Talk:War on terror/Archive 7

message: NPOV dispute was never resolved. -- 130.126.138.6 21:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: The intro says "the name used by the US". Shouldn't this be "the name coined by the Bush administration"? I'm not American, but from what I gather, even some of them don't buy into it. yandman 12:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's used by more than just the Bush administration and permeates more than just the government. I am an American and can tell you that even those that disagree with Bush's policy use the term "War on Terrorism" or a similar variation to describe the conflict. So while the Bush administration may have "coined" the term, but it is used at all levels of American society. --Bobblehead 14:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? That I didn't know. Thanks for enlightening me. yandman 17:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I think it should probably changed to "a name used in the United States" to be more WP:NPOV. Anyone else agree? Hello32020 23:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "a name used mainly in the United States"? yandman 16:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That really isnt accurate though, it is the name of the campaign regardless of whether you live in the USA or Zimbabwe. It may not be what people call it everywhere, however. I edited the entire lead paragraph so that it sounds better as well as made it more accurate. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "used by the united states" 

message: The Lancet study on the number of deaths in Iraq seems to be peer-reviewed and well-grounded in solid statistics. Any objections to it being put in as an alternate figure? (The official count should stay included as well, of course) -Xiroth 15:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Death toll

message: This does in way mean that I support the Baath in Iraq, but they are not international terrorists. Neither are Hezbollah and Hamas. There must be neutrality in this article. The Baath are acting in resistance to occupation or whatever you want to call it. 
69.196.164.190
:As stated in the article itself, the campaign is being waged against those seen by the USA as terrorists and state sponsors of terror, which they are indeed seen as. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is grossly biased and questionable

message: So what does the term War on Terrorism really mean? Does it mean the war the U.S. is fighting against terrorism or does it have a more general meaning? For example, India and Russia have been fighting against terrorism for a long time now. India has lost more civilians due to terrorist activities than any other country. Groups like Jaish-e-Muhammad and Lashkar-e-Toiba are a part of the larger Al-Qaeda network. And then there are the Chechen rebels. These groups have claimed more innocent lives than Al-Qaida but yeah most of those killed weren't Americans. Just because these groups are not involved in terrorist activities against the U.S. doesn't mean they aren't important enough to be mentioned. Just because India and Russia refuse to be a part of the American military operation in Afghanistan and Iraq, doesn't mean that their own war against terrorism be disregarded. --Incman|वार्ता 20:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about the US-led campaign, not the general idea of a war on terror, which deserves its own article. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, when I read the first four lines of the article, I was able to conclude that. However, when I saw Israel as one of the participants I got confused. Now, as far as I know, Israel has not directly taken part in the so-called War on Terrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq and Philippines.--Incman|वार्ता 21:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: One more point, shouldn't the lead-in para clearly state that this article refers to the US-led campaign against terrorism? The title itself is misleading. Thanks --Incman|वार्ता 21:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The US-led campaign is not limited to those three locations, and includes all operations which are stated both by the USA and the respective government as being a part of it. The Waziristan War, for instance, involved no US troops, but was a part of this campaign. The war in Lebanon had no US troops, but was also a part of this campaign. The lead paragraph does state it was launched by the USA with help from allies. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... makes more sense now. Thanks for the insight! --Incman|वार्ता 05:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The case of India and Russia 

message: I have removed IEDs from the list of terrorist tactics in the narrow infobox at right-hand side of the page.  According to the Wikipedia page, terrorism is "...violence ... committed (or threatened) against civilians".  According to the Wikipedia page on IEDs, "...insurgents have made the IED (often referred to by the press as roadside bombs) one of their main weapons against coalition forces." (emphasis added)  Nowhere in the IED article is there any mention of these devices being used against civilians.  How then are they a tactic of terrorism?  They are simply another type of bomb, much like land mines, cruise missiles or nuclear bombs. PurpleRain 21:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IED's are often an insurgent weapon I would say, however considering the nature of IED's they seem to be non standard explosives, which would constitute much of the bombs used in the country. I personally would classify it as an insurgent weapon/tactic, not necessarily a terrorist tactic/weapon. --NuclearZer0 21:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IEDs and Terrorism 

message: 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.[citation needed] Many of those targeted have been secretly detained, and have been denied access to an attorney. Among those secretly detained are U.S. citizens. [citation needed]
Thanks
ManicParroT 22:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations please 

message: Just a few examples:
"many have seen the US definitions as ideologically motivated"
"many deny terrorist affiliations, and many perceive the War on Terror as a "Clash of Civilizations" or as a "crusade" against Islam"
"The war has also been perceived by some as an attempt by the U.S. government to "reform" several political regimes"
"The war has met with criticism even from some supporters of its general aims, who claim the rhetoric is too broad and too influenced by "neo-conservative" ideas to remake the Middle East in a certain image"
--PurpleRain 14:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added "Weasel words" template 

message: Since the infobox is probably the most often and most easily read part of the page, I think there is one important thing that should be changed there. My proposal is: instead of the two lists that list "combatants" on one side or the other ("participants" vs. "targets"), maybe it would be more accurate to rather create just *one* list of conflicts or "sub-conflicts" that are part of the US war on terror. For example two items of this new list would then read: "NATO vs. Taliban (Afghanistan)" and "US,UK&Allies vs. Ba'athist-Iraq (Iraq)" etc... I find this important, because now, readers that are not so well-informed about world politics will think that the US war on terror is a simple two-sided conflict. Where in fact, there are several, mutually unlinked (sub-)conflicts, and each of these (sub-)conflicts has its very special features, pre-history and so on. What these conflicts have in common is that they are part of / taken under the roof of this bigger, global campaign by the USA. What do you think? (Sorry that I haven't created a wikipedia account yet) 84.148.76.63 04:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for change in infobox 

message: According to Rush Limbaugh, the whole reason why the conflict is labeled as the war on terror is because it would essentially be titled as a war on Islam if all of the specific enemies of the USA where listed. Quite a few of them have Islam this or Muslem that in their name, so I can understand this. Then again only about 20 million Americans trust Limbaugh so I thought I would stirr up discussion and see if more knowledgable people than myself had more answeres.
I noticed that in other places in the discussion section, it has been noted that who is and who isn't a terrorist in this conflict is defined by the USA. Because of that, I suspect that a lot of people actually know what I'm talking about here (especially the people talking in the The case of India and Russia' discussion). Anyways, it couldn't hurt to look into why George W. Bush didn't just declare a war on Al Queda, or Afganistan instead of ALL terrorism.
:Any real discussion of this would be hopelessly OR.
:The short answer is: he did. There is no actual official "war on terror", no official declaration of war (compared to, of course, the actual declaration of war against Afghanistan). The "War on Terror" is presumably named after Nixon's "War on Drugs".
:The long answer is a long discussion of political tactics and ideology which would inevitably be OR and POV. - Che Nuevara 00:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you're in a bigoted and imperialist war with Islam mate, but I'm not, and neither are tens of millions of those Americans and Brits who actually happen to be sane. So please, define "we" next time. Also, do yourself some credit and research the term "Allah Ackbar". If any of your so-called "terrorist" buddies were actually fundamentalist Muslims, they would know that "Allah Ackbar" is not what a Muslim is supposed to say before he or she meets his end. Shame that, eh? Coconuteire 22:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Huh. Because, you know, it turns out there are many non-Islamic terrorism organisation that are active. Animal rights activists in England, abortion-clinic bombers in the US, nationist organisations across Ireland, Spain, France, India, Sri Lanka, etc. It really irritates me when people try to pretend that all terrorists are Islamic, or even worse, when they say that all terrorists base their terrorism on Islam (Lebanon/Palestine for example is basically a nationalist movement of people who happen to be Islamic). Limbaugh is not credible in any way, shape or form. Oh, and using the cut-off of "20 million Americans believe it" is a pretty low bar ;) We'd have to rewrite wiki to say the sun revolves around the earth ;) Sad mouse 05:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey, at least your not arrogant about it.....--Looper5920 21:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why it's not a war on Islam 

message: Might be more accurate to write "Some Causalities"? SolitaryWolf 06:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Causalities

message: Is it too early to call GWOT World War III?  And if it is too early, are the conflicts taking place in the Middle East, combined with increasing aggression, nuclear ambitions, and support for terrorism by Iran and Syria, setting the world on a course toward a third world war?  Also, is Hugo Chavez's totalitarian regime in Venezuela attempting to start a new "Domino Effect" 
in the Western Hemisphere? User:wxstorm 12:23, 11 December 2006
:It is until it's generally regarded as such. It's likely you'd be able to a find a pundit or two who refers to it as WW3, but otherwise no. Also we're the wrong people to ask about "domino effects" etc. Find reliable sources talking about these issues and then we can discuss whether they merit mention. <<-armon->> 00:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: World War III?

message: Earlier today, I added a disambig line for "War On Terror", since it is also the name of a game (and, since there's no reference from the War On Terrorism page to this game, it would be easy for people to assume no such page exists). Thoughts? 64.81.138.223 05:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add a disambig for the game? 

message: I might be a bit dim here, but the opening paragraph states:
:The War on Terrorism or War on Terror....the name given by the United States of America and its allies to an ongoing campaign with... 
and the supporting reference is [], as a resident of the UK, I find it difficult to accept that the term is used outside the US, could someone explain to me how this reference supports this claim? It has been added twice by two different editors, so it must have merit, but unfortunately, I can't see it! (Thanks in advance for explaining this to me)86.12.249.63 19:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can read more here , shows it being used by NATO and Canada, Germany I think and another country. Some links may be down, made that some time ago. Feel free to pull some of the NATO ones for there if you please. --NuclearZer0 20:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, it'll take me a while to go through them! 86.12.249.63 20:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Usage of the term "War on Terror(ism)" outside the US

message: This page is a favorite of  and his sockpuppets.  Copperchair was placed on probation and banned from editing certain types of articles by the Arbitration Committee.  He was blocked from editing Wikipedia for repeatedly violating his restrictions on editing.  He was finally blocked for 366 days on March 12, 2006.  At that point he began using sockpuppets to evade his ban.  Below is a list of his sockpuppets.  If new editors appear on this page with editing patterns that are similar to the sockpuppets below, please let me know on my talk page or by e-mail so that I can investigate fully.
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
Thank you. TomTheHand 14:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copperchair sockpuppets 

message: The casualties section presents the lowest estimates I've ever seen, as if they were indisputed facts. This section needs an urgent rewrite, including information we've got for Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003 amonst other things. Damburger 07:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then.. Umm.. rewrite it. Requests for rewrites are generally not very successful in getting the section in question rewritten. --Bobblehead 07:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really a request for a rewrite, more a notice that I'm going to do one. I find it best to approach terrorism-related topics cautiously. I'm giving people chance to object. Damburger 08:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties section is basically US propaganda 

message: I find it sorely lacking that Canada is not mentioned in this article. Although they are not involved in Iraq, their efforts in Afghanistan is more than a small contribution to the larger conflict. And it must be remembered that it was Afghanistan that was the original theater for the War on Terror, and Canada was in there from the get go. Thus I believe it is important to mention these things in the article as well as listing Canada as one of the beligerents which it clearly is. Rocker85 (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to take the high-road here and consider your question seriously. Can you go more into detail what it is exactly what you want to have accomplished? Given the information you have provided, I feel that your arguement is invalid in more ways than one. Personally, I feel Canada's involvement in this "War" has been overshadowed and amounts to very little when comparing it to superior involvement by other countries (for example, the United States). If you can cite worthwhile references and sources backing up your claims, then please, by all means bring them forth. If not, then I feel your claim won't hold up. Good luck.  11:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Responding to the comment above -- Canadian forces in Afghanistan are stationed in one of the toughest areas of Afghanistan.  Kandahar is tougher than the regions where most American forces are stationed, and Canadian forces have experienced a significantly higher rate of casualties per capita there.  Geo Swan (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not enough countries are mentioned in the article, yet alone Canada.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.29.29 (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How About Canada? 

