Talk:Al-Qaeda/Archive 6

message: The Al Queda Summary on the page includes a peice where it says they are responsible for the attacks of 9/11 when the FBI and CIA deny having any "concrete proof" of Al Queda being involved with the attacks. The links to the organisation are circumstansial, Osama Bin Laden has not been endited on the attacks and they are not mentioned on his wanted poster. Use of the word "accussation" might help (could get sued for slander)  
===Individuals identified as "al-Qaeda members" by who?===
Hi i dont know exaclty where to put this on a talk page, im new to wikipedia
but on the part of al qaeda's wikipedia page where it says something about al qaeda in other countries ive found a new one in New zealand which i think sould be a part of it called AQNZ (al qaeda new zealand) i would like to add it but i dont know how to get it up onto the contents part at the top of al qaeda's page if you can help me please contact me. i think the section titled Individuals identified as "al-Qaeda members" should explain how they have been identified. im not questioning its validity just saying that it could do with a short explanation as to how they have been identified, and by who.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.106.63 (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that with a topic this hot that each and every fact in the article needs a rock-solid reference.  Or several. User:Pedant 23:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well theres a reason they're not saying by who, because then that could possibly instigate attacks against the identifying agency or government. Also they can't say how, as that information is usually classified. Be glad you got anything at all out of ANY government.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.117.27 (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then who claims that they are identified as al-Qaeda members? The info must have been made public at some point by someone, and if not there are no base for the claim what-so-ever, and it should be removed from the article, bizarre as that may seem.--Diovobirius (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al Queda and 9/11 

message: Hi i dont know exaclty where to put this on a talk page, im new to wikipedia
but on the part of al qaeda's wikipedia page where it says something about al qaeda in other countries ive found a new one in New zealand which i think sould be a part of it called AQNZ (al qaeda new zealand) i would like to add it but i dont know how to get it up onto the contents part at the top of al qaeda's page if you can help me please contact me. i think the section titled Individuals identified as "al-Qaeda members" should explain how they have been identified. im not questioning its validity just saying that it could do with a short explanation as to how they have been identified, and by who.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.106.63 (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that with a topic this hot that each and every fact in the article needs a rock-solid reference.  Or several. User:Pedant 23:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well theres a reason they're not saying by who, because then that could possibly instigate attacks against the identifying agency or government. Also they can't say how, as that information is usually classified. Be glad you got anything at all out of ANY government.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.117.27 (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then who claims that they are identified as al-Qaeda members? The info must have been made public at some point by someone, and if not there are no base for the claim what-so-ever, and it should be removed from the article, bizarre as that may seem.--Diovobirius (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Individuals identified as "al-Qaeda members" by who?

message: The article states these points for "connections to the ICU" when the first bullet dosen't have anything to do with al-qaeda and the second is rather dubious...
-Hassan Abdullah Hersi al-Turki, a military leader in the Islamic Courts Union, and formerlyleader of Al-Itihaad al-Islamiya (AIAI) was designated under US Presidential Executive Order 13224 as a terrorist financier on June 3. 2004.[60] 
-Aden Hashi Farah Ayro, leader of the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) youth movement, Hizbul Shabaab, was said to have gone to Afghanistan to train with Al-Qaeda before 2001, according to Matthew Bryden of International Crisis Group.[61][62] 
In my humble opinion, this entire article ranges from dubious claims to utter nonsense.  Isn't this supposed to be the encylopedia written by the people?  Why is this article being allowed to be filled with such garbage, when other articles are subject to intense scrutiny?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.225.205.95 (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there are people out there who would fill it with more garbage, just to express they're hatred towards that particular group. Let's face it-The current 'issues' in the middle east have a great deal to do with hatred. And then theres the ignorant Americans who would shove this thing full of more crap.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.117.27 (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: links to ICU not there? this article full of nonsese?

message: For such an important topic theres waaaay too much "This does not cite its references or sources", in fact this all seems to be party line opinion of Al-Qaeda.
People will use this as reference and i presume the people are who white washing here have done it with this in mind ... theres only one real reference indicating that things arent as shown in the media.
"An alternative theory, presented in the BBC film series "The Power of Nightmares", states that the name and concept of al-Qaeda was first used by the U.S. Department of Justice in January 2001"
theres a long history of government elements and false flag terrorism, its more than just a theory ... its a matter of fact.  "manufactured consent" 
but lets stick to PROVEN FACTS - youve listed 16 'suicide airjackers'  ... many are STILL ALIVE and well at home, if even this isn't correct how much else can be.
its very simple ... you are alive or you are dead ...
youve listed 4 suicide bomber for 7/7 ... hows this a fact when there hasn't been a full investigation. yet again government tell media what to say, then youve let people repeat it here as fact.
Basically you list alot of things as fact, probably tryin to force history into compliance with an impressive amount of 'information'and its not proven its subjective.
the alternative theories on al-qaeda all quote sources and are cross referenced, with commentry by qualified individuals ... your theories are all unproven party line.
just because its in a history book, doesnt make it history —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.15.62.111 (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am starting add in references and to clean up text. The most glaring faux pas I found today was the mention of Al Qaeda beginning its "crusade" against the west. I changed the word to jihad. --Petercorless 03:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: But both are the terms used by many of said 'terrorists' so we have no choice but to display the facts. I mean, after all, the Term 'Nazi' is hardly neutral, but we can't remove it because its the actual name of the group.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.117.27 (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: utter presumtion - too much information, not enough facts

message: Neither Crusade nor Jihad is acceptable because of connotation, neither term is neutral. User:Pedant 23:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But both are the terms used by many of said 'terrorists' so we have no choice but to display the facts. I mean, after all, the Term 'Nazi' is hardly neutral, but we can't remove it because its the actual name of the group.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.117.27 (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jihad/Crusade

message: I see a number of times when Al Qaeda's feelings and motives are discussed. For example.
:During the Gulf War, the organization's interests became split between outrage with the intervention of the United Nations in the region, hatred of Saddam Hussein's secular government, and concern for the suffering of Islamic people in Iraq.
This is speculation. And given that Al Qaeda does appear to be inciting conflict between the various ethnic groups and blowing up lots of innocent people, I doubt the claim of "concern for the suffering of Islamic people". -- KarlHallowell 01:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer the wording "terrorists attacks inciting conflict between the various ethnic groups are said to be the work of Al-Quaeda".  You use the noun "Al-Quaeda" as if it is a definite thing that can be identified.  It is not. User:Pedant 23:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For one, this IS a definite group. Al-Qaeda exists, and it is a proven fact. However, I do agree that speculation as to the motives of the group should be excluded from the actual entry.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.117.27 (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: don't speculate on Al Qaeda's feelings and motives

message: Peter Bergen is cited multiple times as a source in this article but I can't find a single mention of Robert Fisk. Fisk has interviewed bin Laden three times, the first interview being as early as 1994, so it seems natural that he'd be mentioned somewhere in the article. I am guessing that the absence of any mention of Fisk is due to the fact that he is a controversial figure in the American mainstream.
Here are some quotes by Fisk on the allegation of CIA involvement with Al-Qaeda:
"Some of [bin Laden's] current Afghan fellow fighters had been trained earlier by the CIA in the very camps that were the target of the recent US missiles." - September 21, 1998
"[Bin Laden] was involved in the funding networks, which probably are the ones which still exist. They were trained, armed, organized by the CIA, Pakistan, Egypt, and others to fight a holy war against the Russians." November 1st, 2001
http://www.robert-fisk.com/fisk_talks_with_usama_bin_ladin.htm
http://www.robert-fisk.com/chomsky_interview5_nov1_2001.htm
Neebe 06:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just hope Fish (fisk) is not swimming anymore Catarcostica 08:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias?

