Talk:Car bomb: Difference between revisions

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Death Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Explosives Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Explosives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Explosives on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ExplosivesWikipedia:WikiProject ExplosivesTemplate:WikiProject ExplosivesExplosives articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Military history: Technology / Weaponry This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force Transport Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Perhaps there could be a 'target' field for the table? This would be especially useful for detailling assassinations, but I can see layout issues with the table becoming overly large. Comments? James D. Forrester 02:21 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

How about two separate tables, one for assassination attempts and the other for untargeted bombs?

Sounds goods to me.

James D. Forrester 02:40 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

Have now impemented. Thoughts?

James D. Forrester 02:51 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

Am I the only one that think the table is bloody rediculous. Any potential terrorist could come on here and get ideas as to the best vehicle to use for a car bombing. There is no need for this table.

or maybe he could just use google and find 1 million other websites, security throught obscurity is no security, merelly misinformation

Why there is no citation of this: http://www.thejc.com/comment/tv-radio/we-invented-car-bomb the article seems prety one sided??

I'd disagree about putting location before target for assassinations, as, well, the 'important' part is the person, not where it occured. Also, locations should always specify the country, shouldn't they? Quite apart from anything else, specifying Beirut being in Lebannon, but not doing so for other countries makes it look like the only reason this policy is being implemented is to make exactly 2 location links for each event... James D. Forrester 03:03 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

The reason the location comes first is so the second table looks like the first table. I took the countries out because the table was getting too wide. Chadloder 03:31 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

OK, I've reached a compromise, of sorts; sublocation+country, exactly 2 references. This is still a typographical constraint, however, and it irks me not insignifcantly. Ah well.

James D. Forrester 03:39 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

The King David Hotel was not a car bombing. The explosives were hidden in milk cans that were placed in the basement of the hotel. They were delivered by truck. Danny

Yes, you're right. Chadloder 03:31 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

I am not going to state my authority for the following, for obvious reasons, but you should find it plausible on its merits anyway.

Ignition triggering is now rare as it is easy to detect and hard to install - interfering with the circuitry is time consuming and places detectable drains on the circuitry, which can trigger alarms. Also, the target can start the car remotely (inadvertently or otherwise), and the target may be a passenger who is a safer distance away when the ignitio starts. It is more reliable to set off the bomb when the car is underway, and easier to fasten it quickly and unobtrusively if no fittings have to be made to the car (one single central pull is braced against pressure points at the ends or corners of the bomb; it is quite easy to connect a single tie for this).

Therefore it is now more usual to use a combination of engine vibration, acceleration, and timing. The vibration starts a timer and works as a safety; the bomb arms when the engine is running steadily and disarms otherwise. Then, acceleration is picked up by (say) a mercury switch and sets off the bomb (this double triggering approach is a principle of wider application than just car bombs). Airey Neave's bomb went off when the mercury switch was triggered by going up a ramp from a car park; technically this is acceleration too. Security services monitor purchase patterns of components like mercury switches for this reason.

So, don't remove references to how car bombs work these days and substitute obsolete ones. PML.

What is the earliest reference to a car bombing that you can find?

That would have to be the March 11, 1948 car bombing of the Jewish Agency in Jerusalem. 11 people died in the attack, which was carried out with a stolen American consul's car. This is the earliest one I could find.

The book Buda's Wagon covers the history of car bombing. It is named after the anarchist who used a horse & cart across the street from the New York Stock Exchange. Very unpleasant book. Spanish anarchists were setting off car bombs in the 1920s and 1930s. Many were stolen taxis, loaded with dynamite, driven to the target, some cases the fuse was lit and the driver bailed out of the car. Tangurena 23:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that this page is probably the largest--and most accurate--list of car bombings on the 'Net.