message: Ok, hold it buddy. Mujahideen, not terrorists? Uh, hello, their name is Mujahideen, they carry guns and they wear rags on their heads, sounds like terrorists to me. Bomb the bastards.
And as for you, quit being so pinko, it's so lame.
MrSnappier (talk) 09:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm - "they carry guns and they wear rags on their heads" - Is it against Wikipedia standards to point out blatant bigotry?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.249.174.7 (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You've got to be shitting me. Let's go with "ignorant-sounding unintelligent person in the Internet- sounds like a redneck to me. Shoot the bastard."   Aaron  ►  04:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

text: When Mujahideen were fighting Afghanistan's Soviet occupiers they were not considered terrorists, even though they carried guns, and often wore traditional cloth head-coverings.  If the term "terrorist" is going to be used meaningfully it should be applied based on the individuals behavior, or advocacy -- not on their clothing.  FWIW the USA's Afghan allies, the Northern Alliance, also carried guns and wore traditional head-coverings.  Yes, some of them, a few of them, were terrorists too.  Geo Swan (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Terrorists? 

message: Mujahideen are NOT terrorist. keep a neutral point of view
in the terrorist groups section in the table it LISTS mujahideen as terrorist. change it to soemthing else. like "some mujahideen". or "mujahideen (according to americans)"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Admit-the-truth (talk • contribs) 01:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mujahideen

message: The House Armed Services Committee is banishing the global war on terror from the 2008 defense budget.  Might be worth adding, let me know if you would like me to edit the article. --Carl Von Clausewitz 11:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  anyone knows why seperate funding? where the the funding go? to the military? defense contractors? recontructions? i don't get where is the money going based on the article, can someone stick some FAQ in the article... Akinkhoo 01:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think this should be questioned. Our tax dollars are use for our protection. Those who question how they are used must be supporting the terrorists or the Chinese Communist Party. Patriotic Americans know that they have to give and give, give more money. This gives us our freedom. Our freedom derives from our taxability. Mwahcysl (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Change 

message: Usually in an article on a war you have casualites listed by side. I see the US and other allied side casualties and the (supposedly) innocent bystander casualties. Where is the Terrorist and sympathizer body count?  How many of the innocent bystander casualties was caused by the Terrorists and how many by the US and allies?  Seems a fair thing to ask. Otherwise its pretty meaningless to tally the losses, keeping score on one side and not the other.  Asiaticus 03:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But this isn't a traditional war - not in any sense. How do you tell who's a terrorist, who's a sympathizer, and who's innocent when no one's wearing any uniforms? It's not like Al Qaeda keeps tallies with the International Red Cross. --Brasswatchman 15:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you know them by their actions. Caught or killed in arms or in aid of doing terrorist acts that seems pretty clear. They must have some estimates at least. Asiaticus 06:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no estimates for that, and if you want to, blame the US military because they "don't do body counts" of enemies killed (because in Vietnam they realized they couldn't easily distinguish the number of civilians killed from the number of enemy). That means the only body counts, besides those of US and coalition allies killed, are just counts of the number of other dead because outside sources that weren't involved in a battle have no way of knowing who exactly was a "terrorist". Presumably the counts include everyone from civilians- vast majority of dead- to insurgent fighters. 172.147.227.44 15:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, is that so?  One documented case does not make a trend, and those soldiers were dealt with.  I would like you to show me (someone who has been in Iraq) proof that the US military regularly kills civilians and covers it up (and maybe you could do it while signing on, instead of hiding behind an anonymous IP address).PistolPete037 (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: If you mean to count the actuall terrorist killed, how would you count suicide bombers? And if you mean to count civilians, then you have to take into consideration that one of the terrorist's methods is to use civilians as human sheilds. And in many cases of immediate danger, there is no choice but to fire at those civilians. How would you define these casualties in these cases? This may turn the casualties numbers into a completely meaningless and irrelavent factor. AviLozowick 19:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia policy allows contributors to either use a login name or to post without one, tagged by their IP address.  It is uncivil to berate someone for posting without a login name.  I would say it's also a little silly to imply that using a made-up user name is somehow braver or less anonymous than an IP address.  One could argue that having your IP address exposed to the whole world reveals more about your identity than a user name, as it indicates something about your geographic location.  CosineKitty (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

text: You have to provide proof of such claims. Mwahcysl (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarification — I was referring to the above phrase "hiding behind an anonymous IP address" when I wrote this comment.  CosineKitty (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Where are the Terrorist Casualties?''' 

message: While this is taken for granted as a fact in America, a lot of the world doesn't feel that the 'war on terror' began with 9/11 but rather that it began with the US invasion of Afghanistan and/or prior covert activities in the region. This view has been notably expressed by Noam Chomsky in many of his writings. The view that 9/11 was caused by US foreign policy gone awry is also presented in Michael Moore's movie and numerous others. I think something a little more objective than the 9/11 attacks being listed alone without a citation can be forged out. I also believe OBL's issue of a declaration of jihad might also be considered the start of the war or perhaps the first WTC attacks. In short, to simply list 9/11 because it is the most common American POV, well thats not right.
"It all started on 9/11" is, more or less, an American perspective of GWOT, but not a global opinion. It seems sort of POVish to me and I think an alternate cause should be listed, however it seems to be routinely removed. I think we need a non-government citation for something like this.
:Please note that this article does state that this campaign began on October 7th, 2001. Casus Belli is the justification put forward for a military campaign, or the stated cause. It was definately the stated cause for beginning this campaign. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a bad idea. It would certainly reduce a lot of the philosophical debates if the article was just about the "official US military campaign". --82.133.79.7 10:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Given tjat this is about the war on terror that Bush launched in response to the 9/11 attacks I would suggest that is when it started. that is after all what this article is about[[Slatersteven (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  9/11 as cause needs POV check, citation 

message: Here is why. THIS IS AN ENGLISH LANGUAGE WIKI. THIS IS THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE "NEUTRAL" POINT OF VIEW (i.e., "neutral as far as English speakers are concerned. FOR THE OTHER VERSION GO TALK TO THE FRENCH. Sallicio (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No point of view change needed

message: The "media influences" section, which was introduced in these edits, seems to assign a lot of significance to the views of one writer. Gazpacho 06:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Media influences

message: Flags – as there is a link to ‘War on Terrorism: Allies’ the flags should be limited, in my opinion, to countries with armed forces involved combat operations against ‘terrorists’ (such as USA, UK, Canada, Netherlands) and or nations where terrorism is a significant part of their security situation (such as Pakistan, Afghanistan). If nations with just small contributions to operations like ISAF are included, the list would be too long and would negate the need for a ‘War on Terrorism: Allies’ link. Chwyatt 11:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Flags

message: Hey, I really think that the combatants list in this page is biased and inconsistent. I think the list should be consistent with the combantants lists in the pages involving  theatre of operation with nations organized by troop contribution and diplomatic support while the rest would be organized alphabetically, but Al Qaeda on top.23prootie 02:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree only those listed in the article should be included, but it should be in alphabetical order. --NuclearZer0 17:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just seen this page for the first time, and I also wondered about the order.  Is it ordered by size of the respective countries' armed forces involved, or chronologically in the order in which they entered the "war", or some other order?  It needs to have some rational basis, and for that basis to be stated at the head of the list.  --  JackofOz 01:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Combatants

message: Te official name is "Global War on Terrorism." ~ UBeR 02:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not the most common name, however. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is actually. Should we change the George W. Bush article name to Bush, because that's what most people use to refer to the current U.S. President? No. Lets please start thinking with rationality. ~ UBeR 19:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I know Wikipedia's policies. Global War on Terrorism is not only the official, proper, and more formal name, it also the more used. Again, rationality, please. ~ UBeR 21:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:GOOGLE. Funny, nonetheless. Whatever the case, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is no place to endorse ignorance. Now, of course, the term with the lesser amount of words will have more Web sites. Try it yourself. Look up "Bush", and then look up "George Bush". Quite simply, your point is moot. Mine is not. ~ UBeR 17:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No, it applies to nearly everything. To digress, try looking up "Operation Enduring Freedom" versus "Enduring Freedom." Case in point. ~ UBeR 19:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Who said anything about "terror"? ~ UBeR 19:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what you changed the article to say. --Mr. Billion 05:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And it's something I personally changed back. If you couldn't have noticed, it was the result of a revert of a previous, where it was changed. ~ UBeR 06:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: As is the proposition that started it. --Mr. Billion 05:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm so sorry for suggesting that the article be named after its proper name. ~ UBeR 06:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ummm, I fear starting this debate up again, but I was really surprised to find this article under "Global War on Terrorism".  While I admit that that makes much more logical sense, my sense is that overwhelming usage--including by the administration--favors "Global War on Terror".  Do you guys all really think that "Global War on Terrorism" is the better name for this article??  57.66.52.44 08:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename with "Global"

