Talk:Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition

Name
Why isn't the page name Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism? IMA sounds historically ambiguous. Curro2 (talk) 02:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Both the press release and the newspaper reports were a bit ambiguous, but I took them to mean "Islamic Military Alliance" as the short-form name, and "Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism" as possibly the long-form name. If anything, the shorter name is more solidly supported in the sources.--Pharos (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

This is very much ambiguous, for example I have been hearing an alternative name for this as well, namely Islamic Military Coalition. Is there a way we can direct users to this page given they search for either of the two i.e Islamic military alliance or the Islamic military coalition ? P.s I am quite sure Islamic military coalition is not the official name of the alliance. --GreenBeret65 (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Fixed. There are redirects for Islamic Military Alliance, Islamic Military Coalition, and I have added Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition (as depicted on the badge) and ... Counterterrorism ... Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello can we add the name abbreviation - (IMCTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imctcpublicrelation (talk • contribs) 19:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

'Islamic Military Alliance --- the organization is only known as the Islamic Counter Terrorism Coalition - Remove IMA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnIMCTCorg18 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Could ya make the table bigger?
The font of the text in the table is kinda small.Widgetdog (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Official language(s)
Is there any source for the "official language(s)", as this looks like it's made up out of whole cloth?--Pharos (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree there is no such thing as an official language, these are just the languages spoken in these countries. I wont call them the official languages of the alliance. I messed up the syntax while updating the regions can you update it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.212.53.252 (talk) 11:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed the official languages listing.--Pharos (talk) 03:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Gabon's Inclusion
Gabon only has a 12% Muslim population (73% some kind of Christianity, according to Wikipedia). Is there any information on their inclusion? 184.167.181.2 (talk) 12:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Gabon, along with all other members of this newly conceived alliance, is a member of the OIC - see Member states of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, and it is not actually a requirement that OIC members have a Muslim majority population. Therefore, it would also be an overstatement to say, as the article does currently, that "all states within the alliance having Sunni Muslim populations".  Also, one of the prospective members, Azerbaijan, indeed has a majority Shia Muslim population.--Pharos (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Map
Perhaps the map could be more reflective of the participation level of the states involved rather than an all encompassing green blob. Doyna Yar (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I was thinking the same thing, it would be nice if someone with map making skills could get around to doing so. My thoughts would be as follows:


 * Countries that have joined, and are offering Military support
 * Countries that have joined, but just as supporters
 * Countries that are included, without an official statement
 * Countries that want to join

Does this sound workable? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Joined, Support, Open Invitation, Interested in Participating, Rejected Invitation, etc. as needed. Doyna Yar (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC) Here we are 7 months later and no changes? Doyna Yar (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Military Strength/Exercise Relevancy
I don't see the relevancy of Pakistan's nuclear deterrent, both weapons and delivery method, have to do in the context of an anti-terrorism alliance. Even Putin ruled out nukes in the global war on terrorism. And honestly the same argument could be applied to the list of joint exercises that are not focused on anti-terrorism training. Doyna Yar (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Also after all this time there are absolutely no references in the Military Strength section. Doyna Yar (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Military exercises aren`t just confined to Pakistan, but to all the states included in the coalition. The purpose of these exercises is to demonstrate & enhance the degree of cooperation amongst all the states which is necessary for the success of any coalition. The prime objective of all the exercises mentioned is to do train and share valuable military expertise against terrorism, p.s all of this is sourced content and can be verified from the presented sources as well. Pakistan in this scenario presents a very special case as its a front line state in fight against terrorism, as well as a major non Nato US ally. It has successfully beaten off the insurgencies led by militants in its restive FATA tribal areas and has successfully concluded various anti terrorists operations the recent one being Zarb-e-Azab. Likewise nuclear deterrent is more symbolic to demonstrate the strength which the coalition enjoys. As far as deliver systems are concerned they are very much relevant especially the cruise missiles, as such technology has been successfully used by the US herself against terrorists, a prime example of which is the Tomahawk missile system. Thank you --GreenBeret65 (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I do question the relevancy of discussing military exercises that predate the alliance's formation. Is it purely illustrative of prior military cooperation? And if that's it's purpose, then what of the Yemeni civil war? Several of the member states of the IMA, including Senegal, and Sudan (as well as Yemen of course), were involved in that war prior to the formation of the alliance as part of the first "Islamic military coalition" formed in early 2015, deploying troops and materiel into Yemen against the Houthi forces. Shouldn't we include them as well? – Nohomers48 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

