Wikipedia

Talk:Al-Qaeda/Archive 2

< Talk:Al-Qaeda
Latest comment: 20 years ago by Graft in topic This article sucks
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

The Name

Where did this business about the group "changing its name" to "Qaida-al-jihad" come from? Did they issue a press release? Reletter their headquarters? Can someone give a source for this? Graft 17:35, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Okay, now at two points in the text we have two different explanations for where the name comes from - or are they different aspects of the same story? If necessary I think I can find my reference for the computer-file story, but I don't think it's a very reliable one... anyone have any better leads on this? I'm especially curious about the qaida-al-jihad story, because it would be at least close to a self-referential incident. Graft 13:48, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Websites

I strenuously object to the inclusion of all these websites. What evidence is there that these are related to al-Qaeda? Can someone provide some references for these? Do they need to take up so much space in the article? They're not very important. In other words, if someone can't mount a good defense of them, I'm going to remove the whole section. Graft 21:07, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Regarding Ramzi Yousef and KSM - why is Ramzi an al-Qaida member? How are we even calling him that? Does someone have a photocopy of his membership card? Maybe his al-Qaida quarterly newsletter addressed to him in the Colorado Supermax? Do we even have any reliable information on how al-Qaida is structured? Are we even sure it's an actual organization? While I'm at it - what evidence do we have that KSM masterminded the 9/11 attacks? The say-so of the CIA, who has changed their "mastermind" around three times already? Second-hand torture testimony? Sorry to be so caustic, but when you swallow the hook, line and sinker, do you have to swallow the rod as well? Can you reference some of these claims with some reliable sources, or otherwise qualify them? Graft, in a bad mood today

Graft, you may want to look at the external links. That's where I got the information from about the websites. By the way, the websites ARE quite important, as Al Qaeda may be communicating over the internet WhisperToMe 00:22, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Okay... al Qaida MAY be communicating over the internet. This is very, very, very different from saying "Al Qaida had possessed several websites." First, many of those sites are down and we can't trace their content... Second, I haven't seen the chain of reasoning establishing an ORGANIZATIONAL connection between those websites and al-Qaida, other than allegation and sympathetic content. I could put up an al-Qaida news website tomorrow, but that doesn't make it an al-Qaida website, because I am not an al-Qaida operative. At the very least this section is publishing allegation as fact. Perhaps alneda really was an al-Qaida site used for disseminating information, but I think the rest of it is pretty weak, and we should at the LEAST be heavily qualifying the truth of the claim that al-Qaida is using the internet, if not ignoring it altogether lacking any substantial evidence. Graft 16:46, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
The main reason that people felt that Alneda was an Al Qaeda website was because the site was used to connect to more secure servers, which may have been run by the organization. In addition, Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for two of its attacks on Jehad.net

Its really odd how persistent the guys were in trying to keep the site alive. I'm going to put a link about it in the Alneda.com article. WhisperToMe 21:38, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

If Al-Qaida is so ideologically similar to the Saudi regime, then why has Bin Laden repeatedly threatened them? In fact, if I remember correctly, he said that the Saudis were at the top of the list of targets.

"Perhaps the quote that best summerizies the group's intents is the fatwa issued by Bin Laden in 1998:

"To kill Americans and their allies, civilians and military, is an individual duty of every Muslim who is able.". "

Does this quote belong in the article? WhisperToMe 04:11, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mossad Connection

Latest comment: 20 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

WhisperToMe, would you care to demonstrate how you know the Mossad has not pulled tricks like the one in Gaza in the past? This one incident casts doubt on every supposed "al Quada" terrorist attack in history. Each of those instances needs to be reexamined and cautions need to be added to ensure people have a neutral point of view. It is CLEARLY BIASED to remove this evidence that the Mossad DO fake terrorist activities to further the military goals of Israel. Unless you can wiggle your way out of this trap you talked yourself into, I think it's time you put that entry back where it belongs. Energybone 07:25, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Find a CNN source that says so. I cannot really mess with you right now until I am finished with my Spanish final that I am typing, so someone will have to address you on this.