PBP, 21 February 2004

I'm not sure if the usage was widespread, but I do know that it was Jewish militant groups in present day Israel (Formerly a British protectorate) that were the first to use car-bombing as a tactic in the Middle East against the British. I'm not sure if they were used for assassinations of specific individuals or acts of terrorism. However I am almost certain (99.9%) that it was pre-Israel Jewish militant groups that created the tactic. Is there any salt to the idea that they were the first to use it widely. The question sin't whether the Lebanese used it more widely but if it was used in that conflict by Irgun widely first.Angrynight 17:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lehi was the name of the group you are looking for. Tangurena 23:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A recent book calls the Wall Street bombing the first "car" bomb. the resoning is that it was the first terrorist bombing the author could find that used a vehicle as the delivery system. Paulwharton 17:10 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe napoleon was once involved in a assasination attempt using a bomb charriot (he wasnt in that charriot btw, it exploded near his own charriot). Will charriot count?

According to Buda's Wagon, the assassination attempt of Napoleon involved barrels at the side of the road. Like the modern IEDs in Iraq. Tangurena 23:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about the Plot_of_the_Rue_Saint-Nicaise (the Infernal Machine)? It was a horse drawn carage filled with wine casks loaded with gun powder? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.108.102 (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a source for the first car bomb: Abdul Hamid II assassination attempt by Armenian separatists in 1905. I still looking for more details (e.g. type of car). Comments? Fernando (talk) 22:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to take out the most recent entry on this list, the foiled Atocha Station car bombings related to the Madrid Attacks. Seeing as this is a list of actual car bombings, and not foiled ones, they really shouldn't be on this list. If someone can tell me why they should, they can stay on. PBP, 11 April 2004.

This article is written presuming that a car bomb is being used as a weapon against an external target, rather than against the occupants of the vehicle itself. I believe that assassination of the occupants was originally a far more common use of such bombs, dating back at least to the Prohibition era in the U.S. -- I think there were organized crime killings by bombs rigged to ignition switches and the like dating back to at least the mid-1920s. Some additional historical perspective seems in order. ArgentLA 18:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a fundamental distinction that could be made clearer in the article. When I was growing up, the phrase "car bomb" in common parlance referred to a bomb placed in a car that was intended to kill the occupant of that car. For instance, what happened in the case of Don Bolles. As ArgentLA notes above, a car bomb was primarily an assassination method.

The now seemingly more common meaning of "car bomb" is a car used as a bomb. The car is essentially the weapon and is used as a means to attack outside targets. The driver or passenger isn't the target. I think the article intermixes the discussion of these two completely different meanings of "car bomb" too freely. I'm not a Wikipedia style expert but it seems to me two different, very distinct sections would be a more suitable way to present this information. Kentucho (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The short list of car bombs, or abortions too, is a figment of the imagination.Gregorydavid 07:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained the reasons for my edits, and asked that any reverts to my edits be discussed here before reverting. Please do so. --Setanta747 (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far no explanation has been forthcoming for the reversions of the article by both BigDunc and Domer.

My explanations for the two individual edits I made were in the edit summaries as follows:

"Explanation for edit: removed POV stmnt highlighing attks against civilians by UVF (no such statement made about aforementioned IRA): do not revert again without disc"

"Explanation for edit: removed info which is duplicated here unnecessarily: do not revert again without discussion"

The only edit comments made in the two reverts by BigDunc and Domer are, "Please try to avoid reverting peoples' edits wholesale" which is Domer's attempt to mock me with parody, and "Reverted 1 edit by Setanta747; Revert unexplained deletion lets not have an edit war here" - BigDunc seems to be claiming my edits were unexplained when they were, as shown above.

Although only one revert each this day, this follows the same pattern whereby certain editors join together to block any possibility of edits made by certain other editors, and therefore 'claim an article' as their own - contrary to Wikipedia policy. --Setanta747 (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loyalists did not attack political, economic of infrastructural targets, like the IRA. Loyalists attacked civilians, the target being civilians, that’s the difference. --Domer48 (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you finally decided offer an explanation for your attempt to start an edit war.

