Talk:1983 Beirut barracks bombings

message: Should be added  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.9.102 (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bank Markazi v. Peterson 

message: A former defense secretary for Ronald Reagan says he implored the president to put Marines serving in Beirut in a safer position before terrorists attacked them in 1983, killing 241 servicemen. 
"I was not persuasive enough to persuade the president that the Marines were there on an impossible mission," Caspar Weinberger says in an oral history project capturing the views of former Reagan administration officials. 
Weinberger said one of his greatest regrets was in failing to overcome the arguments that "Marines don't cut and run", and 'We can't leave because we're there'" before the devastating suicide attack on the lightly armed force. 
"They had no mission but to sit at the airport, which is just like sitting in a bull's-eye," Weinberger said. 
"I begged the president at least to pull them back and put them back on their transports as a more defensible position.". 
The Joint Chiefs begged Reagan to house those men on ships, where they'd be safe, but Reagan the Idiot wanted the "symbolism" of having them in town where trucks could reach them. This is how Al Qaeda first learned that America will cut and run after you kill a bunch of soldiers. Reagan taught them that.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.241.245.49 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 1 February 2006.
:What a bunch of absolute POV rubbish. Any force on the ground is susceptible to attack. The Allies were constantly attacked by Nazi fanatics in occupied territory. Nobody "cut and run." Your comment is FORUM'ish and provocative. If you want to go through Reliable Sources that complete disprove your "view" they are easily found. 50.111.19.178 (talk) 23:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 

message: :The attack remains the deadliest  post-World War II attack on Americans overseas.
Can this be true?  Wasn't there even a single incident during the Korean War, Vietnam Conflict, Gulf War, Gulf War II, African Embassy Bombings, Kosovo, attacks by Israel and Bin-Laden, or during an airplane bombing that exceeded 241 deaths + 60 injuries?
Lockerbie killed 270, but only 189 were Americans. The Tết Offensive supposedly killed 4,324 allied forces (I dunno how many were Americans, but that wasn't exactly a single attack, anyway, no?), The embassy bombings number 220+6000 (how do deaths vs. injuries account?)
- Eric 13:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence is true as far as I can tell. The only gray areas would be the Korean War and Vietnam War, as I can't find out what the deadliest attacks were in those wars. But I'm absolutely sure no terrorist or enemy attack has even come close to inflicting 241 deaths in the past 30 or so years. PBP 15:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deadliest attack? 

message: I noticed the use of that phrase in the article when asserting Hezbollah was responsible.  I have no doubt that many do believe Hezbollah was responsible, but I was wondering if that could be better cited?   Isn't "many believe", like "some say", an example of uncited writing?  Just a thought.The Shrike 23:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There seem to be several POV problems in this entry, I'd say to the point that it needs a cleanup tag. Manys (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: it should read imad mugnieh not hezbullah cause thats what you call time paradox.I edited it.--Nader ecl (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your addition is unreferenced. Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See weasel words. Socrates2008 (Talk) 03:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Many Believe"

message: Just cleaned up some spelling errors and re-established links in the following section:
In his book "By Way of Deception : The Making and Unmaking of a Mossad Officer, Victor Ostrovsky claims that Mossad knew in advance of the attack, but did not warn the United States [6].There have been claims that Israel wanted US and French troops to leave Lebanon so it could freely operate in Lebanon without restriction. The removal of US and French tropps allowed the Israelis to support the Phalangists in their massacre of the Palestinians in the Shantilla and Sabra camps [2]--
cheers Guss 07:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  minor edit 