Energybone, you may want to stop and think carefully about what you are doing. What may seem like universal fact to you may turn out not to be. WhisperToMe 08:40, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

This article sucks

Latest comment: 20 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
While I agree with WhisperToMe above, that the importance of the Mossad incident should not be overstated, in general I think this article leans far too heavily in the direction of credulity.
Many rather dubious claims in this article are wholly unsourced and desperately under-qualified. For example, the entire section 'the chain of command' is incredible. This is supposedly the structure of an incredibly secretive organisation. They don't publish this sort of information in pamphlets, or advertise it in infomercials in television recruitment drives. How was this information arrived at? How dubious is it? Why are we including it in this article? Have we no standards at all?
The entire 'terrorist attacks' section is a litany of "has been held responsible" (by whom?) and lists of people "linked to" and "associated with" al-Qaida, with no indication of how or why they are so linked. Since a substantial portion of the information on al-Qaida derives from governments and intelligence agencies with no independent avenues of confirmation, it is extremely unreliable. Let's not kid ourselves about how forthright our governments are.
I'm of a mind to start from scratch, scrapping everything in this article that isn't sourced, and rebuilding it with qualifications as to where information comes from, that would at least allow the reader to decide what is reliable and what is not. In any event the article should take a guarded tone and emphasize the uncertainty of available information, which it certainly does not. On the contrary it seems far too sure of itself for an area in which information is patchy and disinformation is replete. Graft 17:41, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

The "chain" came from a section in my World Geography textbook, which also appeared in a World History Textbook made by the same company. They used USA Today articles, so if someone has an archive...

As to handle stuff that is claimed by someone, but not independently verified, try the X says this approach. WhisperToMe 18:02, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

WhisperToMe, you still haven't addressed how this "chain of command" was deciphered. Simply stating that you believe it because you read it in USA Today is not good enough for me and clearly it's not good enough for many people. I second the notion that this article is an absolute mess, and contains more garbage than facts. I'm willing to add my input or propose entire re-writes as appropriate. Energybone 18:31, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Again, if one says where it came from, then one can decide whether or not the source is reliable :) - Besides, the USA Today is a major USA newspaper and is generally considered to be a reliable secondary source.

The whole point of the flow chart shows who controls who, and the roles of each "division". WhisperToMe 19:10, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

I am of the belief that wikipedia articles should aspire to the rigor of scientific journals rather than newspaper articles; this means facts should be backed up by primary references where possible, or by reliable secondary references in other cases.
This appears to be the USA today article in question. It includes a lot of meaningful information, including pointers to primary sources like this interview with bin Laden himself. I suggest we comb through that article and others, and pull together as many primary sources as we can, and use them to rebuild a better-documented article. Graft 21:13, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
You appear to be right - This site does have a flow chart of how Al-Qaida's power is said to be organized.

I love primary sources - I was squealing with joy when I found an interview that Bojinka plotter Abdul Hakim Murad made with an interrogator. WhisperToMe 21:27, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Wow, a flow-chart. And how exactly does that explain how this chain of command was learned? And where is the evidence that this chain of command held or even existed? Your evidence is as weak as your case. Energybone 03:12, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

I highly suggest people read the trial transcript with testimony from Jamal al-Fadl (linked below)... it's very illuminating, and contradicts several points in this article. Graft 23:12, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
Energybone, read the trial testimony of Jamal al-Fadl - he describes the structure of al-Qaida based on his own observation and years of work with it. This appears to be the source for most of the information on shura council, committees, etc. How much he made up or changed is uncertain, but it seems to be reasonably credible, and at any rate it's as pretty damn good source as you're going to get, all things considered. Graft 19:39, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

al-Qaida's goal seems misleading

The paragraph that gives Saudi Arabia as an example of a Wahhabi government, and then claims that al-Qaida's goal is to get rid of non-Wahhabi governments seems a bit misleading considering that bin Laden was kicked out of Saudi Arabia for trying to start an insurrection there in the early 90s(expelled in 94). Danny Rathjens 03:50, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that al-Qaida is at all Wahhabi. I suspect this paragraph was written in order to strengthen the connection between al-Qaida and Saudi Arabia (ridiculous since most of bin Laden's invective is directed AGAINST Saudi Arabia's rulers, and the royal family is terrified of bin Laden and has engaged in enormous witchhunts to root out divergent Islamist viewpoints that bin Laden supports (e.g. see his comments here). I've refrained from altering the text because I'm not sure what the actual philosophical basis of al-Qaida is - there's heavy influence from the Muslim Brotherhood (many in al-Qaida are former Brothers), but it's not clear to me that they haven't diverged. Graft 14:03, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
How about changing it to make it clear that noone does really know their goals(or aims referring to AQ aims belows)? Perhaps provide a list of possible goals such as overthrowing current islamic regimes, pan-islamism, enforced wahhabism via sharia law, etc. As for bin Laden's stated aim of driving americans out of islamic countries; I see that as simply a means to an end, rather than his real goal. I think he is simply taking advantage of anti-americanism(and attempting to increase it by spreading tales of americans killing babies and whatnot) as a means of recruiting and building power. Giving a group of people an external enemy is the oldest trick in the book for unifying them. --Danny Rathjens 22:51, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

AQ aims

Should it not be mentioned that AQ aims to have no system but the Islamic State across the world, or that this is at least a supposed aim, rather than supposing that AQ only objects to US interference in the Middle East and that it can therefore be easily calmed and placated.