message: Does anyone here realize how close India and Pakistan came to nuking each other in 2002? They called it the War on Terror (or at least India did), so I put in a section on the events in new Delhi, Kashmir and Gujarat. Ericl 03:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isnt an article for everything ever called a war on terror, its for the specific us led campaign. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Rangeley, the Gujarat Riots had nothing to do with the War on Terrorism, they were entirely linked to local tensions in India, therefore, it should not be included in the War on Terrorism article, it makes no real sense to do so ThaGrind 13:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: India

message: The chapter titled Common Sense is an opinion.  This should be deleted.  Does anyone agree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.167.107.118 (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common Sense 

message: Why is Ba'athist Iraq included as "Enemy" in war on terror? I mean, by now it is quite clear that Saddam did not support Al-Qaeda, and that he didn't have no WMD, isn't it? --89.172.41.218 16:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The former Ba'ath loyalists are regime thugs trying to survive, and they sure as hell aren't on al-Qaeda's side, or the Mahdi Army's, or most of the Sunni insurgents.  They're another belligerent that should be listed in "2003 invasion of Iraq" rather than here.  And besides, how much fighting are they actually doing?  Most of them are too budy running for their lives. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ba'athist Iraq as terrorist organisation 

message: Reading over this page I see this issue has been discussed ad nauseum, but I'd like to get a conversation going over whether  needs to include events in Iraq.  I feel that leaving our Iraq would leave an incomplete picture.  However, unlike this article, which is quite nuanced about Iraq, the template needs to be a lot simpler, so I'm not sure if it would be excessively POV if it was just inserted in there.
For comparison,  includes such conflicts as the French-Thai War and the Ecuadorian-Peruvian War.  The former is only slightly relevant to WWII at large (fall of France leading to weak position in Indochina), while the latter seems completely unrelated except for the date.
My personal opinion is that regardless of whether the 2003 invasion of Iraq can be reasonably included as a War on Terrorism campaign, the current situation in Iraq, as a training ground for jihadist groups, makes it the likely central focus of any present and future US counterterrorism anyways.  
See Template talk:War on Terrorism#Inclusion criteria Kelvinc 03:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a part of the campaign, which this article is about. The campaign is a government program, basically, and we have already provided documentation showing that it is a designated part. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:War on Terrorism]]: include Iraq? 

message: There was a terror attack in China a few days ago wherein 16 police were killed by radical Muslim separatists. I don't know how to change the map listing countries that have been attacked but China should be lit up in red.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnfloyd6675 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map Countries 

message: User:Sfacets decided to remove the word 'Islamist' from the caption showing the countries of the world that had been hit by international terrorism.  Without the word Islamist it becomes meaningless - why not then include non-Islamist terrorist incidents in Colombia or Sri Lanka for example.  I believe the term 'Islamist' is widely understood and accepted here, so can I have a concensus here that the word stays?  Thanks
Kransky 10:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map caption 

message: :OK once again Ireland has been added into the list of Combatants. I attempted to remove this error, when, again it was put back with the justification being that "They participate in ISAF", well I don't think the contributor quite gets the significance of Ireland being labeled as a participant in a war. The Republic of Ireland is a Neutral country it has not been involved in any war since it's independence, it has been involved in many UN peacekeeping missions, but not in wars.
:Now as to the claim that Ireland is participating in the International Security Assistance Force, well the only source given for this is a 2002 article which claims that 7(!?!) Irish Defence Forces members would be going to Afghanistan as staff in the "information operations section" of ISAF HQ, and as liaisons. In other words, they are not by any means involved in any combat (as a "list of Combatants" would imply), So since when did 7 desk jobs constitute fighting in a war? I will state my reason for removing Ireland from this list again, Ireland is (or was) involved with the ISAF in an extremely minor way, that Does Not equate to saying that Ireland is engaged in a war! (i.e. the War on Terrorism).
:To give an example, Irish troops were in the United Nations Protection Force in the Balkans, but the Republic of Ireland was not involved in the Yugoslav wars. It's quite a big difference from going on a Peacekeeping mission (especially one where they're not even armed...) and actively engaging in fighting a war. Likewise Ireland was in UNIFIL, but that does not make Ireland a Belligerent Party in the Lebanese Civil War or the 1982 Lebanon War, etc. Ireland's involvement with the ISAF is already listed in the ISAF article, and that is where it should be left. For these reasons I’ll be removing them again unless somehow, someone comes up with some very convincing reason why they shouldn't be removed. --Hibernian 03:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ireland involved in this war? 

message: The original definition of peacekeepers required that they were invited by both opposing parties.  They were supposed to help the leadership of both sides, when there was already a ceasefire, truce or armistice make sure their troops in the field didn't escalate accidental mis-fires into truce-breaking skirmishes.  Since the fall of the Soviet Union other kinds of forces have been called peacekeepers.  But they aren't -- not by the original definition.  So, since the Taliban, and Hezbe Islami Gulbuddin, haven't asked for a ceasefire, I challenge whether any troops in Afghanistan should be considered peacekeepers.  Geo Swan (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: WRT to peacekeeping and peacekeepers?

message: Because some people hold grudges against Russia, and they are not fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan, they are still a part of The Global War on Terror. I am so tired of people misunderstanding. People are removing Russia from there all the time, mostly because they think Putin is hiding Iraq's weapons. Wake up, people! Those are PRIVATE weapon dealers, and they exist everywhere. in the US too. Russia are fighting actively against terrorists in Chechnya, now you might disagree, but they are concidered terrorist due to their bombings and taking hostages(in schools and theaters and hospitals), and what Russia is doing in there is allowed, no matter how bad it is. The law says that Russia can do extreme measures, and anything she chooses to do to protect her borders and sovereignity. Therefore, Russia are active in fighting terrorists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.88.52.125 (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Russia is not listed because they are not part of the specific campaign which this article is about. Every country that fights terrorists is not part of the United States' "War on Terror". Quadpus 12:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please, explain then, what France do there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.245.171.138 (talk) 09:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Read the article. France is mentioned several times as participating in operations which are known to be part of the USA "War on Terrorism". Quadpus 20:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *If Russia would be on the list of countries participating in the Global War On Terror, then every country not having fully legalised narcotics should be on the list of countries participating in the War on Drugs. This is every single country in the world.--Victor falk 18:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Other countries, outside of the West, have also engaged in their own anti-terror campaigns against islamist movements in their neighborhoods (Russia in Chechnya, Israel in Lebanon and Palestine, India in Kashmir).  Those should be listed somewhere, though I'm not sure this is the place to do it. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was Russia removed from the list of Combatants? 

message: Heya. I placed a disambig link at the top of the page for the game War on Terror, since War On Terror redirects straight to this page. The game, which is a satire on the concept of the war on terror, has received a great deal of international press, as well as some infamy for being banned from many major toy and game fairs etc.. D.valued 18:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because noone except you sees the game as notable enough for a disambiguation link. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, I may not be agreed with here, but personally, anything worthy of a wiki article, that shares it's name with something more noteworthy, deserves, at least a "did you mean?" link somewhere, or alternatively, a link to a disambig page if there is more than 1 article. Now, that's not to say tail should have a link to the character from the sonic the hedgehog games, but anything with an identical name should have the disambig. 24.205.34.217 03:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with 24.205...., WP:D says "When there is risk of confusion, the page for an ambiguous term should have a way to take the reader to any of the reasonable possibilities for that term".  Of course, you could argue that the game isn't notable enough to have an article (in which case the article should be deleted), but if it is going to have an article, there must be a way for visitors to the site to find it.  D.Valued, I was going to put the link back, but I can't find the revision, did you edit the article using a different account or was it just a long time ago? Bistromathic 20:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was my game link removed?   

message: Is Colombia part of this war? I think so...  --((F3rn4nd0 ))(BLA BLA BLA) 23:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the difference between the FARC and AUC and the Chinese democracy movement are fairly obvious.  The former two murder civilians.  The Chinese movement does not.  Hence, they would be considered "terrorist" but the Chinese would not. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What about Colombia?

message: At some point in 2005, I believe the administration officially changed the name from "Global War on Terror" to "Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism."  Obviously, the name change didn't stick, but it's worth mention.  Indeed, this article redirects from "GSAVE", yet GSAVE isn't mentioned in the article.  Therefore I suggest someone add a piece to this article documenting this attempted name change.  Here's a couple of links to get started:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4772826
208.64.241.229 17:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GWOT vs. GSAVE 

message: I suggest merging the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism article into the War on Terrorism article -- they are two names for the same thing, right?
--68.0.124.33 (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge 

message: The article should include Blackwater USA--F3rn4nd0 (BLA BLA BLA) 17:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Blackwater USA

message: No doubt this article is a NPOV minefield, but it doesn't even mention oil. There needs to be some acknowledgement of the disconnect between the rhetoric and reality. Peter Grey 15:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To paraphrase Pascal: If we only accepted "proof," there would not be four articles left in Wikipedia. And whatever articles would be left, they'd probably be about mathematical theorems, because those are just about the only thing that can be "proven." The oil theory is certainly notable, so why not? As far as I'm concerned, go for it. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too superficial? 

message: the war in iraq has completely dis-unified our country.  people oppose this war because their loved one's and friends are being sent over their to create peace.  their not creating peace their causeing more war.  people blame the president for all of this.  9-11 was the only reason we should have gone over there, and we did we had to find the person behind it all.  so ok we did that, then we wanted to start up a democracy over their.  thats their own problem if they cannot get along with each other when it comes to politics.  our first president george washington stated as a precendent " we as a country will not interfere with forgin affairs".  we can argue about this war forever but it was a dumb move on the presidents part.  we should get all troops out of iraq for good!!!!  we are fighting for a bad reason.  we should completely stay out of forign affairs and keep out of things.
=== why?! ===
why do we interfere with forign affairs.  thats not what we are supposed to do.  we do not need any more soilders dying over in iraq. we need to pull out all troops.  our first president george washington stated as a presedent " we do not need to interfere with forign affairs". what makes this any different.  our president is the one to blame. the only reason we needed to go over their was to find out who was behind the 9-11 atacks and we did.  now we do not need to be helping to rebuild and create a goverment.  thats their job not ours.  if they can't get along when it comes to politics then thats too bad on their part.  we need to pull troops out of iraq for good!!!! i would like to hear your opinions about this 'war on terror'
User:crivers01
:I don't think we're supposed to do that here, but what the hell.
:Okay, opinions; if we do just pull our of Iraq, what do you think happens to the Iraqis?  This was a dumb war, I think anyone with half a brain agrees to that.  But you can't just go over and smash every government institution in Iraq to dust, then just leave and say "Hi guys, here's your country, we broke it now you fix it."
:And yeah, George Washington had the good fortune to live in an age where things like 9/11 couldn't happen. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encyclopedia, not a political action blog. This article can provide information about the rhetoric, the reality and the results of the compaign (quite different from each other in this case), but humans are the ones who will have to take action. Peter Grey 03:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Commentary by crivers01

message: why do we interfere with forign affairs.  thats not what we are supposed to do.  we do not need any more soilders dying over in iraq. we need to pull out all troops.  our first president george washington stated as a presedent " we do not need to interfere with forign affairs". what makes this any different.  our president is the one to blame. the only reason we needed to go over their was to find out who was behind the 9-11 atacks and we did.  now we do not need to be helping to rebuild and create a goverment.  thats their job not ours.  if they can't get along when it comes to politics then thats too bad on their part.  we need to pull troops out of iraq for good!!!! i would like to hear your opinions about this 'war on terror'
User:crivers01
:I don't think we're supposed to do that here, but what the hell.
:Okay, opinions; if we do just pull our of Iraq, what do you think happens to the Iraqis?  This was a dumb war, I think anyone with half a brain agrees to that.  But you can't just go over and smash every government institution in Iraq to dust, then just leave and say "Hi guys, here's your country, we broke it now you fix it."
:And yeah, George Washington had the good fortune to live in an age where things like 9/11 couldn't happen. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  why?! 

