Talk:Al-Qaeda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Al-Qaeda article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Archives

1 2 3 4

Contents


[edit] New Translation

According to close arab friend of mine, Al-Queada in most dialects translates to "expert ROFLcopter pilot". Who knew?

[edit] Commas and periods go inside the quote marks

If you're going to edit the world's largest encyclopedia please use proper grammar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.200.144.147 (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I encourage you to make changes here when you see something incorrect :) Kingturtle (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
> If you're going to edit the world's largest encyclopedia please use proper grammar.
OK, but commas and periods do not necessarily go inside the quote marks. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotation_marks
It would also help if you learned some basic Wikipedia preferences, like getting a user-name instead of editing anonymously, placing new talk page entries at the bottom of the page instead of at the top, and "signing" your entries. --RenniePet (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The way I generally work, both in my profession and on Wikipedia, is to keep commas and periods within quotation marks only when such quotations actually denote speech. If using quotation marks like "this" to identify a proper name or somesuch, for example as in "The United Kingdom", I wouldn't put the comma inside the quotation marks because technically they are not quotation marks at all in this context.
And I'm by no means the only one to do things this way. However I'd be interested to hear what others think about this and if it's a generally accepted paradigm or if I've just been lucky to get away with my personal preference for all these years. :) Tomalak Geret'kal (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An obvious question: How many members?

The article doesn't seem to answer an obvious question, which I posit ought to be under a separate heading:

How many members does al-Qaeda have? And how are they organized on a ground level basis?

I think this is an important question, and I hope someone has an answer. Are we fighting a ten million man force, or a couple of hundred crazies? --TallulahBelle (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It is generally thought that there used to be a small group called Al-Qaeda, but because of certain geopolitical developments it has over time come to mean a certain political notion. An older summary from the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1670089.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by IceHunter (talk • contribs) 20:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The numbers of Al-Qaeda are a key question, since it ought to be clear how many people the democracies of the West are fighting. I propose a separate section be devoted to the numbers issue. All in favor?--TallulahBelle (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Were you planning to make a distinction between the original al Qaida, and al Qaeda in Iraq? I think that is a good idea.
Numerous Guantanamo captives faced the allegation that their name was on a list of 324 Arabic names. Some might think this puts a bottom limit on the number of members of al Qaeda at 324. My own interpretation of this is that this is not a list of al Qaida members. IIRC most (all?) captives whose names are on this list testified that they had to flee in a hurry, when it became open season on Arabs, who were worth $5000 to bounty hunters, and had fled without trying to retrieve their passport. One theory I have on this list is that it is not a list of members -- that it is a list of blackmarket passports including those of these guys who had fled without retrieving their passports -- and al Qaeda's possession of the passport, and the listing of it, could imply no guilt at all.
Several Guantanamo captives are accused of serving in Osama bin Laden's 55th Arab Brigade -- a al Qaeda mechanized unit that he commanded, under the Taliban's over-all control. In normal usage a brigade is at least two battalions, right? So, if this were a conventional brigade, in a conventional army, it would contain somewhere between 1000 and, um, I don't know, 6000(?) men. The International Brigades, like the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, during the Spanish Civil War, were essentially conventional units. I wonder whether OBL's name was meant to echo the International Brigades? I doubt it, even though there is one huge parallel. (Both groups were made up of foreigners had traveled to a foreign country, to engage in someone else's war, based on a shared ideology. Volunteers in the Spanish Civil War shared an anti-fascist ideology. Al Qaeda's volunteers, presumably, share a form of Sunni fundamentalism.)
  • FWIW, if the US allegation that the 55th Arab Brigade fought under the overall command of the Taliban, then would they be entitled to as much protection under the Geneva Convention as the Taliban's Afghan fighters.
The testimony of some of the Guantanamo captives show that some foreigners who went to Afghanistan to fight were never associated with the Taliban. There were two foreign volunteers who ended going straight from Taliban basic training circa 1999 to a Taliban prison, circa 1999. Taliban counter-intelligence had the same sense of justice as the USA is showing at Guantanamo. Suspicion was enough They suspected these two were American spies. So they threw them into the Taliban's equivalent of Guantanamo, tortured them, and never gave them a trial.
  • These two basically passed right from Taliban custody to US custody.
Some of those who drafted the Summary of Evidence (CSRT) memos conflated the two sets "al Qaeda members" and "anyone who spent a month at a military training camp in Afghanistan". A mistake in my view. In a regular basic training camp, run by a real country, if you are drafted, and you enlist, and find you didn't like basic training, you don't get to go home. You would be a deserter, until you get a medical, or some other kind of discharge. But al Qaeda is not a country. So potential recruits were encouraged to attend the al Qaeda camps, just because "all observant muslims are obliged to get military training, so they could defend their homeland, if it were invaders". Others wanted military training so could go back home and defend their village or tribe in a local tribal war.
  • Further, there is strong evidence that many of the training camps in Afghanistan had no ties to al Qaeda. Indian intelligence estimated that there were over 100 military training camps in Afghanistan. There is evidence that the oldest and most famous camp, Khalden camp, had never been associated with al Qaeda.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not in favor, because as I told you there isn't a number. If the west pisses on the middleeast - they are all in, otherwise fewer and fewer over time. But the real step towards peace on the planet is to start doing something about religion - of course that probably has a long time to go.--IceHunter (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Speculating about numbers is probably pointless. And more particularly, would be a violation of the policy proscribing original research. However listing the individuals who have been officially accused of being associated with al Qaeda, or those identified by knowledgagle commentators, would be useful, encyclopedic, and a manageable task.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that there is any evidence to suggest that Al qaeda has any members.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 20:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bosnia

Old version restored, discuss any changes here.

I propose to add something about the rumoured or real (I don't follow this closely enough) extremist camps in the post-war period. --HanzoHattori (talk) 11:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hanzo (and others), I did discuss the proposed changes here. The main problems with the version you are reverting to is that it focuses on the secular nature of the local Bosnian Muslims instead of describing the links between Bosnia and Al Qaeda (which the other version focuses on). Yes, the large majority of Bosnian Muslims are fairly secular, but what the sources (notably Kohlmann) state is that the Bosnian War and the participation of the Bosnian Mujahideen played an important role in giving Al Qaeda access to Europe and radicalized many European muslims (both inside and outside Bosnia). By not stating this the other version is misrepresenting the source.Osli73 (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Just propose the actual changes and we'll discuss. About this one, I already said it's misinformation ("Western intervention created" thing). You may propose something well-sourced on these camps if you want, for a starter. --HanzoHattori (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Hanzo, I did propose a change and there was no opposition to it. I'm not quite sure why you feel the version I proposed is "misinformation". It is based on some well respected sources (Kohlmann and Holbrook amongst others). However, it is the version you are proposing which (a) doesn't deal with the subject (ie WP:COATRACK)and (b) misrepresent the sources (ie WP:OR). Since I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this, I suggest that we take our respective versions and get some outside/3rd party comments. How about that?Osli73 (talk) 11:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Also: in this section we DON'T discuss Osli's Wikipedia background. --HanzoHattori (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The 'background' is that I've often come head to head with what I believe are nationalist motivated editors. However, I don't think you, Hanzo, are one.Osli73 (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

OSLI, propose your CHANGES TO THE OLD VERSION (it's not even mine!) HERE. And wait for consensus. --HanzoHattori (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hanzo - Two comments;
  • First (again) I did propse the changes here on the Talk page and then went ahead. I'm sorry if you missed that discussion.
  • Second, I realize it may not be 'your' version but by reverting to it you are endorsing it over the one I am proposing.
How about the outside mediation? Otherwise I'm afraid we will get nowhere.Osli73 (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


No, I asked you to PROPOSE CHANGES TO THE EXISTING VERSION (the restored one from before the edit wars). Like what and where (exactly) would you add or remove and why.

