Talk:Al-Qaeda/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

An obvious question: How many members?

The article doesn't seem to answer an obvious question, which I posit ought to be under a separate heading:

How many members does al-Qaeda have? And how are they organized on a ground level basis?

I think this is an important question, and I hope someone has an answer. Are we fighting a ten million man force, or a couple of hundred crazies? --TallulahBelle (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It is generally thought that there used to be a small group called Al-Qaeda, but because of certain geopolitical developments it has over time come to mean a certain political notion. An older summary from the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1670089.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by IceHunter (talk • contribs) 20:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The numbers of Al-Qaeda are a key question, since it ought to be clear how many people the democracies of the West are fighting. I propose a separate section be devoted to the numbers issue. All in favor?--TallulahBelle (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Were you planning to make a distinction between the original al Qaida, and al Qaeda in Iraq? I think that is a good idea.

Numerous Guantanamo captives faced the allegation that their name was on a list of 324 Arabic names. Some might think this puts a bottom limit on the number of members of al Qaeda at 324. My own interpretation of this is that this is not a list of al Qaida members. IIRC most (all?) captives whose names are on this list testified that they had to flee in a hurry, when it became open season on Arabs, who were worth $5000 to bounty hunters, and had fled without trying to retrieve their passport. One theory I have on this list is that it is not a list of members -- that it is a list of blackmarket passports including those of these guys who had fled without retrieving their passports -- and al Qaeda's possession of the passport, and the listing of it, could imply no guilt at all.

Several Guantanamo captives are accused of serving in Osama bin Laden's 55th Arab Brigade -- a al Qaeda mechanized unit that he commanded, under the Taliban's over-all control. In normal usage a brigade is at least two battalions, right? So, if this were a conventional brigade, in a conventional army, it would contain somewhere between 1000 and, um, I don't know, 6000(?) men. The International Brigades, like the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, during the Spanish Civil War, were essentially conventional units. I wonder whether OBL's name was meant to echo the International Brigades? I doubt it, even though there is one huge parallel. (Both groups were made up of foreigners had traveled to a foreign country, to engage in someone else's war, based on a shared ideology. Volunteers in the Spanish Civil War shared an anti-fascist ideology. Al Qaeda's volunteers, presumably, share a form of Sunni fundamentalism.)

• FWIW, if the US allegation that the 55th Arab Brigade fought under the overall command of the Taliban, then would they be entitled to as much protection under the Geneva Convention as the Taliban's Afghan fighters.

The testimony of some of the Guantanamo captives show that some foreigners who went to Afghanistan to fight were never associated with the Taliban. There were two foreign volunteers who ended going straight from Taliban basic training circa 1999 to a Taliban prison, circa 1999. Taliban counter-intelligence had the same sense of justice as the USA is showing at Guantanamo. Suspicion was enough They suspected these two were American spies. So they threw them into the Taliban's equivalent of Guantanamo, tortured them, and never gave them a trial.

• These two basically passed right from Taliban custody to US custody.

Some of those who drafted the Summary of Evidence (CSRT) memos conflated the two sets "al Qaeda members" and "anyone who spent a month at a military training camp in Afghanistan". A mistake in my view. In a regular basic training camp, run by a real country, if you are drafted, and you enlist, and find you didn't like basic training, you don't get to go home. You would be a deserter, until you get a medical, or some other kind of discharge. But al Qaeda is not a country. So potential recruits were encouraged to attend the al Qaeda camps, just because "all observant muslims are obliged to get military training, so they could defend their homeland, if it were invaders". Others wanted military training so could go back home and defend their village or tribe in a local tribal war.

• Further, there is strong evidence that many of the training camps in Afghanistan had no ties to al Qaeda. Indian intelligence estimated that there were over 100 military training camps in Afghanistan. There is evidence that the oldest and most famous camp, Khalden camp, had never been associated with al Qaeda.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not in favor, because as I told you there isn't a number. If the west pisses on the middleeast - they are all in, otherwise fewer and fewer over time. But the real step towards peace on the planet is to start doing something about religion - of course that probably has a long time to go.--IceHunter (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Speculating about numbers is probably pointless. And more particularly, would be a violation of the policy proscribing original research. However listing the individuals who have been officially accused of being associated with al Qaeda, or those identified by knowledgagle commentators, would be useful, encyclopedic, and a manageable task.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that there is any evidence to suggest that Al qaeda has any members.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 20:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Bosnia

Old version restored, discuss any changes here.

I propose to add something about the rumoured or real (I don't follow this closely enough) extremist camps in the post-war period. --HanzoHattori (talk) 11:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hanzo (and others), I did discuss the proposed changes here. The main problems with the version you are reverting to is that it focuses on the secular nature of the local Bosnian Muslims instead of describing the links between Bosnia and Al Qaeda (which the other version focuses on). Yes, the large majority of Bosnian Muslims are fairly secular, but what the sources (notably Kohlmann) state is that the Bosnian War and the participation of the Bosnian Mujahideen played an important role in giving Al Qaeda access to Europe and radicalized many European muslims (both inside and outside Bosnia). By not stating this the other version is misrepresenting the source.Osli73 (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Just propose the actual changes and we'll discuss. About this one, I already said it's misinformation ("Western intervention created" thing). You may propose something well-sourced on these camps if you want, for a starter. --HanzoHattori (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hanzo, I did propose a change and there was no opposition to it. I'm not quite sure why you feel the version I proposed is "misinformation". It is based on some well respected sources (Kohlmann and Holbrook amongst others). However, it is the version you are proposing which (a) doesn't deal with the subject (ie WP:COATRACK)and (b) misrepresent the sources (ie WP:OR). Since I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this, I suggest that we take our respective versions and get some outside/3rd party comments. How about that?Osli73 (talk) 11:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Also: in this section we DON'T discuss Osli's Wikipedia background. --HanzoHattori (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The 'background' is that I've often come head to head with what I believe are nationalist motivated editors. However, I don't think you, Hanzo, are one.Osli73 (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

OSLI, propose your CHANGES TO THE OLD VERSION (it's not even mine!) HERE. And wait for consensus. --HanzoHattori (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hanzo - Two comments;

• First (again) I did propse the changes here on the Talk page and then went ahead. I'm sorry if you missed that discussion.
• Second, I realize it may not be 'your' version but by reverting to it you are endorsing it over the one I am proposing.

How about the outside mediation? Otherwise I'm afraid we will get nowhere.Osli73 (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I asked you to PROPOSE CHANGES TO THE EXISTING VERSION (the restored one from before the edit wars). Like what and where (exactly) would you add or remove and why.

Your rival version was scrapped too. It's here for a possible discussion if someone'd like to comment on this:

Following the end of the Bosnian War and, especially, after the 11 September attacks on the World Trade Center, Serbian propaganda started to fabricate the links between the group of Muslim foreign volunteers that fought in Bosnia, and Al Qaeda, in order to move the focus from the genocide committed by Serb forces in Bosnia to more interesting topic such as terrorism. According to Radio Free Europe produced research by Vlado Azinovic about alleged links between Bosnia and Al Qaeda Al Qaeda in Bosnia: Myth Or Present Danger, the claims about Al Qaeda in Bosnia are unverified and mostly fabricated. The presence of Wahhabism and of the remaining Muslim fighters do not qualify Bosnia as a particular threat to international security, according to the Azinovic's conclusion. Further more, Azinovic quotes Evan F. Kohlmann:

Serb propaganda throughout the whole war had portrayed the Bosnian Muslims as violent extremists, fundamentalists, and as eager to jump on the bandwagon of the mujahedin.

I don't think it's good but the original (RFE/RL's Al Qaeda in Bosnia: Myth Or Present Danger) sounds like a good source (and it's actually a book[1]).

In the meantime, I cleaned up the whole article. --HanzoHattori (talk) 03:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for jumping into the middle of this, but I think user:Osli73's version here is better. It's much better sourced than the proposed alternative, which essentially denies that there were any extremist elements in Bosnia at all. If that is indeed the case, than that paragraph really doesn't belong in the article at all, and would be better-placed in the Serb Propaganda article. However, the presence of Muslim extremists in the Bosnian conflict is undeniable, and Osli's sources make a credible attempt to connect them to al-Qaeda. Maybe as a compromise we could include both version? Dchall1 (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Dchall1, I agree that we should integrate the two versions, see my reply below. No one denies the fact of Islamic volunteers presence in the Bosnian war, but this article deals with Al Qaida not with foreign volunteers. There is no offical document of any international organization in Bosnia (such as NATO, EUFOR, EUPM) to support the claim of Al Qaida existence in Bosnia. On the other hand there are a lot of speculation and certainly propaganda. If we want to talk about foreign volunteers we have to mention those facts. But please read my proposal below. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think the newly-added paragraph on Srebrenica is entirely irrelevant. Again, the focus is more on the Serbs and Serbian propaganda, while the subject connection to al-Qaeda is tenuous at best. Any objections to removing it? Dchall1 (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Dchall1, I've gone ahead and done just that. Also removed some other bit which was completely unsourced.Osli73 (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

"essentially denies that there were any extremist elements in Bosnia at all." Excuse me? "Several close associates of Osama bin Laden (most notably, Saudi Khalid bin Udah bin Muhammad al-Harbi, alias Abu Sulaiman al-Makki) joined the conflict in Bosnia." denies what? --HanzoHattori (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hanzo, the version you have now is fine. I was referring to the proposal Following the end of the Bosnian War... above, which is unacceptably POV-ish. That said, Osli's version has some important points. Can't we integrate the two instead of revert-warring? Dchall1 (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

DoB, you stop this too. --HanzoHattori (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, why won't you (both) take this dispute back to Bosnian Mujahideen? --HanzoHattori (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Dragon's proposals

I am trying to discuss it, but Osli73 stopped to co-operate. Bosnian Mujahideen article is under mediation, maybe it will be deleted. The problem is Bosnian Mujahideen article was written by Osli73 who is trying to connect it to Al Qaida which is the first mistake here (these two articles are not the same subject, so the link to the "main article" (Bosnian Mujahideen) should be removed). He created this article because he didn't like the existing ones covering the same topic such as 7th Muslim Brigade or simply Mujahideen.

