Talk:List of terrorist incidents in 2009

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Attack on Dutch royal family[edit]

Please add the attack on Queen's Day (April 30th) in Apeldoorn, The Netherlands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stein NL (talk • contribs) 17:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey Wedding attack[edit]

The turkey wedding attack occured between two tribal groups from several villages. This is a family or criminal dispute. Not a terrorist attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patty wack (talk • contribs) 00:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in similiar vein i removed the protests on december 16th... no terrorist connection here and it appears to be just a shooting in a riot. Grant bud (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Hood shooting[edit]

The Fort Hood shooting has been removed twice (by 2 different editors) and re-added 3 times. It looks like an edit war is brewing. Is there consensus either way to include this incident here? My feeling is that it shouldn't be here yet. When/if it declared an act of terrorism by officials, it can always be added later. Thoughts? Dawn Bard (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The key word is "considered" in the lead. It has been "considered" a terrorist incident, regardless of whether it has been "established." --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would take the conclusion and verdict of a trial to actually establish it as terrorism. We can include it in this list earlier if the FBI declares that they are considering it terrorism and moving forward on a terrorism case. But "some guy wrote an opinion piece for Fox News" is not enough for inclusion here. The list would be tremendous and useless if everyone with an opinion could say "I think this incident is terrorism" and we include the incident on that opinion alone. The murder of George Tiller, for instance, was obviously terrorism, but it's not on this list because the authorities didn't treat it as terrorism. ~YellowFives 21:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
William, your cite says "Lieberman... wants Congress to determine WHETHER the shootings constitute a terrorist attack." You don't get to cherry pick the opinions of uninvolved people over the conclusions of the actual investigators. And the current version is a WP:BLP violation. ~YellowFives 21:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The assassination of George Tiller should be included here. The opinion of multiple experts and reliable sources merits inclusion as it does in the case of the Fort Hood terrorist attack. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it shouldn't, no more than the Knoxville Unitarian Universalist church shooting should be included in last year's list. We do not rely on opinions. The authorites are not calling this terrorism, therefore we do not call this terrorism. If the investigating authorities change, then we change. That's it. Calling this man a terrorist is an egregious violation of BLP, and you know it. ~YellowFives 01:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are not bound by the "authorities," we are bound by reliable sources. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are bound by BLP. ~YellowFives 02:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is that related to this? Are the events at Ft. Hood not being considered a terrorist incident by certain experts? --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In their opinion, maybe. And more often, you're mischaracterizing the articles you cite. Why is it so hard for you to just wait and see what happens? I have a few ideas, but I'll keep them to myself. Grsz11 02:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I heard the interview with the Colonel, read the blog posts by Hasan and learned about his attendence of the same mosque as the 9/11 terrorists. I felt it was obvious. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, "I felt it was obvious." Grsz11 03:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The FBI says that a US Army major suspected of killing 13 people was not part of a "broader terrorist plot". — "US Army attack 'not terror plot'". BBC News. 10 November 2009.. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the above article, concerning terrorism, it is irrelevant whether it was an individual act or not. "The terrorism task force concluded that Maj Hasan was not involved in terrorist planning." I think we will come to find out that is was a gross understatement. Officials have not concluded it as a terrorist plot but the fact that Hasan was reluctant to deploy, disagreed with the wars, was extreme/probably violent in his public Islamic views and attacked an Army readiness center seems to point in the direction of terrorism. He terrorized people that were returning from or preparing to deploy. We can have a lengthy discussion over the definition of terrorism but such an attack could be view as a way to strike fear into those deploying to Muslim countries. From my own standpoint, I see 3/4 terrorism in the act and 1/4 personal revenge (same thing?). However, innocent until proven guilty and a motive has yet to be officially established. I am confident that the bureaucratic records will show in the coming months or years that this was indeed an act of terrorism. If not, it will be extremely controversial. In the spirit of fairness and justice though, I don't think it should be listed yet. Certainly unusual but in my opinion, with reason and common sense, an act of terrorism.--Sanorton (talk) 03:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely SHOULD be there. It was much more serious than the June 1st attack in the U.S. (which also happened to be an attack on U.S. military personnel) which _is_ listed. It has been said that the Foot Hood shooting was "the worst terrorist act carried out on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001" (ex: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2009/11/at_ford_indiantown_gap_former.html) RobSimpson (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's some guy's opinion. We're interested in the conclusions of the investigating authorities. It is a BLP violation against Hasan to add this when the authorities have not made a determination that it is terrorism. Consensus here is clear. ~YellowFives 22:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with editors pushing to call this a terrorist event is because they see this event as terrorism while the facts don't support that right now. (And it is interesting how some make the connection that because he's a Muslim and because he spoke to a cleric who left the country, then he must therefore be a terrorist.) As of right now the authorities, reliable sources, and the courts have not classified this event as a terrorist event. It is what the authorities say, not the editors on Wikipedia, that matters in this matter. Give it due time if the authorities classify this as terrorism then we can too, if not then we cannot. Also, on a side note: if you remove the fact he was a Muslim and also that he was making inquires due to his job/religion, then this looks just like a work place shooting like many others including the one in Orlando a day after this shooting. Brothejr (talk) 09:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"It was much more serious than" - not relevant. Whether it was terrorism is a question of motivation. If, for example, the motivation was to kill people for purposes other than terror (as part of a attempt to weaken the US Army for example) it is not terrorism. Rich Farmbrough, 13:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