message: Excellent points, but an encyclopedia reports opinions of notable parties, not just anyone. The War on Terrorism slogan is, at best, weakly related to actual terrorism, and the article should not leave criticisms as an afterthought. I'm sure some prominent politicians or analysts have made similar points and can be corroborated with reliable sources. Peter Grey 03:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: responses

message: ok but what are politicans doing absoutly nothing about it.  people are dying every day over their and we are letting them.  somebody should do something or let time go by with the troops in iraq until bush is out of office for good!
—Preceding unsigned comment added by crivers01 (talk • contribs) 
:This is an encyclopedia, not a political action blog. This article can provide information about the rhetoric, the reality and the results of the compaign (quite different from each other in this case), but humans are the ones who will have to take action. Peter Grey 03:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  continued 

message: Currently the "international" sections of this article detail only foreign (with respect to the U.S.) military involvement; there is little or no attention paid to International opinion/reactions to the War on Terror/Terrorism. This is inconsistent with the encyclopedia-wide effort to CSB. I will attempt to add relevant global perspectives to this article shortly, as well as do my part to clean up the entry in general, but I'm also interested in hearing others' thoughts about these issues. This is, of course, not a question of personal politics, but of making sure global vantages are successfully incorporated into major entries.Benzocane 21:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Global perspectives

message: This paragraph seems like the opinion of one editor, not encyclopedic, source-based text. Also, because it comes so early in the entry, I feel like it's contributed to the general unencyclopedic tone of the entry, which I, along with others, have been trying to correct. Finally, a more authoritative version of this argument is already noted in other sections of the article:
"In a hard-headed Clausewitzian analysis, the phrase "war on terror" has no meaning; one makes war on an enemy, not on a method, although it logically could be used to indicate a war on the people who use such a method. The enemy may be an entity such as al-Qaeda. And the use of the term "jihadist" is also misleading, as there are a number of groups involved in asymmetric warmaking with secular or religious backgrounds and levels of willingness to engage in direct action."
Benzocane 01:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your help, Jimmyhogg--good to see your editing again. This article is coming along, but still needs work, and I'm glad to have another editor on the job. I agree with your edit above.Benzocane 16:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed unsourced paragraph

message: To the moron who said: "not every rebellion is a part of War on Terror", you are really stupid. Tell to the parents of Beslan that Chechens are not terrorists! Sergei
:This is article is very specifically about the US-led "War on Terrorism" campaign. The war in Chechnya is not a part of this specific campaign, it actually began years earlier and predates the campaign. Thats why its not a part of this specific one - it has nothing to do with the status of the rebels in Chechnya. ~Rangeley (talk) 05:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ... As I said, this is about the specific campaign begun October 7th 2001. The Chechen war, while arguably against terrorists, began before this and therefore was not begun under the campaign. Russia is definitately involved in other aspects of the US-led campaign, but the chechen war is not a component. ~Rangeley (talk) 05:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: To 24.87.7.43 aka Sergei, I will not leave this on your talk page as you have a shared IP, so I will put it here. An important reminder for you: you have made 3 reverts on this page, one more and you will be violating the three revert rule, which may lead to you being blocked. Please discuss first, even if you think we're all wrong - tell us why.--Konstable 07:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chechen rebels ARE terrorists 

message: Sorry if I've missed it but why is France not listed in the list of combatants? She's listed in the Operation Enduring Freedom article and I thought that the US government considered that as part of its WOT. (Ajkgordon 08:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because not every single nation can be listed, or should be listed in the infobox on this page. Thats what the other page is for. France's contribution has not been one of the largest, therefore it is probably misplaced in the infobox. ~Rangeley (talk) 05:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, France was a fairly large contributor to Operation Enduring Freedom if I recall correctly. Trouble is France isn't even listed under "and others" from the infobox. Is it possibly simple anti-French sentiment? There's a lot of it about :) (Ajkgordon 09:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You can never know for sure why it was removed from there, but either way, it should definitely be listed on the "others" page. ~Rangeley (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of France 

message: TWAT, anyone? Henners91 08:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Abbrieviation for the War Against Terror

message: Can't speak for the other countries mentioned, but Canada has lost 167 in Afghanistan, according to http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/casualties/total.html, and 24 on 9/11, according to http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/09/11/newyork-sept11.html. Unless I'm forgetting something (I imagine there were a few Canadians dead in Bali, for instance), that 1,222 number is a fantasy. These figures need to be checked!Martin McCarvill 21:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Other" casualty numbers 

message: Since this article is disputed over its neutrality, and due to the fact that it's based off an ongoing event, then should this article be temporarily disabled, and/or deleted, until the information is accurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhansond2007 (talk • contribs) 
:I'm not going to comment on the accuracy of the information in the article, but this variety of title change should really be discussed before being moved. I've gone ahead and reverted your change. If you wish to move this article from it's current name, please go to WP:RM and follow the process defined there. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  War On Terror - Timeline 

message: Israel is fighting a separate war on terrorism, unrelated to 11 September.  They are not fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan. JonnyLate 22:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Israel wrongly placed

message: Reading the article, the Israeli and Hezbollah conflict is here but shouldn't be.  Even if US President Bush says its a front of the war, such declaration has nothing to do with 9 11.  Hezbollah is just a terrorist group who is bad but separate from bin Laden. JonnyLate 23:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not about a war, its about a US-led campaign. Things designated by the US government as a part of the campaign are parts of the campaign, just like subops are part of operations as designated by the respective government which began them. ~Rangeley (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: several articles in one

message: They have long been helping all kinds of terrorists. They should at least be listed on the terrorists side? Why not? --24.87.7.43 22:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Iran may only be considered a partial terrorist, but only with/within Bush administration.
If somebody is interested in this link http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070720/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_terrorism its interesting he signed it,(to avoid criticism) somebody can put it under links. Iran may be connected to some form of insurgent support but only in iraq as they have majority shiite ties for centuries and saddam was that block until he was removed. And now Iraq can not do much on iran, since they have the upper hand. And do pretty much what they want in politics of the middle east.
So now that the Iranian Military is declared a terrorist organization by the US Senate, and the US Army and CIA declared terrorist organizations by the Iran can we now put both of them in the "Terrorist" side of the equation? For that matter anyone who uses violence to get their way should be put on the "Terrorist" side (i.e. Police, your boss, "anyone who gets in the way of freedom").  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.59.159.226 (talk) 13:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Not the Iranian military.  The Pasdaran, not the same thing, more like the Waffen-SS in old Germany. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why isn't Iran in the combatants list on the terrorist side? 

message: There is huge debate about who should be included on this list and who shouldnt. The war on terror like stated in the article is too general and relates to too many things, Such as the conflict in Iraq and in Afghanistan. The ISAF are fighting in Afghanistan, As are the French and Germans yet they are not included in the list, This is a serious factual error. As it is so hard to define, it should just be deleted to prevent people being mis informed. If i was French or German i would be insulted that after my country sends troops into a combat zone, its not included on the list. 
I would delete the table myself if i didnt worry that id mess up the whole article. I will check back here in a few days time, if no one has replied or removed it i will attempt to myself. I hope by that time someone will of removed the table already, because it is useless and misleading information. 
6:35 Sunday 22nd of July - British Summer Time
I agree. I'm afraid, although I'd love to assume good faith, that there is either anti-"Old Europe" bias or that some "Old Europeans" don't want to be associated with the WoT. Similar edits are made on the International_contributions_to_the_War_Against_Terrorism article that has multiple campaigns - NATO members are being systematically removed from NATO lists. --AJKGordon 11:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please can someone delete the table of "combatants"! 

message: The Template:War_on_Terrorism has Russia as "Participant in operations", with Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Chechens grouped together as "Targets of operations". 
This is just weird and totally wrong:
# In the Arab-Israeli conflict the US (and EU/NATO) supports Israel, while Russia supports Hamas and Hezbollah. 
# In the Russo-Chechen conflict everyone else is neutral (more or less), and "Campaigns and theatres of operation" do not include Russia, too. 
Also, War on Terrorism - Theaters of operation article is a crap (compare with the main list here). --HanzoHattori 07:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We dealt with this problem here already, the articles branching off arent all brought into sync with this though. The Chechen war is not a part of the US-led WoT campaign, but Russia has made minor contributions to the WoT elsewhere. Not major enough to warrant an inclusion in the infobox here, or the template there, however. And Chechens play no role whatsoever. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a whole is not a part of this, but specific portions of it are. The United States aided Israel under the WoT campaign in its war against Hezbollah, and both nations stated that it was part of the WoT. The WoT is not only against al Qaeda. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure it was not the usual U.S. support for Israel, as continued since many years before 2001? --HanzoHattori 22:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, from statements such as this . ~Rangeley (talk) 22:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, okay. Hezbollah statements also related to Israel as the American proxy. --HanzoHattori 11:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia??? 

