Talk:War on terror/Archive 3

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

This archive page covers approximately the dates between January 6, 2005 and October 1, 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Foo/Archive04. (See How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Lee Hunter 03:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

US-Centric bias removed
As a relative newby to Wikipedia I'm a bit nervous about modifying a page as contentious as this one, but as a Brit I find the reference to "London subway bombings" sounds a bit odd: it's NEVER referred to as the 'subway', it's called the Underground. Eliot
 * You're quite right, it should be the Underground. Thanks for fixing it. --Lee Hunter 14:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Can you cite sources that show "Underground" (not just British sources, unless those British sources are used worldwide)? Most sources I have seen use "subway".  The issue on Wiki is which is most notable worldwide, and quite frequently most notable is derived from U.S. or Western news sources. So whichever word, the issue is, which is the most used reference? --Noitall 15:09, August 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Transport for London, who run it, use London Underground as the oficial title, that's reflected on the website  the street signs, official maps etc. (most Londoners would call it "the tube").So I changed "London underground" to "London Underground" to reflect this.--Philbarker 16:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Hypocrisy?
Doesn't Graft have a point in the September 11th discussion page about the CIA being involved in acts of terrorism?

QUOTE:

Slim, I noticed you described what constitutes a terrorist attack. Well, according to you, most military action by the US army is terrorist in nature. If we go by what you say (which I agree with), then we have to label most US military action accordingly.

You can't have your cake and eat it - either killing civilians for the sake of killing civilians is terrorism or it isn't. (Posted by 82.35.107.44)

Hi Anon, I'm not sure where I've described what constitutes a terrorist attack. Can you be more specific? Slim 03:25, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean this one: "United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. [1] (http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html) "Academic Consensus Definition":

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988). The U.S. government isn't a clandestine or semi-clandestine individual, group or state actor; and it doesn't choose as direct targets of violence people who are not its main targets. Slim 03:25, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Not quite true - the CIA is a clandestine state actor, and has been engaged in actions targetting people who are not its main targets, e.g. Nicaraguan peasants, et alia. Graft 05:42, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean, Graft. Also, as SNIyer1 has re-inserted the "effects on children" section, I've edited it to include the links, which were not added back in. Slim 17:15, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

END QUOTE

If so, shouldn't it be addressed in the opposition section of the main War on Terror page?

Well, if there are no complaints, I'm going ahead and changing it.

From The First Sentence This Entry is Biased
(Whoever wrote this should read up on logic a bit. It centers around the fallacy that since no evidence proves it -not- to be true, it can and must be true. This is an example of a logical circular argument at its finest. "Since you cannot prove I am lying, I must be telling the truth.")

(I think you got your phallusies mixed up there buddy, it's not circular reasoning, it is an argumentum ad ignorantium, because we are ignorant of the evidence that proves that he is lying. It would be circular if he said that, "I'm not lying, therefore I must be telling the truth" because it is either one or the other and if he says it isn't one, but the other, it essentially the same as saying "I'm telling the truth because I'm telling the truth." That's a circular argument.)Maprovonsha172 29 June 2005 21:50 (UTC)

What the 9/11 Commission states was that there was no "operational" connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda, particularly in reference to the 9/11 attacks. This means nothing because there are plenty of other ways to have connections: logistical, personnel, financing, equipment, etc. The United States has connections to almost every intelligence service on the planet but only maintains operationals connections with two or three.

The 9/11 Commission also claims to have no idea where Al Qaeda gets it's funding, so a militant, America-hating, terrorist-supporting Arab dictator with billions in petrol profits should not be ruled out.

Let us also remember that the Commission only accepted testimony that was sourced, "archival" or "historical" and essentially in the sphere of public information. Anecdotal reporting, unsourced material, circumstantial evidence or theory was not accepted into the record.

And can we forget that in the 1998 indictment against Al Qaeda, the Clinton Administration stated that AQ and Saddam collaborated on "weapons systems"?


 * Obviously the commission was more explicit than you imply. Here's some quotes:
 * Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda-save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against "Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.53
 * To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad's control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.54
 * With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request.55 As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections.


 * a little later:
 * There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein's efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.74
 * In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.75
 * Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.76 


 * And footnote 76:
 * 76. CIA analytic report,"Ansar al-Islam:Al Qa'ida's Ally in Northeastern Iraq," CTC 2003-40011CX, Feb. 1, 2003. See also DIA analytic report,"Special Analysis: Iraq's Inconclusive Ties to Al-Qaida," July 31, 2002; CIA analytic report,"Old School Ties," Mar. 10, 2003.We have seen other intelligence reports at the CIA about 1999 con-tacts.They are consistent with the conclusions we provide in the text, and their reliability is uncertain. Although there have been suggestions of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda regarding chemical weapons and explosives training, the most detailed information alleging such ties came from an al Qaeda operative who recanted much of his original information. Intelligence report, interrogation of al Qaeda operative, Feb. 14, 2004.Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any such ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. Intelligence reports, interrogations of KSM and Zubaydah, 2003 (cited in CIA letter, response to Douglas Feith memorandum,"Requested Modifications to 'Summary of Body of Intelligence Reporting on Iraq-al Qaida Contacts (1990-2003),'" Dec. 10, 2003, p. 5).


 * All of that is pretty clear on the exact nature of the relationship. I.e., it didn't amount to much. Some intitial feelers, but nothing came out of it. So whither the problem? Graft 18:33, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Clarity in Action
removed rant against "liberals"

This article is weak
Why is this article so slanted to the left? After reading it I'm left with the impression that the war on terror is a bad thing. I'd rather just get the facts without all the links to BBC, UN, and NBC. At least add something to balance your political views (i.e. Fox News, drudgereport.com, Etc.)


 * Maybe because it IS a bad thing? If there's any valid points for the "right", you're free to add them.

Protecting civilians from terrorists "is a bad thing"? Did you realize what you said? This article is the most biased article I've seen yet.
 * What does the war on terror have to do with protecting civilians from terrorists? Next thing you'll tell us is the People's Republic of China is a republic by and for the people of China. Or the Democratic Peoples Republic of North Korea is democratic or a republic.


