Talk:Counterterrorism

message: Hmm - that last edit seems to imply that counter-insurgency isn't a synonym for counter-terrorism. I think I would dispute that implication... -- Khendon
Terrorism isn't the same as insurgency--different methods, and different aims. An organized rebel army isn't a terrorist group, whereas pro-government forces kidnapping dissidents are terrorists but not insurgents. It is politically convenient for governments to paint the two as equivalent, but it's not accurate. Vicki Rosenzweig
I equate insurgency, protracted war, and guerilla warfare. Mao wrote On Protracted War, and a variety of authors from Right to Left wrote on guerilla warfare, so I don't consider either term to be caught up in the "War on Terror".  I've also worked with the term "insurgency" since the late sixties.  My point is that "terror" appears in much of such literature, often as the main operational method of Mao's Phase I. One can have terror without guerilla warfare, as in a government death squad, but I would argue that there has been no significant insurgency that did not practice terror. In addition to repressive governments, some of today's supranational movements do not seem to be embarking on guerilla warfare with the eventual goal of taking over a nation-state, but, rather in the anarchist tradition, to destabilize states that displease them. Hcberkowitz 23:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment 1

message: i have read through the sources, mainly citation 8, many statements were made which used that citation as a source but the cite says nothing about the topic which cited it, can some more qualified person look into this? 75.67.14.31 (talk) 02:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: on citation 8

message: I have completed A, and will begin work on ocuntries beginning with B whenever I next get a chance... feel free to add more countries -  Factoid 03:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Should Alliance Base be included, and if so where?--ghost 20:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Country by country list

message: I changed some of the information about the Australian Counter-Terrorism units, the Tactical Assault Groups aren't civilian but part of the Australian Defence ForceEbglider91 (talk) 07:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tactical Assault Group

message: I edited some of the information about the Brazilian and New Zealand special forces, mostly just added links to their articles. Ebglider91 (talk) 10:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Military counter-terrorism units

message: Counterterrorism is different from antiterrorism, and should be kept as a seperate entry. While it is one of two major strategies in the fight against global terrorism, I would say it is the "first among equals". Since 9/11, more has been done for antiterrorism - that is, defensive measures against future terrorist attack. as “Antiterrorist defenses constitute a very large proportion of the U.S. fight against terrorism, certainly in resources but also in leadership attention” (Pillar, Paul R. Terrorism and U.S. Foreign Policy (Washington D.C., Brookings Institute Press, 2001), p. 38). A look at the FY 2006 budget for the Department of Homeland Security is one place to look; the budget includes $41.1 billion for the DHS, a seven-percent increase. Included in that budget is the establishment of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO), reflecting the Administrations' concerns that nuclear devices, fissile material or radiological material may fall into the hands of terrorists. In fact, “the budget includes $125 million to purchase Radiation Portal Monitors (RPMs)” (Department of Homeland Security: Press Room – Press Releases. Accessed online December 2005) to detect the smuggling of both gamma and neutron radiation over our borders.
Regards, A.T. Triola —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.121.59 (talk) 
: I concur completely. I've done both and they are not the same thing at all. 138.162.128.52 (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Counterterrorism vs. antiterrorism

message: I've got some experience in the field of counter-terrorism. I'm taking it upon myself to clean up this page, as it absolutely reeks of kiddies playing too much Counter-strike.
ooops Swatjester 23:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Here I am!

message: Please could any interested editors please view the new article about the Rapid Action Battalion, since it has been started from scratch. Cheers, Tompsci 15:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rapid Action Battalion

message: Sorry, deleted the link to "Mockery on terrorist organizations", as it merely linked to a page containing materials poking fun at various terrorist-related issues.  The thing is, it really doesn't relate to counter-terrorism.  Again, sorry for bothering you. Nagyss 00:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: There is much value to what Radagast83 added, but I suggest some thought about the article size, whether it should spin off specific subarticles (e.g., balancing privacy and counterterrorism, infrastructure hardening, money tracking), and if there can be better links to the hierarchy of intelligence articles that I've set up. I probably have the materials for a start on money transfer law and such in the US, but I'd really need a financial expert to help define analysis. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Direction of article after merging in "response to terrorism"