I would ask you first to read the discussion in Talk:Bosnian Mujahideen, because I already provided the evidence for my claims. The most important claim here is the title of the article is wrong. The first sentence of this article begins with this words: "Bosnian Mujahideen (also referred to as El Mujaheed or El Mujahid)...". This is completely wrong introduction, and wrong title. There is no source in Osli73's whole article which supports this title: Bosnian Mujahideen. Second, the sentence also says, "also referred to as El Mujahideen". But it isn't referred to as El Mujahideen because Bosnian Mujadideen is fabricated term or original research made by Osli73, which he now tries to promote in different articles. On the other hand, El Mujahideen is completely different term. El Mujahideen is a military unit. There are already two articles which cover the subject of this wrong title article, the first article is Mujahideen, the second article is 7th Muslim Brigade. There is also the third article called The role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war which also covers this. There were other terms such as Arab mujahideen or Arab fighters when referring to their role in Bosnian war, but the Bosnian Mujadideen is neologism created by Osli73, the term isn't validated by the ICTY nor by any other court on this planet (Wikipedia:Verifiability:Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.). Osli73 created this redundant article just because he didn't like the existing articles and he wanted to connect Bosnia somehow with terrorism in order to move the focus from the genocide article, so he joined the two terms together Bosnia and Mujahideen. Just read his explanation about his motive for writing this article. After that he nominated 7th Muslim Brigade for deletion?! But that is not how Wikipedia works.

I agree that we should integrate two versions. Here is my improved version, so please read it:

During the Yugoslav wars, Bosnia-Herzegovina received humanitarian aid from Islamic countries as well as from the West, because of intensive and widespread killing, mass rapes, death camps, ethnic cleansing committed by Serb and, to a lesser extent, Croat forces. The main targets were Bosnian Muslim civilians. The world's highest court concluded that these crimes, committed during the 1992 -95 war, were crimes against humanity and genocide (dolus specialis) regarding Srebrenica region according to the Genocide Convention.

Following such massacres, a few hundreds of Arab volunteers came across Croatia into Bosnia to help the Bosnian Army protect the Bosnian Muslim civilian population. The number of the El-Mudžahid volunteers is still disputed, from around 300 to 1,500.

Following the end of the Bosnian War and, especially, after the 11 September attacks on the World Trade Center, Serbian propaganda started to fabricate the links between the group of Muslim foreign volunteers that fought in Bosnia, and Al Qaeda, in order to move the focus from the genocide committed by Serb forces in Bosnia to more interesting topic such as terrorism. According to Radio Free Europe produced research by Vlado Azinovic about alleged links between Bosnia and Al Qaeda Al Qaeda in Bosnia: Myth Or Present Danger, the claims about Al Qaeda in Bosnia are unverified and mostly fabricated. The presence of Wahhabism and of the remaining Muslim fighters do not qualify Bosnia as a particular threat to international security, according to the Azinovic's conclusion. Further more, Azinovic quotes Evan F. Kohlmann:

Serb propaganda throughout the whole war had portrayed the Bosnian Muslims as violent extremists, fundamentalists, and as eager to jump on the bandwagon of the mujahedin.

The Srebrenica Genocide, was the July 1995 killing of an estimated 8,000 Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) boys and men, in the region of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina by units of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) and a paramilitary unit from Serbia known as the "Scorpions" under the command of General Ratko Mladić during the Bosnian War. The Serb propaganda tried to deny the genocide and to present victims as the terrorists or foreign Islamic fighters. On September 21, 2003, president Bill Clinton honored the dead and condemned the genocidal madness. After his visit some of Serb media portrayed him as the Al Qaida supporter. Serb historian Carl Savich, described Bill Clintons's visit to Srebrenica Genocide Memorial as a visit to the killed mujahedeen soldiers at Srebrenica and to the memorial in Arabic, not Slavic "Bosnian" language.

As you can see I base this on ICTY findings and Radio Free Europe research not on media reports. Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Bosnian Mujahideen - I see. Now, it's not about Srebrenica, it's about aQ involvement (I believe there were absolutely no Qaeda-connected elements in the Srebrenica pocket) and it's not about the Serb propaganda neither (I actually remember claims of "Islamic terrorists" etc, but it's on par with claims the German attack on Warsaw Ghetto was a legitimate action against "Jewish terrorists"). I know what you want to say, but it's not really about the crimes of war, unless related to the Qaeda members. Else it's just off-topic. The introduction as it is in the article right now is okay for me, actually maybe even bit to long while politically-militarily explaining the conflict (other chapters of the article usually don't get such treatment).

However, According to Radio Free Europe produced research by Vlado Azinovic about alleged links between Bosnia and Al Qaeda Al Qaeda in Bosnia: Myth Or Present Danger, the claims about Al Qaeda in Bosnia are unverified and mostly fabricated. The presence of Wahhabism and of the remaining Muslim fighters do not qualify Bosnia as a particular threat to international security, according to the Azinovic's conclusion. is valid, just needs a link (like the review of this book I already mentioned above) and a slight rewording (Al Qaeda to al-Qaeda etc).

The actual figures on volunteers' numbers cited too would be a good addition (I didn't check the sources), but it should be mentioned only a faction was bin Laden-connected in any way (1,500 would be a huge number if someone thought they were all AQ fighters, for example more than many estimates of the strenght of al-Qaeda in Iraq at any given moment). --HanzoHattori (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Here is the link to the Radio Free Europe research. The numbers are also presented there. ([2] 400 is probably the most realistic number, according to the document request evidence.

The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Now wait for the other people to speak out their opinion. --HanzoHattori (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a part of Serbian propaganda to portrey Bosnian Muslims as terrorists.That phrase Terrorists in Bosnian was never used untill 9/11. I as a Croat(Croatians fought Bosnian Muslims at one time) can compare mudjahedeen forces in Bosnia something like mudjahedeens in Afganistan during the SSSR(Russian) occupation.They were used by USA to fight Soviets. For the same reason they were brought to Bosnia.To fight (communist) Serbs. Terrorists and Bosnia are a part of Serb propaganda.((GriffinSB) (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)).

Bill clinton is al-qaeda, its all about getting power. serbs were right to kill the terrorists. serbs are not communists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.105.91 (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Lock this article

I swear, you guys are like children. How about a lock until Wikipedia's Bosnian Edit War is resolved? --HanzoHattori (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't like children? --RenniePet (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

But somebody needs to add the Bhutto assassination. 68.219.59.150 (talk) 03:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Only the current pakistani regime, claims that al-Qaeda was involved, one day after the assassination. It wouldn't be a good idea, before we get trustworthy proof. Wikipedia isn't here for rumors, but documentated facts. -- Kirjapan (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually

Actually practically nothing at all is written about Pakistan (just 2 links). Many regional sections lack any summaries. --HanzoHattori (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Claims to be an actual name

The claims of the BBC documentary are easily refuted. The whole passage should be deleted. A simple Lexus Nexus search shows that the arab media has been using the term Al-Qaeda in 1994. It was NOT first used in 1998 as contended by this BBC show. Fruthermore, documents exist that are labeled Al-Qaeda since 1989.

Why was this information deleted from the main page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.31.8 (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Documentation would be appreciated, when making such claims. -- Kirjapan (talk) 07:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree references would be very much appreciated. The BBC documentary doesn't contend that the name was first used in 1998 by the way. The text in the article cites an executive order issued by Bill Clinton, issued in 1998 that refers to "al-Qaeda" as the name of an organisation, but the documentary didn't mention it. Other documents have used the words "al-qaeda" for possibly centuries, but not as the name of an organisation. It just means "the base" normally. Perhaps that is a source of confusion here. This seems to be the case with the Bosnian document too, where the words "al-qaeda" are used to refer to a military base rather than the name of an organisation.--Distinguisher (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe if my edit wasn't revereted you wouldn't be so confused. The Arab media reported on Al Qaida in 1994. A bomb manual was found in the 93 WTC bombers that was labeled "Al Qaida" that was dated 1989. This was all sourced in the edit that was reverted. Chudogg (talk) 04:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I find it childish my full referenced edit gets reverted and I ask why and I'm told to find references. Whatever. Here ya go.

