Talk:USS Cole bombing/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

March 2004

Was this a terrorist attack, a destroyer seems like a Legitimate Military Target. It looks more like an act of banditism as the atackers ( didn't have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; weren't carrying arms openly; — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.39.5 (talk) 07:40, 13 March 2004 (UTC)

I agree. The popular press (and president Clinton, if that quotation is correct) called this a terrorist attack incorrectly. That statement does not have to go, it should be balanced to make it NPOV. Since this was a military target, it should not be considered terrorism. See Terrorism, definition 1. Note that definition 2 is a pejorative characterization and does not describe anything concrete.
The article needs to be self-consistent. The first sentence says, "The USS Cole bombing was a terrorist attack" which conflicts with the later sentence about US law. There is also the categorization: Category:United States history (terrorism) which needs to be addressed.
There is also no mention of the people who committed the bombing. No reference to Al-Qaida. This article needs work, IMO. Thoughts? --ChrisRuvolo 22:51, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Made the terrorism changes. Still needs a big section on the investigation. It should mention these guys: [1] [2]. 5 arrests in Yemen, one guy in US custody. Start of trial: [3] --ChrisRuvolo 10:10, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I dispute the defintion of terrorism as written in the Terrorism article. The dictionary definiton of this term is "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." Based on this definition the use of the word terrorism is appropriate.
What dictionary is that from? Here is the definition from WordNet 2.0 (emphasis mine):
terrorism - n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear [syn: {act of terrorism}, {terrorist act}]
We could throw dictionary definitions back and forth all day.. but when it comes down to it, Wikipedia should at least be self-consistent. If you dispute the definition of terrorism, dispute that article. See Talk:Terrorism. It has been discussed extensively. Until that definition changes, I don't think you should dispute this article. --ChrisRuvolo 14:45, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

mumbles about "is that being hashed out again?* In other news: 10 USS Cole suspects escape Yemeni jail. Kwantus 04:39, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)

I have no interest in the debate re: terrorism or not but I did categorize in the Category:al-Qaida activities which I think we can all agree it was. They were the ones involved, no matter how you name it.--Hooperbloob 00:01, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It is absolutely ridiculous to call this terrorism as this was an attack on a military vessel. Merat 09:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  1. The definition of terrorism is fluid and cannot be hammered down.
  2. However you define it, Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization
  3. Terrorists can commit acts of war and can also perform humanitarian roles
  4. Al Qaeda perpetrated this attack and should be labeled as an act of violence by a terrorist organization (a fine line, I grant you) — BQZip01 — talk 21:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
So can we both agree that the "terrorist attack" infobox should be replaced with something else? --Merat 23:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I had reinstalled the terror incident infobox. As alluded to wrt rules of engagement, being a military target is not enough. More facts must be considered.

Let's imagine for a moment that the suicide bombers chickened out that day, and so there was no bombing. But let's also imagine that a sightseeing boat came alongside moments later. The Cole's watch sees something fishy among the sightseers, believes them to be terrorists, and its gunners destroy the boat. Then, an investigation proves the watch's judgement was incorrect. The fishy item was a lunch basket.

The ship's watch may have had good reason to think it was a bomb, but that's not enough. For one thing, this was a neutral port. For another, the sightseers were wearing civilian clothes. The crew needed a greater degree of certainty that a danger existed before they could defend themselves.

Besides, the infobox doesn't actually say it's a terrorist incident anyway.
-- Randy2063 22:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
-- Randy2063 20:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC) (reposted in different position)

I have begun looking for a different infobox. Apparently, Merat's objection is to the name of the userbox, not the contents, since the word "terrorist" does not appear in the infobox itself, only in the template's name. Note also that the template does not add the category of "Terrorist incidents" or anything similar to the page, so it appears to be semantics. Nonetheless, I'll see if I can find something similar, or I may just create a new template with the same information and a different name. Horologium t-c 21:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
See new section below. Horologium t-c 04:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I have changed the wording of 'terrorist attack' to 'suicide attack' as attacking to an operational military vessel has nothing to do with terrorism. See the definitions of terrorism in Wikipedia and discuss it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:3C15:C100:C41C:F5D5:7226:1E9D (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Reporting of facts versus statements of fact

