Jump to content

Talk:1983 Beirut barracks bombings

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

Bank Markazi v. Peterson

[edit]

Should be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.9.102 (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really a terrorist incident?

[edit]

The Definitions of terrorism page says the following about terrorism: " Generally speaking a definition of terrorism should examine each of the four major criteria, which are as follows:

Target. It is commonly held that the distinctive nature of terrorism lies in its deliberate and specific selection of civilians (or military personnel not on active combat duty) as targets. Furthermore, an act is more likely to be considered terrorism if it targets a general populace than if it purposefully targets a specific individual or group. See also noncombatant and collateral damage. This criterion excludes conventional warfare in accordance with the laws of war, attacks on military targets during time of war, and guerilla warfare and revolution. "

Does anyone really believe that the attack on the Beirut barracks meets this definition? I don't think it does, so this incident should not be classified as "terrorist incident".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.255.32.13 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 26 January 2005.

I agree, I don't think this was a "terrorist" attack per se. It was a terrorist attack insofar as it was an attack, allegedly, committed by a group that is often thought of as being a terrorist organization, but this is definitely the less accurate, and more misleading, of the two ways to characterize it. I say change it.--Clngre 21:59, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Attacking a military target is generally not considered as a terrorist action but in this cas the US was part of a multinational force that aimed to restaure peace and was not a party of the war. The attack had a political meaning. Most important, these attacks were done by the islamic jihad (probably an alias for Hezbollah, though there's no proof on this) who deliberately targetted civilians in other actions and thus could be labelled as a terrorist movement. Finally , it suicide car bomber, which is generally an operatory mode associated to terrorism.--equitor 12:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The US supported Israel financially, and Israel attacked Lebanon. Therefore, the US could be said to have been a party of the war. FunkMonk (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And France? They have not been known for their pro-Israeli policies. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now I'm not quoting anything official, but to a Lebanese Muslim, France would be considered pro-Maronite (Maronites were supported by Israel during the war), since Lebanon was created by the French as a Maronite state in the first place, and they have therefore always been favoured by the French. France occupied Lebanon for many years, so they can't exactly be labeled as neutral. FunkMonk (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

America supported Israel that does make them a party of war, they also supported certain militant groups in East Beirut and didnt disarm them, this was also another goal they didnt achieve nor did they stay in Lebanon to protect the Lebanese and Palestinians of Sabre and Chatila. Both France and America were supporting a war, Christian Phalangist Militants and Israelis, the only neutral party in this is Italy. France and America were as guilty as Iran and Russia but the difference is Russia didnt attack Lebanese villages the way Americans and French did. But like the Iranian they had soldiers who were supporting a side. Seriously if your not Lebanese you will never truly understand Lebanese politics and all of this many of us groupd up in this era during this time, eye witnesses. To a Lebanese Muslim today, France is neutral, and even then France and America were considered neutral until they were seen doing business with the Christian Phalangist Militants who were known to puppets of Israel. The Americans who were there to under the MNF were there to protect Beirut, at one point they started trading information with the Israelis who were in the country illegally and . read Chomski's Lebanon war and especially Pity the Nation Lebanese bebe (talk) 12:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanese bebe Could we get a cite for the claim 'who had killed tens of thousands of people' even if it is Chomski? Foamking (talk) 04:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed a terrorist category. This was an attack against participants in the war (Americans and the French acted on the side of the Phalangist government against Druze and Shia Lebanese), not civilians. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Great material. It is either an act or war or a terrorist attack to which it is currently labeled neither. Great material here above though. By this limited myopic POV the Us sends aid to several dozen countries every year and in any of them troops are attacked it is not a terrorist attack. Seriously, keep up the good work. The Wiki project has gone from NPOV encyclopedic material to the world's largest chronicle of epic leftist fail. No, no terrorist attack here, the US was at war with Lebanon, Syria, Iran and Hezbollah.

The US went there to protect a side in a civil war (the government/Phalangist side). That should pretty much be an act of war by itself. FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, a state sponsored military can commit an act of war of course with US forces currently in 50 countries and conflict taking place in many or in extreme proximity, US is warring all over the world according to the revisionist historians. Was the USS Cole a terrorist attack?-it is not a trick question. How does a non state sponsored entity commit an act of war? Good job though, they terrorized US forces into fleeing but it was not a terrorist attack or an act of war. Keep up the good work!


Did you get lost? There are two kinds of attacks, acts of war and terrorist ones- have a country that committed an act of war here attacks the US barracks? It has to be a terrorist attack. Only in delusional bought and paid for revisionist history world can we just invent new kinds of attacks. Why not explicitly tell the world exactly why it is that you personally have invented a new kind of attack all in an effort to not call this a terrorist attack? Maybe Funkthisandthat and epifunk and littlefunkster can check and corroborate your inventing of new history where there is no act of war since there is no country and it is not a terrorist attack either. No it is some brand new third thing.


They just must be confused on this page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks Send my regards to funk jr, little funk and funkenstein.