It doesn't matter what the authorities say, it matters what reliable sources say, and some reliable sources consider this a terrorist attack. The key word is "considered," just read the lead of this article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also remember that "considered" does not equal "it is" and it is what the authorities say that the reliable sources are reporting. As of right now it is people's opinions, including the article you are hanging your argument on. Give it a break and some time pass. Let the facts come out and then see if this is a terrorist event. Brothejr (talk) 10:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it matters what the authorities say. There being no common accepted definition of the word, there will need to be a consensus of RS saying it is before it is considered so. That consensus will be more easily attained if the US govt pronounces it to be an act of 'terrorism'. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read the lead. Considered is not "is." The U.S. Government is not the only reliable source. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well sadly, it is the U.S. Government (I.E. the investigators/prosecutors) where the information is coming from. As of right now there is a lot of hearsay out there with all sorts of people, including in that article that you are hanging your argument on, that are chiming in to say this was a terrorism event. I got to ask, why is so hard to wait and see when the facts come out in the trial? Why is there such a rush to proclaim this a terrorist event? While there are lots of people who are interpreting the facts as if he was a terrorist, when the authorities who are being reported in the news has not proclaimed this a terrorist event yet and are asking people not to jump to conclusions. Why is it so hard to wait? why the rush to judgment? Brothejr (talk) 09:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's like asking why rush to judge 9/11 a terrorist act or why rush to judge the Oklahoma City bombing a terrorist act. The act fits the definition. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The two examples you cited were called terrorist acts by the authorities and were duly reported by the reliable sources. However, in this case the authorities have not called this a terrorist event and have asked people not to jump to conclusions before the facts come out. Brothejr (talk) 09:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The act fits the definition", seems to be original research. Wikipedia relies on verifiability remember. Alastairward (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which has been provided. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently not, consensus seems to be against, so why not dig up more cites instead of arguing here? Alastairward (talk) 10:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're reaching with a lot of those, consensus is still in the air from what I can see of those cites. Why the rush to include it in the article? Alastairward (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reaching with none of them, they are all explicit. It should be included based on the fact that it is supported by reliable sources. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This thread ought to be closed. I'm surprised one editor is continuing his lone fight to declare the event "an act of terrorism". Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lone editor? Maybe you should read other comments and/or the reliable sources listed above. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP works by consensus. The preponderance of sources does not determine that consensus although it may eventually impact a change in that consensus to so list that article. However, looking at the opinions above, it's pretty clear where the land lies. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So then maybe an RFC should be conducted to determine the true consensus of the entire project. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see another attempt has been made without consensus to add this, citing a source that does not even include the word terrorism except in the URL link which redirects to a different link anyway. O Fenian (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy y'all. I'm only commenting on this because I follow Army events closely and figured I'd put my two cents in. I've been following this for awhile, with all the goings and comings of people's personal opinions on whether or not this was or was not -- or may or may not have been -- a terrorist attack. Perhaps this article title should be more neutral than "terrorist incidents"? (After all, as evidenced by the conversation, the term "terrorism" is extremely subjective. I'm all for removing everyone's personal feelings and making it more neutral.) Maybe the Fort Hood event entry should mirror the text of the Little Rock event from June 01, 2009? "Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, an American Muslim opened fire on a U.S. military recruiting office. Private William Long was killed and Private Quinton Ezeagwula was wounded." If we were to use this entry as a template, we could rewrite the Fort Hood shooting event (taking from the actual Fort Hood shooting entry) as: "Nidal Malik Hasan, an American Muslim of Palestinian descent and serving as a Major in the United States Army, opened fire on the Fort Hood military installation in Killeen, Texas." Connections to al-Qaeda are no longer in question (his emails to al-Qaeda are now documented), but it seems that the entry is stalled" on this point, so I would propose leaving it out. Also, on the point of what is and is not terrorism, as defined by the media and officials, take a look at the entry from February 4, Trent P. Pierce. I haven't found an article yet through Google (from a reliable, proven source -- not a blog) that calls that event a terrorist attack. Objectively, not all events are terrorist attacks and not all events have to be linked to al-Qaeda (or other terrorist organizations) to be terrorist attacks (consider that Timothy McVeigh had no (verifiable) connections to al-Qaeda but was himself still a domestic terrorist), so in my thinking, if the Fort Hood shooting is not a terrorist incident, then we need to heavily edit this page to remove most of these events or re-title the page more accurately. --Seth (talk) 12:30, 20 January 2010 (CST)