I've actually edited out the short section which discussed the non-terroristic nature of the USS Cole's attack. Whether it was a terroristic attack or not, Wikipedia cannot make bald assertions; we would need to write "However, some commentators (sources, sources) have argued that the attacks were not 'terrorism' according to (legitimate definition), as the USS Cole was a military target". And the (sources, sources) will need to be impressive, and I can't find any. There are plenty of highly partisan commentators which discuss this issue [4], [5] [6] [7], the ones on the left arguing that the USS Cole deserved to be hit in retaliation for the starvation deaths of Iraqi citizens, the ones on the right arguing that it was an act of war which fully justifies invading Iraq, and they all like to point out their own cleverness in being so perceptive. I cannot however find an impressive, simple news report or authoritative statement from a respectful source which illustrates the point we are trying to make; and I'm not even sure that I should be working backwards from a conclusion. -Ashley Pomeroy 22:30, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That is too many citations and anyway we shouldn't need citations to define the word terrorism correctly. It shouldn't be framed in the context of what the left vs the right are arguing about, the issue as I see it about having an accurate definition of an english word. zen master T 22:45, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sorry; I've added a section header to make my point more clear. I'm not debating the definition of terrorism; my point is that it's not for Wikipedia to make statements, it instead has to report the statements of others. -Ashley Pomeroy 22:50, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Are you saying we have to include a citation everytime someone says someone else has misused an english word? The definition of terrorism listed in this talk page above states equivocally that the targets must be civilians for it to fit the definition of terrorism, so in that light one needs only to cite a dictionary to prove clinton's usage was incorrect, right? zen master T 22:55, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia can't use an active, editorial voice; and in this particular case - a controversial one, involving the words of a President, no less - I argue in favour in citing credible dissenting viewpoints. At the very least, we need to specifically point out an agreed definition of terrorism or article of U.S. or international law, rather than simply stating "under U.S. law, this statement is incorrect". As the article was beforehand, it read as if an overly-enthusiastic commentator - presumably one of the chaps above - had lept into that section to baldly point something out, without using journalistic methodology. As for "the defintion of terrorism listed in this talk page above", put it in the article! -Ashley Pomeroy 23:06, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree that paragraph should be rewritten, the article should state directly that terrorism is defined this way by a dictionary and contrast that with how former president cliton uses it. What do you think about that? To a certain extent I agree about the U.S. law statement needing citations, but wikipedia generally does not require that from what i've seen for perhaps unconstroversial statements about the law (if there is even one counter citation that says U.S. law defines terrorism differently e.g. to include military targets then I'd say we should completely remove that statement). zen master T 23:24, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Restored sections

Picture was messed up by 69.202.29.27, which I fixed, then noticed several sections missing. Keep an eye out for anon edits. Leonard G. 17:35, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Suicide attacks

While at the time, (1943-44), Piloted aircraft attacks by the Japanese were called "suicide" attacks, self destruction was not the motivation of the pilots and these are now more appropriately called kamakazi attacks, which is the term used by the attackers. Will attacks against military targets such as that upon the Cole someday be called martyrdom or jihad attacks? Just food for thought. Leonard G. 17:35, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Common Sense

"a small craft approached the port side of the destroyer,"