For the last time-there are only two types of attacks-state sponsored acts of war or terrorist attacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 08:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are quoting a US government definition, designed to "establish" that any act by the US government is "by definition" not terrorist. Such a self-serving definition justifies every terrorist act by any country. Spieling (talk) 08:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the US Department of Defence's report on the attack, it is mentioned that "[P]olitical and military developments on the ground in Lebanon caused the USMNF to be viewed in some quarters not as a peace-keeper, but as a belligerent." and "These then, were the events that led to the LAF's stand at Suq-Al-Gharb. In the view of the Commission, U.S. support of the LAF in that operation, timely and effective though it was, nevertheless confirmed definitively, in the eyes of the LAF's enemies, the belligerent status of the USMNF." [1]. Given these, it is not easy to consider the attack as an act of terrorism.--Xyzrt (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:XXzoonamiXX, please take note. Konli17 (talk) 12:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, he's not the actual source and you don't have any legitimate sources it was not an actual act of terrorism. Timothy McVeigh considered the government building in Oklahoma City to be a legitimate target, but that doesn't actually make it so, neither does the 1983 Beirut Barracks bombing terrorists. Your sources are considered secondary since they clearly rely on outdated, biased arguments that doesn't keep up with the times. Terrorism is generally defined by the use of illegal violence especially against non-combatants (Not just civilians, but also neutral nationals such as peacekeepers, as well as enemy POWs). The 1983 Beirut barracks bombing was aimed to get the U.S. peacekeepers out of Lebanon which meets the criteria of being act of terrorism. Don't remove anything that actually clarify the reality of the situation. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 12:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The US was there to support a faction in the civil war (the right wing Maronites, which happened to control the government). It's that simple. Or would you also call the Russians peacekeepers in Syria for supporting the Syrian government? Because that's the logical consequence. FunkMonk (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The US was there as part of the UN-authorized peacekeeping Multinational Force in Lebanon. And regardless, there isn't any actual situation that really justifiied the bombing as a legitimate target in the eyes of international law, not a view from a one side with a grudge against a certain country. The situation is already clarified for what it is, and you don't have anything to back up that it was not actual terrorism. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why were the US there in the first place? It was to protect Israel from Syrian missiles and to keep the pro-western Maronite government in power, which is even made perfectly clear by American government websites.[2] "Peacekeeping" was just a convenient excuse/pretext by the Reagan administration. Just like "preventive wars" or "humanitarian intervention". FunkMonk (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A revealing passage from a US government website: "The IDF pulled back on September 3, and fighting erupted between Maronite Lebanese Forces and pro-Syrian militias led by Walid Jumblatt’s Popular Socialist Party. To prevent Lebanese troops from intervening, Jumblatt and his allies attacked them as well, leading McFarlane to warn that they might reach Beirut and topple Gemayel’s government.
Reagan responded by authorizing the Marines to engage in “aggressive self-defense,” dispatching the battleship New Jerseyto Lebanon, and authorizing naval gunfire and airstrikes to prevent hostile forces from seizing Suq al-Gharb, which overlooked the Marine barracks. But by the time a ceasefire took hold on September 25, the fighting had provoked significant opposition to Reagan’s Lebanon policy. On September 29, Congress passed legislation invoking the War Powers Act and authorizing the Marines to remain in Lebanon for 18 months, the first time constraint placed on their presence.[3] FunkMonk (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You absurdly cling that it wasn't terrorism due to being again focused on one side of the isle rather than the whole picture. Even so, it doesn't really describe the actual legality of the peacekeepers more so that it was just a pure description especially a vague action that legitimizes as such/ None of that changes the fact the peacekeepers themselves aren't actively taking sides nor that the situation even called or necessitated the bombing to be a legitimate target. They were peacekeepers aka non-combatants, something you have deliberately ignored. None of what Reagan did actively make the peacekeepers themselves legitimate target no matter what grievances the other side have for a certain country. Read some actual sources instead of getting it something from a conspiracy sites disgusting facts and exaggerates them to unbelievable degrees. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So once again, show me a real source if the peacekeepers themselves were actual combatants. What you're only providing is pure description which is extremely vague and doesn't warrant the situation to be justified. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Peacekeepers" which supported one faction of the war while attacking the other. Let's look at some sources then, here is a much more nuanced contemporary American article[4], and and a critical article by, shock and horror, an Arab writer in a journal.[5] The Americans engaged in skirmishes with the Druze even before the bombing.[6] And plenty of attacks after:[7] Peacekeeping indeed... FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah-Ha! You show that you know nothing about the conduct of the peacekeepers as well as the legality of using self-defense or offensive attacks. I know about the skirmishes and all, but what I'm reading that you're providing, it's nothing close to them being "combat personnel" like they were in 1965 during the Vietnam War much so much that they attacked in self-defense (which is a god's given right of every man). The flaw in your argument is that you keep nagging about the U.S. taking one side of faction in the war being the reason, yet your "sources" says nothing about the actual legality of the UN-authorized peacekeepers who were killed or injured in the event. It's a pretty common view under the eyes of the UN and international law that the Beirut barracks bombing was terrorism, as it targeted peacekeepers (non-combatants) with the expressed goal of getting them out regardless if one side of the faction has personal grudge against a government's support for one side. There has been several international law in the past (e.g., Article 10 of the Hague Convention on Belligerent and Neutral duties) saying that neutral powers have a right to take action in self-defense (like defending its territory or one's body overseas) and doing so does not compromise your neutrality. The status here is what really matters in defining terrorism. You keep saying that "American sources" are biased, yet you posted some of that that supports your views (albeit extremely ambiguous) and nothing about the actual status of the soldiers engaged in a UN mandate of peacekeeping themselves, so if anything, you did not support any legitimacy regarding the bombing being a legitimate target. It just describes what the U.S. government did or did not do and nothing about the legality of the peacekeepers themselves, that's pretty much it. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article still calls the incident "terrorism" as if it was a fact. The article needs to limit itself to clarify who exactly called it terrorism and why. Objectively, it was not a terrorist attack any more than the US bombing the bases of its enemies. FunkMonk (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was an Islamic Jihad organization that led attacks against peacekeepers, not combatants. It's a fact that peacekeepers were killed with the sole purpose of getting them out of Lebanon (influence the policy of the U.S. government). That meets the definition of terrorism, and every reliable book and articles on the internet says the incident to be terrorism many times. You could look them up for yourself. It shouldn't be neutral, considering the fact the scope and nature of the attack clarify for what it really is, not a biased information with little to back up for. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Konli17 (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter who did the attack, what matters is that the target was a military faction on one side of the war. As for sources, of course American sources would be in favour of US government sentiments. As for edit warring, your three revert limit is almost up. FunkMonk (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter, what really matters if the peacekeepers themselves were actual combatants. As as for "one side of the war" comment, it's nothing more than a pure description and there is really nothing at all that made the bombing a legitimate target, and the peacekeepers did really nothing actually hostile constantly to be warranted an attack on them. Which is why I ask for the source of the actual legality of the peacekeepers, not from one side (Timothy McVeigh considered the Oklahoma City federal building to be a legitimate target, doesn't make it so). XXzoonamiXX (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like five reverts in the space of two hours. How will this user now be punished? Konli17 (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist groups aren't legitimate combatants - they're VNSA. This was a terrorist attack, not a legitimate military action. Jim Michael (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, the French Resistance were also terrorists. I repeat my question; how will the edit warring be punished? Who is responsible for punishing it? Konli17 (talk) 09:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was a military strike by a joint Iranian/Syrian military strike team.

The one thing that sticks out-and both of y’all have made good arguments-but ignoring that a Foreign military(one of what, 4, or was it 5?) was on a country’s sovereign land and I think regardless of the rest, when an attack from within the country by its people (yeah it was probably Iran backed) to get said foreign power out…well put the shoe on rhe other foot and make it happen in America where a foreign military has taken up camp and see how you view it and if it changes your opinion Ramahamalincoln (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2006

[edit]

A former defense secretary for Ronald Reagan says he implored the president to put Marines serving in Beirut in a safer position before terrorists attacked them in 1983, killing 241 servicemen.

"I was not persuasive enough to persuade the president that the Marines were there on an impossible mission," Caspar Weinberger says in an oral history project capturing the views of former Reagan administration officials.

Weinberger said one of his greatest regrets was in failing to overcome the arguments that "Marines don't cut and run", and 'We can't leave because we're there'" before the devastating suicide attack on the lightly armed force.

"They had no mission but to sit at the airport, which is just like sitting in a bull's-eye," Weinberger said. "I begged the president at least to pull them back and put them back on their transports as a more defensible position.".

