Talk:War on terror/Archive 5

message: The Iraq portion contains a number of unsubstantiated claims. Others are just plain wrong. I tried to correct these yesterday, providing detailed explanations for each change, but Rangeley reverted almost all my changes. Please provide citations for the following:
(1) 
After the September 11 attacks, fears that Iraq could use its alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction program to aid terrorist groups began to grow, 
NYC: First, since the WMD were only suspected and turned out to be nonexistent, this sentence should be corrected "...the US gov't alleged that Iraq had WMD, and further advanced the idea that Iraq may aid terrorist groups using such WMD.  Second, what "fears"? US government fears? Then it should state that. Otherwise, cite polling data for "growing fears." Connecting 9/11 with Iraq WMD is (now thoroughly debunked) US government spin. By repeating this spin here without making that clear we are helping to mislead. 
::Thats not what happened, its being written in a tense, it feared the WMD's program would be used to aid terrorists. Its also not just US fears as you can see by how many nations were involved with the Coalition of the Willing, we cannot really state "countries A,B,C,D-X feared". While this idea and the idea of WMD's may be debunked now, they were not then, hence why they feared it. If they knew it didnt exist, they wouldnt have feared it. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore the Downing Street memos also express this fear and so does HJ Res 114 and the speech before the UN that Bush gave. I am not sure if we can source state secret documents, but I will later add the resolution text and a link to the text to satisfy your concerns. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not sure if you read the actual memo's but they show that Bush was actually afraid of terrorists using Iraqi chemical weapons to attack the United States. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 23:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I am saying Bush was afraid of terrorists using Iraqi chemical weapons to attack the United States ... --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are making assumptions as to what its saying instead of reading what its saying. It actually uses direct quotes from the resolution so I am not sure what the problem is. I also went ahead and sourced this as I found a paper arguing the grounds of the serious consequence thing as legitimate preface for the attack. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, NYC, you misunderstand what the UNSC means when they say they will be "seized of the matter." As explained here, , this phrase appears in many UNSC resolutions, including the proposed second one that never passed. It means, basically, that the UNSC will keep this issue on the front burner, and for the UNGA to stay out of it. Your idea that this statement was why they pursued a second resolution is entirely without base, and I would be interested in seeing where you got that information due to its blatent inaccuracy. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You claimed it was why they pursued a second resolution, but the second resolution included the same phrase. It is this point that I questioned, your claim that it was because of this phrase that another was sought, that I called entirely baseless. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that isnt the point. You made this statement "That's why the US wanted, unsuccessfully, to obtain a second resolution." As it was present in the second resolution as well, as the source shows, it is therefore indeed baseless to say that this phrase is why the US wanted a second resolution, and I again am interested in seeing where you got your information. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will raise this again, the source states that the second resolution contained the same language. They would not have sought a second resolution that included this language, due to the fact that the first had this language. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You are really dodging this. Lets use an analogy. Jimmy wants new shoes. You say Jimmy wants new shoes because his old ones are blue, but the new shoes he wants are also blue. Therefore, it is illogical to allege that it is because his old shoes are blue that he wants new shoes. ~Rangeley (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The source states seized means the security council does not want the general assembly taking action. That is all. Further as I have already debated the US did have a right to defend itself against the perceived threat Iraq posed. There is a second resolution text actually floating around.  as you can see seized is also mentioned in this one even though it was suppose to be the one that authorized an attack ... so its obvious seized of this matter is as stated by the source, meaning the security council does not want it falling back to the general council. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, you have called this speculative, but it isnt. The second resolution included the very same phrase  and therefore it makes your claim that they pursued the second resolution because the first had this language automatically untrue. There is nothing speculative about it, and I again point you to my "blue shoe" analogy. When someone goes from old blue shoes to new blue shoes, to claim they bought the new shoes because they didnt like blue is a foolish, obviously innaccurate claim. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: There were indeed sites made unavailable for inspections, and the inspectors in the first two sources state that Saddam did not live up to his promise of "unconditional inspections." ~Rangeley (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I appear to have made a mistake, good catch. I will look into the exact nature of the claim of noncompliance. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Again your assumptions, actually one can imply the opposite since it went a different route then prescribed. Legality aside the statement does not assert legal or illegal and you calling it either is pointless. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: To follow up "a threat of immenent attack" was actually the reason used for the "preemptive strike". Just so you know the idea was that Iraq would directly attack US interests in the Gulf region much like they did before with Kuwait and Israel, or that they would give the weapons to terrorists to then use to attack the US directly or its interests. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No evidence according to you, however as I pointed out they had already attacked Israel and Kuwait unprovoked, I am not sure what evidence you need. As for attacking a nation because someone else says its ok, you still attacked them unprovoked, would this all be a non issue if we found out that Saudi Arabia gave us the green light to attack Iraq? