Miscellaneous desk
< January 4	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 6 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 5[edit]

ISAF coalition, take 2[edit]

I've tried asking this question twice before, but the first time nobody answered, and the second time it turned into an argument re. the definition of terrorism and the uselessness of training Afghan troops (both only tangentially related to the original question). So here it is again: Which nations (besides the usual "suspects" -- the USA, Great Britain, Australia, Canada, Denmark and Georgia Republic) have, or had in the past, their troops actively seeking out and attacking terrorists in the context of the Great War on Terror, especially in Afghanistan? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:D9E7:BF22:B744:3455 (talk) 08:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you restricting your question to action in Afghanistan after September 2001 this time? Dbfirs 10:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am restricting it to offensive operations against terrorists in Afghanistan after September 11, 2001 (although in fact these only commenced on October 7 of the same year, due to the time needed to deploy the forces). 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The later almost definitely isn't correct since various warlords supported by the US had some offensive operations against the Taliban (which you agreed did fit your personal definition if terrirust) before September 11 and they didn't suddenly stop on September 11 and not start up again until October 7. These don't come under your original question of nations, but you only mention offensive operations here, rather than offensive operations by nations. Nil Einne (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "nations" part was in the original post -- did you forget about it, or do you have trouble reading? Also, I have already got some useful answers to this question from User: Uhhlive, so at this point if you can't or won't do likewise but instead will only continue splitting hairs and arguing with the question, then you should just shut up! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Dbfirs point, note that the definition of terrorists is not tangential to the original question. Unless you define terrorists your questions is unanswerable, especially since it's clear you're going to reject any answer which uses a definition different from yours. You're free to use whatever definition you desire, although you should avoid implying your definition is anything more than it is, your personal definition. (One of the reasons your last question so spectacularly failed last time is not only did you fail to define terrorists that time as you've done this time, but when you tried to define it you tried to claim your definition was the sole definition used by the US.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did in fact define terrorists when requested, and the definition for this question is the same as last time (and the same as the one used by the USA since 9/14/2001 -- anyone belonging to any organization which had any part in the 9/11 attacks, or which in any way aided or harbored such persons afterward. (Is this definition really so little-known, and/or so hard to get through your head???) 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the articles Terrorism and Definitions of terrorism for a broader view. Blooteuth (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Blooteuth has indictaed, you're still mistaken that it's the sole definition used by the US since 2001. This is most definitely not the case, since the US regularly refers to terrorism stuff which pretty much everyone in the US government would agree does not fit that definition. Also as I indicated there should be no need for a request because a question like this cannot be answered without a definition. (As I also said, you are clearly going to reject any answer which doesn't fit your personal definition of terrorism, even rejecting other definitions currently used by the US government.) You cannot assume people have read your previous question and so would be aware of your personal definition of terrorism, especially since virtually no one else, not even the US government uses that definition as their sole definition. (And in the previous question, there was no previous question for people to have read your personal definition before.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether or not this is the sole definition, this is in fact THE operative definition used by the US in the context of the Great War on Terror -- so this is the definition to be used here! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 03:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Operation Enduring Freedom includes units from Norway, New Zealand and Afghanistan actively seeking out Al-Qaeda and Taliban forces in Afghanistan. You can probably also include the Phillipines for trying to remove Abu Sayyaf from within. This list isn't exhaustive, obviously, but it is what I found at a cursory glance. The Operation Enduring Freedom article also has links to further combat operations you can look through. uhhlive (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! (Finally some useful information!) Follow-up question: During Operation Anaconda, which elements of Task Force K-Bar (if any) were engaged in actual combat? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]