message: This article is extremely biased against Al-Qaeda. Please rectify this problem at once.
:Please indicate specific problem parts or examples of bias. And please sign your posts. -- KarlHallowell 22:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: YOU BASTARD HanzoHattori! HOW CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT??? Wikipedia seems to attract only the dirtiest scum of the earth. Aleksi Peltola 18:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's elementary, my dear Peltola - because I hate freedom. --HanzoHattori 18:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, Aleksi, it also seems to attract only people with no sense of sarcasm. -- 68.146.220.249 17:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias against Al-Qaeda is extreme!

message: ===Year of foundation controversy===
I think the claim that al-Qaeda was established in 1988 should be treated with far more caution in the article. It certainly shouldn't open with this claim as if it has been established beyond doubt. The claim appears to be based on a single source (Peter Bergen's book). This claim should be discussed in the article by all means, but not stated as an established fact. 
The text about Bergen's year-of-foundation claim in the 'origin of name' section is also unclear:
Journalist Peter Bergen cites a document from 11 August 1988 establishing al-Qaeda and referring to it as "the base." [i.e., establishing al-Qaeda and referring to it as "al-Qaeda"] The document contained the minutes of the first meeting establishing the organization: "This document outlines the discussion between bin Laden, referred to as 'the Sheikh', [Bin Laden is not actually named!] and Abu Rida, or Mohamed Loay Bayazid, to discuss the formation of a 'new military group', which would include 'al Qaeda (the base).' [So the new group they are referring to is not al-Qaeda itself, but would include it]
There is nothing in this that convinces me that what is being referred to is any more than a military or training base, but I haven't read the Bergen book. To my knowledge, no statement had ever been issued in the name of al-Qaeda prior to 9/11. The 1998 'fatwa', for instance was issued in the name of "The World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders".
If there is consensus on this issue, I'd like to remove the claim about the year of foundation from the introduction and info box. Someone with a knowledge of the Bergen source needs to clear up that part of the text as well.--Distinguisher 01:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The claim about establishing al-Qaeda in 1988 is very weakly supported. It should not be in the first paragraph - many people only read the first paragraphs and have a lot of confidence in the information in them.80.235.62.207 12:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think the answer is known with certainty. I've altered the opening line and the info box to reflect that uncertainty. See also the section I've just added in the "origin of the name al-Qaeda" section clarifying the source of discrepancies about this.--Distinguisher 14:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of al-Qaeda 

message: I think the claim that al-Qaeda was established in 1988 should be treated with far more caution in the article. It certainly shouldn't open with this claim as if it has been established beyond doubt. The claim appears to be based on a single source (Peter Bergen's book). This claim should be discussed in the article by all means, but not stated as an established fact. 
The text about Bergen's year-of-foundation claim in the 'origin of name' section is also unclear:
Journalist Peter Bergen cites a document from 11 August 1988 establishing al-Qaeda and referring to it as "the base." [i.e., establishing al-Qaeda and referring to it as "al-Qaeda"] The document contained the minutes of the first meeting establishing the organization: "This document outlines the discussion between bin Laden, referred to as 'the Sheikh', [Bin Laden is not actually named!] and Abu Rida, or Mohamed Loay Bayazid, to discuss the formation of a 'new military group', which would include 'al Qaeda (the base).' [So the new group they are referring to is not al-Qaeda itself, but would include it]
There is nothing in this that convinces me that what is being referred to is any more than a military or training base, but I haven't read the Bergen book. To my knowledge, no statement had ever been issued in the name of al-Qaeda prior to 9/11. The 1998 'fatwa', for instance was issued in the name of "The World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders".
If there is consensus on this issue, I'd like to remove the claim about the year of foundation from the introduction and info box. Someone with a knowledge of the Bergen source needs to clear up that part of the text as well.--Distinguisher 01:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The claim about establishing al-Qaeda in 1988 is very weakly supported. It should not be in the first paragraph - many people only read the first paragraphs and have a lot of confidence in the information in them.80.235.62.207 12:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Year of foundation controversy

message: Soviets left in early 1989?
The text says AQ started in 1989, the table to the right says 1988, which one is it?
:I don't think the answer is known with certainty. I've altered the opening line and the info box to reflect that uncertainty. See also the section I've just added in the "origin of the name al-Qaeda" section clarifying the source of discrepancies about this.--Distinguisher 14:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How can they say that Al quaeda started in 1989 to offset Soviet offense in Afghanistan, when... 

message: Given that Al-Qaeda wasn't established or even named untill 2000-2001, why is there such an 
emphasis on history in the article? much of the history contained is inaccurate, poorly cited and  irrelevant, why is it there? Surely it would be better suited to an acticle on bin Laden or on Islamic Fachism/Terrorism in general, it has nothing specific to do with Al Qaeda. This article is very poor, it contains unsubstantiated rumors on the groups activity and presents it as fact. With such widespread
dispute among academics and experts (not politicians and press secretaries) as to whether a structured 
organisation under the name Al-Qaeda exists - why does this article state so many 'facts' about the organisation?
Are you serious? Haven't you heard of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? It's widely attributed for the USSR's collpase... As for facists... Henners91 08:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the History

message: did the USA help Alkida to organize to fight Soviet? 
if so why is [this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Qaeda&diff=next&oldid=126493925]
Nasz 09:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: USA no kiding, Allkiding

message: Please watch this extract from a BBC documentary on the subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBVVs9hcmRY
It speaks for itself. SmokeyTheCat 09:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: -- That Guy, From That Show! 14:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: See above. Gazpacho 03:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took the "Rhetoric" section which is generally the criticism of the use of the term and moved it lower in the article. I also found it was unsourced, and also POV. I do not want to expunge it prejudicially, but it needs to be better-written. Someone unsympathetic to the section could easily delete it, or we could have an edit war such as is common on the 9/11 conspiracy pages. I'd prefer to see this section written better and sourced. There is indeed fair criticism of the "bogeyman" aspects of the use of Al-Qaeda, and a need to describe the assertions and counter-arguments about the size and influence of the organization. Let's do our Wikibest to make it a buff section. --Petercorless 07:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With al-Qaeda there are so many gaps in knowledge that people turn to rumor to satisfy the demand. However, the solution to rumors is to remove them, not to add opposing rumors. Peter Bergen talked face-to-face with Osama. He has made a career of reporting on Osama's activities. Adam Curtis does not have a comparable background. He ignores the 1996 fatwa. He presents "contradictory" statements from sources that... aren't. But if you're looking for an indictment of the NeoConspiracy, Curtis delivers, and that's what seems to drive viewers to this article. The Curtis production might be useful for the source material it includes, but its conclusions are by no means the only ones that have been drawn from the same information. Gazpacho 08:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I see your point but I must disagree with your statement that you can't declare or win a war on an idea. If you kill people who hold that idea and remove the conditions that cause people to have the idea, it can work, as with witches in Finland during the late 17th century. Now there are very few witchesAleksi Peltola 03:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: al Qaeda doesn't exist