AL AHRAM WEEKLY, "The Afghan connection" April 14, 1994:

I left Egypt with enormous popular and official support which was only appreciated later with shock by the regime. All the procedures were legal when I left in the middle of 1985, went to Jeddah and from there to Pakistan where I worked as a doctor with the Mujahedin, Zawahri said. When he settled in Peshawar he established, with Bin Laden's financial help, Al-Qa'ida (the base) to host Arab volunteers. The first and most active group that went to Afghanistan was made up of Adli Youssef, Ali Abdel-Fattah and Mohamed El-Islambouli who moved on after his stopover in Jeddah. "They all went to Peshawar via Saudi Arabia and played a leading role in organising the Arab-Afghan groups," an Islamist defendant said.

When Zawahri managed to convince Bin Laden to establish Al-Qa'ida, Jihad members from a variety of Arab states came to have a hostel of their own.

AL AHRAM WEEKLY, "Faces of Militancy" April 14, 1994:

In 1985, he went to Saudi Arabia where he worked in a hospital. It was during this period that he met Osama Bin Laden, who established Al-Qa'ida, a base for volunteers en route from Egypt to Afghanistan.

These are from a Major Egyptian Newspaper translated into English. I'm sure a professional academic researcher could find numerous records of the Al Qaida organization published around this time.

As far as the WTC bombers, Stephen Engelberg. One Man and a Global Web of Violence. The New York Times January 14, 2001:

"Two separate translations of the document, one done at the request of The New York Times, show that the heading said Al Qaeda -- which translates as The Base, the name of Mr. bin Laden's group. In addition, the document lists a publication date of 1989, a year after Mr. bin Laden founded his organization."

Let me know if that settles your confusion. :::Chudogg (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden himself stated in the year 2001 that bases had been established and maintained for the enlistment and instruction of volunteers. "We used to call the training camp al-Qaeda." [3] Therefore it should not come as any surprise that a training manual turned up with the name 'al-Qaeda' written on it. Nobody disputes that instances of 'al-Qaeda' can be found dating back several years -- the question, Adam Curtis contends, is did the term refer to the name of an actual organisation, or just the training camps themselves. In support of the latter position, Curtis argues that there is no evidence of Bin Laden using the term 'al Qaeda' to refer to the name of an international terrorist organisation until after the September 11th attacks, when he realised that this was the name the Americans had seized on. On the other hand, you have produced two sources that argue in favour of the former position. It's not for us to say which is correct. Only that all notable views must be included. I simply ask that you do this without deleting information already present in the article. smb (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

First, I didn't delete any information out of the article (although I do contend as much in my post above). I put the historical account of the term Al Qaida as it is on record, which somebody didn't see fit and deleted it. As it stands, the reader is under the impression the first use of the term is in 1998 by the Clinton administration, this is a monumentous falsehood.

I did not simply "produced two sources that argue in favour of the former position" as you contend. The sources were from an Egyptian Newspaper in early 1994, that contend that Bin Laden's organization was called Al Qaida. I hope you realize the significance of this in countering somebody's arguement that "the west" began using the term in 1998. I would be willing to bet that than academic study of the origins of the term would find many Arabic media had used the term itself. Al Ahram is one of the few translated into English.

Further media accounts document the term "Al Qaida" (and various spellings) through 1996, especially after the July Khobar Towers. Many translate the term as "The Foundation" after Islamic Salvation Foundation. Not as "The Base". (This was also in my orginal post)

Adam Curtis's theory relies heavily on disproving the testimony of Al Fadl as a fraud, mostly by trying to document him as an opportuneer (which is usually contended against every defector throughout history at some point or another). However, his testimony was corraborerated by another unrelated defector as well as intelligence the agencies already had. I've been meaning to research this and document it further.

However, even if one were to accept his testimony has false, his contention that the west began using the term "Al Qaida" to use RICO laws against Bin Laden is so patently absurd as his organization had already been referred to that long before any of that nonsense came to play.

Oh an as far as " It's not for us to say which is correct." Please show a little consistency. I presented an accurate historical accounting of the claims of Salman Pak and had "Universal Census" and "SSIC" thrown in my face to delete any and all information that wasn't a simple debunking of claims. Don't worry. I'll be getting back to that.Chudogg (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this silly debate still going on? I haven't been paying close attention to this page but I thought this was settled a long time ago. It was over a year ago now that I provided evidence that bin Laden used the term in 1989 on written documents to refer to an actual organization. Claims that the US invented the term in 1998 are beyond delusional. I'm looking at the article now and the evidence is still there:

Others such as CNN journalist Peter Bergen and author Lawrence Wright dispute Burke's contention. Bergen argues that two documents seized from the Sarajevo office of the Illinois-based Benevolence International Foundation show that the organization was established in August, 1988. Both of these documents contain minutes of meetings held to establish a new military group and contain the term "al-qaeda". [33]

The paragraph following presents another written document produced by Lawrence Wright. The only problem here is the first line; there is no other reference to "Burke's contention" in the article, and if we're talking about Jason Burke, it is a gross oversimplification of his position to claim that he says the US invented the term al Qaeda.

I'd say the Adam Curtis stuff should be a footnote at best; having a paragraph (and indeed a whole section) devoted to this "theory" is a bit ridiculous. Has he written any published work or conducted any independent investigation of the evidence that exists about al-Qaeda? Has he consulted document experts or even claimed that these documents are forgeries? Or is this whole "theory" a rather bizarre misunderstanding of some claim made in the documentary? I suspect the latter, especially since Curtis' "theory" is not even directly sourced, other than a vague reference to a three-part documentary. I have seen a good bit of the documentary, and I don't recall this particular claim. I do recall the claim - more consistent with Burke's analysis - that al qaeda is not just (or even primarily) an organization, and that the west has exaggerated al qaeda's power and turned it into a much more threatening entity, but that is not the same as the nonsense spouted here.

Unfortunately the page is protected now so this will have to stay, but when it is unprotected I suggest removing the Curtis stuff completely and changing the name of the following section so that it is clear that there really isn't a credible dispute about whether there was an organization named "al-qaeda" prior to the US saying so. csloat (talk) 07:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, we certainly can't delete the whole BBC paragraph, as an IP suggested. Even if they're flagrantly wrong, it's a significant viewpoint that's worth including. That's what NPOV is about. Regarding "Burke's contention.", there's still a sentence "Others such as CNN journalist Peter Bergen and author Lawrence Wright dispute Burke's contention." all alone with no context. It doesn't even give Burke's last name, so this is obviously inappropriate. Superm401 - Talk 01:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how something can be so patently wrong and still be considered a "significant viewpoint". He says that the West began using the term in 1998 (based on Al Fadl's testimony". Lexus Nexus clearly shows a media record of it up to 1994. It's wrong. It should be identified as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chudogg (talk • contribs) 18:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as my painstaken edits always seem to get the revert, some more charismatic fellow than I should lift the entire first two sections out of this article. Title it origins or something, and put "The origins of Al-Qaida are in dispute..." or some such. Adam Curtis should deserve no more than 4 sentences at the end of such a section, his "evidence" that al-fadl was a fraud and his compeletly absurd and refuted idea that the term "Al-Qaida" was invented by him and the Clinton Administration. Oh, and I would appreciate it if the 1994 Ah Ahrab Weekly, and the full qoutation (See above, available in LexusNexus) would directly follow any claim that the term Al-Qaida was not used to identify Bin Ladens terrorist group before 1998.Chudogg (talk) 10:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems one straw man argument spawns another. To correct the record, Adam Curtis (Jason Burke, etc) do not assert that Jamal al-Fadl invented the term Al-Qaeda in 1998. Rather, they say this was the year it entered the public consciousness. Burke in particular has examined the evidence that Al-Qaeda was formed (as an organisation) many years earlier, but finds it unpersuasive. smb (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll try and find a source for this. I don't have the time to read his book again though. smb (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to accurately summarise the dispute, then it helps to watch Adam Curtis' three-part serious The Power of Nightmares in its entirety, not in isolation. Having watched the series, I've no idea why users keep posting small extracts absent any formal analysis, shouting Bin Laden doesn't exist!!1!! :) smb (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I am Positive you are wrong, but I am not going to waste 3 hours of my life, again. Since this is not even a published work, i believe it is the onus of the contributer to hunt down an online transcript to highlight the specific parts he/she wants added. It is not the onus of the reader to watch a 3 hour series over this compeletly ridiculous claim.

But, seeing as you claim that Adam Curtis does not assert that America Invented the term. And seeing as the section in the article is titled Claims of an American Invention The entire passage is being deleted for not being properly sourced.