It's been added again on the basis of comments from the opening of a public hearing into the shooting. Alastairward (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stop removing the Fort Hood incident, it is "considered" terrorism among many in the mainstream as stated above. "Considered" is the only qualification for this page. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stop adding it without consensus, as it is not legally classed as terrorism I believe it should be left out. O Fenian (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what you believe. "Considered" is the only qualification necessary. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was not considered terrorism, anymore than the Columbine incident was. Recently an American white guy flew a plane into a government building. Was that "terrorism" in your book? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing on whether it was or was not terrorism. The fact is that it is considered terrorism by numerous in the mainstream including U.S. Senators, Congressmen, the former Attorney General, and most recently an Obama administration official. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What percentage of sources state that it was terrorism? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. However, <1% say it is not terrorism. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has the perpetrator been charged with terrorist offences? O Fenian (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have any on this list? That is not the criteria. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Labellings of terrorism are going, by definition, to be subjective. Since we do not take sides, we need objective criteria - that something has been labelled terrorism by an authority of weight, and that the perpetrator is not a state entity, would seem to be objective critera. By those criteria, the Fort Hood incident should qualify. If we do not like the current criteria, then we need to come up with alternative ones - going case by case is just a recipe for extended disputes that only end when one side can provoke the other into doing something dumb enough to merit a block -- which would be a uncivilized way of dealing with things, to say the least. RayTalk 02:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surely that the perpetrator has not been charged with any terrorist offence carries the greatest "authority of weight"? By that, the incident was verifiably not a terrorist incident. By claiming it was, Wikipedia is clearly taking sides. O Fenian (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A handful of sources at the time chose to call it terrorism. That don't make it so, nor does it justify using it here. Consensus in the media is that it's not terrorism. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are we an extension of consensus newsroom opinion now? The federal prosecutors? We should not be. If we as an encyclopedia are going to adhere to our principle of neutrality, we must adhere to neutral criteria for inclusion. Our current criteria are clearly neutral and have served us well. Why do you want to junk them here? RayTalk 03:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we should be. We go by sources. Very few sources called it terrorism, so calling it terrorism here is undue weight and skews neutrality. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Define "labelled as "terrorism"" please? Labelled by who? Is that just one source that is needed for any event? Federal prosecutors have not labelled is as terrorism have they? O Fenian (talk) 03:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as someone pointed out earlier, this is not a historic figure, this is a living human, and to call him a terrorist when he's not been charged as a terrorist, is a BLP violation, which trumps individual opinions as to whether he "fits" the criteria for a terrorist. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs, doing the "very few sources" thing is taking on an explicitly pro-majority point of view, which we should not do. Wikipedia is about neutrality, which is not the same as a tyranny of the media majority. Our neutral criteria, in this case, specify that we should include this article in the list, and (separately) in the category. Fenian, are you engaging in a rhetorical trope, or are you actually unaware of the meaning of the words? There is far more than a single source here; indeed, there are sufficiently many that no attempt to label the view as fringe could hold water. We must treat all credible viewpoints in a neutral way. So far, I have not seen any real attempt to reconcile your position of non-inclusion with the requirements for concrete, neutral criteria for inclusion. Please, let's try to find a way to reconcile the two here. If they can't be reconciled, I will insist on inclusion. RayTalk 03:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if you're going to include the car bombing of Trent P. Pierce at West Memphis, Arkansas, United States in February (even though no motive at all, much less a terroristic one, has been established in the act); the murder of Wichita, Kansas, USA physician George Tiller by Scott Roeder in May; and the murder by Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, at a U.S. military recruiting office of Pvt. William Long in June; the murder of a security guard at the Holocaust Memorial Museum at Washington DC, USA by James W. von Brunn, then you have also to include the murders which Major Hasan committed at Fort Hood, Texas, USA.

Your laudable desire not to unfairly stigmatize Maj. Hasan conflicts badly with Wikipedia's neutrality concept. One of the murders above, that of Dr. Tiller by Scott Roeder, has been adjudicated as a murder but not, as far as I am aware, as terrorism. James von Brunn was indicted on seven counts arising from the murder he committed and another shooting, but died in prison before he could be convicted - yet he's listed as a terrorist; there's no reason not to list the Fort Hood shooting as terrorism, given the fact that he very clearly indicated to associates his belief that "infidels" should be killed and that, on the morning before the attack he "intended to do God's work." By any consistent standard, Wikipedia should list Major Hasan's crimes as terrorist incidents. If no one can offer a convincing rebuttal of the points I've raised, I'm going to re-enter Major Hasan's murders at Fort Hood as a terrorist incident. The slain deserve no less.loupgarous (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your laudable desire not to unfairly stigmatize Maj. Hasan conflicts badly with Wikipedia's neutrality concept.; As a living person, there is an extra onus on us not to introduce untrue material to this article. That is not a conflict with the neutrality concept.
  • By any consistent standard, Wikipedia should list Major Hasan's crimes as terrorist incidents; If there are other entries in this article that do not deserve to be here, remove them. Two wrongs do not a right make.
  • The slain deserve no less; Wikipedia is not a memorial. No apologies owed to the dead or their relatives, we have our own standards to apply here. Alastairward (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There, removed those two entries (Tiller and the Holocaust museum incidents) as they were simple cases of murder. The wrongly accused subjects of the article deserve no less! Alastairward (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't buy that, Vfrickey. Each case is different. Just because James von Brunn has been declared terrorism doesn't mean Hasan should be. We need to go back to consensus of opinion. Of course, adherence to WP:NPOV means we must give weight to significant minority opinions, in this instance that he is considered by some to be a terrorist; it does by no stretch mean that we should label it as such by including it in this list, or in category:Terrorist incidents.That would be in severe breach of WP:UNDUE, IMHO. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Major Hasan's behavior both immediately prior to and long before the Fort Hood shooting establishes that his motives were consonant with those of other recent terrorists, namely a desire to punish members of the United States military for participating in operations in the Islamic world, and to strike at those who did not share his own vision of God. One can be politically correct and remove any references to the Fort Hood shootings as a terrorist act, but only at the cost of imposing one's point of view on a Wikipedia article and rendering it non-NPOV.loupgarous (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli terrorist bombardment gaza[edit]