The Joint Chiefs begged Reagan to house those men on ships, where they'd be safe, but Reagan the Idiot wanted the "symbolism" of having them in town where trucks could reach them. This is how Al Qaeda first learned that America will cut and run after you kill a bunch of soldiers. Reagan taught them that.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.241.245.49 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 1 February 2006.

What a bunch of absolute POV rubbish. Any force on the ground is susceptible to attack. The Allies were constantly attacked by Nazi fanatics in occupied territory. Nobody "cut and run." Your comment is FORUM'ish and provocative. If you want to go through Reliable Sources that complete disprove your "view" they are easily found. 50.111.19.178 (talk) 23:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Excellent contribution! The Iranian hostage taking never happened after the Munich attack, after numerous hijackings, it was the Beirut bombing that emboldened them! USS Cole, this disco, that tube, WTC attack I-all because Reagan taught them. Keep up the good work, Wiki the perfect chronicler of epic fail left wing policy.

Deadliest attack?

[edit]
The attack remains the deadliest post-World War II attack on Americans overseas.

Can this be true? Wasn't there even a single incident during the Korean War, Vietnam Conflict, Gulf War, Gulf War II, African Embassy Bombings, Kosovo, attacks by Israel and Bin-Laden, or during an airplane bombing that exceeded 241 deaths + 60 injuries?

Lockerbie killed 270, but only 189 were Americans. The Tết Offensive supposedly killed 4,324 allied forces (I dunno how many were Americans, but that wasn't exactly a single attack, anyway, no?), The embassy bombings number 220+6000 (how do deaths vs. injuries account?)

- Eric 13:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence is true as far as I can tell. The only gray areas would be the Korean War and Vietnam War, as I can't find out what the deadliest attacks were in those wars. But I'm absolutely sure no terrorist or enemy attack has even come close to inflicting 241 deaths in the past 30 or so years. PBP 15:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly the Battle of Chosin Reservoir[1] during the Korean war had one of its days which saw more casualties than that attack. At the Wikipedia page of the battle one can read that it lasted 16 days, and killed almost 6.000 UN troops (375/day on average. Obviously some days were much more bloodier than others). BUT, though the bulk of this force was the first marine division, I must reckon this was a multinational force (few British and Korean forces) and had some US army units attached to the 1st Marines. In other words, a bit more of research could prove the Korean war had one day which was deadlier for the Marines than the Beirut attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.65.134.129 (talk) 03:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Many Believe"

[edit]

I noticed the use of that phrase in the article when asserting Hezbollah was responsible. I have no doubt that many do believe Hezbollah was responsible, but I was wondering if that could be better cited? Isn't "many believe", like "some say", an example of uncited writing? Just a thought.The Shrike 23:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be several POV problems in this entry, I'd say to the point that it needs a cleanup tag. Manys (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hezballah was not a group at this time, there is no reason why anyone should even make that assumption. The fact is simple, people who were in Islamic Jihad, some people later joined Hezballah, same thing with harakeit Amal or the Amal movement, although at one point Amal and Hezballah were enemies eventually some of the Amal men joined Hezballah, so just because someone who would later join Hezballah but was in Islamic Jihad 2 years earlier doesnt mean you can say Hezballah did it, this is biased. And obviously propaganda. The sad part is its not many people who believe this, only America, Israel, Britain and Australia have Hezballah on a terrorist list. You must not forget how Hezballah was created or why. It was created as a result of Israel's illegal invasion and occupation of South Lebanon and the oppression of the Lebanese people. So what will you cite your work with? Biased cites... Lebanese bebe (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it should read imad mugnieh not hezbullah cause thats what you call time paradox.I edited it.--Nader ecl (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your addition is unreferenced. Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well it is widely believed to be attributed to imad mugnieh .--Nader ecl (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See weasel words. Socrates2008 (Talk) 03:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

minor edit

[edit]

Just cleaned up some spelling errors and re-established links in the following section:

In his book "By Way of Deception : The Making and Unmaking of a Mossad Officer, Victor Ostrovsky claims that Mossad knew in advance of the attack, but did not warn the United States [6].There have been claims that Israel wanted US and French troops to leave Lebanon so it could freely operate in Lebanon without restriction. The removal of US and French tropps allowed the Israelis to support the Phalangists in their massacre of the Palestinians in the Shantilla and Sabra camps [2]-- cheers Guss 07:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan I am not a member but do your homework! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.53.70 (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guss Lebanese civilians were also killed in the Sabre and Chatila massacres. Lebanese bebe (talk) 12:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a couple of thousand lebanese shias were also killed--Nader ecl (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that Israel supported the massacre is unsubstantiated. Not only that. Sharon sued for libel in US courts and won his case. Legally, the US courts supported the claim that the media allegation that Israel / Sharon supported the massacre were lies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.245.156 (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Provocation for Bombing

[edit]

I am surprised that no one added the provocation for Hezzbollah's barracks bombing? The bombing was in response to the US Navy firing on Hezzbollah's targets, despite the ship commander's objections. This was just televised and I didn't think to write it down, so I don't have a source yet. Once I do I will post it here. MPA 10:59pm, August 14, 2006

Iranian Involvement

[edit]

Until 19 September 2006 this article contained the sentence "In retaliation for the attacks, France launched an air strike in the Beqaa Valley against Iranian Revolutionary Guard positions" under the "Response" section.

There is no evidence that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard had any presence in Lebabon at the time. To claim that the French attacked IRG position in the Beqaa is incorrect and misleading.

With respect to the involvement of Iran, the New York Times reported on 29 October 1983: "Reagan Administration now assumes Iranian Govt played key role in bombing of US and French installations in Beirut; Donald H Rumsfeld or Alfred L Atherton Jr reportedly may be named special envoy to region; US reportedly may ask Lebanon to close Iranian Embassy, apparent nerve center for attack, and may stage commando raid against Baalbek area held by Shiites; illustration". (NYT 29 October 1983 "Reagan Adm now assumes Iranian Govt played key role in bombing")

On 24 October The New York Times reported: "When pressed by reporters about American reports linking the attacks with Iranian groups, the Prime Minister said, 'We don't have information on this point.'" (NYT 24 October 1983 "France has no plans to pull out troops")

The assertion that France bombed IRG positions strongly implied that Iran had a military personnel presence in Lebanon at the time, which is incorrect. Such assertions should not be made without supporting refences. I have removed the assertion from this article. --Richard Scrivener, Centre for Arab & Islamic Studies, Australian National University 07:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even know what a Shitte is? I love how people use that word or the word Muslim as if it justifies raids or attacks. Shittes aka Shias are a religious sect of Islam comparable to Catholics, while their counterparts, Sunnis are comparable to Protestants. So rephrase your comment: Donald H Rumsfeld or Alfred L Atherton Jr reportedly may be named special envoy to region; US reportedly may ask Lebanon to close Iranian Embassy, apparent nerve center for attack, and may stage commando raid against Baalbek area held by CATHOLICS; illustration", please dont do that again I dont think you would like that. Muslim doesnt equal terrorist. You spread hate that way, its disgusting

