Talk:Abu Musab al-Zarqawi/Archive 1

message: Should we keep this as American English "Musab" or international English "Mousab"? Which has more google hits? - 68.23.103.58 03:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Who added the part about "towelhead terrorists and sandniggers." This is highly inappropriate.
I removed the following info since it doesn't seem to relate strongly to Zarqawi. Perhaps it could be incorporated into another article? Quadell (talk) 17:48, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
Polls of the US public have shown that up to 80% have stated a belief that Saddam Hussein actually planned or caused the 9/11 attacks.  The role of these two individuals thus takes on an almost mythic importance.  However, the Bush administration consistently denies that it created this impression in the public:
In an interview in September 2003, Bush said
:"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th... What the vice president said was is that he (Saddam) has been involved with al-Qaida. 
:"And al-Zarqawi, al-Qaida operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. ... There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties."
Others counter that bin Laden and Saddam did not get along even against a common prime enemy, as the secular, socialist Arab nationalism of Saddam's Baath Party was largely incompatible with bin Laden's Islamism. One of the audio tapes purported to be of bin Laden called for the overthrow of Saddam and his "secular, socialist, infidel" government,  and Britain's defense intelligence staff asserted that any fledgling relationship foundered on ideological differences. The CIA had great difficulty backing up Bush's claims. FBI investigators looking for a link said "we just don't think it's there." Israel denied the Iraq and al-Qaeda connection (while asserting the connection between Iraq and Palestinian terrorism). 
Your Zarqawi article contains the following sentence:  "But, the established connection between Al Qaida operative, Abu Musab al Zarqawi and Iraq has and remains a credible link. "
In its context it suggests that Zarqawi was a good reason for the Iraq invasion in 2003.  Yet it provides no evidence to back up the statement.
:I've fixed this in the article.  By the way the information above about the audio tape is not quite correct; the tape did denounce Saddam as "secular, socialist, infidel" but did not actually call for his overthrow; MSNBC changed their report on that issue (follow your own link).  But the point is still clear; there's no way al-Qaeda would have worked with Saddam.--csloat 01:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excised info 

message: Alright, the whole story about Zarqawi being the mastermind and chief organiser of terrorism in Iraq is probably a myth, based on another intelligence "mistake". That's what an article in the respected conservative British paper Daily Telegraph suggests . Don't know if the article will remain available without subscription, so I'll post the first few paragraphs here (fair use):
	
How US fuelled myth of Zarqawi the mastermind
By Adrian Blomfield outside Fallujah
(Filed: 04/10/2004)
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist leader believed to be responsible for the abduction of Kenneth Bigley, is 'more myth than man', according to American military intelligence agents in Iraq.
Several sources said the importance of Zarqawi, blamed for many of the most spectacular acts of violence in Iraq, has been exaggerated by flawed intelligence and the Bush administration's desire to find "a villain" for the post-invasion mayhem.
 	
Zarqawi fuels his ambition with the release of a video of the beheading of Nick Berg
US military intelligence agents in Iraq have revealed a series of botched and often tawdry dealings with unreliable sources who, in the words of one source, "told us what we wanted to hear".
"We were basically paying up to $10,000 a time to opportunists, criminals and chancers who passed off fiction and supposition about Zarqawi as cast-iron fact, making him out as the linchpin of just about every attack in Iraq," the agent said.
"Back home this stuff was gratefully received and formed the basis of policy decisions. We needed a villain, someone identifiable for the public to latch on to, and we got one." 
- pir 11:16, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Zarqawi/Iraq myth

message: Today (or yesterday) the U.S. began lauching sustained bombing attacks against Falujah. The reason was that the Alawi government demanded that the people of the city hand over Zarqawi, and the people of the city did not. Given his unknown whereabouts, it seems reasonable to suspect that the city did not turn over Zarqawi because he wasn't there. Could this be incorporated into the article?
caralho de buceta?
Also, just today, the U.S. finally froze the assets of Tawhid and Jihad, the group allegedly tied to Zarqawi. That's right; until October 15, 2004, the U.S. had allowed T&J funds to flow freely through American banks. (source) Could this be incorporated as well?  – Quadell (talk) (help) 20:34, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
:The first item hasn't really got much to do with Zarqawi. It's basically just the same propaganda trick they played with Saddam, saying he had to hand over the WMD or else he would face invasion, when it was quite obvious he couldn't hand them over because he didn't have any. Now they tell Fallujans they have to hand over Zarqawi, or else their city will be flattened, when it's relatively clear he's not in Fallujah. It's a cynical joke. Apart from the fact that it is terrorism in its purest form to use violence against civilians,  to achieve political aims, the same old Nazi terror tactic of collective punishment. But then again, since Zarqawi seems to be little more than the pin-up villain that both Tawhid and Jihad and the "Coalition" use, maybe it does belong in the article.
:About the asset freezing thing: they did the same thing in the UK yesterday. It's also a sick joke, because there are almost certainly no Tawhid and Jihad funds in the UK, and I would guess the same is true for the US. I read their money comes from Saudi Arabia, and it's mainly about sending a signal to our Saudi friends. But it really belongs to the Tawhid and Jihad article. To be honest, all the Iraq war propaganda is of such bad quality that I'm beginning to feel insulted. - pir 03:01, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zarqawi and attacks in Iraq 