The UVF also attacked what it perceived to be either enemies of the state or republican activists and members of various republican terrorist organisations. Your precious IRA also attacked civilians. The article is therefore unbalanced, as it doesn't tell the whole truth.[1]

You have addressed one issue. There is still another (I specifically made two separate edits to highlight this, both of which you and BigDunc reverted, seemingly because you didn't like it). --Setanta747 (talk) 08:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loyalists did not attack political, economic of infrastructural targets, like the IRA. Loyalists attacked civilians, the target being civilians, that’s the difference.--Domer48 (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loyalists didn't attack political opponents? Was Michael Stone looking for a chat? And where were the "political, economic of infrastructural targets" at Kingsmill?Traditional unionist (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about car bombs, please don't clutter up the talk page with off-topic discussion. Domer48 (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't make daft statements and then cry wolf when you're challanged on them, this isn't pre school. The provos often used car bombs, Bloody Friday for a startTraditional unionist (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Loyilists were not fighting a campaign against the Republic of Ireland, they targeted civilians in both the North and the South in the case of Dublin and Monaghan by their own admission. The IRA attacked economic and infrastructural targets. --Domer48 (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Like Kingsmill.Traditional unionist (talk)

This article is about car bombs, please don't clutter up the talk page with off-topic discussion. Domer48 (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you can't cry foul when your argument is flawed! The provos used car bombs which killed civillians, several on one day.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source states that the Loyilists targeted civilians, by their own admission. Have you got a source which states the IRA admitted to targeting civilians. --Domer48 (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I have plenty that say the murdered 10 workmen because they were protestants in an act of retiliation. I also have plenty to say that the IRA employed car bombs in instances which killed dozens of civillians.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well when you have a source that says the IRA deliberately "used car bombs against civilians" we can discuss further. Domer48 (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are certainly sources that fellow travellers used them against civillians.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you have a source that says the IRA deliberately "used car bombs against civilians" we can discuss further. --Domer48 (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loyalists did not attack political, economic of infrastructural targets, like the IRA. Loyalists attacked civilians, the target being civilians, that’s the difference.--Domer48 (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact, they did, starting in April 1969. July and October of 1972, June 1973, January 1981, March 1984, a whole period following the Anglo-Irish Agreement, March 1988 and October 1992 are just some other instances when Loyalists attacked political, economic and infrastructural targets. It is well known that Loyalist terrorist organisations targeted people they suspected of being members of Republican terrorist organisations, or helping and abetting the same.

TU has also provided you with examples of how the Provisional IRA attacked civilians. There is no need to specify that Loyalists attacked civilians when it is well-known that civilians were attacked by all kinds of terrorist groups from both 'sides'.

There is nothing special about the IRA that they deserve to be treated any differently from any other terrorist organisation by Wikipedia. --Setanta747 (talk) 05:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, this article is about car bombs so attacks not involving csr bombs have no bearing on the content of this article. TU has not provided a single example of how the Provisional IRA deliberately attacked civilians with car bombs, unlike Dublin/Monaghan which the UVF admitted was targetting civilians. When you have reliable sources saying the IRA admitted deliberately targeted civilians with car bombs we can discuss this further, but there is no point discussing based on nothing other than editors opinions. Domer48 (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that civilians have been killed as a result of car bombs by terrorists from both 'sides'. The article, at present, suggests that only Loyalists attacked civilians. This is unbalanced.

As much as I find it distasteful to have to 'defend' Loyalist terrorists, I have to point out that they have attacked what they would presumably regard to be 'legitimate targets', with car bombs, including solicitor Rosemary Nelson; funerals of IRA members; political activists and members of Sinn Féin.

The Provisional IRA have used car bombs to kill civilians (or in locations which civilians could easily be present, or when inadequate warnings were given), including those at Claudy; London in 1973; Glengormley in 1977; Maghera in 1978; Markethill in 1980; Lisnaskea in 1980; Belfast, Derry and Lisburn in 1981; London in 1982; Enniskillen in 1982; Newry in 1985; and Lurgan in 1994. Also, both the CIRA and the Real IRA have used car bombs to attack civilians.