Your rival version was scrapped too. It's here for a possible discussion if someone'd like to comment on this:

Following the end of the Bosnian War and, especially, after the 11 September attacks on the World Trade Center, Serbian propaganda started to fabricate the links between the group of Muslim foreign volunteers that fought in Bosnia, and Al Qaeda, in order to move the focus from the genocide committed by Serb forces in Bosnia to more interesting topic such as terrorism. According to Radio Free Europe produced research by Vlado Azinovic about alleged links between Bosnia and Al Qaeda Al Qaeda in Bosnia: Myth Or Present Danger, the claims about Al Qaeda in Bosnia are unverified and mostly fabricated. The presence of Wahhabism and of the remaining Muslim fighters do not qualify Bosnia as a particular threat to international security, according to the Azinovic's conclusion. Further more, Azinovic quotes Evan F. Kohlmann:[1]

Serb propaganda throughout the whole war had portrayed the Bosnian Muslims as violent extremists, fundamentalists, and as eager to jump on the bandwagon of the mujahedin.

I don't think it's good but the original (RFE/RL's Al Qaeda in Bosnia: Myth Or Present Danger) sounds like a good source (and it's actually a book[1]).

In the meantime, I cleaned up the whole article. --HanzoHattori (talk) 03:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for jumping into the middle of this, but I think user:Osli73's version here is better. It's much better sourced than the proposed alternative, which essentially denies that there were any extremist elements in Bosnia at all. If that is indeed the case, than that paragraph really doesn't belong in the article at all, and would be better-placed in the Serb Propaganda article. However, the presence of Muslim extremists in the Bosnian conflict is undeniable, and Osli's sources make a credible attempt to connect them to al-Qaeda. Maybe as a compromise we could include both version? Dchall1 (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Dchall1, I agree that we should integrate the two versions, see my reply below. No one denies the fact of Islamic volunteers presence in the Bosnian war, but this article deals with Al Qaida not with foreign volunteers. There is no offical document of any international organization in Bosnia (such as NATO, EUFOR, EUPM) to support the claim of Al Qaida existence in Bosnia. On the other hand there are a lot of speculation and certainly propaganda. If we want to talk about foreign volunteers we have to mention those facts. But please read my proposal below. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, I think the newly-added paragraph on Srebrenica is entirely irrelevant. Again, the focus is more on the Serbs and Serbian propaganda, while the subject connection to al-Qaeda is tenuous at best. Any objections to removing it? Dchall1 (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Dchall1, I've gone ahead and done just that. Also removed some other bit which was completely unsourced.Osli73 (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

"essentially denies that there were any extremist elements in Bosnia at all." Excuse me? "Several close associates of Osama bin Laden (most notably, Saudi Khalid bin Udah bin Muhammad al-Harbi, alias Abu Sulaiman al-Makki) joined the conflict in Bosnia." denies what? --HanzoHattori (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hanzo, the version you have now is fine. I was referring to the proposal Following the end of the Bosnian War... above, which is unacceptably POV-ish. That said, Osli's version has some important points. Can't we integrate the two instead of revert-warring? Dchall1 (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

DoB, you stop this too. --HanzoHattori (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, why won't you (both) take this dispute back to Bosnian Mujahideen? --HanzoHattori (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dragon's proposals

I am trying to discuss it, but Osli73 stopped to co-operate. Bosnian Mujahideen article is under mediation, maybe it will be deleted. The problem is Bosnian Mujahideen article was written by Osli73 who is trying to connect it to Al Qaida which is the first mistake here (these two articles are not the same subject, so the link to the "main article" (Bosnian Mujahideen) should be removed). He created this article because he didn't like the existing ones covering the same topic such as 7th Muslim Brigade or simply Mujahideen.

I would ask you first to read the discussion in Talk:Bosnian Mujahideen, because I already provided the evidence for my claims. The most important claim here is the title of the article is wrong. The first sentence of this article begins with this words: "Bosnian Mujahideen (also referred to as El Mujaheed or El Mujahid)...". This is completely wrong introduction, and wrong title. There is no source in Osli73's whole article which supports this title: Bosnian Mujahideen. Second, the sentence also says, "also referred to as El Mujahideen". But it isn't referred to as El Mujahideen because Bosnian Mujadideen is fabricated term or original research made by Osli73, which he now tries to promote in different articles. On the other hand, El Mujahideen is completely different term. El Mujahideen is a military unit. There are already two articles which cover the subject of this wrong title article, the first article is Mujahideen, the second article is 7th Muslim Brigade. There is also the third article called The role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war which also covers this. There were other terms such as Arab mujahideen or Arab fighters when referring to their role in Bosnian war, but the Bosnian Mujadideen is neologism created by Osli73, the term isn't validated by the ICTY nor by any other court on this planet (Wikipedia:Verifiability:Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.). Osli73 created this redundant article just because he didn't like the existing articles and he wanted to connect Bosnia somehow with terrorism in order to move the focus from the genocide article, so he joined the two terms together Bosnia and Mujahideen. Just read his explanation about his motive for writing this article. After that he nominated 7th Muslim Brigade for deletion?! But that is not how Wikipedia works.

I agree that we should integrate two versions. Here is my improved version, so please read it:

During the Yugoslav wars, Bosnia-Herzegovina received humanitarian aid from Islamic countries as well as from the West, because of intensive and widespread killing, mass rapes, death camps, ethnic cleansing committed by Serb and, to a lesser extent, Croat forces. The main targets were Bosnian Muslim civilians. The world's highest court concluded that these crimes, committed during the 1992 -95 war, were crimes against humanity and genocide (dolus specialis) regarding Srebrenica region according to the Genocide Convention.[2]

Following such massacres, a few hundreds of Arab volunteers came across Croatia into Bosnia to help the Bosnian Army protect the Bosnian Muslim civilian population. The number of the El-Mudžahid volunteers is still disputed, from around 300 [3][4] to 1,500.[5]

Following the end of the Bosnian War and, especially, after the 11 September attacks on the World Trade Center, Serbian propaganda started to fabricate the links between the group of Muslim foreign volunteers that fought in Bosnia, and Al Qaeda, in order to move the focus from the genocide committed by Serb forces in Bosnia to more interesting topic such as terrorism. According to Radio Free Europe produced research by Vlado Azinovic about alleged links between Bosnia and Al Qaeda Al Qaeda in Bosnia: Myth Or Present Danger, the claims about Al Qaeda in Bosnia are unverified and mostly fabricated. The presence of Wahhabism and of the remaining Muslim fighters do not qualify Bosnia as a particular threat to international security, according to the Azinovic's conclusion. Further more, Azinovic quotes Evan F. Kohlmann:[6]

Serb propaganda throughout the whole war had portrayed the Bosnian Muslims as violent extremists, fundamentalists, and as eager to jump on the bandwagon of the mujahedin.