message: I'm removing the story of Mabus and Nostradamus.  The person who wrote it said "it is OK to report relevant views of people according to Wikipedia rules" but this is not a relevant view.  The whole theory comes from a Nostradamus site which also lists Howard Dean and Dick Cheney as potential candidates for "Mabus."  I just don't think this belongs here.  --csloat 21:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So far, it has NOT affected his life significantly, and it's basically a bit of speculation not very well-connected to his life. It certainly doesn't deserve an extensive treatment - at MOST a link to the MABUS page in a "See Also" section. Graft 16:38, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I guess that's where I differ--I think this Mabus connection is an interesting piece of 'trivia', which neccessarily has absolutely no significance whatsoever. It would be highly unusual to make reference to Zarqawi in the Mabus article, but make no mention of Mabus in the Zarqawi article. Typically, articles cross-connect. I would agree with you if maybe 50 or more people were up for the Mabus award, but the Nostradamus prophecy has only been interpreted to be a select few people. You said one or two people but I believe several more have attempted to interject Mabus trivia. I am in favor of adding a small tidbit about Mabus, and then telling future Nostradamus nuts to keep it to the Mabus section.Yeago 01:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's this Mabus Crap? 

message: This article is the victim of so much corruptive editing, I wouldn't be suprised to know that it is the victim of some censorship program somewhere. I'll say no more....
I remember checking up on this article a few months ago and discovering all info about his death had been removed. Ayeum...
:When you notice such things, check the "history" page and find (and re-post) the missing information if you can.  That is the best way to deal with such edits over the long term.  The history feature ensures that no information - useful or not - is ever really "deleted."
--csloat 04:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ........ 

message: First 88.wtvr.wtvr.wtvr says "unverified," now heshe says copyright. WTf?Yeago 23:57, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Image debate

message: An anon editor erased the sentence about Zarqawi growing up poor, getting arrested for sexual assault, and drinking heavily.  This stuff has been part of the page for a long time and nobody saw fit to remove it before.  Who originally put it in?  Is it accurate?  If so, I think it's reasonable to include this information, "prurient" or no. --csloat 22:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is the victim of so much indiscriminant and undocumented additions and removals. I don't know if it is still so, but I checked back a couple of months ago to find nothing about his being killed (which the CIA at one point had said). Now suddenly he's alive and well and responsible for everything. That's not to say that there's some Vast right wing conspiracy, however, its just another example of something just suddenly disappearing.Yeago 23:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drunk or not? 

message: This article is biased against the United States and perpetuates "conspiracy theories" rather than allege that they exist. Juan Cole is an incredibly polemic source, why not provide some balance on this issue?  Stating a lie over and over again eventually makes everyone reference it as fact.
:What, in specific, are you referring to? General bromides mean little... Graft 21:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - the parent has no specific point to make, other than to whine about Juan Cole -- who, by the way, may have opinions, but his credentials and expertise make him a good source of information.  Besides it isn't like he is somehow "pro-Zarqawi."  Yeesh. csloat 00:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased article 

message: Of all the Iraq-related articles I've seen on Wikipedia, this is one of the most biased.  Zarqawi is not just wanted as a terrorist, he IS an ADMITTED terrorist.  According to every Definition of Terrorism on Wikipedia, he IS a terrorist.  Therefore, he should be called one.  Since this is an encyclopedia, it doesn't have to read like a wanted poster (I'd like that personally,) but it does have to be accurate.  I hope the following links are proof enough:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/ansar-al-sunna.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3483089.stm
I know the prevailing view on Wikipedia that 'terrorist' implies a negative connotation.  This is because a terroristic act is negative.  If this was an article about Charles Manson, it would call him a murderer.  That's what he was. BQAggie2004 20:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do strongly agree, I would very much like to see the word "terrorist" in the first line of the article as a main definition of who this person is. A terrorist. Eshcorp 14:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is blatantly POV! 