Join please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.2.146.161 (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist attacks after lock[edit]

While the article is still in lockdown, this is the place to list current terrorist attacks that have happened and which may get overlooked by the time the article is reopened to editing. 72.229.156.157 (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • 10 November 2009, Charsadda in Pakistan - 20 killed, 50 injured in a blast in the center of a busy traffic intersection in the main market of the town. The use of suicide bombing has not been confirmed. This is the third terrorist attack in three days in Pakistan. Source - Deadly blast hits Pakistani town

Terrorist incidents[edit]

You add the accident in Peshawar on 5 December to terrorist incident.At starting of accident, media says that it is a car bomb.But when Bomb desposal scoud team check the car, but they doesnt found any bomb evidence.Whereas bomb desposal say that it is a chemical explotion in Chemical and paint shop.I think you people just add old news but it updated from terrorist incident to an accident. So please delete that accident from terrorist insidents. http://www.deccanherald.com/content/39593/blast-peshawar-market-two-killed.html I was know that you people add this news in terrorist incident because of wrong news spread by Pakistani media without any evidance.So i daily check the terrorist incident page.If terrorist incidents contain notains accident then street crimes also in the list.If terrorist incidents only contain terrorist incidents then dont add accident in terrorist incidents.So please delete Dec 5, 2009 Peshawar accident.A few days before more than 100 people killed in Russia.At starting of incident it is called terrorist incidents but after checking of their bomb desposal scoud that incident is an accident because of fire works.You only ad all terrorist incidents of Pakistan but you forget the trrorist incidents in other countries like in india, in November i doesnt know the date, a bomb blast in train in india.And it is own by Moists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.56.12 (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Peshawar, Pakistan incident[edit]

An anonymous IP requested that the Peshawar, Pakistan incident be removed, albeit in a rather unique method. (S)he said that it was an accidental explosion at a paint/chemical shop. Here is a news source citation: [1]. - Pingveno 03:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What necessitates the need for authority defined terrorism?[edit]

I realize this isn't a forum, but I would like some clarification.

Because after skimming through the above discussion about the Ft. Hood shootings, I cannot understand how or why the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting qualifies and the Ft. Hood shooting doesn't.

In the entire wiki article on the Holocaust Museum shooter, there is no mention of terrorism until you get to the final line of the article, where the word appears in a quotation from a visitor to the museum. He wasn't charged with terrorism - the first line of the article says it was first degree murder and firearms violations. He was a racist, and definitely had a perceived grudge against a particular sect of people. I don't know the criteria for being charged with terrorism, but this doesn't seem to fit the bill.

And if dozens of press articles calling the Ft. Hood shooting an act of terrorism doesn't suffice, there's absolutely no way that a single article in which a common citizen is quoted as calling it terrorism (and FTR, she just said "the terrorists win, she didn't even directly call it such). Again, there's nothing from an authority that calls it terrorism.

And as a suggestion, would it be possible to include in the opening a running tally of injured and deceased victims of terrorist attacks in 2009 or is this information already available somewhere else?

Lime in the Coconut 16:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like there wouldn't be any harm in removing the Holocaust Museum shooting from this list then. Alastairward (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very much agree. I suspect there may be a few similar ones in the article. It's now been removed. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second incident = terrorism?[edit]

A man sick in an airplane restroom isn't terrorism, regardless of the flight he was on. Should this be removed from the list? --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 22:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is sucide attack on Nato forces is a terrorist attack?[edit]

