Talk:Ibn Al-Khattab

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Military work group.
Saudi Arabia Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Saudi Arabia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] What "pro-terrorist edits"?

Khattab never said he's member of al-Queda or ever bombed civilians - al-Qaeda members do, proudly (see al-Zarqawi's network of al-Qaeda in Iraq or al-Qaeda in Europe cells for example), and of course take responsiblity for every attack. There's no al-Qaeda in Caucaus.

Also, filmed were executions (of a contract soldiers), not "torture".

Basaev is a terrorist, because he personally commited or claimed responibility for several acts, including mass hostage takings and more recently suicide bombings of a non-military targets. (Still, to this day he didn't for the 1999 Moscow bombings.)

Please don't vandalise this page. --Kocoum

Sorry to say but there are quite a lot of references (including non-Russian ones) confirming about al-Queda realtions with Chechen Terrorists and Khattab [1]. Also please sign your entries.
Also remember that Chechens did fight for the Taliban regime against the US forces in Operation Enduring Freedom [2]. Russian intelligence officials assert that Osama bin Laden donated at least $25 million and dispatched numerous fighters to Chechnya, including Ibn Khattab, a Saudi who led one of the best-trained contingents. The United States now agrees that Khattab had al Qaeda ties, and cited those links when it added three Chechen rebel units to its list of terrorist organizations earlier this year. --Kuban Cossack 21:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
No, they didn't. There were never found any Chechen fighters dead in alive, even of they captured 9 Russians (including ethnic Russians, and this guy in Nalchik). There was really a guy nicknamed Khattab in Kandahar during the US intervention, but guess what, it's a popular Arab nom de guere. There were also some Europeans, few Americans, and lots of Pakistanis (thousands, mostly then kept for ransom by Afghans or even massacred), but not a single Chechen ever captured, shown dead, or even named. As I said, "even" a small group of Russians (later extradited from Gitmo, and just released(!) by Russia even if they were to be tried). Afghans and later Pakistani government also used to call "Chechens" everyone from the former Soviet Union, especially the IMU members (they were forced to flee Uzbekistan, and then Afghanistan to the Pakistani tribal areas). There was also a Chechen bodyguard to General Dostum of the Afghan Uzbek militia. Same in Iraq, except there's a Chechen disapora living in Iraq, ever since the forced exile in the XIXth century (an Iraqi general from the war on Iran was of a Chechen descent, for example, and a district in Sadr City is called after Chechnya). "Russian intelligence officials" also asserts that Maskhadov was "international terrorist" (and Khattab "Chechen terrorist", wow), among other things. Also don't cite blogs, it's just silly. --Kocoum 15:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It says there are atrocities committed against the Chechnyans with citing (3) as a source, but the article doesn't mention anything related to it. Could there be a better example? ~~ A Muslim ~~ 74.230.23.62 (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kocoum.Russian government is very anxious to present Chechens as nothing more than Al-Qaeda terrorists so noone look at atrocities committed to Caucasus by their army and their allies.In fact Russia hit all moderate non-fundamentalists in Chechen resistance like Dzhokhar Dudayevor Aslan Maskhadov so that extremists prevail like Shamil Basayev and then justify their actions in the region. --Eagle of Pontus

[edit] Prisoners

This was in the interview with a foreign, journalists after asked of a video of appearent execution of a group of Russians (who got their throats cut - possibly after the gorge ambush). He answered that they weren't "regular" soldiers, but a kontraktniki "mercenaries".

I think it should be noted no Chechen fighter ever got a prisoner of war treatment in the Russian captivity, too (either executed or treated as criminals to be tried and sentenced, no POW camps etc).

If there's any video of torture of prisoners, I never heard about, much less see any. The most I've seen was standing on the prone drunk man's right hand while disarming him (he was soon shot when he turned out to be unable to walk, collapsing repeatedly even despite being supported by his captors - he looked like an officer, older and fatter than the other captive).


Shooting a wounded POW is a war crime, whether or not he can walk DarthJesus 18:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Executing a POW is not a war crime if the cost of maintaining the POW is going to kill the captors. If I had wounded an officer, but had to retreat, would I burden myself with a POW that was probably going to die anyway or get me and my men killed, or would I leave him there to regain his strength and fight against me another day? It is easy for you to sit at your desk and pass judgement on what is right to do in war until you are holding the gun on the battlefield. ~~ A Muslim ~~ 74.230.23.62 (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2,500? funny