message: I made some modifications to the original, any questions/comments/bitches/gripes/complaints are welcome.
I removed the following paragraph, because I could not find any legitimate news sources to back the claims up.  Some of these claims come from Scott Ritter who is a controversial character.  Also, the link from the Daily Telegraph is obviously biased.  I haven't looked at the Russian link, but any webpage named 'war_nerd' does not appear credible.  It's like getting your information from a web correspondant named 'BabyFaceHotMama094718.'  I simply question the credibility of the sources:
"In one report, the conservative newspaper Daily Telegraph described as myth the claim that Zarqawi was the head of the "terrorist network" in Iraq. According to a U.S. military intelligence source, the Zarqawi myth resulted from faulty intelligence obtained by the payment of substantial sums of money to unreliable and dishonest sources. The faulty intelligence was accepted, however, because it suited US government political goals, according to an unnamed intelligence officer. The Zarqawi myth has also been purported to be the product of U.S. war propaganda designed to promote the image of a demonic enemy figure to help justify continued U.S. military operations in Iraq, perhaps with the tacit support of terrorist elements who wish to use him as a propaganda tool or as a distraction."
I also could not find any credible information reguarding a disinformation campaign.  If this was really true, American and British press would have jumped at the chance to publish it.  I cannot find it anywhere, except for questionable cites:
"The U.S. military has since admitted that claims of Zarqawi's missing leg were part of a disinformation campaign." BQAggie2004 20:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry but your objections to these sources is bogus.  The Telegraph is a conservative paper, true, but that in itself does not impugn its credibility.  You haven't even looked at the other link because you don't like the nickname -- it claims to be an alternative newspaper; a silly nickname alone is not enough reason for destroying its credibility.  You also do not make any claims against the other article, which cites several newspapers.  These stories may be just stories, but they are cited often enough they should not just be ignored here.--csloat 21:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Obviously there is no right wing conspiracy; this appeared in a right wing paper.  The line you quoted is anything but inaccurate and while this particular story may not have been picked up, the intel failures surrounding all of this stuff certainly has.  Also I heard Octavia Nasr, a CNN translator and correspondent, articulate these views at a conference on Al Qaeda in December 2004, so it is not that far off the mainstream. The quote you erased included info about the publications making these claims so it is not inaccurate to include it - if you want to add reservations or refutations from more mainstream publications that would be terrific.  I personally do not endorse these views, but I do think they are notable enough for inclusion.  As for the "war ned" thing, that is the guy's email address - it is not his name, which is clearly on the article page.  An "alternative news" source such as the Village Voice or LA Weekly in the US can be very credible, though you're right, this Russian one looks like a tabloid.  I'll take that source out, but the claims about disinformation and mythology surrounding Zarqawi are quite notable without this article.  As for the question of calling him a "terrorist" - I agree, but it is wrong to erase the fact that he is also a "militant" and is part of the "Iraqi insurgency."--csloat 23:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

text: The War Nerd article, incidentally, is analysis. It doesn't claim to give any new information on the subject. He's just trying to put the puzzle pieces together, which is very relevant to this article. I'm going to restore some of what was removed. - Nat Krause 08:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of POV 

message: I have removed the phrase "Western-owned" from "three Western-owned hotels".  While CNN would have you believe that all the hotels were U.S.-owned, the Radisson SAS in question is a Scandanavian-based chain and is owned and operated by Palestinian-Jordainians. - Cybjorg 11:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other incidents 

message: In the very first line Zarqawi is referred to as a terrorist. Where do you draw the line between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? Is it not better to preserve objectivism by saying something like ‘freedom fighter/terrorist’ or ‘viewed by some as a terrorist while others consider him to be a freedom fighter’?
History is written by the ‘victorers’ and it can be hard to distinguish who the good/bad guys are. Were the founding fathers of The United States of America freedom fighters or terrorist? Hezbollah? Chechnyens? The list goes on… 
Per
:Nobody considers Zarqawi a "freedom fighter."  Some extreme Islamists may consider him a proud warrior, but the notion of "freedom fighter" is simply inappropriate here.  "Terrorist" is not objective, perhaps, but it is descriptive, and it is based on the facts in front of everyone -- the targeting of civilians, the deliberate use of terror as an instrument of warfare, etc.  IMHO, "psychopath" might be a more accurate description, but "terrorist" is certyainly more consistent with the way most of the world sees him, as well as with the way he represents himself.  He most certainly does not lay claim to the basically Western notion "freedom fighter."--csloat 18:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, from an Islamic prosepective, he is a criminal who has killed many civilians.  Nevertheless, from an objective position, he is FIGHTING U.S. occupation of Iraq, which could make him a freedom fighter.  He represents the Sunni side of the freedom fight, while Sadr represents the Shia side.  I'm sure they both hate each other, but they both hate the US as well. And no matter how much you sugarcoat it, it is an occupation.  Actually it's a lot like the British takeover of India (if you have studied both, compare them)  British took over, said they were doing Indians a favor and saving them from despotic rulers and in doing so killed thousands , tortured them, ridiculed them, called the freedom fighters terrorists etc.  So we can compare it to that. Fkh82 01:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're just making stuff up.  The term "freedom fighter" is a Western creation that has no resonance in Sunni or Shia culture in Iraq.  Many Iraqis might see the Iraqi resistance as a heroic opposition to Western domination, but that is not the same as using the term "freedom fighter."  The comparison to India is not unreasonable, but it also doesn't make Zarqawi or the Indian independence movement anything like "freedom fighters."  Also I think it is ignorant to lump Zarqawi's fighters with the Sunni resistance to US occupation -- the latter is native Iraqi, while the former is made up of Islamists from all over with a religious mission that may or may not intersect with the Sunni resistance.-csloat 06:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Though my own opinion is that he is a terrorist, I believe many people think that he is a freedom fighter. And thoguh I really think it should be included that he is a terrorist even in the first line of the topic, I think it would be nice to make up a new section that has the same title as this one "Terrorist or Freedom Fighter?" whith some points about both POVs. Eshcorp 14:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorist or freedom fighter? 