I see no evidence for the proposition that al-Qaida seeks world domination... in fact their actions have been fairly consistently directed towards simply removing the United States from the Arabian peninsula and generally supporting Islamist movements within Islamic nations. What leads you to conclude that al-Qaida aims to have an Islamic system dominating the entire world? Graft 14:03, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
As an example, bin Laden says in a 1998 interview with John Miller:
Among [the orders of Allah] is the order to fight for the word of Allah ... and to fight until the Americans are driven out of all the Islamic countries.
This, I think, is what bin Laden sees as the purpose of al-Qaida. Graft 15:03, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

List of useful sources

Al-qaeda represents muslim struggle.

Many people would call any one who defends al-qaeda a terrorist,but as a matter of fact this group of people is standing infront of the american monster that has taken morals and values in its own hands and manipulated them to what suits its perverted view of freedom.Apart from the killings of civilians,al-qaeda is a ligitimate resistance against the de-moralization of the world and neo-colonialism,besides USA has killed more civilians than al-qaeda might dream of,hiroshima & nagazaki 250,000 innocent lives in a blink of an eye,Iraq and afganistan 10,000 and counting.War is hell,and al-qaeda is fighting what more than 30 muslim countries are not willing to fight,because of their american appointed puppets and their iron fists.Al-qead is a step on the road to a free palestine and a free iraq and a free afganistan,not the american version of freedom(strip bars and gambling casinos) a decent and respectful freedom,because that is what islam represents.

That's a POV. Here, we go with the facts, not an opinion. WhisperToMe 21:06, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Speaking of facts, has Osama bin Laden been charged yet or simply accused of allegedly masterminding or ordering the September 11 attacks? The FBI's website still doesn't mention it, it only says he's wanted in connection to the embassay bombings and conspiracy to kill american citizens outside the united states. --Omar 11:52, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
He has not been charged with 9/11. The current wanted posters specify the charge (and, IIRC, conviction in abstentia? or am I wrong on that) that he was behind the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings. I think the high dollar award, though, $25 million from the US government, was done primarily after 9/11. Before then, I think it was $5 million. --Golbez 14:00, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

WhisperToMe, we've had this argument before about al-Qaida and the internet. You have to stop putting incredibly dubious bits of information into the article. I mean, what the heck is this about:

Al-Qaida-backed crackers probably were behind an October 16, 2003 denial of service attack against a website called Internet Haganah (web (http://haganah.org.il/haganah/)).

I read the external link; the self-inflating guesswork of a desktop cowboy don't qualify as enough evidence to justify that "probably", at all. Can you provide some hard facts?

This page is cluttered with "maybes" and "probablys" and lots and lots of really dubious junk. This is an encyclopedia, not the Daily Mirror. Let's keep it clean, shall we? Graft 21:35, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You are really, really late into reading this external link. But aside from that, if there isn't a better way to word that, it can go.

As for other maybes and probablies, if they are mentioned in mainstream media sources, we have to fiugure out how best to word them. WhisperToMe 00:32, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC) 

Why dont you say nothing about Al-Quaida war against Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo? Mujahedeens are steel there...

Organizational Structure

I agree with Graft, that we should be careful about defining Al-Qaida as an "organization." The major news outlets seem to have created the image that Al-Qaida is an organizational structure, along with "top officials" and such. The fact that there is no official name (Al-Qaida was, as the article states, a name coined by investigators, not OBL or anyone linked to him). The problem is that this creates a simple world-view, resulting in the advocacy of unilateral action that doesn't take into account the fact that terrorist "groups" are small, funded from a variety of disparate (unrelated) sources and seem to rarely communicate; they simply seem to have a similar mission. For example, I doubt OBL gives "orders" to any terrorists directly -- he's a leader only in the sense that the disparate groups follow his misguided principles and teachings. They probably hear about him the same way we do -- through the media (or by word of mouth). Is there anyone with more experience or insight into how these groups work who can help me clarify the point I'm trying to make? 