So an area held by Shittes means the U.S is admitting its killing Lebanese Muslim Shitte aka Shia civilians... Lebanese bebe (talk) 12:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to investigate the role of Keith "Captain Crunch" Hall in the aftermath of the CIA investigation? Does anyone know his role and provide some details around his involvement, investigation and subsequent firing? He was fired from the CIA for "excessive force" in his interrogation techniques (see History Channel's "Heroes Under Fire" Episode "Captain Crunch"). Does this mean torture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spyfor (talk • contribs) 00:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poor intel by the author above. Keith ( a personal friend ) was never SEAL. It was a Marine Barracks that was bombed. Keith was NamEra Marine, then LEO then CIA. His father was a WWII PoW taken on Corregidor, His son a GW1 Marine and now LEO.

Picture of Crunch on a Op in South America: span class="plainlinks">http://sphotos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/400894_3739897416157_2132239319_n.jpg (( be nice to know how to ad pictures in a simple manner to items like this))

The scandals of the Nixon years put the CIA under unprecedented scrutiny. Over the next three decades spying schools and most human-intelligence networks were gradually dismantled. The United States itself was losing its stomach for hands-on intelligence gathering—and with it, interrogation.

Nobody experienced the effects of this shift more dramatically than Keith Hall, who earned the nickname Captain Crunch before he lost his job as a CIA agent. Now he describes himself as "a poster child for political correctness." He is a pugnacious brick of a man, who at age fifty-two is just a thicker (especially in the middle) version of the young man who joined the Marines thirty years ago. After his discharge he earned a master's degree in history and international relations; he took a job as a police officer, because he craved a more physical brand of excitement than academia had to offer. His nickname comes from this craving.

The CIA hired Hall immediately after he applied, in 1979, because of his relatively rare combination of academic and real-world credentials. He was routed into the Investigation and Analysis Directorate, where he became one of the Agency's covert operators, a relatively small group ("about forty-eight guys, total," Hall says) known as the "knuckle-draggers." Most CIA agents, especially by the 1980s, were just deskmen.

Hall preferred traveling, training, and blowing things up, even though he felt that the rest of the Agency looked down its patrician nose at guys like him. When the U.S. Embassy in Beirut was bombed, on April 18, 1983, eight of the seventeen Americans killed were CIA employees. There were going to be plenty of official investigations, but the Agency wanted one of its own. Hall was selected to carry it out.

"They flew me to Langley on one of their private planes, and delivered me to the seventh floor," he says. "They told me, 'We want you to go to Beirut and find out who blew up the embassy and how they did it. The President himself is going to be reading your cables. There is going to be some retribution here.'"

Hall was honored, and excited. This was a mission of singular purpose, of the highest priority, and he knew he was expected to get results. Having been a police officer and a Marine, he knew that the official investigations had to build a case that might someday stand up in court. His goal was not to build a case but just to find out who did it.

He slept on rooftops in Beirut, changing the location every two nights. It was a dangerous time to be an American—especially a CIA officer—there, and Hall kept moving. He worked with the Lebanese Special Security Force, and set up a computer in the police building.

Hall says he took part without hesitation in brutal questioning by the Lebanese, during which suspects were beaten with clubs and rubber hoses or wired up to electrical generators and doused with water. Such methods eventually led him to the suspected "paymaster" of the embassy bombing, a man named Elias Nimr. "He was our biggest catch," Hall says—a man with powerful connections. "When I told the Lebanese Minister of Defense, I watched the blood drain out of his face."

Nimr was a fat, pampered-looking twenty-eight-year-old, used to living the good life, a young man of wealth, leisure, and power. He came to the police building wearing slacks, a shiny sport shirt, and Gucci shoes. He had a small, well-trimmed moustache at the center of his soft, round face, and wore gold on his neck, wrists, and fingers. When he was marched into the building, Hall says, some of the officers "tried to melt into the shadows" for fear of eventual retribution. Nimr was nonchalant and smirking in his initial interview, convinced that when word got back to his family and connections, he would promptly be released.

When Hall got a chance to talk to him, he set out to disabuse Nimr. "I'm an American intelligence officer," he said. "You really didn't think that you were going to blow up our embassy and we wouldn't do anything about it, did you? You really should be looking inside yourself and telling yourself that it's a good idea to talk to me. The best way to go is to be civilized ... I know you think you are going to walk right out of here in a few minutes. That's not going to happen. You're mine. I'm the one who will make the decisions about what happens to you. The only thing that will save your ass is to cooperate." Nimr smiled at him dismissively.

The next time they met, Nimr wasn't in such good shape. In this case his connections were failing him. No one had roughed him up, but he had been kept standing for two days. Hall placed him in a straight-backed metal chair, with hot floodlights in his face. The agent sat behind the light, so that Nimr couldn't see him. Nimr wasn't as cocky, but he was still silent.

At the third interrogation session, Hall says, he kicked Nimr out of his chair. It was the first time anyone had physically abused him, and he seemed stunned. He just stared at Hall. He hadn't eaten since his arrest, four days earlier. But he still had nothing to say.

"I sent him back to his cell, had water poured over him again and again while he sat under a big fan, kept him freezing for about twenty-four hours. He comes back after this, and you can see his mood is changing. He hasn't walked out of jail, and it's beginning to dawn on him that no one is going to spring him."

Over the next ten days Hall kept up the pressure. During the questioning sessions he again kicked Nimr out of his chair, and both he and the Lebanese captain involved cracked him occasionally across the shins with a wooden bat. Finally Nimr broke. According to Hall, he explained his role in the bombing, and in the assassination of Lebanon's President. He explained that Syrian intelligence agents had been behind the plan. (Not everyone in the CIA agrees with Hall's interpretation.)

Soon afterwards Nimr died in his cell. Hall was back in Washington when he heard the news. He assumed that Nimr had been killed to prevent him from testifying and naming others involved in the plot. Armed with tapes of Nimr's confession, Hall felt he had accomplished his mission; but several months after finishing his report he was fired. As he understood it, word had leaked out about torture sessions conducted by a CIA agent, and the U.S. government was embarrassed.

None of the men charged was ever prosecuted for the bombing. Hall believes that the United States may have paid dearly for backing away from his investigation and letting the matter drop. William Buckley, who was Hall's station chief, was subsequently kidnapped, tortured, and killed. He was among fourteen Western civilians kidnapped in Beirut in 1984. In October of the previous year, 241 American servicemen were killed in the bombing of their barracks at the Beirut airport. Some analysts believe that all these atrocities were committed by the same group, the one Hall believes he unearthed in his investigation. Still bitter about it nineteen years later, Hall says, "No one was punished for it, except me!"