message: I think there is now a definition of "terrorism" agreed by more than one nation state. If i'm right then the statement near the begining of that article stating that there is not at present any "internationally agreed definition" of the word is out of date; is it not? I think the definition relates to an international treaty that can lead to legislation being automatically co-opted from one jurisdiction to another depending on what purpose the legislation was made for. 79.72.136.68 (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  international definition & jurislation 

message: As there is a section in this article called Planning for response to terrorism, regular editors of this article may like to take part in a requested move I have just initiated to move a new article called Terrorism prevention strategies to Terrorism prevention strategies for the United States see  Talk:Terrorism prevention strategies#Requested move -- PBS (talk) 10:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planning for response to terrorism 

message: I am a CIA Operative who has been given permission to mention two examples from my counter terrorism work which were especially helpful in our resistance to Al-Qaida.  In the first case, I went around to burlesque houses to talk to dancers.  With good fortune, I found a lady who was an Al-Qaida recruiter, although I spent almost five hundred dollars of my own money getting information out of her.  Other CIA agents followed up and we learned alot before she unfortunately suicided, but if she had not done so, she probably would have gone to prison.  Her death might have been accidental, but I will never know because I was shifted to other duty.  The whole group working with her was brought down.  In another case, I was eating nachos in a Chili's restaurant with my girlfriend when a known terrorist walked in with four female bodyguards.  To make a long story short, I was able to verify that this was indeed a mafia fellow named Napoli, and not just a man who looked like him, and after I ushered my girlfriend out of the restaurant authorities moved in to capture him.  The females with him had balisong knives but were not much of a problem.  Napoli had the names of 650,000 Al-Qaida recruits and bringing him down was a major blow to the terrorist movement in general.  Today, there are about 50 terrorist organizations in America, but Al-Qaida is mostly gone and the growth of terrorism is finally stopped, and we expect that the number of subversive terrorists will shrink from now on until the War on Terrorism is ended.  The next generation will have a safer world entirely.  I was asked to share these examples to show that God really does help CIA agents in their work, since the amazing luck I experienced could not have been accomplished without the Lord.  God Bless America.  Thanks for reading.  Code names: "16", "Montgomery", "Priest".  "h" - MI6, "667" - KGB, "Mr. Taco" - China, "Leviathan" - France.  For the rest of the international community, I am "g" and "Zero".  Everybody is using Tiny Fist.  Message approved by D Department's 'Frank' on 12 August 2010.  Funnel any complaints about leaks to L Department, attn: Dr. Gerald Bush.  Have a good day, and Protect America.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.97.159.47 (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples of Counter-Terrorism 

message: "The tactic of terrorism is available to insurgents and governments. Not all insurgents use terror as a tactic, and some choose not to use it because other tactics work better for them in a particular context. Individuals, such as Timothy McVeigh, may also engage in terrorist acts such as the Oklahoma City bombing."
While it is no doubt that McVeigh is a major criminal who committed a horrific crime, describing him as a "terrorist" is not exactly the clearest example of this term nor a good segue into an article about terrorism.  McVeigh specifically targeted a federal institution in a direct retaliation for Waco.  Generally, a terrorist attempts to insight terror in the general public.  McVeigh is a poor example to use for the introduction in this article.
 
