Talk:List of bombings during the Iraq War

Assassination of de Mello

Is this technically an assassination? I mean to say, is there any reason to believe he was the intended victim, and all others merely incidental in the minds of the terrorists? This may be akin to saying that a certain general killed in the Pentagon attack was assassinated. High profile? Yep. Presumed to be at attack site? Yep. Targeted specifically? Hard to say... 66.224.3.237 (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Attack or not?

Baghdad bridge stampede: I wonder if it is classified as a terror attack. Bomb-caused panic.... --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"Terrorist" attack?

Attack on Forward Operating Base Marez Is this an act of terrorism or an act of resistance? A military target of an occupying force was attacked and not civilians or the 'legit' government. It's pretty subjective and pretty much a western POV. I'll remove it for now. 62.195.150.231 22:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right --TheFEARgod (Ч) 02:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Attack on Forward Operating Base Marez should remain because the name of this article is not terrorist attacks of the iraq war but bombings and terrorist attack itc. This falls in to the categpry of bombings also the Kufa sheling is not a terrorist attack but an artilery attack by an unknown force. It should stick I will place it again before we reach a more biger consensus.(Top Gun) 16:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The article needs some rewriting then, since it's pushing the term "terrorism" on all attacks, even on acts of resistance. The invasion of Iraq and control of it by the US military and it's allies have always been seen as an occupying force and not as a legit government. 62.195.150.231 19:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid this article is biased since it confuses the terms terrorists and insurgents and thus makes readers believe that the attacks against Iraqi civilians are carried by the resistance fighters - it reminds me the same thing we daily hear from the C.N.N.: every single person who resists the invasion is an insane fundamentalist responsible for murdering innocent people. All materials that reflect the influence of the U.S. propaganda must be deleted here. Asharidu (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

title change

We should change the title to something a little less POV. These attacks are completely legitimate acts of resistence against and imperialsist fascist occupier and the people that choose to collaborate with them. 35.11.183.95 22:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Or at least list US bombings here as well. or, if a complete list is impossible, statistics of yearly bombings.

Or change the title to something like Bombings By Insurgents during the Iraq War. 47.28.102.21 (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Well,get an account so people will even consider your point. Richardkselby 21:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Richardkselby, although I am not swayed by 35.11.183.95's comment, he/she does not need to possess an account in order for his/her views to be considered. The possession or non-possession of an account has no bearing on the validity of an argument.

In response to 35.11.183.95 ... the attacks listed on this page targeted civilians, and not Coalition or Iraqi security forces. Also, your concern for POV might come across better if the second sentence of your comment was not itself POV. That said, a name change may be appropriate. I could suggest Notable insurgent attacks of the Iraq War, though I do not insist on it. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Terrorist attacks of the Iraq War → Bombing attacks since the 2003 invasion of Iraq — I think the current title is problematic in many ways:

• Title implies all combatants of the Iraq war commit terrorist attacks. It isn't "Terrorism in Iraq" but "Terrorist attacks of the Iraq War"
• Although I personally feel most/all listed attacks to be terrorist, this view is not shared by a large majority. A sizable group of people see the conflict as a civil war as well as an "independence struggle".
• Some actions by the coalition troops have been "interpreted" as terrorism. While I do not share the pov, I do feel it is important to avoid soapboxyness in the article as much as possible

The new name I came up is not the last word. Alternative proposals are more than welcome. -- Cat ^chi? 21:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Highly reluctantly I agree with you. But I want to start a new discussion see below on the campaignbox.Top Gun

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Bombing? What about kidnappings, attacks, etc.? "Bombing" would only refer to bombs, and there is no reason I can see to have separate articles for each kind of terrorist attack. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 19:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Campaignbox

I think we should revert to the previous campaigbox that was used in the article because, here are my reasons:

Yes, it is more good looking than the previous template, BUT all of the mayor attacks that are listed there should be in plane view. Currently the template is at the bottom and out of view, and the previous campaignbox was right at the top, as it is we can not put it anywhere at the top unless we revert to the old one, also you said that the box was too large for a campaignbox, I don't think so, have you seen the Vietnam war campaignbox, that is most likely the largest campaignbox that exists nad it is nothing conmpared to this one. I think that user FearGod agrees with me that everyone should be able to see planely and easy the list of mayor attacks in some way.Top Gun

Should be more careful about the word "Terrorist"

Using it in the article without citation is bad, using it the title is atrocious. What is wrong with simply calling them 'attacks'? Let the reader decide. Damburger 20:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as nobody seems interested in commenting on this change, I'm going to go ahead and do it. Damburger 15:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

hey, a new POV issue here:

1. It's not proven that all the attacks were by insurgents (no responsibility claim). So "insurgent attacks" is not good.
2. Those attacks are indeed TERRORIST (whether by insurgents or others..) as attacks on civilians (see terrorism). --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I am quite surprised by the fact that WP:Terrorist is not cited here. The title is clearly in abrogation of the wikipedia policy here.

While I the title definately needs to change, I'm quite open to what it can change to. Perhaps "Terror attacks..." (terror doesn't necessarily imply terrorist, despite the latter's etymelogical roots). Or non-governmental/non-state attacks... Something along these lines. Lihaas (talk) 03:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• I am quite surprised to find the content above. The simple fact is that a major motivation behind the kind of attacks listed is to influence political directions by instilling fear. How is the WP:COMMONNAME not appropriate? Please also note that the section reached through the shortcut WP:TERRORIST is found on a project page that is basically entitled WP:Words to watch and which begins with the cautionary statement: "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, ..." We also need to keep track of the first pillar of Wikipedia in that we are here to build an encyclopaedia. Our priority is to present clear informative content. The rest is guidelines which, in various cases, may variously apply. GregKaye 03:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Someone messed-up the campaignbox

Fix it. --HanzoHattori (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Should this page redirect to Muslim — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePinkSquid12 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Clean up

I've attempted to clean up this area of Wikipedia with this navbox.

It is still a bit of a mess but I think it is some improvement.

Ulcerspar12 (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of bombings during the Iraq War. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070427144813/http://terrorism.9f.com/eng.iraq.attacks.htm to http://terrorism.9f.com/eng.iraq.attacks.htm

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).

• 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) 01:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

POV/Bias in this article, and overall coverage of Iraq War

I arrived at this page while searching for a list of American air strikes in Iraq, which are specifically excluded from this list, for reasons that are completely unspecified. I have gleaned that this used to be a list of "Terrorist Attacks" which I agree is problematic, but the work here is not done. Wikipedia is not a tool for American military propaganda, it is a tool for transparent sharing of information between people, most of whom are civilians and would be interested to know about the actions of the primary aggressor in this conflict (and, in my very biased opinion, the most powerful terrorist organization in the world): the US military.Troublinparadise (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

There is an external link to HRW. There should be a link to the Wikipedia page, but there doesn't seem to be one. Wikipedia is a tool. Keith McClary (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Inaccurate tite

Why does this article exclude airstrikes? This means the article title is currently inaccurate. Konli17 (talk) 10:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Unless there's a good reason for this, I propose we either move the article title or include notable airstrikes. Konli17 (talk) 00:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

"Terrorism in Iraq" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Terrorism in Iraq. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 29#Terrorism in Iraq until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thepharoah17 (talk) 08:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

"Iraqi terrorists" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Iraqi terrorists. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 29#Iraqi terrorists until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thepharoah17 (talk) 08:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)