Talk:Ziad Jarrah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ziad Jarrah article.
Article policies
Featured article star Ziad Jarrah is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 5, 2005.
Peer review This History article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's 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.)
An archive of old discussion on this topic is at /archive.

Contents

[edit] Contradict Tag

The introductory paragraph states:

... although the release of the cockpit transcript revealed that Saeed al-Ghamdi had in fact been flying, and the claim of Jarrah's participation has been the subject of much controversy.

however, in the The Attack section, Jarrah is always referred to as being the pilot, and taking orders from "a fellow hijacker". which was it? --Storkk 17:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The cockpit transcript did not reveal who was flying the plane. No names were used. The statement in the introductory paragraph is incorrect. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 02:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Au contraire, actually, tthe trancript clearly shows Saeed al-Ghamdi being given orders to roll the plane, pitch it forward and steer erractically. In fact, he is the only hijacker mentioned by name throughout the transcript. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 11:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow. I'm going to need to investigate this more closely. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 14:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions about Possible mistaken identity section

"The sudden cropping of the lease has lead some to speculate that the surname was originally spelled differently"

Who is speculating and why do they think this? --Peephole 14:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It should link to who suspects it. I'm not sure who. FYI, some of the incriminating evidence spelled the name "Ziad Jarrahi" or "Zaid Jarrahi" and he apparently didn't write an i at the end of his name (though they are both valid transliterations of his Arabic name into Roman letters.) It's a rather weak point, but some people care. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 15:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Who? We should be avoiding using weasel words here. --Peephole 15:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Right. I changed the caption. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 15:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"On October 23, 2001, John Ashcroft claimed that Jarrah had shared a Hamburg apartment with Mohamed Atta and Marwan Alshehhi, though the Los Angeles Times then announced that none of Jarrah's three apartments in Hamburg had been remotely connected with any of the other hijackers."

How is this an authority inconsistancy? Did Aschcroft or an other government instance say something different later? The LA Times isn't an authority, right? --Peephole 14:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The LA Times doesn't usually print false information, and when it does, it usually retracts it. This is a case of a major newspaper contradicting Ashcroft's account. It's noteworthy. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 15:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Upon researching: the LA Times based their assertion on authorities in Germany. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 15:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I just thought the authority inconsistancy is meant for cases when government instances contradicted themselves or eachother. --Peephole 15:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Authorities in Germany contradict U.S. authorities. Check out the new LA Time source. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 15:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Further, this section is extremely poorly sourced. This is a featured article, everything should be properly sourced or else taken out.--Peephole 14:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It ought to be well-sourced. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 15:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've sourced it all, I think. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 15:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Part 2

Peephole flagged the parts of the "Authority Inconsistencies" section that were unsourced. I managed to source (or revise and source) most of them. There are two I couldn't.

  1. I can't find any evidence that "FBI and German authorities had initially reported that Jarrah attended another school". Even if they did, I don't see how it's important, since it's easy to get facts mixed up in something like that. If they did report his school incorrectly, they later set the record straight. I'm all for removing that paragraph as unnotable and unsourced.
  2. I can't find a source for the assertion that "Jarrah's family has indicated they would be willing to provide DNA samples to US researchers", so I think I'll revise that sentence.

I also think the "Possible mistaken identity" and "Authority Inconsistencies" sections should be merged and reorganized. Any objections? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 19:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I support adding a {{fact}} tag to the first claim which seems mildly believable, but removing the second claim. I do strongly support merging the two sections Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 18:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Part 3

Well the Jarrah / Atta video [1] should put to rest the mistaken identity claims. The section should be minimized and written such that for a while there were these claims, the 9/11 commission concluded differently and on Sep 27th 2006, a video will with Atta was released casting further doubt on such claims. Barneygumble 14:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That's fascinating. What does Jarrah say on the video? Does anyone know? – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
o.O Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 05:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

[edit] Pilot?

The article mentions the possibility of Saeed alGhamdi as the pilot. I understand the CVR transcript could indicate that, but i believe it is far to vague to make such a bold assertion especially weighed against the evidence that Jarrah did attend flight school, was a member of the Hamburg cell, as were two of the other pilots, i believe there is too much evidence supporting the conclusion that Jarrah was the pilot, if you could please explain to me how you reached that conclusion, and if there is any other source aside from the trranscript. i am very interested as it is quite crucial to the history of the events.KarlJohannes 05:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I've rewritten that bit a little. Like it? --Peephole 05:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

how do you know they are refering to the pilot when they say saeed? that is what i was getting atKarlJohannes 06:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

They tell Saeed where to steer the plane. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 07:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that Saeed was also trained as a pilot, and that Jarrah was not really a member of the Hamburg cell. (He lived in Hamburg when the others did, but only saw them rarely, apparently.) – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, my guess is that Jarrah would have flown the plane into the Capitol -- but al-Ghamdi was at the controls temporarily during the disturbance (for whatever reason). But that's just a guess. We can't really ask them. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Was Jarrah in the Hamburg cell?