message: I think there needs to be a section in this article debating the existence of Al Qaeda. I cite The Power of Nightmares. Goldfishsoldier 01:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It already does? - The article mentions The Power of Nightmares and its questioning of the existence of Al-Qaeda: "According to the controversial BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares, al-Qaeda is so weakly linked together that it is hard to say it exists apart from Osama bin Laden and a small clique of close associates. The lack of any significant numbers of convicted al-Qaeda members despite a large number of arrests on terrorism charges is cited by the documentary as a reason to doubt whether a widespread entity that meets the description of al-Qaeda exists at all. The extent and nature of al-Qaeda remains a topic of dispute." Perhaps a more careful read? --Petercorless 01:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You will also note the reference to the neologism Al-Qaedaism, which references your point as to whether Al Qaeda is a formal organization or a less-formal political movement or philosophy. In other words, we thought of that, and the article speaks to the issue. --Petercorless 21:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Existence of Al Qaeda

message: After reading the 'information' posted here, and several of the comments, it seems to me that Al-Qaeda (at least as it is currently referred to) is an invention of the United States government and that bin Laden and several other Muslims have decided it is in their interests to agree to its 'existence'.
If Wikipedia is suppose to be a scholarly site providing education on a wide variety of topics what is this thinly veiled propaganda doing here?  At the very least it should be labeled as a study of the power of myth and propaganda.  The effort to discuss Al-Qaeda as fact would be extremely humorous except for the fact it helps propagate very dangerous disinformation which is used as a primary foundation for the 'war on terror' which, of course, is just more disinformation.
Wikipedia needs to make a conscious decision whether dissemination of this category of 'information' adheres to its mission.
69.179.91.111 06:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you are wrong. Complaint dismissed. This discussion is now closed.Aleksi Peltola 23:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Complaint dismissed??? This user makes a very valid point. I suggest you watch "The Power of Nightmares" on Google Video Seahorsy 13:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I lol'd. --HanzoHattori 08:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Seahorsy.  I say--against the wishes of Aleksi Peltola--we discuss this. Mrbojanglescj 06:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Al-Qaeda an urban myth?

message: Database is Qaedat Al Bayanat  قاعدة البيانات  in Arabic .. The Base is 'Al Qaeda' القاعدة in Arabic. In Arabic we use 'Al Qaeda' as translation to 'The Base'. For Database we could use simply 'al Bayanat' البيانات ignoring the first part when we speak about a database which means that the idea of translating 'Al Qaeda' to 'The database' is not correct even if it is linked with some database of the extremists because they would call it 'Al Bayanat' and not 'Al Qaeda' if they mean the database. The term has more military concept here and could not be linked with a 'database'. I do not know if I am correct   Islampedia 21:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Al Qaeda = The database ?

message: :Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west.
--Robin Cook, former MP
— Xiutwel (talk) 11:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Robin Cook simply got this translation wrong. Ask an Arabic speaker.--Distinguisher 12:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  database 

message: Hi.
Ad this line at the first line of code:

...it´s the "trick" to obtain an initial low case.
I do not do it due to my "filtered" internet access. I am afraid of mangling words.Randroide 15:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is no different from the typical Wikipedia article. We don't slap this on all articles just because initial capitalization is turned on in the article names on English Wikipedia. This template does not belong here.  Al-Qaeda properly has a capital A when it is used at the beginning of a sentence, as I have just done here.  Gene Nygaard 15:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I've just corrected all instances of the name outside of quoted text in line with the rule that the initial 'a' should be upper case when sentence initial and lower case elsewhere. --Distinguisher 18:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial "a" minor case

message: There has been an ongoing edit war over the link between the 9/11 attacks and the launching of the "war on terror" that needs to be resolved. Consider an earlier version of the phrase in question:
The United States government used the September 11 attacks as a pretext for initiating ... the War on Terrorism...
This wording in this and similar versions implies that there was a sinister ulterior motive that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. There may have been, but we cannot suggest this without supporting evidence. Any discussion of intentions would be going beyond the observable facts. But we cannot assume the intentions were noble any more than we can assume they were sinister, which brings me to the other feature of the same edit war. The aim of the "war on terror" cannot be stated without a qualifying adjective. Hence, it must be the "alleged", "purported" or "stated" aim rather than simply "the aim".
The only facts we have access to are the following:
(1) The United States government launched the "war on terror" after the 9/11 attacks.
(2) It said the aim was to dismantle al-Qaeda and kill or capture its operatives.
A neutral phrasing will state only these facts, hence I suggest the following:
Following the September 11 attacks, the United States government launched a broad military and intelligence campaign known as the War on Terrorism, with the stated aim of dismantling al-Qaeda and killing or capturing its operatives.
I also use "stated aim" rather than "alleged aim" because in order to be an allegation it must refer to something negative. We speak of alleged criminals, but not alleged saints (in standard English).--Distinguisher 13:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Speculation about intentions and the link between 9/11 and the war on terror

message: The last sentence says two Spanish police, Guardia Civil informers, and a Spanish policeman. Isn't this redundant? If it was three Spanish policemen, it should say so. This sentence is very confusing.akronpow 15:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Madrid

message: The attack against the US Cole can hardly be described as an attack on civilians and Al Zawahiri was murdering people long before 1993 so the title does not work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gorgonzilla (talk • contribs) 04:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 'start of militant operations against civilians'

message: This is bizarre.  Does a summary of it belong in the article? 75.35.79.57 06:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suddenly all opposing forces in Iraq are being called "al-Qaida" by US

message: They aren't listed as terrorists enough. They are nothing more. They don't represent the Muslim people, and their cause is no justified. It should be made prety clear they're terrorists doncha think? I do.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.68.106.234 (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2007
:The article clearly indicates which governments regard al-Qaeda a terrorist organization. Bin Laden also agrees that he is engaging in terrorism. There is no debate here. But they are engaged in more than just terrorism. They have also attacked military targets such as the Pentagon and the USS Cole. Those were not technically terrorist acts because they were not targeting civilians.--Distinguisher 00:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pentagon wasn't a military target because of the means of the attack. --HanzoHattori 22:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The USS Cole attack wasn't terrorism -- more what F.D. Roosevelt would have called a "cowardly sneak attack".  Attacking the Pentagon likewise might not have been terrorism, but intentionally killing the civilians on board the plane that crashed into it is another story. 204.186.20.180 18:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Certain acts cannot be described as 'Acts of terror' due to the absence of civilian casualties, like the USS Cole Bombing, for example. Those should be classified as 'Acts of Aggression against military targets', although it doesn't matter what you call it, it is still murder.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.117.27 (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Terrorists