The Srebrenica Genocide,[7] was the July 1995 killing of an estimated 8,000 Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) boys and men, in the region of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina by units of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) and a paramilitary unit from Serbia known as the "Scorpions" under the command of General Ratko Mladić during the Bosnian War.[8][9][10][11][12] The Serb propaganda tried to deny the genocide and to present victims as the terrorists or foreign Islamic fighters. On September 21, 2003, president Bill Clinton honored the dead and condemned the genocidal madness. After his visit some of Serb media portrayed him as the Al Qaida supporter. Serb historian Carl Savich, described Bill Clintons's visit to Srebrenica Genocide Memorial as a visit to the killed mujahedeen soldiers at Srebrenica and to the memorial in Arabic, not Slavic "Bosnian" language.[13]

As you can see I base this on ICTY findings and Radio Free Europe research not on media reports. Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Bosnian Mujahideen - I see. Now, it's not about Srebrenica, it's about aQ involvement (I believe there were absolutely no Qaeda-connected elements in the Srebrenica pocket) and it's not about the Serb propaganda neither (I actually remember claims of "Islamic terrorists" etc, but it's on par with claims the German attack on Warsaw Ghetto was a legitimate action against "Jewish terrorists"). I know what you want to say, but it's not really about the crimes of war, unless related to the Qaeda members. Else it's just off-topic. The introduction as it is in the article right now is okay for me, actually maybe even bit to long while politically-militarily explaining the conflict (other chapters of the article usually don't get such treatment).
However, According to Radio Free Europe produced research by Vlado Azinovic about alleged links between Bosnia and Al Qaeda Al Qaeda in Bosnia: Myth Or Present Danger, the claims about Al Qaeda in Bosnia are unverified and mostly fabricated. The presence of Wahhabism and of the remaining Muslim fighters do not qualify Bosnia as a particular threat to international security, according to the Azinovic's conclusion. is valid, just needs a link (like the review of this book I already mentioned above) and a slight rewording (Al Qaeda to al-Qaeda etc).
The actual figures on volunteers' numbers cited too would be a good addition (I didn't check the sources), but it should be mentioned only a faction was bin Laden-connected in any way (1,500 would be a huge number if someone thought they were all AQ fighters, for example more than many estimates of the strenght of al-Qaeda in Iraq at any given moment). --HanzoHattori (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Here is the link to the Radio Free Europe research. The numbers are also presented there. ([2] 400 is probably the most realistic number, according to the document request evidence.

The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Now wait for the other people to speak out their opinion. --HanzoHattori (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


It is a part of Serbian propaganda to portrey Bosnian Muslims as terrorists.That phrase Terrorists in Bosnian was never used untill 9/11. I as a Croat(Croatians fought Bosnian Muslims at one time) can compare mudjahedeen forces in Bosnia something like mudjahedeens in Afganistan during the SSSR(Russian) occupation.They were used by USA to fight Soviets. For the same reason they were brought to Bosnia.To fight (communist) Serbs. Terrorists and Bosnia are a part of Serb propaganda.((GriffinSB) (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)).

Bill clinton is al-qaeda, its all about getting power. serbs were right to kill the terrorists. serbs are not communists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.105.91 (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lock this article

I swear, you guys are like children. How about a lock until Wikipedia's Bosnian Edit War is resolved? --HanzoHattori (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't like children? --RenniePet (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

But somebody needs to add the Bhutto assassination. 68.219.59.150 (talk) 03:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Only the current pakistani regime, claims that al-Qaeda was involved, one day after the assassination. It wouldn't be a good idea, before we get trustworthy proof. Wikipedia isn't here for rumors, but documentated facts. -- Kirjapan (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Actually

Actually practically nothing at all is written about Pakistan (just 2 links). Many regional sections lack any summaries. --HanzoHattori (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding "alliance of" or just an "Islamic militant terrorist organization"

Quote: "... Alija Izetbegovic was willing to accept any help it could get, military or financial, including that of a number of Islamic organisations, such as al-Qaeda.". Here, al-Qaeda is called an islamic organisation, while the article starts with "... is an international alliance of Islamic militant terrorist organizations...". Shouldn't that be fixed? -- Kirjapan (talk) 13:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What "fixed"? Al-Qaeda is Islamic organization (too). --HanzoHattori (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
It's hard to figure out what they are, with all the misinformation from the neoconservatists and the current US government. -- Kirjapan (talk) 07:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Proposed change:
Al-Qaeda (also al-Qaida or al-Qa'ida or al-Qa'idah) (Arabic: القاعدة‎ al-qāʕida, translation: The Base) is an international Islamic militant terrorist organization, or alliance of organizations, founded in 1988[4] by Azzam (later replaced by Osama Bin Laden...
I've seldom heard of it refered to as an alliance of organizations except in wikipedia --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
You mean, it might be Atheist? Or Christian? --HanzoHattori (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, how about:
Al-Qaeda (also al-Qaida or al-Qa'ida or al-Qa'idah) (Arabic: القاعدة‎ al-qāʕida, translation: The Base) is an international Islamic militant terrorist organization, or an international alliance of Islamic militant terrorist organizations, founded in 1988[4] by Azzam (later replaced by Osama Bin Laden... --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
We no longer call Egyptians barbarians do we? What is the purpose of using an ethnic slur to define a group which at no point has ever accepted the stance of being a "terrorist organization". In the article set aside for the Ku Klux Klan there is absolutely no mention of it being a terrorist organization however it is there mission statement that violence is the only way to solve their problems. Not only that but this article also goes on to give a list of organizations that use this slur. Wouldn't it be unnecessary to call them terrorists than make an attempt to argue they are terrorists? Either they are or they are terrorists or they are being considered terrorists, if there is not a universal acceptance than the beginning of this article is misleading. If you remove the contradiction perhaps the article would look proper were it started like this:
Al-Qaeda (also al-Qaida or al-Qa'ida or al-Qa'idah) (Arabic: القاعدة‎ al-qāʕida, translation: The Base)is an international alliance of Sunni Islamic organizations founded in 1988[4] by Azzam (later replaced by Osama Bin Laden...
It is the only way to remove a direct biased in the introduction of this article. --Zakhebeone (talk) 2:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Introduction is not biased. Go ahead and add the word "terrorist" to the Ku Klux Klan article, but do not censor this article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
You call me a censor, I call you a bigot, unvalidated my statement or leave the article alone. --Zakhebeone (talk) 5:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Claims to be an actual name

The claims of the BBC documentary are easily refuted. The whole passage should be deleted. A simple Lexus Nexus search shows that the arab media has been using the term Al-Qaeda in 1994. It was NOT first used in 1998 as contended by this BBC show. Fruthermore, documents exist that are labeled Al-Qaeda since 1989.