i am not really familiar with the topic, but this seems to lack common sense to me. there is a small craft approaching a destroyer(!!!!), and everyone is asleep ? was there an inquiry in this security breach ? i guess not.... i don't want to come off as an conpiracy theorist here, but it just seems incomprehensible to me that such a floating array of guns just act like a sitting duck. Refueling or not, there has to be someone in the watchtower... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.131.124.234 (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The rules of engagement prohibited the crew of the Cole from firing first. Stupid, but true. The rules of engagement should require warnings (radio, bullhorn), followed by warning shots and then fire for effect, within seconds if needed. I certainly hope the US Navy woke up after this incident, better late than never. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.86.254  (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing stupid about prohibiting sailors from shooting at passing boats. The boat was not perceived to be a threat. Only an obvious military threat should evoke a military response. With terrorism that is rare. The solution isn't to shoot the locals indescriminantly (My Lai), but to operate a cordon, and search approaching vessels or people. Easily done. What actually happened was that there was no alert at all, despite the obvious security risk - rather like Pearl Harbour. The commander wasn't promoted, it is true - but he should have been court martialled.
Is it appropriate to shoot at anyone who comes within 200 yards of an American military post or vessel? American's already have a reputation for being trigger-happy, but that would be ridiculous overkill even for Americans.JohnC (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Other attacks

Cut:

  • The attack was the deadliest against a US Naval vessel since the Iraqi attack on the USS Stark (FFG-31) on May 17th, 1987.

What's the best way to clue in readers that there was another attack? --Uncle Ed 14:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment in the Edit was "the kind of journalistic stuff we don't need". I don't consider relative comparison journalistic. 17 killed, 39 injured, as compared to what? Setting aside the obvious humanitarian consideration: is 17 a lot? ...does this type thing happen often? These are the obvious questions that follow the simple data. There have been three significant attacks on US warships in peace time, and they have occurred rarely. These are not journalist embellishments. The original statement is factually accurate, and relevant. Thaimoss 01:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a citation needed tag on the first paragraph. Citation: http://www.dod.gov/pubs/foi/reading_room/65rev.pdf

Would someone kindly install it? I'm not very up on installing citations to articles yet.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Current Precautions

Are there currently any precautions or defensible actions US naval ships can execute in situations similar to the USS Cole bombing? According to Al-Quaida's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahri, in a message released 9/11/2006, the US's risk of being attacked in the Persian Gulf will dramatically increase. If the US currently cannot strike water craft approaching their ships due to rules of engagement, what will the enlisted men and women do to defend themselves against assaults? 18:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Was al Qaeda Responsible?

I'm not sure that al Qaeda was ever conclusively implicated in the attack. For an even-handed account of the attack and subsequent investigation, see http://www.al-bab.com/yemen/cole1.htm.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejungkurth (talk • contribs) 17:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Report confirming al-Qaeda involvement

These sentences -- "The Clinton Administration was heavily criticized for failing to militarily respond to the attack on the USS Cole. Others also fault the Bush Administration for not acting on the report's conclusions." -- seem to be referring to a report that confirms al-Qaeda involvement, but there doesn't seem to be any discussion of this beforehand. Instead, there's discussion of a Navy report afterward. I think some key discussion may be missing here. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to provide some context on how and when that involvement was confirmed, and have mostly rewritten and reordered the section on criticism to avoid that jarring segue. JamieMcCarthy 17:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Map

A Map of Yemen

Found a picture over on the Yemen page. Its a start at least.

