Talk:Al-Qaeda/Archive 4

message: Could someone add gl:Al Qaida, thanks--Rocastelo 19:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galician interwiki 

message: Can someone unlock this page? There's been a lot of fruitful discussion recently, and I think there's no longer much fear of vandalism. Graft 16:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unlock this page? 

message: #I would vote to keep the NPOV dispute tag for the obvious reason that a dispute exists over the Neutral Point of View of the article.  Al-Qaeda is an extremely passionate term, but if you want people to take Wikipedia seriously, its terms must be defined in a dispassionate way.  Many previous definitions didn't use vilification designations like "extremist objectives" and "fundamentalist" to describe the enemy.  Articles written as recently as April didn't ascribe fantastic motivations to al-Qaeda actions like that of seeking to supplant Western society as a whole.
:*Wikipedia cannot work with a mob mentality.  If you want this project to be taken as a serious encyclopedia, what is factually correct must take precedence over what you wish reality to be.  There factually is a dispute over the Neutral Point of View of this article.  Voting for that reality to change will not change it.  Taking off the NPOV dispute tag will not make the dispute go away.  It will only hide evidence of the truth in favor of a fantasy that this mob is trying to create.  Wikipedia allows for a mob mentality to trump factual information and dispassionate definitions, but you personally can choose to do what is right if you want Wikipedia to succeed.  --Zephram Stark 13:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep the NPOV tag

message: #--Gramaic | Talk 07:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove the NPOV tag NOW! It must be removed or everyone here is a terrorist-lover!

message: The constant removing and readding of the NPOV template is doing nobody any favours. Some people dispute the neutrality of the article, therefore there is an NPOV dispute. Whether or not the article is or isn't NPOV there is a dispute about it. So I have protected the page with the tag on it. Please sort out the issues here, rather than squabbling over the template. Thryduulf 14:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protected

message: :I don't like a lot of this stuff, actually, even stuff that intersects with the current intro. E.g., "alliance of militant Islamist organizations" - lesquels? Can we name even one? If we can, it would probably be, err, Islamic Jihad which... means little or nothing at this point. Where did we learn that it is so structured? Where did we learn its "stated purpose"? That "definition of terrorism" bit is as awkward as a newborn lamb. Moreover, I think this intro puts too much emphasis on the nebulous present state of al-Qaeda, whereas I think the definite history of al-Qaeda is a better frame for the intro. Graft 03:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, unsigned posts are probably the most annoying thing on Wikipedia. Anyway - the International Islamic Front is great, but the fundamental crux of this page, that remains to be answered, is: what the fuck is al-Qaeda? Is the Front the same thing? Does this imply that Abu Sayyaf and the GIA are somehow part of al-Qaeda? I don't think that's reasonable. The contention being made by Zephram Stark is that al-Qaeda is some sort of broader movement, an alliance of smaller groups. I think this is conjecture on his part, and I don't think the above is support for it. Graft 15:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Groups allied with Al-Qa'ida 

message: It is often said how different in backgroud these bombers are;however I think they share common traits.
1.They all seem to see themselves as put-upon.Unemployed who can not find work;he or she blames the society.Middle class person who having strived, see that he can not succeed in his goal eg to be the greatest scientist,writer,ruler of Saudia Arabia;again he blames the system.
2 They have an irrational belief system which 'merges' with the beliefs in (1).Although some beliefs may be justified others can not.
The same way gang members are made, from poverty. --Charlie Young and Sam Seaborn
I would disagree with the comparison - gang members and delinquents are made from poverty and hopelessness.  
I think if you look through the biographies of the 9/11 suicide pilots, most of them had college educations and moderately sucessful careers.  Some of them had families.  I think it's a different, confusing phenomenon, about which i have little other insight.--Bmk 03:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How are suicide bombers made

message: * I think that we need to make clear that the bombings in London were the work of suicide bombers and not remote control devices, etc. 80.42.28.76 16:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  London Bombings - Suicide 

message: Could someone add a link to Ido Wiki here? Just paste this ([[io:
Al-Kaida]]) on the appropriate place. -
:I've added this. Thryduulf 18:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  io:wikilink 

message: Robin Cook
Friday July 8, 2005
The Guardian 
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.
:This is dealt with above.  I don't think "database" is the translation.--csloat 23:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robin Cook point of view 