Hall sees the loss of his career as dramatic proof that the CIA sold out to the "tree huggers" two decades ago, and points with scorn to a directive from President Bill Clinton that effectively barred intelligence agents from doing business with unsavory characters. The full-scale U.S. retreat from the uglier side of espionage is well documented—but has, by all accounts, been sharply reversed in the aftermath of 9/11.

Joessoft (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation

[edit]

A Washington's federal judge determined in 2003 that Iran orchestrated the 1983 bombing and later ordered to Teheran to indemnify all the families of the victims with 2.7 billion dollars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.232.216 (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you, Iran is not a signatory party to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and is in no way bound to respect or even acknowledge the order. Although Iran is evidently culpable for the crime itself, nations are not subject to courts: they are subject to military action and foreign policy. It is entirely a show of good faith as to whether a nation decides to honour or humour such a judgement, something that Iran is most certainly not likely to uphold. --66.183.26.222 (talk) 08:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iran isn't bound to it, but it's still relevant and a piece of news that a judge did order this, finding Iran guilty in the process. --Activism1234 13:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I've ordered the use of naval gunfire."- Reagan, Sept.11,1983

[edit]

diary entries: President Reagan, Sept,11,1983. source: Reagan, Ronald, An American Life: The Autobiography, New York: Simon & Shuster, 1990, p. 446.

I have found a good source in regard to the lead up of US Navy involvements in Lebanon : Lebanon 1982-1984 by John H. Kelly

("John H. Kelly is managing director of International Equity Partners, Washington, D.C. He served as U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon from 1986 to 1988, Assistant Secretary of State for the Near East and South Asia from 1989 to 1991, and U.S. Ambassador to Finland from 1991 to 1994.")

http://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/CF129/CF-129.chapter6.html

Lebanon 1982-1984 by John H. Kelly : In the weeks following the attack on Marines at Beirut International Airport, U.S. ships of the Sixth Fleet responded with naval gunfire. Two more Marines were killed on September 6. Druze and Palestinian militia forces engaged in intense fighting against Christian forces over areas in the Shuf mountains evacuated by withdrawing Israeli forces. Shultz had wanted the Israelis to remain in the Shuf so as not to reward Syrian intransigence in refusing to accept the May 17 agreement.[40]

As the fighting between Lebanese Armed Forces and the militia groups intensified, McFarlane and his team at the American ambassador's residence came under fire from the battle lines five kilometers away. McFarlane sent a flash cable to Washington stating that "there is a serious threat of a decisive military defeat which could involve the fall of the Government of Lebanon within twenty-four hours." McFarlane urged that the rules of engagement for U.S. forces be modified "to allow our forces to fire in support of the Lebanese Army."[41] Despite Weinberger's opposition (he described the message as "McFarlane's `sky is falling' cable")[42] President Reagan approved the recommendation. The Americans began to fire in support of the Lebanese Army.

Some of the naval gunfire was directed at Druze emplacements. This was widely and correctly viewed in Lebanon as U.S. intervention on the side of the Christians and the government. In mid-September the battleship New Jersey was dispatched to Lebanese waters to bring its sixteen-inch guns into play.

With the death of the two Marines on August 29, a furor arose in the American Congress as to whether or not the War Powers Resolution should be invoked to limit the duration of the Marine deployment in Lebanon. Some members sought a six-month limit. When it became clear that some limiting legislation would pass, the administration held out for and won an eighteen-month authorization. Secretary Shultz defended the U.S. contribution to the MNF in hearings before the Foreign Relations Committees of both houses of Congress. He justified the presence as "to help insure the Lebanese Government's sovereignty and authority . . . to assure the safety of the people in the area and to end the violence. . . . " Shultz described U.S. intervention in the Shuf battles as due to concern "that key strategic positions in the vicinity of Beirut, which are vital to the safety of our Marines, of other American military and diplomatic personnel, and to the security of Beirut, have recently come under attack." [43]

The testimony by Shultz did not square with what was discussed in private, as we now know. President Reagan wrote the truth in his diary on September 11 1983:

"N. S. C. (National Security Council) is meeting . . . on Lebanon re a new cable from Bud McFarlane. Troops obviously PLO and Syrian have launched a new attack against the Lebanese Army. Our problem is do we expand our mission to aid the Lebanese Army with artillery and air support? This could be seen as putting us in the war."

"I've ordered the use of naval gunfire. My reasoning is that this can be explained as protection of our Marines hoping it might signal the Syrians to pull back."

Reagan wrote again in his diary on September 19,1983 on how to describe the Marines' role:

"N.S.C.: Our Navy guns turned loose in support of the Lebanese Army fighting to hold a position on a hill overlooking our Marines at the Beirut airport. This still comes under the head of defense."

In his congressional testimony Shultz went on to say of the Marines: "They are an important deterrent, a symbol of the international backing behind the legitimate Government of Lebanon, and an important weight in the scales. To remove the Marines would put both the Government, and what we are trying to achieve, in jeopardy." In response to a question at the hearing, Shultz replied: " . . . when America sends its forces to perform a legitimate mission . . . and then the minute some trouble arises we turn tail and beat it, I think that sends a gigantic message around the world . . . "[46]

So the Marines were a "deterrent," a "symbol," and an "important weight." They were now involved in sporadic combat. U.S. Naval forces were shelling targets up to ten kilometers away from the Marines because the targets were "key strategic positions" in the words of Shultz. That was a misleading explanation. No matter how it was described in Washington, U.S. military forces in Lebanon had begun to use their fire in support of Lebanese government forces as the Reagan diary entries show. As Richard Haass wrote in his recent book on military intervention, "The Marines and the MNF as a whole had come to be perceived as a hand-maiden of Lebanon's Christian-dominated government. . . . As a result, the MNF became a de facto participant in Lebanon's internecine struggles."[47] continued...