He didn't have anything like this in Dagestan '99 TOGETHER with Basayev (and the Dagestanis). The only big numbers were in the Grozny, Khattab had few guys in mountains to prepare and guard a fall-back bases (Basayev was in Grosny, of course). If you see the OMON ambush video, he has a handful of guys, of which only one gets killed (they pick up him after battle, near a Russian truck). In Shatoy, he had 50 or so. In some 2001 video of his base the Russians didn't find to this day (from an interview with a GRU officer), he also has 50 people. 1,500-2,000 was, for example, the force Basayev had in 1996 to defeat 10,000 Russian garrison of Grozny, in a prepared defensive positions and just near the Khankala main base - don't tell me they would had such a serious trouble to kill 90 abandoned and surprised (yes) guys. It's just a propaganda, like how they were hiding the battle at all at first, and then were slowly disclosing the casaulties (and then making dubious movies and even kitschy musicals about it, because of Putin's apparent personal obsession with this episode). And now they invent silly stuff how these thousands-strong wild hordes tried to break out of mountains "to seize a schools on the lowlands". No comment. Btw, Khattab's guys wasn't in much hurry to "break out", as he somehow found some time to film the Russian bodies and even kick them a little. They did it with a Russians' own video camera, with the Russian footage before this (similiar thing happaned with the OMON ambush, where the Russian camera guy even was killed while filming, and he and the commander were killed first - the rest of the ambush is just camera lying on the ground - CNN aired this later). --HanzoHattori 13:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a verifiable source for that figure. Either find a verifiable source contradicting this or don't dispute it. Either way, get more familiar with Wikipedia's rules. Moonshiner 04:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Russian official numbers are all lies, everybody know this. You know what PUTIN'S ADVISOR Aslambek Aslakhanov recently said? "When I was a Duma member, I instructed my subordinates to count up how many guerrillas had been killed, according to official reports. The figure we obtained was over a million in the course of two-and-a-half years." (Kommersant-Vlast, No. 31, August 7, 2006, p. 14, in Russian) [3] So, if some retired US generals want to be silly and believe in a fairy tales, it's only their matter and everybody should just laugh at them (and ignore). --HanzoHattori 14:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Where are your sources and why are they more trusted? Moonshiner 23:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you belive: Putin's advisor on Chechnya (who says openly: the military is lieing, lieing and lieing on numbers), or the Russian military, who couldn't even decide if there was artillery and air support or not - to the extent even the American guy was confused by this while writing the article (but somehow believed the rest of the story)? How about general Gennady Troshev, saying only 31 soldiers died, but "about 1,000" rebels were killed?[4] Hey, come on, this must be true! Tell me, would you now change the numbers to comrade Troshev's? Won't you? Why not 100,000, Aslakhanov said they 'killed' over 1 million already anyway? Of course, it's not like you kill them once, Movsar Barayev was 'killed' 2 times in 2 weeks before he become world-famous in Moscow, while Doku Umarov was 'killed' several times in 2005 only. "Russian paratrooper detachment was taken by surprise by what was officially described as 2,500 Chechen fighters. That ambush near the village of Ulus-Kert, in Chechnya's southern lowlands, cost the lives of 86 paratroopers. As is their wont, Russian officials initially issued reports underestimating the casualties. The independent Russian military news agency (AVN) was the first to report that almost all of the paratroopers ambushed had died in the Ulus-Kert battle, information later confirmed by a Russian official. Yury Gladkevich is head of the Chechen department at AVN. He explained to RFE/RL his view of why the Russians were suffering so many casualties: "By trying to deceive the public, and I don't know whether sincerely trying to deceive the Russian authorities, they [that is, the military] actually deceived themselves."[5] No comment, but one maybe: I really, really would like to see the ambush by 2,500 Chechens, all hiding, um, behind a tree I guess :) --HanzoHattori 01:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, and it wasn't only Troshev (who also claimed Khattab and Basayev were "both probably killed"), it was Georgy Shpak (the commander of paratroopers) as well:

Russia Denies 86 Killed In Chechnya Rout MOSCOW, Mar 7, 2000 -- (Agence France Presse) Russia scrambled Tuesday to play down its losses in Chechnya after a news agency reported that 86 paratroopers were killed in a single battle last week, far more than previously admitted. The AVN military agency cited Russian HQ sources as saying that 73 paratroopers and 13 officers were killed by Chechen rebels as their unit was all but wiped out in fighting in southern Chechnya on the night of February 29. Paratroop commander General Georgy Shpak dismissed the report, insisting that 31 soldiers were killed. "But there were no more casualties" of a similar order, he was quoted by ITAR-TASS as saying.

And another version (even less, only 12 killed) - from the same guy. Also, Yastrzhembsky said it was "500 rebels":

Filed at 3:55 p.m. EST, March 4, 2000 By The Associated Press STARIYE ATAGI, Russia (AP) -- (...)Col. Gen. Georgy Shpak, the Russian paratroops commander, said Saturday that 12 of his troops and hundreds of rebels had been killed in recent days around the gorge. "We're seeing the heaviest fighting ... and several losses," he told Russia's RTR television. But he denied reports that 70 paratroopers had been killed in the past two days. Federal troops were suffering losses in a battle with some 500 militants near the village of Selmentauzen, halfway between the Argun and Vedeno gorges, according to the office of the top presidential aide on Chechnya, Sergei Yastrzhembsky. The office refused Saturday to provide numbers of casualties. Chechen rebels have been weakened by a half-year of heavy bombing and shelling, but remain a powerful force capable of staging painful attacks on the Russians.