message: >beheading American Nicholas Berg, a civilian
Except that Berg was an israeli citizen, which the USA and Israel tried to keep secret, but the Haaretz newspaper leaked the info. Berg had known and hard proven links to one of the 9/11 hijackers (shared dorm room and laptop with him). There is every reason to believe that Berg was involved with Mossad, which Zarkavi did indeed claim so.
So Berg was neither an American, nor a civilian. As a spy, he had no expectation to live and I have no problem with spies being killed, since espionage is an extra-judicary activity. Spies do expect to be executed since Ms. Mata Hari, almost 90 years ago.
===?===
I may be a bit of a biased source, but I do know Berg's family in the US.  They were questioned following 9/11 and again following his execution, and no claims of his involvement with Mossad were ever made by the US government.  Likely, you have no more information on this issue than the US government has (despite the US government's unreliability regarding intelligence), and if I were you, I would think twice before rushing to say that you have no problem with the execution of someone you don't know. Mysticfeline 22:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again the Berg spin turns up in Wikipedia articles 

message: I may be a bit of a biased source, but I do know Berg's family in the US.  They were questioned following 9/11 and again following his execution, and no claims of his involvement with Mossad were ever made by the US government.  Likely, you have no more information on this issue than the US government has (despite the US government's unreliability regarding intelligence), and if I were you, I would think twice before rushing to say that you have no problem with the execution of someone you don't know. Mysticfeline 22:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ?

message: This article is no longer protected. Should we remove the tag?
::It still remains protected. --Hillhead15 15:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  vprotected 

message: I can't help but feel that a dark, poorly-exposed and brooding photo is fairly POV in itself, when describing your "enemy" - I'm not going to replace it myself though, without first soliciting for a couple other opinions and suggestions for replacements (I have no problem using the photo in the article, but it should not be the main photograph) Sherurcij 06:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That photo is the most famous photo of al Zarqawi, and that is why it is the first, I don't think that should be changed. Eshcorp 14:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Main Photo

message: Pretty minor, but the way I'm reading it the translation looks like it should be "Zarqawi" instead of "al-Zarqawi"? Is is Is
"Al-Zarqawi" and "bin Laden" are analogous in that they are both last names. Omitting "al" is the same mistake as removing "bin", I never heard "Laden" by itself before. -- Eagleamn 05:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: True, the name alone is "Zarqawi", and, unlike "Bin Laden" Al can be taken out but doesn't need to be. It is extremely popular in jordan to actually add the prefix Al- ("the") to some of the last names. Removing the "Al" would just make more confusion, beside, it is correct as it is. Eshcorp 14:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PSYOP Cartoon Caption 

message: And they still reject any attempt to automatically protect FAOTD articles, although all the pictures that are shown on the main page are protected. --Orang gila 00:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boy oh boy is this page gonna get vandalised 

message: Concerning the bit about Zarqawi's death, I removed the following.
"An Iraqi man, who claims to have arrived on the scene a few moments after the attack, said he saw U.S. troops beating up the badly-wounded but still alive Zarqawi.[118][119] In contradiction, Caldwell asserted that when U.S. troops found Zarqawi barely alive they tried to provide him with medical help, rejecting the allegations that he was beaten based on an autopsy performed. The account of the Iraqi witness has not been verified.[120] All others in the house died immediately in the blasts."
Because the claims have not been verified, I see no reason that it should be placed within the article, and to be quite frank, reeks of bias. If someone has proof of verification, feel free to change it back to the original, provided that a link or some form of proof or source of information is provided within.
The "all others" part I removed as well because it didn't lead into the next section very well. Any writers with more skill and interest in the article than myself are welcome to make changes, as that is the beauty of wikipedia. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.234.66.219 (talk • contribs).
:That edit was reverted earlier, as it was a verified report. Even if the incident did not occur as portrated, the text in the article maintained NPOV by also citing the military version of the event. I would say the text should stand as-is. We can't verify either the man's claim or the military's, but we can verify the existance of both reports. -- Kesh 02:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted that edit because I thought it might have been accidental blanking. Sorry about that. If you use edit summaries on high-profile things like this, people won't mistakenly revert you like I did. I have no opinion on  the section in question.--Chaser T 02:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death Edit 