Lebanon 1982-1984 by John H. Kelly : http://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/CF129/CF-129.chapter6.html

I added the external link above to main page Guss 09:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the same vein, I added an internal link to Souk_El_Gharb#Battle_of_Souk_El_Gharb_of_September_1983Godspeed John Glenn! Will 15:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

largest non-nuclear explosion DELIBERATELY detonated up to that time

[edit]

i had previously made that edit, blindly copying the finding of fact of the federal district court judge. what do these judges know anyway? it was correctly pointed out that it was not, that indeed there is even a wiki page on large explosions. the largest ever was the halifax, nova scotia harbour munitions explosion world war i. What is true though, it that the barracks bombing was the largest, heretofore, deliberately set. Godspeed John Glenn! Will 15:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "largest non-nuclear explosion DELIBERATELY detonated up to that time"

[edit]

See article: Heligoland#History

I hate to say this but... the "single largest deliberate non-nuclear detonation" occured in Germany. On April 18 1947 British forces attempted to level the German island of Heligoland (also known as Helgoland) using no less than four thousand tons (by conservative estimates) or 6,800 tons (more liberal estimate) of convensional explosives. The detonation re-shaped the island and even made an entry in the Guiness Book of Records. See List of the largest artificial non-nuclear explosions#1901–2000 Mkhkoh 06:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was the finding of the U.S. district court judge in a U.S. lawsuit. But he also found Hezbollah set off the detonation. And that is not entirely proven. So, he could've been mistaken about the detonation too. if the Helgoland detonation exceeds the tonnage of the Barracks, then make the appropriate edit. I have no problem with. Godspeed John Glenn! Will 09:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The attack on Heligoland used more tonnage, but it was from thousands of seperate explosive devices exploding at different times in different places. The Barrack attack was one bomb, one explosion, so you cannot compare the two attacks. -DM

Actually, the Helgoland detonation made the entry as "the biggest non-nuclear single detonation in history" [8] but i do agree with you in that it wasn't sourced from a single explosive. The article provides proper citation regarding the district court's findings on the issue-- i believe it is relevant and informative and should be kept as is. Mkhkoh 00:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how you parse it, the judge's statement is incorrect. The Beirut bombing involved about 6 tons of high explosive. On May 7th, 1945, in order to calibrate instruments for the upcoming Trinity fission bomb test, 108 tons of a TNT/RDX mixture were detonated [9] 800 yards from where the Trinity test was eventually fired. This was a single, deliberate non-nuclear detonation, of about eighteen times the quantity of high explosives as in the Beirut bombing. John Walker (fourmilab.ch) (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection please

[edit]

Repeated anonymous vandalisms:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing&oldid=137289660 - good version. --HanzoHattori 18:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broken citation

[edit]

I found that the citation <ref name="wp"> is broken. There is no first instance of this. I'd appreciate help in locating the citation. 21:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I found it looking through the history - from the Washington Post. — ERcheck (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

French Barracks

[edit]

Anyone know where the French barracks was located? I understand it may have been about 4km away... Socrates2008 02:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still largely US-centric - not a single image of French barracks, injuries or military funeral etc. I know this is the English WP, but that should not result in such bias. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Changes

[edit]

Recent changes including naming Hezbollah as perpetrator are problematic. Hezbollah was not constituted until 1985. Moreover there are conflicting theories and evidence that point in several directions as to perpetrators.

Also a background section was added in the last couple of days based merely on Robert (Bud) McFarlane's claims. McFarlane has not just had his claims contested, he has had them thoroughly debunked, and specifically was convicted In US federal courts of four counts lying before congress. McFarlane is currently on the board on the board of Washington Institute for Near East Policy which is closely associated with th AIPAC,and is not a neutral party even today. The McFarlane book cited serves mainly as a polemic against other Reagean officials, Don Regan, Alexander Haig, George Shultz and Richard Poindexter and its presentation as fact our even a valid source is more than a problem without significant multiple source corroboration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FortunateC (talk • contribs) 10:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

changed "According to some observers" (another person who has claimed there was little or no retaliation for the blast was Thomas Friedman. He said it after the 9/11 attack) --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RETALIATION

[edit]

The retaliation by the French and Americans was not mere shelling, whoever wrote that has no respect for the innocent dead Lebanese. The retaliation was severe and hundreds were killed. A U.S navel war ship repeatedly bombed Lebanese villages and French planes attacked. Innocent people were killed in the hundreds, people were crushed in their homes.Lebanese bebe (talk) 12:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edits as they are often rambling, unsourced and/or too strongly Hezbollah/Syrian/IRI point-of-view. I will work have tried to re-edited the article to work in your arguements. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete sourced information. Ranstorp is a noted scholar. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

photo is incorrect

[edit]

The photograph of Reagan touring the caskets belongs with the U.S. embassy bombing article. The photograph was taken on April 23, 1983 - five days after the embassy bombing (and months before the barracks bombing).

See: http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/photographs/grenada.html Rdhulljr (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mossad involvement

[edit]

From the Wikipedia article (with my own emphasis): The former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky has accused Mossad of knowing of the plans for the bombing, but not informing the US government (Ostrovsky 1991). It has been suggested that the reason that Israel did not inform the US was that the withdrawal of US and French forces prevented them from interfering with Israeli operations in Lebanon.[45] Supporters of this argument such as Benny Morris, David Wise and others have argued that Ostrovsky's charges are actually true.[46][47]

When following the citation that tells us what Morris thinks about this, you see that he actually argues that the Ostrovsky's story is mostly fabricated. That's quite far a statement from the claim made in the Wikipedia article. For completeness, I quote Morris (again, with my own emphasis): [Ostrovsky] did not have and could not have much knowledge of then current Mossad operations, let alone operational history. [...] To spice up the "product," as it is called in the trade, Ostrovsky threw in sex (orgies at the Mossad guest-house) and the odd (mostly fabicated) "wet" story, such as that the Mossad knew in advance of the 1983 Shi'ite truck-bombing of the U.S. Marines dormitory in Beirut, in which 241 service-men died, but had failed to inform the American in time.

So, in short, I think someone needs to edit the Wikipedia article so that it is aligned with what it cites.

I should also add that the claim that David Wise supports this argument of Ostrovsky is another mistake, which should be fixed as well; just read Wise's cited article. 93.173.142.241 (talk) 09:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The USS Liberty incident is compared to the Beirut Barracks bombing concerning the manner in which orchestrated coverups surrounding both events occurred.[2] It is accepted Israel had prior knowledge of the impending attack and withheld it, costing American lives.[3] Former Israeli intelligent officers have only lent credibility to common knowledge concerning Israel's use of proxies for false flag terrorism to blame their enemies in discussing revelations that Mossad had prior knowledge of the impending Beirut Barracks bombings.[4] Their favorite target for blame are Muslims and Middle East entities so as to keep the United States in their political camp and divided from Israel's opponents in the region.[4]
In Reagan's diaries, he wrote the intelligence wasn't clear who was responsible when the event happened, and was experiencing a difficult relationship with Menachem Begin over Reagan's reluctance to fully comply with their foreign policy desires. Begin's Likud Party is who has ultimately hijacked Capitol Hill militantly and America following 9/11--they're called the Neo-Cons.
  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chosin_Reservoir
  2. ^ "The politics of anti-Semitism", Alexander Cockburn, Jeffrey St. Clair. AK Press, 2003. ISBN 1902593774, 9781902593777. p. 123
  3. ^ "Israeli Secret Services", Frank Clements. Transaction Publishers, 2008. ISBN 1412808146, 9781412808149. p. 18
  4. ^ a b "Iraq, Lies, Cover-Ups, and Consequences", Rodney Stich. Silverpeak Enterprises, 2005. ISBN 0932438229, 9780932438225. p. 331

HJ Mitchell Clone (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US bias

[edit]

The article is still primarily focused on the attack on the US story when the second bomb was equally cataclysmic for the French. For example:

  • The article name suggests only a single bombing ("1983 Beirut barracks bombing" not "1983 Beirut barracks bombings").
  • Two pictures of the US barracks, and no picture of the French barracks
  • All the pictures and videos are US-centric

Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree! The main entry 1983 Beirut Barracks Bombing is incorrect. It should read: Bombings with an 's'. I found two pictures: one of the 'Drakkar' building and another of the French memorial to those who died. I uploaded both to use in this article. I could not discover where the French memorial is actually located.
Aspencork (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Response"

[edit]

The excerpted passage below seems to imply that General Colin Powell is commenting on the U.S.S. New Jersey's February 1984 shelling of Druze and Syrian positions. Such criticism of an event after the BLT bombing seems absurd, so the quote seems to be out of context.