 * No he won't. But I can see the Iraqi weapons of destructions closing in fast. Rama 13:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation?
While we're at cleaning up this article... What do you think of creating a disambiguation page? IMHO this article is a case of primary topic disambiguation. I hear the phrase war on terror(ism) almost exclusively in the context of US-led military activities following Sept. 11. Actually I have never used this phrase in any other context. OK, there are historical, mostly regional, precedents, but few would call them war on terrorism. So when I look up war on terror(ism) in Wikipedia I expect to find something about the global war The US and selected friends against "terrorists" all over the world with keywords Sept 11, AUMF, Afghanistan, Feb 15, Iraq, axis of evil, Saudi-Arabia, you name it. On the other hand I'd also expect to find references to other uses of the phrase. If Bush's war on terror somehow builds on Reagan's war on terror, I expect to find the link explained in the article. If both presidents used the same phrase more or less independently, a link on War on Terrorism (disambiguation) would be fine. Same with the British in Palestine or Russians in Chechnya. Actually I'd expect links to some of these conflicts in the see also: section at the end of the article or the disambiguation page. Note that the phrase war on terrorism for non-military activities is rarely used outside the US. Even organizations like NATO and UN don't use the phrase war on terrorism for their actions to reduce terrorism in the world. So I'd say the article war on terrorism should refer to US-led military acitivities as authorized in the AUMF (9/18/2001). I cannot think of any other use of the phrase war on terrorism that matches the impact of this global war that has been going on for 2 1/2 years -- with no end in sight. --145.254.51.34 09:28, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Page protection
The page has just been protected. Hopefully the anon will start discussing his/her changes on the talk page now. 172 04:45, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

War on semantics (terror vs terrorism)
I've noticed a slight trend towards semantic pickiness regarding the phrase "war on terror." Michael Moore has said "You can't declare war on a noun." August 10 on the Daily Show, NY Times columnist Maureen Dowd mentioned a conservative colleague who thought the phrase was okay, despite it being a "war on a tactic" as she put it. The current version of this article says that the phrase "war on terror" is semantically illogical.


 * Michael Moore is a twat, a noun is about the only thing you can declare war on.PRB 10:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Michael Moore is a twat. As I note below, a PROPER noun is the only thing that you can meaningfully declare war on.

Robert McClenon 9 July 2005 19:25 (UTC)


 * Michael Moore is a populist. If he'd said "You can't declare war on an emotional state" people wouldn't remember what he'd said, though that's what he meant.


 * Actually, you can declare war on anything. On fudge sundae. On poor grammar. Or even on drugs. You can have a war of words. The word "war" has many senses; 1. armed conflict between parties 2. specific conflicts of that kind 3. the technique 4. a conflict of any kind (e.g. a war of words, the war against crime) 5. as a modifier (e.g. war horse) and 6. to pursue such a conflict.


 * Sense 4. allows one to declare war on anything.


 * However, there are international conventions that specifically state what constitutes war, and I don't think it includes that kind. It would be useful to refer to these in the article. Mr. Jones 16:00, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * In each of your examples, war has been declared on a noun or noun phrase, you can't declare a "war on healthily" (adv) or a "war on nice" (adj), or a "war on move" (v). So, I stand by my original statement, modified for pedants, "A Noun Phrase is the only thing you can declare war on".  An appropriately inflected noun on its own can constitute a noun phrase.  I should add that you can declare war on "healthily"|"nice"|"move" where it is those words, and not the referents of those words that one wishes to fight (e.g. "I don't want to see the word 'nice' in any of your essays, consider this a war on 'nice'").  That is because a word is a noun.PRB 10:47, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now, I don't see how it's any less valid to talk of a war on a tactic (or noun - would Moore rather we had war on verbs?) than of a war on "terrorism," which, as per the definitions in the terrorism article, can be a "tactic of violence" or a "pejorative characterisation of an enemy's attacks." So, does it make more or less sense to talk of "war on a perjorative characterisation" than "war on an intense state of fear"? Would it be okay to have war on any other "ism"s, for instance war on racism, Marxism, or feminism? I'm fairly sure we're stuck with both "war on terrorism" and "war on terror;" unless someone can provide a good reason why the latter is semantically illogical, I would be in favor of treating both phrases as equally valid in this article. That Moore and others criticize the latter usage to me is a variety of ad-hominem attack on the perceived semantic understanding of their opponents. -- Wapcaplet 20:57, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Are you serious? A war is something where you confront a concrete ennemy which you can defeat. Can you shoot terrorism? Can you bomb terrorism? Can you take terrorism as a POW? Does terrorism scream when wounded or ask for mercy when you're about to finish it off? The "War on Terror" is the most absurd term that the Bush administration has come up with, closely followed by the "Axis of Evil", chosen precisely because it is never-ending and can be used to justify any unjustifiable military intervention. It is there to hide the fact that when you drop bombs on Afghanistan or Iraq, you are actually killing real people with families and all that stuff that makes us human. The concept of a war on terror is more grotesque than Don Quixote attacking his windmills. Terrorism is a tactic that's as old as humanity. As a tactic it will always be a possible means to an end, and its use can only be reduced by solving conflicts between those who might use terrorism to achieve their aims and by building a legalframework that makes its use more costly to those who use it. You can't wage war on it. The "War on Terror" is nothing but a propaganda term, the result of an Orwellian attempt to deform our language. - pir 23:37, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree; whether it is rendered as "war on terror" or "war on terrorism", it serves to disguise the reality of events. I think you may have missed the point of my post, which maybe I didn't make clear enough: that the phrase "war on terror" is just as valid, in a semantic sense, as the phrase "war on terrorism." Whether the former is a deviously crafted propaganda term or not has no bearing on its semantic validity. -- Wapcaplet 23:56, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, I thought I didn't really understand what you were getting at. - pir 08:16, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * The expression "War on Terrorism" is a piece of rhetoric, not a piece of science. It does not refer to any objective set of actions or positions, but rather is a rubric under which a particular political power makes claims about its actions. It is not only subjective in it uses; it is inherently subjective. That is the whole point of making rhetorical terms: to lay out a particular policy position (or, in Wikipedia terms, POV) and advocate for it.


 * I would contend that there are nonsubjective elements: as a war, certain protections like habeas corpus are suspended. This happened in the (also fraudulent/dissembling) "war on drugs" as declared by Bush Pere, and is now completely out of control. 142.177.169.126 14:28, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Arguing over whether or not a particular action "is" part of "the War on Terrorism" makes about as much sense as arguing over whether a particular religious group "is" Christian. All you have to go on are the subjective definitions used by the group itself and by its adversaries. There simply is not any objective answer available to resolve the dispute.


 * That said, Wikipedia can still describe the dispute: how the term is used; who uses it; which actions the users of the term "War on Terrorism" do label by this term; how other people criticize these uses; and so forth. This can be done without pretending that the term refers to anything objective. --FOo 01:03, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good points, but that also is unrelated to the topic of my post. Let me be absolutely clear. There are two phrases that the news media, politicians, etc. use to describe the nebulous ongoing efforts to stifle the activity of terrorism. Those two phrases are:


 * 1) "The War on Terror"
 * 2) "The War on Terrorism"

Some, as I have mentioned, prefer to use (2), citing reasons of grammatical correctness of some kind. This very article makes a statement that (1) is "semantically illogical" (first paragraph under "Recent Summary"). My position is that (1) is just as semantically logical as (2), and thus should be treated as such in the article. That is all. -- Wapcaplet 02:39, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that the "terror" phrase is a bit more nebulous than "terrorism", because terror refers also to a human emotion. Also, to characterise the "War on Terror(ism)" as rhetorical is spot on and neutral, much better than "political" (as is used in the introduction atm.).pir 08:16, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The real problem with Michael Moore's statement that you can't declare war on a noun is that it is too general. You can't fight a war, or any sort of struggle, against anything but a noun. The real distinction must be made between common nouns and proper nouns. A "war on terrorism" or "war on terror", like a "war on crime" or "war on drugs", is likely to continue for a very long time because it may not have an identifiable end criterion consisting either of the defeat or surrender of one the principals or a negotiated settlement between principals. Such an open-ended "war" can be an argument for an indefinite restriction of civil liberties. The war in Afghanistan had a defined end criterion, the defeat of the Taliban (a proper noun). Typically (as noted above) a war is waged by one nation against another nation. The United States may be able to wage war against Al Qaede (a proper noun), but not against "radical Islamic terrorists" (a noun, but not a proper noun). Robert McClenon 9 July 2005 19:22 (UTC)