message: I'm not proposing changing the preferred spelling, al-Qaeda, in this article.
The opening paragraph begins "Al-Qaeda (also al-Qaida or al-Qa'ida or al-Qa'idah)...."
The section "The Name Al-Qaeda" says "Al-Qaeda's name can also be transliterated as al-Qaida, al-Qa'ida, el-Qaida, or al Qaeda," citing a real-player filed that I can't play as a reliable source.
So the opening lacks "el-Qaida" and "al Qaeda", while the name-section lacks "al-Qa'idah".
A books.google.com search, which counts results in books (not websites or recent news articles), and ignores whether a hyphen or space is used between words, returns these reslts:
spelling, #-of-books
al.qaeda 3280 (the periods can be spaces or hyphens - a spot check looks evenly divided).
al.qaida 1054 (a spot check favors the hyphen)
al.qa'ida 480
al.qa'eda 241
al.qa'idah 197
al.qae'da 195
al.qaidah 187
al.qai'da 86
and al.qaedah 38 el.qaeda 20 el.qaida 18 (many german) al.qai'dah 15 al.qa'edah 3
(Alqaeda and alqaida also got several hundred results, but almost all due to technical problems, mostly when a line ends with "al-" and the next continues with "qaeda" or "qaida," which Google misinterprets.)
I propose changing the lead from:
"Al-Qaeda (also al-Qaida or al-Qa'ida or al-Qa'idah)..."
to
"Al-Qaeda (also al Qaeda, al-Qaida, al-Qa'ida, etc.; see below)...."
And changing the sentence in the name-section from
"Al-Qaeda's name can also be transliterated as al-Qaida, al-Qa'ida, el-Qaida, or al Qaeda,"
to
"Al-Qeada's name is also often translitered as al-Qaida, al-Qa'ida, al-Qa'eda, al-Qa'idah, and other variations, often omitting the hyphen as in "al Qaeda," and sometimes moving the apostrophe as in "al Qai'dah."
No single source could support that statement, but these three combined substantiate the basics:
this on page 148, and this in the prologue, and this on page ix ("Note on transliteration.")
Feedback? -Agyle 02:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: change list of alternative transliterations 

message: Hi 
Could someone add to this page an outline of the the stated goals of Al-Qaeda on this page and provide links to other pages where applicable. 
Thanks
Dcolford2000 16:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an excellent suggestion. I was surprised to see that such a section did not exist. Every article that I can think of regarding organizations has a stated goals section but this article does not. Considering that your request is 4 months old and no one has even commented, it doesn't look like anyone is taking the initiative on this issue. I can try and see what I can find. Jtpaladin 21:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A "Goals" section still remains elusive. I can't believe no one has addressed this issue. According to the Anti-Defamation League, "Al Qaeda was founded in 1988 by Osama bin Laden to consolidate the international network he established during the Afghan war. Its goals were the advancement of Islamic revolutions throughout the Muslim world and repelling foreign intervention in the Middle East." I also found an article which indicates al-qaeda would cease attacks on the West if the West stops interferring in the mid-east. . It took me all of 5 minutes to find that. Anyone care to do further research or assemble this info into something that could be considered a "Goals" section? Jtpaladin 18:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try to help but it will take a while. --BoogaLouie 17:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I would work on this as well but I'm supposed to be on vacation and limiting my time on WP. It seems silly that there is no "Goals" section even though info on al-qaeda's goals is so readily available and easy to find. As part of a "Goals" section, it might be useful to point out that it's clear that al-qaeda's ability to recruit would be sharply diminished once the U.S. finishes up its' work in Iraq and Afghanistan and gets out. Our interference in the mid-east is what makes people who follow al-qaeda's philosophy most angry. Even "moderate" Muslims are opposed to our continued presence in Iraq. The Muslims didn't like it 900 years ago with the Crusades and they still don't like it today. Al-qaeda has successfully portrayed U.S. and allied troops as a modern day Crusade against Muslims and this has led to such widespread hatred of the U.S. and large-scale recruitment of suicide bombers and foot soldiers to fight Allied efforts in Iraq and in Afghanistan. This doesn't mean we should remain uninvolved in the politics of the mid-east, only that our continued troop presence is what gives al-qaeda fuel for their efforts. I will try and help you with this topic, time permitting. Jtpaladin 14:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: A simple section on the basic goals of Al-Qaeda is not as difficult to establish as you suggest. This is the English version of Wikipedia and as much as it would be nice to include various perspectives from global attribution, there are clear sources, some of which I have mentioned above, that can be used as a reference to creating a goals section. If no one is taking the initiative on this then when I return from vacation I'll put something together that references as many sources as possible including Bin Laden's own words. Jtpaladin 19:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Goals of Al-Qaeda

message: Is Al-Qaeda's goal really world domination? It sounds like the person who wrote that is the exact opposite of one of those conspiracy kooks that think Jews call for world domination. I don't see how an actual organization could have the goal to personally control the world, its not a country or anything, and its pretty much completely decentralized, I would say its goal is at most domination of all forms of Islam or the Islamic world, and I wouldn't even claim that (but I'm no expert, thats just my opinion). It doesn't run governments or control countries directly, it may influence governments, but that is a different matter. Jihadist is also seemingly a bad word to use, maybe if you read (here in Britain) to many BNP leaflets you might start believing that Jihad is the counterpart to Christian crusades, but in actual fact a Jihad is an ongoing thing (greater Jihad) to further the understanding and personal adherence to the laws of Islam, whilst lesser Jihad can be used in a military sense to mean protection of the right to practice Islam in Islamic countries and against outside attacks on Islamic culture. To say something is 'Jihadist' may suite some tabloid, but this is an encyclopedia and to call something 'Jihadist' is an over-simplification and worngly implies Jihad is something military based in origin. I would replace Jihadist with religiously fundamentalist or religious motivated militant organization.172.200.194.151 18:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  'Lesser Jihad also includes one or two other things, but as I cannot clearly remember them, I will not post conjecture, but merely bring to your attention they're existence. Also, I have corrected multiple Spelling errors on all of your posts, to ensure that the facts come through clearly.
Your one other thing, just wanted to say this article makes Al-Qaeda out to be some kind of James Bond movie-esque 'we want to take over the world' group, that has a master mind 'Osama Bin-Laden' and a centralized and fixed command structure going all the way down to the terrorists  performing the acts. In fact many groups that may be funded and supplied by Al-Qaeda are not Al Qaeda but cells formed by groups of angry extremists in different parts of the world. Many of the things put down to Al-Qaeda or even caused by groups that are claimed to be Al-Qaeda are not 'Al-Qaeda' as such, to these guys its almost like a kid saying hes superman. Al-Qaeda is probably responsible for the support of many terrorist groups, but often the terrorist activities it takes part in it has little to do with expect financing or supporting, and thats why it hasn't been taken down, because its not just one groups at work here, its possibly a bit like Al-Qaeda is the body of the hydra, and the other groups are the heads.172.200.194.151 19:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *ahem* Americans ignore occult concepts because they do not understand them. In American Society, Occults are considered bad things, considering America's history of murderous, suicidal, weird, etc cults. In fact, to most Americans, the definition of 'Occult' is basically anything that is gruesome, sick, twisted, etc. What can you say? Americans are fools.
Americans are not fools, the Constitution allows for people to speak whatever they want. Though I have to admit, America has had some weird and murderous cults, that does not give you the right to call Americans fools.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.71.239 (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: World domination? Jihadist?