New Infobox

I have reinserted a new infobox (Template:Infobox Al Qaeda operation) to address the concern about the name of the previous infobox template. It is the same infobox, but it doesn't have the word "terrorist" in its name. Hopefully, this will avert an edit war over something that is truly trivial. Horologium t-c 04:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I can accept this, but why not just use an ordinary combat infobox? Merat 02:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Because it wasn't a conventional battle, and the information was presented in a different format. Combat infoboxes are for battles, not asymmetric warfare incidents. (Working hard not to use the t-word...) Horologium t-c 02:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
What's the principal diffrence between dropping a bomb from a plane and doing it this way? The suicide involved? Merat 03:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The 1998 bombing of Iraq for example. How much of a "conventional battle" was that? Yet there is still a combat infobox in that article. Merat 04:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The Bombing incident you mention above was not an example of asymmetric warfare; it was warfare between three clearly defined and universally recognized nations. That is why it has a combat infobox. (They may have been vastly different in combat capabilities, but nobody describes the German blitzkrieg of The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Denmark as "asymmetric warfare".)
When I get a chance, I will be subbing in the new template on all of the Al Qaeda incidents listed in the second (smaller) infobox, to provide consistency. Most of Al Qaeda's activities were unquestionably terroristic in nature, but a few of them might be disputed, so using Template:Infobox Al Qaeda operation will eliminate edit wars over semantic issues. Horologium t-c 18:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I personally object to this being considered terrorism, but there was absolutely nothing wrong with the original template (and its name). In April, the template was moved from Template:Infobox terrorist attack to Template:Infobox civilian attack (for a number of reasons). As a result, if you were to simply update the name of the template, where "terrorist" is not used, the name of the template would accurately describe the attack (because civilian refers to the perpetrators, not the targets). -- tariqabjotu 12:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
It is Template:Infobox civilian attack, with a redirect to give it the "Al Qaeda operation" name. I saw the name change, but I was concerned that the new name might still cause issues (it is not clear that it meant whether the attack was perpetrated by or targeting civilians), so I came up with one that is unambiguous and can be used elsewhere, for both civilian and military Al-Qaeda targets. I personally have no problem with any of the three template names (they are all the same template), but an editor had twice removed the infobox over the name. If you want to RfD the redirect, go ahead, but my solution appears to solve the problem with a single redirect, and the name of the infobox should eliminate any other good faith efforts to improve the accuracy of the article. I may not agree with Merat, but I have no doubt of his sincerity. Others may share his views, and the "civilian attack" title could cause a similar issue with another editor at a later date. Horologium t-c 20:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
This template is getting deleted because the only place it is used is this talk section. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Crew training section

There are no dates in this new section. When did the ceremony take place? When was the facility constructed? The only date appearing in the piece is in the third paragraph, where the year 2001 appears. A little Google searching seems to indicate that the facility just opened (in June 2007), but I'd like to nail down the date of the ceremony.

Additionally, the whole section reads like a press release, complete with the word "we", which is definitely a bad thing in any article space. I am not finding any web cites that indicate that it is plagiarized, but the first-person usage in the paragraph suggests a conflict of interest, at the least. Horologium t-c 17:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This section sounds like it was written by Congressman Kirk's campaign staff. I even voted for the guy, but sheesh - adding POV tag until it gets cleaned up. Ronnotel 14:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Google finally found the original, from Kirk's official website.
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/il10_kirk/Kirk_Battle_Stations_21_Will_Save_Lives.html
I deleted the entire section. If someone wants to rewrite it instead of plagiarizing, have at it. Horologium t-c 15:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Nicely done. It would be interesting to track this down and see if the comment from Popkeene originated from within a Congressional office building. Just sayin' is all. Ronnotel 16:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Yikes! I put a warning on the wrong page. I removed it from the IP user who edited after Popkeene, and I put in on pop's page. However, I don't know if he's going to contribute again, as his account was created 15 minutes before his first (and only) edit. We'll see. I wouldn't be surprised if he is a Kirk staffer, as congressional aides have been caught monkeying with Wikipedia entries that involve their bosses. This one was relatively benign, except for the copyright vio. Horologium t-c 16:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

SA-7

The following appears to be a talk page comment but was mistakenly placed on the main page. There are devices that can detect an infrared missile in flight. See also Infrared countermeasures in general and CAMPS for civil aircraft. --Dual Freq (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This final part would be impossible though leaving much of this story in doubt. The SA-7 is a man portable SAM system that uses a passive infared sensor to lock onto its target. Being passive it is impossible to actually detect when one is targeting a plane, helicopter, or for that matter any target at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.168.208.5 (talk • contribs) 20:48, January 11, 2008