This is not opinion - this is fact. The article, at present, presents a rather subjective opinion. --Setanta747 (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is still opinion. When you provide sources that back up your opinion we can discuss this further. I will also emphasise that the UVF admitted targetting civilians with no-warning car bombs, which is sourced and not opinion. Until you actually provide sources, this discussion is going nowhere in a hurry. Domer48 (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is still "rather subjective opinion", and unbalanced, as the article currently stands. I'm sure we can take this discussion to a place whereby our differences can be resolved. I certainly feel it has been useful - unlike the needless and unexplained reverting from earlier. --Setanta747 (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is "rather subjective opinion"? And there is little point discussing further without sources. When you provide sources that back up your opinion we can discuss this further. Domer48 (talk) 10:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective opinion is the way in which the article currently reads. I have already provided sources by the fact that I have pointed out events in which the IRA attacked civilians with car bombs and that different Loyalists terrorists have attacked "political, economic of infrastructural targets," ("like the IRA"). --Setanta747 (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have not provided a single source. You have provided your own opinion of various events and the intended target of certain car bombs. When you provide sources that back up your opinion we can discuss this further. Domer48 (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try the CAIN website for a source, to start with. I have not provided any opinion other than that of stating that the article is, as it stands, unbalanced. --Setanta747 (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have not provided a single source. You have provided your own opinion of various events and the intended target of certain car bombs. When you provide sources that back up your opinion we can discuss this further.--Domer48 (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Define civilian, under international law this is defined as someone who is not a member of the Armed forces Kernel Saunters (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So the bombing of Bagdad by American actually targeted civilians?--Domer48 (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about loyalist and republican terrorism. Please don't clutter up the talk page with off-topic discussion. --Setanta747 (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Gibson aged 73 (and wife) and Ian Gow, both civilians, were assassinated by IRA car bombs Kernel Saunters (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cop onto yourself, not going to waste my time. --Domer48 (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Domer, please remain civil or you will be reported and blocked.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has any one got a references that the IRA targetted civillians? Or are you all just playing silly games here POV pushing. BigDunc^Talk 20:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Domer, please remain civil or you will be reported and blocked.[2][3][4][5] and not to mention [6].Traditional unionist (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out nowhere in the sources does it say judges are civilians or civilians were targeted, and that editors are synthesising using one possible definition of civlilian. BigDunc^Talk 21:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget that the Provisional IRA and other Republican terrorists did in fact kill civilians with car bombs. Whether any statements by them announced particular intended targets or not, is irrelevant. The fact remains that this article is unbalanced, strongly suggesting that the Republican terrorists are whiter than white and that "Loyalist paramilitary organisations" are blacker than black by comparison. All of the groups concerned are terrorist groups and have killed civilians in the course of actions ostensibly carried out to 'further' one 'cause' or another. --Setanta747 (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you have a source that says the IRA deliberately "used car bombs against civilians" we can discuss further. Since you have indicated that no sources will be provided no discussion is nessary. --Domer48 (talk) 07:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've already been provided with a number of sources. I think it's time to re-word the relevant parts of this article. Discussion should now tackle how this should be changed. --Setanta747 (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please show me where the ref is that states the IRA targetted civillians. I cant seem to find any. BigDunc^Talk 17:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you address Mal's point? Why is it necessary to prove that there was intent? They murdered dozens of civilians (including Catholic Judges btw) with carbombs, why is it necessary to prove they intended to kill them? They did.Traditional unionist (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you have a source that says the IRA deliberately "used car bombs against civilians" we can discuss further.--Domer48 (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've already been provided with a number of sources. I think it's time to re-word the relevant parts of this article. Discussion should now tackle how this should be changed. --Setanta747 (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pleas provide a Diff, because I can't see any sources being provided. When you have a source that says the IRA deliberately "used car bombs against civilians" we can discuss further.--Domer48 (talk) 08:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS GOING NOWHERE PROVIDE A SOURCE THAT SAYS IRA TARGETED CIVILLIANS THEN WE CAN DISCUSS FURTHER. BigDunc^Talk 08:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dunc, remain civil or you will be reported and blocked. No one has addressed the question, why is it necessary to confirm that it was intentional to murder civilians?Traditional unionist (talk) 11:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought you had read the discussion? By reading the discussion the question, why is it necessary to confirm that it was intentional to murder civilians is obvious? --Domer48 (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loyalists did not attack political, economic of infrastructural targets, like the IRA. Loyalists attacked civilians, the target being civilians, that’s the difference. --Domer48 (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC) You make the assertion, but nowhere do you let us know why this is of any relevence.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time we tried to balance the article. --Setanta747 (talk) 07:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"BATF summary table illustrating the size and range of effectiveness of car bombs by vehicle type used."
What explosive is being used? Just TNT? Because a massive plastic explosive weighing 60,000 pounds would surely cause a bigger lethal air blast range.
--91.154.52.137 (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Suicide Bombers Who's Next - removed this link - it seems more a 'theory about terrorism' rather than subject of article SatuSuro 09:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