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 23:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The resolution says he posed a threat to US interests. Your understanding of secret back door deals does not change the fact that the US did perceive him as a threat and that is also supported by the Downing Street Memo. He also attacked Israel, a us interest, and Kuwati, another US interest. As for Saddam thinking it was ok, thats really not relevant. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I sourced this stating how the UK government at least explored this idea, noone is saying it was legal, again you seem to be assuming somethnig that is not even there. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Again it does not say that that Res 1441 did authorize force, though that is debated. Furthermore your assumptions of legality off the sentence seem far fetched. It says the invasion went forth and was noted as the "serious consequences" of the UNSC resolution. The resolution was in fact used as a basis for the invasion, see the speech by Bush before the invasion began. Do not take this offensively but it seems you are barely aware of any of the documents leading up to the war, Res 114, 1441, Bush's ultimatum speech or speech to the UN, Downing Street Memo's or the debate before UK authorized their involvement, both sessions. You may want to do more research no the topic or reffer to the Iraq War article. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Then if you feel its incorrect swap it, state al-Qaeda in Iraq was the first insurgent group, I do not mind it only proves Zarqawi was indeed a major figure in Iraq being the first to start the major uprising. Either way because the order is wrong doesnt mean you should remove mention of al-Qaeda in IRaq all together. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its pretty common knowledge that the early days of the insurgency consisted of Baath loyalists largely, but it eventually shifted to more Wahhabi-influenced groups as time past. I will look for sources if necessary, and recommend you do the same, NYC, to back up your claim that it originally was Wahhabi-influenced groups but currently consists of mostly Baath party loyalists. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: "I believe is incorrect" - you didnt simply ask for a source, you stated it as incorrect. I guess that I made an assumption that if one disagrees with the sequence of an "A-B" list, the only other sequence is that it is "B-A." Here is a source from July 2003  which states that the early attacks were done by Baath Loyalists, ie Saddam loyalists. Wahhabi-influenced groups, such as Al Qaeda in Iraq, are the more prominent force now that attack coalition troops. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Arent your comments supporting whats in the article, the article states "Hussein's Baath Party (search) to non-Iraqi fighters from terrorist groups" And now you are stating you know the non-Iraqi's were the minority, so that makes the Baath Party members, ie Saddam loyalists the primary group at the time ... The current wording states Baathist first then al-Qaeda in Iraq, since this article states the Baathists were right after the fall and al-Qaeda in Iraq did not exist till later when Zarqawi pledged allegiance to bin Laden, wouldnt that make the order correct? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Baathists are home grown fighters ... Anyway we have a source stating early Baathist insurgents so all we have to do then is provide a source stating when al-Qaeda in Iraq was created, showing a date after the other articles mention and this section is factually correct in stating Baathist before al-Qaeda in Iraq. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 01:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, it doesnt venture into where they are from. At first, as noted, people who wanted Saddam to be back in power were the ones who continued fighting after May 1. But today, those who make up the insurgency are not out to restore Saddam, they have other goals, and are Wahhabi-influenced groups. ~Rangeley (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Where does it even mention 2003? You were the first person to bring up 2003 in any claims, in the above discussion, and seem to be debating the idea that they had the lions share of 2003. Neither Zero nor I have ever made this claim, and the article does not either. It does however say "at first from loyalists," which is a true statement. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It means basically that, at first insurgents were largely loyalists to Saddam but now they are not. What you have been saying is that this means from May 1 - December 31 2003 it was mainly loyalists - a claim that neither of us have ever made. Baath loyalists launched most of the first attacks in the insurgency, this we know, how long it lasted I cannot say and have not attempted to say. Thats why it doesnt specify anything except the order in which things happened. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Found this from Time Magazine, 2004.  "Time reported last fall that the insurgency was being led by members of the former Baathist regime, who were using guerrilla tactics in an effort to drive out foreign occupiers and reclaim power. But a Time investigation of the insurgency today—based on meetings with insurgents, tribal leaders, religious clerics and U.S. intelligence officials—reveals that the militants are turning the resistance into an international jihadist movement." ~Rangeley (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry but your lack of confidence in a source does not make it fail WP:RS, both the US Govt and The Times are WP:RS sources and as such satisfy any requirements for a source to be presented. The source also clearly states it was Baathist leading so stating at first from loyalists is correct, stating now its militants show al-Qaeda, I am not sure what the problem really is. Would you prefer a source specifically stating al-Qaeda is a major force in the insurgency? There was an article just the other day I will try to drag up about how the MSC is not running things and its still al-Qaeda in Iraq. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Iraq Index", The Brookings Institution, 2006-08-07. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry section titled "Total number of insurgents detained or killed" ... --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not sure what you are asking. I did not make the source so I do not know their methods in arriving at their numbers. The sentence clearly lumps killed and jailed together for the figure much like the source does. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Excellent point, I went ahead and removed my specific addressing from the above comment.  I believe my reasoning for making it specifically pointed towards you was because you were the one wondering why Rangley undid your deletions/edits. Didn't intend for it to mean you were the only one the suggestion was aimed at. --Bobblehead 20:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies and Unsubstantiated claims