Reification
I happened upon the wiki article Reification, also called hypostatisation, which says: "Fallacious arguments based on reification may be committed when manipulations that are only possible on concrete things are said to be performable on an abstract concept." I think that may apply to "war on terror" or even a "war on terrorism?" or am I reaching here? --Ben 06:42, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Quotes from August 2004
This isn't an article I want to get too involved in, but somebody may want to build this story into the article in some form. --[[User:Bodnotbod| bodnotbod »  .....TALK Q uietly  )  ]] 14:55, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

President admits war on terror cannot be won - The Guardian - August 31 - 2004


 * Asked on NBC television whether America could win its "war on terror", George W Bush replied: "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the - those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."


 * "After months of listening to the Republicans base their campaign on their singular ability to win the war on terror, the president now says we can't win the war on terrorism [...] This is no time to declare defeat - it won't be easy and it won't be quick, but we have a comprehensive long-term plan to make America safer. And that's a difference." - John Edwards, the Democratic vice presidential candidate.


 * ""He was talking about winning it in the conventional sense [...] about how this is a different kind of war and we face an unconventional enemy," - Scott McClellan - White House Press Secretary.

Bedarned if Google finds me any WP mention of the "Detroit terror cell" so I'll plunk it here: Justice Dep't discards convictions and terrorism charges against the Detroit group · Terrorism charges dismissed 142.177.170.39 00:04, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

phrase itself disputed
The expression "war on terror" or variants such as "war against terrorsim" are appropriate for the article title, because that is how people would look up the information.

But the phrase is at best less appropriate within the article.

Given that the expression is disputed, my suggestion is to either enclose it in quote marks, or better, to replace it with expressions such as any of the following: "campaign / clampdown / crackdown / effort / fight / struggle against terrorism"

Or perhaps "... against terrorists"

What do you think?

- Maurreen Skowran


 * I think it's fine as written - it's clear the phrase is being used to describe a specific set of military and policy actions, like "World War I" (which wasn't really, after all, a "World" war - lots of countries and even continents weren't involved). Nothing wrong with that. It gets cumbersome to have to describe things-as-they-are every time you want to refer to them. That's why God told Adam to give things names - we're just following his example, eh. Graft 20:50, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is true at all - The phrase is being used to describe a specific set of military and policy actions, like "World War I". It is clearly a propagandistic term (since the term 'terrorism' is only ever used to describe acts by 'others' against 'us'), so the target of this war is not at all well defined. Additionally, even the military actions are not well defined: for example, is the invasion of Iraq part of the "War on Terrorism"? The Republican party now says it is (though this is a relatively new position), and the Democratic party has always said it isn't. I think the phrase requires quote marks when used within the article.

James 00:40, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't see how we can go wrong using the article title, which is capitalized to emphasize its formal usage, to describe the subject of the article in the body of the text. On the other hand, quotes emphasize the dubious nature of the definition and play up the viewpoint that this isn't a "real thing", it's just a "war on abstraction" and so on. I heartily disagree with putting quotes around the phrase, except where it's referred to as a phrase rather than the actual physical war. Graft 16:52, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that the title is fine as it stands. This is really not different from the title The Cold War.  There was no declared or actual Cold War.  It was a term used to decribe the political and military actions used to react to an ideology (terrorism is after all an *ism as much as communism or capitalism).  In the case of the Cold War it was clashing ideologies causing the defination of the Cold War to be extremely different depending who you asked.  Objectively, the War on Terrorism is a clash of ideologies as well.  Regardless, constantly repeated usage transformed the term or phrase "Cold War" into the  proper noun The Cold War.  I don't question that the War on Terror's origin was propagandistic rhetoric and I don't question that it couldn't be justified as a "War" any more than the War on drugs or the War on poverty (or even the new phrase describing the current administration's "War on Freedom").  If you are arguing that the term has not yet been repeated enough to deserve proper noun status, you would have a very difficult argument. -R.Cohen

Congress did not declare war
I'd like to point out that President Bush, not the U.S. government "announced its intentions to begin a 'War on Terrorism', a protracted struggle against alleged terrorists and some of the states that are alleged to aid terrorists."

Note that the Congressional authorization for use of military force is limited to those involved with the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. Maurreen 07:17, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Quotes, Congress
I put "war" references in quotes; made a bunch of tweaks, and changed U.S. to Bush "announced its intentions to begin a 'War on Terrorism', a protracted struggle ..." Maurreen 06:52, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Recent anon addition
Recently an anon added the following, though Jayjg reverted it soon afterwards:
 * "The War on Terror" and its similar phrases do not include to fight Israeli terrorism. Israel commits more state-sponsored terrorism then any other country in the world. Westerners do not hear about this as the United States first ally is Israel.


 * Also, many, if not all, of the countries that the "War on Terror" goes after, are not actually Terrorists but simply countries who do not want to listen to Washington or Isreal.

While much of this is POV and mere opinion, I do think that maybe we should include his first sentence or something like it in the article: "'The War on Terror' and similar phrases do not include Israeli terrorism." It would be encyclopaedic, IMO, to note that while the United States and their President, George W. Bush call it a War on Terrorism, they do not include in this the terrorism committed by the state of Israel, and even somewhat endorse it due to the substantial U.S. financial support of Israel. Opinions? BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 09:31, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Whether Israel commits terrorism is a matter of opinion. I think it's probably best to keep the article to what the "war" does cover. Maurreen 12:58, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * A matter of opinion? I don't understand how someone can contest it.  Saying that the Israel doesn't commit terrorism is a bit like saying the Holocaust never happened - ridiculous. BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 15:56, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * More to the point, the War on Terrorism excludes a great deal of terrorism in general. State terrorism and sponsorship thereof as a rule is not included (except for certain states like Iraq) and even some actual "terrorist" organisations (e.g. the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, which occasionally uses terrorist attacks). There's no particular reason to highlight Israel. Although I think discussion of the fact that some states/groups are not included is merited. Graft 04:57, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with that general idea. Can it be done without highlighting any organization that is excluded? Maurreen 05:32, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

End of the war?
Usually, a war start when one country declare war and stop when involved coutries found an agreement or when one country win against one other.

But which will be the fact which will make people feel this war to be ended?