message: === Objectives of the organisation ===
Can we include a section on the organisational objectives on the RHS Summary box? As in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETA Everyunitone (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it there because the template is the closest thing we have in Wikipedia to represent the group. They are not a military unit, and should not be represented by that. They are not a state, and therefore do not deserve the infobox reserved for a country. As a global organization, it is also not appropriate to give them the infobox of a civil war faction like the Islamic Courts Union. The closest approximation to what we have in Wikipedia is a political party. Considering that Al Qaeda has political motives, the notion that we represent them as a political "party" is not unreasonable. Compare Hamas or Hezbollah which likewise use the political party box. --Petercorless 19:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However Hamas and Hezbollah are actively involved in the political process, while Al-Qaeda is not. You arguement is specious. If you have a valid point feel free to make it. Furthermore to consider that Al-Qaedas motives are political ergo they should be represented as a political party is stupid. Were Al-Qaeda  a political party they would be seeking a halfway peaceful resolution. It is therefore unreasonable to represent Al-Qaeda as a political party because that would require to stop slaughtering innocent women an children. Pat 21:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what difference it makes. There isn't a large sign on the infobox stating political party, it's just the best template to summarise a few details about the group. The only mention of political party is in the wikicode itself - only people who edit the page see it, if they spot it even then. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 22:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Ollie. --Petercorless 22:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok im willing to admit defeat lol Pat 13:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it can be removed now--a lot has been cleaned up recently, and the progress continues.  Will remove now. SlipperyN 12:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia conventions 

message: Can we include a section on the organisational objectives on the RHS Summary box? As in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETA Everyunitone (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objectives of the organisation 

message: I looked through the archives to see if this question has been raised before; and seeing that it hasn't: why is the Biographies of Living Persons template on this article's talk page?  This is the article on the group/organization/movement, not a biographic article on bin Laden or another person affiliated with the group.  Is there another reason as to why the  is attached to this article? I'm really just curious. -Fsotrain09 21:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Living Persons Tag??

message: In The article the Political Party infobox is used. This may seem like a minor issue but i have serious problems with this. Al-Qaeda is not a political party it is a group of religious fanatics who MURDER innocent men, women and children. Had they atleast tried to engage in the political process as othergroups (such as the IRA) have i would have no problem with this. But in my opinion placing Al-Qaeda as a political party legitimises their methods. And as such i think this infobox should be removed. Any opinions? Pat 09:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it there because the template is the closest thing we have in Wikipedia to represent the group. They are not a military unit, and should not be represented by that. They are not a state, and therefore do not deserve the infobox reserved for a country. As a global organization, it is also not appropriate to give them the infobox of a civil war faction like the Islamic Courts Union. The closest approximation to what we have in Wikipedia is a political party. Considering that Al Qaeda has political motives, the notion that we represent them as a political "party" is not unreasonable. Compare Hamas or Hezbollah which likewise use the political party box. --Petercorless 19:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However Hamas and Hezbollah are actively involved in the political process, while Al-Qaeda is not. You arguement is specious. If you have a valid point feel free to make it. Furthermore to consider that Al-Qaedas motives are political ergo they should be represented as a political party is stupid. Were Al-Qaeda  a political party they would be seeking a halfway peaceful resolution. It is therefore unreasonable to represent Al-Qaeda as a political party because that would require to stop slaughtering innocent women an children. Pat 21:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what difference it makes. There isn't a large sign on the infobox stating political party, it's just the best template to summarise a few details about the group. The only mention of political party is in the wikicode itself - only people who edit the page see it, if they spot it even then. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 22:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Ollie. --Petercorless 22:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok im willing to admit defeat lol Pat 13:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox Political Party

message: does anyone know how to change the political party box into something different? such as replace "leader" with "main spokesperson" or something like that? the kind of categorization that accompanies the box is misleading about the kind of organization that al-qaeda is...
74.122.240.38 21:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consider Replacing Political Party Box

message: A quick glance (and I do mean quick), doesn't seem to indicate any major problems with the article.  Is it okay to remove the tag?  --Sigma 7 02:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it can be removed now--a lot has been cleaned up recently, and the progress continues.  Will remove now. SlipperyN 12:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit tag

message: Shouldn't we use this image in the article?--Steven X 07:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Flag of al-Qaeda

message: I don't think it should be the first thing for readers to see (at the top), it's a little POV to have it there, both by it possibly implying either good reasons to propagate hostility against them, or showing their "achievements". --84.249.253.201 19:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your objection is noted, yet this was put there instead of other images which have been objected to in the past including pictures of Osama bin Laden, the flag of Al-Qaeda, and other images. Remember that the subject is controversial, and that any picture could be objected to. However, this is not a graphical depiction such as, say, a photograph of a bomb attack. In the overall context of what could have been shown, it seems mild. What is your suggestion for a suitable image? --Petercorless 21:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I thought of other more or less extremist groups that came into my mind (regarding your last question). I thought of the template on Hamas' page, for example. --84.249.253.201 00:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. --Petercorless 09:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The attacks image

message: Does anyone think the link Al-Qaeda UK is of any merit to the article at all? Lukelastic 20:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't seem like a terribly serious site. And clearly not connected to any form of official al Qaeda stuff. If indeed 'official' is a meaningful term in this context. I see the link has been removed from the article, and support this decision. This article is here to provide an informative introduction to the terrorist organisation Al Qaeda, not to collect all miscellaneous information with the words 'Al Qaeda' in it on the internet. -- TinaSparkle 10:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking a look at it Tina... However, I do think its discussion of some serious issues is of some merit. Are the pages - now in a separate satire section - what you mean by 'It doesn't seem like a terribly serious site.'? I agree that the term 'official' is not very relevant; likewise, anyone can claim to represent al Qaeda and act as they please. Is this merely a philosophical distinction, or is it a relevant one when discussing al Qaeda? Lukelastic 14:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Al-Qaeda UK??