message: You may wish to read WP:CITE#How to ask for citations. In general, if you would like a source provided for a line and it's not doubtful then use , if the line is doubtful but not too harmful, then mark it with .  In general if the request remains for over a week it is generally acceptable to remove the line in question, but that doesn't mean it won't be reverted back into existence. The only time it is acceptable to outright delete a line without the tags having been there for a period of time or moving them to the talk page for discussion is if the information is very doubtful and very harmful to the subject of the article and/or Wikipedia.  If you believe that a line is doubtful rather than outright removal, you may wish to provide a line that counters the existing line while awaiting a citation, just make sure to keep it NPOV and source it.  On the patently false and harmful front, it is also preferable to not only remove the line, but to also add a line, with sources, into the article that shows the line deleted to be false.  On a side note, I saw in one of the comments above that "it's pretty common knowledge", unfortunately that's generally not an acceptable response to a content dispute, sources are much better and should be fairly easy to find in this case. :) --Bobblehead 21:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent point, I went ahead and removed my specific addressing from the above comment.  I believe my reasoning for making it specifically pointed towards you was because you were the one wondering why Rangley undid your deletions/edits. Didn't intend for it to mean you were the only one the suggestion was aimed at. --Bobblehead 20:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request sources be cited

message: It was just a target of terrorist attacks. By that logic, we should include Madrid and London in this article. Don't fear the Reaper 07:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits look quite familiar. Your name is even vaguely familiar. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indonesia? 

