![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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 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'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)
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)
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)
"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)
Cut:
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)
Would someone kindly install it? I'm not very up on installing citations to articles yet. Wzrd1 ( talk) 03:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Found a picture over on the Yemen page. Its a start at least.
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)
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)
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
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)
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 [email protected] 108.52.174.138 ( 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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I've removed an inappropriate edit to "See also" by User:Burtonjf, 15:48, 4 November 2012, which is really for discussion:
•Λmniarix• ( talk) 11:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
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)
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)
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)
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)
Yes, this is exactly “up for debate” here, that is the purpose of the page. Qwirkle ( talk) 02:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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). ~ Super Hamster 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)
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)