I will leave it up to you to incorporate it into the next passage. And it better not begin with The name appears on an executive order in 1998. It appeared a lot earlier than that. It appears in public in 94, and there are documents dated back to the 80s. I hope you look to the best interests of the informed readers who rely on the reputation of Wikipedia as an impecable source. Chudogg (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fruitful discussion is impossible if you continue to distort the meaning of the information before you. The disputed section clearly draws on published work, contrary to your bizarre assertion. An ambiguous header is no reason to delete an entire section, as you well know, otherwise you'd have deleted the equally puzzling section that succeeded it. I'm going to restore it, and encourage others to help improve it. To this end, perhaps the prevailing view should rank first (e.g. Peter Bergen et al.), before Curtis and Burke etc. smb (talk) 04:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fruitful discussion is not needed here. This is nothing ambigious about the headline. It says there are claims that Al-Qaida is American invention. Tell me, what other possible meaning could that have? There is not a single other source contained in the section supporting the assertions made in "the power of nightmares" (only tertiary information is sourced elsewhere). Also, to say that it is only the headline???

What exactly al-Qaeda is, or was, remains in dispute..... Adam Curtis contends that the idea of al-Qaeda as a formal organization is primarily an American invention.... Curtis contends the name "al-Qaeda" was first brought to the attention of the public in the 2001 trial of Osama bin Laden.....

Hey, if you want to put a little nugget challening Al-Fadl lower in the article that is fine. The second part will need clean up, but I will leave that to someone else. And the delibate follow of: "The name appears with the spelling "al-Qaida" in an executive order issued by President Bill Clinton in 1998". Yes this is true, it is also true that it appears numerous times in the decade pervious to this, but this was deliberatly parsed as such and placed immediatly after the Adam Curtis mockery to leave the reader an impression that this was the first time "Al Qaida" was mentioned. A monumental disservice and deliberatly misinoforming past and future readers. This is unacceptable and needs to be fixed. Chudogg (talk) 06:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"It [the headline] says there are claims that Al-Qaida is American invention. Tell me, what other possible meaning could that have?" Are you being deliberately obtuse? One need only read the section in question to find out. It relates directly to 'Al-Qaeda' (the base) as the name of an organisation (as opposed to a jihadi training camp). Chudogg must already know this because, in the very same message, (s)he reproduced a passage from the page that expresses exactly that view. Specifically this bit: "Adam Curtis contends that the idea of al-Qaeda as a formal organization is primarily an American invention...".

"This is unacceptable and needs to be fixed" But your credibility is not helped by an insistence on deleting the entire section rather than on actually fixing it. Nobody is forcing you to accept this viewpoint, yet it's obvious that you don't like it, and want it removed completely. Two other editors have remarked that its a significant point of view, and should be left in the article. How that happens remains to be seen. I've already proposed one major alteration, and wait patiently to hear constructive recommendations from other editors. I ask politely that you do the same. smb (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You make no sense and I award you no points. We are only talking about Al-Qaida as a formal organization, (and you call me obtuse?). Yes, Adam Curtis suggests that Al-Qaida could have been a name of a training camp or some such, in doing so he also denys that it is an actual organization until invented by the Americans contrary to your earlier assertions(I just re-watched the relevent highlights btw).

This isn't a relevent viewpoint, it is a wrong viewpoint. It is only held by a loud and vocal fringe minority and compeletely rejected by the consensus of even left leaning academics and researchers. Your proposed alteration is unsatifactory. I proposed merging it under the anteceding section. On second thought, to maintain the context and flow of the article as a whole, i think both sections be deleted in their entirety, and if it all, added to the very bottom of the article as a 2 sentence acknowledgement of its existence and maybe given its own page. There is absolutely no reason why people who are seriously researching Al-Qaida should come to this page and the first thing they read about is a silly "debate" about the existence of it. This reflects negatively on Wikipedia as a whole and I would assert that its very existence on here is a blatant vandalism. I will leave it for now, until other recommendations. Chudogg (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you consider this a game? I'm not looking to point score. The viewpoint is so ridiculous, you say, even left wing academics reject it. Well, Noam Chomsky considers Jason Burke's work one of the "most careful and detailed" studies of al-Qaeda available. [4]

"The consensus is well articulated by Jason Burke in his study of the Al Qaeda phenomenon, the most detailed and informed investigation of this loose array of radical Islamists for whom bin Laden is hardly more than a symbol..." [5]

Or is he too 'crazy' for you? Not that personal feelings matter. The analysis is notable in and of itself. It's supported by more researchers than you care to admit. Burke's work has been published in the journal Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy Magazine. And it's not just Burke whom Adam Curtis cites in his documentary. The reason it features so prominently here on this page is because the article immediately addresses the name/origin/meaning of Al-Qaeda - though this is not helped by an ambiguous level header, which some consider inflammatory, and a poorly written section in need of a clean up (not deleted entirely or relegated to a mere footnote). That's where one's energy should directed, not at collecting points. smb (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, many months have gone by. Time to cleanup this nonsense. Thanks. Chudogg (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I rvted it before seeing this post by Chudogg. Should have put something in the edit summary. Would anyone be interested in creating a fork on what al-Qaeda is? INcluding more than just this debate but the Sir Ian Blair quote issue. Not sure what the article would be called. Also, the Robin Cook quote should be in the Alleged CIA involvement section IMHO.--BoogaLouie (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to this being split off or being put lower in the thread. To have this silly debate being the first thing a reader reads about al qaeda and whether it exists or not is simply vandalism. I'll post the deleted sections below. If contributer thinks this is actually proper please put this in a more suitable area. Chudogg (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Claims of an American invention

What exactly al-Qaeda is, or was, remains in dispute. In the BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares, writer and journalist Adam Curtis contends that the idea of al-Qaeda as a formal organization is primarily an American invention. Curtis contends the name "al-Qaeda" was first brought to the attention of the public in the 2001 trial of Osama bin Laden and the four men accused of the 1998 United States embassy bombings in East Africa. As a matter of law, the U.S. Department of Justice needed to show that Osama bin Laden was the leader of a criminal organization in order to charge him in absentia under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, also known as the RICO statutes. The name of the organization and details of its structure were provided in the testimony of Jamal al-Fadl, who claimed to be a founding member of the organization and a former employee of Osama bin Laden. To quote the documentary directly:

The reality was that bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri had become the focus of a loose association of disillusioned Islamist militants who were attracted by the new strategy. But there was no organization. These were militants who mostly planned their own operations and looked to bin Laden for funding and assistance. He was not their commander. There is also no evidence that bin Laden used the term "al-Qaeda" to refer to the name of a group until after September the 11th, when he realized that this was the term the Americans had given it.

Questions about the reliability of al-Fadl's testimony have been raised by a number of sources because of his history of dishonesty and because he was delivering it as part of a plea bargain agreement after being convicted of conspiring to attack U.S. military establishments. Sam Schmidt, a defense lawyer from the trial, had the following to say about al-Fadl's testimony:

There were selective portions of al-Fadl's testimony that I believe was false, to help support the picture that he helped the Americans join together. I think he lied in a number of specific testimony about a unified image of what this organization was. It made al-Qaeda the new Mafia or the new Communists. It made them identifiable as a group and therefore made it easier to prosecute any person associated with al-Qaeda for any acts or statements made by bin Laden.

Claims to be an actual organization

There is at least one public reference to the name "al-Qaeda" that pre-dates the 2001 trial. The name appears with the spelling "al-Qaida" in an executive order issued by President Bill Clinton in 1998, less than two weeks after the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Executive Order 13099, issued on August 20, 1998, lists the organization as one of several associated with Osama bin Laden, the others being the Islamic Army, Islamic Salvation Foundation, the Islamic Army for the Liberation of the Holy Places, The World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders, and The Group for the Preservation of the Holy Sites. The name "al-Qaida" could have been introduced to U.S. intelligence by Jamal al-Fadl, who had been providing the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) with intelligence about bin Laden since 1996, before ultimately appearing as a witness in the February 2001 trial of those accused of the 1998 United States embassy bombings.

In this trial, Jamal al-Fadl testified that al-Qaeda was established in either late 1989 or early 1990 to continue the jihad after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. He claimed that during the war against the Soviets, bin Laden had been funding a group called Maktab al-Khadamat, which was led by Abdallah Azzam. This organization was based in Pakistan and provided training, money and other support for Muslims who would cross the border into Afghanistan to fight. According to al-Fadl, the Maktab al-Khadamat was disbanded following the Soviet withdrawal, but bin Laden wanted to establish a new group to continue the jihadist cause on other fronts. Al-Fadl testified that al-Qaeda's leader was initially Abu Ayoub al-Iraqi, who was later replaced by Abu Ubaidah al-Banshiri, but that both of these leaders nevertheless "reported to" bin-Laden. Al-Fadl claims the group initially went by two different names "al-Qaeda" and "Islamic Army", before eventually settling on the former. A meeting was apparently held in Khost, Afghanistan to establish the new group, which al-Fadl claims to have attended. Al-Fadl's recollection was that this occurred in either late 1989 or early 1990.

Others such as CNN journalist Peter Bergen and author Lawrence Wright dispute Burke's contention. Bergen argues that two documents seized from the Sarajevo office of the Illinois-based Benevolence International Foundation show that the organization was established in August, 1988. Both of these documents contain minutes of meetings held to establish a new military group and contain the term "al-qaeda".