A man write the yesterday sucide attack on CIA(American military branch) in which 7 CIA agents killed.That man write the casualties as 8 which is a wrong figure.At starting of incident every media said 8 killed without any conformation but today as CIA said 7 killed so every media channel and website said 7.[1]I was also make a mistake by writing a revenge incident of finland.I want to remove that iincident but another man again rewrite that incident. I delete both news which i write which you write.I give him a sugesstion to make a sub article of terrorist incidents named "List of talibans attack" and daily update that article.Because he write one sucide attack on soldiers in which actually 7 CIA agents killed whereas he write wrong, he write 8.CIA is a branch of American military means that all those 7 were soldiers so thats why icasulities add those 7 soldiers in US casualties.There are more than 100 sucide attacks on nato soldiers in 2009 but none was written here except thats one which he write.Only those sucide attacks written on wikipedia in which taliban target civilians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.38.240 (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot comment on the content you're trying to post, but statements such as this one do not belong in the article itself. Please give time for a discussion to occur. Writing comments like those in the article may constitute vandalism. Thanks. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with 119.152.38.240. The incidents in question are not terrorism. One is a criminal act with no political motivation. The other is an act against what can be considered to be a legitimate military target in a war zone. It appears that most (all?) who have reverted your edits have done so on the grounds that you deleted material without stating the reason for the content removal in your edit summary. Often those who patrol recent changes will revert such material deletions without further investigation. Edit summaries are important in Wikipedia. I recommend you use them to avoid further misunderstandings. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He also, however, removed the mention of the shooting incident in Finland. Why is this not an act of terrorism? --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 02:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Please note that my reversions should not be taken as being against your content -- I never reverted the content you added, only the commentary that was directed at the editors, such as this one. Please leave those kinds of comments for talk pages. The content changes I have nothing against (though I am not an expert and am not qualified to make that assertion). --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a mistake, I did not post any content on the article page. I'm reffering to the IP User's removal of the Finland incident, which was removed again. I'm curious to know why this was removed. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 02:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Finland incident, I see this was a criminal act motivated by revenge and not by any political agenda or view. Unfortunately, premeditated murders occur all too often and multiple murders that include uninvolved bystanders are also all too common. However, I do not consider such cases to be terrorism if the motivation was of a personal nature, as it was for the Finland incident.(Moved to new topic below)
Regarding the Afghanistan bombing, I have to admit that this case is less clear. The target was a military installation in a war zone and the bomber was an apparent member of the group with which NATO are clearly at war. If a line were to be drawn somewhere between terrorism and acts-of-war, I would think this incident would fall well on the acts-of-war side of that line. That said, I see that this article lists numerous other cases of suicide bombings (and roadside bombs) targeting military personnel, so it appears that precedent has already been set. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 08:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I doesnt want to register.I am editing page and update page wwith ref without any registeration.I try to remove both incident but again anyone write both incidents there and give me warning messages to block my user.Can you please discuss the things which i said with that man who again write both incidents on terrorist incidents 2009.Please remove both incident.A feww weeks before on "14 December a man write that taliban ambush kill 16 Afghan police."Thats correct news.But not a terrorist incident, that was a part of war so i remove that incident from there.No one again try to write incident.But now same story, i want to remove but anyone write again with a warning message.The figure of deaths are wrong there are 7 CIA agents killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.23.223 (talk) 08:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.google.com.pk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&hs=m1r&q=7+CIA+killed+30+December&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=

Is sucide attack on Nato forces is a terrorist attack?(Part 2)[edit]

Sorry for my poor english.Maybe if you try then you can understtand meanings of my poor english.No one comment on my english on above discussionbecause maybe they understand what i want to say. Now i delete both incident from article terrorist incidents 2009.One was finland incident which is a revenge incident whereas 2nd was sucide attack on CIA soldiers killing 7 CIA soldiers.[1] Icasulties add those 7 casulties as US casulties.Because CIA is a branch of American military and those agents are actually soldiers who fight against taliban alongwith American soldiers.Those 7 soldiers are not civilians, not mc, pmc.Otherwise icasualties doesnt add any information about forion civilian casualties or mc, pmc casualties.For example latest Canadian casualties.5 Canadian killed in a IED 4 soldiers and 1 civilian(jonunralist).[2]But icasualtiess add 4 Canadian casualties mean and doesnt add any information about jounralist. Terrorist attacks means attack in which mostly innocent civilian target.But in that news 7 CIA agents which are actualy soldiers killed.So that is not a terrorist incident.There are several sucide atacks in Afghanistan in which mostly civilians killed.All those attacks are mention on the article.I doesnt comment nor remove them because those are really terrorist incident but here this attack is a part of war. There are several sucide attacks.Approximately more than 50 sucide attcks in 2009.But no one try to add those sucide attack in list of terrorist incident 2009.For example 2nd last sucide attack in which 2 british soldiers aongwith 2 afghan soldier killed in a sucide attack on 15 December.[3] I suggest that man who add "that finlaand inciident and 7 CIA soldiers killed" in terrorist incident.I suggest him to make a sub-article named list of revenge incdent and list of taliban attacks then add that finland incident and 7 CIA killed incident alongwith thousands of similar attacks in those sub-articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.23.223 (talk) 07:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For one, this is the English wikipedia. It may be best if you edited the wiki for your native language. Second, you need to back up your claims with sources. You keep saying "that is not a terrorist incident," but that is just your personal opinion. If you continue in this way, this IP address will be blocked for vandalism. --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.kyivpost.com/news/world/detail/56269/
  2. ^ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadian-journalist-four-soldiers-killed-in-afghanistan/article1415241/
  3. ^ http://news.ino.com/headlines/?newsid=121520090996