Motive

I've added the label that this article does not represent a world view. As it stands, the article focuses only on the USA's perspective of the bombing. For this reason, the article explains only the aftermath of the bombing. There should be some information detailing the events that might have triggered the aggression and bombing.iamorlando 11:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily motive, but search or Google "Melvin Goodman Shotgun Diplomacy," from December 2000. U.S. State Dept. issued cautions & warnings in re Yemen for 2 years before attack. & It is the U.S. State Dept. that arranges port visits, refueling stops for U.S. warships in foreign lands.
Goodman wrote that it was the commander of U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf, MajGen Anthony Zinni, who arranged the refueling stop: his way of easing tension betw. U.S. & Yemen. In his command position, Zinni had to be aware of the State Dept. warnings. The crux of the Goodman article is that U.S. armed forces were heavily involved in foreign policy for some time before the Cole incident. BubbleDine (talk) 11:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the clearest motive for the attack on the Cole was to use it as a way of “forcing” the US Navy into reversing its decision to use Aden as a refueling and provisioning base and, ultimately,to return to using Diego Garcia. The cost to the Navy was in terms of the amount of time it could keep ships on station in the Gulf and, thereby, the reduction of its presence in the region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by sgale1@mac.com108.52.174.138 (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm making a move to have the banner removed from the main page. Note that this is a matter with the U.S. hence the ship name USS Cole. Other countries were not involved, excpet for the terrorists which there countrys are unknown.Plyhmrp (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Plyhmrp

Suicide Bomber Names

I removed the names of the supposed executors of the attack. Until someone cites that information, it's not appropriate to put names up baselessly. -- Veggy (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks

Template:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Aude (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The real culprit.

It's very difficult to really ascertained which were the true culprits. claims made by both US and Al-Qaeda are meant more to served their geopolitical agendas rather then trying to uncover the truth. It get so predictable, that i can almost always tell where the finger will be pointed each time after this kind of attack, even before the official announcement.

161.142.139.3 (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Size of the hole?

The article says 40x40' but this news video [8] at about 00:47 it says 60x40'. Just saying.... MagnoliaSouth (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

HT3 Kenneth E. "Clodfelter", not "Coldfelter"

The fallen sailor's name is Hull Maintenance Technician 3rd Class (HT3) Kenneth E. Clodfelter. He was 21, from Mechanicsville, Virginia. Please see the following link: http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/keclodfelter.htm 24.127.10.243 (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

USS Iowa Memorial

I've removed an inappropriate edit to "See also" by User:Burtonjf, 15:48, 4 November 2012, which is really for discussion:

Believe inaccurate reference to "USS Iowa Memorial" should reference to "USS Wisconsin, BB-64, an Iowa-class battleship." USS Wisconsin currently functions as a museum ship operated by Nauticus, the National Maritime Center in Norfolk, Virginia. Source/reference: Wikipedia reference "USS Wisconsin, BB-64."
John Burton Captain, USN (retired)

•Λmniarix• (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Strela-2

"their helicopter "was painted by an SA-7 missile" and "had to take evasive maneuvers"."

Because infrared homing missiles don't emit any radiation (microwave, infrared or otherwise) you can't detect them until they are launched. It's was impossible for them to detect they had been painted unless someone actually fired a missile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.211.59.75 (talk) 05:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

definition of terrorism

According to wikipedia's own "terrorism" link, the attack on the USS Cole was not terrorism, I'm really not sure if this has been raised before. It's pretty obvious that attacking the USS Cole in the middle east is not, at the least, unambiguously, an attack against noncombatants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spokelse (talk • contribs) 05:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

A little off-topic, but you have to be careful with the definition of terrorism and terrorist. As I understand it the US meets the accepted definition of terrorist. It saddens me as a patriotic american. If the US is going to get the benefit in the press then other countries and organizations should enjoy it too. Otherwise there is a bias and "fair and balanced" is lost. Jeffrey Walton (talk) 16:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Flaw?