Author Lawrence Wright also quotes this document (an exhibit from the "Tareek Osama" document presented in United States v. Enaam M. Arnaout), in his book The Looming Tower. Notes of a meeting of bin Laden and others on August 20, 1988 indicate "the military base" ("al-qaeda al-askariya"), was a formal group: `basically an organized Islamic faction, its goal is to lift the word of God, to make His religion victorious.` A list of requirements for membership itemized "listening and obedient ... good manners" and making a pledge (bayat) to obey superiors. According to Wright, "[t]he name al-Qaeda was not used," in public pronouncements like the 1998 fatwa to kill Americans and their allies because "its existence was still a closely held secret." Wright writes that Al-Qaeda was formed at a August 11, 1988 meeting of "with several senior leaders" of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, (Sayyed Imam Al-Sharif, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, and others), Abdullah Azzam, and Osama bin Laden, where it was agreed to join bin Laden's money with the expertise of the Islamic Jihad organization and continue jihad elsewhere after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan. Chudogg (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

flag

It just occurred to me that Al Qaeda does not have a flag. Do they have any symbol or flag that represents them? Kingturtle (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

To my best knowledge several actually. It was discussed before, too. --HanzoHattori (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please produce the flag or logo if you know of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.125.87.138 (talk) 08:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

How about this? Bofors7715 (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly right.121.44.233.92 (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What it is is original research. I've commented out the logo to save vertical space. Superm401 - Talk 01:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Saving "vertical space"? You have got to be joking, we have an unlimited amount of vertical space to use here. And it is not "original research" either, Webster Tarpley for one, who has written "9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA" published by Progressive Press, has made the obvious allegation that "Al-Queda" is a CIA/MI6 front: http://www.amazon.com/9-11-Synthetic-Terror-First/dp/0930852311 No sir, what you are doing is covering the up the truth and getting innocent people killed. Bofors7715 (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

this is the flag of al-qaeda http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Flag_of_al-Qaeda.svg/300px-Flag_of_al-Qaeda.svg.png

--24.117.131.34 (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

this is the flag of al-qaeda http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Flag_of_al-Qaeda.svg/300px-Flag_of_al-Qaeda.svg.png

--Npnunda (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri

"Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri" in the bin Ladin quote needs a pipelink to Abu Ubaidah al-Banshiri. --Cam (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Al Qaida as a CIA related organisation

This video tell that 9.11 was made by cia in the goal to colonize and control the world.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3qiv7_aaron-russo-sur-le-911-le-cfr-et-ro_politics

It says that al qaida was also created by usa for the same reasons.

Cia put micro chip in ossama bin laden's brain to control it.

Osama bin laden live actually in hawai with girls sex alcohol and drugs and that al qaida is nothing but an urban legend created as a pretext for american colonialism.

Obscur macons-lions-sionist jews-evengelists leaders of usa have created the 11 september, al qaida, islamic terrorism , ethnic conflicts and evengelical missionaries to colonize control and exploit the world.

Can this hypthesis be added to this article?

Hanzukik (talk) 11:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Knowing the idiot's censorsing this article, I'm sure it can be. Go Ahead! 72.192.31.8 (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it can't. all that is in conspiracy theories about 9/11. Aaron Russo is not a notable source and it is not in English. --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Russo is a notable source. His research into subjects is often well documented. This statement is both erroneous and misleading —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.97.178 (talk) 12:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Boogalouie you enlightened me so Al qaida is a mere religiocentrist fachistic terrorist organisation.

But it's still strange that all qaida "operations" were exploited by usa to control middle east and central asia energy resources. Hanzukik (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

How does the united states control OPEC? We still pay for gas don't we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.100.18 (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Its still arguable whether or not Al Qaeda is funded by the US government simply because the CIA will not release records disproving their financing of Osama Bin Laden since the Gulf War. Does anyone have a source proving the funding of Al Queda and Ben Laden by the US? I know it exists out there but cannot find a credible or "undisputable" source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.16 (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is a fact, that the CIA and the ISI (the secret service of pakistan) kind of "created" the taliban. They gave massive supplies in money and weapons to them in the early '90s to "stabilize" afghanistan. The Taliban succeeded against the other Modjahedin and they resold most of the weapons to other countrys :> and with the taliban came Al-Qaeda89.183.10.64 (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

So far as I know, al-Qaeda wasn't actually created until the end of the Afghanistan war, after the U.S. pulled out of the region altogether. ISI, on the other hand, probably did keep up its ties to the organization.

Talk:Midgitman(REAL)

Right, so the USA would just bomb their own cities and destroy their own populas, plus get involved in two very costly wars now being called the new Vietnam?

Think again buddy, before editing this topic with your Nazi veiws again. I quote "Obscur macons-lions-sionist jews-evengelists leaders of usa have created the 11 september, al qaida, islamic terrorism , ethnic conflicts and evengelical missionaries to colonize control and exploit the world."

Not trying to start another war of editing, but just think.

Diaa Rashwan

I do not want to wade into the middle of this edit war that, frankly, I do not understand, all I would like to request is a simple edit to an early paragraph that uses the name Diaa Rashwan and does not explain who this person is. I had to google the name to find out that he is a Dr. associated with the Al-Ahram Center. Could we just change it to say Dr. Diaa Rashwan, with the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies. This would led those comments the weight I feel they deserve. thanksDragyn07 (talk) 10:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thai Interwikilink

Since the page is locked, I'm wondering if anyone can add th:อัลกออิดะห์ into the page. Thank you. --Manop - TH (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

conspiracy theories about 9/11

IT IS UNFAIR THAT THE ARTICLE SAYS THAT AL-QAEDA EXECUTED 9/11, AND WE CANNOT EDIT IT. BUSH DID IT. WE ALL KNOW IT. BIN LADEN PROPOSED THAT, IF BUSH PROVED THAT AL-QAEDA DID IT, THEN HE WOULD TURN HIMSELF IN. BUSH REFUSED THE PROPOSAL. WELL DONE. CAN WE MAKE THIS AN UN-BIASED WEBSITE AND JUST TRY TO GIVE CORRECT INFORMATION? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.25.33.200 (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there an evidence to back up the the 'conspiracy theory' that AlQaeda were responsible for 9/11. Bush did say that he had proof but it was never released and as far as I know Bin Laden's 'confession' was a fabricated video.

Any sources for "Al-Qaeda has attacked civilian and military targets in various countries, the most notable being the September 11, 2001 attacks." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.162.102 (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Any sources for "Evidence points to suicide squads led by al-Qaeda military commander Mohammed Atta as the culprits of the attacks, with bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Hambali as the key planners and part of the political and military command."

This might sound silly but for such a claim there seems to be no sound sources. 86.11.162.102 (talk) 08:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does sound silly. Because it is. Along with most of the rest of the edits in this silly article. Chudogg (talk) 07:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not silly, in fact there is no evidence which proves that Al-Qaeda in anything but a CIA tool and mountains of evidence which indicates that 9/11 was an inside job. For example, we know for a fact that the Anthrax used post-9/11 was US military grade. Bofors7715 (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What to get from this source?

I found this: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/01/21/ask.alqaeda.ap/index.html

How do I summarize the contents of this article? What do I get out of this? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hard to say. It's difficult to use any of the questions as evidence of al-Qaeda members' thinking, because we don't know if any of the questioners were really members. Furthermore, it would be better to have the question page directly, rather than a news article about the question page. Still, it might fit in Al_Qaeda#Internet_activities. Superm401 - Talk 01:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Below is an article that states AL-QUEDA and 911 are not linked as according to our own government. Why must I write this under the '911 conspiracy theories section' when in fact the purported connection between the two and how it is so definitively stated in this article is the very conspiracy.

"The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq." and "The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.203.126.65 (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding the point of the article. It's not saying al-Qaeda didn't participate in the attacks, just that Iraq didn't have anything to do with them. I don't believe there's any question that al-Qaeda is responsible for the attacks. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 20:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

A Ficticious Non-organisation

As this link shows [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTTgpsAs4_c ] there is no such organisation as 'Al Qaeda'. It was invented by an unreliable witness at the 2001 trial of the attempt to blow up the WTC in 2001, one Al Fadl. Whenever a bombing occurs anywhere in the world the media all scream 'all the hallmarks of Al qaeda' no matter the circumstances but this is all meaningless gibberish. Al qaeda has no members and no organisation.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 10:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, gee, stop the presses! Some out of context video on youtube said it so it must be true!! Back here on earth, there is plenty of evidence that al-Qaeda exists going back to the late 80s/early 90s. Can we please drop this silly argument? Thanks. csloat (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Any generic, solo, or home-grown islamic terrorist who wants to get on the news claims to be part of al-qaeda. The organisation as we know it is an invention of the news media. This is not to say the there is not an organisation called al-qaeda with actual members, but there is no easy way to differentiate the real terrorist organisation from the fictional global terrorist network at this point. 62.3.248.192 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

NOBODY ever said that Al-Qaida was this monolithic hierarchial organization with Bin Laden the Snake's head at the top micromanaging an entire global operation. Please inform me if I mistaken of this. As i believe since the Clinton administration and the original "neo-cons" of the 90's all spoke at length of the new challenge of asymetrical terrorist groups operating in "cells" with no organizational control. Not a single of the prominent researchs I hold in high regard on the matter said anything other than Bin Laden a fianciar/figurehead/spiritual leader.