message: Although I notice that al-Qaeda is the popular spelling of the name used by the press it isn't a very good transcription of the Arabic (see Arabic transliteration). The ISO 233 standard says القَاعِدة should be rendered as ʾˈalqaʾʿidaẗ. The older standard has al-qāʿidaͪ. The UN and Library of Congress standards are both al-qāʻidah. As the official transliterations can be a bit tricky, I would suggest that al-Qa`ida would be a better article title for the following reasons:
#Al-Qa`ida is no more difficult to type.
#It is a better representation of the Arabic word.
#It suggests that the word should not rhyme with glider.
#An encyclopaedia exists to correct common misconceptions rather than bolster them.
Any thoughts? --Gareth Hughes 20:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how it is in Britain, but the spelling Al-Qaeda has pretty much become uniform here in the past 4 years.  It's true that it is not a very good transcription, but when Arabic words get pulled into English much of their original form is lost (like assassin).  Here it is pronounced "Al Kayda".Heraclius 23:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Heraclius that "Al-Qaeda" has become the standard British-English spelling of the organisation. Most people pronounce it as "Al Kaida" but "Al Kai-eeda" (the first part of the second word rhymes with "sky" in both cases) and "Al Kayda" (rhymes with how "raider" is generally pronounced in SE England) is sometimes used. Thryduulf 13:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al-Qa`ida &mdash; how do we spell it? 

message: Someone, should give a breakdown of the history of the word.  Presumably, there it is a compound word of the arabic words for "data" (or perhaps information) and "base", actually since the specifics of the mean of "base" are not natural to associate with this usage, perhaps the second component of the arabic is something else, like "file" or "collection" or "bundle" or something.  Or perhaps it isn't a compound word, that arabic has suffixes or prefixes for "data", "info", "file" or whatever.  But if there is any truth to this dead persons musings, a mere linguist should be able to resolve it.--Silverback 09:54, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
:I'm not an Arabic speaker either, but I spoke with an Arabic speaker who told me that the word "qaeda" translates to "base" in every sense of the English word, and that "qaeda" could be use as an abbreviated form of "database," just as we might call a database simply "the base."  I will contact Mustaffa and other Arabic speakers here to get them to weigh in.  --Blackcats 21:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never called a database "the base."  I don't know anyone who would do that in English.  But I don't speak Arabic.--csloat 22:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience, that's pretty typical in English if you deal with (and talk about) databases a lot.  You get sick of saying "that address is in the database,"  "that name is in the database," "we've got the medical history right here in the database," "the software log is right here in the database," etc.  Eventually you get sick of saying "data" every time, so you just drop it and simply say "it's in the base."  That's pretty typical for most languages to shorten the words for things that they talk about a lot.  For example, a lot of Euoropean languages shorten their word for "university" to just "uni."  People just tend to like to avoid having to repeat a lot of unneccesary sylables a lot.  In the case of "database" to "base," that's dropping 2/3 of the sylables for the word, making it a lot quicker and easier to say - the same as with "internet" to "net".  Now of course if you don't work with databases or the internet a lot, or if it's not clear from the context of the present discussion what you're talking about, then you'll probably say the whole word, so that people don't think you're talking about some other sort of base or net.  Blackcats 05:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that in the case of "database" it is not even clear in plain english meaning why "base" was chosen to be part of the compound, while the "data" component is as obvious, as the "net" in internet, so shortening to the "base" is almost never used, even informally in verbal communications.  Now if in Arabic, instead of "base" have a direct equivilent, a word more correctly translated into "foundation" in english was used, such a shortening might be more natural, since perhaps "foundation" better captures the "template" or "abstraction" or "idealization" elements of a database.  However, absent its "data" qualifier, even "foundation" would be far more likely to be associated with its more fundamental Islamic meaning than with a database.  Certainly the uncorroborrated comment of a dead man, on such an archane issue, does not need mention in this article.--Silverback 23:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I have no idea where the origins of the word came from (whether CIA or Koranic, the latter meaning that the Qaeda is "the foundation" referring to the Koran as the basis for all things). And although I have much respect for the late Robin Cook, the name al-Qaeda is not "literally" database. In Arabic, a database is translated literally as "qaedat ma'loomat" which means "information base" or "data base". It is also sometimes referred to as "shabakat ma'loomat" or "information network". Although it is possible for people to abbreviate "qaedat ma'loomat" into just "qaeda" when speaking among themselves, it is almost never referred to in print or formal settings as just "qaeda" because that would remove the context altogether. But it is possible in informal settings once the context is established because three syllables are always quicker to say than six. As to whether this has anything to do with the origin of the name of the group, I have absolutely no idea. Ramallite (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