message: PurpleRain and Damburger, how about instead of eating up time and space on this discussion page you start a rewrite for this article at /rewrite or something like that.  If it is of significant quality and from a more globalized POV than the current article than the current article can be moved to a subarticle that addresses the American War on Terrorism and the rewrite can be placed here in its place. --Bobblehead 19:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestion.  I might do that if I can find the time. PurpleRain 20:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Please read some of the above comments.  The "American" part is the ideology, not the campaign.PurpleRain 20:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zero, the only country that accepts the 'War on Terror' as it is represented in this article is the United States. Are there other countries involved in certain operations under the American construct of the "War on Terror", yes, but this article does not make that distinction. It starts off by saying it's a campaign by the US supported by NATO and other allies and includes them in the infobox, thus giving the impression they support ALL of the WoT, which is simply not the case. Many of the countries listed in the infobox (including NATO) expressly rejected involvement in the Iraq War and were clearly not involved in the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, nor did they accepted it as part of the WoT.  No one is denying that the US has a War on Terror, the issue is that the article as it is written makes certain implications that are not true. Please see Civil War for what I'm talking about.  There are many instances of a war called "Civil War", but they are all attributed to the proper country for which that term applies.  What this article does is the equivalent of including the German Empire in the infobox for the Russian Civil War when the only involvement the Germans had in the Russian Civil War was siding with the Finns and Swedes when the Russian Civil War spilled over into Finland and resulted in the Finnish Civil War.  What is the harm in leaving the infoboxes on the operations themselves to identify the participants, rather than having an inaccurate roll up infobox on this article in addition to the operation infoboxes? --Bobblehead 21:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you prove that? Seriously, other then your buddies I would like to see some proof that only the US sees the WOT like this, else the countries governments speak for them. Prove what you say, I am tired of this cricle logic, show lots of sources of leaders of those countries saying they are involved but not as part of the WOT. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 22:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: NATO does have troops in Iraq btw. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 22:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, burden of proof falls on the person providing the entry in the article. Unless you can prove that all of the participants in the infobox support all aspects of the War on Terrorism as it is defined by the United States, then it does not belong in this article.  --Bobblehead 22:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But since you probably will continue your own circular logic. BBC article detailing a compromise by NATO to send defenses to Turkey instead of actual troop involvement in the invasion. NPR article detaling a few more of the divisions within NATO regarding the invasion. [Global Research] article detailing a German court ruling that the use of US airbases in Germany and fly-over rights in support of Iraq War violated international law as NATO does not have an agreement to support the Iraq War. Another BBC article where France and Germany reject an increase in NATO involvement and that they have no formal role in the occupation of Iraq. And that was just with a quick bit of searching. What evidence do you have that NATO does more than allow the use of air bases in NATO countries to transit American troops into and out of Iraq. --Bobblehead 22:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. I think this point is now closed as I have provided what you asked for, "evidence do you have that NATO does more than allow the use of air bases in NATO countries to transit American troops into and out of Iraq." You can also read  --zero faults |sockpuppets| 00:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I said this above in response to that point: "The War on Terrorism is a single campaign, as much as any other campaign. The USA began the campaign, and other nations have aided it. While I have already said that the Cold War is not a campaign and therefore would not have an infobox, your idea that every nation on one side of an infobox must participate in conflict with every nation of the other side is unfounded. Take for instance World War One, the USA is an ally but never went into conflict with Bulgaria, a Central Power. Same for WW2 where many nations only were at war with some nations and never with others. Take Japan for instance, never at war with Poland, but its still an Axis Power and Poland is still an Allied Power. Thats what this is an equivalent to, not every nation is involved in every theatre, but they are listed for participating in atleast one on the side of the campaign. Same goes for those on the other side of the infobox, they are participating in atleast one theatre against those waging the campaign." ~Rangeley (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Japan was an ally of Germany and had formal declarations of war against the countries designated as part of the Allied Powers. That is not the case with NATO aligned countries and all operations within the WoT. It's not just involvement in operations, it's the acceptance of these operations that counts. --Bobblehead 22:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Considering Japan was not at war with the USSR when it was declared war on by Germany, this seems unlikely. Also, a number of "puppet nations" set up by Germany and Japan seem unlikely to have declared war on every allied power, but I could be wrong (a source would be useful.) There is no case where a power on the US side that participates in a particular operation has taken sides against the US alligned side in another, despite their not supporting the US alligned side militarilly in that operation. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please take a gander at Tripartite Pact.  As puppet states were added to Germany and Japan's control, those puppet states signed on to the Tripartite Pact.  Japan is also included because even if they did not declare war on specific countries, those countries declared war on Japan. USSR was the last allied country to declare war on them and did so in 1944. I'm also not sure what you're getting at with no one joining the side against the US in operations.. I don't think anyone is saying that. What they are saying is that not all of the countries listed on the US side agrees with the US's assertation that the operation is part of the War on Terrorism. Canada is involved in Afghanistan, but flatly refuses any involvement in Iraq as they view the war as illegal... --Bobblehead 23:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: PLease see the template, it does not state that all those forces are allies and that the other side are their enemies. Hence this point is moot thanks to the fix applied earlier that was reccomended. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 00:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I doubt you would have objected to including the USSR and Japan in the infobox prior to that though, considering they worked for the anti-axis cause in other theatres. As for the Canada not thinking its a part, would this even matter, considering they arent the ones who decide what is and isnt a part? Its like the above fundraiser example, those who start the fundraiser might send people off to clean up a park to raise money, but they might also send some people out to rob a bank as a way of earning money. While there is no debate that this would be illegal, it was ordered under the project, regardless of the oppinion of the person who was out cleaning the park. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rangeley, yet again, you're not seeing the point. The War on Terrorism (with caps) is purely the construct of the US government. However, there is also a war on terrorism (without caps) that is being conducted by other countries. While the two do have overlaps, they are not one in the same.  Canada supports the operations in Afghanistan as part of the war on terrorism (no caps), but does not support the War on Terrorism (with caps) as a formal engagement as it is presented by the US government.  Perhaps a better name for this article is 'American War on Terrorism' similar to the American War of Independence and American Civil War having American in front of them to disambiguate them from other wars of independence and other civil wars. --Bobblehead 00:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you prove this or is it just your personal opinion? These multiple wars on terror? If you cannot without violating WP:OR I believe this conversation is over. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 00:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A suggestion