In other Words, you are building a strawman, and wasted two hours of your life to combat an arguement that doesnt exist and nobody ever made. Boiled down to the main point of the video (not even an academic published work!), besides a 2 hour diatribe against the strawman i was referring to above: that the Clinton Admin invented the term in 1998 to use RICO laws, please see the entire discussion on this, and try not to formulate a response until you can counter that LexusNexus has it on record that arabic media had been using the term since 1994, a full 4 years prior to when Adam Curtis thinks this word came about. (sigh) Chudogg (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Further to my comment above, on the nature of straw man arguments, Curtis does actually show footage of the media and the neo-cons exaggerating the power of Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. smb (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Historical overview

I have tried to find the date that the US State Department named Al-Qaeda a Foreign Terrorist Organizations in this article. I could not. Maybe its there and my search was no good - if so just dissmiss what I say next as unfounded rubbish. The dates when things happen are important - and this article if of OK level would be providing dates. How else is a reader to use this article to place something in a historical context if you dont say when it happened? Editors too often focus on controversy rather than just getting the basics right. [2001 Report on Foreign Terrorist Organizations: Secretary Albright designated one new FTO in 1999 (al Qa’ida)] SmithBlue (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Disarray, Panic, Betrayed....

Here is an interesting link from the timesonline.com in which they discuss, according to articles retrieved from a raid, that they are in some trouble because people are leaving the Al-Qaeda in Iraq. I think it is worth a mention in the main article. Hourick (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Goals of Al-Qaida

Something about the Goals of Al-Qaida needs to be added. The extent of this in this article is saying that it is a terrorist organization, etc. It never really says what they want to achieve... I suggest adding something like this, from infoplease. Not this exactly, as this is not from a good source, but similiar.

"The principal stated aims of al-Qaeda are to drive Americans and American influence out of all Muslim nations, especially Saudi Arabia; destroy Israel; and topple pro-Western dictatorships around the Middle East. Bin Laden has also said that he wishes to unite all Muslims and establish, by force if necessary, an Islamic nation adhering to the rule of the first Caliphs." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.102.144 (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed we should have something. But It should be written carefully. For example the above sttement says AQ wants to overthrow "pro-Western dictatorships" in Muslim countries. Does that mean it wants to replace them with democracies? Does that mean pro-Western democracies are OK with Al Q? It sure does not.

Here is another description of its goal, this one from globalsecurity.org: al-Qaeda's current goal is to establish a pan-Islamic Caliphate throughout the world by working with allied Islamic extremist groups to overthrow regimes it deems "non-Islamic" and expelling Westerners and non-Muslims from Muslim countries. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Strongly agreed. This was actually the information I was looking for when I came to the article: missing "Goals" is a major gap from the article as it stands. Rupert baines (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The contribution of the USA to creation al-Kaida

In article there is no information that Al-kaeda has been created at active support of the USA, has been trained by the American instructors and armed by American arms deliveries. Further - participation of al-Kaide to terract on September, 11th it is not proved. It is not necessary to hide the shameful facts. 217.150.60.89 (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

While there are substantial mistakes in your assumptions, there IS a hint of truth. The Mujahideen that were formed initially during the soviet invasion and after the soviets were driven out, the Mujahideen fighters were looking for something to do (in my opinion) were a bit irritated by our stationing troops in Saudi Arabia during the First gulf war, amoung them Osama bin Laden, the rest I'm sure you can follow. But in short, if the United states (and the world for that matter) had helped Afghanistan immediately after the soviet pullout and put in some schools, the radicals wouldn't have been able to put in a major foothold in that country and as a result, OBL wouldn't have been able to be such an influence there. --Hourick (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Only the facts - the fighting divisions named Al-kaeda have been organised during the Soviet Afghani company for struggle against the Soviet armies. They have been organised at the maximum support of the USA by money resources, arms and instructors. Anything especial in it is not present, during cold war local conflicts in Asia, Africa, became a field of "distant struggle" between superstates. For example the USSR supplied with the weapon the North Korea, Vietnam, Egypt - that by the way, is displayed in wiki under these conflicts. 217.150.60.89 (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that what became Al Qaeda was supported by Pakistani intelligence not by the US. I see no indications of direct support from the US, though the Pakistani efforts were with the blessing of the US government and it is quite possible that considerable US equipment came to these groups via Pakistan. Also, as has been discussed in the article, the organization wasn't labeled "Al Qaeda" at the time.

Further, while the US's (and other countries') actions have spurred such things as the 9/11 attacks and a number of European bombings, it is worth remembering that most of Al Qaeda's efforts have been in the Middle East against Middle Easterners. As I see it, the bin Laden part of Al Qaeda was established to overthrow a number of governments in the Middle East. While some policies particularly in Afghanistan might have contributed to Al Qaeda's strength, it is worth remembering that bin Laden had substantial financial support and good criminal connections. His organization is likely to be a menace anyway, just due to the widespread dissatification with many of the Middle East governments. -- KarlHallowell (talk) 03:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Al-Qaida had a very minimal role in the mujahadeen. Bin Laden was a follower of Azzam and spent most of the war in Peshawar. He only got in involved in a few minor skirmishes towards the end of the war. Foreign Jihadists had a very minimal role in the mujahadeen. And the CIA gave almost total control to the ISI to fund the Mujahadeen warlords. There was only a few case of contact between CIA and the mujahadeen when it came to training on complex weapon systems (stingers). So the CIA-Al Qaida connection is extremely dubios. Chudogg (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

see: Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Attack in Miami as declared in 2003 by Zawahiri on SS Norway

the site BlueNorway.Org http://BlueNorway.Org makes a good case that the Norwegian scare Memorial Day weekend in 2003 was their attack on the SS Norway in the port of Miami... This needs to be looked into along with the few hundred other events (of the 15 thousand) their sister site 1911.cc database has that seem credible references. The supreme court case seems to reflect the concern as does the DHS CoastGuard reports and investigation.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.59.193 (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The website isn't coherent. Also, is there a major news source that backs up the Al Qaeda claims? -- KarlHallowell (talk) 03:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Europe

London

   Main article: 2007 London car bombs

On 29 June 2007, two unexploded car bombs were discovered in London. The first device was found in a car parked near the Tiger Tiger nightclub in Haymarket and two large gas canisters and a large number of nails were found in the car.[1][2] The second device was left in a blue Mercedes-Benz saloon in nearby Cockspur Street,[3] but was not discovered until after the car had been towed away as it was found to be illegally parked.[4]

   Main article: 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack

Internal damage caused to the terminal building.

On 30 June 2007 a dark green Jeep Cherokee, registration number L808 RDT,[5] was driven into the glass doors of the main terminal of Glasgow International Airport, and burst into flames. A suspected car bomb failed to detonate, and the driver of the car, Kafeel Ahmed,[6] on fire after allegedly dousing himself in fuel, together with a second suspect Bilal Abdulla, accused of being the Jeep's passenger, attacked the police. Fire extinguishers were used to put Ahmed out, and he was subsequently tackled by two police officers and bystanders.[7]

Investigation

The UK Government blamed the events on al-Qaida[12] and the two incidents were linked, by police, to the same two men.[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_UK_terrorist_incidents

should this not be including under attacks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.0.24 (talk) 17:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Time to lift protection? - more than 2 months so far...

{{editprotected}} Hi, I wish to make so CopyEdits. Please remove the protection. Regards, JohnI (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Please request it at WP:RUP. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

TIME Collection

There is a collection of Al-Qaeda related stories that the TIME Archives put together, and that could be placed in the External Links section. The Collection could provide context and more resources for those users who wish to expand their research. [6] Kevindkeogh (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

AlI Mohammed

Was not in the Special Forces as it is always stated. He was assigned by the U.S Army to give classes on Arabic culture and opinion and thus got assigned at the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center, which is completely understandable given his ethnic backgrond. It's not as if he was mysteriously fastracked to SF or something. Please see Ali Mohammed. Oh, and about time lock has been lifted. Chudogg (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In Kuwait

There is nothing in the article mentioning Al Qa'eda's attacking in Kuwait shortly after US invasion of Iraq radiant guy (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Hi, I've reverted the version of the text on Bosnia written by User:Grandy Grandy to the last version by myself. Here are the reasons.

1. Main article: the main article on this is indiscutably the Bosnian mujahideen article. I have linked it to that.
2. WP:COATRACK: the previous version opened up with a long harangue about the nature of the Bosnian war which was not relevant to the issue of Al Qaeda in Bosnia but was rather a POV statement about the nature of the war which is not relevant to this article.
3. Links to Bosnian government: the old version by GG overtly downplayed the links between the Bosnian mujahideen and the Bosnian government when in fact they were quite extensive (see the Bosnian mujahideen article).
4. Local participation: the version by GG also denies the local participation in the Bosnian mujahideen, although this has also been proven (see the Bosnian mujahideen article).