As american government says the war in Afghanistan ad the war in Iraq have been won (closed), does this mean the war on terrorism have been won? In the opposite case, does this mean United-States will declare war to another country, to keep the war alive? 80.125.107.170 00:09, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think in the eyes of the leaders and the people of the United States the war will not be "won" until America recieves Osama Bin Laden -or his remains- and the heads of those who run the Al-Quida terror network. The United States suffered a preverbial kick in the ass on 9/11, and will most likely not be satisfied until they see the person most responsible for the deaths of 2,000+ civillians put to death. Mind you this is just one man's opinion. TomStar81 02:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it's important to keep in mind that there are people who benefit in certain ways from an ongoing "war on terror". (such as politically and/or economically) If these interests retain a sufficient influence on government policy, it is unlikely that the "war on terror" will end, irrespective of the empirical quantity and severity of terrorism. Kevin Baastalk: new 05:01, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

Also it is important to note that all surveys show that terrorism has consistently increased since the "war on terrorism" began, so by measure of empricial "terrorism" events, at best it can be said that the "end" grows increasingly further away, so long as the current dynamic (including the strategy of the war and international policies) remains. Kevin Baastalk: new 05:07, 2005 May 12 (UTC)


 * I think that in the minds of its tenants, the so-called "War on Terror" is of a same nature than the Cold War, which has also be called "War on Communism" -- and some neo-conservative circles like to call these the 4th and 3rd World Wars, resptively (note that as far as I know, these expressions are ued nowhere else than in the USA, and especially not in country which had to suffer the direct effects of World Wars).
 * This being said, it is remarkable to notice that the so-called "War on Terror" has a declared foe much less defined than "Communism" used to be ("terrorism" can turn into an essentially meaningless buzzword; most of the operations of the Third Reich and its various allies were justified by fighting "terrorism"), yet is subject to some sort of whitch-hunting comparable to what happened during McCartysm (see the way that peer-to-peer file sharing, political protests or mere harmless jokes are labeled as "terrorism". Rama 09:13, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Saddam Change
I think this paragraph: ''Most recently, the war on Iraq has been tied to the "War on Terrorism" by the Bush administration. However, no evidence has been provided for such a connection.''

Should be changed to: ''Most recently, the war on Iraq has been tied to the "War on Terrorism" by the Bush administration. However, no direct evidence has been provided for such a connection.''

I think this (and perhaps an additional paragraph) should be done to acknowledge the likely complicity Saddam had for some terrorist groups. In particular for Ansar-al-Islam, and their usefulness in fighting Kurdish insurgents for Saddam.

Here is something I read from a person I was debating with:
 * Ansar-al-Islam (search) was a terrorist organization set up by Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda. In “Hunting Down Saddam, The Inside Story of the Search and Capture,” best-selling author Robin Moore explains how in the opening days of the war, U.S. Special Forces -- along with Kurdish fighters -- attacked and shut down the world’s largest known terrorist base, Ansar al-Islam’s facility in Iraq.

Although I disagreed with his characterization of this being evidence of Saddam's support of international terrorism (assuming he was using them simply domestic matters), it does provide a bit of a middle ground in the debate. RoyBoy 17:24, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Let's not forget the fact that Saddam was funding suicide bombings in Israel. If you state that Bush's motivation was only "Saddams support for terrorism", technically, Bush is correct. --66.82.9.77 04:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits
I'm not sure why the parts about various countries (e.g. France, Canada) were taken out of the edits made approximately a week ago. France and Canada *did* join the war on terror, but they turned down the war in Iraq. Someone want to tell me what's so POV about that?TheProject 17:12, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hezbollah
Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization, they defend Lebanon. They hold seats in the Lebanese Goverment. They own a TV Satellite station Al Manar that you can subscribe to in the USA (so much for the US Goverment claiming they are a terrorist group)
 * AIUI, they have democratically elected officials in some states. They are a political party and a movement, not terrorists per se. Mind you, is any group entirely composed of terrorists? Mr. Jones 21:53, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Use of phrase "War on Terror" as propaganda tactic
I would like to add that the phrase "War on Terror," as a response to 9/11 and in the literal sense of the word "terror", is a confirmation that the terrorists who attacked on 9/11 were successful in frightening the populace.

Additionally I think in that sense the phrase is applying a sort of "forced emotional conformity" to the event, that everyone experienced the same level of terror on that day (clearly untrue of course), as well as subsequently stretching that emotional reaction through the repeated use of the phrase.

Lastly, that a "War on Terror" is being fought with the presumption that the populace is not afraid, I believe this leads to denial of the fear experienced on 9/11 while, as I said above, it is still being reinforced.

This is something I've thought a lot about, but I'm rather a layman when it comes to semantics, psychology and propaganda, but I hope someone will at least point me in the right direction? I really think something like this should be added as I think the word "terror," which was as far as I know, not at all in the common lexicon as slang for "terrorism," is purposefully being used to reinforce fear and also as a semantic 'vessel' to hold all sorts of propaganda. I also think that this propaganda is making its way (or has already) into common usage in the media (commonly propaganda must be accepted by the elite first, not by your average joe), and I believe it has a negative impact.

This is along the same lines: we are not fighting "terrorists" or "Al-Qaida" even, but "The Terrorists." This is very similar to "The Communists," except at least "The Communists" had a country. Saying we are fighting "The Terrorists" is much like saying we are fighting "The Murderers" and how do you fight "The Murderers?" Who are they? Where are they? To me, they are anything the person in 'control' of the phrase wants, and at the same time they are the terrorists that attacked on 9/11.

I think this is very important, and would appreciate any comments. This is, so far at least, the best way I can explain it (though I have more analysis, and I'd be happy to add it, but it's all over the place since I don't have any education in the fields necessary for in-depth analysis.) --Ben 21:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It appears that these are your individual conclusions. They don't belong in Wikipedia (and neither do mine). But if you find a reference that states the above, that could be added to an appropriate article. But there is an article on criticism of the "war on terror" that might be more appropriate. I don't remember the exact name. Maurreen 05:13, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and of course you are right. I still haven't found any articles which take this sort of approach of examining it as if it were intended as propaganda beyond comparisons to the war on drugs and criticizing the term itself. Still hoping someone would examine it from that perspective. --Ben 06:42, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The expression itself
The phrase "war on terror" or variations are discussed in various places on this page. I'd like to suggest that any new discussion take place down here.

Whatever the "war on terror" is, to my knowledge it is incomparable to anything that has come before, in its vagueness, at least. It is amorphous.

If nothing else, wars in the standard sense of the word generally have a place for a clear beginning and ending.

This is incomparable to the Cold War in that the presidents during that time did not try to exert wartime powers. There was not the same lessening of checks and balances and civil liberties. The United States did not decide to hold people incommunicado indefinitely. Etc.

The president is not authorized by the Constitution to declare war. Congress is the only body so authorized, and it has not done so. The authorizations for use of military force have some limits. Maurreen 07:18, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

September 11 commission
I believe that the statement in the introduction that September 11 commission said that Saddam had no ties to terrorism is factually wrong. September 11 commission only said that Saddam had no direct connections with AlQuada and September 11 attack. --Vlad1 01:08, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oxymoron
Regardless of whether you are on the right or the left, the phrase is technically an oxymoron because terror is an essential part of war. Mir 08:55, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hezbollah
I am not sure I understand this:


 * The Shi'ite militant group Hezbollah is the largest political party in Lebanon, but has been declared by the U.S. State Department to be a terrorist organization and has ties to Iran. Hezbollah organized a huge demonstration against the U.S. and seems poised to exploit a future vacuum as the Syrians depart.