   --Sarcasticninja 07:11, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
I've somewhat changed my mind since then. I think we should be careful about stating that the structure is unknown, especially now - however, if you read the US vs bin Laden trial transcript linked above, you will see testimony from an al-Qaida defector, Jamal al-Fadal (nicknamed "Junior" by the fuzz), who seems to be the major source for information on al-Qaida structure. He was cited in FBI (i think) testimony to the 9-11 commission along with "other sources", which presumably are about as important as the text on the back of Cracker Jacks boxes, as having given the FBI a clearer picture of the structure of al-Qaida. I don't know what to think of his testimony, but it provides a cogent picture, names the right names, and doesn't seem wholly ridiculous. It gives a picture up until about 98? or so, when al-Fadal "defected", i.e. was caught in connection with the embassy bombings. He's a rat and a crook, the sort of low-life you'd expect to say anything to get free. Anyway, he gets quoted with some authority, he probably really WAS al-Qaida, and he lends a certain air of credibility to the claims of structure. Graft 19:56, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I just changed one of the external links that was mischaracterizing the linked article, possibly politically motivated (either anti-US or anti-Carter). The whole set of links needs to be cleaned up and whittled down to those that are important. Anyone agree? 

   --Sarcasticninja 07:31, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

US Actions created al-Qaida

Can we dump this section? It's really shitty and POV. Or at least pare it down considerably. Graft 17:26, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Seconded. They didn't create Al-Qaida, which was existing back in the 80's. Actions like the Gulf War may have fueled it, but that is already established in the history section. WhisperToMe 00:20, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"==Did US actions create and/or support al-Qaida?==

Some people believe that al-Qaida would not have come into being without the US funding and training given to the Afghan mujahedeen fighting the Soviet invasion of 1979 to 1989. The Pakistani military regime may have tended to supply the most extreme Islamist Afghan fighters with the lion's share of the imported weaponry.

Critics of US and Western policies in the Middle East and worldwide note that some actions have caused a great deal of opposition among Arab and Islamic people, and regard terrorism as a predictable reaction. Examples of controversial policies are

I moved it to talk. Let's see how we can NPOV this statement. WhisperToMe 00:21, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Name translitteration

An anonymous user has been changing the spelling of al-quaeda/al-quaida and usama/osama throughout the document? Was there consensus around the previous spelling? Is this change controversial? — David Remahl 12:21, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There wasn't consensus. (The user also changed the spellings on Osama bin Laden.) Here's my take.

  • "Qaeda" gets 2 million hits on Google. "Qaida" only gets 1 million. It looks to me like "Qaeda" would be better.
  • "Usama" gets 150 thousand hits on Google, while "Osama" gets 2 million. I think "Osama" is the more standard transliteration.
    – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 14:47, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)


While we're at it, I believe the first "a" in the "al" of "al-Qaeda" should not be capitalized (unless it's the first word in a sentence). ("al" is just the article "the"). I think "Osama bin Laden" is a good standard English spelling for his name even though the FBI and Fox News like to use "Usama" and the US military is fond of "UBL".Alberuni 15:26, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Changing the spelling in language links has broken them. If it is decided here to change internal links to a different spelling make sure that the language links are untouched or make simultaneous changes to those wikis. - Tεxτurε 15:58, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

List of countries that Al-Qaida has operated in

How can we make a list of countries that Al-Qaida has operated in? Can we add specifics? Can we show how the sources on them differ? How does a country "count"? Here is a listing based on the U.S. Department of Defense. This section was removed by Graft.

"According to the United States Department of State as of 2001, al-Qaida has operated in the following countries. 

*Albania    
*Algeria    
*Afghanistan    
*Azerbaijan    
*Australia    
*Austria    
*Bahrain    
*Bangladesh    
*Belgium    
*Bosnia and Herzegovina    
*Egypt    
*Eritrea    
*France    
*Germany    
*India    

*Iran    
*Ireland    
*Italy    
*Jordan    
*Kenya    
*Kosovo    
*Lebanon    
*Libya    
*Malaysia    
*Mauritania    
*Netherlands    
*Pakistan    
*Philippines    
*Qatar    
*Russia    

*Saudi Arabia    
*Somalia    
*South Africa    
*Sudan    
*Switzerland    
*Tajikistan    
*Tanzania    
*Tunisia    
*Turkey    
*Uganda    
*United Arab Emirates    
*United Kingdom    
*United States    
*Uzbekistan    
*Yemen

