Talk:Al-Qaeda/Archive 3

message: Regarding the recent intro edit - al-Qaida was created specifically to move the conflict into a broader arena, NOT to help in the Soviet conflict. There was already adequate infrastructure to do that (e.g. the MAK itself). Brother can I get an amen? Graft 23:08, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Sudan that al-Qaeda was expelled from, not Saudi. Graft 23:14, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet occupation, etc. 

message: Graft reverted a recent change, saying "rv, since al-Qaeda was named well before 2001" It was my impression that al-Qaeda was not named well before 2001, but I could be mistaken. Does anyone have any evidence that the name existed before 2001?  – Quadell (talk) (help) 21:14, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
Yes I think the comments by 194.81.30.200 are valid, if a little unclear. We seem to accept in the article that al-Qaeda didn't call itself that until after 9/11, and 194.81.30.200's comments are just saying that in the west they didn't have a name until 2001 (all this doesn't mean that they didn't exist, just they weren't named). If we can find a reference before then fair enough. Robneild 21:31, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What al-Qaeda called itself I'm not clear on - "World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Crusaders and Jews" seems as likely as anything else. But by 1998, following the embassy bombings the term was in widespread usage to describe bin Laden's group. You can easily verify this via a google groups search. As far as I can tell, via Lexis-Nexis, that's the first appearance of the name in public. We can argue about whether it is self-styled (as jamal al-Fadl claims) or whether the U.S. gave it the name (as various others have claimed). But it was so named by 1998. Graft 01:52, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al-Qaeda named before 2001 

message: This from this interview of UBL post 9/11. Straight from the horse's mouth:
:We have one religion, one God, one book, one prophet, one nation. Our book teaches us to be brothers of a faith. All the Muslims are brothers. The name "al Qaeda" was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al Qaeda [meaning "the base" in English]. And the name stayed. We speak about the conscience of the nation; we are the sons of the nation. We brothers in Islam from the Middle East, Philippines, Malaysia, India, Pakistan and as far as Mauritania.
This ought to settle any dispute over where the name came from... Graft 23:51, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would he be? This is at least as reliable as the sources that say the U.S. government named the organization. I'd like to soften out some of that language claiming the name was given. Anyway, it's clear that (a) he now is content to use "al-Qaida" as the name of the group, and (b) he claims that it always was the name. Graft 16:50, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't see this section until just now, but please check what I wrote above. One of Ramzi Yusef's pals got caught with a book titled "Al Qaeda" upon entry to the US prior to the 1993 WTC attack. At the time the FBI didn't have a clue what the name "Foundation" meant. I cite this from that Benjamin book "Age of Sacred Terror", which I read but do not have with me right now. If anyone has it, we can cite that and put to rest the myth that Western Gov'ts made up the word.Willowx 13:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly what Benjamin and Simon's book says.  This info is also in Loretta Napoleoni's book Modern Jihad.  And the quote above from the interview explains context.  Why is this even being debated?--csloat 03:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awesome! (Al-Qaeda name) 

message: This bit is in the "Names" section as another name for al-Qaeda. But I don't think that's accurate - the World islamic front business was announced in 1998, well after al-Qaeda was operating. Seems more like a "project", or, say, a "front" - an initiative launched by al-Qaeda. Anyone wanna weigh in before I axe the bejesus out of that line? Graft 05:53, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Islamic Front for etc., etc. 

message: I was told that the members of this group do not call themselves Al Qaeda.
I was told they call themselves something like "Al Neda".
I did not hear the name Al Qaeda until the 1998 US Embassy bombings in Africa.
TV News Reports said that a man named Usama Bin Laden had a group named Al Qaeda.
A reporter named John Miller actually got to interview Usama Bin Laden.
It would be nice if someone found out the real name of this terrorist group is.
Supercool Dude 20:22, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al Qaeda Name 

message: If the Al-Qaeda/Taliban and their allies in Iraq win the War on Terrorism, i would be taken to Osama Bin Laden and Mohammed Omar and be seduced and manipulated by them in order to complete my fall to the dark side and in the future, lead a purge of the United Nations that would spark a World civil war in which i redeem myself and die to destroy the Human Racist Imperial Caliphate Emirate at the end of the war. - John-110V--Ed Telerionus 15:07, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: John-1107, you should read the article "Wikipedia is not a soapbox."--AI 23:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revenge of Racist Terror 

message: This text keeps popping up despite my attempts to edit it to a more rounded and balanced version:
direct support by means of arms or loans for anti-Islamist Arab regimes
I think there are clearly several ways to look at this sentance, and the 'anti-Islamist' tag is extremely hard to prove. I doubt very much that the USA supports regimes because they are 'anti-Islamist' although they may have supported states (israel being an example) which contain elements who could be called 'anti-Islamist'. 
I'm unhappy with the whole paragraph containing this phrase, because despite my recent edits (see top of article) it has still been changed to reflect a clear opinion and fails to concentrate on the facts of the matter.
:Errm. I think I may have written that (or I've written something like it in the past); I was thinking of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, mostly. The former is notable for its persecution of Islamists especially. But I meant more in the sense of "Arab regimes that persecute Islamists". Graft 18:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Islamist Arab regimes 