Why was this information deleted from the main page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.31.8 (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Documentation would be appreciated, when making such claims. -- Kirjapan (talk) 07:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree references would be very much appreciated. The BBC documentary doesn't contend that the name was first used in 1998 by the way. The text in the article cites an executive order issued by Bill Clinton, issued in 1998 that refers to "al-Qaeda" as the name of an organisation, but the documentary didn't mention it. Other documents have used the words "al-qaeda" for possibly centuries, but not as the name of an organisation. It just means "the base" normally. Perhaps that is a source of confusion here. This seems to be the case with the Bosnian document too, where the words "al-qaeda" are used to refer to a military base rather than the name of an organisation.--Distinguisher (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe if my edit wasn't revereted you wouldn't be so confused. The Arab media reported on Al Qaida in 1994. A bomb manual was found in the 93 WTC bombers that was labeled "Al Qaida" that was dated 1989. This was all sourced in the edit that was reverted. Chudogg (talk) 04:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I find it childish my full referenced edit gets reverted and I ask why and I'm told to find references. Whatever. Here ya go.
AL AHRAM WEEKLY, "The Afghan connection" April 14, 1994:

I left Egypt with enormous popular and official support which was only appreciated later with shock by the regime. All the procedures were legal when I left in the middle of 1985, went to Jeddah and from there to Pakistan where I worked as a doctor with the Mujahedin, Zawahri said. When he settled in Peshawar he established, with Bin Laden's financial help, Al-Qa'ida (the base) to host Arab volunteers. The first and most active group that went to Afghanistan was made up of Adli Youssef, Ali Abdel-Fattah and Mohamed El-Islambouli who moved on after his stopover in Jeddah. "They all went to Peshawar via Saudi Arabia and played a leading role in organising the Arab-Afghan groups," an Islamist defendant said.


When Zawahri managed to convince Bin Laden to establish Al-Qa'ida, Jihad members from a variety of Arab states came to have a hostel of their own.

AL AHRAM WEEKLY, "Faces of Militancy" April 14, 1994:

In 1985, he went to Saudi Arabia where he worked in a hospital. It was during this period that he met Osama Bin Laden, who established Al-Qa'ida, a base for volunteers en route from Egypt to Afghanistan.

These are from a Major Egyptian Newspaper translated into English. I'm sure a professional academic researcher could find numerous records of the Al Qaida organization published around this time.
As far as the WTC bombers, Stephen Engelberg. One Man and a Global Web of Violence. The New York Times January 14, 2001:

"Two separate translations of the document, one done at the request of The New York Times, show that the heading said Al Qaeda -- which translates as The Base, the name of Mr. bin Laden's group. In addition, the document lists a publication date of 1989, a year after Mr. bin Laden founded his organization."

Let me know if that settles your confusion. :::Chudogg (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Osama bin Laden himself stated in the year 2001 that bases had been established and maintained for the enlistment and instruction of volunteers. "We used to call the training camp al-Qaeda." [3] Therefore it should not come as any surprise that a training manual turned up with the name 'al-Qaeda' written on it. Nobody disputes that instances of 'al-Qaeda' can be found dating back several years -- the question, Adam Curtis contends, is did the term refer to the name of an actual organisation, or just the training camps themselves. In support of the latter position, Curtis argues that there is no evidence of Bin Laden using the term 'al Qaeda' to refer to the name of an international terrorist organisation until after the September 11th attacks, when he realised that this was the name the Americans had seized on. On the other hand, you have produced two sources that argue in favour of the former position. It's not for us to say which is correct. Only that all notable views must be included. I simply ask that you do this without deleting information already present in the article. smb (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
First, I didn't delete any information out of the article (although I do contend as much in my post above). I put the historical account of the term Al Qaida as it is on record, which somebody didn't see fit and deleted it. As it stands, the reader is under the impression the first use of the term is in 1998 by the Clinton administration, this is a monumentous falsehood.
I did not simply "produced two sources that argue in favour of the former position" as you contend. The sources were from an Egyptian Newspaper in early 1994, that contend that Bin Laden's organization was called Al Qaida. I hope you realize the significance of this in countering somebody's arguement that "the west" began using the term in 1998. I would be willing to bet that than academic study of the origins of the term would find many Arabic media had used the term itself. Al Ahram is one of the few translated into English.
Further media accounts document the term "Al Qaida" (and various spellings) through 1996, especially after the July Khobar Towers. Many translate the term as "The Foundation" after Islamic Salvation Foundation. Not as "The Base". (This was also in my orginal post)
Adam Curtis's theory relies heavily on disproving the testimony of Al Fadl as a fraud, mostly by trying to document him as an opportuneer (which is usually contended against every defector throughout history at some point or another). However, his testimony was corraborerated by another unrelated defector as well as intelligence the agencies already had. I've been meaning to research this and document it further.
However, even if one were to accept his testimony has false, his contention that the west began using the term "Al Qaida" to use RICO laws against Bin Laden is so patently absurd as his organization had already been referred to that long before any of that nonsense came to play.
Oh an as far as " It's not for us to say which is correct." Please show a little consistency. I presented an accurate historical accounting of the claims of Salman Pak and had "Universal Census" and "SSIC" thrown in my face to delete any and all information that wasn't a simple debunking of claims. Don't worry. I'll be getting back to that.Chudogg (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this silly debate still going on? I haven't been paying close attention to this page but I thought this was settled a long time ago. It was over a year ago now that I provided evidence that bin Laden used the term in 1989 on written documents to refer to an actual organization. Claims that the US invented the term in 1998 are beyond delusional. I'm looking at the article now and the evidence is still there:

Others such as CNN journalist Peter Bergen and author Lawrence Wright dispute Burke's contention. Bergen argues that two documents seized from the Sarajevo office of the Illinois-based Benevolence International Foundation show that the organization was established in August, 1988. Both of these documents contain minutes of meetings held to establish a new military group and contain the term "al-qaeda". [33]

The paragraph following presents another written document produced by Lawrence Wright. The only problem here is the first line; there is no other reference to "Burke's contention" in the article, and if we're talking about Jason Burke, it is a gross oversimplification of his position to claim that he says the US invented the term al Qaeda.

I'd say the Adam Curtis stuff should be a footnote at best; having a paragraph (and indeed a whole section) devoted to this "theory" is a bit ridiculous. Has he written any published work or conducted any independent investigation of the evidence that exists about al-Qaeda? Has he consulted document experts or even claimed that these documents are forgeries? Or is this whole "theory" a rather bizarre misunderstanding of some claim made in the documentary? I suspect the latter, especially since Curtis' "theory" is not even directly sourced, other than a vague reference to a three-part documentary. I have seen a good bit of the documentary, and I don't recall this particular claim. I do recall the claim - more consistent with Burke's analysis - that al qaeda is not just (or even primarily) an organization, and that the west has exaggerated al qaeda's power and turned it into a much more threatening entity, but that is not the same as the nonsense spouted here.

