Talk:List of terrorist incidents in September 2016
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page: • List of terrorist incidents in 2016 Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:List of terrorist incidents in 2016 |
To be included on this stand-alone list, each entry should meet the following list criteria (see discussion):
|
The contents of the List of terrorist incidents in September 2016 page were merged into List of terrorist incidents in 2016 on 31 July 2020 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
Please think about what you put on the list
[edit]Seriously, alot of these "attacks" aren't even terrorist attacks. For example, some criminals shot down a police-helicopter trying to capture them in Mexico. That's crime, not terrorism. Also, an unidentified person throwing a rock at a car in Denmark is terrorism? I wouldn't exactly think so. Danisian (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, stuff like a road side bombing in Afghanistan or an execution should not be listed as a terrorist attack. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 11:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Incident
[edit]http://www.normandie-actu.fr/il-s-accuse-du-meurtre-de-sa-mere-au-havre-etranglee-avec-un-lacet_230644/ - Suspect appears to have been motivate by a terror organization. I believe it should be included. Beejsterb (talk) 23:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Emirjeta Xhelili - hate crime
[edit]The case of the Albanian 32 year old Emirjeta Xhelili was charged as a hate crime. There is no reliable source declaring the attack, which is described by prosecutors as a hate crime, as "terrorism".
-- Callinus (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
New Jersey Explosion
[edit]I believe that this incident shouldn't be on this list. First of all, there were zero deaths and injuries as a result of the explosion. Secondly, no motive has yet been established and even if terrorism is connected to the explosion, many events similar to this where no one is injured or killed are not added to this list so why should this one?StrikeDog (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
The investigation to the event takes long and since the bombs were placed in an area where a military parade would be held you can suspect the incident to be terrorism. Thus the list also includes supected terrorist incidents. The motive for the Nice attack has also not yet been released by athorities, yet it is on the list. And it's ridiculous to exclude incidents from the list when they have no casualties. Terrorism is not like disasters, in which casualties are important to call the eve JBergsma1 (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- You could also say a variety of other things about this. The bomb was probably meant to be used for something else (criminal or not) and somehow wound up in the wrong place (I'm sure there are other ways for an explosive device to wind up in a trash can outside of someone just placing it there). Or perhaps the bomber wanted to kill someone specific in that parade and cover it up as a terrorist attack since it would inflict additional casualties. We don't know. Yes, the investigation will likely take long, but we should definitely be patient and let the agencies do their thing. If we jump to conclusions right now and label it as a terrorist act, then Wikipedia readers will take it as fact and probably share this info around (as if it wasn't shared around already), which could be embarrassing if the investigation concludes it was not terrorism. WP:OR exists for things like this, and Wikipedia is not meant to be a starting place for conspiracy theories. Also, who said this incident was being excluded because it had no casualties at all? Parsley Man (talk) 07:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- I would also like to add that since there haven't been any arrests at all and no suspects for this explosion, this puts the terrorist angle of this incident more to moot than the other incidents currently being debated on. Parsley Man (talk) 07:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I concede that you have some good points but recently, it seems that every shooting, hate crime, etc. is added to this list as a terrorist incident. For example, look at the incident in New York on September 13, 2016. Is the woman's assault of the Muslims a terrorist act? A hate crime, sure, but not terrorism. If a bombing like this were to occur in the Middle East, it wouldn't be considered terrorism but since it occurred in the United States it is. There have been incidents in Israel in particular where a terrorist is shot while attempting to kill soldiers or civilians which do not end up on the list of terrorist incidents for that month. This is less common now but it has happened regular in the past. I guess what I am trying to say is that we all need to use common sense in determining what is and what isn't a terrorist incident. StrikeDog (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I understand what you are trying to say. It seems to me better indeed to wait for a police report on the events. My apologies, whether something is terrorism has always been a matter of discussion. JBergsma1 (talk) 07:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- While the available sources may not state a clear motive as of yet for the New York and New Jersey attacks, they do clearly label it as terrorism. Furthermore, the incident in Minnesota has already had responsibility claimed by ISIL, so I don't see how that doesn't qualify for this list.XavierGreen (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- No, sources have not been calling that. They simply keep saying these incidents could be terrorism and that the investigations into that are still ongoing. Also, do note that ISIL will pretty much claim responsibility for anything, so we can't exactly trust their word for it. Parsley Man (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- The Governor of New York directly and unequivocally stated that the bombings in new York were terrorist attacks, and here is a source calling all three incidents terrorist attacks (in the title of the article no less)[1].XavierGreen (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- These are just media reports. Only a top official directly involved in the investigation should be able to verify this. Parsley Man (talk) 00:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- And it's only just one source too. Parsley Man (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- The Governor of New York directly and unequivocally stated that the bombings in new York were terrorist attacks, and here is a source calling all three incidents terrorist attacks (in the title of the article no less)[1].XavierGreen (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- No, sources have not been calling that. They simply keep saying these incidents could be terrorism and that the investigations into that are still ongoing. Also, do note that ISIL will pretty much claim responsibility for anything, so we can't exactly trust their word for it. Parsley Man (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2016
[edit]This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In reference to the attack in India, the suspected perpetrator was Jaish-e-Mohammed.