message: I know that this article was getting pretty large and we needed to cut it down but it seems as though over the past week or so we reduced the content to the point that its nothing but references and links to other articles. We have been cutting into muscle for some time now and if we lose much more this article will cease to be useful. I recommend we take a close look before making any more changes and reducing the content even more.  --Kumioko 19:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we are taking a close look. This section is devoted to the size issue, and I point out a few areas which were unecessarilly large (or totally unecessary.) No content has been removed entirely from Wikipedia, all has been outsourced to other articles, except some external links. The largest content section which was scaled back was "Criticism," using the method employed at the Iraq War article (touching on controversies, but leaving the depth for the separate article.) I completely outsourced the "further reading" section to another article, and scaled back external links, which exceeded by far what the guidelines of Wikipedia describe. The information on Pakistan has been exported to its own article, and scaled down. A few other theatre sections have been scaled back (their individual articles are for the depth.) I agree with you that the article is a bit sketchy as far as its usefulness goes, and is severely lacking in some areas. But this has nothing to do with the recent removals, though perhaps its easier to see just how few muscles and bones were holding the article together now that the fat is being cut away. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with the need to keep this article readable and admire most of the edits that have been made. However, I'm a little worried about the degree to which the criticisms section has been scaled back, especially as that section contained an important section on international support for the WOT. That section was added as a CSB attempt to make sure the article included global perspectives, which I now feel are underrepresented. Also, while I agree streamlining is important, I don't think we want to cut so much that basic information is missing from a section. For example, we now have the sentence: "The U.S. media has also received criticism for its coverage of the War on Terrorism." It seems like some indication of the origin and substance of the criticism should be given, however briefly. As is, it's a fragment, not a summary. I'll make no changes until I hear others' thoughts. Thanks for helping to improve the entry.Benzocane 00:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I'm having trouble confirming this statement: "No content has been removed entirely from Wikipedia." Can you refer me to the Int'l support section? Sorry if I'm missing something obvious. Benzocane 00:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I transferred the US media section to criticisms, but appear to have missed the international support section (added it now though). And as to criticisms, I dont view it as anything more than a placeholder at the moment. You are certainly free to add to it yourself, having to rebuild sections from the ground up alone is a somewhat daunting task. ~Rangeley (talk) 01:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WOT Article 

message: I don't think it should be included in the War on terrorism.
BTW Fatah's al-Aqsa Martyrs brigade is also considered a terrorist organisation.
The Honorable Kermanshahi 11:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fatah-Hamas Conflict

message: Which and how many, if any, of the WOT enemies are not Muslim groups, people or countries? Because it just seems to me like War on Islamist Terrorism might be a more factual name. VolatileChemical 18:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the name wasnt chosen by us for being descriptive, its the name given to the campaign by the US government. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. Wow. That really doesn't answer my first and only question at all. Not even close. Absolutely no where near even being close. VolatileChemical 13:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was clearly not answering your question, but responding to your second sentence. Accurate or not, this is what the campaign was named by the USA, and thats why we have it at this namespace - its their campaign, much like the Great Leap Forward is at that location even though it is laughably ill named. If you are just trying to initiate a discussion about what the USA should have named the campaign, this is the wrong place to do it. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam in the target range 

message: First, I know there is a lot of criticism and controversy surrounding this issue, but can we consider offering a general definition as to what the War on Terror is in the first section, and put the controversy in its own secion later on?
Second, can someone please explain to me exactly why the Soviet Union is listed as an ally in the section on the right that explains who the fighting parties are?
Third, can we consider changing the wording of the first sentence to saying that it was a campaign begun by the U.S. Government and not just the Bush Administration, especially considering congress voted for the war which in turn kicked the campaign off?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.26.68.146 (talk) 19:27, August 22, 2007 (UTC) 
First, No because this is an article about this peticular War on terrorism.
Second, that was vandalism.
Third, With that I agree because Bush's successors will continue this war.
The Honorable Kermanshahi 10:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ad 3. How do you know? Clairvoyant? --Raphael1 11:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, even if it continues beyond the Bush Administration, it will still have been "begun by the Bush Administration," no? ~Rangeley (talk) 13:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a Few Thoughts... 

message: I changed the title containing the text "War of Terror" to "War on Terror".   The term "War on Terror" is a controversial, problematic and perhaps even Orwellian term, but that is nevertheless the term that is most often used by those who are leading this so-called war.  The term "War of Terror" seems more like an editorial statement on the war than an appropriate title for this article.   
See War on Terrorism (historical) for the quote from Bush that started this particular enterprise, and note that "War on Terror" is the phrase that was used.
If you think that the "War on Terror" is more accurately called a "War of Terror", then an appropriate place to note the reasons for this might be in the article Criticism_of_the_War_on_Terrorism.  
Pconrad0 02:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find "War on Terrorism" a lot more editorialised than "War on Terror," because it means editors deliberately chose not to name the article the way people name the subject of the article. The term War on Terror may be problematic, but it's the correct name. It's not Wikipedia who invented it, it was George W. Bush. The article says that. If people find this a problematic term, their problem is with George W. Bush and other people who like the term. Wikipedia will only be doing its job by calling the War on Terror by the name given to it by its creator. A.Z. 03:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had misunderstood what Pconrad0 had said. When they wrote "War of terror", I thought they meant "War on Terrorism". A.Z. 04:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Change (again) 

message: There should be a mention of how Al Qaeda and Bin Laden's support continues to fall throughout the middle east. Judgesurreal777 21:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support for the war on terror

message: This may sound stupid, but I'm very confused about what the scope of this article is supposed to be.  From the introduction, it appears to be exclusively about the "campaign initiated by the United States government under President George W. Bush...following the September 11, 2001 attacks".  However, it then goes on to discuss various acts of terrorism, anti-terrorism operations and conflicts that don't seem to have anything to do with this.  For example, the section about India talks about various terrorist acts in India and anti-terrorism measures implemented by the Indian government, and doesn't even attempt to tie this in with the "campaign initiated by the United States...", indeed it states that "India's war against terrorism precedes the American war on terrorism".  Some other sections appear to have the same problem (no assertion of the relationship with the "War on Terror"): Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Indonesia.
Actually, I have a couple of other random questions:
*Under Horn of Africa, what is "The regions and areas of Operation Iraqi Freedom." supposed to be saying?  Should this be "...from the regions and areas..."?
*What about "Somalia became the mother of all operations..." - is this a quote?
Bistromathic 16:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole article is in a bad state and there seems to be a confusion about what it actually is about. It seems that people are confusing USA's campaing with... everything else related to terrorism.--Sir Anon 22:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of article 

message: I don't understand what the word "globally" means in the sentence: "The phrase "War on Terror" started being used globally to refer to the U.S. campaign in Iraq and elsewhere by members of the American Republican Party, who were advised to do that by Frank Luntz." a.z. 03:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globally 

message: The infobox image caption is absolutely ridiculous.  It currently reads: 
*US Soldiers attempting to destroy al-Qaeda and Taliban forces in the Shahi-Kot Valley and Arma Mountains southeast of Zormat during the Operation Anaconda
This is what it should be: 
*US Soldiers boarding a CH-47 Chinook helicopter in Afghanistan during Operation Anaconda
I think the current caption is totally loaded and inaccurate.  I understand that they were undergoing a mission to destroy al-Qaeda and Taliban forces, but that's certainly not what they're doing in that picture.  They're getting on a helicopter!  Look at the picture.  Do ya see any US Soldiers destroying or "attempting to destroy" anything in that picture?  No.  KDR 14:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, at least someone agrees.  I am going to change it to your version.  KDR 03:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, someone did it already.  Haha.  Good!  KDR 03:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image caption 

message: I have a proposition, should we maybe add the Turkey-PKK conflict to this article. But not the entire conflict. Just only the part of the conflict this year (2007) that has been conducted since it was proposed for the first time to invade northern Iraq. The PKK is a terrorist organisation on the US terror list and also if Turkey invades Iraq, which is most likely since yesterdays killing of 17 soldiers and capturing of 10, the US will most probably be involved to some degree. And also the terrorist PKK is based in Iraq which is part of the WoT. So what does everybody say.Top Gun  —Preceding comment was added at 14:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkey-PKK conflict 

message: This article should be renamed War on Terrorism since that is the more proper term and is only 3 less letters, WP:PRECISION. "War on Terror" is a very informal, unencyclopedic term that misrepresents what the war really is about, terrorism. The article is not categorized as Terror but instead Terrorism. I feel the article was moved a month ago unjustly and I will move it back to its rightful name.--Southern Texas 03:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The name of the article should be the name that is in common use. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). I'll give you an opportunity to respond, but unless you do so in a convincing way, I will move this page back tomorrow. –RHolton≡– 04:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Do not overdo it. I feel "War on Terror" is a misrepresentation of what the content of the article is really about. A google search finds that twice as many results come up for "War on Terror" than "War on Terrorism" but we cannot be sure that the usage is uniform. Terror can denote many things but terrorism is more specific and is what represents this article. Although "War on Terror" shows more results in the search engine the difference from "War on Terrorism" is only three letters, WP:PRECISION. War on Terrorism is closer to its actual name, "Global war on terrorism" and represents the subject. I don't feel that consensus was reached to change the name but if I am wrong I do apologize.--Southern Texas 04:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: War on Terrorism

message: With Firefox the boxes are overlapping the text and [edit] link.  I looked at it but don't know wiki html well enough to fix it.
Carol Moore 14:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fix Overview Section

message: The infobox list a whole bunch of numbers without citations.
# I don't understand how it is even possible to obtain a definite list of numbers of "targets" as the list of targets seems to be ever-expanding and I somehow doubt that they advertise their numbers.
# "Military casualties only"? Most of these groups listed in "targets" are not military.
# "Over 200,000 civilians killed" - how was this figure arrived at and what does it include? Surely if you count all of USA's operations, you'd get significantly more than that.--Sir Anon 23:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those articles are not very well written and have major citation problems. And it still does not explain most of the things.--Sir Anon 03:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Infobox 

message: Russia was added. The War on Terrorism is the war against the Islamic Jihad Terrorism, and Russia probably fits more then anybody. Should we remond you that USSR were the first who started a war against the Taliban and bin-Laden (rased by the USA, by the way). Russia today fights against the Chechenian Terrorists, which are financed and hiven weapon by Al-queda. Russia should be here (and by the way, i'm not the first stating that. Many stated that before me, but it seems a minority holds this article hostage not giving any change they dont like to stick.
And by the way, in what campaigns against terrorism did Canada and France take part in?? Those are states i dont understand why they are here! No Free Nickname Left 18:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Russia was added