And now Northern Thunder is added despite Saudi Brigadier General Ahmed al-Assiri saying "the manoeuvres are distinct from a 35-nation coalition to fight "terrorism" which Saudi Arabia announced in December." here: http://news.yahoo.com/thunder-saudi-desert-huge-military-drill-ends-114900371.html, it should be removed. Doyna Yar (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Every time there's an exercise involving Saudi Arabia and another Islamic nation is that to be listed too? Clearly it does not belong here, but at the very least clarify it was not conducted under the IMA banner.Doyna Yar (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I have removed that particular exercise's section. I still feel like that section needs revision, or possibly have its contents moved into some separate article.— Nohomers48 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that none of these exercises belong here. None of them is an exercise of the military coalition per se - they are all bilateral or multilateral exercises separate from the formation of the coalition (indeed some pre-date the coalition).  Yes, they may demonstrate the strength or cooperation of members of subgroups of members, but that is not what this article is about Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I deleted the Coalition Joint Exercises section today, having assessed that there is consensus here to remove the material because it is not relevant to the Article (it is interesting - but not relevant to this alliance). The alliance is not yet reported to have held any exercises, and Northern Thunder in particular is specifically noted as distinct from this alliance. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I suggest removing this section - it does not refer to the coalition rather the military strength of specific members - not very related. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imctcpublicrelation (talk • contribs) 19:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

7 Emirates
How is the UAE having seven Emirates relevant? Randomstuffs (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Military strength - needs revision
The military strength, whilst it does have some facts, seems to be not very encyclopedic. In focuses on 3 nations, leaving out the rest. In doing so it seems more like an opinion piece, esp. seeing it's not cited, not inclusive, and then makes a broad statement about Turkey's inclusion which really needs a proper external news citation. It's either best to list every country's contribution, or quote an IMA document why these countries are particularly unique, or deleted. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't believe it's been a whole year since I brought it up and there are still no references to the Military Strength section. The 'editors' [read loosely] who've inflated the section so important to them just couldn't be bothered, eh? Delete it.Doyna Yar (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Done— Nohomers48 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just came across this topic and didn't want to do this without some debate. Albeit we are all editors to some extent and should try and remove sections like this which really don't mean much. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 09:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I still question the relevancy of nuclear capability in an anti-terrorism context. The anti-ISIS page doesn't need to reference the nuclear capabilities of nuclear weapon states in the coalition. So why do we need to tout the range of Pakistani nuclear missiles? I doubt ISIS is concerned Raqqa is within range and 'could be nuked'. It's nothing but flag waving and has no place in the article. Doyna Yar (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if Wiki id2 looked at the Talk Page before putting the section back first, he would find that it was an issue of of both relevance, along with a lack of citations in regards to said relevance.— Nohomers48 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore if Mr Nohomers48 proceeded to look above, I see not very many pieces suggesting that the entire section should be removed at point blank range. Rather than resort to over-genralisations and sweeping statements through removing entire sections, one should deal with these matters through precision and detail. That is why I have put citations in place for now, once the form of this alliance manifests itself we can adjust information on the militaries accordingly. I suggest a section on the Saudi Arabian military included as well, I think that is the other most significant army not included. Alongside the Gulf States of Qatar and Kuwait who have deployed their airpower in both Yemen and the Libyan conflict. ( Wiki id2  (talk)  )

With regards to Pakistan and nuclear weapons on the IMA page. Let's remember that NATO also rebranded itself after the cold war and post-9/11 as a counter-terror alliance. They too had no need to deploy nuclear weapons in either Iraq, Afghanistan (ISAF operations) or Libya. To this extent, I would say that as NATO mentions the presence of US, UK and French nuclear weapons not just in historical context of the cold war but in the modern context of the technology their respective armies posses. In that case the same would be relevant here. Not just a Pakistani nuclear weapon, but perhaps Turkish naval ships may not be deployed against landlocked ISIS. Perhaps Turkey doesn't need 5th generation fighters given ISIS can't shoot down even 4th generation planes, but they can still be mentioned in the context of technology and potential tools these states have at their disposal. This information I think would be useful for us wikipedians to put on there when others visit these pages to seek information and knowledge.