Al-Qaida is also considered to be responsible for the March 11, 2004 Madrid attacks in Spain, and a suspected member named Lionel Dumont is suspected of laundering money while working as a used-car dealer in Niigata, Japan." -- WhisperToMe 21:38, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I removed it because I don't find this list useful at all. Giving equal prominence to Sudan and Italy (where, as far as I know, there have been no al-Qaida attacks at all) is daft; if the list were highly detailed, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but I feel that purpose is better served by, e.g., the history section and the attacks section. Plus, given the crap floating around about how Iran "gave safe passage to" 9/11 hijackers (like Germany "gave safe passage to" 9/11 hijackers), lists like this should be taken with a huge brick of salt, especially when they come from U.S. propaganda outfits. Graft 13:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The idea that al-Qaeda is omnipresent, that this organisation is behind all the Islamist terrorist attacks the world is experiencing, is actually helping al-Qaeda. That in itself is not an argument for not including it in this article. However, it is a fact that there is not very much evidence that al-Qaeda is the organiser behind all these attacks, and that there is no evidence that al-Qaeda exists as a centrally controlled globally operating organisation, and that is a very important point for this article. al-Qaeda has been made into a global brand name, for political propaganda reasons which suit the interests of the Bush government. We should not collaborate in this propaganda effort, because it is factually difficult to support. See for example this article [1] which makes these points. - pir 14:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Without more detail, a vague list of countries serves very little purpose. Why is Germany on the list but not Canada? Why is Australia on the list but not Indonesia? Why is Saudi Arabia on the list but not Kuwait? Etc. etc. This U.S. government list of al-Qaeda infested countries reminds me of the White House list claiming, against their will, that Costa Rica and Spain are members of the Coalition of the Willingaka "Coalition for War on Iraq". As GRAFT pointed out, it is just propaganda. On the other hand, al-Qaeda doesn't issue annual reports on their activities. They are a loosely-linked global network of like-minded militants tied together by ideology and tactics. Asking to list the countries in which al-Qaeda is "active" (what does that mean? fundraising? recruiting? plotting? disseminating propaganda? vacationing?) is like trying to list the countries in which the internet is active. Alberuni 14:32, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Does al-Qaida exist?

Please don't dismiss this question too quickly — I think it is a side of the story that Wikipedia should address. I've seen a number of sources which argue that "al-Qaida" is not an organization at all, but rather a rubric invented by the U.S. government to describe a disparate bunch of sometimes-allied Islamic terrorist organizations with similar religious views. One recent quotation:

"The Power of Nightmares seeks to overturn much of what is widely believed about Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. The latter, it argues, is not an organised international network. It does not have members or a leader. It does not have "sleeper cells". It does not have an overall strategy. In fact, it barely exists at all, except as an idea about cleansing a corrupt world through religious violence.
"Curtis' evidence for these assertions is not easily dismissed. He tells the story of Islamism, or the desire to establish Islam as an unbreakable political framework, as half a century of mostly failed, short-lived revolutions and spectacular but politically ineffective terrorism. Curtis points out that al-Qaida did not even have a name until early 2001, when the American government decided to prosecute Bin Laden in his absence and had to use anti-Mafia laws that required the existence of a named criminal organisation." The Guardian, "The making of the terror myth"

If this is true, then it suggests that referring to al-Qaida as a membership organization, with a particular number of members and a particular internal structure, is misleading. It would also show several statements in the article, such as "Al-Qaida was established by Osama bin Laden in 1988", doubtful if not entirely meaningless. Moreover, it suggests that describing any person as a "member of al-Qaida" is dangerous; if there is no roster of members of al-Qaida, and no specific enumeration of terrorist groups that are part of al-Qaida, then such an accusation would be unfalsifiable. —FOo 13:42, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To follow up to my own comment — The claim that "al-Qaida did not even have a name until early 2001" is apparently quite inaccurate. The first reference to "al-Qaeda" (the more common spelling) on Usenet is here, a U.S. government news release from August 1998. —FOo 14:06, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There's a fairly specific account of the history of al-Qaida by a defector named Jamal al-Fadl, who describes the structure of the organisation at its inception in Afghanistan in 1988 and its early activities in Sudan through the 90s. While I think it's true that it's made to be somewhat more than it is, and every Tom, Dick and Harry terrorist gets stuffed into the al-Qaida sack, I think it's reasonable to conclude based on the evidence of him and other defectors/captives that there is an organisation led by bin Laden with some sort of membership. I'll take the "sleeper cell" stuff with a grain of salt, but there is certainly some bit of truth in all the lies surrounding al-Qaida. Graft 17:23, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Qaeda/Archive_2&oldid=1136504077"