message: (Regarding ) There are plenty of neutrality issues in this article. And I'm not the one who brought most of them up. To name a few sections already on this talk page just from a quick look: List of Combatants..., Scope of article, The Infobox, Israel wrongly placed, etc, etc. And I may add that the article is pretty one sided, focusing on the people behind the political campaign, almost completely forgetting the damage and the victims, as well as the view of the other side (labelled as "targets").--Sir Anon 23:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is not a bad for NPOV is one might expect, but 'Combattants' definitely does not have a place.  "War on Terrorism" is not the name of a war, it is a marketing slogan, and an obsolete one at that.  Peter Grey 03:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: Sorry people, but this keeps coming up. The list of combatants, as it currently stands, is OR and should be removed. Unless you can find a source from the US government that says which states are helping them in their "War on Terrorism" campaign, then the list should be removed and replaced by a phrase which describes a number of individual campaigns for which lists of combatants can be cited. ᴀᴊᴋɢᴏʀᴅᴏɴ«» 11:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely, it is one (or several) of unverified/confused/original research and needs to be removed.--Sir Anon 11:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of combatants (again) 

message: :The phrase "War on Terrorism" did not begin after 9/11. In 1998, after the African Embassy bombings, in an address from the White House, President Clinton said America needed to continue its "war on terrorism." Apartcents (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins of War on Terrorism

message: The current helicopter boarding image used in the article is an interesting action shot, but at the same time it's propagandic to the extreme.  Can't we find an image that doesn't look like it's straight out of an Army brochure? 74.75.233.150 (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it propagandic?  It's US troops boarding a helicopter.Prussian725 (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does not look 'propagandic' to me. In fact to me, it looks far from like it is from a brochure, being that it is less polished, and therefore more realistic than any brochure image. Chwyatt (talk) 07:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture by itself isn't propagandic. However the fact that this page is full of pictures like that might be. This the 'war against terrorism' is largely a war. Yet, there are only pictures of well equiped soldiers from the coalition, not the resulting death. The wikipedia page of the ussr isn't covered with propagandic imagery, and that isn't about even war. On the other hand, maybe it is just standard in wikipedia not to show the destruction/death, as the Soviet war in Afghanistan seems a little similar picture-wise. I myself think that the imagery of both should be more negative. 88.159.74.89 (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's be less than we can be with image selection 

message: Shouldn't there be more on the legality of the war and associated moral issues? Numerous leading intellectuals have questioned the legality of the war (e.g. Noam Chomsky has compared the pre-emtive American invasion of Iraq to the Nazi invasion of Poland.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.6.73.127 (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add what you believe is relevant. Equinox137 (talk) 23:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legality 

message: I'm quite surprised to see this here.  Why would that be part of the War on Terrorism?  The citations really don't do much for the assertion--they appear to be conclusions drawn by the authors.  Is there a more compelling argument for this?  It just looks like a couple articles twisting his Bush-speak to make news, rather than an actual point of policy. DBaba (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lebanon 

message: Just my two cents, but the seems like the US media section devotes a little too much space to the Kuyper's analysis.   There have been lots of post-mortems of the media coverage-- Kuyper's just one among them but a very lengthy block of text discusses his opinion.  That said, I'm not active on this page, so I'll leave it in for others to chop or fork to a differ article. --Alecmconroy (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Undue Weight at Role of US Media

message: Can somebody legitimately explain why there is a section on Iraq here? Grsz11 (talk) 05:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you explain why you are trolling this talk page?--STX 04:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not trolling, asking if anybody here can actually give a coherent explanation. There's no mention of why Iraq was considered an extension of the war on terror. Grsz11 (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

text: There's a difference between discussing why Saddam Hussein was dangerous and how he is a terrorist. In order to be included here, this section needs to discuss the latter, as him simply being a threat to the US does not constitute him being a terroristic threat. Grsz11 (talk) 05:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I will not discuss whether or nor Saddam Hussein was a terrorist since it is irrelevant to this article per WP:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves. Anti-Terrorism measures are occurring in Iraq since al-Qaeda and other groups have stationed there and that is all that is pertinent to this article. I will not discuss the merits of the Iraq War on this talk page.--STX 05:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor am I! But there is a difference between the war to remove Saddam, and the war against the insurgency. While this article should include the insurgency, as this is against what can be considered terrorists, I'm simply trying to establish what purpose the initial war serves here (as it wasn't intended to eliminate terrorists). Grsz11 (talk) 05:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The section is simply giving a description of how it got to the point of where it is now. Regardless of one's definition of terrorism, the "war on terrorism" in its definition involves the United States' invasion of Iraq and its rationale for doing so regardless of whether or not "terrorism" was involved.--STX 05:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion of Iraq

message: The war on terrorism should not be treated as a traditional 'war' at all and the combatants/casualties list should be removed since it is far too inaccurate to warrant entry into an 'encyclopedia'.
This article groups a number of disparate US actions as some kind of unified plan to fight some kind of common enemy, when in reality, this is not the case at all. 
We might as well replace 'conflict ongoing' with 'total US defeat' since the pathetic objectives which the title of this war implies will NEVER be fulfilled. War on terrorism implies that we are warring on terrorism, a god-damn guerrilla tactic! 
Oh wikipedia. What a joke you have become. Vlad Dracula (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree.  Why doesn't WP have a War on Hunger article?  Because it is a meaningless political slogan. Like the 'War on Terrorism'. Dlabtot (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is meant to be on the political slogan. But due to the very common misconceptions about this slogan it is a near-impossible job of maintaining this article at a factual level.--Sir Anon (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that the war on terrorism is more of an Ideal ĞavinŤing 17:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This entire entry is rubbish 

message: I will delete every unreferenced sentence on this page 2 times a day untill the day i die. Which is fully condoned by wiki policies. "Any unreferenced materiel may be removed at any time without discussion". If this upsets ypu, add credible references! Willy turner (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, doing anything 2 times a day until you die is contrary to various wiki principles, such as WP:POINT and WP:SPIDER, not to mention WP:DUH. The way to make progress is to discuss with people, build consensus, and go forward from there. Slow edit warring will get you just as blocked as fast edit warring, no matter how right you are. Being right doesn't excuse being blinkered about how you approach collaborative work. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't disagree with you. In fact, I agree with you strongly. That's why I'm suggesting you pursue a strategy that will get you less blocked. You're right; don't screw it up by losing. There are very effective ways to get things done on this Wiki, and edit warring isn't one of them. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

text: If the material is controversial and is challenged or likely to be challenged you need references. Anyone can remove challenge and unverified material. Don't bother trying to argue about the actual article - until it gets references the infobox is not staying.--Sir Anon (talk) 10:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No References

message: It seems that the infobox was broken. I've restored to the rev just before it broke. Would someone fix it as im not familiar with the terrorism infobox. Thanks ĞavinŤing 17:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the infobox has no place here and re-inserting it without discussion is disruptive.--Sir Anon (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay :) I removed it anyway. ĞavinŤing 18:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken infobox. 

message: Twice I put a "current event" tag on this article, and twice it was removed.  How can anyone in their right mind claim this is not a current event? Equinox137 (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clearing that up. Equinox137 (talk) 23:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Not a current event???

message: Should the War on Terrorism be headed with a "Military Conflict" infobox and have lists of combatants, commanders, casualties and locations? Is the verifiablity policy satisfied without citations inside the infobox but with links to other Wikipedia articles?   (as seen in this version) 11:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No you need references even if you decide to declare it common knowledge (which it's not).--Sir Anon (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't think it's quite as simple as that, since in part it's not a war and in part it doesn't target terrorism, but until historians have it properly figured out it makes sense for the article to have more information, not less. Peter Grey (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

text: My problem is that this is a political campaign. Which means 1) that it's not really a military conflict and 2) Most of those countries that are listed as supporters do not support the entire campaign, usually just some parts of it. If you look at the criticism section of this very article you will find that even UK, the closest ally, does not support the name "War on Terrorism", and I don't see it is as being neutral to just plainly list a bunch of countries as allies (they are not labelled as allies but grouping them together makes the same implication).--Sir Anon (talk) 08:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't like it to have a warbox. Cold War doesn't have one.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Me neither, I do like the picture though maybe you can just use that. - PietervHuis (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

text: The references currently in the infobox don't explicitly state that the "war on terrorism" as a whole is a military conflict. They only deal with the individual military conflicts. Also, the White House reference violates WP:SELFPUB: A source in an article about itself is only reliable if not contentious or unduly self-serving. You'll need to find a secondary source if you want to uphold that claim. Cambrasa confab 14:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Exactly, maybe it's best to create a different type of infobox for this page. - PietervHuis (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Precisely, the WoT is far too complex a conflict to be summarized in an infobox.  Use an infobox for specific military engagements where the basic facts are discrete and generally agreed upon.  Fritter (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text: When I said a different infobox I meant a completely different infobox, not of a war, but simply one that lists the campaigns of the war on terrorism. - PietervHuis (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest not evening putting a info box in. This whole thing is exactly like the War on Drugs. Would a military info box be appropriate on that article? БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є  23:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that I added some citations and cleaned up a few others in the infobox, in case this example above is dropped into the article. Alcarillo (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

text: To Pietervhuis and BonesBrigade - this is a highly controversial issue that has been going on for months. Any major changes are difficult.--Sir Anon (talk) 10:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Outside view from a westerner: NO, and for the record I don't think there should be one for Cold War article. Ryan4314  (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment - Military Infobox without references

message: As I said, I would preferer to have it gone altogether, but as this is against the wishes of some editors I have drafted an alternative infobox. It is based on the military infobox, and is still focused on the military operations, but it has been reworded to keep in mind that it is not a solely military conflict and that it is not a traditional "war" with clear sides (the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq could probably class as wars, but this is a more general article). Apart from the visual changes some fields have been renamed in the templates to better reflect this specific use. Comments? Any alterations?--Sir Anon (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When I said a different infobox I meant a completely different infobox, not of a war, but simply one that lists the campaigns of the war on terrorism. - PietervHuis (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest not evening putting a info box in. This whole thing is exactly like the War on Drugs. Would a military info box be appropriate on that article? БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є  23:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that I added some citations and cleaned up a few others in the infobox, in case this example above is dropped into the article. Alcarillo (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

text: To Pietervhuis and BonesBrigade - this is a highly controversial issue that has been going on for months. Any major changes are difficult.--Sir Anon (talk) 10:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Outside view from a westerner: NO, and for the record I don't think there should be one for Cold War article. Ryan4314  (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise proposal

message: Abu Sayyaf, Rajah Soliman and Moro Islamic Liberation Front is part of War on Terror (who else do you think the Philippines is fighting!?).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.180.86 (talk) 04:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As the introduction clearly states, this article is not on terrorism in general, it is on the American campaign that is called "War on Terrorism". For the general article see: Terrorism.--Sir Anon (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text: The War on Terrorism chiefly refers to the United States' actions in the Middle Eastern theater as a response to the September 11th attacks; the Phillipines actions, as far as I know, are a separate campaign. Veinor (talk to me) 04:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true. The article clearly articulates that the WoT campaign extends well beyond the Middle East. Indeed, this was mentioned from the outset -- see this source (note 1 in the article), and this PDF from 2003 (note #26). Moreover, with regard to the Philippines, the United States has been quite active there, and not just engaged by proxy through the Philippine government. Check out this article for more details on the proposed scope of US involvment, also here and here for details about how the US is directly engaged. Alcarillo (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abu Sayyaf and MILF is part of the war on terror 

message: Now that a source is up that shows Russia are in the war against terrorism, it is no right to move it. See? There is a source! Now stop with the changing!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamlin Hodgkinson (talk • contribs) 10:12, 16 April 2008
:The only "source" I saw you inserting was a strange mess of words, which I removed. But that's irrelevent, no "source" can change the fact that the whole Chechen mess started half a decade before the American mess.--Sir Anon (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're removing sourced criticism of the article without any explanation; you're merely stating that the al Qaeda-Iraq link is disputed without providing any evidence that it is so. You're also removing the entire 'Casualties' section; why is this information not appropriate? Basically, you're removing sourced information without providing any sort of adequate reason. Veinor (talk to me) 21:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ENOUGH WITH THE CHANGING! 