In general, GG's version is an utterly WP:POV presentation of the issue mainly focused on denying links between Al Qaeda and the Bosnian mujahideen on the one hand and the Bosnian government and local population on the other despite evidence to the contrary. I would also like to direct any interested readers to the main Bosnian mujahideen article and its Talk pages for further information about the issue. RegardsOsli73 (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Leadership of al Qaeda

The infobox on the right says that Jan Peter Balkenende is part of the leadership of al Qaida. I think this information is so secret that even Balkenende himself does not know about it. It should be changed immediately!

Jan, 13.03.2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.173.171 (talk) 10:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

So with a structure of autonomous cells you are telling me there is Leadership, this is not some buearacratic structure. The word should properly refer to those who believe in the ideology. This is similar to the Christian Right in the US, we don't call all those who believe in the fundumentalist christianity "Crusaders". THINK! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.59.159.226 (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I like to think that they're all subcontractor's like Mary Kay. They're using Al-Qaeda's brand name and go on their way to do what they want to do. After awhile, someone higher up in the chain will come down and offer assistance and direction, or maybe even help make a video. But I wouldn't expect Mary Kay Ash to come down from the mountain (so to speak) to give directions personally, Al-Qaeda's founder, Osama bin Laden won't be coming down HIS mountain to give directions. That would be "Micromanaging, which if you had worked in the corporate world, would be a bit much given the range and scope of his current responsibilities, which currently involve hiding in a mountain and giving messages to his VP's, who in turn, pass it down the line.--Hourick (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You like to think that? well la-di-da how scientific. x.

Activities Map

The map showing the activities of Al-Qaeda should probably be improved by someone of appropriate talent - there are a couple of spelling errors (Marocco/Morocco and Tunesia/Tunisia - if I am going to be picky 'United Kingdom' is normally used instead of 'Great Britain') Also I feel that the title, if it is necessary to have it displayed on the image file (this is not normal practice) should not be written across the landmasses of South America and Africa, it would be better on the white. The font used for the locations does not look great at such a low resolution (see 'Afghanistan' on the map) due to the anti-aliasing effect applied - although this is more desirable than blocky font. Maybe a better font could be used for the city names, or the map could be made at a higher resolution.

I think it would be helpful for users to have the year of the attack after the city name; as this would immediately help show patterns, and help dintinquish without confusion which terrorist attacks in those cities were due to, or connected to, Al-Qaeda. Alienturnedhuman (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Wahabism

I didn't know where else to put this, so I just stuck it on the bottom of the page. I may be mistaken, but I could find no mention of Wahabism in this article. There is a strong connection between Al Queda and the Wahabi (see Salafi) extremist sect in Saudi Arabia (through the leader, bin Laden). So why is there no mention of Wahabism in this article?

Robin Cook - Database

Even if Robin Cook is wrong in his statement that 'Al-Qaeda' comes from 'data base' it is still significant that he believed this and that this was his understanding of the origins of Al-Qaeda and the name. Robin Cook was Foreign Secretary and responsible for SIS/MI6 and would have been provided with intelligence briefings from them on terrorist threats. He was therefore a terrorism expert. He was also a cabinet minister and privy to what was said in cabinet. How could he form this belief given his considerable access to information on terrorist threat etc? Also why remove Cooks quote and not Saad Al-Faqih assertion about the Al Ansar guesthouse, which talks of a computer system situated there? The statement that al-qaeda can also refer to a military base is unsourced also. Certainly dictionaries refer to 'the base'. Rowantoad (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not significant at all that Cook once said something stupid. He is not and never was an expert on this topic, and here he made an obvious mistake. There is no reason to humiliate him posthumously by enshrining this minor mistake into an encyclopedia. csloat (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It is only stupid in your opinion and unsignificant in your opinion. Cook was the foreign secretary with responsibilty for the British Secret Intelligence Service receiving daily intelligence briefings. He was also a member of Tony Blairs cabinet. He was a terrorism expert. He resigned on a position of principle from cabinet due to what he knew and placed that article in the guardian. I was not aware that people are not quoted posthumously incase this humiliates them, I have not seen cases of quotes removed or histories smoothed before. It is not for you to decide if he would or would not want this quoted. You cannot remove very relevant quotes because you do not agree with them.Rowantoad (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

First, Cook was never a "terrorism expert." He was a policymaker; he did not write any peer-reviewed articles about al Qaeda or about Islamic fundamentalism or the Middle East or really anything related. Nor has he worked as a journalist or reporter. Also, do you care to tell me where he was credentialed for his Arabic translation skills? This quote is misleading and flat out wrong. No terrorism expert has endorsed this view, nor has, to my knowledge, any Arabist. We have documentary proof from Peter Bergen that shows it is false (Bergen, unlike Cook, has actually interviewed bin Laden, as well as many of those around him.) We have statements from many al Qaeda members as well as US officials stating the contrary. This statement by Cook was not something that achieved any notoriety outside of Wikipedia -- to highlight it here in the Wikipedia entry about al Qaeda is a form of original research. We argued about this months ago, and the overwhelming consensus was that this does not belong here. Let's not start this all again. csloat (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

<ec> I don't care how high up in the British government Robin Cook was, his statement is demonstrably false on several levels. Yes, the US supported mujaheddin, but bin Laden was not among them (billionaire, remember?). More directly, the Arabic words for "base" and "database" are completely different. If you are determined to include the quote, we need to have a caveat about how this is Robin Cook's opinion and it contradicts reality. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 21:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The US supported the mujahedeen as you say. There is more than financial support that can be given. Yes Bin Laden was a billionaire, I remember, perhaps he could have been trained if not funded or supported in other ways. Cook doesn't say funded although some commentators have talked about funding to the mujahedeen. Cook does say armed, recruited and trained.

Saad Al-Faqih, the quoted Saudi expert in al-Qaida, stated that the name al-Qaida "...originated from a documentation system in the Bait al-Ansar guesthouse back in the 1980s" and the page on the Bait al-Ansar guesthouse says that al Qaeda's origin was tied to a computer system situated in the "bait al-Ansar guesthouse". A computer documentation system in a guesthouse for recruited mujahedeen? Sounds like a database to me, perhaps this is where cook got database from.

just putting this here for now http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AL-QAEDA_AL-SULBAH&diff=next&oldid=125374519 "Al-Qaeda al-Sulbah, Arabic for "The Solid Base" or "Vanguard of the Strong," was an organization created by Addullah Azzam in Afghanistan to provide logistical and religious support to the Muslim mujaheedin, or "holy warriors," fighting against Soviet troops that had invaded the country in 1979. Azzam, the leading ideologue for Sunni Muslim radicals, was a spiritual leader of these mujaheedin. He envisaged men who would set an example for the rest of the Islamic world and thus galvanize the umma (global community of believers) against its perceived oppressors. Largely funded by the then-young Saudi millionaire Osama bin Laden, this organization became the basis and namesake of bin Laden's own group Al Qaeda." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rowantoad (talk • contribs) 03:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not true that the Arabic words for "base" and "database" are completely different.

qa'idah bayanat tasahumi is shared database. Where qa'idah is base and bayanat is data. qaida ma'lumat is information base. akhdh al-'ayyinat is sampling, qa'idat akhdh al-'ayyinat is sampling rule where qa'idat is rule, the fundamental prinicple, ie the base. Rowantoad (talk) 11:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The point stands; nobody writes just "al qa'ida" when they mean "database." Anyways it's irrelevant; even if they were the same words we know for a fact that Robin Cook's explanation is incorrect. csloat (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion I think the section above which relates to Abdullah Azzam is the beginning of the phrase, but I haven't looked to see where he actually wrote that or said it or used it. The section on the Bait al-ansar questhouse and the computer system seems extremely likely and the term al qaeda was probably linked to it originally from azzam. Cook perhaps if he knew about the bait al-ansar guesthouse and this quote about a computer system got it from this or perhaps someone said this to him. I accept that Cook stating that it was originally a computer file of mujahedeen funded by the US or whatever puts it rather strongly and leads you to believe that it was a file the CIA were keeping rather than a record in that guesthouse that the CIA may or may not have got hold of. Again the point that the CIA may have assisted some mujahedeen does not necessarily mean that he trained the ones at said guest house. The confusion coming about as the general impression given of Bin Laden is as the Mr Big leader and master mind of all the mujahedeen and all of Afghanistan fighters building bunkers etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rowantoad (talk • contribs) 10:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"Despite the perception of some people"

From the Refuge in Afghanistan section. Seems a little vague & unsubstantiated. Perhaps something along the lines of "Despite what is commonly portrayed in the media", together with references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ride the Hurricane (talk • contribs) 18:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Fork to create new article on Etymology of al-Qaeda

New article would have the long version of the dispute Claims to be an actual name Both Chudogg and myself think the current set up of a big, boring section on the name is bad for the article.

If someone can think of a better name, great. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I restructured the section a bit; this may help. Some of the comments in this section should probably move to history below as well. csloat (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Much better now Chudogg (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Groups with the name "Al-Qaeda"

The article should have more on the relationship between al-Qaeda proper - Osama Bin Laden and his group of associates, like Zawahiri - and other groups with the name al-Qaeda, specifically al-Qaeda in Iraq, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al-Qaeda's Jihad in Europe and al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghrib.