COL Geraghty's notable criticism of the decision to employ naval gun-fire pertains to a September 19, 1983, incident. If this Powell comment is echoing Geraghty's POV, then it makes more sense . . . but as presently written, it does not make sense. Would somebody with more knowledge of Powell's quote please verify and correct.

Note, the U.S.S. New Jersey hadn't yet arrived on the scene by September 19th; so, it was not involved in that naval gun-fire incident. It arrived off Beirut on September 25th.


Excerpted WIKI passage under "Response":

On February 8, 1984, USS New Jersey (BB-62) fired almost 300 shells at Druze and Syrian positions in the Bekaa Valley east of Beirut. This was the heaviest shore bombardment since the Korean War.[34] New Jersey's shells killed probably hundreds of people, mostly Shiites and Druze.[35] In his memoir, General Colin Powell (at the time an assistant to Caspar Weinberger) noted that "When the shells started falling on the Shiites, they assumed the American ‘referee’ had taken sides."[36] Some analysts subsequently criticized the decision to have U.S. warships shell Druze and Syrian forces. They claim that this action forced a shift in the previously neutral U.S. forces by convincing local Lebanese Muslims that the U.S. had taken the Christian side.[37]

Aspencork (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I examined and read this Powell quote within the context of the narrative in his autobiography. Powell was factually incorrect in insinuating that the barracks bombing was a reprisal for shelling by the New Jersey: the barracks bombing preceded all of the New Jersey shellings. Powell was also factually wrong in the numbers he cited as casualty figures.

Aspencork (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sassy ?

[edit]

QUOTE :

"In the attack on the French barracks, the nine-story 'Drakkar' building, 58 paratroopers from the 1st Parachute Chasseur Regiment were killed and 15 injured minutes after the attack, in France's single worst military loss since the end of the Algerian War.[5] The wife and four children of a Lebanese janitor at the French building were also killed.[6]"

Can you tell me how it's relevant to write this? thank you ! ~~Swax~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.36.193.204 (talk) 09:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

241 U.S. service personnel died

[edit]

220 Marines and 21 other service personnel. And no where in the article does it mention numbers.

I think that's pertinent.

241 U.S. service personnel died

[edit]

220 Marines and 21 other service personnel. And no where in the article does it mention numbers.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/13/world/meast/beirut-marine-barracks-bombing-fast-facts/

I think that's pertinent.

plagiarism problem

[edit]

Citation number 88 is plagiarized in that whole paragraph leading up to the citation in the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.212.46 (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Repaired omitted quotation marks. Aspencork (talk) 04:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

[edit]

I see OJOM has repeatedly added a large amount of detail, including lists, to this article, and also added non-neutral language such as "martyrs", removed links and placed links in citations. It's time to discuss these changes. Overall I agree with the editors who have reverted thse changes; Wikipedia is not a memorial and we must strive to be neutral. But it is possible there are some details that should be incorporated. For example, OJOM added additional French regiments/units? What was the source for that? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Lebanese Presidency following visit of French Defense Authorities

[edit]

http://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2013/10/23/1737569-visite-a-la-presidence-du-liban.html

This article brought to you by the Lebanese

[edit]

It should unequivocally state that in the header. No it is just a coincidence a bunch of Lebanese edited the same article and are not calling this either an act or war by the Lebanese government which is obviously not the case or a terrorist attack. We invented a new type of attack it is the " just because" attack!

Role of the US State Department

[edit]

I'm repeating some "oral history" here, so no sources but it might be worth looking into. The story we were told was that the Marine Commander was prevented by the US State Department from fortifying the compound and arming the guards, in order to prevent preventing a "hostile posture" to the local population. A GS something-or-other over-rode the military commander on the ground's military judgement and as a result hundreds of Marines died. If true, this aspect of the story merits inclusion.Jonny Quick (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 1983 Beirut barracks bombing. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 01:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on 1983 Beirut barracks bombings. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 00:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1983 Beirut barracks bombings. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 21:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1983 Beirut barracks bombings. 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: 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) 21:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 1983 Beirut barracks bombings. 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: 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) 09:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iran Involvement

[edit]

I found this article that provides a couple of sources that do not agree with the common belief of Hezbollah or Iran's involvement:

  • President Reagan's Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger said that, "We still do not have the actual knowledge of who did the bombing of the Marine barracks at the Beirut Airport, and we certainly didn't then."
  • There is no consensus Hezbollah was actually formed at the time of bombing.

I will try to gather more sources as it happened before that we accused some people and it later turned out to be foggy if not totally false. Hostility shadows the truth.--Kazemita1 (talk) 07:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an excerpt from Caspar Weinberger's interview where he admits they are not sure Iran had a part in the bombing:


[Interviewer:] Looking back at it now, though, is it possible that we erred by not taking out Syria or Iran to send a message?

[Weinberger:] I don't think we erred, unless you wanted to do attack areas that you're not certain were involved. If you want to do blind bombing, yes, then you hit anybody you want; you don't have to do any investigation, and you get revenge and you feel a little better. But that doesn't accomplish anything, and does a lot of potential harm.