If the Hezbollah is indeed the "largest political party in Lebanon", I don't understand why it should be underlined that it "seems poised to exploit a future vacuum as the Syrians depart": the normal democratic process would then grant them at least a significan power in the new official structure... I probably haven't understood everything, but in its present state, this part looks a bit odd to me. Rama 07:21, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * In the absence of Syria, Hezbollah will be the predominant military power in Lebanon. However, I think the sentence sucks for other reasons: the juxtaposition of "terrorist organization" and "ties to Iran", as if the two necessarily go together. Graft 17:59, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Introductury paragraph
I added a line in the first paragraph that notes that there is no internationally accepted definition of either terrorism or terrorist. I feel it is important to state that imediatly. TomStar81 08:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?
Somebody just slapped an NPOV tag here but I don't see any mention of this in discussion. --csloat 23:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * If someone is genuinely wanting to discuss the orientation of the article on specific points, he is welcome to bring them forward, and put the tag. But good articles should not be vulnerable to being discredited arbitrarly by people who disagree with the reality. So unless constructive criticism is made, I think that it is fair game to remove these tags. Rama 02:24, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I just removed not one, but two POV tags that were added without any discussion or attempt to build a consensus that the article lacks neutrality. In reading this article, I find it to have a rather temperate tone, in keeping with the policy on neutrality. Calicocat 07:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

All right, you want discussion, here you have it: The invasion of Iraq should not go on this page, as there never were any links whatsoever between Saddam Hussein's regime and any terrorist organizations. And believe me, I am being objective here, as I know about international law, and personally despised Saddam`s regime, almost as much as I despised the Taliban regime. The terrorists entered the country AFTER the invasion, as part as a resistance movement. The difference between the two regimes is that only the second one harboured terrorists. That being said, the subsequent occupation of Iraq could be considered to be part of the War on Terrorism, although it should be specified that the invasion caused Iraq to be a training ground for terrorists. Furthermore, the "axis of evil" countries not necessarily sponsor terrorism, as is the case of North Korea. It has dangerous nuclear ambitions, but that is not terrorism. So, I am putting the NPOV tag. Copperchair 05:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * For the sake of argument, I am going to agree with most of your assertion, forgetting about some justifications and intell and whatnot. The Bush Admin has been accused, or commended for, a neoconservative theory that they wanted to start Democracy in Islamic countries, and Iraq was a good place to start.  This was done under the neoconservative theory that starting Democratic reform in the Middle East was the best way to win the War on terror.  Whether it had or will have its desired effect is irrelevant, this was what both critics and supporters alike was the underlying motivation in Iraq.  --Noitall 05:50, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the September 11th terrorist attacks served as justification for the invasion of Iraq, they were not the cause. Republicans had that invasion in mind since the 1998 crisis between the Clinton administration and the Iraqui government, as stated in the Project for the New American Century Copperchair 06:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * There were many justifications. I guess Moveon.org and like still says it is oil.  Others haul out the Bush's father and first Gulf War thing.


 * Your first statement, however, totally agrees with me and makes my argument for me. The only true way that you connect September 11 and the war in Iraq is the democracy-building nation-building justification.  Politically, the Administration's primary justification could not use an academic nation-building theory, so they used other simpler justifications.  I believe, and many believe (see neoconservatives), that democracy building was the entire justification.  But regardless, there is no dispute that it was at least one of the justifications and that this was directly linked to the War on terror.  --Noitall 06:15, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

How is it linked with the war on terror? In your logic, if a country made people use drugs and then it fought them, it would be a "war on drugs". There were never links between Saddam's SECULAR regime and the EXTREMIST terrorists. Even al-Qaida considered Saddam to be an "apostate" for not having a theocratic regime like Iran or the Taliban. If you meant to say that the fight against the insurgents is part of the “war on terror”, then you should note that the US caused this people to take up arms against them. The Iraqi people never attacked US soil; the US attacked them. And because of that, they have right under the Geneva Conventions to form any resistance movements and to be granted POW status as they are legal combatants. Copperchair 06:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * On the other conclusion that one could draw, it is entirely possible that neoconservatives and others viewed Iraq as the perfect place to test their democracy-building nation-building in the Middle East prior to 9/11. Then, after 9/11, the fact that they had a ready theory and solution ready to go when presented with the problem of Islamist terrorism and a worldwide War on terror only strengthens the link between 9/11 and the war in Iraq.  --Noitall 06:22, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. It is imperialism, not "war on terror". 9/11 was only used to manipulate people's fear in order to have them support a war that is illegal according to international law (or minimum decency). That is mere rethoric. According to the UN Charter, no country has the right to impose a certain political regime on another. That's what the USSR did in the Cold War (and ironically was criticized by the US then). In any case, in view of what is being done in Iraq, then the US should be alonside North Korea, Iran and Iraq as rogue and terrorist state. On top of them, I would dare to say. Besides, Islam in its purest is incompatible with democracy. How would you feel if an Islamic invasion army imposed a theocracy in your country? You wouldn’t buy its ideology and you would be mad with them. And you would have every right to. Copperchair 06:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

And how does North Korea sponsor terrorism? There are no North-Korean terrorist organizations, nor are the North-Koreans wahhabi islamic extremists. They haven't committed a single terrorist act. If it is in the "axis of evil" because it has nuclear warfare and because it does not respect international treaties, including the ones regarding human rights, then the US is the most evil of all countries. It has nuclear weapons that could destroy the whole world several times, it does not respect treaties (see Nicaragua v. United States) and it doesn't respect human rights (see Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse). Copperchair 07:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Pakistan, do you remember before it served to US interests, being known that it sponsored terrorism, it has nuclear weapons and even helped it establish the Taliban regime and was one of the only three countries to recognize it as Afghanistan’s legitimate regime, it was seen as a terrorist state? But now the nuclear weapons subject has been put aside just because it is vital to have their help in the war against the Taliban. Shouldn't the US, being completely objective, have included it in the "axis of evil"? Pakistan is, to this day, far more dangerous than Iraq. Copperchair 07:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tags of 27 Jul 05
I see no reasons given for addition of NPOV tages to two sections of the article. The lead reads in a neutral tone and gives factual information about the WOT -- what it is, how it started. The first paragraph seem very adequte and straightforward, temperate.


 * Comments for expansion:
 * 1) The number of persons killed in the WTC should be stated with precision. These are human lives from a recent event. (I'll look it up and see who gets it corrected first, I bet you win).
 * 2) It was after 11 Sept. 01 "9/11" that the Global War On Terror or was it Global War on Terrorism (war on Tera) got started, I'd like to see if we can track down the history of the term. I have also heard the president use The War Against Terror, Global War Against Terror, TWAT and TGWAT respectively.
 * 3) I think it should be made clear that the actions in Iraq are sometimes said to be part of the GWOT and other times called by various operational names (Operation Iraqi Liberation, Operation Iraqi Freedom, OIL and OIF, respectively; similar names for operations in Afganistan, numbers deployed, names of US camps which have been established, outside contrators).
 * 4) Paragraph three, while not specifically lacking in neutrality, could be redrafted to be a bit more neutral in tone. The paragraph could also be expanded with some supporting details.
 * 5) This sentence (P4,s1) is a bit clumsey:
 * "On this basis, the current and ongoing Iraq War has been extremely controversial —as that war was promoted as part of the GWOT, and most claims of threat (ties to Al Qaeda and claimed weapons of mass destruction) have been all but completely discredited."