Enough? ;) Oh, and the other side's story is as follows:

No more than 70 Chechen fighters (Mujahideen) were fighting against the Russian commandos, and not 1.5 or 2 thousand, as Kremlin keeps shamelessly and falsely claiming. Four times in a row (!) 70 Chechen fighters stormed the mountain height where those Pskov commandos were. Russian commandos took the height after many hours of aerial bombings and artillery shelling. The group of Mujahideen, who were on that mountain height earlier, had to withdraw under the enemy attacks. At the same time a battle was going on between Duba-Yurt and Ulus-Kert. 12 Chechen fighters died in the battle with the Pskov commandos. A total of 25 Chechen Mujahideen became Shaheeds during the two days of battles. The enemy lost 200 soldiers killed, including about a hundred of commandos from Pskov. As a result, the advancement of the main forces of the aggressors was halted for 13 days, which allowed the Chechen Command to withdraw the units of Mujahideen, exhausted from a long march from Jokhar to Shatoi.

Neither Chechen Commander Shamil Basayev, nor Commander (Amir) Hattab were ever making a secret that back then the commandos put up fierce resistance. Valor of warriors does not depend on the number of enemy soldiers. By using its blatant lies the Kremlin is trying to desecrate not only the history of the present-day war, but also the valor of its own soldiers, whose death Moscow politicians and military were concealing for over a week for fear of their defeat being made public. Four years later the Kremlin still keeps lying and repeating the old stories about «militants outnumbering twenty times…!» Moscow generals are incapable of understanding that by using their lies they are thus insulting their commandos, whom they cowardly left to die after a group of only 20 Chechen fighters blocked the road from the direction of Duba-Yurt, and the generals, including 'hero' Shamanov, never managed to organize backup or support.

Breakthrough of 1.5 thousand Mujahideen happened later, three weeks after the Battle of Ulus-Kert. And again, Chechen troops were not making an incursion into Dagestan. 1.5 thousand Chechen fighters were walking across the snow-covered mountains towards Vedeno District of Ichkeria from Shatoi, and it took them over 20 days. During the crossing the Mujahideen lost about 50 fighters in combats with the outnumbering enemy. Over 30 wounded Chechen fighters were executed by the invaders in Selmentauzen after they were turned in by a traitor. --HanzoHattori 13:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


I guess Allah gave them the "bullet time" ability so they could dodge the Russian bullets while charging the hill DarthJesus 04:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Hi, this is just to let you know that a mediation case has been started here. Both users concerned are reminded that although quotes are useful, sources are STRONGLY ENCOURAGED to be quoted and referenced. Any referenced figures should be allowed providing the source is a 'reputable' one. Usually, both sides' figures are given for relative neutrality so please don't delete another's just because one cannot find an alternative figure for a similar event or time period. For now, may I recommend the following:

  • For Moonshiner, does your figure mention over how long a period is taken into account? (e.g. is that 1500-2500 over the last year, or last 5 years?)
  • For HanzoHattori, although the news quote (AFP) above seems reliable, please can you give a reference? Moreover, any government figures are hard to truly verify but until proven otherwise, will remain a valid source. In controversial topics, unfortunately, "do you really believe XYZ" is not a very persuasive argument. Quoting reliable sources for rebuttal (see the relevant WP page for that) and referencing them directly, however, is definitely sufficient. Regarding your cdi.org site, that is valid, but instead of deleting the 1500-2500 figure given by the Russian government, how about providing the alternative figure next to it? Jsw663 19:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

They were lieing on their own casaulties (first 12, then 31 a week later - when they had 80 identified bodies). They were lieing about enemy's as well of course (notice they never presented any proof or anything, just vague AND varying numbers, unrealisticably high as usual). Just like said journalists who uncovered the story (the command tried to hide whole episode) - they completely lost it, trying to deceive the public (that is us), or maybe even their own governement. Totally and absolutelly unreliable. On the other hand, rebels say they killed "about 100" in this battle, and this is true (86 died). And in the OMON ambush (about month later), their story was corresponding in details with what was said by the survivors on CNN later, which also aired secret footage the Russian Interior Ministry previously tried to retrieve in all copies and hide (CNN Perspectives' Forgetten War in 2002). But no, I don't force their version here.