Unfortunately the page is protected now so this will have to stay, but when it is unprotected I suggest removing the Curtis stuff completely and changing the name of the following section so that it is clear that there really isn't a credible dispute about whether there was an organization named "al-qaeda" prior to the US saying so. csloat (talk) 07:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, we certainly can't delete the whole BBC paragraph, as an IP suggested. Even if they're flagrantly wrong, it's a significant viewpoint that's worth including. That's what NPOV is about. Regarding "Burke's contention.", there's still a sentence "Others such as CNN journalist Peter Bergen and author Lawrence Wright dispute Burke's contention." all alone with no context. It doesn't even give Burke's last name, so this is obviously inappropriate. Superm401 - Talk 01:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand how something can be so patently wrong and still be considered a "significant viewpoint". He says that the West began using the term in 1998 (based on Al Fadl's testimony". Lexus Nexus clearly shows a media record of it up to 1994. It's wrong. It should be identified as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chudogg (talk • contribs) 18:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as my painstaken edits always seem to get the revert, some more charismatic fellow than I should lift the entire first two sections out of this article. Title it origins or something, and put "The origins of Al-Qaida are in dispute..." or some such. Adam Curtis should deserve no more than 4 sentences at the end of such a section, his "evidence" that al-fadl was a fraud and his compeletly absurd and refuted idea that the term "Al-Qaida" was invented by him and the Clinton Administration. Oh, and I would appreciate it if the 1994 Ah Ahrab Weekly, and the full qoutation (See above, available in LexusNexus) would directly follow any claim that the term Al-Qaida was not used to identify Bin Ladens terrorist group before 1998.Chudogg (talk) 10:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems one straw man argument spawns another. To correct the record, Adam Curtis (Jason Burke, etc) do not assert that Jamal al-Fadl invented the term Al-Qaeda in 1998. Rather, they say this was the year it entered the public consciousness. Burke in particular has examined the evidence that Al-Qaeda was formed (as an organisation) many years earlier, but finds it unpersuasive. smb (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll try and find a source for this. I don't have the time to read his book again though. smb (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
If we are going to accurately summarise the dispute, then it helps to watch Adam Curtis' three-part serious The Power of Nightmares in its entirety, not in isolation. Having watched the series, I've no idea why users keep posting small extracts absent any formal analysis, shouting Bin Laden doesn't exist!!1!! :) smb (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I am Positive you are wrong, but I am not going to waste 3 hours of my life, again. Since this is not even a published work, i believe it is the onus of the contributer to hunt down an online transcript to highlight the specific parts he/she wants added. It is not the onus of the reader to watch a 3 hour series over this compeletly ridiculous claim.
But, seeing as you claim that Adam Curtis does not assert that America Invented the term. And seeing as the section in the article is titled Claims of an American Invention The entire passage is being deleted for not being properly sourced.
I will leave it up to you to incorporate it into the next passage. And it better not begin with The name appears on an executive order in 1998. It appeared a lot earlier than that. It appears in public in 94, and there are documents dated back to the 80s. I hope you look to the best interests of the informed readers who rely on the reputation of Wikipedia as an impecable source. Chudogg (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Fruitful discussion is impossible if you continue to distort the meaning of the information before you. The disputed section clearly draws on published work, contrary to your bizarre assertion. An ambiguous header is no reason to delete an entire section, as you well know, otherwise you'd have deleted the equally puzzling section that succeeded it. I'm going to restore it, and encourage others to help improve it. To this end, perhaps the prevailing view should rank first (e.g. Peter Bergen et al.), before Curtis and Burke etc. smb (talk) 04:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Fruitful discussion is not needed here. This is nothing ambigious about the headline. It says there are claims that Al-Qaida is American invention. Tell me, what other possible meaning could that have? There is not a single other source contained in the section supporting the assertions made in "the power of nightmares" (only tertiary information is sourced elsewhere). Also, to say that it is only the headline???

What exactly al-Qaeda is, or was, remains in dispute..... Adam Curtis contends that the idea of al-Qaeda as a formal organization is primarily an American invention.... Curtis contends the name "al-Qaeda" was first brought to the attention of the public in the 2001 trial of Osama bin Laden.....

Hey, if you want to put a little nugget challening Al-Fadl lower in the article that is fine. The second part will need clean up, but I will leave that to someone else. And the delibate follow of: "The name appears with the spelling "al-Qaida" in an executive order issued by President Bill Clinton in 1998". Yes this is true, it is also true that it appears numerous times in the decade pervious to this, but this was deliberatly parsed as such and placed immediatly after the Adam Curtis mockery to leave the reader an impression that this was the first time "Al Qaida" was mentioned. A monumental disservice and deliberatly misinoforming past and future readers. This is unacceptable and needs to be fixed. Chudogg (talk) 06:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
"It [the headline] says there are claims that Al-Qaida is American invention. Tell me, what other possible meaning could that have?" Are you being deliberately obtuse? One need only read the section in question to find out. It relates directly to 'Al-Qaeda' (the base) as the name of an organisation (as opposed to a jihadi training camp). Chudogg must already know this because, in the very same message, (s)he reproduced a passage from the page that expresses exactly that view. Specifically this bit: "Adam Curtis contends that the idea of al-Qaeda as a formal organization is primarily an American invention...".
"This is unacceptable and needs to be fixed" But your credibility is not helped by an insistence on deleting the entire section rather than on actually fixing it. Nobody is forcing you to accept this viewpoint, yet it's obvious that you don't like it, and want it removed completely. Two other editors have remarked that its a significant point of view, and should be left in the article. How that happens remains to be seen. I've already proposed one major alteration, and wait patiently to hear constructive recommendations from other editors. I ask politely that you do the same. smb (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
You make no sense and I award you no points. We are only talking about Al-Qaida as a formal organization, (and you call me obtuse?). Yes, Adam Curtis suggests that Al-Qaida could have been a name of a training camp or some such, in doing so he also denys that it is an actual organization until invented by the Americans contrary to your earlier assertions(I just re-watched the relevent highlights btw).
This isn't a relevent viewpoint, it is a wrong viewpoint. It is only held by a loud and vocal fringe minority and compeletely rejected by the consensus of even left leaning academics and researchers. Your proposed alteration is unsatifactory. I proposed merging it under the anteceding section. On second thought, to maintain the context and flow of the article as a whole, i think both sections be deleted in their entirety, and if it all, added to the very bottom of the article as a 2 sentence acknowledgement of its existence and maybe given its own page. There is absolutely no reason why people who are seriously researching Al-Qaida should come to this page and the first thing they read about is a silly "debate" about the existence of it. This reflects negatively on Wikipedia as a whole and I would assert that its very existence on here is a blatant vandalism. I will leave it for now, until other recommendations. Chudogg (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you consider this a game? I'm not looking to point score. The viewpoint is so ridiculous, you say, even left wing academics reject it. Well, Noam Chomsky considers Jason Burke's work one of the "most careful and detailed" studies of al-Qaeda available. [4]
"The consensus is well articulated by Jason Burke in his study of the Al Qaeda phenomenon, the most detailed and informed investigation of this loose array of radical Islamists for whom bin Laden is hardly more than a symbol..." [5]
Or is he too 'crazy' for you? Not that personal feelings matter. The analysis is notable in and of itself. It's supported by more researchers than you care to admit. Burke's work has been published in the journal Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy Magazine. And it's not just Burke whom Adam Curtis cites in his documentary. The reason it features so prominently here on this page is because the article immediately addresses the name/origin/meaning of Al-Qaeda - though this is not helped by an ambiguous level header, which some consider inflammatory, and a poorly written section in need of a clean up (not deleted entirely or relegated to a mere footnote). That's where one's energy should directed, not at collecting points. smb (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] flag

