Talk:Damadola airstrike

message: This statement should be reexamined for accuracy. Several accounts dispute this information.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1504096&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
According to this article, "Pakistani officials" reported that "five of those killed were high-level al Qaeda figures".
Also, a "senior Pakistani official" said in a recent New York Times article that "at least 11 militants had been killed in the attack. Seven of the dead were Arab fighters, and another four were Pakistani militants from Punjab Province".
I deleted the word "only". Happy? --68.217.111.17 19:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "an attack that only killed innocent civilians"

message: Regardless of whether this airstrike was right, wrong, justifiable or otherwise, the event did occur and deserves to be recorded.
Current geopolitics condones a first strike by the dominant superpower into third countries. We are likely to see many such events until the geopolitical climate changes.
This strike is part of the current geopolitcal climate. Although ostensibly launched in an attempt to kill a named individual, it is of historical interest because of geopolitics, not the individual targeted.
As such I suggest the article retain its individual status and if anyone is concerned about putting it in context, they should include it and any similar incidents in a list or category.
--Dmoss 03:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Historic incident

message: This has to be one of the most biased wikipedia entries I've ever read. The facts most definitely aren't in, and simply assuming that the testimony of one person which conflicts with the testimony of others is correct only on the basis of being anti-American is completely unprofessional.
This is a case where the "facts" as presented are technically correct, but obviously presented in such a way as to be greatly biased. "Pakistan says...", no mention of conflicting opinions, nothing.
:(Correct me if I'm wrong) Please understand that as of end of Saturday, there is still no official US statement on this. It was the Pakistani side and reporters there who were providing these information. --Vsion 08:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not even close to NPOV 

message: According to international law, this event is a valid casus belli. If Pakistan does not declare it is in a state of war with USA, due to US aggression or at least demand a UN security council emergency session on the topic, it should be expelled from the UN because it has lost its souverignity. When people see that central goverment has no power to defend the territorial integrity, Pakistan will become another Somalia, a chaos of warords with total lack of governemnt. Then the taleban will gain repower and the sharia cause will be stronger than ever.
: This is the silliest thing I have ever heard.  Should S. Korea be expelled?  What about Germany?  And the United Kingdom and Italy?  They all house U.S. bases that operate somewhat independantly.    The reality is that Pakistan doesn't exert control over that area.  Neither does Afghanistan.  THey are unbable to defend it or regulate it.  It is the same in the disputed regions between India and Pakistan.  Should India be expelled because it doesn't declare war everytime it believes Pakistan has challenged it's soveriegnty?  Also, you misapply Casus Belli in that these infractions may be listed in a Casus Beli, but it is not a requirement to go to war simply because an event could be construed as Casus Belli.  You have put the cart before the horse in that nations declare war and justify it with Casus Belli, they don't have a Casus Belli that forces them into war.
reply: This is typical American talk which is completely detached from the culture,state and history of a nation and entirely dependent on one event.
Look who else is impinging on Pakistan's territorial sovereignty. Hint: it's not the United States.
http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Terrorism&loid=8.0.261219324&par=0
- That link doesn't work. Care to enlighten us as to whom it is you have in mind?--Lopakhin 13:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Casus belli]] 

message: Regardless of whether it is or isn't "CIA disinformation," the information is correctly attributed to the AP, a reputable news source, and thus merits inclusion. The CNN article that's been cited in other articles acknowledges that the information is coming from "officials."  As always, readers are free to make their own judgements regarding the veracity of "official" statements. Also, please keep in mind the Wikipedia three-revert-rule. OhnoitsJamie 02:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fox News certainly isn't the only source reporting it: 
Furthermore, the source is in fact the Associated Press.  Foxnews.com is just hosting the article.  Look at the author of it, it is quite clearly labeled "Associated Press" at the top.
AP and Fox News are reporting news delivered to them by ???? You see? You have no idea. No names. No attribution. No way to assess its veracity. That's why it is disinformation. Unnamed sources are not encyclopedic. But what do you care? --68.217.110.69 02:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Well stated. OhnoitsJamie 17:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit war 

message: I will remove this tag in the next few days if there is no further development or objection. --68.219.203.209 13:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No longer a "current event" 

message: If the last day has proven anything it's that the person who made the protection necessary in the first place is still here. --BlueTruth 22:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, I don't even know Mistress Selina except what I've seen here, and second of all I was still able to edit this page while it was under protection, since I have an actual account. Third of all, it seems everyone editing this page is overwhelmingly going against your POV version. You're nothing more than a troll who uses a static IP to get around bannings.--BlueTruth 23:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Educate yourself on WP:NPA, WP:POV and the meaning of static IP - then get back to me with specific issues you have with the article at hand. Thanks. --68.219.203.209 01:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection should stay 

message: instead of blindly reverting to outdated and innaccurate versions. If there is a single unsourced fact that needs to be deleted, please point it out. Otherwise, do not vandalize the article. Thanks. --68.219.203.209 02:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except you are not reverting vandalism.  You continue to restore old and outdated material.  I added your sourced material that had neutral POV to the article.  Please read my latest edits which you blindly overwrote.  It is you who owes an explanation as to why you continue to revert to very outdated material that has a non-neutral POV.  Tbeatty 04:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I added todays video release of Al-Zawahri.  You blindly deleted it.  That was one of many.  The last version I posted has consensus of everyone who discusses it here.  I have discussed all my edits although i don't post a talk response when reverting your vandalism.  You ignore the 3 revert rule and have been reverted by numerous people on numerous occasions, yet you continue to post your outdated version of events.  Please stop so we can move on.  Tbeatty 04:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please explain what needs to be edited in this article 

message: Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 04:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR warning 

message: The link to selective assassination not a related topic and I believe it should be deleted.Cillmore (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Damadola airstrike. 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/20060103150459/http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorintelligence/bushwidened.html to http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorintelligence/bushwidened.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060115043917/http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4F745CF1-DDEB-4707-B7AE-567F6B7EDA54.htm to http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4F745CF1-DDEB-4707-B7AE-567F6B7EDA54.htm
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) 18:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)