text: What?  He verified that it is highly unlikely that the word would be used in this way.  "Almost never found" in print settings.  At best "possible" in spoken settings.  Robin Cook is just wrong here, and all al Qaeda scholars I have read on this conclude that the name first referred to the physical location where people met or passed through, not a "database."  The assumption that the name was the CIA's doing is also not supported by any of this.  You may trust Cook more than bin Laden in general, but on this issue there is no reason for the latter to distort anything here specifically, and in fact he is much closer to the information than Cook.  I am going to delete Cook from the article again; it really just doesn't belong here as it was clearly a mistake on his part. --csloat 17:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No - he (Ramallite) said precisely what I had said about it - that it was used that way - in informal settings once the context had been established.  And that's how names of things often come about - out of the informal jargon of the people working on a certain project - people who know the context very well.  You say that "there is no reason for the latter [bin Laden] to distort anything here."  But that's circular reasoning.  Because if it's true, and the organization's name did in fact come from a database of the CIA, then that fact would likely serve to discredit bin Laden in the eyes of potential supporters - if it were to become well known.  You also imply that Mr. Cook wouldn't be "close to the information," but in his capacity in the British government it's quite likely he would have access to such information.  At any rate, I'm restoring it to the article, because you've given no compelling reason for it's exclusion.  Even if you (and all the "experts" who allegedly agree with you) feel that it's not possibly true, the fact is that Mr. Cook is a notable person, the Guardian is a notable source, and the fact that a notable person writes in a notable newspaper that the origin of an infamous organization's name is different than what most people thought - that fact is notable.  Blackcats 02:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

text: It wasn't me who said it - it was Mr. Cook, so if he weren't dead I'd urge you to go argue with him about it.  But at any rate, whatever agents in the CIA were recruiting for the mujahadin would mostly likely be fluent in Arabic, so there's nothing particuarrly strage about the idea that they would use shortened Arabic jargon to refer to their project files.  And as Ramallite stated, it's much easier to say "al qaeda" than "al qaedat ma'loomat."  Blackcats 02:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cook did not say that; he said it was a database file but not that it was one created for the CIA.  This is nonsense anyway -- Cook's claim "recruited and trained with help from the CIA" is basically accurate but the "help" was extremely indirect; it is extremely unlikely the CIA ever actually "recruited and trained" bin Laden or his followers among the Afghan Arabs.  And Ramallite said that it was "possible" to use "qaeda" in this manner in spoken Arabic but "almost never" in print and formal settings.  Ramallite please speak up here if you are reading this - it is my understanding that Blackcats is almost completely reversing the meaning of what you wrote above.  In any case the interpretation that Cook has here seems both dead wrong (at the very least, all counterterrorism experts seem to think so) and completely non-notable, and on top of all that, the way it is written in the article distorts what Cook has to say (Cook never refers to it as a "CIA database").--csloat 06:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: sorry didn't see this response. See the "Lead" topic below. 64.163.4.225 20:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Database 

message: This sub-section was removed. User:Mov, the one who removed it gave the following explanation; 
NPOV, war in Bosnia is a different topic from Al Qaeda, and there is no continuity from Sudan to Bosnian to Afghanistan. Was only added on August 9 2005.
Mov, can you give a more detailed explanation as to why you removed the "Bosnia" sub-section? Thanks, --Gramaic | Talk 08:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bosnia 