message: Since the edit summary is neither adequate nor intended for discussion, I wanted to address more fully the reason why I removed the reference to perpetual war in the introduction. The statement it was removed from posits that there is criticism of the GWoT because it justified perpetual war. However, none of the sources for that passage even mentioned perpetual war. One editor did find an op-ed piece that talks about perpetual war (referred to as 'eternal war') and added it to the text (thanks, BTW), but I found that to be an inadequate for several reasons.
One was that, as an op-ed piece, it expresses the author's opinion that the US government is engaging in perpetual war. Another, it was focused almost entirely on drawing analogy between a fictional representation of perpetual war (Orwell) and the Iraq War. It doesn't go far enough to argue the case that the GWoT = perpetual war. Surely there are policy papers or scholarly essays that that have approached this issue.
While I'm on the subject (which is slightly OT, I admit), there are problems with the article on perpetual war as well. I think if a case were to be made here that critics of the GWoT are labeling it a perpetual war then that article's glaringly non-encyclopedic content needs to be addressed. Alcarillo (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Perpetual war' issue 

message: Can someone please put Canada Australia and New Zealand on the military infobox. I mean arent they part of the war?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.180.86 (talk) 03:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. What is the criterion (or criteria) for that list of involved nations? I think Canada is definitely identified as part of the "war on terror" in Afghanistant, considering its very high level of involvement. Srnec (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Canada is not one of the "Belligerents", they didn't not join the US in the Iraq invasion, and are only in Afghanistan as peace keepers.  pjh3000 (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Australia, Canada and New Zealand 

message: Tommy Franks retired in 2003. Given how that section hasn't been updated in what looks like 5 years, I'd check on the other commanders in the list as well.71.167.90.246 (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Commanders

message: Once Internet2 steamrolls over its predecessor, and only the gatekeepers and bootlickers have access to it, Wikipedia will be rendered redundant.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamNZDat (talk • contribs) 16:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rendering Wikipedia Redundant

message: Here is an article that Russia is part of the war on terror . Now can someone pls put Russia in the infobox?
:I support that --TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proof of Russias involvment

message: From the first paragraph, it's obvious that this article was written by critics of the war.  "...stated to be a response to the September 11 attacks"; "According to the government..."; "critics argue..."  All reasonable people know that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would not have occurred but for 9/11.  I suggest keeping the article factual and moving criticisms to a "critics" section or to an entirely different article altogether.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave148109 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move criticisms to "critics" section 

message: I'm going to include the list of countries that this article say is part of the war on  terrorism 
    * 4.1 Africa
          o 4.1.1 Horn of Africa 
    * 4.2 Europe
    * 4.3 Middle East
          o 4.3.1 Iraq
          o 4.3.2 Lebanon
          o 4.3.3 Saudi Arabia
          o 4.3.4 Gaza Strip/ West Bank
    * 4.4 Central Asia/South Asia
          o 4.4.1 Republic of India
          o 4.4.2 Afghanistan
          o 4.4.3 Pakistan
                + 4.4.3.1 Waziristan
    * 4.5 Southeast Asia
          o 4.5.1 Indonesia
          o 4.5.2 Philippines
    * 4.6 North America
          o 4.6.1 United States of America
How was this list compiled , it would appear any conflict with Islamic connects is now being added which is WP:OR. What are the criteria to be part of this war from my point of view this article reflects the US lead war which has taken place in Afghanistan,Iraq Gnevin (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  War on terrorism

message: I think Al-Qaeda in Iraq should be taken off the list and just stick with Al-Qaeda. Because Al-Qaeda is all over the world and Al-Qaeda in Iraq is just the same terrisot group its just saying its in Iraq.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConnorIBurnett (talk • contribs) 21:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al-Qaeda, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, whats the differnence?! 

message: Shouldn't be like that.
U.S. soldiers & citizens deserve a better political command structure & friendlier foreign policy; where military intelligence comes from the Department of Defense and not the C.I.A. . It doen't say anywhere in the U.S. constitution that power is vested with the C.I.A. and it shouldn't, so the U.S. needs a reform towards the better. America is supposed to be a free country not a fascist country, people who disagree with this don't belong in America.
Here are some words rarely heard of but which are relivant to the war on terror.
War on Terror:
Discrimination of Social Exclusion, Combating poverty, Scientific & technological advance over the enemy. This is exaclty what is happening in Iraq & Afghanistan, but these are actually quotes from the European constitution.
So who is the U.S. military to follow the E.U. constitution?
Next thing you know, Europeans blame it on America. But the U.S. constitution would not do such a thing, so these are all lies, money & false premises to go to war.
Become a better person and show some respect.
Phalanx Pursos 17:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. foreign policy too tough 

message: The graphics in the mid-top of the page (see under heading "use of phrase...") are floating on the text. Grr.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by EBY3221 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help needed from graphics-savvy: Pictures floating on text 

message: I dont think Vietnam is actually part of the war on terror. I mean their actually neutreal. Sure their doing joint counter-terrorist operations with the Philippines but thats only to strengthen diplomatic relations between the Philippines and Vietnam. If any thing Vietnam is actually an ally of China, North Korea, Belarus and (possibly) Iran, 3 countries which are potential enemies of the US, Philippines, South Korea, Japan and NATO.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.107.236 (talk) 04:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vietnam 

message: I've heard from a friend that a group of almost 5000 soldiers in Iraq are refusing to fight the Iraqis.  They have gone completely AWOL and they are being hunted down (but so far not found) by other Iraqi troops.  I'm not sure if this is true, but if it is, it's definetely worth noting.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.139.17 (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the WP rule on reliable sources. If you find a publication that states such a fact, come back.--NYCJosh (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just something I heard 

message: An insult of intelligence the criticism section to not include the COUNTLESS of instances in Media calling it an outright propaganda term, going alongside that trash and insult of intelligence of the average person with half a brain "Axis of EVIL!!1". --Leladax (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alongside "The Axis of Evil!1111 muahahaha!", an outright propaganda term 

message: Can we add NATO and/or ISAF? And the KIA list on the war box i know a lot of people have die in the current conflict but it make it seem it's mostly American Anglo were killed.--66.229.12.186 (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  battle box 

message: FYI, a list of sources on this subject can be found here:  . Cla68 (talk) 03:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of sources 

message: Seriously, I've seen at least 4 different variations of the spelling here.  I know a consensus can be tricky, but can we at least be consistent?  209.105.207.74 (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling of al-Qaeda 

message: Hey people yeah..... akward but does anyone know how to take a picture from an article here and put it up on say myspace? Sorry I know this isnt relevant but I know Ill get an answer fast on this article--Lord Haw Haw29 (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wait what the Heck?! 

message: I noticed that the effects just have two sub-headings underneath the section, but no content.  Was this intentional, or has nobody came forward with information? -- TrekCaptainUSA (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Effects Section 

message: The war on terror article does not present sufficient information to stand on its own.  As it pertains to a British objection to the phrase "war on terrorism", it makes most sense to merge it into the corresponding section on this article. Neelix (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[war on terror]] 

message: "mainstream reporting has tended to concentrate on the more violent areas of Iraq, with little or no reporting of the calm areas" This isn't a problem with the "WoT" coverage, this is news media at work. There's a systemic bias in favor of violent, sensational, simple stories over "boring" & "complicated" ones, whence the axiom, "If it bleeds, it leads." This has been true for, oh, 20yr.... Welcome to ENG.  TREKphiler hit me ♠  10:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Let it bleed

message: "However in 2007, allegations of ISI secretly making bounty payments up to CDN$ 1,900 (Pakistani rupees. 1 lakh) for each NATO personnel killed surfaced.[63]"
Going through the source cited, it seems that the article itself provides evidence that this information is not reliable:
"CanWest News Service yesterday could not independently verify Mr. Saifullah's comments, and the district leader did not provide any direct evidence to prove the allegations."
Given this, it seems that it should be removed -- the newspaper has published a claim that neither it has verified nor the person making the allegation has provided evidence for. Omer (talk) 09:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations of ISI supporting terrorism 

message: If any folks here are knowledgeable about the subject of John Walker Lindh, could you please check out the recent changes to that article.  I have concerns about how it's being handled. -- Cjensen (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Walker Lindh 

message: Israel was one of the first countries to fight terrorism, even before the 9/11 attacks and before the U.S president Bush knew what that word means. it teaches half the world how to fight terrorism. MarioDX (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The list is showing where islamist "terrorist attacks" have taken place. It dosen't mean conflict currently exists there. --Kuzwa (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Israel should be included wth the main countries

message: Other major supporters:
No Poland... why ? Poland has more troops there than Australia and Poland is not listed.
Poland - 1,130 
Australia - 1,080 
According to Wikipedia. I think that Poland has more troops than 1,130 at the mission. Anyway, list it on the list.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.133.206 (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: According to some news sites Poland will send an extra 400-600 troops raising their total commitment to 2,000-2,200 implying a current  total of around 1600. If this is true then the Wiki you site is also wrong.[[Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To further confuse matters further ISAF,s own statment states that Poland has 1130 Austrailia 1090 (different from wiki qoated).[[Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Poland is included in the NATO, Australia is not in the NATO. That's why Australia is included in major non-NATO supporters section... --Novis-M (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poland 

message: If this has been discussed already sorry but the more I look at the page the odder the results section seems. Not only is the war not over (and as such there is no result) but many of the 'results' may be the result of the war (but some are not, such as privacy) but are not the by product of its resolution. Some seem to be the sort of 'result' one expects (such as destruction of enemy bases)(not list in ww2 results page))[[Slatersteven (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I move that we remove the 'results' section untill the war is over. [[Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.Prussian725 (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Dont agree. Why would we wait? War is in progress, so are the results. --Novis-M (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Novis-M. This war is not intended to end. Do you really believe the US will end retail terrorism? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How can results be in progress, a result is the end of someting, not the means to achive it. No otehr war page that I have seen lists operational matters as results (though that may be becasue they have all ended). [[Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Listening to the media report on ex-President Bush and his words, I hear War on Terror more than War on Terrorsim. MKohut (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result? 