Why not use bin Laden who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks which were targeting commercial airlines and commercial buildings?  This terrorist has led to the death of thousands more US citizens than McVeigh.  Bin Laden specifically targets civilians in ways to insight fear and panic in society, costing us our freedom and billions of USD annually in security and counter terrorism efforts.  He is clearly the more notorious terrorist.  But why was McVeigh chosen????  Judging by the poor grammar and sentence structure this looks like a half witted attempt to bias this article by trying to associate "terrorist" with a home grown criminal rather than the actual notorious Islamic extremist terrorist that are engaging in terrorist activity against the USA on a daily basis.  This kind of garbage bias lowers the value of Wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.148.226 (talk) 04:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flawed Intro 

message: # This section reads like it was added by the authors of the single reference therein (An essay in the September/October 2008 issue of Complexity[13]).
# Some of the conclusions of the paper are treated as if they are fact rather than predictions.
# It is contradictory to state that "Models are being built to test predictions of situations that have never happened before through empirically validated theories". From the wiki page: "Empirical data is data produced by an experiment or observation." It is thus impossible to have an empirically validated theory that has never happened before.  
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.171.41 (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Besides, it's dreadfully written. I am going to remove that unnecessary section.--93.232.66.86 (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathematical Modeling of the Interaction Between Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism and Its Policy Implications 

message: Many of those listed units are military units, not law enforcement.  Either the list should be expanded to include other military counter-terror units that are omitted, or the list should be purged of military units altogether, and highlight only law enforcement units. 99.169.250.133 (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of "Law Enforcement" units 

message: Can anyone recall when "anti terrorism" became "counter terrorism", at least in the UK? 86.25.41.99 (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti terrorism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Counter-terrorism. 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/20081024092954/http://www.thestar.com.my:80/news/story.asp?file=/2008/10/21/nation/2327961&sec=nation to http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/10/21/nation/2327961&sec=nation
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100114232020/http://www.nactso.gov.uk/ to http://www.nactso.gov.uk/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There appears to be a lack of references for various pieces of information in this article, such as the very first paragraph in the History section. Despite this, other parts of the article that are cited seem to be done so properly from reliable sources. I think the first paragraph in the Preparation section could be expanded upon with some examples. The 'Command and Control' subsection needs to be cited, as well as the 'Military' section. Outside of those few things everything is well written. Marrelljones (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Critiques  

message: This section begins by pointing out the use of targeted assassinations as being a function of the U.S., Russia, Israel, and the United Kingdom. However, it goes on to claim the phenomenon are typically unemployed by western states. There is no citation to back up this claim, and the U.S. and the U.K. are arguably the most influential Western powers. Maybe a cited reference to the U.S. and U.K. defying Western norms in this capacity would be a more accurate wording.Ttaylormark (talk) 06:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preemptive Neutralization 

message: Citations would make it more credible
Somewhat biased perspective in how it mentions the US
Under the "planning" portion, more countries could be listed
Goes pretty in-depth about human rights and is sort of lacking in areas like history and examples from more than just a couple countries
There is a specific section on how the US law enforcement reacts to it but then a "international" section for all other countries
Mainly hits on national and religious terrorism, not as much on left wing or right wing. 
Kelmojo (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counter-Terrorism Review 

message: The facts stated in the definition have no citation backing up the points of the last sentence, "The United States Armed Forces use the term foreign internal defense for programs that support other countries in attempts to suppress insurgency, lawlessness, or subversion or to reduce the conditions under which these threats to security may develop". 
There needs to be more factual backed information from the US Armed Forces sites to become credible. 
Needs to include more information about different types of Counter-terrorism. Lists that it is more like Counter-insurgency, which is the defense of Nationalist terrorist groups.
Give more information about the counter-terrorism tactics of other ideologies of Terrorism. 
Heavily biased opinion on the mentioning of the US
Very talked about and edited article, includes minimal information from many different viewpoints. 
Samo56 (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for Counter-terrorism 

message: I wanna join Abdulhadi Maiwand (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  joining 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Counter terrorism can equally be applied to the role of "insurgents". Can we, for example, entertain the notion that opponents of Putin and supporters of Navalny are not engaged in a form of counter-terrorism? It's a "Which came first? The chicken or the egg?" argument, but valid nonetheless. This article seems overly 'establishment' and not fairly balanced. Hanoi Road (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 10:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Counter-terrorism →  – More common spelling in both American and British English (t · c) buidhe 17:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 20 July 2021 

message: os@os.os 2A02:CB80:4054:3A99:1C87:7FBB:2F3A:3D3A (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  os@os.os