How is the Sello mall shooting terrorism?[edit]

(Moved from prior topic for separate discussion) I see this was a criminal act motivated by jealousy and revenge and not by any political agenda or view. Unfortunately, premeditated murders occur all too often and multiple murders that include uninvolved bystanders are also all too common. However, I do not consider such cases to be terrorism if the motivation was of a personal nature, as it was for the this incident. Thoughts? -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 09:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's too much of a tendency these days to politicise being of a different religion or ethnicity. Cases which are otherwise of misfit/loners going berserk with the gun are now getting treated as terrorism. Fort Hood shooting is a good example. It's just too much. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Terrorism is a tool, not a cause. It can be motivated by anything and carried out for any reason. Just because most terrorists have grand political objectives does not mean that all of them do. Just becuase most terrorists are affiliated with major groups does not mean all of them are. Terrorism is a tactic. It's like saying that paratrooping isn't warfare because civilians parachute for fun. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 17:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I scanned about a dozen news reports, and none of them are calling this incident terrorism. If there are any out there, they would appear to ba a small minority. I think following the the lead of WP:Reliable sources and not create our own definition. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 18:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sucide attack on military during warzone is not a terrorist attack.[edit]

On 31 December, a sucide attack on Nato forces kill 7 CIA agaenst and wound 6 others. Icasualties add all those CIA agenst as in US military casulaties because CIA is a branch of AAmerican military.It is not a mc and pmc.[1] As terrorist attack defination is a attack in which mostly civilians killed. But in that attack only military persons with armed weapons killed. So it should be removed from terrorist incidents 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mujahid1947 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above user has been blocked indefintely for having an abusive username and POV pushing. I suspect that he also used the multiple IP's from Pakistan that have been disrupting this page. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mujahid means soldiers.There was once a time when Mujahid have a lot of respect.Dont you know that during Afghan jihad i mean when rusia attack on Afghanistan, America collect every mujahid and use them against Russia.During hat tiime America respect Mujaheddin.America invite Mujaheddin to Washington and other big cities of america.But after war a civil war start.Mujaheddin fight with each other.No one try to stop them except Pakistan.Pakistan collect talibans(students) and send them to Afghanistan to stop war and captuure Afghanistan.Taliban success but civil war still continue.Some Mujahid grops surrender and become allies of talibn whereas some doesnt surrender and they still fighting against taliban.In 2001 after 9/11 now again an international country come to Afghanistan to fight against Mujaheddin.All mujaheddin gropus unite and fight against america.So that means america use those Mujaheddin.
I only try to remove that sucide attack in which only armed military killed.I mean on 31 December 2009 7 CIA agents with armed weapons killed in sucide attack.that is a part of war, not a terrorist attack.I dont want to remove all Afghan terrorist attacks.I only want to remove that sucide attack on CIA.There are two more terrorist attacks in Afghanistan in December 2009.I doesnt try to remove them because in those attack mostly civilians killed.But on 31 December sucie attack on CIA agenst 7 military CIA agenst with fully armed killed.There are several times sucide attack on Nato forces but all are written as a part of war so why this one sucide attack on CIA in which no civilians, only military killed, why this is in terrorist attacks 2009.Please remve that incident.By the way i have one and only 1 broadband internet.I doesnt have more than 1 internet.My user is blocked so i discuss without being online.
Please push this POV elsewhere. I already linked you to the Urdu Wikipedia. The connotation of your username, which you should be well aware of, and your continued disruption of this article and posting of inaccurate data at other articles is not welcomed here. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read full messages which i write above and which i write below.Dont reply until you read full message.
I doesnt go elsewhere until that attack will removed.Why dont you remove that incident.I think you doesnt read ull messages with i write above.Please read full messages above.They contain true things, correct data.Please remove the last terrorist attack which is an incorrect data from two ways.
1-There are 7 CIA agents killed and 6 wounded in sucide attack.
2-Only armed military i mean CIA killed, no civilian harmed.And that area is a warzone so this is a part of war.So therefore remove that so callled terrorist attack.
I suggest you to make taliban attack a new sub article of terrorist incidents 20009 named taliban attacks on Nato.
You make a new sub article Palastine attacks on israil in which a few hundreds killed[2] but you doesnt make article of israil attcks on Palastine.In 2008, 412 Palastine people killed whereas only 20 israel people killed.[3]In 2009, at starting of year israel attack on Gaza killing more than 700 civilians whereas 400 policeman and militants killed, 4 thousands homes destroyed and more than $2bn worth of damage to Gaza, Over 50,800 Gaza residents displaced whereas only 13 israil people killed.[4]Actuaally Palastine have no army.
I suggest you to make a new sub article israil attacks on Palastine.Because in every air strike of israil dozens of people killed because israel use illigal cluster bombs which contains small bullets which kill dozens of civilians.So please make a sub article in terrorist attacks 2009 named israil attacks on Gaza and update that page daily.
Thats so sad new that here mostly support big and powerfull countries which attack on weak countries.Only some people here support weak countries which is attacked by powerfull countries, I am also one of those people.I mean to say about israil and Palastine.
I doesnt visit Palastine, i watch them on National Geographic.The cameraman and host freely visit Palastine but when they go to those areas captured by israil defence force they were abused and beaten in a bus, they sit silent otherwise they will be shoted and dead, thats bus driver said to cameraman, host and all visiters in the bus.The situation of Gaza is too much worst.Israil freely enter gaza killing peoples freely.No reaction, no one try to stop.But Palastine people cant enter the israil because of wall similar to berlin wall.So they lauched roockets which mostly laand in open area no casualty.Less than 30 israil killed by rockets in 2009.But reaction of every rocket attack from israil is airstike killing dozens of people.Rocket motly kill 0 people but reaction is on every rocket by killing dozens of people in airstrike.America also support israil and against rocket attacks (which is a reactional of israil attacks on Gaza) and doesnt talk about reaction air strike.Think?Who is right and who is wrong?
I think my message is too much long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.33.139 (talk) 04:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.icasualties.org/OEF/index.aspx, http://www.icasualties.org/OEF/Fatalities.aspx
  2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Qassam_rocket_attacks
  3. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Israelis_killed_by_Palestinians_in_Israel_and_Palestinians_killed_by_Israelis_in_Gaza_-_2008_prior_to_Gaza_War.png
  4. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_War