message: Just to answer the perennial question before it gets asked, Today's Featured Article is normally not protected. If vandalism gets severe, it may be semi-protected and full move protection may also be implemented, but normally, today's FA is not protected. If you want to help protect the page from vandalism, please watchlist it and help to revert the vandalism as it happens. Thanks, everybody.--Chaser T 00:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I just don't understand the wikipedia heirarchy sometimes. Why don't you guys fully protect/lock every featured article for the duration of its presence on the main page? It's an easy, harmless way to prevent people from clicking on the featured article to see what Wikipedia is all about and see pictures of penises and beastality all over the place. Considering the fact that the page is vandalized as I speak, people who click on it right now are going to look at and see Wikipedia has no credibility whatsoever. Just a suggestion. Uncreative 00:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe part of it is to encourage visitors to add information to these articles that they otherwise might not have been aware of. It seems a matter of deciding which was more important: encouraging people to "get their hands dirty" and edit the article; or locking the article to keep the current information in place. I'm of two minds on the matter, but I think the current system is fine so long as editors are vigilant. -- Kesh 01:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, a perfect example of a policy emphasizing editors over readers.--DaveOinSF 02:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole point of the policy is to encourage readers to become editors!--137.82.36.209 02:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  God forbid someone come to Wikipedia wanting to learn some accurate information...--DaveOinSF 05:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it's an absurd policy for a number of reasons, the primary one being that you can't very well demonstrate what is "featurable" about the encyclopedia when the article is constantly being trashed.  You can weigh in on Wikipedia talk:Don't protect Main Page featured articles. –Outriggr § 01:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As tagged above, this page is not for policy discussions. Please take it to the link mentioned above. -- Kesh 02:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection unlikely 

message: Congratulations on making this an FA, despite the controversy. --Abeg92contribsBoomer Sooners! 04:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Mercenary2k 07:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amazing 

message: I just received an e-mail from a friend who said an administrator who claims to be New York attorney violated a three revert rule to singularly control content of this article, attacked a user:talk page to remove the users comments, then blocked the user to prevent them from contributing to the content of this article contrary to the political agenda of the administrator Postdlf. This seems to be neither a transparent nor a collaborative approach to describing controversial international events. Lance48 23:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin abused admin tools to control content of article 

message: Has this been deleted or is it my computer messing up?! Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 17:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you're right it's been deleted. The deletion log lists User:Jdforrester as having deleted it citing the "removing a revision". This needs to be put on the admin noticeboard and maybe another admin or bureaucrat needs to reverse this. Thethinredline 17:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted? 

message: I've changed this image to a link to the image page because the URL of the source..
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/Transcripts/Slides/060608-zarqawi.pdf
..is currently not available as of December 17, 2006 and I can't find it on www.archive.org.
I feel the image may violate WP:IUP as it is now unsourced. The IUP seems unclear on sources that lead to dead URLs.
I feel that the image should only be reinstated if it has been approved by a consensus of editors. If I've misinterpreted WP:IUP, comments are welcome. --Pixelface 00:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zarqawi dead us govt photo.jpg 

message: pl check my last pos tin the topic fake death and pl answer it.User talk:Yousaf465 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yousaf465 (talk • contribs)  07:42, December 30, 2006 (UTC)}
* He's dead.--Looper5920 12:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Claiming he's not dead because a picture of his face is actually recognizable doesn't work. You have to explain why his injuries should be more severe than indicated, which will be difficult if the picture only shows his face. For all you know, the entire lower half of his body could be missing! If you want to continue this conspiracy theory, you'll need more substantial evidence. -- Kesh 20:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fake death now answer 

message: In the headline 'Arguments downplaying Zarqawi's importance', I added a quotation by Respect MP George Galloway made on the BBC's 'Question Time', which was directley relevant to the evident. I'm new to Wikipedia, but I don't see a problem with what I did. 
Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TpUR5zfWZw —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.108.192.46 (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Galloway? 

message: The unquoted reactions on Zarqawis death can refer to this url: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5058478.stm. 0v3r533r 12:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unquoted 

message: According to the lead of the article, Al Zarqawi was "a Jordanian born Palestinian." But according to the Biography section, he was the "son of a native Jordanian family." How are the two compatible? AecisBrievenbus 07:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction in the article? 

message: The first picture of Zarqawi shows him un bearded and lacking the usual characteristics of a mujahid. This may confuse readers, I propose it be changed. Guleed M. A. 22:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Issue was fixed Guleed M. A. 20:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zarqawi image change? 