message: Hi, I wish to add the following link (http://www.waronterrortheboardgame.com/) to the external links section of the War on Terror page, but as I am personally involved in this site I'm throwing it open for discussion. 
Cons: there's a commercial nature to the website 
Pros: it's of cultural value and provides content that is relevant, unique and in addition to the Wiki article
Thoughts/ comments welcome.
Cheers
82.6.104.229 14:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it shouldnt be added, boardgames are just inappropriate, external links are suppose to contain information that is not presented in the article, commercials websites promoting a porduct I feel does not meet the standards of WP:EL, anyone else have an opinion? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  If links to articles in Scientific American are questioned as being commercial spam then this definitely falls under that heading.--Bobblehead 19:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree as well.  This link is advertising, not information. PurpleRain 20:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested External Link 

message: This country should be included at the combatant forces in the War of Terror.
Please discuss with me if you think this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.239.63 (talk • contribs) 
(Spelling corrected in section title - originally "Afganisthan". -Wookipedian 21:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afghanistan 

message: I provided a link to work by three Columbia University researchers. 
Yet, Rangeley has removed this reference, simply saying 'yea, right' in the edit summary.  This is inappropriate.  I have supplied encyclopedia worthy material with a reference.  Rangeley did not discuss on this page his rationale for excising thiss. Dogru144 18:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, asking for an explanation is a good idea. Could have worded you comment on Rangeley's talk page better though. It's the all important "You get more flies with honey than vinegar". Perhaps try asking Rangeley for an explanation without the personal attack and in a civil manner--Bobblehead 02:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Confirmation of link: terror alerts + Bush popularity - Why removed?

message: This just surfaced http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf and it is ideal for illustration of this: "Iraq had no role in the September 11 attacks and had no known history of a significant working relationship with Al Qaida.". Here is an excerpt: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5328592.stm. Lovelight 21:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference

message: Why isn't Criticism of the War on Terrorism an integral part of the War on Terrorism article?  Isn't the whole point of having a NPOV to be that you try to capture both support and dissent regarding a controversial topic within the article on that topic? Patiwat 03:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:SUMMARY. There's too much content in the two articles to merge them properly. The criticism article is just too large to merge into this one and as long as the material here is presented in an NPOV manner, then it is acceptable to keep the articles separate. --Bobblehead 03:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 4 Paragraphs of that article are in this one ... I am not sure how much you think is appropriate, there isnt even a section praising the WOT in the article, if anything its POV slanted the other way. Not a single person is saying anything positive about the WOT in the whole article. --User:Zer0faults 10:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The article is also pretty long, making an even large, single sided section like the criticism section large is not going to help. The other information is all relevant factual information, which I have to say after reading over it doesnt present a or take a side. --User:Zer0faults 10:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If facts supporting the WOT are only contained in the WOT article, and facts opposing the WOT are only in the Opposition to the Iraq War article, I'm not sure how that presents a NPOV... Patiwat 17:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Facts about the event are not facts supporting the event. Facts against the event however are just that. Saying Bob thinks the WOT is bad cause bad people arent so bad = criticism. There is nothing in the article that reads like Jack thinks the WOT is good because bad people should die. The whole rewrite of the article was done to just present the facts of the situation. If after reading the facts, no commentary or analysis by anyone, you come away with feeling its positive, then perhaps it just is. --User:Zer0faults 09:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Even an article devoted to Criticism of the WOT should not be "single sided", as it should contain not only the criticisms but also rebuttal points. If the discussion of criticism/controvery is too lengthy, then shouldn't we add a  tag and use a summarizing section in this article? If someone writes a "Support for the WOT" article (assuming there isn't one), I suppose we would also link to that. —Wookipedian 18:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a section of the Criticism section already in the article ... Again since the article contains no support for the WOT, I am not sure where the POV is. --User:Zer0faults 09:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: There is a section, the article is tilted toward people who are critical of WOT not people in favor of it. Thats the point. People crying NPOV are not actually reading the article. --User:Zer0faults 00:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why isn't this merged with [[Criticism of the War on Terrorism]]? 