So, "On February 29, 2000, a group of insurgents under the leadership of Khattab attacked a VDV company from Pskov near Ulus-Kert; the resulting battle lasted almost three days, ultimately resulting in 86 of the 90 paratroopers being killed in action." - these are all the undisscutable facts, barred of ANY possible propaganda (rebel too). That's it. --HanzoHattori 20:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The 1,600-2,500 figure is an estimate of the total number of insurgents in the Ulus Kert pocket at the time the event in question took place. The Military Review paper references Interfax for this number. Moonshiner 23:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

How about if the article mentions both perspectives' death tolls? Will that be a better compromise? That way we can let the reader decide. After all, nothing in history has a "correct" death toll for any bloody event. If you disagree, please state why. If you support it, then we can quickly close the mediation case. Jsw663 11:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no problems with that, and if HanzoHattori had done that originally instead of deleting other sources I wouldn't have brought this up for mediation. However, as it is now I am not satisfied with that part of the article, and given HanzoHattori's recent mass of changes to the article while this issue is still in mediation, I am starting to question his good will and motivation for editing Wikipedia. Moonshiner 23:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed vague, evidenceless claim. As it stands there seems to be questionable motives here. Please provide proof and actual date to show this is not the case. Added relevant sentence. Removed irrelevant 'nevertheless' (which seemed to imply Khattab was responsible).

It seems to me the whole Red Cross murders section should be removed. I have not done it at this time, however can somebody please state who has actually made the accusation that Khattab was behind it - the article names somebody else altogether as a suspect according to the US State Department and says nothing about Khattab - therefore at present it is irrelevant.

21 September 2006

Section is irrelevant as no such accusation is detailed. As for the part that states one day Khattab wanted ICRC symbols removed, please state why this deserves mentioning any more than a million other days/ events in the life of Khattab.

27 November 2006

[edit] Parents

Someone removed the passage about Khattab's mother being Adyghe for no apparent reason and tried to repair to sentence but fumbled with his English, I undid his revision, any objections? ForrestSjap 12:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notoriety and acts of murder

This recently added section contains unsupported statements, is obviously biased (refering to Khattab's militia-members as 'his fellow terrorists'), and is, above all else, very poorly written. In my opinion it can be removed altogether, but if it is to remain, it will have to be improved. ForrestSjap 09:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The name of Khattab's unit

In this article, Khattab's unit is referred to as the 'Islamic Regiment', I have been reading a lot about Khattab and his successors, but I have never found this name anywahere else. There are however two articles in which I have found other names; In this article[6] found on the website of the Central Asia - Caucasus Institute[7], the name of the unit is mentioned to be the 'Islamic Battalion'. In this article[8], found on the website of the Jamestown Foundation[9], the unit is called the 'International Islamic Battalion' or simply the 'IIB' (I am not confusing Khattab's unit with the IIPB). I think the references to the 'Islamic Regiment' should be replaced by references to the 'International Islamic Battalion', I will create an article about the unit shortly. Let me know if you agree or object. ForrestSjap 09:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If you say so. --HanzoHattori 11:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll take that as a yes. I'm also working on an infobox for the Amirs of the battalion. I just need to get the copyright nonsense for the images sorted out first. Can anybody around here help me out with an image on the Russian Wikipedia? ForrestSjap 14:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[10]? What problem with this? It's a screenshot from the propaganda movie Russian Hell. It's written so there. Btw: Al-Suwailem or al-Suwailem? --HanzoHattori 17:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, your Russian is better than mine I suppose, I think this picture would look better in the infobox. It's indeed al-Suweilim, not Al-Suweilim, 'al' means nothing more the 'the'. I see you have added a military person infobox to the article, as I've already told I have already made one, but I was still working on obtaining the copyright licenses of some images. I have created a somewhat customized person infobox, because I don't think the military infobox contains enough info. This is what it would look like (I used al-Walid as example, image is still absent, Islamic Regiment will be changed to International Islamic Battalion). Let me know what you think about it! ForrestSjap 11:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bosnia and Kosovo

I have seen the fragment that's included to support the claim that Khattab has been in Bosnia. It appears to be genuine. It did not mention anything about Kosovo though. I will rewrite the section about Khattab's involvement in the Bosnian War and remove all references of his being involved in the Kosovo War. Let me know if you disagree.ForrestSjap (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Khattab half Adyghea

Any source that his mother was an adygea? He looks pretty Arab to me. - PietervHuis (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't give you one at the moment but I'm pretty sure it's true. I'll look into it though. I'll reply here if I find something.ForrestSjap (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

In this source [11] it does say that he claimed his family is from the caucasus, nothing specific though. - PietervHuis (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Buinaksk raid

Hey Pieter, I think you should restore the info about the 1997 Buinaksk raid. The source may not cite anything about the raid but the raid did occur. In fact, Khattab's first deputy, Abu Bakr Aqeedah, was killed in this raid. ForrestSjap (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC) alrighty - PietervHuis (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)