message: In 2002 and again in 2005, the Indonesian island of Bali has been struck by suicide and car bombings that killed over 200 people and injured over 300. The 2002 attack consisted of a bomb hidden in a backpack exploding inside of "Padds's Bar," 
it was Paddy's Bar...not Padd's Bar -- if someone who can edit semi protected entries could do so, would be much appreciated, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PrincessTaz (talk • contribs) 09:32, 1 March 2009
: Done, well spotted! haz (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit of Details of Indonesian Terror Attacks 

message: Absurd that someone has decided to rename the War on Terror.Haberstr (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the more common name in all fairness.[[Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus is 'War on Terror' NOT 'War on Terrorism' 

message: I believe this page should be Semi Protected or even completely Protected due to Vandalism
thanks GLFan151 (talk) 02:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi Protection 

message: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hgZVG1i9jKq64fjrMlsb3HOtX-bgD978JKG00  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.144.66.128 (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The end 

message: Just a hunch, but nearly 60% disapprove Barack Obama's European trip at the G20 calling us Aggorant and submissive (bunch of bull); is this site positive that they want to end "this war" just because the President calls it something else. We put a lot of resources into this war. Seems like Wikipedians are getting dumber or is it just me? They come from Iran into Iraq and Afganistan and we're not seeing the full might of the US military as the European countries try to handicap our abilities to win wars. Look at Spains anti-American motive. The UK will admit the War on Terror still exists in form of Overseas Combatiant Operation, course that is the liberal political right smiley face fascism 'at our expense' talk. There is going to be a big huge tea party on Apirl 15th, largest in US history. The President no longer speaks for the silent majority . So make this a current war please. Renegadeviking 7:48 am 07, April 2009
:I seem to remember him saying American had "sometimes" been arrogant (it has -- remember the whole Iraq thing, human rights abuses (torture), etc), but so has Europe. Criticism of America is acceptable, you know. By citing a tea party page as your proof that the US is unhappy with President Obama is laughable at best, and leads me to ask if you work for Fox News?
:Anyway, with regards to your question:
::When President Bush declared his 'War on Terror', Wikipedia referred to it as just that. He was, you see, the commander in chief. When President Obama declared the deprecation of the term, Wikipedia noted that and referred to it by its new name of 'Overseas Contingency Operation'. He is, you see, the commander in chief.
::liberal political right smiley face fascism
::Liberalism is left-wing, so not on the political right. Smiley face: WTF? Fascism is right-wing, so it can't be liberal.
:Happy Easter. --Josh Atkins (talk - contribs) 17:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  War on Terror was.....don't you mean is? 

message: was legal action undertaken against following organisations funding hamas:
*El-Haramain
*World Assembly of Muslim Youth
*Al-Quds Intifadah Comittee
If so, include in section explaining the legal actions (which btw needs expansion)
if not, include as critiicsm as these organisations are well known to sponser the groups and not shutting them down would equal not effictively fighting terrorism at all
81.245.167.2 (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal actions and action on hamas 

message: Shouldnt they be on the list of combatants?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.186.81 (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hamas and Hezbollah 

message: This is definitely a "past conflict"--the Obama administration has been very clear in dropping the use of this term. As such it should be retained as a past conflict, not an active one. Publicus 21:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This topic is in dispute.  As such, it is not OK to simply remove material and state why as an opinion.  Citations must also be included. This is turning into an edit war.  Please refrain from making edits without including verifiable sources explaining the reason for the edit.  Simply removing the phrase indicating that the name War on Terror "has fallen into disuse" and stating your opinion why that should be removed is not sufficient for an edit on a disputed page.  Cearly, there is evidence that the term is no longer used. In fact, you agree that the term is no longer used. Therefore, removing that fact from the article will need more than just unsupported opinion.  In addition, I would point out the WP:3RR. Age Happens (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to leave the last edits by 188.2.194.124 alone.  There is some truth to the contention that a conflict continues.  Rationally, a conflict called "War on Terrorism" is a war against a tactic rather than a specific foe or foes. As such, even if all of the conflicts included in such a "War" are resolved, terrorism itself will never end, being only a tactic.  In that sense both of the editors' contentions contain some error.  I think that both Publicus and 188.2.194.124 will need to provide neutral, verifiably proof for any further edits along these lines, before this descends into an edit war with no end - pun intended. Age Happens (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to agree that the conflict is continuing. The "official name" might be different, but the Obama administration is still occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, bombing areas in Pakistan, and carrying out operations in numerous other places under the guise of the same campaign. It makes sense to note the new name (Overseas Contingency Operation) but certainly not to consider the fighting to have ended with a mere rhetorical reframing by the Obama administration. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

text: The "War on Terrorism" term was always a rhetorical device created by the Bush administration to group a serious of conflicts into a greater package.  The current administration has dropped the use of the term, so the label "war on terrorism" for all the incredibly various conflicts is no longer valid.  It doesn't matter if certain conflicts are continuing or not, because there is no "war on terrorism" anymore. Each of these conflicts are separate issues, they may be conflicts with similar techniques such as terrorism--but there is no overall "war on terrorism" according to the current US administration. Publicus 15:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

text: And I'll hold off on editing this to avoid an edit war. Publicus 15:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

text: The name itself was always a rhetorical device, but this article isn't just about the name. Its about the governmental campaign that began in 2001 with this name. Though Obama and his administration have rhetorically reframed it as the "Overseas Contingency Operation," this is different from ending it - and in fact means it is continuing, just under a different name.  I agree that the campaign could end before fighting ends, because its a government creation and could be ended by the government. It just hasn't happened yet. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the article should be changed to reflect the context of a new US administration and new foreign policy.  The  "War on Terrorism" should be understood as a major pillar of Bush's foreign policy, one that involved multiple military conflicts, almost all of which are still ongoing.  The article almost could mirror the Monroe Doctrine page - outline the source of the policy, the various directions in which it led, and the way those conflicts have played out in the post-Bush months.  But as the Bush era slides irrevocably into the past, this article will need to put the WoT into its historical context as a Bush-;ed foreign policy doctrine.  Fishal (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

text: If this isn't seen as merely a pillar of Bush's foreign policy, but as a real war, how will this war ever end? When people around the world give up violence forever? Because that's not going to happen. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Status of War on Terrorism

message: Would the Mexican Drug War be part of the war? Thx. Noneofyour (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Onlty in a very indorect way, but then there are a few wars listed here that are on lt indireclt linked to the war on terror.[[Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Assertions by the US government claiming things to be related to terrorism are not always reliable (for example: Iraq War). So even though some members of the US government and US news media have claimed a link, it is not actually connected. O76923 (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mexican Drug War 

message: A legislation proposed on April 1 is no joke. The proposed bill would grant President Obama the authority to shut down public and private networks -- including the restriction of internet traffic -- as part of a cybersecurity emergency plan.
The bill was introduced by West Virginia Democratic Sen. John Rockefeller and Sen. Olympia Snowe, a Republican from Maine. The aim of the bill is to unite both public and private network operators to develop regulations for what to do in case of a cyber attack.
Sources: 
http://www.tomshardware.com/...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/..
http://cdt.org/security/CYBERSEC4.pdf
Its very related to the War on Terrorism, so parts from the sources might fit to the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.225.110.201 (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyberact 2009: Bill Allows Obama Power to Shut Down Internet 

message: In the history section mention is made of the war against Jewish terrorism in Palestine. I changed it to Zionist, and added a link to Zionist political violence where it is discussed. This has twice been reverted as Npov. Given that a previous sentence talks of Jews, and both Lehi and Irgun were Zionist groups, I am very puzzled.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed it to "end a spate of attacks by Zionist Jews in the British Mandate of Palestine". Otherwise there is no explanation for the terrorism. I would like to wikilink "spate of attacks" to Zionist political violence, unless there are objections.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that both editors withdrew their objections.93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Zionist or Jewish Terrorism?

message: I beleive that this should be considered part of the global war, as nations like Mali are supported by NATO against Al-Queda and are in the middle of wars with Al-Queda insurgents. 
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jNkkwB2HMZkJzoBH8LPDkJ1b1v0Q
There are also other African nations that have recently begun fighting extremist groups allied to or now-joined Al-Queda (Ethiopia, Egypt, Sudan) I think there should be note of this somewhere, and some list of events in these campaigns. 
if anyone can contribute any more information or would like to make a section on this, I think it would be fitting.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobasad 111 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  North African Campaigns Against Al-Queda and related groups (Mali, Sudan, Egypt) 

message: It seems to me that the most common term for this conflict is "War on Terror", not "War on Terrorism". Google gives about 3 million hits for "War on Terrorism" and 6 million for "War on Terror". "War on Terror" is by far the most frequently used phrase, so why isn't Wikipedia using it? Gatoclass (talk) 03:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title

message: The section "Historical usage of phrase" is actually longer than the article it points to (War on Terrorism (historical)).  Perhaps something should happen to one of them...? --Strange but untrue (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just an observation; Historical usage of phrase 

message: I'm removing this group from the "terroist" list because there has not been any "terrorist" attack outside the Xinjiang region. Any attack contributed by the group, of wich there is doubt if it still exists, was solely based on Chinese police and or military forces. If the group is included, China should be included in the list opposed to it (besides NATO and other participants). I might point out that Human Right Watch and even American-funded newsagencies like Radio Free Asia and Voice of America have pulled doubt over the existence and classification of this group. NeoRetro (talk) 11:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  East Turkestan islamic movement