Mujahideen strikes again[edit]

Would an administrator please protect this page to prevent against these constant IP edits from "Mujahid" editors? --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why?I try to remove only that incident in which only military(7 CIA armed agents) killed which is a part of war.Read all above for further information and then reply and please for God sake dont add that incident in terrorist incident.I only remove one incident, i doesnt try to remove any other.A few weeks before on December 14, 16 Afghan policeman killed in two seperate attacks on their checkpoints.Someone write that incident here.But i remove that becuse in that incident talibn attacks on police, which fight against taliban means that incident is a pat of ar, so this once is also a part of war.
Anyways please read above.
Whenever you add that incident i will remove until you stop that wrong news.

For God Sake remove that war incident from terrorist incidents 2009[edit]

Whoever send messages to me.Yes "Mujahid1947" is my user.I made that 2 months ago.But that is blocked a few days before because i remove that war incident from terrorist incident. Whoever try to block my user and remove edit button from terrorist incident 2009.My message to him is Please for God Sake remove that war incident from terrorist incident 2009.And please dont do activities like coward by blocking my user and by removing edit button from terrorist incidents 2009.For further information for why i remove that war incident from terrorist incident 2009, read above.And please remove that war incident from terrorist incident on 31 December, 2009 7 Cia armed agenst killed in a sucide attacks means.That attack is a part of war bwcause the target is military and only military killed no civilian killed or injured in that incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.31.96 (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only cowards are the members of the Mujahideen that kill innocent civilians and oppress women. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have milliosn of answers of your view.But i doesnt want to promote hate and iolance.
As you know that mostly civilians killed by air strike.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCCYJwLw3ik&feature=player_embedded
Above video contaisn that why sucide bombing and why mostly Afghan fight against international forces in Afghanistan.Their are hundreds of air strikes in whcih tens of thousands of civilians killed.Maybe you doesnt know about whats going on in Afghanistan.Because your media channels doesnt tell you those civilians who killed in air strike.Now-a-days land operations also killed civilians mostly school age teenage students.Like a few days before 10 school students killed in an Operation.A few months before in September 2009 more than 100 civilians killed in an air strike in which target is two oil tanks which is hijacked by talibans.That air strike is the first and deadly air strike in Northern Afghanistan.Due to these type of air strike civilian join taliobans and they do two things sucide bomb or fight against international forces.Talibans are in Northern Afghanistan freely.No civilian killed.
Their are thousands of protests in Afghanistan and outside Afghanistan against civilians casualties by international forces.
Talibans target Goverenment.Like in that video that man want to destrooy international forces and Afghan goverenment and he warn that he wear bomb and explode himsellf and kill international forces and Afghan goverenment, so maybe he has done it some police or security killed and some civilians killed.So they doesnt target civilians they target goverenment and international forces.
2nd reason of civilians casualties is uncontrolable IED , which is civilian mistake why they go to warzone.Their are some uncontrolable IED their but mostly are remotable IED.I watch several videos of youtube in which several vehiivles go through an remotable IED but when an Armed vehicle try to pass they blow that IED as a result the armed vehicle totally destroyed and soldiers or police inside that vehicle killed.
A few of civilian casulaties by international forces are here.These are not all civilian casulaties by international forces, these are a few of those.
Civilian casualties of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)#Major casualties and accidental strikes by coalition forces
2nd You think that in Afghanistan womens should wear western type shamfull naked cloths due to which rapes type crimes in those crities is too much.But in Afghanistan the situation is different womens wear borka and Nakab and hide their all parts with Naqaab.
One thing which i said that their was once a time when you give too much respect to Mujaheddin and you give guns and other things in Afgan Jhad, i mean when Russia attack on Afghanistan.America promote these two words too much.Afghan Jihad, Mujaheddin.In 2001 America enter from same strategy like Russia did.I mean enter in Afghan at night time.And first air stikes and then land operatiosn.Same strategy which Russia did.And result is same.Failure.Thousands of civilians killed and thousands join talibans every day with their own desission.
I have several things to ask but i doesnt want to talk because that will promote hate and anger.