message: Although it has appeared in some papers the name "Abu Taha al-Sudan" is erroneous and should be "Abu Taha al-Sudani".
Tried to fix it but I don't have the credentials :) LDH 08:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many, many, many different variations of Arabic names translated to English. It's been an especial problem with the Somali war. I have found it easier to simply make referrals/aliases than try to correct all variants. --Petercorless 03:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Typo

message: I've been trying to solve the references problem for this section, but I can't find anything referencing how the December 2004 video bypassed al-Jazeera. If we can't find anything, the assertion should be removed until a source if found.akronpow 15:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Al-Qaeda and the internet

message: I know several people have done nice work incrementally cleaning up this article, but I think a major overhaul of the introduction is still necessary.  The main issue I see is that there is lots of unreferenced material, much of which is either too detailed or speculative for the intro anyway and so can be moved to the appropriate sections.  I propose to do this, but I thought I'd post here first to see if anyone has thoughts about the best way to accomplish the goal of increasing clarity in the intro.  I think eventually a similar reorganization of the body, especially of the subtopics, will be necessary, but first things first!  SlipperyN 14:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am implementing some of these changes now, with the goal of simplifying and streamlining the introduction only.  The material I cut was all both unreferenced and redundant with info later in the text.  Let's discuss here if you think anything overly important *for the intro* was cut. SlipperyN 20:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to clean-up introduction

message: I copyedited the Introduction and Etymology section -- spelling, typing, grammar, and syntax changes only. I am confused by the first sentence in the last paragraph in the Etymology section. The sentence appears to be saying that Moazzam Begg asked for a definition of Al Qaeda. And that doesn't make any sense to me. Why would Begg have asked his American interrogators for a definition of Al Qaeda? Kathy 22:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moazzam Begg

message: This section is in need of real work.  I have done some searching, and I'm unable to find evidence to support a number of the unreferenced claims throughout this section--indeed the bulk of the evidence I'm finding directly contradicts the notion that al-Qaeda is responsible for a large proportion of attacks in Iraq.  I'd like to revise this section accordingly, but I want to see if others have access to sources I don't before doing so.  Thoughts? SlipperyN 18:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made this clean-up and removed the references and controversy tags.  I had to delete some unreferenced material for which I could find no support; if someone has additional references, they would be welcome.SlipperyN 16:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've really improved this article a lot recently. Thanks.--Distinguisher 20:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the positive feedback!  I think this article is really coming along, and after a bit more minor editing will be in solid shape! SlipperyN 16:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Activity in Iraq Section

message: Am I the only one that questions this assertion?  I have not seen a single media source that indicates that they are living in Syria.  It is assumed that they are in the mountainous borders of Pakistan/Afghanistan.  This is a highly dubious statement. Mormonchess 17:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unsourced and far out, so I removed it.  Dchall1 18:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: bin Laden and al-Zawahiri in Syria??

message: I removed:
* Hassan Abdullah Hersi al-Turki, a military leader in the Islamic Courts Union, and formerly leader of Al-Itihaad al-Islamiya (AIAI) was designated under US Presidential Executive Order 13224 as a terrorist financier on June 3. 2004.Designation of Hassan Abdullah Hersi al-Turki under Executive Order 13224 US Department of State
* Aden Hashi Farah Ayro, leader of the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) youth movement, Hizbul Shabaab, was said to have gone to Afghanistan to train with al-Qaeda before 2001, according to Matthew Bryden of International Crisis Group.Canadian among Islamists National PostThe Hour of the Islamists Qantara.de, Marc Engelhardt
On July 1, 2006, a Web-posted message purportedly written by Osama bin Laden urged Somalis to build an Islamic state in the country, and warned Western countries that his al-Qaeda network would fight against them if they intervened there.Bin Laden releases Web message on Iraq, Somalia USA Today
On November 26, 2006, the U.S. Embassy in Kenya issued a travel alert to US citizens regarding travel to Kenya or Ethiopia after letters allegedly written by the Somalian leader of the Islamic Courts Union (ICU), Sheik Hassan Dahir Aweys, encouraged suicide terrorist attacks on US citizens in those two countries.Why U.S. Imposed Travel Curb The Nation
On November 30, 2006, the Somali Transitional Federal Government (TFG) claimed three suicide bombings costing eight lives were the work of al-Qaeda operatives working in the country.Somalis blame al Qaeda as three suicide car bombs kill eight Associated Press
On December 14, 2006, the US Assistant Secretary of State Jendayi Frazer warned that al-Qaeda cell operatives were controlling the Islamic Courts Union (ICU), the Islamist faction of Somalia rapidly taking control of the southern area of the country.U.S. says al Qaeda behind Somali Islamists Reuters The next day, December 15, 2006, ICU Information Secretary Abdirahim Ali Mudey denied the allegation as baseless.Islamic Courts Deny Al-Qaeda Operatives In CountryShabelle Media Network That same day Frazer announced the United States has no intention of committing troops to Somalia to root out al-Qaeda.US Does Not Plan to Send Troops Against Al-Qaida in Somalia US State Department
On December 20, 2006, war in Somalia erupted between the ICU and the Transitional Federal Government and Ethiopian allies. Salad Ali Jelle, Defence Minister of Somalia's Transitional Federal Government, claimed Abu Taha al-Sudan led the Islamists fighting against the government in the town of Iidale. On December 25, 2006, Ethiopia began bombing two airports in Somalia. In justifying the attack, the Ethiopian prime minister Meles Zenawi stated that his country was "at war" with Islamist militants in Somalia.
American officials state that Ras Kamboni served as a training camp for extremists with connections to al-Qaeda. US security concerns in the Horn of Africa, particularly at Ras Kamboni, heightened after the attacks on 9/11. On December 16, 2001, Paul Wolfowitz said the US was meeting with various Somali and Ethiopian contacts to "observe, survey possible escape routes, possible sanctuaries" for al-Qaeda operatives. On March 2, 2002 a briefing was held in the Pentagon to discuss the possible use of Ras Kamboni by terrorist groups, including al-Ittihaad al-Islamiya (AIAI) and al-Qaeda.Terrorist Threat in Horn of Africa US Department of State In December 2002, the U.S. established the Combined Joint Task Force - Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA) to monitor developments in the region and train local militaries on counterterrorism.Combined Joint Task Force - Horn of Africa globalsecurity.org
On January 8, 2007, during the Battle of Ras Kamboni, it was reported an AC-130 gunship belonging to the United States military had attacked suspected al-Qaeda operatives in southern Somalia. It was also reported that the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower had been moved into striking distance. The gunship flew out of its base in Djibouti. Many bodies were spotted on the ground, but the identity of the dead or wounded was not yet established. The targeted leaders were tracked by the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) as they headed south from Mogadishu starting on December 28.
On February 15, in Houston, Texas, U.S. citizen Daniel Joseph Maldonado (Daniel Aljughaifi) was charged with "training from a foreign terrorist organization and conspiring to use an explosive device outside the United States." He had been extradited by Kenyan authorities after he fled there. In the charges, it was alleged he took part in training at camps near Kismayo and Jilib where members of al-Qaeda were present and was willing to become a suicide bomber if he became wounded.
Whee! --HanzoHattori 00:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: for the record

message: Just removed a plainly obvious spam link advertising PS3's, nothing else.
Alex.
202.173.138.92 19:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Obvious Spam Link

message: Also calling itself Army of Islam. --HanzoHattori 07:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: add to the list: the organization of Al Qaeda in Palestine

message: The first country in the world to seek the arrest of Osama bin Laden was Libya according to the Interpol Secretary General Ronald. K Noble  http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/speeches/SG20030416.asp Islampedia 02:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first country  to seek the arrest of Bin Laden  ? 

