Talk:Criticism of the war on terror

Oh my god, why is this article mostly just copied from the main War on Terrorism article?

That pretty much sums it up. VolatileChemical 18:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Heu...no ^_^Mrpouetpouet 22:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is nothing like what I'd hoped to find

I expected a rational, (relatively) unbiased discussion of the various criticisms leveled against the 'War on Terror'. Instead what I got were criticisms of the war on terror. Let me make this important point: this article is supposed to be ABOUT the criticisms of the War on Terror, it is not supposed to BE a criticism of the War on Terror. I'm sorry, but even given that I happen to agree with many of the main points espoused, this piece reads more like an Op-Ed then an encyclopedia article. And that's not what I come to Wikipedia for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.26.83 (talk) 07:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

A long list of "criticisms" will always look to you like a prolonged criticism; I don't quite understand what you're getting at. What are you looking for? Counter arguments to the criticism? Haha. 165.123.207.134 (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with the expectations from the unsigned comment from 72.241.26.83. This article focusess primarily on the criticisms against the "war on terror." This article is not neutral at all, and must be read from that perspective. Is there something that can be done to make this article much more neutral? TrekCaptainUSA (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms do not exist in a vacuum. They are part of a discourse, and each criticism has counter-arguments leveled against it, particularly on an issue as dialectical as the War on Terror. There are NO explications of responses to any of the criticisms in this article. A truly unbiased article would have BOTH the criticism of the War on Terror AND discursive responses to these criticisms. This reads more like a long tirade than a balanced explanation of the debate over the war on terror. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.149.178 (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of the War on Terror is still in the middle of developing. There is still much to add to it and to organize. It is very clear this page is not yet in a perfection stage, since there are few links to it and it has only a few discussion topics. Because it is obviously still under development, we should be stating the precise possible improvements instead of vaguely ranting "It's bad!" 66.183.59.211 (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Even when it is fully developed, it will still be biased. Many articles beginning with "Criticism of" are not neutral, and they don't look like they are trying to become neutral, such as "Criticism of religion" 98.248.151.150 (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Unilateralism and the "with us or against us" speech"

I've always been both disappointed and slightly amused by the uproar about George W. Bush's infamous "you're either with us or against us" speech from 2001, which has for years now been roundly criticized and lampooned as representing a dangerously simple-minded, arrogant, or even downright evil world view. The criticism is more than a little bit ironic, considering the original source of the phrase. Bush was, after all, quoting Jesus Christ in the Gospel of Matthew: "He who is not with me is against me" (Matthew 12:30) Mardiste (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right, but this is an opportunity to make a note of anyone who criticizes that part of the speech. They are, after all, saying they could find a way to compromise with evil. People who'd make such a compromise should never be forgotten. If they're notable, they should be listed either here or within an appropriate article.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

TERMINAL UNAVAILABLE DECADANT MISCREANT: ... it ain't working for the man 'leapfrog' it ain't working "says the man" on this agreed levels; ; to this new level - he wanted it to 'jumping jack like a black and white minstrel' into the hands of a fundamentalist that was not temptable by it; ; however he has yet to find one, and his watch is close to damage - the end of level demon he faces - a paraneofundamentalist - but in that case zoroastra - zarathustra; ; but then if he looks at both their shadows does he find teaching to be the unmentionable martyr... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.249.118 (talk) 12:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

HUH? - Richrakh````

Trust the Neo-Cons to genuinely think such a ridiculous, moronic fallacy like "you're either with us or with the terrorists" (ie. what Bush said) is a rational statement that holds complete weight of argument. 124.148.207.134 (talk) 07:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Hm. The way this "war on terrorism" is described...

...makes it sound like a twisted, concrete (as opposed to abstract) version of the Muslim jihad (which is striving against the desire to do evil as a method of benefitting oneself). 207.210.29.71 (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Criticism of the War on Terror

We should add a section like this for a place for negative thoughts about this criticism. This should restore the neutrality of this article, and allow a place for other opinions to move into. "Criticism of Criticism of the War on Terror" may sound weird, but this article seriously needs more than one prespective. 66.183.59.211 (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

