Contents 1 Contemporaneous wars 2 Operation Orchard 3 Insurgency in Sa'dah 4 About adding new wars 5 Lebanon 6 Title Off-Center 7 Advance of the Islamic Courts Union in Somalia 8 I am going to remove Lebanon and Israel/Palestinian territories, as this has got nothing to do with the socalled WOT 9 Saudi Arabia 10 Adding Colombia 11 Fatah-Hamas conflict?

[edit] Contemporaneous wars

If you want to add all the "Contemporaneous Wars" you'd have to add ALL Ongoing conflicts. Not just the ones _you_ consider "war on terror".

Maybe therefore its best to remove the "Contemporaneous Wars" list from the box. And then make a seperate box for Ongoing Conflicts - PietervHuis (talk) 10:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

OK I agree. Still, the chechen war was a contemporaneous one. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea it is, but so many other wars/conflicts are. The creation of a seperate box for Ongoing conflicts is a pretty good idea , it could be used on other war pages as well. I'll make it myself maybe. - PietervHuis (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Orchard

The article does not mention terrorists, so I see no reason for its inclusion. Unless someone can give a balanced reason for its inclusion. Chwyatt (talk) 07:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Because North Korean nuclear scientists were killed in the attack and the Sirians were also involved. Both have been placed on the U.S. list of so-called Axis of evil countries which support terrorism and those countries are according to the Americans their enemies in their so-called War on Terrorism. Also the Americans were the ones who delayed and later gave the go-ahead for the operation to the Israelis. Top Gun

Yet there is still no mention of terrorism or a referenced link to the ‘war on terrorism’ in the article. Unless there is an encyclopaedic and balanced connection, I see no reason for addition to this template. If the US or Israeli governments link this to the ‘war on terrorism’, and that is mentioned in the article, then I see a reason to add it to the template. I would be happy to leave operation orchard in, if there is a referenced link added to the article. Otherwise, anyone could add anything depending on what side of the fence they sit on. Chwyatt (talk) 07:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I must concur here with chwyatt, the discussion must take place in Operation Orchard, and put |partof= the War on Terrorism with a source in the infobox before everything. Another thing, is the strike an actual campaign? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If the article gets a proper source I will support It's incusion in Template:War on Terrorism --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Insurgency in Sa'dah

I think the Sa'dah conflict conflict should be added to the campaign box. And I will do that. Read these two references http://www.globalpolitician.com/21614-yemen-arab http://www.globalpolitician.com/22563-yemen before making any changes or reverts.

It cannot stand here before any mention of the WoT is in the article. This discussion should be moved here --TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

additionally, I dispute the sources as they say ex-mujahideen fight against the Shia --TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About adding new wars

Please do not add an article if there's no consensus on that article's talk page regarding it being a part of the WoT. Thanks, --TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This is a controversial issue. Whilst we will never get a unanimous decision, we should at least try and get a general agreement. Chwyatt (talk) 08:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lebanon

If there is no problem I would like to add the 2008 unrest in Lebanon to the box. The situation is almost exactly the same like the Hamas takeover of Gaza. We got a U.S.-backed government which also got military aid from the U.S. which is fighting against three different militant groups which are armed by Syria and Iran. The enemies of the U.S. in the WoT. I know what you are going to ask a reference which states that this is part of WoT. Whell for now we don't have one. Like we don't have one for the previous conflict in Lebanon in the palestinian camp last year and the conflict in Gaza but we still linked them with WoT.Top Gun

As I said before, it would be better to discuss it THERE. I will leave it however until more discussion--TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

To quote an editor from the article It has been seen by some as an attempt by the United States to neutralize Hezbollah, after failed attempts during the 2006 Lebanon War and the 2007 Lebanon conflict, which journalist Seymour Hersh said to be the work of the U.S and Saudi Arabia, through Bandar bin Sultan. This is directly linked to those two conflicts plus the Gaza conflict.Top Gun

Bush said today "The international community will not allow the Iranian and Syrian regimes, via their proxies, to return Lebanon to foreign domination and control,". He said Washington would help Siniora by strengthening his armed forces. In other words they are again trying to save there investments in Lebanon like they did last year. Top Gun

[edit] Title Off-Center

It looks pretty sloppy to me, but I'm not sure how to correct it. -- VegitaU (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advance of the Islamic Courts Union in Somalia

I wanted to discuss that we add this article to be one of the campaigns in the campaignbox. The advance of the ICU in Somalia was a prelude to the current Somali-Ethiopian war which is part of WoT. Also the militias that the ICU defeated during their rise where CIA-financed (admitedly). So if nobody has a problem with this I would add it to the campaignbox. But what to call it because we already have a title under Somalia? So what about 1st Somalia and 2nd Somalia?