Kind regards ( Wiki id2  (talk)  01:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC))
 * I welcome your input on the talk page where these issues regarding the article may be rationally discussed and avoid edit wars. I am glad that someone has *finally* added references to the 'Military Strength' section. I would like to say that I do not see equivalence regarding NATO nuclear sharing and Pakistan's nuclear deterrent. My simple view is that a state's nuclear weapon status has absolutely no more bearing on it's place in an anti-terrorist alliance than claiming to have the world's tallest building. Nukes and terrorism are apples and oranges geopolitically unless the terrorists have the WMD. Doyna Yar (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC) Actually I suspect that the reason it's not in the news so much is it's mostly between the clandestine intelligence organs of the member states. You want to post a section on member power that's where to start. Hard power is secondary to that any day regarding terrorism. Doyna Yar (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC) I would also like to point out that Pakistan's military capabilities are listed on their Wikipedia page and are clearly accessible to all. Doyna Yar (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I am inclined to agree with Doyna Yar regarding the nuclear deterrent role here beyond the basic mentioning that they are the only nuclear member of the alliance (as is currently the case in the Military Strength section), I simply don't see that relevance at all of showing the Shaheen missile's range here with regards to the stated aims of the alliance. Going forward, should we continue to include this section, Wiki id's suggestions on sentences/sections discussing the other major member states (Saudi Arabia in particular) would be highly informative, particularly if we mention it in regards to current counter-terrorist operations they are conducting, such as Pakistan's Operation Zarb-e-Azb (which Raheel Sharif led), Saudi Arabia's operations on the Houthis in Yemen, the UAE's and Egypt's involvement in Libya, Turkey's involvement in Syria, etc.— Nohomers48 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The IMA is no Islamic/Muslim NATO equivalent and should not be portrait as such. I would suggest that this article be more constrained to actual releases relating to the alliance and it's anti-terrorism mandate rather than speculations on irrelevant strengths not germane to it's role internationally. Doyna Yar (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Indeed so, perhaps re-orient that section towards current/related military operations of the member states like those I have mentioned, actual military operations and not tangential military exercises?— Nohomers48 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I won't say a 'Military strength' section shouldn't exist, within reason. The 'sixth largest military on the planet' didn't deliver Bin Laden, did it? So much for boasting, eh? I just hate the cheerleading. But we all know the meat is covert and clandestine. What the Saudi's are trying to pull together is commendable but also very much unprecedented. It still seems rather a talking shop until they can announce their first victory. Doyna Yar (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, ultimately that sort of cheerleading doesn't contribute anything except boosting nationalistic fervor, and that's not the purpose of an encyclopedia at all. As stated, I am personally inclined to go with turning into a section discussing current and related counter-terror operations and initiatives in or by the member states, rather than have it be a list out "6th largest military", "nuclear deterrence", "5th generation fighter planes" and all of that.— Nohomers48 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I do hope more editors would weigh in both pro and con so as to come to some sort of agreement to proceeding with the military section. Thank you. Doyna Yar (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Commanders-in-Chief
Still the appointment of Raheel Sharif as Commanders-in-Chief is not clear. Pakistani newspaper reported the discussion on this matter in Pakistani senate. I think it is still controversial.

Nuclear status relevance in an anti-terrorist context
I still do not see the point in referencing Pakistani nuclear capabilities with regard to internationally coordinated anti-terrorism actions. Also Pakistan does not yet have a functional nuclear triad. A single missile test does not represent an actual deployed credible nuclear deterrent system. And once again even if they did have a triad, what does a second strike capability have to do with anti-terrorism either? Doyna Yar (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. I deleted the last sentence.  Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well it looks like once again there is flag waving about Pakistan's nuclear deterrent. Absolutely no one would consider using strategic nuclear weapons against terrorists. Maybe the problem is in the name of the alliance itself leading people to believe it's significance is of military nature like NATO rather than anti-terrorism. I would also suggest the inclusion of the 'in development' TAI TFX in the Turkey section is also ridiculous. Doyna Yar (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. I removed it just now. Nuclear deterrents are not relevant in the alliance's limited scope. --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs  18:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Number of members 41 - really?
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/01/oman-join-saudi-arabia-anti-terror-alliance.html says Oman became the 41st member in Jan 2017. I can only find 37 members, including Oman. I wonder if some countries have been counted twice and the figure of 41 is wrong. Nurg (talk) 04:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Islamic Military Alliance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151219094948/http://www.todayszaman.com/diplomacy_turkey-joins-saudi-led-islamic-military-alliance-against-terrorism_407008.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/diplomacy_turkey-joins-saudi-led-islamic-military-alliance-against-terrorism_407008.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Islamic Military Alliance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://7days.ae/uae-joins-muslim-military-alliance-fight-terrorism/77577
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160420171221/http://books.sipri.org/files/FS/SIPRIFS1604.pdf to http://books.sipri.org/files/FS/SIPRIFS1604.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017
It has been requested that the 27 Nov edits by User:JohnIMCTCorg18 be erased from the page history due to copyright violations as they are copied from the IMCTC website. Loopy30 (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Logo
The displayed logo seems outdated. There seem to be various different versions of the same basic logo currently in use: Their about page has this and this; on Facebook they use this. Any thoughts on what we should use? (The current one also looks non-free to me and should be deleted from the Commons, but that's an unrelated issue.) Huon (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The Facebook/Twitter one looks like a logo, the ones on the website look like a flag. I think the logo might be more appropriate at this point, rather than a pseudo-flag.--Pharos (talk) 04:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Military strength again
I have removed the military strength section that had been discussed above. None of the references I could check so much as mentioned the IMCTC, making the entire section a violation of WP:SYN. It doesn't matter how many troops Pakistan, or Bangladesh, or the UAE may have in total; what matters is what reliable sources report about the military strength that the alliance itself has. I'd be really surprised if Pakistan were willing, under any circumstances, to devote its entire military strength to IMCTC-related operations. Huon (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd ask 156.198.123.108 to explain why, in light of the above, the content is relevant to the IMCTC before they re-add it again. Huon (talk) 08:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)