message: I don’t know why someone keeps deleting France in the “international support” section. Soldiers from the 1er Régiment de Parachutistes d'Infanterie de Marine and aircraft from the aircraft carrier FS Charles de Gaulle and Armée de l'Air Mirage 2000 ground-attack aircraft took part in the initial operation in Afghanistan and French forces have participated in offensive and ISAF operations in Afghanistan since. 
French forces have also contributed with US forces and others as part of Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa. Chwyatt 08:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  France 

message: I removed the npov tag because I object to drive-by anons (198.107.240.50) slapping such tags on articles and then doing nothing to either fix the pov or at least make their case for what's wrong. I haven't been involved with this article, but if you think it should remain, plz state what's currently POV here so we can clean it up. Armon 09:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not agree with Armon, when I read the article it striked me as very POV. The way it is presented, the box with participants... Everything seems oversimplified on certain plans, or too detailled on others (military side). I wont detail more, others wikiuser have done so quite well on the discussion page. The minimum we can do is issue a warning label. This article is "believed to be POV by some users". This is definitely a fact. Pompom2309 11:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: This seems to have a lot of redundant info which should be in War on Terrorism - Theaters of operation -comments? Armon 13:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its actually a bit of a trimmed down version lacking quotes etc to make it just a factual representation. The previous article simply stated where the theatres were but not what happened at them and why etc, making the article ont he WOT really consist of history of name, US domestic stuff and pros and cons, which really doesnt cover the full scope of the WOT. Most people wouldnt know why Pakistan is part of the WOT if they couldnt read about the Waziristan tribal area in a brief section. Considering WOT - Theatres was broken off of this its only right to summarize some of the info from there. Similar to how there is a criticism article and we include a portion of that article in this one. --User:Zer0faults 14:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campaigns and theatres of operations 

message: I swore I would steer clear of controversial articles... still.
This article seems to underplay actions taken by countries which count themselves as allies in the war on terrorism where the USA is not itself involved. These include Russia in Chechnya, Turkey, and India in Kashmir. Clearly they may have their own reasons for signing up to this cause, but that's politics. jimfbleak 15:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you should chime in if you want, Chechnya seems to be under dispute but I had not though of India and Turkey. Feel free to expand if necessary. Are we refering to the Kurdistan Freedom Falcons when we talk about Turkeys role or the ability to use its location for a base etc in the many regional conflicts. --User:Zer0faults 15:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know Putin has called the wars in Chechnya part of his country's "War on Terrorism", but have India and Turkey referred to their conflicts "War on Terrorism"?  Wouldn't want to be slapping labels on something when the countries haven't done so themselves. As for why Chechnya isn't included, this article is really for the WoT led by the US and the US hasn't identified Chechnya as a front in WoT. --Bobblehead 17:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Allies

message: I see it is now "The Long War".  I note also that this describes a 'war' that has not actually been going on too long (by historical standards) ; if rhetoric has no part to play in all of this I'll eat my hat - Washington Post / 
Guardian
However the new (long War) article is pretty balanced atm. Hakluyt bean 15:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.. Well, not sure that article will last long as it seems to be a neologism. I've never heard of WoT referred to as 'The Long War'. Is that a common reference outside the US? --Bobblehead 17:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Long War 