message: Until 19 September 2006 this article contained the sentence "In retaliation for the attacks, France launched an air strike in the Beqaa Valley against Iranian Revolutionary Guard positions" under the "Response" section.
There is no evidence that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard had any presence in Lebabon at the time. To claim that the French attacked IRG position in the Beqaa is incorrect and misleading.
With respect to the involvement of Iran, the New York Times reported on 29 October 1983: "Reagan Administration now assumes Iranian Govt played key role in bombing of US and French installations in Beirut; Donald H Rumsfeld or Alfred L Atherton Jr reportedly may be named special envoy to region; US reportedly may ask Lebanon to close Iranian Embassy, apparent nerve center for attack, and may stage commando raid against Baalbek area held by Shiites; illustration". (NYT 29 October 1983 "Reagan Adm now assumes Iranian Govt played key role in bombing")
On 24 October The New York Times reported: "When pressed by reporters about American reports linking the attacks with Iranian groups, the Prime Minister said, 'We don't have information on this point.'" (NYT 24 October 1983 "France has no plans to pull out troops")
The assertion that France bombed IRG positions strongly implied that Iran had a military personnel presence in Lebanon at the time, which is incorrect. Such assertions should not be made without supporting refences.
I have removed the assertion from this article.
--Richard Scrivener, Centre for Arab & Islamic Studies, Australian National University 07:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Iran isn't bound to it, but it's still relevant and a piece of news that a judge did order this, finding Iran guilty in the process.  --Activism1234 13:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iranian Involvement 

message: A Washington's federal judge determined in 2003 that Iran orchestrated the 1983 bombing and later ordered to Teheran to indemnify all the families of the victims with 2.7 billion dollars.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.232.216 (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Iran isn't bound to it, but it's still relevant and a piece of news that a judge did order this, finding Iran guilty in the process.  --Activism1234 13:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation

message: diary entries: President Reagan, Sept,11,1983.
source: Reagan, Ronald, An American Life: The Autobiography, New York: Simon & Shuster, 1990, p. 446.
I have found a good source in regard to the lead up of US Navy involvements in Lebanon : Lebanon 1982-1984 by John H. Kelly
("John H. Kelly is managing director of International Equity Partners, Washington, D.C. He served as U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon from 1986 to 1988, Assistant Secretary of State for the Near East and South Asia from 1989 to 1991, and U.S. Ambassador to Finland from 1991 to 1994.") 
http://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/CF129/CF-129.chapter6.html
Lebanon 1982-1984 by John H. Kelly : In the weeks following the attack on Marines at Beirut International Airport, U.S. ships of the Sixth Fleet responded with naval gunfire. Two more Marines were killed on September 6. Druze and Palestinian militia forces engaged in intense fighting against Christian forces over areas in the Shuf mountains evacuated by withdrawing Israeli forces. Shultz had wanted the Israelis to remain in the Shuf so as not to reward Syrian intransigence in refusing to accept the May 17 agreement.[40]
As the fighting between Lebanese Armed Forces and the militia groups intensified, McFarlane and his team at the American ambassador's residence came under fire from the battle lines five kilometers away. McFarlane sent a flash cable to Washington stating that "there is a serious threat of a decisive military defeat which could involve the fall of the Government of Lebanon within twenty-four hours." McFarlane urged that the rules of engagement for U.S. forces be modified "to allow our forces to fire in support of the Lebanese Army."[41] Despite Weinberger's opposition (he described the message as "McFarlane's `sky is falling' cable")[42] President Reagan approved the recommendation. The Americans began to fire in support of the Lebanese Army.