It just occurred to me that Al Qaeda does not have a flag. Do they have any symbol or flag that represents them? Kingturtle (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

To my best knowledge several actually. It was discussed before, too. --HanzoHattori (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please produce the flag or logo if you know of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.125.87.138 (talk) 08:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

How about this? Bofors7715 (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:CIA.svg

That's exactly right.121.44.233.92 (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
What it is is original research. I've commented out the logo to save vertical space. Superm401 - Talk 01:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Saving "vertical space"? You have got to be joking, we have an unlimited amount of vertical space to use here. And it is not "original research" either, Webster Tarpley for one, who has written "9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA" published by Progressive Press, has made the obvious allegation that "Al-Queda" is a CIA/MI6 front: http://www.amazon.com/9-11-Synthetic-Terror-First/dp/0930852311 No sir, what you are doing is covering the up the truth and getting innocent people killed. Bofors7715 (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

this is the flag of al-qaeda http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Flag_of_al-Qaeda.svg/300px-Flag_of_al-Qaeda.svg.png

--24.117.131.34 (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

this is the flag of al-qaeda http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Flag_of_al-Qaeda.svg/300px-Flag_of_al-Qaeda.svg.png

--Npnunda (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri

"Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri" in the bin Ladin quote needs a pipelink to Abu Ubaidah al-Banshiri. --Cam (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Al Qaida as a CIA related organisation

This video tell that 9.11 was made by cia in the goal to colonize and control the world.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3qiv7_aaron-russo-sur-le-911-le-cfr-et-ro_politics

It says that al qaida was also created by usa for the same reasons.

Cia put micro chip in ossama bin laden's brain to control it.

Osama bin laden live actually in hawai with girls sex alcohol and drugs and that al qaida is nothing but an urban legend created as a pretext for american colonialism.

Obscur macons-lions-sionist jews-evengelists leaders of usa have created the 11 september, al qaida, islamic terrorism , ethnic conflicts and evengelical missionaries to colonize control and exploit the world.

Can this hypthesis be added to this article?

Hanzukik (talk) 11:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Knowing the idiot's censorsing this article, I'm sure it can be. Go Ahead! 72.192.31.8 (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
No, it can't. all that is in conspiracy theories about 9/11. Aaron Russo is not a notable source and it is not in English. --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Aaron Russo is a notable source. His research into subjects is often well documented. This statement is both erroneous and misleading —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.97.178 (talk) 12:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Boogalouie you enlightened me so Al qaida is a mere religiocentrist fachistic terrorist organisation.

But it's still strange that all qaida "operations" were exploited by usa to control middle east and central asia energy resources. Hanzukik (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

How does the united states control OPEC? We still pay for gas don't we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.100.18 (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Its still arguable whether or not Al Qaeda is funded by the US government simply because the CIA will not release records disproving their financing of Osama Bin Laden since the Gulf War. Does anyone have a source proving the funding of Al Queda and Ben Laden by the US? I know it exists out there but cannot find a credible or "undisputable" source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.16 (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is a fact, that the CIA and the ISI (the secret service of pakistan) kind of "created" the taliban. They gave massive supplies in money and weapons to them in the early '90s to "stabilize" afghanistan. The Taliban succeeded against the other Modjahedin and they resold most of the weapons to other countrys :> and with the taliban came Al-Qaeda89.183.10.64 (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Midgitman(REAL)

Right, so the USA would just bomb their own cities and destroy their own populas, plus get involved in two very costly wars now being called the new Vietnam?

Think again buddy, before editing this topic with your Nazi veiws again. I quote "Obscur macons-lions-sionist jews-evengelists leaders of usa have created the 11 september, al qaida, islamic terrorism , ethnic conflicts and evengelical missionaries to colonize control and exploit the world."

Not trying to start another war of editing, but just think.

[edit] Diaa Rashwan

I do not want to wade into the middle of this edit war that, frankly, I do not understand, all I would like to request is a simple edit to an early paragraph that uses the name Diaa Rashwan and does not explain who this person is. I had to google the name to find out that he is a Dr. associated with the Al-Ahram Center. Could we just change it to say Dr. Diaa Rashwan, with the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies. This would led those comments the weight I feel they deserve. thanksDragyn07 (talk) 10:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thai Interwikilink

Since the page is locked, I'm wondering if anyone can add th:อัลกออิดะห์ into the page. Thank you. --Manop - TH (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] conspiracy theories about 9/11

IT IS UNFAIR THAT THE ARTICLE SAYS THAT AL-QAEDA EXECUTED 9/11, AND WE CANNOT EDIT IT. BUSH DID IT. WE ALL KNOW IT. BIN LADEN PROPOSED THAT, IF BUSH PROVED THAT AL-QAEDA DID IT, THEN HE WOULD TURN HIMSELF IN. BUSH REFUSED THE PROPOSAL. WELL DONE. CAN WE MAKE THIS AN UN-BIASED WEBSITE AND JUST TRY TO GIVE CORRECT INFORMATION? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.25.33.200 (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there an evidence to back up the the 'conspiracy theory' that AlQaeda were responsible for 9/11. Bush did say that he had proof but it was never released and as far as I know Bin Laden's 'confession' was a fabricated video.

Any sources for "Al-Qaeda has attacked civilian and military targets in various countries, the most notable being the September 11, 2001 attacks." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.162.102 (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Any sources for "Evidence points to suicide squads led by al-Qaeda military commander Mohammed Atta as the culprits of the attacks, with bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Hambali as the key planners and part of the political and military command."

This might sound silly but for such a claim there seems to be no sound sources. 86.11.162.102 (talk) 08:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does sound silly. Because it is. Along with most of the rest of the edits in this silly article. Chudogg (talk) 07:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
It is not silly, in fact there is no evidence which proves that Al-Qaeda in anything but a CIA tool and mountains of evidence which indicates that 9/11 was an inside job. For example, we know for a fact that the Anthrax used post-9/11 was US military grade. Bofors7715 (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What to get from this source?

I found this: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/01/21/ask.alqaeda.ap/index.html

How do I summarize the contents of this article? What do I get out of this? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hard to say. It's difficult to use any of the questions as evidence of al-Qaeda members' thinking, because we don't know if any of the questioners were really members. Furthermore, it would be better to have the question page directly, rather than a news article about the question page. Still, it might fit in Al_Qaeda#Internet_activities. Superm401 - Talk 01:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


Below is an article that states AL-QUEDA and 911 are not linked as according to our own government. Why must I write this under the '911 conspiracy theories section' when in fact the purported connection between the two and how it is so definitively stated in this article is the very conspiracy.

