Talk:2001 U.S. Attack on Afghanistan
|
|
How to coordinate the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack entry with this entry
Is this the right name for the entry?
The attack will be ongoing; The Cunctator assumed we don't also want a "October 8, 2001 Coalition Attack..." entry, etc. It was changed to "2001 Coalition Attack on Afghanistan" for that reason.
Weigh in:
- on Afghanistan?
- Would it be better to say "Attack on Taliban"? I'd say no, since the attacks are in that country and will necessarily affect the physical country as well as its inhabitants, even if the Taliban are the only people the coalition cares about.
- As Afghanistan exists now more as a geographic rather than political entity, Attack in Afghanistan may be more appropriate.
- Also, the US has stated that they intend to fight not just in Afghanistan, but wherever terrorism which threatens the US exists. Perhaps "U.S.-Al Qaeda War" would be more accurate. Or "Global Anti-Terrorist War"?
- If one of those terms, or one like it, comes into common usage in reference to a long-term "war" againist whatever, then we should use them then. That page could then link to this one. As it is, the story is about the Attack on Afghanistan, which is appropriate to be seperate.
- Capitalization?
The capitalization of Coalition and Attack imply that this a formal title. While capitalization matches the precedent set by "Terrorist Attack", it's against the wider Wikipedia precedent. Terrorist Attack has remained capitalized mainly because it's so big and unwieldy to change wholesale.
Associated non-attack stuff
Certainly humanitarian and diplomatic actions are associated with this. Do we make them subsidiary to the military campaign? I'd say we might as well, until it becomes clear that they deserve independence. For example, we had the US governmental response to the September 11 attack as a subentry until they launched a full-scale military attack, meriting its own entry.
U.S. or international?
- Coalition?
Is "Coalition" the best word? It may imply more unity than is appropriate; it's certainly a primarily US attack. However, Larry Sanger feels that "Coalition" is better than "U.S". Any title chosen will necessarily leave out nuances and have certain biases; the only useful recourse is to be as comprehensive and informative in the entry itself.
More data points: All the American news media call it "America Attacks" or some such; the U.S. government has stated repeatedly that it will lead; the BBC calls this a "confrontation between Afghanistan and the U.S."; the majority of the forces are American, and the entire campaign is unequivocally led by the U.S. Looks like it really should be under "2001 U.S. Attack on Afghanistan".
I think it should be called "U.S. Attack on Afghanistan" since that what it is referred to both within and outside of the U.S. It may not be perfectly precise, but we are not in the business of correcting language, see the debate about "America" vs. "U.S." --AxelBoldt
- Time stamps?
Considering the international character of the coalition attack, isn't it better to give the hours in GMT instead of EDT? -- Tsja I'd say that people should feel free to use either or both, such as what's being done on the main page. The most important thing right now is to get as much information as possible onto the Timeline; it can then be fixed/edited once there. -- The Cunctator
- It is estimated that in Afghanistan there are three to four million Afghans suffering from hunger or starvation.
Just saying this in the context of this article makes it seem as though the attacks, which began five days ago, are responsible for the hunger and starvation of 3-4 million Afghans. What, in actuality, are the causes of this hunger and starvation? Or the competing explanations thereof, if there are any? --LMS
Surely there is a less jarring way of expressing the skepticism, on the part of some, that bin Laden's terrorism actually is terrorism, other than putting "terrorism" in scare quotes? That really looks bad--not at all NPOV. It makes it look as if Wikipedia is probably of the opinion that what the U.S. calls terrorism isn't actually terrorism, or that the word "terrorism" is never properly applied, or that it isn't properly applied, for whatever reason, in this case...something like that. I'm not saying to remove the scare quotes, I'm saying to make explicit what the scare quotes express implicitly--and then attribute that view to some people, such as peace activists and general all-around skeptics. --Larry Sanger
Why are there events from Sept. and now Nov. on the Oct. timeline page? --rmhermen
This article needs an overhaul, in view of recent events. There are also quite a few places in which it is pretty obviously non-NPOV. --LMS
This page is misnamed. The U.S. is not attacking Afghanistan -- but rather is attacking the Taliban. The phrase "attack on Afghanistan" sounds hostile towards Afghanis.
