesn't refer to a military conflict. It describes the efforts of a political administration to come up with an ideological framework to group the various military adventures it found itself entangled in after people decided "something had to be done" in reaction to 9/11.
I am not complaining about the state of the article, it is fair enough. It just needs to make clear that "war on terror" is not an identifiable "war", but instead a highly interesting exercise in rationalisation during the early to mid 2000s. So I suggest there should not be a "campaignbox", which suggests that this is about a military conflict. -- dab (𒁳) 10:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Current.tv refers to a "Global War for Jobs." But a visit to Europe or South Korea reveals that this is really a "Global War for American Jobs." How many people have been killed in the Global War for Jobs? Was Jobs killed in the Global War for Jobs? How many Foxconn employees have been killed so far? And if an Obamamutant from Globalistan gives all the jobs to his friends, is it really necessary to win such a war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.109.2.24 ( talk) 14:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Although the term is not officially used by the administration of US President Barack Obama (which instead uses the term Overseas Contingency Operation)
Here the issue is that the President is not an object, he is a person. This is my recommended change. Simply one word:
Although the term is not officially used by the administration of US President Barack Obama (who instead uses the term Overseas Contingency Operation)— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.8.71.218 (
talk •
contribs) 10:33, 13 February 2012
It says that Bush came up with 'war on terror', however in the quote he uses 'terrorism'. Later he does say 'war on terror', it was four days later. Is it known who came up with the phrase 'war on terror'? Just as someone came up with Reagan's Berlin speech. Terror and terrorism are different things, it might be that Bush (or the speechwriter) thought of 'terror' as a state of mind. Yet, I wonder, is it known who exactly came up with this wording? 81.68.255.36 ( talk) 11:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
The term "war on terror" was just a propaganda slogan concocted by a particular faction to cover their geopolitical agenda. It was usually put in quotes by others, or preceded by "so called". It was not "commonly applied". It should be described as "an expression" or suchlike, as we do with " American way of life", for example. It seems to be disused (judging by a Google News search), now that its proponents have themselves adopted terrorist tactics. Fourtildas ( talk) 20:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
This part tells about Islamic terrorism after 9/11, but it should be removed or changed. Many of these have not much to do with the war on terror because they weren't attacks by al Qaeda or related terrorist groups. Examples are: List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2011 and other attacks of Palestinians on Israel. and also others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.204.100.196 ( talk) 10:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Palestinian attacks on isreal should NOT be considered Islamic terrorism. they have long been fighting over occupation of land. There are also Afghanistan bombings listed that are arguably in the same category. there is no evidence in any listed source of who the bombers were. therefore it is incorrect to give them the convenient title of "islamists" Jokerkd ( talk) 22:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
The Iraq war was a part of the war on terror and I feel that as the main target in the Iraq war Saddam Hussien should included in the list of commaders and leaders.
The bias of this article is an underlying feature. it won't be changed. get used to it Jokerkd ( talk) 04:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Add saddam. MohammedBinAbdullah ( talk) 14:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Should we add the year in front of the title like 2001-2012 war on terror. here are the examples
MohammedBinAbdullah ( talk) 14:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
About 2007–2012 global financial crisis. 2012 doesn't means it ended but its the latest year only. In 2013 it will be changed to 2007–2013 global financial crisis if the crisis was to continue. MohammedBinAbdullah ( talk) 15:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Dude read what I said above ok I'll explain you in different terms. You agree we live in the present and the currently year is 2012. If so then 2012 will be the last year represented in the title like 2007–2012 global financial crisis but if the crisis continues to 2013 we will have to the move the article to 2007–2013 global financial crisis. Please read it carefully otherwise it will make no sense. Thanks MohammedBinAbdullah ( talk) 16:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
This article currently claims that Iraq was only listed as a State Sponsor of Terrorism "after Saddam Hussein fell out of U.S. favor". However, the U.S. vehemently opposed the Ba'athist takeovers of Syria and Iraq in 1966 and 1968, respectively. The U.S. made arms sales to Iraq formally illegal in the seventies. It armed Kurdish rebels in the Second Kurdish Iraqi War. It denounced Iraq repeatedly for its support of terrorism, as many airplanes were hijacked straight to Baghdad in the seventies, and Abu Nidal lived there while he was the most-wanted terrorist in the world. Iraq was designated a State Sponsor of Terrorism on the very first day the list was created, back in 1979. The U.S. sold Iraq 1% of its arms in the war with Iran. To make this possible, President Reagan did take Iraq off the list. Ostensibly, this was because of improvement in the regime’s record, although former United States Assistant Secretary of Defense Noel Koch later stated, "No one had any doubts about [the Iraqis'] continued involvement in terrorism... The real reason was to help them succeed in the war against Iran." As it is, you would think that the allegations against Saddam Hussein were a complete fabrication. If so, then why did British, Israeli, German, and many other intelligence agencies also accuse his regime of ties to terrorism? TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 03:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The congressional report referred to in this section is critically incomplete. Not only did it omit non-DoD “off budget” items like the State Department, CIA, and USAid as Wikipedia presently notes, but it also omits all domestic spending, the vast bulk of veterans' expenses, and any interest (including that already paid to date.)