Some of the naval gunfire was directed at Druze emplacements. This was widely and correctly viewed in Lebanon as U.S. intervention on the side of the Christians and the government. In mid-September the battleship New Jersey was dispatched to Lebanese waters to bring its sixteen-inch guns into play.
With the death of the two Marines on August 29, a furor arose in the American Congress as to whether or not the War Powers Resolution should be invoked to limit the duration of the Marine deployment in Lebanon. Some members sought a six-month limit. When it became clear that some limiting legislation would pass, the administration held out for and won an eighteen-month authorization. Secretary Shultz defended the U.S. contribution to the MNF in hearings before the Foreign Relations Committees of both houses of Congress. He justified the presence as "to help insure the Lebanese Government's sovereignty and authority . . . to assure the safety of the people in the area and to end the violence. . . . " Shultz described U.S. intervention in the Shuf battles as due to concern "that key strategic positions in the vicinity of Beirut, which are vital to the safety of our Marines, of other American military and diplomatic personnel, and to the security of Beirut, have recently come under attack." [43]
The testimony by Shultz did not square with what was discussed in private, as we now know. President Reagan wrote the truth in his diary on September 11 1983:
"N. S. C. (National Security Council) is meeting . . . on Lebanon re a new cable from Bud McFarlane. Troops obviously PLO and Syrian have launched a new attack against the Lebanese Army. Our problem is do we expand our mission to aid the Lebanese Army with artillery and air support? This could be seen as putting us in the war."
"I've ordered the use of naval gunfire. My reasoning is that this can be explained as protection of our Marines hoping it might signal the Syrians to pull back." 
Reagan wrote again in his diary on September 19,1983 on how to describe the Marines' role:
"N.S.C.: Our Navy guns turned loose in support of the Lebanese Army fighting to hold a position on a hill overlooking our Marines at the Beirut airport. This still comes under the head of defense."
In his congressional testimony Shultz went on to say of the Marines: "They are an important deterrent, a symbol of the international backing behind the legitimate Government of Lebanon, and an important weight in the scales. To remove the Marines would put both the Government, and what we are trying to achieve, in jeopardy." In response to a question at the hearing, Shultz replied: " . . . when America sends its forces to perform a legitimate mission . . . and then the minute some trouble arises we turn tail and beat it, I think that sends a gigantic message around the world . . . "[46]
So the Marines were a "deterrent," a "symbol," and an "important weight." They were now involved in sporadic combat. U.S. Naval forces were shelling targets up to ten kilometers away from the Marines because the targets were "key strategic positions" in the words of Shultz. That was a misleading explanation. No matter how it was described in Washington, U.S. military forces in Lebanon had begun to use their fire in support of Lebanese government forces as the Reagan diary entries show. As Richard Haass wrote in his recent book on military intervention, "The Marines and the MNF as a whole had come to be perceived as a hand-maiden of Lebanon's Christian-dominated government. . . . As a result, the MNF became a de facto participant in Lebanon's internecine struggles."[47] continued...
Lebanon 1982-1984 by John H. Kelly :
http://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/CF129/CF-129.chapter6.html
I added the external link above to main page Guss 09:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "I've ordered the use of naval gunfire."- Reagan, Sept.11,1983 