"The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq." and "The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.203.126.65 (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding the point of the article. It's not saying al-Qaeda didn't participate in the attacks, just that Iraq didn't have anything to do with them. I don't believe there's any question that al-Qaeda is responsible for the attacks. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 20:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Ficticious Non-organisation

As this link shows [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTTgpsAs4_c ] there is no such organisation as 'Al Qaeda'. It was invented by an unreliable witness at the 2001 trial of the attempt to blow up the WTC in 2001, one Al Fadl. Whenever a bombing occurs anywhere in the world the media all scream 'all the hallmarks of Al qaeda' no matter the circumstances but this is all meaningless gibberish. Al qaeda has no members and no organisation.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 10:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, gee, stop the presses! Some out of context video on youtube said it so it must be true!! Back here on earth, there is plenty of evidence that al-Qaeda exists going back to the late 80s/early 90s. Can we please drop this silly argument? Thanks. csloat (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Any generic, solo, or home-grown islamic terrorist who wants to get on the news claims to be part of al-qaeda. The organisation as we know it is an invention of the news media. This is not to say the there is not an organisation called al-qaeda with actual members, but there is no easy way to differentiate the real terrorist organisation from the fictional global terrorist network at this point. 62.3.248.192 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
NOBODY ever said that Al-Qaida was this monolithic hierarchial organization with Bin Laden the Snake's head at the top micromanaging an entire global operation. Please inform me if I mistaken of this. As i believe since the Clinton administration and the original "neo-cons" of the 90's all spoke at length of the new challenge of asymetrical terrorist groups operating in "cells" with no organizational control. Not a single of the prominent researchs I hold in high regard on the matter said anything other than Bin Laden a fianciar/figurehead/spiritual leader.
In other Words, you are building a strawman, and wasted two hours of your life to combat an arguement that doesnt exist and nobody ever made. Boiled down to the main point of the video (not even an academic published work!), besides a 2 hour diatribe against the strawman i was referring to above: that the Clinton Admin invented the term in 1998 to use RICO laws, please see the entire discussion on this, and try not to formulate a response until you can counter that LexusNexus has it on record that arabic media had been using the term since 1994, a full 4 years prior to when Adam Curtis thinks this word came about. (sigh) Chudogg (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Further to my comment above, on the nature of straw man arguments, Curtis does actually show footage of the media and the neo-cons exaggerating the power of Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. smb (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Historical overview

I have tried to find the date that the US State Department named Al-Qaeda a Foreign Terrorist Organizations in this article. I could not. Maybe its there and my search was no good - if so just dissmiss what I say next as unfounded rubbish. The dates when things happen are important - and this article if of OK level would be providing dates. How else is a reader to use this article to place something in a historical context if you dont say when it happened? Editors too often focus on controversy rather than just getting the basics right. [2001 Report on Foreign Terrorist Organizations: Secretary Albright designated one new FTO in 1999 (al Qa’ida)] SmithBlue (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disarray, Panic, Betrayed....

Here is an interesting link from the timesonline.com in which they discuss, according to articles retrieved from a raid, that they are in some trouble because people are leaving the Al-Qaeda in Iraq. I think it is worth a mention in the main article. Hourick (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Goals of Al-Qaida

Something about the Goals of Al-Qaida needs to be added. The extent of this in this article is saying that it is a terrorist organization, etc. It never really says what they want to achieve... I suggest adding something like this, from infoplease. Not this exactly, as this is not from a good source, but similiar.

"The principal stated aims of al-Qaeda are to drive Americans and American influence out of all Muslim nations, especially Saudi Arabia; destroy Israel; and topple pro-Western dictatorships around the Middle East. Bin Laden has also said that he wishes to unite all Muslims and establish, by force if necessary, an Islamic nation adhering to the rule of the first Caliphs." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.102.144 (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed we should have something. But It should be written carefully. For example the above sttement says AQ wants to overthrow "pro-Western dictatorships" in Muslim countries. Does that mean it wants to replace them with democracies? Does that mean pro-Western democracies are OK with Al Q? It sure does not.
Here is another description of its goal, this one from globalsecurity.org: al-Qaeda's current goal is to establish a pan-Islamic Caliphate throughout the world by working with allied Islamic extremist groups to overthrow regimes it deems "non-Islamic" and expelling Westerners and non-Muslims from Muslim countries. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Strongly agreed. This was actually the information I was looking for when I came to the article: missing "Goals" is a major gap from the article as it stands. Rupert baines (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The contribution of the USA to creation al-Kaida

In article there is no information that Al-kaeda has been created at active support of the USA, has been trained by the American instructors and armed by American arms deliveries. Further - participation of al-Kaide to terract on September, 11th it is not proved. It is not necessary to hide the shameful facts. 217.150.60.89 (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

While there are substantial mistakes in your assumptions, there IS a hint of truth. The Mujahideen that were formed initially during the soviet invasion and after the soviets were driven out, the Mujahideen fighters were looking for something to do (in my opinion) were a bit irritated by our stationing troops in Saudi Arabia during the First gulf war, amoung them Osama bin Laden, the rest I'm sure you can follow. But in short, if the United states (and the world for that matter) had helped Afghanistan immediately after the soviet pullout and put in some schools, the radicals wouldn't have been able to put in a major foothold in that country and as a result, OBL wouldn't have been able to be such an influence there. --Hourick (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Only the facts - the fighting divisions named Al-kaeda have been organised during the Soviet Afghani company for struggle against the Soviet armies. They have been organised at the maximum support of the USA by money resources, arms and instructors. Anything especial in it is not present, during cold war local conflicts in Asia, Africa, became a field of "distant struggle" between superstates. For example the USSR supplied with the weapon the North Korea, Vietnam, Egypt - that by the way, is displayed in wiki under these conflicts. 217.150.60.89 (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is that what became Al Qaeda was supported by Pakistani intelligence not by the US. I see no indications of direct support from the US, though the Pakistani efforts were with the blessing of the US government and it is quite possible that considerable US equipment came to these groups via Pakistan. Also, as has been discussed in the article, the organization wasn't labeled "Al Qaeda" at the time.
Further, while the US's (and other countries') actions have spurred such things as the 9/11 attacks and a number of European bombings, it is worth remembering that most of Al Qaeda's efforts have been in the Middle East against Middle Easterners. As I see it, the bin Laden part of Al Qaeda was established to overthrow a number of governments in the Middle East. While some policies particularly in Afghanistan might have contributed to Al Qaeda's strength, it is worth remembering that bin Laden had substantial financial support and good criminal connections. His organization is likely to be a menace anyway, just due to the widespread dissatification with many of the Middle East governments. -- KarlHallowell (talk) 03:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Al-Qaida had a very minimal role in the mujahadeen. Bin Laden was a follower of Azzam and spent most of the war in Peshawar. He only got in involved in a few minor skirmishes towards the end of the war. Foreign Jihadists had a very minimal role in the mujahadeen. And the CIA gave almost total control to the ISI to fund the Mujahadeen warlords. There was only a few case of contact between CIA and the mujahadeen when it came to training on complex weapon systems (stingers). So the CIA-Al Qaida connection is extremely dubios. Chudogg (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
see: Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Attack in Miami as declared in 2003 by Zawahiri on SS Norway

the site BlueNorway.Org http://BlueNorway.Org makes a good case that the Norwegian scare Memorial Day weekend in 2003 was their attack on the SS Norway in the port of Miami... This needs to be looked into along with the few hundred other events (of the 15 thousand) their sister site 1911.cc database has that seem credible references. The supreme court case seems to reflect the concern as does the DHS CoastGuard reports and investigation.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.59.193 (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The website isn't coherent. Also, is there a major news source that backs up the Al Qaeda claims? -- KarlHallowell (talk) 03:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Europe