message: Prior to his death, Zarqawi was often seen in photos wearing a suicide vest, and he claimed that he slept in one.  Yet there were no reports that he had one on when he died.  Can anyone confirm this one way or another?
BTW:  Claims of sleeping with a suicide vest had also been made about his aide, Mohammed Khalaf Shakar, who surrendered without a fight when he was caught.
-- Randy2063 15:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claimed to have slept with a suicide vest 

message: How can this possibly be a FA when it lacks a picture of the person in question? I know the image-fascists are completely out of control, deleting practically everything at their private whim, but even so there has to be some way of illustrating the subject of this article? Vilĉjo (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wot no picture? 

message: To me there's something wrong with using the words "years of service" in this article.He was a terrorist and not a soldier.Nor did he technically "serve".
How many terrorists get a "years of service" mention, and if it's correct he should have that by his name then surely osama bin laden should have the same treatment and so should any other terrorist on wikipedia for that matter.
I know one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter and all that but this still seems odd.
Just thought i'd put the opinion out there and see if anyone agreed ?
82.21.204.72 (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with that statement that "years of service" is inappropriate.  I DISAGREE however that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.  We may have been Germany's enemy, but we sure as hell weren't terrorists.  In fact, I don't know of one single terrorist that wants freedom for their people.  They all wish to establish strict Islamic law across the world.  How are they freedom fighters?  But yeah, I agree about the years of service thing. -Brad Kgj08 (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "years of service" is not an appropriate term 

message: i know that this to totally irrevealt to what you might be reading but hey oh well deal with it 
my name is Ph.D and that's all the information that you need. there are many issues that we as a country and as a world but most of all as a cilivization must understand and what there is to understand is this word called diversity. people fear what they don't understand so we as a race tries to belittle the other guy who we might feel is getting there foot one notch higher up in the game. i've been in many situations where i've been sterotyped and judge but how, how can you be judgemental and steroypical when in the long run only god knows what that person has been through. what is the meaning of war and why are we at war. to me it feels as if the world is trying to gain full supremacy of all others but for what. thats why we are all divided by contients because we all have something differnt. that goes back to that word diveristy. who gives us the right to run out of a resource and then feels to get more we have to takeover another country to get what we want.
::Is that how they had you write your thesis? :) Talk pages are for discussing what further needs to be done to improve the article, not for discussions of opinions and other such things. FFLaguna (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diversity 

message: Dear fellow contributors
MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this. 
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to remove date-autoformatting 

message: Somehow through multiple edits and reverts, all the sources have disappeared!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.59.210 (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources? 

message: I don't know much about the consensus here, but is the image of his corpse (granted it is not unnecessarily graphic) really the one we should be using to actually represent his likeness. Are there any images that feature him alive? How many articles about people have images of their dead bodies as the de facto image of representation (in other words, their main picture)? I could see the point if it was in the Death section but it strikes me as absurd that a featured article on a person would use the image of their dead body as the main image in the article. Saddam Hussein's doesn't do so, and neither does almost all of the other articles about deceased people. The great kawa (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I like to see him dead ha but the feature picture should be one of him alive.  Anyone have any suggestions? -Brad Kgj08 (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Third'ed. Its kind of despicable to mock the dead like that, whether you like them when they were alive or not.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.187.148 (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not despicable.  Like EVERYTHING else in a person's life, a person's own actions and choices determine their worth.  Some people reduce their worth so fully that they drop below the bar where I consider them "human".  We are born deserving rights, by nature of being sentient beings.  But by our own actions, we can lose those rights.  It takes more to be "human" than to just be born a homo sapiens.  Being a member of the human race takes membership dues.  Not just an accident of birth.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.60.87 (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of Corpse 

message: Using this information from West Point there is a lot of mistakes that need to be correct on the top page.
Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) (based at West Point[])
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony/pdf/CTCForeignFighter.19.Dec07.pdf
--OxAO (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sinjar Records 

message: According to the US Treasury these five men were accomplices of Al Zarqawi:   Geo Swan (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  rough work 

message: Sorry if this has been discussed before. Should we fix the mistake in the block quote by Colin Powell: "Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, an associated in collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda lieutenants". I see that the source has this exact text, which is I guess why we have it. I didn't watch the video, but I assume this is a transcript error and he actually said "an associate and collaborator". Thoughts? Staecker (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find a source worded that way, yes, otherwise [sic]. (Hohum @) 18:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, found another source, put it in. Staecker (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Powell quote 

message: Hello everyone! This article currently appears near the top of the cleanup listing for featured articles, with several cleanup tags. Cleanup work needs to be completed on this article, or a featured article review may be in order. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work needed 