the hamburg cell does not refer simply to atta, al shehi and binalshibh who inhabited 54 marinestrasse but rather those 4 terrorists who visited afghanistan, trained in the camps, and afterwards took part in the conspiracy to attack the united states. Jarrah was most definatley a part of that, all doubts should have been erased with the release of the martyrdom video a few weeks back, i dont understand how you can still argue that he was not a member of the core group of conspirators? Either way this article does have a big discrepancy, stating Jarrah is not a member of the cell but then in talking about the video that he was, even if my suggestion above is not heeded, something has to be done about that inconsistency.KarlJohannes 19:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

regardless, i dont know who thought that it was a video of them together in Hamburg, all the sources state that the video was mad in AfghanistanKarlJohannes 19:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The term "Hamburg Cell" refers to the location in Hamburg where many 9/11 planners met, and the people who frequented there. Said Bahaji, Zakariya Essabar, Mounir el Motassadeq, and Abdelghani Mzoudi were all members, along with the other three pilots you mentioned. The term "Hamburg Cell" does not refer to the core conspirators; it refers to the people who met together in Hamburg to conspire, whether they were major players or not. Although the Hamburg Cell article claims Jarrah was a member, I think that's misleading. Jarrah was certainly one of the main four terrorists, and he definitely lived in Hamburg, and he trained in Afghanistan like the other three. But he never is known to have visited the Marienstraße building, and never (apparently) met with any of the others while in Hamburg. (Except for the wedding video at the al-Quds mosque.) – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

So then we are expected to believe that it was a coincidence that he lived in hamburg and happened to arrive in Afghanistan at the same time as the others and took part in the same conspiracy but was not a member of this group? A terrorist cell is not a location, it is a group of terrorists who conspire to commit terrorist acts. You claim that it refers to the location as well as the people who met together to conspire, dont you think that they would consciously try to distance themselves from each other to avoid drawing suspiscion? If anything the Hamburg Cell is just a moniker established after the attack to refer to the four core conspirators and their associates. If the only source cited is the commision report, then you must include him unless you provide another source stating he was not a member of what the commission refers to as 'the hamburg contingent' Regardless of where Jarrah lived or who he visted, he is most definatley within that group. KarlJohannes 15:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

None of the terrorists except Jarrah "consciously tried to distance themselves from each other to avoid drawing suspiscion". They lived with each other and were often seen together. They conspired together, in a cell. Jarrah lived in the same city, and no, it was not a coincidence, but he didn't appear to associate with each others. Perhaps they didn't get along (there's evidence of that), or perhaps KSM didn't want the secular Jarrah to rub off on the others. Whatever the reason, there's no evidence that they conspired together. Jarrah was given orders, and he followed them. He isn't known to have conspired with anyone. I think it's misleading to say that Jarrah was a part of a "cell", when there's no evidence he met with them (outside of a single event at a wedding) in Hamburg. He was told to stay in Hamburg, and he did, and he was told to go to Afghanistan, and he did, but he was conspicuously separate from the others.
On the other hand, I checked the 9/11 Commission Report, and it does list Jarrah as part of the Hamburg cell. I think that's misleading, but it does say that, unfortunately. It also implies (but does not state directly) that he lived at or frequented the Marionstrasse building. (There's no evidence that he was ever there.) In fact, all the references about the Hamburg cell that 9/11 reports uses either don't mention Jarrah, or else they refer to classified reports by German intelligence -- but German intelligence has stated that they do not believe there was any connection between Jarrah and the others. So I'm not sure why the Commission included Jarrah.
So either the 9/11 Commission Report sloppily included Jarrah in with the others, assuming that he must have met with them, despite the lack of evidence -- or else they saw evidence that's secret (so they couldn't cite it) that shows Jarrah was there and conspired with them. I don't know which. I do know, however, that if Jarrah was in the Hamburg cell, he hid it well, and none of the other hijackers did. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I changed the text in question to the following:

The 9/11 Commission Report states that Jarrah was a member of the Hamburg cell, along with Atta and the others. He did not live with any of the others, however, and can only be confirmed to have met with any of them in Hamburg on a single occasion: that of Said Bahaji's wedding at the al-Quds Mosque. The closeness of his connections with the others is not known.

Is this acceptable? – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes i suppose this will do, i was not aware this was such a point of contention, perhaps someone else could weigh in, this is too much one on one KarlJohannes 20:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine, but isn't Atta part of the Hamburg cell? Cause with the martyrdom tape that would make two connections.--Peephole 01:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

yeah the article addresses that KarlJohannes 01:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
It's worth noting that that video was made in Afghanistan, after all 4 pilots moved away from Hamburg on their way to the U.S. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Men Who Stare At Goats

Page 82- has information on Ziad and his connections with Bert Rodriguez.Bronayur 15:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Image-Attavideo.jpg

Image:Image-Attavideo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)