message: I guess it's some Ethiopian. It's really annoying because it's not the first time. --HanzoHattori 16:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Eritrea" section 

message: Islamofascism, n. a label applied to all expressions of Islam by Islamophobes, intentionally seeking to draw a fallacious analogy between Islam and Nazi Germany.  This label is thus the equivalent of the Blood libel used against the Jews in 19th century Europe (which, again, sought to fallaciously link the practices of Judaism and human sacrifice.) It would be great if Wikipedia wouold not endorse such bigotry on its pages.
:Not true. Islamofascism is a label applied to expressions of Islam that bear a strong resemblance to the fascist movment of the 1920, 30s and 20s. It bears no resemblance to any  Blood libel used against the Jews. 
:And please sign your comments. --BoogaLouie 20:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamofascism defined 

message: I agree with the comments earlier that query BBC2 documentary, Power of Nightmares as a reliable source. The article is generally very good, so this is jars with the rest of the content. The Power of Nightmares was essentially a polemic, with archive footage cut together with straight voice over. In other words, it is pure POV. I don't think it really strictly falls into the category of documentary, more an illustrated opinion piece - which although it may be thought provoking doesn't really belong in a piece striving for NPOV. 
To include it here, is blurring the distinction between comment and fact. Also I think you'd need another source backing Curtis' claims - is there one? Only read a few books on Al Qaida, by Corbin and Burke - both contradict The Power of Nightmares' central claim that it's a construct of the neo-cons. Both those books are a combination of first hand journalism, combined with research. 
Perhaps the reference should come out? Adamjamesbromley 14:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The documentary does not state that Al Qaeda is a construct of the neo-cons, that is a subjective reading of the documentary itself.  The documentary claims that the naming of Al Qaeda was carried out by the US Justice Department in order to prosecute Bin Laden in abscencia using laws designed to prosecute organized crime networks such as the Mafia.  The section of the documentary which makes this claim is direct testimony from Jason Burke - who as you have pointed out is a reliable source, therefore the reference should stay, perhaps adding that it is Burke's testimony which makes this claim. (although a direct reference to Burke's book Al Qaeda would be preferable). Pexise 23:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: That sounds like a good improvement. Adamjamesbromley 13:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organisation/ Structure - Power of Nightmares not a reliable source 

message: Just like Taliban is not al-Qaeda. OK? --HanzoHattori 22:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just reverted you; sorry. Now I understand - in future try to be clearer in your edit summaries. Eleland 22:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For the last time: UIC = not al-Qaeda 

message: It is bad enough Wikipedia refuses to call Hezbollah a terrorist group but now refuse to identify a group who the U.N, and most of the world does.  What is next you can call some 2.5 meters tall?  Put terrorist in the first sentance.Kirin4 19:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: what are you even talking about? I hope english isn't your first language. 24.14.223.183 02:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  P.C Idoacy 

message: On the 26 February 1993 an attack took place the world trade center New York  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.84.187.2 (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the date of the first trade center attack needs to be corrected 1993 is not good enough 

message: Mabye this page should be protected incase some people take this ifi-ifi article about terroism to vandalise it.....just thinking?Aflumpire 03:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection?? 

message: Lead violates Wikipedia:Lead section guidelines. "the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article "
Instead of summarizing its history and what al-Qaeda has done, there's a long bit on how the US government defines terrorism, and a sentence on "al-Qaedaism" a term I personally have never heard used. --BoogaLouie 15:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with article lead 

message: Shuldn't we add something about Obelisk?Evenfiel 02:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. --FOo 03:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obelisk 

message: I've created a separate article called Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden since the issue comes up so much in other articles like al-Qaeda and Afghan Arabs. I'm going to trim some text from this article and add a link to the new article.  --BoogaLouie 19:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that page should be deleted; it seems to be a POV Fork whose only purpose is to give credence to a conspiracy theory that has been addressed.  If we are going to keep the page - and there is a reasonable argument not to delete it - it should not be in the form of "Allegations" and "Denials" but rather a coherent account of CIA activity in afghanistan in the 80s and of the rise of al Qaeda.  There is no reason to treat the demonstrably false allegation of CIA funding of OBL as a matter of equal dispute. csloat 03:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CIA and bin Laden 

message: Just removed a reference to "most observers" that read like it was put in by a Truther. No sane "observers" believe that anyone other than al-Qaeda was behind 9/11. Just because there's a Flat Earth Society, doesn't mean the page on Earth needs to state that "most observers believe the earth is round". Let's just keep to the facts and remain conspiracy theory free. Captain Smartass 17:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  September 11, 2001, attacks and the United States response 

message: A recent study from the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point (Cracks in the Foundation: Leadership Schisms in al-Qa’ida from 1989-2006) has some interesting history and leadership information on AQ.  I don't have time to do much with this now, but it might be useful for improving the historical sections of this article.  —johndburger 14:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful reference for early history of Qaeda 

message: I found this sentence in the article without any references:
:It is alleged that many of the Arab Mujahedin who gained combat experience in Afghanistan were later involved in terrorist acts against the U.S.
It sounds like speculation. I moved it here in compliance with Wikipedia's verifiability policy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.102.20.10 (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved unreferenced sentence to talk page 

message: First of all, in compliance with WP:V I moved this section here due to total lack of references:
:In November 1989, Ali Mohammed, a former special forces Sergeant stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, left military service and moved to Santa Clara, California. He traveled to Afghanistan and Pakistan and became deeply involved with bin Laden's plans. A year later, on November 8, 1990, the FBI raided the New Jersey home of Mohammed's associate El Sayyid Nosair, discovering a great deal of evidence of terrorist plots, including plans to blow up New York City skyscrapers.
Secondly, I added the POV-section tag to the section since apart from the last sentence it's entirely based on the account of one blog entry. The person who wrote the blog is said to have interviewed Bin Laden. This does not mean what is says is reliable. It certainly isn't verifiable. Since there are no other references to support the claims made in this section it is biased.
I have Wikipedia policy on my side here so this tag stays until more references are added, or the section is rewritten to overcome the bias.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.102.20.10 (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am reverting both of these edits. On your first objection, the paragraph on Ali Mohammed is sourced in his dedicated article. An "unsourced" tag would have sufficed, rather than removing the paragraph to the talk page. In the second case, Peter Bergen is a respected journalist and a notable source. The blog posting is an exceprt from his book. If we had the book as a direct souce, that would be great, but I don't see how the fact that this information is presented on a blog makes it unreliable. Aside from this objection, I don't see how the section qualifies for an NPOV tag. Dchall1 00:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up "Expanding Operations" section 

message: I moved this part of the section to the talk page in compliance with WP:V:
:In the face of a seemingly massive Iraqi military presence, Saudi Arabia's own forces were well armed but far outnumbered. Bin Laden offered the services of his mujahedeen to King Fahd to protect Saudi Arabia from the Iraqi army.
:The Saudi monarch refused bin Laden's offer, opting instead to allow U.S. and allied forces to deploy on Saudi territory.
The references in the section don't support these claims so they are unreferenced.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.102.20.10 (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also reverted this edit, as the source is available on the Osama bin Laden page. I have added it here for your convenience. Dchall1 00:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup of section "Gulf War and the start of U.S. enmity" 