This section is hilariously lacking in neutrality and awareness of grammar: There have been important criticisms that there have been double-standards in Bush Administration's War on Terror. These double-standards have involved the unwillingness of the United States to send military troops into Pakistan to search for Osama Bin Ladin because the Bush administration has been unwilling to violate the sovereignty of Pakistan, who has exported nuclear technology to North Korea. Whereas the Bush Administration has had no inhibitions about violating the sovereignty of Iraq on claims that Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction on Kurdish citizens in Iraq, and had ties to al-Qaeda. These actions raise concern to critics about the objective of the invasion, mainly having it look like the real objective of the invasion in Iraq was to secure the oil reserves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.87.8 (talk) 12:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have made some minor changes in grammar, but the root of this article's problem is that it is a hot mess. It makes no thematic sense, the lede does not properly summarize the article in any way, and the subsections delve off into wild tangents. In other words, it does not rise to encyclopedic standards, and needs to be completely reorganized. Once this is accomplished, neutrality should take care of itself. The article's subject should be treated, at least ideally, not from the proponent's POV with various personal criticisms, but instead should objectively set forth criticism of the war on terror in a manner that makes sense, and is supported by cites from reliable sources.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree. Like most 'Criticisms of' articles, it is a grab bag of unrelated or semi-related complaints, criticisms, gripes, etc, thrown together without regard to wp:OR or wp:note. I highly recommend a rewrite. Bonewah (talk) 04:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• I removed some portions that are woefully unsourced, and got rid of a blog as an unreliable source. As stated, this article needs a cohesiveness and scholarship that is sorely missing at this point.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• I removed another section as unsourced POV. If anyone would like to do some research and re-add it, please do so.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The article changed significantly since Dec. 2007, I've removed the NPOV template, please use {{POV-section}} or better yet {{POV-statement}} for statements and detail issues here. This will help address them quickly. - RoyBoy 03:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge section from main article

Per WP:CRIT#Separate articles devoted to criticism, trivia or reception (history), I am proposing the criticism of the War on Terror, located on that page be merged here, and summarized as stated in the linked essay. Specifically due to:

There are times when a separate "criticism" article makes sense, but they are rare. For example, "Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics", has over 200 references that cover substantial sourced information. The main article is very long and there is no simple way to integrate the content of the "concerns and controversies" in accordance with the summary style guideline, so a summary section is included in the main article with a link to the sub-article.

Since there is already an article that separately deals with criticism of the other article's subject, the criticism should be included here, and a summary in accordance with WP:SS of all view points of the multiple criticisms, should be left in place in the current section. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Disagree. Based on content size alone. The criticism section in the War on Terror should be a summary of what is included in this article. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 21:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The content found in the War on Terror article goes beyond the size of summary, and therefore, beyond a paragraph or two highlighting key points, the rest of the content should be merged/moved here. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

'War on terror' first used in 1980's?

This is my first talk post on wikipedia, so forgive me if I do anything wrong, but I remember reading that the term 'War on Terror' was actually coined at a 1980's conference after the Iran hostage crisis. I'm not entirely sure about the source , since it was a borrowed book, but it was probably in Melani McAlister's 'Epic Encounters'. I feel this is something that should definitely be covered in the article, and would help fix it's obvious bias.

Rgtvandenberg (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

US-safe terrorist organizations

this article lacks of a section about terrorist organizations which US or UN does not fight with. for example PKK has bases in Iraq but US does not need to fight against PKK although it is a terrorist organization. this example shows that this war is not against terrorism. for ten years no PKK militant have been neutralized by allied. Turkey has to fight alone against PKK or has to unite with Iran. A Nato member is attacked by a terrorist organization and does not have any help from US, which is operating "war on terrorism". this article has to have a section about this situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.187.49.214 (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

the "Pejorative terms" section

i don't think the term "Pejorative terms" fits wiki's NPOV policy 85.195.69.112 (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

War on Immigration

I got rid of it. The reason is that the entire section was, essentially, a stretch filled with POV and original research, though the research was admittedly rather good (though the thematic characterization of that research was not scholarship at its best). I would suggest this portion be included in an article on illegal immigration and policy in the United States.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

POV fork

This article is clearly a POV fork intended to isolate aspects of this topic, not just criticism, from the larger subject. For example, the "Role of US media" section was once part of the larger parent article in 2011 and is not necessarily critical of the War on Terror as much as it is a form of media criticism. Viriditas (talk) 11:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Criticism of the War on Terror. 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/20090114085106/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com:80/html/nationworld/2002023596_russanal02.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002023596_russanal02.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100612123848/http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta06/ERES1507.htm to http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta06/ERES1507.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100621090252/http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/PDF/detainees/Getting_to_Ground_Truth_090804.pdf to http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/PDF/detainees/Getting_to_Ground_Truth_090804.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Criticism of the War on Terror. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5412316/site/newsweek/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081228094109/http://pewglobal.org/commentary/display.php?AnalysisID=1019 to http://pewglobal.org/commentary/display.php?AnalysisID=1019

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)