 * 6) Details such as -- coalition member nations, casualtiescounts of those killed and wounded (civilian and military), major battle names and operations, major and minor property losses and damagers, enviromental impacts, (some of this may be available at related articles, no need to duplicate if there is). Casualty and wounded details can be updated as needed, somehwere there should be a list of all names of U.S. military and killed and wounded in Iraq, Afganistan and elsewhere including all those killed or injured in combat, training or other operational deaths including accidents; Patriot Act passange and issues with, such as holding prisoners without charges, Gitmo, military tribunals, torture of prisoners, extordinary rendition of prisoners ([[unlawful combatants]) and such. Some of this can be included to expand the lead not so much in length but in details included.
 * 7) Summary The lead's second and follow paragraphs are a bit thin on detail (budget, dates) and bit ambiguous (should be very clear not to conflat Saddam/GWOT/Bin Laden), that said, I don't find these statments lacking in neutrality more that they call for expansion. Calicocat 10:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Talk before you tag, please


When you think you need to place an NPOV (or any) tag on the article, stop and think about discussing it first, discuss your concerns.

In a short period of time I have observed NPOV tags placed twice without any discussion whatsoever.

'''Bring something to the party! Don't just slap a notice on an article and skedaddle.'''

So let the tags remain but if there's no input, I think they should go and will remove (unless you get there before me and get rid of them) The article will expand -- capricious "hit and run" tagging doesn't help, but it seems to be something to observe. Calicocat 10:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Links and footnotes...
Explain to me why statements that are pervasive in this article such as the one that claims that ''Investigations have been started through many branches of many governments, pursuing tens of thousands of tips. Thousands of people have been detained, arrested, or questioned. Many of those targeted by the Bush administration have been secretly detained, and have been denied access to an attorney. Among those secretly detained are U.S. citizens.'' has nothing linking it to the evidence to support it? Perhaps those at camp x-ray may fall into this commentary, but I have not heard of any secret detentions of U.S. citizens as a whole. The latter half of the passage seems to be reaching just a bit.--MONGO 04:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * No doubt, the article needs additional details. I'm sure it will develop well. Add to it, expand it. I'd say that it is very weasel word sounding, "have been started..pursuing tems of thoughts of tips..." More detail is required for this article. Calicocat 12:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Outdated paragraph
I've removed the following paragraph because it has been superceded by the official report that clearly confirmed the abuse at Bagram:


 * Nevertheless, the Post admits that there is no direct evidence that the U.S. government is mistreating prisoners. Additionally, as reported by Reuters, the U.S. military denied these allegations and stated that the Post's article was "false on several points".

Introduction
I've rewritten the opening to be more clear that this article is mostly about the current War on Terror as seen from the US. That's basically what was happening anyway in the opening with the long list of US-centric grievances. I'm not totally comfortable with this as the article does contain a bit of interesting historical stuff from other countries. The only way around this though is to do a total reworking of the whole piece to sublimate the stuff on the current US crusade into a much broader and balanced piece. --Lee Hunter 03:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Supporters
I'm curious about this statement "Supporters downplay civilian casualties by arguing that many who live near terrorist cells are likely supporting them materially..."

The assumption that people who live near terrorists have less right to security seems like an astonishingly callous and short-sighted way of thinking and it's not an opinion that I've ever heard anyone express. Is this actually what supports of the GWOT believe? Is there a source? --Lee Hunter 23:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

LeeHunter
Since this article is nothing more than a communal sock puppet for the liberal masses involved in this wikipedia project, I will no longer watch nor submit edits to it. In specific, Lee Hunter is determined to add his or her own opinion to the article, using specific sources which confirm what they wish to believe. Since the vast majority of wikipedia users are liberal america-bashers, (one only need hang out on #wikipedia for an hour or so to affirm this) I find it entirely pointless to continue to try to work on articles like this. Hopefully people who read articles like this will find them so completely biased as to understand they cannot possibly be correct. I will continue to go through other articles which have been hopelessly "liberalized" and attempt to correct them there. Please, enjoy your little soapbox here, and be aware that not everybody is as stupid as you make them out to be. Avriette 00:12, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Dude, I've checked through the history and (unless you've used another ID) found that you have contributed exactly one (1) edit to this article which was where you reverted my assertion that interrogation experts don't believe torture works. You objected to the statement on the grounds that it was unsourced. A complaint which I felt was entirely reasonable, so I tracked down the sources (US Army interrogation manual etc) and rewrote it. For this you throw a hissy fit, call me an America-basher and give up in frustration? Ok (shrug) have a nice life. We'll just have to struggle on without you. --Lee Hunter 12:13, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd remind User:Avriette about the policy on civility, that kind of insulting and unfounded language has no place in Wikipedia. Calicocat 07:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Restructuring
For my next act of communal sock puppetry for the liberal masses, as Avriette so nicely put it, I was thinking of doing a serious restructuring of this article. I'm posting it here in advance, in case anyone has any comments or objections.


 * and if there were any FOX news watchers who could read, I'm sure they'd be here to help FOXify this article more than it already has, and then it could look like every other mindlessly obedient news channel -- Myself

The section called "Military/diplomatic campaigns" either needs to be renamed or chunks of the content need to be removed because much of what's there is neither a military nor diplomatic "campaign".
 * Naming of the Axis of Evil - this whole chunk should be reduced to one sentence with a wikilink to the Axis of Evil article. It's really a footnote in the story, a quirky turn of phrase that Frum dreamed up and became a buzzword for a brief time. It doesn't need to be discussed at length in this article and it certainly shouldn't have it's own section under "military/diplomatic campaign" because obviously it's a slogan, not a campaign
 * Iraq - this is clearly an important part of the war on terrorism but all the content here is about the situation before the invasion. This is pretty bizaare since there is now obviously far more terrorism in Iraq than anywhere else in the world. This section needs some trimming of the Hussein/Al Qaeda/WMD material and more information on terrorist activities since the occupation began. What about Al Zaqawi, truck bombings, assassinations, beheadings, Fallujah etc?
 * Pankisi Gorge - Should be renamed something like "Russia and the Former Soviet Union" so that attacks by Chechen terrorists can be mentioned.
 * Saudi Arabia - There's nothing at all about Saudi Arabia which is again pretty bizaare considering that the country is both one of the leading exporters of terrorists and possibly the main objective of OBL
 * Europe - Another gap. British mosques have been an important recruiting ground, there have some high profile assassinations in Holland and the French have been showing leadership with their police work.
 * North Korea - Does North Korea belong in this article at all? Simply because they sell weapons to Iran? Seems like a stretch. I think this bit should be cut completely.
 * Indonesia - Should mention that the Bali bombing galvanised public opinion in Australia.
 * Libya - Lockerbie was terrorism and belonged in the article. The bit about giving up WMD is not directly related to terrorism and doesn't belong in this article. Yes, it was a diplomatic success for the US, but this is an article about terrorism not WMD.
 * Detentions at Guantanamo Bay - Gitmo is not a "military/diplomatic campaign". This bit should be lumped in with the section on interrogations and the Amnesty Int'l cricitism. Perhaps the "Interrogation methods" section should be renamed to something like "Human rights and legal issues"