"The Director General of Military Operations, Lieutenant General Ranbir Singh, said the terrorists were foreigners and there are clear signs of the role of the terror group Jaish-e-Mohammed, whose chief Masood Azhar is based in Pakistan. The group had been involved in the attack on Pathankot air base in January during which 7 army-men were killed."
Ottalla (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. So what do we do? VarunFEB2003 09:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
As mentioned above these bombings match the profile of ISIS and al Qaeda style attacks, and have been widely called terrorist attacks, apparent terrorist attacks, investigated as terrorist attacks. The only thing that not been established is a personal statement of motive, or the nature of his travels overseas, or proof of direct links to terrorist organizations. The value of Wikipedia as a reference for researching terrorist attacks is greatly harmed when the policy is delete any reference to the most likely terrorist motive as long as there are any parties who object to the label of "terrorism". Bachcell (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
This is being investigated by authorities as a possible and likely terrorist incident, this should be added as list also includes suspected terrorist incidents. A claim by ISIS should certainly be a criterion for categorization as likely terrorist attack. Hillary Clinton called both the Minnesota and New York / New Jersey bombings "apparent terrorist attacks". Until there is completely obvious there is no reason to call an incident a terrorist attack, suspected and ongoing investigations should be in this list. This list is made useless when such incidents that are widely called "terrorist" attacks in the media are not included in lists like this or terrorist categories. Although the media is widely noting that these attacks could be linked because they were on the same day, the two articles apparently do not note this linkage, or the coincidence that both involve persons of the same religous belief who commit crimes that appear to be terrorist attacks. Bachcell (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- ISIL claims a hard sneeze if they think it will help them. We aren't describing 2016 Minnesota mall stabbing as a terrorist incident yet. Wait until the article itself does. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed. Parsley Man (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Shootdowns
[edit]Should shootdowns of military jets in Syria or elsewhere be considered terrorist attacks? My thoughts on this are that they shouldn't because the shootdowns are part of a sustained military campaign between the Syrian Army the Islamic State. Most of the incidents occur when the jet is making a bombing run or is taking of or landing back from a bombing sortie. Should a shootdown occur that cannot be related to military events or a civilian jet be brought down, then the incident would be classified as a terrorist incident. StrikeDog (talk) 04:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think they could be considered as such, nor do i think indirect fire (rockets, mortars, artillery) should be included as well if it is directed against a military target.XavierGreen (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- ISIS is a terrorist militant group. Any attack by them is a terrorist attack.Beejsterb (talk) 03:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Major Incidents
[edit]I am busy and do not have time to add these. I will try to add them later and would appreciate it if others would.
http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/4-killed-15-wounded-suicide-bombing-baghdad/
http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/isis-executes-members-fled-sharqat-battle/
http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/isis-executes-three-its-own-members-for-fleeing-sharqat/
http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/8-killed-13-injured-isis-attacks-tikrit/
http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/isis-executes-woman-firing-squad-near-tikrit/
Some of these may not be terrorist attacks or have already been added, Ill sort through them later. Beejsterb (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
RfC: terrorist incidents list criteria
[edit]You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of terrorist incidents#RfC: List criteria. – Levivich 18:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)