message: why isn't it listed that for awhile he personally lead his group in some battles on the front and personally lead attacks on rival militias  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.173.73 (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Field Commander" 

message: I have reverted TucsonDavid's possibly NPOV-violating edits based on an IRC discussion in hope that this can be discussed rather than having an editor hit 3RR. Logan Talk Contributions 05:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert of TucsonDavid's edits 

message: *"U.S. military: Al-Zarqawi was alive after bombing." CNN. Friday June 9, 2006. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More stuff 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011 
;What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  File:Powell UN Iraq presentation, alleged Terrorist Network.jpg Nominated for Deletion 

message: This is a really good article but I have issue with the neutrality of a source in the biography section, fifth paragraph. The source is number 16, and it links to Bill O'Reilly's website, to an article from September 2004. The sentence that uses source 16 for reference talks about Zarqawi's involvement in Afghanistan and his involvement in Iraq before the US invasion. I do not believe that he was involved in Iraq before the invasion, based on a number of sources, including the 9/11 Commission Report and O'Reilly himself. O'Reilly has since said it was a mistake to invade Iraq, but it was an understandable mistake due to the evidence at hand. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0616-01.htm
This is worth a look. Otherwise a good article.
65.30.92.14 05:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i removed the sentence about Uday, but the other information is accurate.  i also removed the source since it's not a very good source.  rather than tag an entire article as disputed, next time make an edit that fixes the problem.  that's what wikipedia is all about. Anthonymendoza 17:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue With Source 16 

message: Under the subheading "terrorist" the article states that he was arrested in Jordan in 1996 and spent 5 years in jail, until his release in 1999.  There's obviously an error here somewhere - either in the time of his arrest, release, time spent in jail, or that figure could be a combined time spent in jail, rather than time for this particular crime?  There are two relevant references here (7 and 9), however checking revealed both are broken.  I can find a working link to reference 7, (which I'm now fixing) however it doesn't state the years spent in jail, but does state that he spent 6 years in jail (not 5).  I'm editing this section of the article to reflect that reference, while leaving the paragraph with the broken reference 9 in, but adding a dead link to the reference.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owheelj (talk • contribs) 05:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time spent in jail contradiction 

message: This is flatly untrue. Al-Tahwid was set up in competition to al-Qaeda (Zarqawi had religious differences with bin Laden) and on one occasion refused to share money that had been raised for both groups by sympathisers in Germany. (source: Senate Intelligence Committee). The events in 2004 were orchestrated by US Strategic Communications (source http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/09/AR2006040900890.html) and had more to do with creating a story for the invasion of Iraq than it had to do with the truth of Zarqawi's political agenda.
This article requires major revisions in the light of facts that have come to light since the invasion.
SleepyHead (talk • contribs) 12:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  In late 2004 he joined al-Qaeda, and pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden 