Comments? Concerns? Suggestions? --Lee Hunter 01:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, now that I've given it a little more thought I'm wondering if it wouldn't make sense to organize it around the central themes or spheres where the war is being fought. In other words, have sections like military action, domestic security, covert action, diplomacy and propaganda. --Lee Hunter 23:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I've run into similar concerns on other aricles. I think your suggestion is a good one, perhaps we can expand the article to includ some subsection that offers another index of some sort. I'm sorry, I don't have an immediate bright idea on how to go about this, but I'll give it some thought. Calicocat 00:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The war is over
There is no need for this article! Don't any of you remember? Bush said it was over!! The aircraft carrier, Bush with another one of his speeches, and that infamous banner, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

You mean this carrier and this banner. And a word to the wise abou this war: it will probably never end. TomStar81 4 July 2005 05:29 (UTC)

"History is like a waltz... a never-ending dance in three-four time. The three steps of war, peace, and revolution. An endless waltz."- Mariemaia Khushrenada

I was just wondering, at what point does an insurgency become a civil-war? How long must an insurgency last and how many must die? Is there any definition, or is the wording entirely up to the media and goverment to decide? -HMR 10 July 2005


 * It becomes a civil war when it's a war between Iraqis and other Iraqis rather than a war between (mostly) Iraqis and (mostly) foreigners (i.e. Americans, Brits, etc.) That is still not the case, although there are some people on both sides that would like to portray it that way.--csloat 09:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, Iraqis account for the vast majority of deaths and injuries, so by your definition it could be already a civil war. However, as we have little or no figures for the number of 'insurgents' or non-Iraqis involved we are not in a postition to make the call. I don't suppose the poor sods caught up in the bloodshed give a toss anyway, they probably just want to get on with their lives. Markb 11:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

There never was a War on Terror
Read this excerpt from Brian Leiter's blog (Leiter Reports):
 * On a different note, couldn't we have an agreement, at least among grown-ups, to stop using the phrase "war on terrorism," unless we have an explicit understanding that it is not a real war, but rather is like the "war on drugs," i.e., a metaphorical war that will fail, and so one that doesn't excuse any hair-brained schemes cooked up by beady-eyed, morally stunted politicians. One can't wage war on a political technique. Full stop. One could wage war on a group, perhaps, or on a country (as the US has been doing), but you can't wage war on techniques that can be employed by anybody for any purpose. The US waged war on Afghanistan, and is waging war on Iraq, and is engaged in an international manhunt for members of a terrorist group, but there is no such thing as a "war on terrorism." It doesn't exist.

Okay, since I assume I'm among grown-ups, couldn't we agree that there is no such thing as the war on terror? It is self-defeating anyway, as we must employ terror to root out terror. This excerpt should have a place in the article. Any objections?Maprovonsha172 29 June 2005 22:21 (UTC)
 * I agree with the sentiments of the writer, but I wouldn't want to see it in the article. Quoting blogs and columnists is usually not very helpful to making a good article, and is sometimes taken by others as an invitation to contribute all sorts of nonsense. --Lee Hunter 29 June 2005 23:59 (UTC)
 * Well I think we should make an acception here because in the whole article the concept itself is never questioned, though many reputable people have questioned it. From Bill Maher to eminent philosophers, that the 'War on Terror' is simply made up (ironically as a terror-induing ploy-fear mongering). Brian Leiter is a well-known (for a philosopher) and well-respected philosopher and I think in this case quoting his blog is valid. We wouldn't even have to say it was from his blog. We'd just say, "Many contest the concept itself...yada,yada,yada, Brian Leiter has said the following:". Why not? Maprovonsha172 30 June 2005 00:10 (UTC)
 * He's basically saying what's already in the article under Opposition and Criticism (i.e. that you can't have a war on a concept.) I like the way he says it, I just don't think it's a good idea to load an article with quotes that stand in for one's own point of view. --Lee Hunter 30 June 2005 00:27 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay, I hadn't seen the criticisms part before. I won't add that passage from Leiter Reports but I did change something. Here is what was on the site-
 * The Bush Administration argues that "the best defense is a good offense," and that with terrorist organizations, unlike standing armies, it would be foolish not to attack whenever and wherever possible, destroying the weapons and terrorist training camps that underpin terrorist organizations.
 * I thought that was a bit favorable to the Bush administration, saying "argue" when they really mean "proclaim" and failing the mention the shift that effected from previously long-standing American foriegn policy. Here is my revision-
 * The Bush Administration has said that "the best defense is a good offense," and that with terrorist organizations, unlike standing armies, it would be foolish not to attack whenever and wherever possible, destroying the weapons and terrorist training camps that underpin terrorist organizations. This policy is essentially a 180 degree turn from the longstanding American policy of containment.
 * It isn't a big change, but I thought it was worth mentioning.Maprovonsha172 30 June 2005 01:06 (UTC)

I changed it back with a better wording, Lee. I hope you can accept the sentence in its comprimised form - if not, let's discuss it on the talk page before we go ahead and erase anyone's edit. Maprovonsha172 30 June 2005 03:53 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the containment policy was to restrain Saddam Hussein's military ambitions in the region, it had nothing to do with fighting terrorism. In fact, Iraq was never on the State Dept list of state sponsors of terrorism (all through the Bush Sr. and Clinton administrations). By referring to containment in this context you imply that Iraq was part of the terrorism problem prior to the Iraq war, which simply wasn't the case. --Lee Hunter 30 June 2005 12:35 (UTC)
 * I'm not referring to containment in that context. I'm talking about general foriegn policy. Containment was the general foreign policy of the United States for quite a long time, but has as yet been replaced by the Bush Doctrine, the pre-emptive strike policy. Even if the State Dept. never called Iraq a terror state, George W. Bush and his cronies did. My point is even more valid, in fact, because Iraq wasn't listed as a terror state. I mean that we launched a pre-emptive strike on a soverign nation, an unprovoked war of aggression. This is in contrast to long-standing American policy (which is my point), which is relevant because the Bush Administration has attempted to justify it by including it in their "War on Terror." Even in George W. Bush's speech two nights ago he reasserted his claim that Iraq is now and was before the invasion a center of the "War on Terrorism." Maprovonsha172 30 June 2005 18:45 (UTC)


 * Absolutely right. There never was a "War on Terror". It is just an extention of the "War Whenever We Feel Like It". It started with Pearl Harbor, the "War on the Japs", extended into the "War on Communism" (extremely boring), then the "War on Arabs" then the "War on Terror". It is all the same ongoing war waged by Britain/US against whoever is stupid enough to take one of them on. This ongoing war will only end, when Britain/US take on something too big, like the "War on Nature". Wallie 06:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Article title
The contents of this article don't match the title, except in a POV way.

