Talk:World Islamic Front

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
*Support, per nom. Jacoplane 17:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can see, User:Chaosfeary added the term "International Front for Jihad against Jews and Crusaders" to the first of the al-Qaeda article on December 9. The term has remained there ever since (through 70 edits). Apparently, quite a few editors of the al-Qaeda article think that the term exists. --Peter McConaughey 03:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: From this article:
Original Arabic text of the fatwa is considered by terrorism experts of all political perspectives such as Rohan Gunaratna, Peter Bergen, Daniel Benjamin, Richard Clark, Michael Scheuer, and many others to be the founding document of the World Islamic Front.
The above is a series of misquotes. I'll add them one at a time.
*Rohan Gunaratna actually said that in 1998, al-Qaeda announced the formation of a "second front" called the "World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders," and that the second front released a new fatwa ordering the killing of Americans. The article misquotes the name of the organization that Gunaratna used and misquotes that Gunaratna said that the fatwa created the organization. In fact, Gunaratna states the an organization of a different name formed, announced its existence, and then created the fatwa.
--Peter McConaughey 20:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, let's have the citation then.csloat 22:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't found anything by any of these authors to verify your claim that the fatwa created World Islamic Front. If you could provide me with just one link to the numerous sources you talk about, it would save me a lot of trouble. --Peter McConaughey 22:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So, I guess that is admission that your claim as to what Gunaratna said was made up?  My sources are Benjamin and Simon's book from 2003 (don't recall title but it should be easy for you to find), Gunaratna's Inside Al-Qaeda, /Scheuer's Through Our Enemies' Eyes, Bernard Lewis' Foreign Affairs article from 1998 or 99, Fawaz Gerges' recently published The Far Enemy, Loretta Napoleoni's Modern Jihad, the Air Force's Knowing the Enemy, and many other texts.  Again, you are the one who has not even named a single expert who you think agrees with your claim.  It's not clear what your claim is anyway -- if this document is not the first instance of "World Islamic Front" issuing an official statement, what is? --csloat 00:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My claim is that the article doesn't cite who says the fatwa created the WIF, and the text of the fatwa doesn't claim to create the WIF. If someone says the fatwa created the WIF, can you give me just one quote to that effect out of your many books? --Peter McConaughey 07:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did give several quotes and even more references.  All I ask you for is a single cite from anyone who suggests there is a different possibility, or that this claim is in any way controversial.  That's all. --csloat 07:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone back through every quote and reference and I can't find a single one that says the fatwa created the WIF. I'm sure it could be something I've overlooked. Would you be a dear and copy just one of the "several quotes" here for me? --Peter McConaughey 07:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, I don't care if you are not willing to research this yourself or even read the material I've pointed you to.  But then would you please stop pretending you have any idea what you're talking about?  I've given you several instances of people talking about this document as the beginning of the WIF and you have cited nothing, not a single source, to back up your claim that this is even controversial.  It reminds me of your "terrorism" neologisms.  Happy new year.-csloat 07:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the reason I can't find any quotes saying that the fatwa created the WIF is because none exist. In order to make it correct, I'll just change the article to say that the fatwa is the first known document of the WIF if you don't mind. --Peter McConaughey 07:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Misquotes

message: You are all arguing over goat nuggets.
The Mehdi did not appear to any of your so called "terrorism experts" to explain the meaning of the 23 February 1998 World Islamic Front Statement. The meanings and titles you assign to it are as valuable as goat nuggets. Nothing. Anything that is not in the statement is not true about the statement. The Mehdi did not make a secret statement for advanced users and American "terrorism experts." There is only one statement. If you want to know what it says, read it. Any interpretation different than it is false. --The Random Element 21:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there should be quotes directly from the statement, but there is no need to wage jihad against "so-called 'terrorism experts'" to add them.  There is no need for this.  Terrorism experts have studied the words of the fatwa, as well as the many other documents produced by al Qaeda.  That is why their interpretation is meaningful, not because they have access to something we don't (although in most cases, they also do).  But the implication of the fatwa is obvious.  Before this fatwa, the "World Islamic Front" is not mentioned.  This really isn't that controversial.  I don't know of anyone who disagrees with the point.--csloat 22:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't want to provide links to any verifiable information in the article, would you mind providing just one of your links to anyone saying that the fatwa created the World Islamic Front here in discussion? --Peter McConaughey 22:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have provided a list of books and articles you can consult yourself here.  The point is not whether the fatwa "created" the front but whether it was its founding document, i.e. the first official order of such a Front.  I believe that it is, and you have said nothing that indicates otherwise.  I am happy to back off if you provide evidence to the contrary.  Thank you.--csloat 00:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are trying to say that the document was the Front's first official document, why not just say that? Calling it a founding document could be taken the other way. --Peter McConaughey 07:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Goat nuggets

