What is your justification then for stating that because Abu Walid was a Salafi it lends credibility to ACCUSATIONS of terrorism Your statements regarding Western public perception are irrelevant  EVERYBODY accuses their opponents of being terrorists and trumpets this to their own people who in the West for example end up thinking that any Muslim who fights anyone for any reason is by definition a terrorist This is not what Wikipedia is about  Credible means able to believed or trusted  so of course you are implying they are more likely to be true otherwise youre using the wrong word    Which leads to my next point  US supported freedom fighters of the MAK become retrospective terrorists when SOME OF THEM later become opposed to the US do they Maybe if you use George Bushs dictionary but such statements have no place on Wikipedia Which organisation should Abu Walid have trained under at the time of the Soviet conflict and which crystal ball should he have had in order to ensure that one day such far fetched accusations of terrorism would not be levelled at him   Walid talked about suicide operations on OCCUPATION TROOPS  perhaps youre getting this mixed up with attacks on civilians Of course attacks on OCCUPATION TROOPS are for military gain Suicide attacks may be unconventional to people who use Fs to kill people en masse but I dont see the relevance here Which is the terrorism fighting occupation troops or the suicide part If you claim it is the suicide part then in order to appear rational you will have to call anyone who ever took a drug overdose or hanged themselves a terrorist also   Stating why somebody did something is not defending well not according to the laws of logic at least In any case what proof do you have that Walid was referring to suicide attacks by the Chechen women on CIVILIANS  Of course the section should be removed as it is under a heading stating Walids involvement in terrorism Otherwise create a new section with an appropriate heading for it   A question has a question mark Without a question mark it is a statement There is no proof of terrorism and the only referenced accusations are made by Russia so Ive no idea why you claim RUSSIAN ACCUSATIONS OF TERRORISM is biased   September