Okay--TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I am going to remove Lebanon and Israel/Palestinian territories, as this has got nothing to do with the socalled WOT

None of these things would have happened, if it was not for Israels existence/actions. If some of its neighbours want to get rid of it, it is a regional affair, not a part of the socalled WOT. You got to understand that Israel is just being opportunistic by tying its own wars with that of socalled WOT. Israel and its lobby in America are very clever, and it is even possible they blew this menace about socalled WOT OUT OF PROPORTION - why? - why would an ally of the U.S (its only ally on the face of the earth) want to blow a thing like this out of proportion? Well americans - ask yourself, your liver and your friends. What is sure,is that few of you folks would argue against that Israel has profitted enormously on the socalled WOT; its old enemies has now become the enemies of the worlds only superpower. But still it should be regarded as a regional affair. More important, saying that Israel and the US are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: the US has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around. Support for Israel is not the only source of anti-American terrorism, but it is an important one, and it makes winning the war on terror more difficult.Nick Finnsbury (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have put it back until this is discussed.

Lets have a little balance here. Israeli policy has contributed to the Palestinian conflict. But Israel is now an internationally recognised United Nations member. And the US is not Israel’s only ally. The EU and Australia and others recognise Israel’s right to exist and be free from terror attacks. The only difference is is that the US give’s Israel a big pay cheque.

These conflicts also continue because some of the Palestinian leaders and terrorist groups don’t want a negotiated settlement with Israel, but want to slaughter Israeli civilians. This conflict continues because of some actions of the US and Israeli governments and because of some elements of the Palestinian leadership that have no interest in peace. Regardless of your political views and my political views, one thing that unites the Palestinians, the Israelis and the US, is that these conflicts have global interconnections. Both Bin Laden and George Bush have linked the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to action’s against the US (namely 9/11), and therefore, the WOT.

The problem with this template is that it has the War in Afghanistan that has broad international support, linked with insurgencies in Columbia and the Maghreb, that are not linked in most countries eyes. I don’t think even the US administration links them. But if you are going to have a disparate list of ongoing conflicts, then the Fatah–Hamas conflict is as valid (I would say even more so) as any of the others. This issue needs further discussion before any deletions. Chwyatt (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Saudi Arabia

It's been agreed on Talk:Terrorism_in_Saudi_Arabia#Name_innacuracy that there was no military conflict in Saudi Arabia, just a long-term terrorist campaign, hence the name of the article. As there are currently no sources calling it as such, it cannot go into this box. When/if the name insurgency is restored it can return. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adding Colombia

I realy do not understand why you are removing the Colombian conflict from the list TheFEARGod. I previously discussed the issue of Colombia with you and you agreed to put it in the box. It is a coflict that, like the conflict in the Phillipines, has merged into the WoT. These references confirm that after 9/11 the Americans increased their military aid to Colombia and sent more military trainers to train government troops to fight the FARC. Also, the FARC is considered by the US a terrorist organisation. Yes, the conflict was their before, but not it can be considered part of the overall WoT. Here are some references that back up my point of view on this. And until you find solid reason to remove Colombia please don't. [[1]][[2]][[3]][[4]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.236.45 (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

as was agreed before, it should be settlet on the colombia war's talk page. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fatah-Hamas conflict?

This has nothing to do with any war on terrorism. Fatah nor Hamas considered the other as terrorists, they fought each other for other reasons. While I don't think Israel's wars with Lebanon and the Gaza Strip were wars on terrorism, at least in those cases, Israel claimed that they were fighting a war against terrorism so that could merit the inclusion of the 2006 and 2008-09 wars in the campaignbox, but this is not the case with the Palestinian civil strife/war. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)