London

   Main article: 2007 London car bombs


On 29 June 2007, two unexploded car bombs were discovered in London. The first device was found in a car parked near the Tiger Tiger nightclub in Haymarket and two large gas canisters and a large number of nails were found in the car.[1][2] The second device was left in a blue Mercedes-Benz saloon in nearby Cockspur Street,[3] but was not discovered until after the car had been towed away as it was found to be illegally parked.[4]


   Main article: 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack



Internal damage caused to the terminal building.

On 30 June 2007 a dark green Jeep Cherokee, registration number L808 RDT,[5] was driven into the glass doors of the main terminal of Glasgow International Airport, and burst into flames. A suspected car bomb failed to detonate, and the driver of the car, Kafeel Ahmed,[6] on fire after allegedly dousing himself in fuel, together with a second suspect Bilal Abdulla, accused of being the Jeep's passenger, attacked the police. Fire extinguishers were used to put Ahmed out, and he was subsequently tackled by two police officers and bystanders.[7]

Investigation

The UK Government blamed the events on al-Qaida[12] and the two incidents were linked, by police, to the same two men.[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_UK_terrorist_incidents

should this not be including under attacks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.0.24 (talk) 17:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Time to lift protection? - more than 2 months so far...

{{editprotected}} Hi, I wish to make so CopyEdits. Please remove the protection. Regards, JohnI (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Please request it at WP:RUP. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TIME Collection

There is a collection of Al-Qaeda related stories that the TIME Archives put together, and that could be placed in the External Links section. The Collection could provide context and more resources for those users who wish to expand their research. [6] Kevindkeogh (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AlI Mohammed

Was not in the Special Forces as it is always stated. He was assigned by the U.S Army to give classes on Arabic culture and opinion and thus got assigned at the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center, which is completely understandable given his ethnic backgrond. It's not as if he was mysteriously fastracked to SF or something. Please see Ali Mohammed. Oh, and about time lock has been lifted. Chudogg (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In Kuwait

There is nothing in the article mentioning Al Qa'eda's attacking in Kuwait shortly after US invasion of Iraq radiant guy (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bosnia and Herzegovina

Hi, I've reverted the version of the text on Bosnia written by User:Grandy Grandy to the last version by myself. Here are the reasons.

  1. Main article: the main article on this is indiscutably the Bosnian mujahideen article. I have linked it to that.
  2. WP:COATRACK: the previous version opened up with a long harangue about the nature of the Bosnian war which was not relevant to the issue of Al Qaeda in Bosnia but was rather a POV statement about the nature of the war which is not relevant to this article.
  3. Links to Bosnian government: the old version by GG overtly downplayed the links between the Bosnian mujahideen and the Bosnian government when in fact they were quite extensive (see the Bosnian mujahideen article).
  4. Local participation: the version by GG also denies the local participation in the Bosnian mujahideen, although this has also been proven (see the Bosnian mujahideen article).

In general, GG's version is an utterly WP:POV presentation of the issue mainly focused on denying links between Al Qaeda and the Bosnian mujahideen on the one hand and the Bosnian government and local population on the other despite evidence to the contrary. I would also like to direct any interested readers to the main Bosnian mujahideen article and its Talk pages for further information about the issue. RegardsOsli73 (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leadership of al Qaeda

The infobox on the right says that Jan Peter Balkenende is part of the leadership of al Qaida. I think this information is so secret that even Balkenende himself does not know about it. It should be changed immediately!

Jan, 13.03.2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.173.171 (talk) 10:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

So with a structure of autonomous cells you are telling me there is Leadership, this is not some buearacratic structure. The word should properly refer to those who believe in the ideology. This is similar to the Christian Right in the US, we don't call all those who believe in the fundumentalist christianity "Crusaders". THINK! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.59.159.226 (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I like to think that they're all subcontractor's like Mary Kay. They're using Al-Qaeda's brand name and go on their way to do what they want to do. After awhile, someone higher up in the chain will come down and offer assistance and direction, or maybe even help make a video. But I wouldn't expect Mary Kay Ash to come down from the mountain (so to speak) to give directions personally, Al-Qaeda's founder, Osama bin Laden won't be coming down HIS mountain to give directions. That would be "Micromanaging, which if you had worked in the corporate world, would be a bit much given the range and scope of his current responsibilities, which currently involve hiding in a mountain and giving messages to his VP's, who in turn, pass it down the line.--Hourick (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Activities Map

The map showing the activities of Al-Qaeda should probably be improved by someone of appropriate talent - there are a couple of spelling errors (Marocco/Morocco and Tunesia/Tunisia - if I am going to be picky 'United Kingdom' is normally used instead of 'Great Britain') Also I feel that the title, if it is necessary to have it displayed on the image file (this is not normal practice) should not be written across the landmasses of South America and Africa, it would be better on the white. The font used for the locations does not look great at such a low resolution (see 'Afghanistan' on the map) due to the anti-aliasing effect applied - although this is more desirable than blocky font. Maybe a better font could be used for the city names, or the map could be made at a higher resolution.

I think it would be helpful for users to have the year of the attack after the city name; as this would immediately help show patterns, and help dintinquish without confusion which terrorist attacks in those cities were due to, or connected to, Al-Qaeda. Alienturnedhuman (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Wahabism

I didn't know where else to put this, so I just stuck it on the bottom of the page. I may be mistaken, but I could find no mention of Wahabism in this article. There is a strong connection between Al Queda and the Wahabi (see Salafi) extremist sect in Saudi Arabia (through the leader, bin Laden). So why is there no mention of Wahabism in this article?

[edit] Robin Cook - Database

Even if Robin Cook is wrong in his statement that 'Al-Qaeda' comes from 'data base' it is still significant that he believed this and that this was his understanding of the origins of Al-Qaeda and the name. Robin Cook was Foreign Secretary and responsible for SIS/MI6 and would have been provided with intelligence briefings from them on terrorist threats. He was therefore a terrorism expert. He was also a cabinet minister and privy to what was said in cabinet. How could he form this belief given his considerable access to information on terrorist threat etc? Also why remove Cooks quote and not Saad Al-Faqih assertion about the Al Ansar guesthouse, which talks of a computer system situated there? The statement that al-qaeda can also refer to a military base is unsourced also. Certainly dictionaries refer to 'the base'. Rowantoad (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)