I doesnt want to say which i write above, i only answer of your view.I dont want to anger you or whatever.I only say that remove that incident from terrorist incident 2009.As you remove edit button and block my user.So whatever you said this activity.But i oly want to remove that incident.If you have any explanation why you doesnt want to remove thane please write your explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.37.221 (talk) 11:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<- The CIA have stated "The casualties were the result of a terrorist attack.". Sean.hoyland - talk 11:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.You win.If CIA said that inccident as terrorist attack then maybe it is a terrorist attack.But the casualities are 7 not 8.So correct the casualities and 6 CIA agenst injured so please update and correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.88.90 (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The inclusion criteria for this article aren't defined by the CIA. The CIA classifying this event as a terrorist incident doesn't mean that Wikipedia should classify it as such. I haven't seen other sources describing it this way, I haven't seen anyone making a policy based case for it's inclusion nor have I seen a consensus on this page to include the event. I favour exclusion until there is a policy/RS based consensus to include it. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sean Hoyland, you believe this was not a terrorist incident? --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look like one to me. Clearly a carefully set up ambush in a war situation. Also, if we count suicide attacks in war situations, we might as well go back in history and revisit all those kamikaze attacks un US warships and the like. Are we not seeing a re-run of the Reds under the bed conspiracy theories, I ask?? Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the larger issue is with the apologists who don't correctly understand the situation. Is the CIA a military force? No. Did this take place during a battle? No. Were innocent lives taken by a radical jihadist? Yes. Don't get confused, if political correctness didn't run this world, there'd be far fewer terrorist attacks. Call a spade a spade, otherwise you're putting innocent people's lives in jeopardy. Don't criticize the west for being tyrannical, misogynist, racist or otherwise. The terrorists you are defending are far worse. I know you'd like to blank the entire list, save for a few crazy right-wingers, but what al-Qaeda and Hezbollah are doing is not warfare, it is terrorism. If you think this is something the government is just blowing out of proportion to increase their size, ask the families of the 3,000 killed on 9/11, if they think the government is making a mountain out of a molehill. The policies of ignorance have already failed, there's no need to go back to that. At least the Kamikaze didn't target innoncent civilians just doing their job to protect their country. The jihadists' war is not on a military, it is on a culture.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just back off with your arrogant 'you know nothing' personal attacks. Calling me a "defender of terrorists" or an "apologist" nor doesn't advance your arguments squat. What I said appeared to challeng your definition of terrorism, and you turn that around and accuse me of defending terrorists, and criticising the west for being tyrannical, misogynist, racist or otherwise. I'm glad to see you threw the 9/11 attacks in for good measure. I'm just now waiting for the Godwin's law to come true. ;-) Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
William, I don't believe anything. I know that there isn't a formally agreed decision procedure in place for this article that can be used consistently by any editor (no matter what they personally believe) to decide whether an incident should or should not be included in this article. Without a formally agreed decision procedure in place there is no point discussing the in and outs of individual incidents. I've already made my views clear about the framing of this article in other sections of this talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for those comments. They weren't targeted at either of you specifically. It was just a rant. But the point I am trying to make is that the CIA is not a military force and this attack didn't occur during a battle defending against an enemy.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I accept your apology. I think your interpretation of war is too narrow. there is a significant US presence (not just military, but intelligence) inside Afghanistan. The US military and the CIA are fighting their War on Terror against the Taliban, and so the Taliban probably believe they are at war. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, this particular attack was not carried out by the Taliban but a Taliban sympathizer from Jordan who had connections to al-Qaeda. I think the main thing this comes down to, for our purposes, is whether this is "considered" a terrorist incident. But I don't think there is a question on whether this is "considered" terrorism.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OhCon--I deplore your support of the Nazis! OK, now that we have that out of the way, seriously, if recollection serves, its not warfare if you don't wear your army's uniform. That distinguishes suicide attacks by kamikazes, for example. --Epeefleche (talk) 04:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.nowpublic.com/world/suicide-attack-chechnya-kills-six-violence-escalates
    Triggered by \bnowpublic\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on List of terrorist incidents, 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Global terrorism databse[edit]

https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?start_month=0&end_month=12&start_year=2009&end_year=2009&start_day=0&end_day=31

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of terrorist incidents in 2009. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of terrorist incidents in 2009. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on List of terrorist incidents in 2009. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: terrorist incidents list criteria[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of terrorist incidents#RfC: List criteria. – Levivich 17:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_2009&oldid=1206812377"