message: Why was this quote deleted?  
:and the plan was successful: within six months the Soviet army had crossed the border into Afghanistan, prompting Brzezinski to write to Carter, "we now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war."
--csloat 00:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is drawing the user to a conclusion not supported by the facts: The Carter administration was responsible for direct Soviet military involvement. This would mean that 6 months after a covert order was given to assist the Mujahidin, the effect was so successful as to draw the Soviets into Afghanistan. Seeing as how even the hastiest military plan, if you don’t count Market Garden, takes several weeks – months to plan and organize, this statement does not seem factually correct. There is plenty of space to discuss the impact of the CIA’s efforts in Afghanistan, but to say that Carter is responsible for the Soviet invasion is laughable. TDC 01:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed -- however, I asked why the quote was removed, not the judgment of 'success'.  The fact is Brzezinski wrote that note, and that even though you and I agree he was wrong, he certainly represented it that way.  If you want to qualify this statement without "original research," Steve Coll's study is authoritative here and I believe he specifically refutes Brzezinski in a footnote.  But Brzezinski's judgment, and specifically that quote, are a significant enough part of the public understanding of this history that they belong there.--csloat 02:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the dispute can be resolved by summarizing Coll's quote without the part about "prompting." The two things happened in sequential order. Both are relevant to the article. The only dispute concerns whether or not one thing led to the other. --Peter McConaughey 15:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "prompting" refers to the invasion prompting Brzezinski to write to Carter -- that is not disputed.  What is disputed is whether the CIA action caused the Soviet invasion.--csloat 17:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  TDC Edit (11/15/05) 

message: As I understand it, Al Qaeda's prime objective is to stop the United States occupation of other nations, or at least what it calls "occupation", and that it has nothing to do with religion, ethnicity or anything else.  And of course we should be calling it that other long name, rather than Al-Qaeda, if Al-Qaeda just means "the base".  No wonder there's no kind of consensus on who they are.  The London Bombings from earlier this year were committed by a group of Londoners who admitted to doing them, and called themselves "The European Al Qaeda" (sic) and they were neither arab or muslim.  Suggesting that Al Qaeda has any basis on religion is naive.  This is stated in an enormous number of speeches by Osama bin Laden.  It has absolutely nothing to do with religion.
Al Qaeda believes, essentially, that USA is the mortal enemy of the entire world.  They believe that America are trying to destroy other countries by taking them over.  They use, as reference, the fact that USA has established Israel in the middle east, and are depriving Palestinians of the right to their land.  The fact that Israel is not self sufficient, and would not exist without US aid (it would be invaded by its neighbours) is used as evidence of this.
However, Al Qaeda does not just hate America.  They also hate Russia, China and any other country which tries to take control of other countries.  
Many of the things that have been "attributed" to Al Qaeda have nothing to do with their core beliefs.  September 11, for example, could not have been conducted by Al Qaeda because they have asserted that they will never attack a country in their own country.  Their aim is primarily to stop that country from invading others.  September 11, therefore, could not have been conducted by Al Qaeda, and there have been no substantial links to suggest that they could have done it.  Given the evidence, it is far more likely that Saddam Hussein is responsible, as he had both motive and opportunity, as well as the fact that we have to have some reason for being in Iraq now.
A terrorist group, by definition, accepts responsibility for their actions.  When they have conducted an attack, they send out a note to say that they did it.  The vast majority of the incidents suggested there were actually claimed by other groups - for example the Kenyan embassy bombings were claimed to be conducted by a local Kenyan group who were upset at their wages and conditions.  The fact that they claimed to be responsible, while Al Qaeda did not suggests evidence that Al Qaeda didn't do it.  Or did they bribe them to say that?
Al Qaeda, however, are in Iraq.  They were in Iraq in 1992 fighting with the kurds (the ones that Saddam Hussein killed) and they are in Iraq now, having allied with Hussein loyalists, or insurgents if you prefer.  They did the London bombings earlier this year.  They did the Madrid bombings in 2002.  They have done an awful lot of terrorist things.  and they've admitted to doing them.
Of course, then you've got the issue of nams.  Because we've gone and given them the wrong name to begin with, then there's uncertainty about everything after that.  Maybe we should just start calling them by the correct name and be done with it.  Have Al Qaeda be a redirect to the actual name of the organisation.  And then we can blame them for the right things.
As for the religious issues, obviously OBL is a very religious man.  But there's a lot of muslims who speak like that that are not extremists.  He's just using words to describe his beliefs.  His beliefs are not based on religion.  If they were based on religion, then he'd hate all Christians.  It is not a jihad against all Christians - it is a jihad against America.  Or, should I say, "American Imperialism".  And Russia, and China.
Putting in any hint that its about islam is an insult to muslims.  It creates a great amount of animosity by doing so. Zordrac 00:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But it is (at least partly) about Bin Laden's version of Islam.  You say it's a jihad against America and others the group sees as "imperialist."  But jihad is an Islamic concept.  Bin Laden has repeatedly said that what he is doing is in the name of Allah, and has issued fatwas (Islamic religious decrees) "in compliance with God's order" according to his interpretation of the Koran, and using the Koran to justify his own position in sort of the same way as Fred Phelps uses the Bible to justify his.  It doesn't make sense to say that al-Qaeda's Islamist movement is unrelated to Islam. --Mr. Billion 07:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al Qaeda and religion 