message: i had previously made that edit, blindly copying the finding of fact of the federal district court judge. what do these judges know anyway? it was correctly pointed out that it was not, that indeed there is even a wiki page on large explosions. the largest ever was the halifax, nova scotia harbour munitions explosion world war i. What is true though, it that the barracks bombing was the largest, heretofore, deliberately set. Godspeed John Glenn! Will 15:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: largest non-nuclear explosion DELIBERATELY detonated up to that time

message: See article: Heligoland#History
I hate to say this but... the "single largest deliberate non-nuclear detonation" occured in Germany. On April 18 1947 British forces attempted to level the German island of Heligoland (also known as Helgoland) using no less than four thousand tons (by conservative estimates) or 6,800 tons (more liberal estimate) of convensional explosives. The detonation re-shaped the island and even made an entry in the Guiness Book of Records. See List of the largest artificial non-nuclear explosions#1901–2000 Mkhkoh 06:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: "largest non-nuclear explosion DELIBERATELY detonated up to that time"

message: Repeated anonymous vandalisms:
*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing&diff=123720247&oldid=123475003
*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing&diff=128803187&oldid=126689216
*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing&diff=135983608&oldid=135410772
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing&oldid=137289660 - good version. --HanzoHattori 18:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection please 

message: I found that the citation  <ref name="wp">  is broken.  There is no first instance of this.  I'd appreciate help in locating the citation. 21:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found it looking through the history - from the Washington Post.  — ERcheck (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken citation 

message: Anyone know where the French barracks was located?  I understand it may have been about 4km away... Socrates2008 02:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is still largely US-centric - not a single image of French barracks, injuries or military funeral etc.  I know this is the English WP, but that should not result in such bias. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: French Barracks