message: I think this is appropriate to point out here. The Wikipedia page says that United States Air Force F-16C aircraft were used in the killing. "Seal Target Geronimo" by Chuck Pfarrer says that a Predator drone was used. Any contradictions?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.97.17.18 (talk) 08:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about aircraft used in killing 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080307074259/http://www.jamestown.org:80/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2370029 to http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2370029
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930221530/http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=12328 to http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=12328
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061012035813/http://70.168.46.200/Released/07-13-06/ISGZ-2004-019920-HT-DHM2A.pdf to http://70.168.46.200/Released/07-13-06/ISGZ-2004-019920-HT-DHM2A.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114091835/http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel06/mostwantedterrorists022406.htm to http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel06/mostwantedterrorists022406.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051227194433/http://news.scotsman.com:80/topics.cfm?tid=825&id=505822004 to http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=825&id=505822004
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100311083517/http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm1118.cfm to http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm1118.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130604161015/http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi/20060608-025601-3434r.htm to http://washingtontimes.com/upi/20060608-025601-3434r.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20160120134429/http://www.cpa-iraq.org/transcripts/20040212_zarqawi_full.html to http://www.cpa-iraq.org/transcripts/20040212_zarqawi_full.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070416102821/http://www.msnbc.msn.com:80/id/5280219/site/newsweek to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5280219/site/newsweek
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080709020154/http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3540586/ to http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3540586/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061102110604/http://70.168.46.200/Released/07-11-06/ISGZ-2004-019920.pdf to http://70.168.46.200/Released/07-11-06/ISGZ-2004-019920.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061102110548/http://70.168.46.200/released/04-24-06/ISGZ-2004-019920.pdf to http://70.168.46.200/released/04-24-06/ISGZ-2004-019920.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080422042535/http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/04/wirq04.xml to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/04/wirq04.xml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100118221903/http://www.azstarnet.com:80/sn/attack/132868 to http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/attack/132868
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080516191151/http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060608/D8I41K780.html to http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060608/D8I41K780.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060630020239/http://www.alertnet.org:80/thenews/newsdesk/L08233828.htm to http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L08233828.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060621210134/http://www.boston.com:80/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/06/09/al_qaida_likely_to_alter_marketing_efforts/ to http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/06/09/al_qaida_likely_to_alter_marketing_efforts/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080307045942/http://www.itv.com:80/news/439ac3b5af99ab7fb431c746e82e02b1.html to http://www.itv.com/news/439ac3b5af99ab7fb431c746e82e02b1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080307144040/http://www.comcast.net:80/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2006/06/09/410184.html&cvqh=itn_zarqawi to http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2006/06/09/410184.html&cvqh=itn_zarqawi
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070522112938/http://news.scotsman.com:80/columnists.cfm?id=860432006 to http://news.scotsman.com/columnists.cfm?id=860432006
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080308125917/http://www.chicagotribune.com:80/news/nationworld/chi-070523bush-intelmay23,1,386519.story?track=rss to http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-070523bush-intelmay23,1,386519.story?track=rss
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071020154655/http://www.avot.org/article/20060918070400.html to http://www.avot.org/article/20060918070400.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071115013927/http://www.msnbc.msn.com:80/id/9831216/wid/6448213/site/newsweek to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9831216/wid/6448213/site/newsweek
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120722191629/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1132475588009&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1132475588009&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141029010152/http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,1792817,00.html to http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,1792817,00.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151117030211/http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,1793028,00.html to http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,1793028,00.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150926093628/http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,1794019,00.html to http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,1794019,00.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060630031401/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/iraq_al_zarqawi;_ylt=AiXlfZa9CUN7_QnTLEYt_6lX6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iraq_al_zarqawi;_ylt=AiXlfZa9CUN7_QnTLEYt_6lX6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121024104418/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060617/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_insurgent_tape_7 to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060617/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_insurgent_tape_7
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121024104430/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060701/ap_on_re_mi_ea/bin_laden_tape_14 to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060701/ap_on_re_mi_ea/bin_laden_tape_14
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090109170643/http://news.scotsman.com:80/latest.cfm?id=1513392006 to http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=1513392006
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090803224622/http://www.commondreams.org:80/headlines04/1005-01.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1005-01.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/18/books/review/zarqawi-face-of-the-insurgency.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070210133840/http://drinkingliberally.org:80/blogs/louisville/archives/2006/03/ to http://drinkingliberally.org/blogs/louisville/archives/2006/03/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13jul20041400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/s108-301/sec12.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13jul20041400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/s108-301/sec12.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4524563/site/newsweek/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Fox said the Iraqi PM stated Abu Abdul Rahman al-Iraqi was killed along with al-Zarqawi: http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/06/08/abu-musab-al-zarqawi-killed-in-bombing-raid.html
Reuters said Abu Abdulrahman al-Iraqi wrote a letter heralding the death of al-Zarqawi: https://web.archive.org/web/20060630020239/http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L08233828.htm
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Death-of-a-Terrorist-Leader-HOW-AIDE-S-BETRAYAL-2517598.php stated al-Iraqi led U.S. forces to al-Zarqawi and was killed along with him.
CNN stated they were both killed same day.  
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/08/iraq.al.zarqawi.1929/
The current version of this wikipedia article has the Reuters' version.Level C (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradicting information about Abu Abdul Rahman al-Iraqi - was he dead or alive? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060921074629/http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf to http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060930220648/http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf to http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060921074629/http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf to http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This edit excises about 2k of text.
IMO it should be explained or reverted...  Geo Swan (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted.  Edit history shows he's a persistent vandal. 142.167.242.182 (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call for discussion 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Chalk, Peter 2012":
From Peshmerga: Chalk, Peter, Encyclopedia of Terrorism Volume 1, 2012, ABC-CLIO
From Ansar al-Islam: Chalk, Peter, Encyclopedia of Terrorism Volume 1, 2012, ABC-CLIO
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Abu Musab al-Zarqawi]] 

message: The article claims that Jund al-Sham was founded by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi between 1989-1992. First, as can be seen from his article and various sources, he wasn't following jihadist ideology until he goes to Afghanistan (1989) and comes back to his homeland (1992). Secons, his biographies that are written by Jean-Charles Brisard and Fouad Hussain don't mention such an organization. The only source for that information is this The Washington Post article. On the other hand, another article claims that "...Jund al-Sham is believed to have first emerged in Afghanistan in 1999, established by Syrians, Palestinians and Jordanians with links to the Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi...". So I remove this content from the article since there's no reliable source or claim for that part.--Nanahuatl (talk) 09:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jund al-Sham 

message: can anyone find it? https://web.archive.org/web/20220208182949/https://www.dvidshub.net/video/16302/us-air-strike-al-zarqawi Victor Grigas (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video missing