message: I added a sentence to the section about possible cooperation with Saddam.  RonCram had added a link to a video from the late 1990s making the claim (which is now accepted to be false) that Saddam worked with al-Qaeda.  I included a sentence summarizing major investigations of the issue and linking to the page where this issue is discussed more fully.  I really don't think that debate needs to be hashed out on this page too.--User:Commodore SloatCcsloat 09:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Al Qaeda and Saddam

message: I think there is two sides to the neutrality dispute.  Personally I Think the article is making a great attempt at neutrality.On the other hand the topic is very controversial and it is very hard to please everyone.
I'm really new (first day new) and I have already seen some articles that seem more biased and are not rated for NPOV.  Respectfully I think the NPOV notice should be removed.  The article is about as neutral as it gets but with this topic you're always going to have somebody disputing it.  
Veritas Liberum 23:29 6 December 2005 (GMT)
:An article can be written from a neutral point of view. Many revisions in the history of this article went undisputed for long periods of time. Eventually enough POV creep would emerge that it could no longer be considered neutral. That's where it is today.
:The article didn't get any better or more accurate since the last time it was undisputed, it just got more POV. --Peter McConaughey 18:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Sides 

message: What I hoped to find in this article was information on al-Qaeda's involvement in the March 11th commuter train attacks in Madrid. It was al-Qaeda's most devastiting attack since 9/11. And it is very interesting that an Islamic terrorist organiztion would claim responsibility for the attacks considering the history between Islam and Spain. Doubly so considering that Spain has their own terrorists. As if ETA didn't do enough damage, now they're facing the threat of Islamic terrorists as well. I just think the discussion of this even and al-Qaeda's attacks on non-US interests should be presented more predominately. Wikipedia already has one lengthy article on 9/11, it doesn't need two.
And as everyone knows "the neutrality of this article is indispute". From what I read it didn't seem that bad. All in all just an informative atricle. The only thing I would see as controversial and possibly biased is the section on al-Qaeda. It seem like some of what is presented as fact in that section is something that may be true, but there is no way to say as it is in dispute worldwide at this moment and thus should not be presented as fact. I think it would be best just to mention al-Qaeda's alleged interests in Iraq and connections to Hussein and what they are and that they sparked the current war in the Gulf region. Leave it at that and link a few news articles and the "al-Qaeda and Hussein" article.
:Maybe we should have one article titled "Al-Qaeda as defined by Fox News" and another article for the rest of the world. --Peter McConaughey 01:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This aritcle's Neutrality, and US-centrism 

message: I just read an excerpt from a most definitive book on Al-Qaeda that is coming out next month. The excerpt is in the new issue of Vanity Fair. It features pages of quotes from the most intimate people associated with al-Qaeda and clears up many of the POV and self-contradictory issues of this article. --Peter McConaughey 15:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vanity Fair

message: Content must be based on verifiable sources. 
*"Nearly every government and international organization considers al-Qaeda to be a terrorist organization." With this sentence, we either need to list notable government and international organizations, or we need to cite, in the article, the source of this opinion. It is too controversial for the narrative voice of the article to assert.
*"Al-Qaeda is widely regarded as responsible..." Again, we need to either cite someone who says that or we need to list specific examples. It is too controversial for the narrative voice of the article to assert.
*"...and the campaign is believed to provide the inspiration for many other subsequent international attacks." Says who? What leads us to this assertion? This is one of three theories explaining the structure of al Qaeda. Who espouses this theory?
*Overview-"According to statements broadcast by al-Qaeda on the internet and on satellite TV channels, the ultimate goal of al-Qaeda is to re-establish the Caliphate across the Islamic world, by working with allied Islamic extremist groups to overthrow secular or Western-supported regimes." Can we have any examples of these statements? If this is true, why not use a quote? The word "extremist" is highly POV.
*Overview-"...al-Qaeda is believed to have been implicitly involved in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar-Es-Salaam, Tanzania..." The United States government believes al-Qaeda to be implicitly involved in these attacks. If the source is the US government, then the U.S. government needs to be cited, not a passive reference to assumed fact.
*Overview-"The military leader of al-Qaeda is widely reported to have been Khalid Shaikh Mohammed..." Again, this is the opinion of the U.S. government. Is the U.S. government such a poor source that we are afraid to cite them?
:let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. For starters which governments don't consider Al Qaeda to be terrorists? keith 18:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  To answer your question, for example, I haven't seen any evidence that, the Iranian government recognizes al-Qaeda as a terrorist organization.  But this is not that important anyways.  But what's important is citations from reputable sources that can support the assertion that "nearly every government and international organization considers al-Qaeda to be a terrorist organization."  Saeed Jahed 12:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed sentences