message: Possibly not the best place to mention this but the whole "Jihad against..." in the picture that was just added made me google for the exact phrase.  The result is this: Results 1 - 10 of about 72 for "Jihad Against Zionists and Crusaders".  So my question is where this name comes from, why is it in the picture description, and why the heck is there an article with that name? Arkon 00:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Search for "Jihad against Jews and Crusaders" and you'll find more hits.  It is here as "Zionists" because the editor who entered it in wikisource (without proper source attribution by the way) believes that his translation of the Arabic word for "Jews" is better than every Arabic speaker on the planet who has bothered to translate this word in various contexts.  I don't read Arabic so I will not argue with him, but my suspicion is that he is wrong.  The article should be deleted from wikisource and the reference here should be removed; there is no need for it in a photo.  However, I believe this whole article should be deleted and rerouted to al-Qaeda, so I'm not going to invest much more energy on this.-csloat 00:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I DO NOT SPEAK ARABIC BUT I HAVE SEEN THE TEXT OF THIS FATWA TRANSLATED EITHER WAY DEPENDING ON THE POLITICAL LEANINGS OF THE TRANSLATOR. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE BIN LADEN IS PREJUDICE, YOU WOULD INTERPRET THE INDETERMINATE WORD AS JEW. THIS ALSO HAS THE EFFECT OF MAKING THE MOST PEOPLE ANGRY AT HIM, BUT IT ISN'T A CORRECT INTERPRETATION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FATWA AS ANYONE CAN SEE. --MACMILLAN 20:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great - please point us to a different translation of the fatwa, Mr. Expert.  Thanks.--csloat 06:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You'll have to excuse Csloat. He has his own set of self-appointed experts, and he's obviously never heard of the WP:BITE. --Peter McConaughey 06:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not biting, Zephram; it's a reasonable question.  I have been researching this since the 1990s and have never seen a different English translation of this particular fatwa.  If our resident expert has access to one, it would be a benefit to Wikipedia if we could see a link to it.  Like you used to say as "Zephram," like Peter McC continues to say, and even like Mr. McMillan coincidentally says, I am interested in improving the article. --csloat 06:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be happy to talk about this article when you address me without the personal attacks, insults, and comparisons to other members that you don't like. --Peter McConaughey 07:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What part of "I am interested in improving this article" do you find insulting or attacking?-csloat 07:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: None. I was referring to the personal attacks, like your repeated accusations that I'm somebodys sockpuppet. --Peter McConaughey 07:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmm 

message: Hi MacMillan, and thanks for making this page your first edit.  Since you seem very insistent about it, can you please explain to the rest of us non-experts the difference between "al Qaeda" and "World Islamic Front"?  When I look up the latter in the index of a book such as Fawaz Gerges', for example, it says "See Al-Qaeda."  Rohan Gunaratna writes "[al Qaeda] always uses other names and identities (such as the World Islamic Front for the Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders) when referring to its actions, beliefs or statements, thereby keeping us guessing about its true motives, its true intentions."  Jason Burke's index lists "World Islamic Front" and points the reader to pages that refer to the 2/23/98 fatwa only, and claim that the Front was "founded" when bin Laden issued the fatwa.  Aaron Mannes' Guide to Terrorist Organizations doesn't even have "World Islamic Front" in the index, and it refers to the Front only in reference to the fatwa, and holds that the only other time the front is mentioned is in May 1998.  According to Mike Scheuer's book, the WIF was founded in 2/98 with the fatwa and notes that bin Laden is the front's leader, that Zawahiri is its military commander, and his deputy is Mustafa Hamza.  So has there been any talk of the Front since 1998?  If so, is there any indication of who it includes apart from members of al-Qaeda?  I'd really like to know the answers to these questions, and I think the answers would improve this page.  Have you published anything about this, or presented your work at conferences on terrorism?  The counterterrorism expert community is pretty small, of course, so you must know the experts I cited here.  Thanks for your contributions.--csloat 21:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the same requests, although mine aren't facetious. I hope a few nation-centric editors won't scare you off. Many of us are actually trying to create NPOV articles. --Peter McConaughey 05:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nation-centric?  Mr. Gunaratna is from Sri Lanka.  Jason Burke is from the UK.  Which nation are you talking about Zephram?  It's a nice catch phrase you keep using "many of us are actually trying to improve the article" - makes it easier to identify your sockpuppets. --csloat 06:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Enough with the personal attacks, csloat. Please stick to discussion about the article. --Peter McConaughey 07:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, I am.  I was addressing your claim that the terrorism experts I cite make me "nation-centric."-csloat 07:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think we could do it without the accusations of me being your ex-lover or whoever this Zephraheme is to you? --Peter McConaughey 07:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  MacMillan terrorist expert 

message: It looks like the article has lost some of its consistency. It says that "the 'best brothers' of the front can advance to the inner circle of al Qaeda if they are found worthy in the test camp and meet all of the following requirements...," but it also says that "Terrorism experts consider the 'World Islamic Front' synonymous with al-Qaeda." If that is the case, what is the name of the larger organization from which these "best brothers" are advancing? --Peter McConaughey 08:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: that would be from the outer circle of al Qaeda.-csloat 08:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL I see that you have become a death-eater of he whose name must be unmentioned. --Peter McConaughey 08:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa, is this some reference to me? I have never even edited this article or it's talk page before this. In fact, I haven't even read this article or the debate here. --LV (Dark Mark) 20:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Advancing from where?

message: Perhaps we can consider a vote for deleting this page and redirecting WIF to al-Qaeda, merging whatever information here (if any) belongs on that page?  Terrorism experts consider "World Islamic Front for Jihad against Jews and Crusaders" to be synonymous with "al-Qaeda," and I know of nobody with any expertise on this matter who argues otherwise.  My suspicion is that Zephram Stark knows this and was just trying to provoke trouble.  Are there any editors of this page who believe the page should stay as a separate page?  If not, shall we AfD it?  --csloat 07:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this article should be merged. WIF is just Bin Laden trying to puff himself up with a fancy name that never caught on. At best it's a minor footnote to the Al Qaeda article. --Lee Hunter 00:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now that Zephram and his sockpuppets are gone