message: Because of the simplicity I am sure this is overlooked and then undoubtly mocked when read. But, wouldn't the best solution to 'war on terror' simply be making peace? Once you have initiated war would you have not already created terror? Or visa versa. Seems "war on terror" is like war on war, which is like dirty on dirt. The idea of it as a subject in the encyclopdia with so much rhetoric leads me to wonder what people expect as victory from this war. In fact, it almost sounds scary. Do people really want to go all the way with this? Sounds like you would have created a hell. Does war have a different meaning or terrorism in the war on terrorism? Maybe this is a bad place to ask such questions but I have often wondered. I get images of everyone being at war with the idea. I wish the article was more to the point.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.37.95.27 (talk • contribs) .
:In response to your "Does war have a different meaning or terrorism in the war on terrorism?" question. In this case the War on Terrorism is a proper noun, equivalent to someone's name. So the need for the campaign to actually be a war or to be actually against terrorism is irrelevant. As for your wish of the article being more to the point, care to elaborate? Do you have any suggestions on how the article could be improved to make it more to the point? --Bobblehead 17:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I’ve accepted the text just not to carry on with an endless discussion, but I can only agree with jrey. Any comments on my suggestion of removing the table at the right hand top of the page? (How about editing the article? DavidMarciano 17:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to edit the article as you see fit.;)  The table at the top.. There are a fair number of people opposed to it being there (including me), but getting it off will probably be a contentious topic. You'll want to build consensus about it here before actually getting rid of it. As for other edits, go crazy, just make sure to explain the edits in the edit summary. You may also consider doing it slowly over a period just so the change isn't too shocking. --Bobblehead 13:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I said I’d try to do something and I will. Still, as I’m not an expert on the subject, it’ll take me time before I can do something accurate, concise and well sourced. Meanwhile, I call people’s attention to some points. DavidMarciano 21:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another bias discussion 

message: Terrorism didn’t just appear for no reason. There are no reasons that can justify it, but certainly there are reasons behind its appearance. Saying that “Terrorist organizations had carried out attacks on the United States and allies”, insisting in the word ‘terrorist’’, and not making any reference, for slight it could be, to the reasons behind the attacks, is far from a NPOV. DavidMarciano 21:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Overview section

message: This is irrelevant here. A slogan is a slogan, now or before. What I think is, this is here just to make it known that the slogan wasn’t a President Bush’s invent, which is irrelevant. Moreover, if there were other "wars on terrorism", this article shouldn’t be titled just as “war on terrorism”, for the sake of accuracy. If the previous “Wars on terrorism” are to be referred to merely as an usage of the phrase than that’s what as been a lot discussed for the present one – just an usage of the phrase. But if instead, presently it’s taken as “the” name, than one needs to de-conflict the three wars named “war on terrorism”. DavidMarciano 21:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical usage of phrase section

message: The definition by the US would be important if the article were “War on terrorism seen by the US”. It leads back to the discussion on the article’s title. DavidMarciano 21:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Operative definition in U.S. foreign policy section

message: I’m the one to blame for this one. Operation Active Endeavor is mentioned in the International support section and I didn’t recall it when I said it was missing. Anyway, it isn’t in Europe but in the Mediterranean. DavidMarciano 21:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Europe section

message: The US says it belongs to the WoT, but I don’t think wikipedia’s position is already settled, since a lot of people don’t agree. Again, the discussion is about accepting to show the US position because of the “war on terrorism” being a US “campaign”, but not accepting to title it as “The US war on terrorism”. DavidMarciano 21:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Iraq War section

message: See Iraq War DavidMarciano 21:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lebanon section

message: Many of this were among the first measures taken by the Administration following 9/11. It should be closer to the top, in my opinion. DavidMarciano 21:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: U.S. domestic initiatives section

message: I don’t see how this can be important for the article, unless I think in terms of passing the message that this is just one more “military war”, for how strange I see the expression. DavidMarciano 21:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Military decorations section

message: I find this misleading - it's suggesting that there is an expected ending. If I recall correctly, USA leaders have even stated that they expect (or at least, wish) it to last indefinetly. The Soviet Union is gone and we seemingly need another enemy to fight for decades at least. Peoplesunionpro 01:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything can potentially have no end, that doesnt keep us from saying its currently ongoing. There are operations being conducted under this umbrella that are currently happening, thus it is currently ongoing. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "conflict ongoing" 

message: Should this important new info be worked into the article?
"WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.
The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document." 
NBGPWS 06:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invasion of Iraq worsened Terrorism