Talk:Khobar Towers bombing

"Who knows about this?"
Former Director of the FBI Louis Freeh has written an op-ed piece that provides valuable information about this event. According to Mr. Freeh, the Iranian government was behind this attack. The Clinton Administration had done everything possible to prevent this from being known. When Sandy Berger was informed the FBI had the proof, he replied "Who knows about this?" This article needs a rewrite. RonCram 14:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I read this op-ed piece just moment ago and went strait here to post on the talk but you beat me too it. This does have some very interesting information. Morphh 15:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

In the book Against all Enermies (by the old anti-terror czar Richard A Clarke) he writes that the iranian-controlled Hezbolla was behind the bombing. So it is doubtful that the attack should be in the group "Attacks by al-Qaeda" that is is today.

He called it the almost war with Iran in 1996. Instead of attacking Clinton desided to act in secret. Some kind of large scale attack agains Iranian inteligence forces in retaliation. But Clarke gives no information about which people/buildings/bankaccounts was striked. Does anyone know more about this secret retaliation? According to Clarke the retaliation was successive and Iran has not attacked USA since. Reko 11:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"Delivery vehicle"
I am preparing/researching information to provide an Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection Level 1 brief to Coast Guard members. In reviewing this article I noted that the bomb delivery vehicle was referred to first as a fuel vehicle and subsequently as a large truck used for sewage treatment.

I went in search of clarification and stumbled across the op-ed piece by Former Director of the FBI Louis Freeh mentioned above.

It will probably take a couple stiff drinks to unravel the significance and parallels.

BARBARA SLAVIN, USA TODAY 3/29/2004 - Operation Sapphire - resulted in the identification, outing, and/or expulsion of over a significant number of Iranian intelligence officers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.142.16.79 (talk) 02:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Comparison with the Nagasaki atomic bomb
I removed the erroneous comparison with the Nagasaki bomb and substituted a comparison with a Daisy Cutter instead. The yield of the Nagasaki bomb was 20 kilotons of TNT, which is 20,000,000 kilograms of TNT or 44,000,000 pounds of TNT, i.e. two thousand times stronger. --Shastra 13:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

it is "Saudi Hezbollah" not "Hezbollah"
this was stated by ATTORNEY GENERAL STATEMENT 

WASHINGTON, D.C. Attorney General John Ashcroft today released the following statement regarding today's indictment in the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing:

"Named as defendants are the leader of the Saudi Hizballah terrorist organization, as well as several prominent members, including the head of the Saudi Hizballah's military wing, along with members of terrorist cells in Saudi Arabia who planned and carried out the Khobar attack.

and other -WSJ Khobar Towers The Clinton administration left many stones unturned. 'BY LOUIS J. FREEH Sunday, June 25, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT Ten years ago today, acting under direct orders from senior Iranian government leaders, the Saudi Hezbollah detonated a 25,000-pound TNT bomb that killed 19 U.S. airmen in their dormitory at Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. The blast wave destroyed Building 131 and grievously wounded hundreds of additional Air Force personnel. It also killed an unknown number of Saudi civilians in a nearby park'

"Saudi Hezbollah" is a terrible translation/interpretation of Hizballah al-Hijaz. "Party of God in the Hijaz", as used in the Hizballah Al-Hijaz article, is much more accurate. "Saudi" implies association with the Saud family and their government. Or, if "Party of God in the Hijaz" is too obscure, "Hezbollah in Saudi Arabia" would still be better. Similar to Al Qaeda in Iraq/Mesopotomia (rarely referred to as "Iraqi Al Qaeda"). --67.180.72.234 06:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda Campaign Box
I added the box because this article is part of it, however the page doesn't mention Al-Qaeda having any interference with this bombing. Should something be changed or added? Fatla00 18:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've posted to the template talk page to ask this question. Morphh   (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I said in my edit summary that's why I deleted the infobox. This attack is part of that infobox only because I don't know how to edit it out. There's no legitimate reason why it is included, as you've realised. Al Qaeda isn't part of the indictment. Al Qaeda isn't part of the article. I've now deleted it again. Attriti0n 00:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Iran POV
The section on Iranian involvement is obviously and egregiously POV, in blatant violation of wikipedia guidelines. I've removed the section, which read:


 * No firm evidence against Iran


 * What makes almost all of the US claims against Iran, with regards to this incident, difficult to believe is that US had not brought up anything against Iran through international conduits. Had the US government had anything more than allegation and speculation it would have been unwise not to file a case it in the Hague. So, comparing this to similar incidents, without any released document, and any internationally respectable case, one can only conclude there is indeed no firm evidence against Iran. However,an Op-Ed piece written by Louis J. Freeh in the June 25,2006 Wall Street Journal, stated to the contrary. Mr. Freeh, who was head of the FBI when Khobar Towers were bombed, stated"...Saudi Security Service had arrested six of the bombers after the attack", "the bombers arrested after the attack admitted they had been trained by Iranian external security service (IRGC) in Lebanon's Beka Valley and received their passports at the Iranian Embassey in Damascus, Syria, along with $250,000 cash for the operation from IRGC Gen. Ahmad Sharifi".

Victims List disucssion
I have added a list of the victims of the blast, but I only know the names of the Americans killed. If anyone knows the name of the Saudi killed, he should be included too. --Jackyd101 00:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOT. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered. A personal web site/memorial site cannot be used as a reliable source.  I don't doubt that the list of victims is correct, but it is not encyclopedic.  Just as an example, if you look up Vietnam War in the encyclopedia, you won't find thousands of pages of victims.  If one of the victims of this bombing was a notable person (i.e. whos biography is also listed on Wikipedia), I suppose it would be fine to include that person in the article.Game Collector 12:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I put the list of victims back up yesterday. I don't care if Wikipedia is not a memorial site. I was stationed stateside with the squadron that took the most casualties, and I feel that they need to be mentioned here. We are talking about an isolated incident, not an entire war. Therefore, I don't find the Vietnam comparison is very sturdy. I feel very strongly about this, and I will repost the list as often as someone takes it down. Not to be rude, but back off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.131.29.136 (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

While I sympathise with you to an extent, why should the dozen or so American casualties be emphasised over and above the deaths of people from other nations. Surely this contravenes Wikipedia neutrality as it over-prioritises the death of one group at the expense of another. I feel that there should be a list of all casualties or no list at all.

I emphasize the Americans, because I am an American, and these were people that I knew. If you or anyone else would like to go find the list of casualties from other countries and post it here, be my guest. While I truly sympathize with those other countries (unlike your condescending pseudo-sympathy), the list is American casualties is readily available and easy to post. It doesn't emphasize America over anyone to do so. Clearly you show anti-American tendencies, or perhaps you have never put on a uniform and served, or perhaps you are just one of those people that have to be a contrarian no matter the gravity of the subject. Either way, I am insulted that you diminish the loss. Yet again, I will post the list of name and hope that someone more involved with Wikipedia chooses to lock the list for good. I'll keep going if I must.

Terrorism?
An attack on military personell is not considered terrorism. Under international law the military is a perfeclty legitimate target in an armed conflict. Thus I change the term "terroist attack" to "attack". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.21.90.148 (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * What internationally recognized "armed conflict" was this? What military's uniform were the attackers wearing?  67.68.44.87 (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Silly. If bombs are being thrown, there's a conflict, and this isn't a terror attack. 2804:7F7:D280:7786:0:0:0:1 (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Non-state actors don't have the monopoly of violence as state actors do. Military personnel are NOT legitimate targets anywhere in time of peace. There was no armed conflict when the attack happened. Terrorism is defined by the use of violence in pursuit of political aims, this attack was aimed to get the U.S. out of the Middle East, which is purely political and meets the definition of terrorism. Please don't do it again or else I would personally give you a warning and possibly get you blocked. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Deliberating leaving out the term 'civilian' out of the description and the threats are proof of bad faith here. The rest is just opinion. The definition is all that matters not your opinions on the event. 173.177.183.115 (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

source(s)

 * http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/811370/20-years-later-remembering-the-attack-on-khobar-towers.aspx —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  15:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Khobar Towers bombing. 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/20100726040001/http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/khobar.htm to https://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/khobar.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614085928/http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/opinions/2006/2000CV2329-12036-12222006a.pdf to http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/opinions/2006/2000CV2329-12036-12222006a.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160412174529/https://www2.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/khobar.pdf to https://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/khobar.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) 11:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

"Terrorist attack"?
The introduction used the term "terrorist attacks" for the bombing. However, this is clearly not factually correct, as this attack was against a military target. The deaths were military personnel as well. I would suggest that the term "terrorist attack" is changed into something more correct, such as "militant attack". Any other thoughts about this? --Te og kaker (talk) 09:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)