--Kazemita1 (talk) 09:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1983 Beirut barracks bombings. 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: 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) 10:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pence in the lead

[edit]

Does not belong, if one day historians see that remark as one of the more important aspects of this then sure it can go in the lead. As of now it is a politician making an off-hand reference. nableezy - 20:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term, sustained edit warring/POV-pushing

[edit]

At this article, XXzoonamiXX has removed RS content from Oxford University Press that he personally disagrees with no fewer than seven times ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]) despite being reverted by three different users including myself and is now socking to evade his current block for edit warring at USS Cole bombing. Max Abrahms (2019), a leading authority on terrorism published by OUP (one of the most prestigious university presses in the world), states (p. 43): "Researchers like to cite Hezbollah's success in coercing Western forces from Lebanon as prima facie evidence that terrorism works. ... But were the truck bombings really terrorist incidents? Not if terrorism is to mean violence directed against civilians. The target of the attacks was a barracks. Americans lost 220 Marines, eighteen sailors, and three soldiers in the deadliest single-day death toll for the U.S. Armed Forces since the Vietnam War. The French lost fifty-five paratroopers from the 1st Parachute Chasseur Regiment in the worst national military loss since the end of the Algerian War." Yet XXzoonamiXX has continually deleted one short sentence summarizing Abrahms's analysis, at first providing no edit summary and hoping to avoid any transparency over his actions, and then offering ever more contradictory and incoherent word salad responses when pressed on his rationale ("It doesn't matter if it's a gold standard, it's a matter of a biased perspective which should be neutral in regards to universal definition of terrorism. This is not one of them and it doesn't make it right"; "What basis do you have for adding this information in other than being 'reliable'? Just because they're reliable information regarding on a definition that is clearly outdated doesn't mean they're asserted as should be debated") while insisting (with no sources or evidence) that "this debate has already been settled." XXzoonamiXX cited no basis in policy (e.g., WP:V, WP:RS, WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE) for his reverts and appeared to stipulate that the source is reliable despite his personal disagreement, meaning that I could not simply appeal to (say) WP:RSN or WP:FTN or WP:NPOVN to determine if OUP is a reputable publisher or a publisher of FRINGE ideas (not that the answer to such questions is in doubt) as XXzoonamiXX could always say that I was forum-shopping to game a content dispute and that he would not accept (say) RSN as having jurisdiction over his arbitrary, subjective, and undefined personal dislike of RS content. (I detest WP:POINTY editors that go to RSN to affirm, say, the reliability of The New York Times when the actual point of contention is weight, but I genuinely cannot tell if XXzoonamiXX is so completely incompetent that he doubts the reliability of OUP or believes that his personal opinion constitutes a "refutation" of OUP.)

A deeper examination of XXzoonamiXX's antics here reveals a disturbing pattern of ownership, as he has been engaged in a long-term edit war with virtually all other contributors for years now to label the 1983 bombings as terrorism in the infobox and lede, reinstating text to that effect at least 10 times since 2016 ([23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]), with more than half of those being within the past six months. From past discussions, it seems unlikely that there was ever consensus to describe the bombings as "terrorist" in Wikipedia's voice, yet XXzoonamiXX invariably returns to try to slip the label back in as soon as other editors let their guard down, never backed by RS despite his vague assurances that "every reliable book and articles on the internet says the incident to be terrorism many times. You could look them up for yourself." Honestly, this would all be funny if XXzoonamiXX wasn't so genuinely successful at wearing down the patience of other editors.

It's worth noting that I previously had no objection to describing the 1983 bombings as terrorism in the lede because my impression was that many RS do categorize it as such and that it's not Wikipedia's place to second-guess RS; given that Abrahms critiques many other sources that he says are guilty of "lumping" terrorist and guerrilla activity to create a misleading impression of terrorist successes, I never tried to modify the lede to reflect his position, which may be in the minority (but certainly not FRINGE, as OUP does not publish FRINGE content). Yet I was genuinely taken aback by the fanatical certainty with which XXzoonamiXX overtly threw Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines out the window to purge Abrahms/OUP for not telling him what he wanted to hear. XXzoonamiXX's misconduct is especially egregious because he is obsessed with tarring specific incidents as terrorism in the ledes of various articles—with all of the negative connotations of murdering civilians, ISIS-style, that come with that word—using a loose definition that doesn't specifically entail targeting civilians, but he simultaneously tries to obscure this new definition by removing detailed targeting information from the body (e.g., XXzoonamiXX replaces "220 U.S. marines, 18 sailors, and three soldiers; 58 French paratroopers" with "241 U.S. peacekeepers, 58 French peacekeepers"). After all, why does XXzoonamiXX even consider Abrahms/OUP to be so problematic to the narrative that he is advancing if they agree on the basic fact that the 1983 bombings did not target civilians, but simply disagree on the definition of terrorism? It seems that XXzoonamiXX wants to have his cake and eat it, too—for reasons of plausible deniability, he will say that "There's no universal definition that (terrorism) only applies to civilians," but he will then turn around and purge Abrahms/OUP simply for mentioning the obvious fact that the 1983 bombings didn't target random civilians, because he wants readers to associate the forerunner to Hezbollah with the likes of ISIS.

This has gone on long enough, and I urge page watchers to be vigilant once XXzoonamiXX's current edit warring block expires, although I will also be asking an admin if it should be extended in light of his block evasion.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think a WP:request for comment might be in order here, there is a very clear tendency for American POV-pushing in this article. We can't simply take American POV at face value when there are obviously dissenting views as to whether this was a terrorist attack or not (as well as the American motives, which were hardly benevolent), and we probably need a deep revert to get rid of the POV. FunkMonk (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I support the inclusion of the Abrahms source. One can legitimately agree or disagree with the opinion itself, but one can't disagree that the source is reliable and written by an expert in the field. It's strikes me as a perspective worth mentioning in the article.Handy History Handbook (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also noticed that the "terrorist" label in the lede is sourced to the commander of the USMNF at the time of the bombings, Col. Timothy J. Geraghty. As of the current revision, Geraghty's 2009 memoir is cited as a source 41 separate times, never with clear in-text attribution. While Geraghty may have a unique perspective into this incident that merits inclusion, relying so heavily on a primary source when numerous secondary reliable sources have extensively documented both the bombings and the relevant political/military context in which they occurred seems to invite questions about this article's impartiality. Regardless of his personal insights, Geraghty is not an expert on terrorism and his description of the bombers as terrorists should be seen as pejorative—not as a factual statement.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Response Beruit Rombing by BrHosp, NAS Sigonella By HMC G. L. Smith, USN Ret The response team consisted of 3 Medical Officers, 16 Corpsmen,and 1 Medical Servic Corp Officer On the morning of the bombing I was called from my quarters and told to report to the hospital. I advised of the bombing and expected number of casualties. We instituted a recall, selected our team and emptied supply of anything I thought would be of help. We were airborn within an hour and a half. Upon landing in Beruit, 2 Medical Officers went aboard ship to assist, the BrHosp OIC went to the site of the bombing. I divided my corpsmen into four teams to triage and treat incoming patients. An additionaly team was sent to assist with deceased. One Medical Officer stayed with us to help treat patients when he was needed. Later that evening when we had loaded to capacity, all members returned and we departed for Naples and delivered our patients to staff from the Naval Hospital, Naples. After the OIC had debriefed Senior Staff Members in Naples, we loaded up and returned to Sigonella. 2603:6000:D600:14BA:F886:3610:A788:3596 (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1983_Beirut_barracks_bombings&oldid=1252288027"