As such, I request that this:
A 2011 Congressional Research Service report, “The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11," analyzed the financial outlays that have been made for the conflicts during this nearly decade-long period. The report focuses on expenditures related to Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) Afghanistan and other counter terror operations; Operation Noble Eagle (ONE), providing enhanced security at military bases; and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). The report’s total does not include supplementary economic, food and military aid to Pakistan or assistance to several countries in Africa. The report states that the price tag through fiscal year 2011 for such purposes as military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care will be $1.283 trillion. If the fiscal year budget for 2012 is approved, the total global security and conflict-related costs will be $1.415 trillion. If deployed troop levels come down to 45,000 by 2015 and stay there through 2021, the total two-decade cost is estimated to be $1.8 trillion.<ref>{{cite web|url = http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/international/cost-iraq-afghanistan-terror/ |title = Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Anti-Terrorism Operations |publisher = Journalist's Resource.org }}</ref>
Be replaced with this:
An academic report in 2011 summarized total conflict-related costs over the 2001-2020 period at $4.81-$5.59 trillion.<ref>{{cite web |url = http://costsofwar.org/article/economic-cost-summary |title = Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Anti-Terrorism Operations |author = Eisenhower Study Group |publisher = [[Watson Institute for International Studies]], [[Brown University]] |year = 2011 |accessdate=2012-06-24 }}</ref> Counting just expenditures to fiscal year 2011 for such purposes as military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, domestic security, veterans’ care, related social expenses and interest paid, estimates are $3.2-$3.9 trillion. Further direct expenses from 2012 to 2020 were estimated at $453 billion, plus another $1 trillion of interest payments for war debt, and economic opportunity costs of $154 billion. These figures do not account for off-[[United States Department of Defense|DoD]] spending beyond 2012, state and local expenses not reimbursed by the federal government, nor reimbursements made to foreign coalition allies for their expenses.
72.235.213.232 ( talk) 19:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Costofwar.org does not appear to be a reliable, and neutral, source. The CRS report is such a source. I would not support the change requested. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 19:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Very well then, I've cited a Reuters news story, please replace the aforementioned section as follows:
Reuters reported in June 2011 that total conflict-related US government costs over the 2001-2020 period could be as high as $5.4 trillion.<ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.reuters.com/subjects/cost-of-war |title = Cost of war at least $3.7 trillion and counting |author = Daniel Trotta |publisher = [[Reuters]] |place = [[New York]] |date = 2011-06-29 |accessdate=2012-06-24 }}</ref> {{Quotation| FINANCIAL TOLL:<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/29/us-usa-war-fb-idUSTRE75S25H20110629 Factbox: Highlights of "Costs of War" research]</ref> * Congressional war appropriations to Pentagon since 2001: $1.3 trillion * Additions to Pentagon base budget: $362 billion to $652 billion * Interest on Pentagon war appropriations: $185 billion * Veterans' medical claims and disability: $33 billion * War-related international aid: $74 billion * Additions to Homeland Security base spending: $401 billion * Projected obligations for veterans care to 2050: $589 billion to $934 billion * Social costs to veterans and military families to date: $295 billion to $400 billion Future spending requests: * 2012 Pentagon war spending: $118 billion * 2012 foreign aid: $12 billion * 2013-2015 projected war spending: $168 billion * 2016-2020 projected war spending: $155 billion ESTIMATED TOTAL: $3.7 trillion to $4.4 trillion<br /> ADDITIONAL interest payments to 2020: $1 trillion}} Note that these figures do not account for off-[[United States Department of Defense|DoD]] spending beyond 2012, economic opportunity costs, state and local expenses not reimbursed by the federal government, nor reimbursements made to foreign coalition allies for their expenses.