message: User Cedar-Guardian wishes to add the following citing newspaper sources:
"The Al-Qaeda group in Iraq has claimed responsibility for rockets attacks on northern Israel from Lebanon, making it the first time the group has launched an attack on Israel from Lebanese territory on December 27, 2005. However, the statement published on an islamist web site could not be authentificated, no date is given for the attack, and it contradicted reports about the attack (It stated the use of 10 "Grad missiles" while three Katyusha rockets have been reported. Hence, it was not clear which attack it was referring to."
There is no verification that the claim was made on behalf of al Qaeda in Iraq, the statement got material facts about the attack wrong (both in terms of numbers and types of rockets), furthermore the attack came from an area dominated by a militant Shiite group with a long history of antipathy to al Qaeda. Attacks from this area are a commonplace. Nothing makes this attack unusual save for the claim of attribution to al Qaeda. All known sources including Israeli intelligence dispute the accuracy of the claim.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a tittle-tattle sheet and this claim falls well below the standards of verification we would need to warrant its inclusion. --Alberdi 04:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph I wrote could be verified . It was featured on many news networks including cnn. I've also added why it could be wrong. So why did you remove it? CG 18:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Please prove your point with a better argument that it stinks. Thank you . CG 17:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to agree with Alberdi - the claim certainly doesn't merit inclusion based on the thin available evidence. Unless you have something more definitive? Graft 02:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But why disregard this event? It has been reported by many major news networks (cnn, euronews...). We don't have to say "AL-qaeda fired a rocket" but we could describe the event with all the clues that led to doubt and skepticism. Do we have to erase this fact if an israeli officer have denied it? CG 15:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The reason the story went everywhere was it was part of a Reuters report which originated in Cairo and all news organisations take the service. Furthermore the date of release coincided with the Christmas holidays when news is thin and many newsdesk experts on the region would not have been available to assess the claim.  A rocket attack on Israel is not an unusual story. If we examine it, what made the story "news" was that a person unknown made a claim for resposibility to an Islamist website which al-Qaeda has used in the past. The claim was not substantiated by any other source and contained little information aside from 'facts' which are known to be wrong (number and type of rockets). Furthermore it doesn't fit the known political landscape of the region. It was thus rubbished not just by Israeli intelligence but also by the Fatah chief in Lebanon and pretty much every other authoritative commentator. There are many claims to al-Qaeda responsibility and assessing their veracity will always be subjective. For the reasons stated above, I don't think this one makes it and the only other person to comment so far appears to share my view. --Alberdi 09:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dodgy responsibility claims

message: Dont think al-Qaeda has a leader. This is quite a POV comment for the picture. helohe (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Switched to "founder", which is what Osama bin Laden says in its lead. Redquark 19:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This sort of tomfoolery is really irritating. Even if you don't accept that the numerous statements he's made (e.g. the one in support of Zarqawi) in the name of al-Qaeda are genuine, there's the famed Ummat interview that most cranks accept as genuine where he denies involvement of al-Qaeda in 9/11. So... you lose, sorry. Putting it back in. Graft 16:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Osama bin Laden, leader of al-Qaeda 