Would we call the D-Day landing at Normandy an "attack on France?"
On the other hand, for those who consider the Taliban to be the rightful rulers of Afganistan -- despite the extraordinarily low number of other countries which recognize it (2 or 3), an attack on the Taliban would be considered an attack on the nation rather than an attempt to liberate the nation.
Is that the intent of the page title?
I propose 2001 War in Afghanistan - Tim
- Well, France was occupied by a foreign occupier(Germany); Afghanistan was not. The war in Afghanistan is against the prevailing domestically based government there, with the goal of replacing it with a different domestically based ruling government. By the way, our war on Germany was not against the German people, but against the German government; so, according to the logic that says we never have a war "on" a country whenever we are not hostile to the citizens who live there, that would mean that there is never a war "on" any country unless it is a terrorist fatwah that specifically declares the citizens to be the enemy.
- In other words, I would say that the war "on" Afghanistan is perfectly legitimate usage, but not necessarily the correct one for other reasons. The real question is, what is the prevailing name for this conflict in the media and everyday speech? Has it come to be known as a war "on" the country or a war "in" the country? --Egern
Common usage here in New Zealand seems to be "US war in Afghanistan". It has gone surpisingly fast, but I wouldn't count on its being over in 2001. -AjC
In the video released by bin Laden following the start of the war, he calls for a holy war against not just the West but against any country that does not condemn the US response. This means, he is calling for jihad against at least the entire non-Muslim world. - Tim (this is in regards to my edit, revision 55, on the main page, btw)
This sentence from the article needs some work: "The United States has made it clear that the war will continue after dealing with whomever is responsible for the September 11 attack, but it is very unclear exactly what that means."
Shouldn't this article be renamed to something without the year; the attack is still going on in 2002 as well, so 2001 certainly doesn't cover it. Also, "2001 U.S. Attack on Afghanistan" implies for me that there was another U.S. Attack on Afghanistan in another year - which there hasn't been as far as I know. So I propose to move it to "U.S. Attack on Afghanistan". jheijmans
- I like the idea. We can disambiguate later after the Yanks attack them again. --maveric149
The Soviets tried for 10 years to conquer and Afghanistan and make it a captive nation, as they did to Poland and other satellite nations in eastern Europe. They occupied Kabul.
What the Soviets did is generally called an "invasion" and classed as unprovoked aggression. They were not responding to an attack or even a threat from Afghanistan.
Why is America branded as an "attacker" when it (A) has not shown any desire to occupy the capitol permaently (we left soon after flushing the Taliban from Kabul) (B) has specifically and credibly announced that it would not engage in "nation-building" but leave the establishment of a new non-Taliban government up to the Afghani people? Moreover, people in Afghanistan rejoiced when the Taliban were kicked out. How is that a response to an "attack"?
Not only is the title of this article biased, but the tone is anti-American throughout. That's why I tacked on a disclaimer as a preface. The article implies that America is bullying Afghanistan on the on the flimsiest of pretexts.
Should there be a mention in the article that the operation was initially called "Infinite Justice"? --Daniel C. Boyer
Thanks for mentioning the following, Maveric:
- The Taliban were targeted because they continued to harbor and refused to hand over the suspected mastermind of the attack, Osama bin Laden and his noted terrorist organization Al-Qaeda, after the United States asked for extradition of Bin Laden and members of Al-Qaeda. Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda organization, furthermore, are suspected of conducting previous attacks against United States interests in East Africa and Arabia that killed over 400 people and Al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan were the target of previous US-led strikes in the nation.
Without this info, the US campaign against the Taliban would seem as unjustified as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan ten years earlier. By the way, why is there not even a stub about the Soviet invasion, while gallons of ink has been spilled impugning US motives for kicking out the hated Taliban? Ed Poor
- Your welcome -- I couldn't let those vital facts not be stated. BTW the Soviet Invasion is covered in some detail at Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. Where the hell did we get all this information and history about Afghanistan? Many of the Afghan articles should probably be broken up and I don't see anything wrong with summarizing the main points of the invasion at Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and having a separate article with the details at Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Later! --maveric149