| advertise add site services publishers database health videos | ![]() | about toolbar stats live show health store more stuff JOIN/LOGIN |
Nuclear Terrorism, War & Survival ssrsi.org | War And Terrorism: How They Affect Us drskillas.com | With the Trauma of Terrorism and War... symptomlog.com | Talking Watch, Talking Watches, Talking Clock, Talking Bible, Talking... independentliving.com |
[edit] 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)
[edit] This article is nothing like what I'd hoped to findI 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)
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) [edit] 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)
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) [edit] 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) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ↑ top of page ↑ | about thumbshots |