After reading the article, I cannot tell if it was a suicide attack or if the bombers fled. Is it hidden somewhere in the article? Or improve/edit the article? Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Medical Treatments Post-Attack

In the aftermath section, there a notable absences of a no section on the medical care provided to the wounded. Some of the info might be available in this journal: http://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Abstract/2003/12000/Distribution_and_Care_of_Shipboard_Blast_Injuries.3.aspx ForumRoleplay (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on USS Cole bombing. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

|needhelp=<Section “External links”, “Detailed information and timeline” (http://www.al-bab.com/yemen/cole1.htm), Error “Page not found. The requested page "/yemen/cole1.htm" could not be found”> Call-me-Denz (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

400-700 lb of explosive

The article states (and cites), "Around 400 to 700 pounds (180 to 320 kg) of explosive were used". I am interested in learning how so much explosive was obtained. It seems ike it is a lot of explosive and that kind of purchase would be controlled and tracked. Following the cited articles does not reveal it. Jeffrey Walton (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Anwar Al-Awlaki References & Relevancy

Wikipedia's guidelines on relevancy favor removing references to Anwar Al-Awlaki from the USS Cole bombing article. This reference falls under "Relevance Level C": Al-Awlaki is an associate of one of Khalid al-Mihdar (Relevance B) an alleged USS Cole bombing planners. There is no evidence from reliable sources that Al-Awlaki was involved in any aspect of this event.Djrun (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

"Terrorist" again

This edit [9] re-inserts the word "terrorist" despite the discussion above which at least concludes with a lack of consensus over the use of the word "terrorist," and despite the Wikipedia guideline at WP:TERRORIST Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Contentious labels, which says that even if it is used in multiple WP:RS, it should be used with attribution. I think that guideline should be the default, in absence of consensus to change it.

There's enough of a disagreement here, supported by WP:RS, to justify a separate section on whether it is a terrorist attack or not. But it seems that [[WP:TERRORIST] would prevent us from calling it a terrorist attack in Wikipedia's own voice.

According to History.com the U.S.S. Cole was engaged in enforcing the trade sanctions against Iraq. If the Cole was engaged in a military mission, and the casualties were military members on duty, I don't see how the term "terrorist" applies.

I don't want to change it myself, but I'd like to see a good explanation of why we should go agains the guideline WP:TERRORIST in the absence of consensus, and I'd invite a regular editor here to change it. --Nbauman (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Describing an attack on a military target then engaged in some operation reflexively as “terrorism”, is I would agree, usually wrong. Qwirkle (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Engaging in an act of violence by a non-state actor with the purpose of forcing a targeted party outside of hostilities to change its political objectives (Al-Qaeda stated they wanted the U.S. to get out of the Middle East) meets the criteria for the act of terrorism. There's no universal definition that it only applies to civilians. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 02:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Nbauman.
Terrorism is usually violence against non-combatants mostly civilians and neutral military personnelper terrorism. An attack by a non-state actor isnt usually a terrorist attack.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
If you attack any person illegally with the purpose of influencing the government's policy, then it's universally agreed it's terrorism. This isn't up for debate. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Palpable nonsense. Was Washington a terrorist? He directed forces which attacked the current government, quite illegally in their opinion, in order to influence its policy. By your definition, which is far from universal, he was.

Yes, this is exactly “up for debate” here, that is the purpose of the page. Qwirkle (talk) 02:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Wrong comparison, George Washington was the commander of the Continental Army, and the Revolutionary War was officially an armed conflict between the 13 colonies and the UK. Since the Continental soldiers were dressed in proper uniforms in time of war and abide by the laws and customs of war, it's not terrorism. The War in Afghanistan between Coalition/Afghan government forces and Taliban/insurgents are also not terrorism in a sense since it was (and still is) a state of active hostilities. Non-state actors attacking military targets outside of hostilities with the purpose of forcing targeted parties regardless of status to adhere to the perpetrators' political demands are terrorism, and there's plenty of definition to back it up. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 03:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Which, not surprisingly, has nothing to do with what you wrote just above. Qwirkle (talk) 13:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I answered it thoroughly and completely, and you're telling me my answer has nothing to do with it? You're really are pushing it. End of discussion. Find a new hobby over something that is already settled in the debate rather than removing just because you don't feel like it's right despite evidence to the contrary. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
No, you answered it to your own satisfaction, which is often not the same thing. Just a little above, you published your home-grown definition of terrorism, which covered every rebellion in history. When that was pointed out, you backpedaled.