they are on the list of organizations that still use car bombs. I thought they were defeated and surrendered--69.248.225.198 (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's added an annotation: "how?" to the first paragraph's claim that "the gasoline in the vehicle's fuel tanks make the explosion of the bomb more powerful". Isn't how that works kind of self-evident? Enough people know that gasoline is explosive (or can quickly find that out with a glance at the article on gasoline) to understand that adding gasoline to an explosion provides more destructive potential. This isn't a technical article, so I don't think an in-depth explanation is necessary. Anybody mind if I remove it? Wiki Wizard (GDG) (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are we seriously referring to a muslim terrorist in Sweden as only "a Swedish man of Iraqi origin" and then "bomber" while referring to others as things like "a far right extremist"?

Why not call the muslim terrorist a muslim terrorist AND call the far right extremist a far right extremist??????????????

Why is there such a bias instead of actually seeking truth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.160.132 (talk) 07:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. It's great to know we've talked this over and established consensus on this controversial issue. Denarivs (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably a Swedish man of Iraqi origin is someone who holds Swedish citizenship but has ancestry in Iraq. That is entirely different to an Iraqi man. I would have checked to see what the source says, but there is no source - like most of the list. (Hohum ^@) 18:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Found a source. Made the text factual, provided source, linked to main article on the event. (Hohum ^@) 18:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Car bomb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303180644/http://www.combatfilms.com/cfrtv_archive_0007.asp to http://www.combatfilms.com/cfrtv_archive_0007.asp

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) 15:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Car bomb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071229221418/http://www.cornerhouse.org/books/info.aspx?ID=1835&page=0 to http://www.cornerhouse.org/books/info.aspx?ID=1835&page=0

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) 22:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should clarify that the actual bombs inside the school were placed earlier, and the 'car bombing' only killed 4 people after Kehoe arrived at the scene later.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 January 2024 and 14 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Patriotsfan012 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Redshirt111, 1MightBeRight.

— Assignment last updated by ChemWorx (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"From 1979 to early 1983, under the guise of the Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners, Israel Defense Forces commanders Rafael Eitan, Avigdor Ben-Gal and Meir Dagan launched a campaign of bombings, including car, bicycle..."

(BTW - the whole part including the part I left out here - is too lengthy, and seems apologetic. The whole thing was planned and executed by the Israeli minister of defense, we don't know if the prime minister, Begin, was briefed ansd still I think it's enough to say that Israel was behind the campaign)

And another thing - there's another paragraph about a parallel period: "Suicide car bombs were a regular feature against Israel in the 1982 Lebanon War which lasted from 1982 until Israel's withdrawal in 2000. The bombing campaign was waged by several groups, most prominently Hezbollah."

Maybe both items should be united. NilsHolgersson2 (talk) 09:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]