message: Should someone add that Al-Qaeda (or a spinoff group) were responsible for the 7_July_2005_London_bombings???
:I tried to but the page is protected against editing; I'm not sure why but I have not been paying close attention to the last edit war here.  Somebody fix this?  There's a line already about warnings to London in the wake of the Madrid bombings; a sentence or two with a link should go after that.--csloat 7 July 2005 19:19 (UTC)
It's far too early to be adding that kind of info. It hasn't been confirmed who is responsible. 81.131.222.197
:Are you nuts?  A group calling itself "Secret al Qaeda in Europe" took credit, issued a statement, and of course it has every indication of an al Qaeda attack -- simultaneous bombings, tightly coordinated.  I don't think anyone in their right mind doubts who is responsible for this.  Besides, this info is on the page for this incident (linked above).--csloat 7 July 2005 19:36 (UTC)
::No, are you? Different groups take responsibility for bombings all the time, most of them aren't really responsible, but it's all publicity. Al Qaeda on the other hand, doesn't usually claim responsibility for its acts. It's likely to be some kind of affiliate, but we should probably exercise caution at this stage. If you want to argue with someone who's nuts you can read the POV complaint at the bottom of the page. 81.131.222.197
:::Heh, OK, but there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that this is IRA or anyone else.  Who else do you think it could be -- PETA?  The Black bloc?  It's clearly an al Qaeda affiliate and I don't see any reason to doubt the statement made taking credit.  And in fact al Qaeda has taken credit for a lot of its actions so it's not completely correct to say they don't usually claim responsibility.  This is clearly an al Qaeda affiliate group and everyone talking about it on the radio here (NPR mostly) has clearly affirmed that view.--csloat 7 July 2005 23:34 (UTC)
:Even if it is by no means 100% clear that Al-Qaeda was responsible for the terrorist bombings, there is a widespread suspicion that even officials (the London police) have confirmed) plus their own statement. So in the name of free information, at least that should be mentioned. Something like "It is also alleged from various sides that Al-Qaeda was responsible for the London Underground and bus bombings on 7 July 2005. A statement from a previously unknown group, "The Secret Organization of Al-Qaeda in Europe" claiming responsibility, seems to back this allegation, although the authenticity of the statement and the group's connection to Al-Quaeda have not yet been independently verified." TH 8 July 2005 09:02 (UTC)
::This is all starting to become gray, for me - what do we mean when we say "al-Qaeda" in this context? If we're referring to the organisation started in the 90s by OBL and later based in Sudan and Afghanistan that provided terrorist training and may have coordinated some attacks, I see no way at all to ascribe this attack to them. If we mean "some Islamist terrorists", that may be the case, and one could state that this is a reasonable hypothesis. But I'm not sure what "It's clearly an al Qaeda affiliate" means. Did they get a franchise license? Are they "with the band"? What? Just because we suspect that Islamist terrorists were behind this does not mean one should start throwing the word "al-Qaeda" around loosely. Graft 8 July 2005 21:37 (UTC)
:::We are not the ones throwing the word around - the group in question calls itself "Secret al Qaeda in Europe", and to my knowledge, there arn't any other groups with credible claims of responsibility.  If they call themselves Al Qaeda, thats good enough for me.  That is, unless anybody has access to Al Qaeda's franchise license documents... --Bletch 9 July 2005 01:54 (UTC)
::::Yes, but in this article, al-Qaeda has a specific meaning, i.e. the organisation I mentioned above - the fact that the "Secret al-Qaeda etc." organisation calls itself that does not mean it's "good enough". When the "Real IRA" claimed a bombing, people didn't go around ascribing it to the "IRA". Graft 9 July 2005 02:21 (UTC)
There should be nothing Grey or unclear here ... Al Qaeda has threatened Britian a number of times (see http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127881,00.html) and even recently published a magazine prioritizing attacks on the UK (see al-Qaeda's Biweekly Online Training Manual, Places High Priority on Attacks upon British Targets at http://siteinstitute.org/terrorismlibrary/magazines/magazine1/issue7.pdf). And as mentioned above, they even claimed responsibility for it. 
The mere fact that there is a debate raging here on whether or not Al Qaeda was responsible for this attack is absurd.
:The existence of Al Qaeda is HIGHLY debateable, at least as reported in the Western media.     This discussion of the London bombings urgently needs some balance.    I suggest we add these links:
:* Who did the London Bombings?
:* The birth of the London bomb Official Story
:* What's Behind the London Attacks?
Graft - why would you trying to defend them by questioning their obvious responsibility? 
And 81.131.222.197 - yes it's early, but they obviously did it - and to say that a "splinter group" of Al Qaeda is not Al Qaeda simply confuses the issue ... the mafia is the mafia - whether its the gambinos or columbos is irrelevant - can't we at least call a spade a spade anymore?
Larryfooter 9 July 2005 01:49 (UTC)
:WHOSE obvious responsibility? If, tomorrow, I go and bomb some place and release a communique saying "Al Qaeda of Boston has bombed Trump Towers," does that mean everyone should run around saying "al Qaeda did it!"? Al-Qaeda is NOT "the mafia". It is not a generic term describing Islamist terrorists. If you think that is accurate, you're misapprehending what al-Qaeda is, or at least was. As to your "trying to defend them" canard - please. I'm merely trying to ascertain whether al-Qaeda is being redefined so broadly that the mere fact that a bombing occurs means, by necessity, that al-Qaeda was responsible. This seems to be the plank along which we're running. Is this what we mean? Can we have some fucking clarity? Graft 21:58, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  London Bombings 

message: The article is an external link in regards to the alleged Al Qaeda threat in London.
We know now that there IS a very real threat of terrorism conducted by Al Qaeda throughout the world.. and now in London.
: NO, we DON'T know that.  The public has put blind faith in the myth of Al Qaeda.   We need to foster a balanced debate about the identity of this so-called terrorist network.
:: "The public has put blind faith in the myth of Al Qaeda"??  You make the same type of argument that the FlatEarth Society uses when explaining that we've all been duped by the "establishment" into believing that the Earth is round when in fact it is flat.  Bravo! Jeravicious 17:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get rid of the 'made up terror' article at the bottom of this page.