This has been an ongoing question in the article for many years; your own personal judgement does not trump wider consensus. Qwirkle (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

No, it's about proper sources, not my own satisfaction. So far, you haven't answered my question thoroughly and completely; you instead tempered with my answer and you ignore every aspect of the reality of the circumstance of this event. You rather let your own feelings cloud your judgment since I answered the Revolutionary War question. In response, then you decide to temper and make fun of my answer -- which is something a low-life person can do. Whatever you feel is fine, but you cannot change something that is already been universall settled or change based on YOUR own personal feelings. As i said, You haven't provided a legitimate source for this removal and rather than doing so, you instead challenge me and accused me of being unfaithful when you have nothing constructive to provide for. Since you have nothing to counter my arguments without a backing of a legitimate source, I have no idea why you got hung up on this until just now. This conversation about this is a complete waste of time and non-debatable, which you continue to do so without any regards of inputs from other editors, who provides an actual, legitimate source. This isn't just true for this article, but every article that I worked on that you revert and delete content without regards to proper sources I and other editors posted. Let it go. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 00:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
"which is something a low-life person can do" That's a personal attack. How about we do a RfC and settle this once and for all? This problem goes back to 2005 and still it has not yet been solved.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
No, people like yourself still cannot grasp the actual definition of terrorism and you remove that definition just because you don't feel it's right - that is not legitimate fact. Also, telling him that tampering with someone's answer is something a low-life person can do is telling like it is, not a personal attack (otherwise, I would have said something like actually attacking his character mindlessly, which I did not so). It's not ok for someone to make fun of the user's responsive answer to a question being responded appropriately earlier regarding the American Revolution, then attacking someone for defending him/herself, which Qwirkle recently did (and his latest response to the admin board as well). Also, for the 100th time, proper sources say this is terrorism so it's already universally settled for what it really is, especially taking into account with personal feelings especially the differentiation in certain circumstances discussed in here in this talk page. Some people just still can't grasp the universal definition, when that is already settled by most countries and UN Conventions regarding terrorism. You want this thing settled? Unless you come up with actual clear-cut sources without contradiction that prove the definition of terrorism wrong in this article, then accept the event for what it really is and move on. Otherwise, doing so would be considered vandalism and harassment per Wikipedia's policy. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 04:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

We've clearly moved away from having a content discussion, and it doesn't look like it's going anywhere constructive. I second SharabSalam's suggestion for an RfC (editors from WP:MILITARY can be invited), if someone can write a neutral summary of the issue at hand (this topic area is out of my wheelhouse but I can give it a try tomorrow if needed). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd appreciate some extra eyes looking into XXzoonamiXX's conduct at 1983 Beirut barracks bombings, where he has removed RS content from Oxford University Press that he personally disagrees with no fewer than seven times ([10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]) despite being reverted by three different users including myself and is now socking to evade his current edit warring block. Max Abrahms (2019), a leading authority on terrorism published by OUP (one of the most prestigious university presses in the world), states (p. 43): "Researchers like to cite Hezbollah's success in coercing Western forces from Lebanon as prima facie evidence that terrorism works. ... But were the truck bombings really terrorist incidents? Not if terrorism is to mean violence directed against civilians. The target of the attacks was a barracks. Americans lost 220 Marines, eighteen sailors, and three soldiers in the deadliest single-day death toll for the U.S. Armed Forces since the Vietnam War. The French lost fifty-five paratroopers from the 1st Parachute Chasseur Regiment in the worst national military loss since the end of the Algerian War." 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 at the same article 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 ([17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]), 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.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Even today, it has been described as an "act of terrorism," "terrorist attack" and "attacked by terrorists"[27][28][29] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:447:4100:C120:49B4:1D62:9B91:B25B (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Reference 15 is dead

The link for reference 15, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/06/20/world/main297600.shtml, is dead, and I cannot find any other source for this information. Does someone know anywhere to find this source? If so, please update the reference. 203.96.204.252 (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I made this edit, where I added an archived version of the source, as well as another article from ABC News backing up the claims. Thanks for your inquiry! Cilidus (talk) 10:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:USS_Cole_bombing/Archive_1&oldid=1171066267"