message: Recent changes including naming Hezbollah as perpetrator are problematic. Hezbollah was not constituted until 1985. Moreover there are conflicting theories and evidence that point in several directions as to perpetrators. 
Also a background section was added in the last couple of days based merely on Robert (Bud) McFarlane's claims. McFarlane has not just had his claims contested, he has had them thoroughly debunked, and specifically was convicted In US federal courts of four counts lying before congress. McFarlane is currently on the board on the board of  Washington Institute for Near East Policy which is closely associated with th AIPAC,and is not a neutral party even today. The McFarlane book cited serves mainly as a polemic against other Reagean officials, Don Regan, Alexander Haig, George Shultz and Richard Poindexter and its presentation as fact our even a valid source is more than a problem without significant multiple source corroboration.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by FortunateC (talk • contribs) 10:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: changed "According to some observers" (another person who has claimed there was little or no retaliation for the blast was Thomas Friedman. He said it after the 9/11 attack) --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I have reverted your edits as they are often rambling, unsourced and/or too strongly Hezbollah/Syrian/IRI point-of-view. I will work have tried to re-edited the article to work in your arguements. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Do not delete sourced information. Ranstorp is a noted scholar. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Changes 

message: The retaliation by the French and Americans was not mere shelling, whoever wrote that has no respect for the innocent dead Lebanese. The retaliation was severe and hundreds were killed. A U.S navel war ship repeatedly bombed Lebanese villages and French planes attacked. Innocent people were killed in the hundreds, people were crushed in their homes.Lebanese bebe (talk) 12:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted your edits as they are often rambling, unsourced and/or too strongly Hezbollah/Syrian/IRI point-of-view. I will work have tried to re-edited the article to work in your arguements. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Do not delete sourced information. Ranstorp is a noted scholar. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: RETALIATION

message: The photograph of Reagan touring the caskets belongs with the U.S. embassy bombing article.  The photograph was taken on April 23, 1983 - five days after the embassy bombing (and months before the barracks bombing).
See:
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/photographs/grenada.html
Rdhulljr (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  photo is incorrect 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/07/marines.beirut/index.html
** In 1983 Beirut barracks bombing on 2011-05-25 05:05:37, 404 Not Found
** In 1983 Beirut barracks bombing on 2011-06-07 03:17:17, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 03:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 3 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/30/iran.barracks.bombing/
** In 1983 Beirut barracks bombing on 2011-05-25 05:05:37, 404 Not Found
** In 1983 Beirut barracks bombing on 2011-06-07 03:18:18, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 4 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.lebwar.org/
** In 1983 Beirut barracks bombing on 2011-05-25 05:05:37, HTTP Redirect Loop:  ->  -> 
** In 1983 Beirut barracks bombing on 2011-06-07 03:19:18, HTTP Redirect Loop:  ->  -> 
--JeffGBot (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 5 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.drakkar-1983.org/
** In 1983 Beirut barracks bombing on 2011-05-25 05:05:37, 403 Forbidden
** In 1983 Beirut barracks bombing on 2011-06-07 03:19:50, 403 Forbidden
--JeffGBot (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 6 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/pastoral_care_resources/pastoral%20intervention/Resnicoff.pdf
** In 1983 Beirut barracks bombing on 2011-05-25 05:05:37, 404 Not Found
** In 1983 Beirut barracks bombing on 2011-06-07 03:20:39, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 03:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 7 

message: The excerpted passage below seems to imply that General Colin Powell is commenting on the U.S.S. New Jersey's February 1984 shelling of Druze and Syrian positions. Such criticism of an event after the BLT bombing seems absurd, so the quote seems to be out of context. 
COL Geraghty's notable criticism of the decision to employ naval gun-fire pertains to a September 19, 1983, incident.  If this Powell comment is echoing Geraghty's POV, then it makes more sense . . . but as presently written, it does not make sense.  Would somebody with more knowledge of Powell's quote please verify and correct. 
Note, the U.S.S. New Jersey hadn't yet arrived on the scene by September 19th; so, it was not involved in that naval gun-fire incident.  It arrived off Beirut on September 25th.    
Excerpted WIKI passage under "Response":
On February 8, 1984, USS New Jersey (BB-62) fired almost 300 shells at Druze and Syrian positions in the Bekaa Valley east of Beirut. This was the heaviest shore bombardment since the Korean War.[34] New Jersey's shells killed probably hundreds of people, mostly Shiites and Druze.[35] In his memoir, General Colin Powell (at the time an assistant to Caspar Weinberger) noted that "When the shells started falling on the Shiites, they assumed the American ‘referee’ had taken sides."[36] Some analysts subsequently criticized the decision to have U.S. warships shell Druze and Syrian forces. They claim that this action forced a shift in the previously neutral U.S. forces by convincing local Lebanese Muslims that the U.S. had taken the Christian side.[37]
Aspencork (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Response" 