message: I think it's great that this article makes a specific attribution for the view that al-Qaeda is responsible for the 9/11 attacks.  But to simply say that the 9/11 commission holds that view seems to downplay the wide acceptance of that view around the world.  I don't suggest we go back to the fuzzier wording of "It is widely reported...", but how about an attribution that is both specific and conveys the dominance of the belief?  For example, how about attributing the view to the United Nations?  It would need a citation, and I don't have one yet.  But I want to see if others here agree, and perhaps if anyone has such a citation.  --Allen 00:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *sigh* How come people think they are clever when they point out OBL was partly trained by the USA? What's the point? Are you saying AQ was constructed by the USA through OBL? Did the USA instill Islamic fundamentalist views in him? Is it OBL who is running around killing people using the military skille he was taught? Should the USA NOT have supported Afghanis against the Sovjet invasion? What are you exactly getting at? The military training OBL received is hardly to blame for the succes of AQ. Are you really saying that anybody who receives training from the USA could mastermind something like AQ? Is training in the use of RPG's really that impressive? Celcius 14:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  attribution for 9/11 responsibility 

message: Should the video, in which Osama Bin Laden mentioned that he would be willing to negotiate peace with the "west" and al-Qaeda under certain conditions, be mentioned in this article? The video hasn't been talked about much, and US is of course following its "we don't negotiate with terrorists" policy (which I personally disagree with completely, but that's another story and doesnt belong in wikipedia :) ). Would probably be an interesting thing to mention somewhere in the article. --85.49.224.196 01:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  correct me if I'm wrong, but Bin Laden did not offer to negotiate peace, rather he proposed a possible truce with HIS conditions.  Feel free to mention the truce, but also mention that it is common practice among Islamic extremists to talk of truce when they want to reconstitute their offensive capabilities.  And a question: How do you negotiate with someone who believes that his God wants him to kill you because you are the "infidel"?  If you come up with that solution, you should be given the Nobel Peace Prize. Jeravicious 22:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  al-Qaeda's "peace offer" 

message: Through out the article, it changes from al-Qaeda to Al-Qaeda to al Qaeda... which one is it? What is the correct capitalization/hyphenation? jess523s 04:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al-Qaeda, al Qaeda, al-Qaeda? 

message: Many of the "access dates" were incorrect and a lot of them had a date before the published article. Many of them didn't have the date of the article as well. Skinnyweed 02:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something weird with the inline citations 

message: Adding Al-Qaeda to the :Category:Terrorist organizations along with the IRA, LTTE and Hammas.Hypnosadist 20:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding to [[:Category:Terrorist organizations]] 

message: Please change references to this person into past tense. --68.97.208.232 18:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abu Musab al-Zarqawi 

message: - We hear about it so much on the news, so where is it? 71.15.47.152 15:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the Al Qaeda website? 

message: The full English text of the 2004 Osama bin Laden video released through Al Jazeera is now a Wikisource text here: Wikisource:October_2004_Osama_bin_Laden_videotape. As such it can be cited and linked to from this article. Without weighing in one way or another on whether this information should  be included in the al-Qaeda article, I will at least include a hyperlink to the Wikisource and properly format the Al Jazeera reference to start.--Historypre 01:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  October 2004 Osama bin Laden video transcript is now a [[Wikisource]] text

message: I organized the article a bit.  The diff looks like I took an axe to the article but actually I just moved some sections (without changing content) in an attempt to make the Table of Contents more useful and informative.
::::::::-- That Guy, From That Show! 09:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subheadings added 

message: This article still needs quite a bit of work to be ready for being placed on the main page.
One concern of mine is that the article is rather unweildy in size (57K).  I suggest that the 'Activities' subheading be split off into a separate article due to it taking up quite a bit of space.  Another problem:  that section that has the least amount of references/cites.
IMO, a short summary and link to a subpage would make getting this article featured on the main page much easier.
(A lot of work during the next month on the rest of the article, a peer review, and then try for featured article?)
::::::::-- That Guy, From That Show! 01:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article? 

message: A few people seem to equate avoiding terms like 'Terrorist' as an indication that those who use 'Militant' are somehow biased and/or support Osama bin Laden somehow.  This is not the case.
Reading the talk archives for this and similar articles is a good way to find out why 'Militant' is often more accurate and non-biased.
Also, the guideline for Wikipedia writing style explains the problem(s) with the word 'Terrorist' specifically in detail.  For those new to Wikipedia or not familiar with this guideline I suggest that you read Words to avoid.
::::::::Regards, -- That Guy, From That Show! 01:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: RE: RE: RE: Militant vs Terrorist (ack)