I suggest:
 * 1) a new article be made that describes the history of the phrase "war on terror(ism)" with pro's and con's"
 * 2) the bulk of this article moved to something like "US-led response to the September 11, 2001 attacks"

The key problem with the current title is that "war on terrorism" is an allegation that the reason for the war is to eliminate terrorism. This is a commonly disputed point of view. What isn't disputed is that the US led a series of military actions "in response" to the terrorists attacks on New York and Washington. The reasons for the military actions are disputed.

I suppose people argue that the term "War on Terrorism" is the most familiar name for this series of military actions. I don't believe that's true. In most international media the term is most often used with irony or derision, as in "Bush's war on terror". It is usually seen as a phrase of propoganda. So it's inappropriate as an article title unless it's an article about that propoganda.

We should find a NPOV title. I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I couldn't find it, so I thought I'd drop my 10 cents in at the end here.

Ben Arnold 9 July 2005 00:56 (UTC)

The phrases "War on terror" and "War on Terrorism" are used often enough that they deserve an entry in this encyclopedia. However, I would prefer a discussion of the controversies surrounding the phrase and a redirection to an article with an NPOV title. Robert McClenon 9 July 2005 19:08 (UTC)

Oppose and Support
I'm a little bit confused--under "Opposition and Criticism" there are points from those opposing the war and those supporting the war. To begin with, why is the section title "Opposition and Criticism" when there is a "Support" section too under it? And second, the "Support" section is much noticeably shorter, and three of its four points are counter-attacked while the points in the "Oppose" section are left alone. Come on, guys, this isn't because there aren't any valid "Support" reasons. :) I know it's rarer than a snowball in the desert to find a Wikipedia editor who isn't liberal, but surely there's one out there, somewhere...? (Nothing wrong with liberals now, but there's certainly not a balance 'round here...)

(And to stave off the "do-it-yourself" calls, I don't "Support" so I dont know any "Support" reasons...) 172.130.125.18 19:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Definition of War
Out of all the many definitions for war that are out there, why is this one used? Since the definition of war is widely disputed, why include any definition at all. Either that, or include more definitions that reflect the true problem of defining war.


 * Hmm. It is a little pov to be starting the discussion. When I read your comment I expected to find a dictionary definition not a single politician's decades old idea of it. -  Tεx  τ  urε  18:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * To the anonymous commentator - sign your comments. And what "definition" are you talking about? Are you talking about the intro (are you Copperchair?), then be specific -- what other definition would you prefer. I think its fine to use an objectively worded explanation of the "standard" definition, as the U.S. defines it, while explaining the caveats, etc. a little further down. -Ste|vert 17:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

No, its not me. I always leave my signature. Copperchair 20:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * There are two POVs in any war. This is no exception. At the moment, the article shows the view of one side only. For NPOV, the two POVs should be ellaborated on fully.  Wallie 07:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Why image of Bin Laden?
I don't understand why there's an image of Bin Laden in this article. If anything, it would seem more appropriate to have an image of President Bush who coined the phrase? Calicocat 07:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

GWB is said to have coined the phrase, but I doubt it! I'd love to know more about how these terms get invented, whether they are subject to analysis, discussion etc. AndrewHodgson 17:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Go to World War II, there is not a single picture of Roosevelt, Churchill or Stalin. Lots of pictures of battles, bombs, Nazis and descriptive news headlines though.  --Noitall 00:03, July 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Andrew, if you read the article, "the war on terrorism" has been going on since Reagan -- and beyond to the UK, in reference to the Palestine Irgun! LOL. And Calico: yes, putting a picture of someone who coined the phrase would be as ridiculous as putting Reagans picture up. I dont understand how someone could suggest that bin Laden would be unrelated to the "war on terrorism." Saddam out of style too? How about we replace him with the current president of Syria? Iran? ROFL. -Ste|vert 17:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

GWOT or GSAVE?
If anyone's been following the news, the New York Times has reported that the Bush administration is retooling the "War on Terror" slogan into the "Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism" IHT link, but carried in other papers. I have heard there's a consensus amongst the left and right blogs that this is a surrender of sorts, or at least the Bush administration grasping at the low hanging fruit. Should this be mentioned it the article? --YoungFreud 01:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I edited the use of the term 'backronym'; fancinating as they are, the sentence is discussing acronyms =) Gamemaker 17:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The term "War on Terror" was a kneejerk reaction at the time of 9/11. The "War on Terror", or "Extremism" is a bit vague. It is just a nicety for the "War on Muslims", which the Conservatives would it probably is, but it is could be politically incorrect. Wallie 07:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Officially Renamed to 'Global Struggle Against Extremism'
I'd like to back up YoungFreud by confirming the term 'War Against Terror' is no longer used by the Bush administration. The new official term is the 'Global Struggle Against Extremism', which Donald Rumsfeld has used several times during press conferences already.

This is definitely an acknowledgement by Bush and Co that this isn't a war the U.S. can win, rather a tolerable 'struggle' which will be ongoing. Remember also that U.S. Army recruitment rates are falling and the word 'extremism' is more appealing to potential, young service men and women.

Isn't "Global War On Terror" a sidestepping way of saying World War III ?

Redirect?
Why was this article redirected to a non-standardly named article? Terror and terrorism are not proper nouns, no need to cap them. There's been no official declaration of war, so the name "war on terror" or "global war on terror," (isn't now "the struggle against something or other"), is not in any way a formal war being waged by any nation against any group or nation. It seems like useing the upper case "Terrorism" is some of POV push. Calicocat 19:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Also note this edit by the same user. Dave (talk) 19:56, July 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * And this edit. Dave (talk) 19:57, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

What a mess... Someone please correct this. There is no way in the world this should be "War on Terrorism" with a capital "T" it's just wrong and will only cuase confusion. The only useful redirect would be from "global war on terror" "global war on terrorism" to this article. The article was actually, I think, "moved" here... I'll have to check on it later, but if someone else can correct this, please do it. "War on Terror" is non-standard and confusing. Calicocat 18:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem with the caps on War on Terrorism or War on Terror. See also War on Poverty and Prohibition (which talks about the War on Drugs). Whether there has been some sort of official declaration of war does not have any bearing on whether the concept has gained the kind of currency where it can be capped. Actually, I don't really care one way or the other - it's a very trivial point - but we should at least be consistent. --Lee Hunter 18:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect the page back. Not even the White House capitalizes the term. Major media outlets certainly do not either. 172 | Talk 20:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It should bee capitalized, since it is a proper name. Copperchair 21:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The Page should not have been redirected, it should have been moved. You lost all the edit history by doing so. --Noitall 22:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Anthrax attacks
The section on contemporary US mentions the 2001 anthrax attacks, and concludes that they originated in a US military installation - is there evidence for this? Neither the anthrax attack article nor the article on the alleged attack source make any mention of this conclusion. Gamemaker 17:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)