message: QUOTE : 
"In the attack on the French barracks, the nine-story 'Drakkar' building, 58 paratroopers from the 1st Parachute Chasseur Regiment were killed and 15 injured minutes after the attack, in France's single worst military loss since the end of the Algerian War.[5] The wife and four children of a Lebanese janitor at the French building were also killed.[6]"
Can you tell me how it's relevant to write this? thank you ! ~~Swax~~  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.36.193.204 (talk) 09:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sassy ? 

message: Citation number 88 is plagiarized in that whole paragraph leading up to the citation in the text.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.212.46 (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  plagiarism problem 

message: I see  has repeatedly added a large amount of detail, including lists, to this article, and also added non-neutral language such as "martyrs", removed links and placed links in citations. It's time to discuss these changes. Overall I agree with the editors who have reverted thse changes; Wikipedia is not a memorial and we must strive to be neutral. But it is possible there are some details that should be incorporated. For example, OJOM added additional French regiments/units? What was the source for that? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: I'm repeating some "oral history" here, so no sources but it might be worth looking into.  The story we were told was that the Marine Commander was prevented by the US State Department from fortifying the compound and arming the guards, in order to prevent preventing a "hostile posture" to the local population.  A GS something-or-other over-rode the military commander on the ground's military judgement and as a result hundreds of Marines died.  If true, this aspect of the story merits inclusion.Jonny Quick (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role of the US State Department 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on 1983 Beirut barracks bombing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100615151954/http://ada.org/news/798.aspx to https://www.ada.org/news/798.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on 1983 Beirut barracks bombings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110123025437/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921446,00.html to http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921446,00.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101105073316/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921350,00.html to http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921350,00.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140715151004/http://www.battleshipnewjersey.org:80/history/full_history.php to http://www.battleshipnewjersey.org/history/full_history.php
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090105182548/http://www.charlesglass.net/archives/2006/07/lebanon_agonist.html to http://www.charlesglass.net/archives/2006/07/lebanon_agonist.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120708194432/http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/World/Story/STIStory_819708.html to http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/World/Story/STIStory_819708.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140206201122/http://www.lejeune.usmc.mil:80/visitors/beirut%5Fmemorial/ to http://www.lejeune.usmc.mil/visitors/beirut_memorial
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121005234547/http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/beirut2.jpg to http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/beirut2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/terror.htm&h=266&w=400&sz=31&tbnid=ZqzcyNGIeZATfM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=135&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dbeirut%2Bmemorial%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=beirut+memorial&hl=en&usg=__HNACz8UJd57ON2LWTV0dV2K6XXE=&sa=X&ei=mt_pTtrkH4rnggf63KiWCQ&sqi=2&ved=0CIABEPUBMA0&dur=14120
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120419005424/http://ww2.dcmilitary.com/stories/102308/quanticosentry_28167.shtml to http://ww2.dcmilitary.com/stories/102308/quanticosentry_28167.shtml
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120106222530/http://op-for.com/2006/07/the_mother_of_the_sixth_fleet.html to http://op-for.com/2006/07/the_mother_of_the_sixth_fleet.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120106174608/http://www.beirut-documentary.org/stamp_disapproval.html to http://www.beirut-documentary.org/stamp_disapproval.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120106095553/http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2008/02/ap_lebanondead_080213/ to http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2008/02/ap_lebanondead_080213/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120207095226/http://www.rand.org:80/pubs/conf_proceedings/CF129/CF-129.chapter6.html to https://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/CF129/CF-129.chapter6.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060627233836/http://ibiblio.net:80/hyperwar/AMH/XX/MidEast/Lebanon-1982-1984/USMC-Lebanon82/index.html to http://ibiblio.net/hyperwar/AMH/XX/MidEast/Lebanon-1982-1984/USMC-Lebanon82/index.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120406084104/http://www.beirutcoin.com/ to http://www.beirutcoin.com/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100618182951/http://www.soldiersperspective.us:80/2008/10/20/remembering-americas-first-suicide-bombing to http://www.soldiersperspective.us/2008/10/20/remembering-americas-first-suicide-bombing
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on 1983 Beirut barracks bombings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120209130055/http://www.beirutveterans.org/usoroomdonationpage.html to http://www.beirutveterans.org/usoroomdonationpage.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1983 Beirut barracks bombings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060505094449/http://perleslaw.com/pdf/peterson.pdf to http://perleslaw.com/pdf/peterson.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on 1983 Beirut barracks bombings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140526034524/http://marines.dodlive.mil/2012/10/22/the-impact-of-the-beirut-bombing/ to http://marines.dodlive.mil/2012/10/22/the-impact-of-the-beirut-bombing/
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/17/AR2006071700912.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jeffreygoldberg.net/articles/tny/a_reporter_at_large_in_the_par.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig4/bovard1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I found this article that provides a couple of sources that do not agree with the common belief of Hezbollah or Iran's involvement:
* President Reagan's Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger said that, "We still do not have the actual knowledge of who did the bombing of the Marine barracks at the Beirut Airport, and we certainly didn't then."
* There is no consensus Hezbollah was actually formed at the time of bombing. 
I will try to gather more sources as it happened before that we accused some people and it later turned out to be foggy if not totally false. Hostility shadows the truth.--Kazemita1 (talk) 07:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iran Involvement 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1983 Beirut barracks bombings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051226101352/http://www.lebaneseforces.com/images/blt1983/ to http://www.lebaneseforces.com/images/blt1983/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Does not belong, if one day historians see that remark as one of the more important aspects of this then sure it can go in the lead. As of now it is a politician making an off-hand reference. nableezy - 20:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pence in the lead 