72.235.213.232 ( talk) 18:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
A March 2011 [[Congressional Research Service]] report states that through fiscal year 2011 for such purposes as military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care will be $1.283 trillion; additionally if the fiscal year budget for 2012 is approved, the total global security and conflict-related costs will be $1.415 trillion.<ref>{{cite web|url = http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/international/cost-iraq-afghanistan-terror/ |title = Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Anti-Terrorism Operations |publisher = Journalist's Resource.org }}</ref> Another study by the Watson Institute of International Studies at [[Brown University]] reached a much higher figure with an estimated total of $3.7 to 4.4 trillion, with an estimate of 224,475 total deaths.<ref>{{cite news |title=Factbox: Highlights of "Costs of War" research |author=Daniel Trotta |author2=Cynthia Osterman |url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/29/us-usa-war-fb-idUSTRE75S25H20110629 |newspaper=Reuters |date=29 June 2011 |accessdate=25 June 2012}}</ref>
Providing both sources provides balance and neither is given undue weight.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 19:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
A March 2011 Congressional report<ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/29/us-usa-war-idUSTRE75S25320110629 |title = Cost of war at least $3.7 trillion and counting |author = Daniel Trotta |publisher = [[Reuters]] |date = 2011-06-29 |accessdate=2012-06-25 }}</ref> estimated spending related to the war through fiscal year 2011 at $1.2 trillion, and that spending through 2021 assuming a reduction to 45,000 troops would be $1.8 trillion. A June 2011 academic report<ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/29/us-usa-war-idUSTRE75S25320110629 |title = Cost of war at least $3.7 trillion and counting |author = Daniel Trotta |publisher = [[Reuters]] |date = 2011-06-29 |accessdate=2012-06-25 }}</ref> covering additional areas of spending related to the war estimated it through 2011 at $2.7 trillion, and long term spending at $5.4 trillion including interest.<ref group="note">Among costs not covered by these figures are off-[[United States Department of Defense|DoD]] spending beyond 2012, economic opportunity costs, state and local expenses not reimbursed by the federal government, nor reimbursements made to foreign coalition allies for their expenses.</ref> {| class="wikitable" |'''Expense''' || '''[[Congressional Research Service|CRS]]/[[Congressional Budget Office|CBO]] (Billions US$):'''<ref>{{cite web |url = https://opencrs.com/document/RL33110/2010-07-16/ |title = The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 2011 |author = Amy Belasco |publisher = [[Congressional Research Service]] |date = 2010-07-16 |accessdate=2012-06-25 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url = https://opencrs.com/document/RL33498/ |title = Pakistan-U.S. Relations |author = K. Alan Kronstadt |publisher = [[Congressional Research Service]] |date = 2009-02-06 |accessdate=2012-06-25 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url = http://cbo.gov/publication/21982 |title = Long-Term Implications of the 2011 Future Years Defense Program |author = [[Congressional Research Service]] |date = 2011-02-11 |accessdate=2012-06-25 }}</ref> || '''[[Watson Institute for International Studies|Watson]] (Billions [[Constant dollars|constant]] US$):'''<ref>{{cite web |url = http://costsofwar.org/article/economic-cost-summary |title = Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Anti-Terrorism Operations |author = Eisenhower Study Group |publisher = [[Watson Institute for International Studies]], [[Brown University]] |year = 2011 |accessdate=2012-06-24 }}</ref> |- |colspan="3" style="text-align: center;" | '''FY2001-FY2011''' |- |War appropriations to [[United States Department of Defense|DoD]]||1208.1|| 1311.5 |- |War appropriations to [[United States Department of State|DoS]]/[[United States Agency for International Development|USAid]]|| 66.7 || 74.2 |- |[[United States Department of Veterans Affairs|VA]] medical|| 8.4 || 13.7 |- |VA disability|| || 18.9 |- |Interest paid on DoD war appropriations|| || 185.4 |- |Additions to DoD base spending || || 362.2-652.4 |- |Additions to Homeland Security base spending || || 401.2 |- |Social costs to veterans and military families to date || || 295-400 |- |'''Total:''' || '''1283.2''' || '''2662.1-3057.3''' |- |colspan="3" style="text-align: center;" | '''FY2012-future''' |- |FY2012 DoD request || colspan="2" style="text-align: center;" | 118.4 |- |FY2012 DoS/USAid request || colspan="2" style="text-align: center;" | 12.1 |- |Projected 2013-2015 war spending || colspan="2" style="text-align: center;" | 168.6 |- |Projected 2016-2020 war spending || colspan="2" style="text-align: center;" | 155 |- |Projected obligations for veterans' care to 2051 || || 589-934 |- |Additional interest payments to 2020 || || 1000 |- |'''Total:''' || '''454.1''' || '''2043.1-2388.1''' |- |'''Subtotal:''' || '''1737.3''' || '''4705.2-5445.4''' |}