message: This section makes some bold statements about Bin Laden's time in Sudan but only references two books and nothing else. I would like to see the paragraphs that are references copied in the references. Until then this section is not verifiable for people that don't own these two books. Hence I added the refimprove tag on this section. It shall remain there until these references are improved.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.102.20.10 (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of this material is controversial, books are reliable sources, and sources do not have to be online to be verifiable. If you have contradictory sources, please feel free to add them. Otherwise, I'm removing the tag. Dchall1 00:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insufficient references in section "Sudan" 

message: I moved the unreferenced parts of this section here, in compliance with WP:V:
:, and much of its funding came from private donations from wealthy Arabs, for whom bin Laden provided conduit. A further four leading figures (including the perceived Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar Mujahed) attended a similarly funded and influenced madrassa in Kandahar, Afghanistan.
:Many of the mujahedeen who later joined the Taliban fought alongside Afghan warlord Mohammad Nabi Mohammadi's Harkat i Inqilabi group at the time of the Russian invasion. This group also enjoyed the loyalty of most Afghan Arab fighters.
:The continuing internecine strife between various factions, and accompanying lawlessness following the Soviet withdrawal, enabled the growing and well-disciplined Taliban to expand their control over territory in Afghanistan, and they came to establish an enclave which it called the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. In 1994, they captured the regional center of Kandahar, and after making rapid territorial gains thereafter, conquered the capital city Kabul in September 1996.
:After Sudan made it clear that bin Laden and his group were no longer welcome that year, Taliban-controlled Afghanistan — with previously established connections between the groups, a similar outlook on world affairs and largely isolated from American political influence and military power — provided a perfect location for al-Qaeda to establish its headquarters. Al-Qaeda enjoyed the Taliban's protection and a measure of legitimacy as part of their Ministry of Defense, although only Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
:Al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and the Pakistani border regions are alleged to have trained militant Muslims from around the world. Despite the perception of some people, al-Qaeda members are ethnically diverse and connected by their radical version of Islam.
:An ever-expanding network of supporters thus enjoyed a safe haven in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan until the Taliban were defeated by a combination of local forces and United States air power in 2001 (see section September 11, attacks and the United States response). Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders are still believed to be located in areas where the population is sympathetic to the Taliban in Afghanistan or the border Tribal Areas of Pakistan.
::Again, this is information not generally considered controversial. If you have any specific statements that you wish to challenge, please add a citation tag. As it is, you have removed the majority of the section.  Dchall1 00:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether this is controversial or not is not the point. The first two paragraphs are unsourced so should be deleted according to WP:V policy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.102.20.10 (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup of section "Refuge in Afghanistan" 

message: This section makes pretty bold statements. There are two references to a book called The Looming Tower that just reference page numbers. This reference is not verifiable by people who don't own the book. I would like to see the paragraphs from this book that serve as reference copied in both references in this section. For this reason I add the refimprove tag which shall stay there until the references are indeed improved.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.102.20.10 (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my above comments about books as sources. Dchall1 00:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "a book called The Looming Tower" won a pulizer prize and is based on years of work and dozens of interviews of Muslims involved in or dealing with al-Qaeda. It even has its own wikipedia article. I'm sorry you can't make it to the library, Anon, but I don't think that makes the information given from it unverifiable. --BoogaLouie 20:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsufficient references for section "The first terrorist attack" 

message: "December 29, 1992, a bomb exploded in the Movenpick Hotel in Aden, Yemen, and another blew up prematurely in the parking lot a nearby luxury hotel, the Goldmohur. The bombers had targeted American troops who were on their way to Somalia to participate in Operation Restore Hope, the international famine relief effort. In fact, the soldiers were staying in a different hotel altogether. Bin Laden would later claim credit for this blundered attack, which was barely noticed in the United States, since no Americans died. The troops went on to Somalia as scheduled, but the triumphant leaders of al-Qaeda told themselves that they had frightened the Americans away and scored an easy victory. 
"... Two people died, an Australian tourist and a Yemeni hotel worker, and seven others, mostly Yemenis, were severely injured. Behind the delirious, self-congratulatory chatter in Sudan, moral questions posed themselves, ..." (Looming Tower p.174) 
"One Thursday evening, Abu Hajer addressed the ethics of killing innocent people. He spoke to the men about Ibn Taymiyyah, a thirteenth-century scholar who is one of the primary references for Wahhabi philosophy. In his day, Ibn Taymiyyah confronted the problem of the Mongols, who savaged Baghdad but then converted to Islam. Was it proper to take revenge against fellow Muslims? Ibn Taymiyyah argued that just because the Mongols had made the profession of faith, they were still not true believers, and therefore they could be killed. Moreover, as Abu Hajer explained to the 30 or 40 al-Qaeda members who were sitting on the carpet in bin Laden's salon, propping their elbows on the bolsters and sipping mango juice, Ibn Taymiyyah had issued a historic fatwa: Anyone who aided the Mongols, who bought goods from them or sold to them or was merely standing near them, might be killed as well. If he is a good Muslim, he will go to Paradise; if he is bad, he will go to hell, and good riddance. Thus the dead tourist and the hotel worker [killed in the Aden Yemen bombing] would find their proper reward.[source: testimony of Jamal al-Fadl, U.S. v. Usama bin Laden, et.al.] 
"A new vision of al-Qaeda was born. Abu Hajer's two fatwas, the first authorizing the attacks on American troops and the second, the murder of innocents, turned al-Qaeda into a global terrorist organization. Al-Qaeda would concentrate not on fighting armies but on killing civilians. The former conception of al-Qaeda as a mobile army of mujahideen that would defend Muslim lands wherever they were threatened was now cast aside in favor of a policy of permanent subversion of the West. ... (Looming Tower p.174-5) --BoogaLouie 21:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: quotations from source for section "The first terrorist attack" 

message: This may be the juiciest two phrases in this entire article. Alas they are completely unreferenced which is why I moved them here in compliance with WP:V:
:The September 11, 2001, attacks were conducted by al-Qaeda, acting in accord with the 1998 fatwa issued against the United States and its allies by military forces under the command of bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, and others.  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. Messages issued by bin Laden after September 11,2001 praised the attacks, and explained their motivation while denying any involvement.
::Actually, those statements are well referenced, and are referenced in even more detail on the article dedicated to the attacks. Dchall1 00:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup of section "September 11, 2001, attacks and the United States response" 

message: Do Al-Qaeda intentionally target US civilian contractors or only military personnel? 70.15.116.59 (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does Al-Qaeda target Halliburton/KBR? 

message: "Terrorist" is an POV term when used to refer to something, and such, must not be unless the subject themselves admits to the descriptor - e.g. we can say Hitler was a Nazi, as he was the leader of the National Socialist Party, but we can't say he was evil, no matter how many sources that say that. We can say "he is regarded as evil by X, Y, Z", where it's sourced, but not convey the opinion ourselves. For that reason, I have removed that word. It's mentioned two paragraphs below anyway. Will (talk) 12:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Terrorist" in the lead sentence.