message: At this article, XXzoonamiXX has removed RS content from Oxford University Press that he personally disagrees with no fewer than seven times (, , , , , , ) despite being reverted by three different users including myself and is now socking to evade his current block for edit warring at USS Cole bombing. Max Abrahms (2019), a leading authority on terrorism published by OUP (one of the most prestigious university presses in the world), states (p. 43):  Yet XXzoonamiXX has continually deleted one short sentence summarizing Abrahms's analysis, at first providing no edit summary and hoping to avoid any transparency over his actions, and then offering ever more contradictory and incoherent word salad responses when pressed on his rationale ("It doesn't matter if it's a gold standard, it's a matter of a biased perspective which should be neutral in regards to universal definition of terrorism. This is not one of them and it doesn't make it right"; "What basis do you have for adding this information in other than being 'reliable'? Just because they're reliable information regarding on a definition that is clearly outdated doesn't mean they're asserted as should be debated") while insisting (with no sources or evidence) that "this debate has already been settled." XXzoonamiXX cited no basis in policy (e.g., WP:V, WP:RS, WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE) for his reverts and appeared to stipulate that the source is reliable despite his personal disagreement, meaning that I could not simply appeal to (say) WP:RSN or WP:FTN or WP:NPOVN to determine if OUP is a reputable publisher or a publisher of FRINGE ideas (not that the answer to such questions is in doubt) as XXzoonamiXX could always say that I was forum-shopping to game a content dispute and that he would not accept (say) RSN as having jurisdiction over his arbitrary, subjective, and undefined personal dislike of RS content. (I detest WP:POINTY editors that go to RSN to affirm, say, the reliability of The New York Times when the actual point of contention is weight, but I genuinely cannot tell if XXzoonamiXX is so completely incompetent that he doubts the reliability of OUP or believes that his personal opinion constitutes a "refutation" of OUP.)
A deeper examination of XXzoonamiXX's antics here reveals a disturbing pattern of ownership, as he has been engaged in a long-term edit war with virtually all other contributors for years now to label the 1983 bombings as terrorism in the infobox and lede, reinstating text to that effect at least 10 times since 2016 (, , , , , , , , , ), with more than half of those being within the past six months. From past discussions, it seems unlikely that there was ever consensus to describe the bombings as "terrorist" in Wikipedia's voice, yet XXzoonamiXX invariably returns to try to slip the label back in as soon as other editors let their guard down, never backed by RS despite his vague assurances that "every reliable book and articles on the internet says the incident to be terrorism many times. You could look them up for yourself." Honestly, this would all be funny if XXzoonamiXX wasn't so genuinely successful at wearing down the patience of other editors.
It's worth noting that I previously had no objection to describing the 1983 bombings as terrorism in the lede because my impression was that many RS do categorize it as such and that it's not Wikipedia's place to second-guess RS; given that Abrahms critiques many other sources that he says are guilty of "lumping" terrorist and guerrilla activity to create a misleading impression of terrorist successes, I never tried to modify the lede to reflect his position, which may be in the minority (but certainly not FRINGE, as OUP does not publish FRINGE content). Yet I was genuinely taken aback by the fanatical certainty with which XXzoonamiXX overtly threw Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines out the window to purge Abrahms/OUP for not telling him what he wanted to hear. XXzoonamiXX's misconduct is especially egregious because he is obsessed with tarring specific incidents as terrorism in the ledes of various articles—with all of the negative connotations of murdering civilians, ISIS-style, that come with that word—using a loose definition that doesn't specifically entail targeting civilians, but he simultaneously tries to obscure this new definition by removing detailed targeting information from the body (e.g., XXzoonamiXX replaces "220 U.S. marines, 18 sailors, and three soldiers; 58 French paratroopers" with "241 U.S. peacekeepers, 58 French peacekeepers"). After all, why does XXzoonamiXX even consider Abrahms/OUP to be so problematic to the narrative that he is advancing if they agree on the basic fact that the 1983 bombings did not target civilians, but simply disagree on the definition of terrorism? It seems that XXzoonamiXX wants to have his cake and eat it, too—for reasons of plausible deniability, he will say that "There's no universal definition that (terrorism) only applies to civilians," but he will then turn around and purge Abrahms/OUP simply for mentioning the obvious fact that the 1983 bombings didn't target random civilians, because he wants readers to associate the forerunner to Hezbollah with the likes of ISIS.
This has gone on long enough, and I urge page watchers to be vigilant once XXzoonamiXX's current edit warring block expires, although I will also be asking an admin if it should be extended in light of his block evasion.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a WP:request for comment might be in order here, there is a very clear tendency for American POV-pushing in this article. We can't simply take American POV at face value when there are obviously dissenting views as to whether this was a terrorist attack or not (as well as the American motives, which were hardly benevolent), and we probably need a deep revert to get rid of the POV. FunkMonk (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

text: I support the inclusion of the Abrahms source. One can legitimately agree or disagree with the opinion itself, but one can't disagree that the source is reliable and written by an expert in the field. It's strikes me as a perspective worth mentioning in the article.Handy History Handbook (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I also noticed that the "terrorist" label in the lede is sourced to the commander of the USMNF at the time of the bombings, Col. Timothy J. Geraghty. As of the current revision, Geraghty's 2009 memoir is cited as a source 41 separate times, never with clear in-text attribution. While Geraghty may have a unique perspective into this incident that merits inclusion, relying so heavily on a primary source when numerous secondary reliable sources have extensively documented both the bombings and the relevant political/military context in which they occurred seems to invite questions about this article's impartiality. Regardless of his personal insights, Geraghty is not an expert on terrorism and his description of the bombers as terrorists should be seen as pejorative—not as a factual statement.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long-term, sustained edit warring/POV-pushing