== Any way to change the crosses? == I'm still relatively new to editing here on Wikipedia, so I'm just asking for advice from people smarter than me. Is there any other way to show that certain leaders in the belligerents on the article's sidebar have deceased - without using the cross symbol? I just found it really... ironical to see a cross - a Christian symbol - next to the name of fundamentalist Islam leaders (I'll refrain from judging whether they were terrorists, freedom fighters, or somewhere in the shades of gray between the two) who displayed quite an intolerance towards Christianity. While I'm personally not offended by it, I sense that both some Muslims and some Christians may be. Tho really, it's just an idea, and I was wondering if there is a way around this? [[User:Nusy|Nusy]] ([[User talk:Nusy|talk]]) 01:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC) :It's not a "cross", it's a [[Dagger (typography)|dagger]]. The cross, or dagger, has had many meanings, both before and after Jesus' crucifixion. [[User:TomPointTwo|TomPointTwo]] ([[User talk:TomPointTwo|talk]]) 15:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC) ::Could you give a reliable source for "Jesus' crucifixion"? Failing that, and assuming your myth occurred around 33 CE, could you give any a reliable source for using the "dagger" before said date, and several non-trinitarian sources which used it before, say, 1500 CE? --[[Special:Contributions/129.125.102.126|129.125.102.126]] ([[User talk:129.125.102.126|talk]]) 21:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC) :::The place for such a discussion, IMHO, is at [[Dagger (typography)|dagger]].--[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|RightCowLeftCoast]] ([[User talk:RightCowLeftCoast|talk]]) 00:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC) :::Good grief. [[User:TomPointTwo|TomPointTwo]] ([[User talk:TomPointTwo|talk]]) 01:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC) == Notes == {{Reflist|group=note}}
A March 2011 Congressional report estimated war related appropriations through fiscal year 2011 at $1.283 trillion for such purposes as [[Operation Noble Eagle]], [[Operation Enduring Freedom]], [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]], base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care; also estimating that if the fiscal year budget for 2012 is approved and troop deployment is reduced to 45,000 in 2015, expenses through 2021 would total $1.8 trillion.<ref>{{cite web |url = http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/international/cost-iraq-afghanistan-terror/ |title = Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Anti-Terrorism Operations |author = John Wihbey |publisher = Journalist's Resource |date = 2011-05-03 |accessdate=2012-06-25 }}</ref> A June 2011 academic report estimated war related spending through fiscal year 2011 at $2.7 trillion when additionally covering veterans' disability, war-related increases to the basic military and domestic security budgets, obligations for future veterans' care, social costs to veterans and their families, inflation, and interest on debt. Not accounted for were off-[[United States Department of Defense|DoD]] spending beyond 2012, economic opportunity costs, state and local expenses not reimbursed by the federal government, nor reimbursements made to foreign coalition allies for their expenses. Beyond 2011, long term costs were estimated at a total of $5.4 trillion including interest.<ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/29/us-usa-war-idUSTRE75S25320110629 |title = Cost of war at least $3.7 trillion and counting |author = Daniel Trotta |publisher = [[Reuters]] |date = 2011-06-29 |accessdate=2012-06-25 }}</ref>
My understanding is that most people call them the September 11th Attacks not the 11 September Attacks. I changed one link, but now am questioning whether or not it was the right move. I notice that throughout the whole article it is referred to as 11 September. Was there already a discussion on this? Can anyone point me towards it so I can read the arguments on both sides. If not, then I think there ought to be. I don't really want to change that particular bit of wording throughout the article until I know I have established consensus. Zell Faze ( talk) 14:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The US support of the Islamist mujahideen established, the remaining issue now is substantiating, through sources, that the Islamist guerillas laid the foundation for al-Qaeda, a key diplomatic error on the part of the US.
Meanwhile, if you want to modify your sentence to include the actual citations, please do consult here before adding to the main page. ViriiK ( talk) 13:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)