As it currently stands, the article seems to assume that these are all part of the same big organization. But as far as I know it's never been proven whether these groups are actually working with Osama or just using al-Qaeda as a brand name. Or which of these groups are working with Osama and which are just using al-Qaeda as a brand name. Or the degree to which these groups cooperate with Osama and his followers - are they taking orders from him, or are they cooperating but as a partnership of equals? There seems to be a lot more controversy and complexity in the terrorist underworld, even among groups calling themselves "al-Qaeda", than this article admits. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a typo

in paragraph 1, it states Al Qaeda was founded in 1998. That should read 1988. ToshiBoy (talk) 07:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

AL-QAEDA IS NOT A TERRORIST GROUP!!!

"The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaeda. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity...The country behind this propaganda is the US."

 -- Robin Cook, Former British Foreign Secretary

Please see this testimony that states that AL-Qaeda is not a terrorist group. It is in fact an actual computer database and computer system used by the Islamic Bank for Development in early 1980s. Part of the system's memory was used for the communication of the Islamic Conference's secretariat. Many groups and nations had access to this database, one of which was an important family of the banking and business world by the name of bin Laden. The groups and families used the database's email system, some of which were affiliated with rouge states. However, the point is that Al-Qaeda is not a terrorist group but a computer database. Furthurmore, if you read the article linked to above, you will see that recent terrorist attacks have been carried out by guerrillas, not international terrorist groups. On a final note, GW Bush and Co. said that Al-Qaeda is hidden within the depths of the US and could be plotting our downfall at this vary minute, and yet no terrorist has ever been found. A few have been suspected, but have been proven innocent. I could go on about how the group that Osama bin Laden is affilliated with is not a terrorist group and could give you the history of that, but I don't want to bore you. If you want the full story, watch The Power of Nightmares by Adam Curtis. Zubachi (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

While TPON is an excellent film, I'm afraid you are making a simple error. "Qaida" is Arabic for "base", so it is used for things as benign as computer databases, to bases of Islamic fundamentalism. I'm not suggesting either is true, merely that your logic is faulty. In addition, the bin Laden family is very large and very prominent. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 21:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Name of article

Zawahiri merged his al-Jihad (the struggle) group to UBL's al-Qaeda (the base) years ago, and the group now refers to itself as Qaeda-al-Jihad (base of the struggle) in all its media productions through as-Sahab. Even though Western media likes to simple refer to al-Qaeda, I think we should follow the WMF Manual of Style and use the name by which the group self-identifies, Qaeda-al-Jihad. Who knows, the media may even slowly begin following suit. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 21:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Fear of US Retaliation?

The article has a sentence which reads: "Evidence has since come to light that the original targets for the attack may have been nuclear power stations on the east coast of the U.S. The targets were later altered by al-Qaeda, as it was thought that the US retaliation would be too great.[101][102]"

I can find no evidence in 101 or 102 supporting the assertion that the plan was altered BECAUSE of fear of US retaliation. This is what 101 says: "It also showed that two unnamed nuclear power stations were the original targets of the September 11 plot, known to its perpetrators as the Holy Tuesday Operation, but al-Qaida feared that such an attack "might get out of hand"." This is as close to the statement as I can find in 102: "Bin Laden also had to wrestle with demands by Taliban leader Mullah Omar, who provided al Qaeda sanctuary in Afghanistan, to avoid direct attacks on the United States. Many of bin Laden's own advisers sided with Omar and urged him to call off the plot, the report shows."

I think that this sentence should be altered. AThousandYoung (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Changed, out of fear of retaliation. ;-) DeeKenn (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The Russian invasion of Georgia

Has al-Qaida made any statements on this just yet? I can see them either being enthusiastic that a US ally has been invaded, or apprehensive that Russia could be gearing up for new adventures in the Middle East along the lines of Afghanistan, or most likely both. Google is unhelpful on the subject, but I'd expect anyone watching this article to be better-informed than most. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No statements yet that I've seen, though I imagine Zawahiri will make mention of it in his next video release. From a completely amateur point of view, Zawahiri makes much more of global events, while UBL largely ignores goings-on in Asia/Australia/SouthOfTheHornOfAfrica. But I imagine those opinions will belong in Zawahiri's article, not here? An argument could be made either way I suppose. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 01:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Zawahiri will make mention of it in his next video release or whatever. Al-Qaida has nothing to do with the Russian invasion of Georgia. AdjustShift (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Image: Recent Attacks?

What is a "recent attack"? The image is unclear. 66.215.162.112 (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Naming consistency

I see both al-Qaeda and Al-Qaeda be used in the article, as opposed to a consistent use. I know the alternating spellings are both correct, but outside of the first sentence, a single use is preferable. I suggest al-Qaeda over Al-Qaeda, but that's up in the air. WooTisI (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

DJ Khaled?????

vandalism? why is he one of the leaders? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.104.215 (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism, already removed. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 23:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "alliance of" or just an "Islamic militant terrorist organization"

HELLO Quote: "... Alija Izetbegovic was willing to accept any help it could get, military or financial, including that of a number of Islamic organisations, such as al-Qaeda.". Here, al-Qaeda is called an islamic organisation, while the article starts with "... is an international alliance of Islamic militant terrorist organizations...". Shouldn't that be fixed? -- Kirjapan (talk) 13:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What "fixed"? Al-Qaeda is Islamic organization (too). --HanzoHattori (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to figure out what they are, with all the misinformation from the neoconservatists and the current US government. -- Kirjapan (talk) 07:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change:

Al-Qaeda (also al-Qaida or al-Qa'ida or al-Qa'idah) (Arabic: القاعدة‎ al-qāʕida, translation: The Base) is an international Islamic militant terrorist organization, or alliance of organizations, founded in 1988[4] by Azzam (later replaced by Osama Bin Laden...

I've seldom heard of it refered to as an alliance of organizations except in wikipedia --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean, it might be Atheist? Or Christian? --HanzoHattori (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, how about:

Al-Qaeda (also al-Qaida or al-Qa'ida or al-Qa'idah) (Arabic: القاعدة‎ al-qāʕida, translation: The Base) is an international Islamic militant terrorist organization, or an international alliance of Islamic militant terrorist organizations, founded in 1988[4] by Azzam (later replaced by Osama Bin Laden... --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

We no longer call Egyptians barbarians do we? What is the purpose of using an ethnic slur to define a group which at no point has ever accepted the stance of being a "terrorist organization". In the article set aside for the Ku Klux Klan there is absolutely no mention of it being a terrorist organization however it is there mission statement that violence is the only way to solve their problems. Not only that but this article also goes on to give a list of organizations that use this slur. Wouldn't it be unnecessary to call them terrorists than make an attempt to argue they are terrorists? Either they are or they are terrorists or they are being considered terrorists, if there is not a universal acceptance than the beginning of this article is misleading. If you remove the contradiction perhaps the article would look proper were it started like this:

Al-Qaeda (also al-Qaida or al-Qa'ida or al-Qa'idah) (Arabic: القاعدة‎ al-qāʕida, translation: The Base)is an international alliance of Sunni Islamic organizations founded in 1988[4] by Azzam (later replaced by Osama Bin Laden...

It is the only way to remove a direct biased in the introduction of this article. --Zakhebeone (talk) 2:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Introduction is not biased. Go ahead and add the word "terrorist" to the Ku Klux Klan article, but do not censor this article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You call me a censor, I call you a bigot, unvalidated my statement or leave the article alone. --Zakhebeone (talk) 5:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The question of the concrete "reality" of a human organization is always subject to eternal philosophical questions of classification. An entity "belongs" to an organization only to the extent that varying human perception, including its own, makes it so. The article well expresses both poles of this continuum and no further clarification is thus needed.Mydogtrouble (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The opening description i.e. "an international Sunni Islamic movement founded in 1988. Al-Qaeda have attacked civilian and military targets in various countries, the most notable being the September 11 attacks in 2001" is not exactly a generally accepted fact. It would rather appear to be a loose association of various extreme Islamicist (not simply "Islamic") groups. 84.188.251.62 (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The opening paragraphs and many sections in this article are biased and misleading. There is not a shred of evidence that there is something like an Al-Qaeda terrorist networked organisation. This image has been fabricated by neo-conservatives, exaggerated by the media and thankfully accepted by a handful of radicals as free media exposure for their ideas. I think it is sad that Wikipedia is abused to turn fantasies into fabricated realities for political reasons.
Can I therefor suggest to change this article into a document that only describes the historic timeline of the imagined international network of terrorists and the spin around it? I am not saying there are no terrorists, I am disputing that there is a global organisation behind this, since there is absolutely no evidence. It is not the first time in history that things that don't exist simply become reality after you just repeat them again and again. Wvdc (talk) 10:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence and I wouldn't advise attempting to censor the article with conspiracy theories. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that the issue here is the terms "Al Qaeda" and "founded". If you look at the history of "Al Qaeda", you see that they didn't "found" themselves in 1988 as is claimed in the article. The term "Al Qaeda" was used to label the group of mujahadeen being funded by Osama bin laden and the CIA during the Afghan war with Russia. (I realize that the article claims that the origins of the term is disputed, the first known instance of the term is in 1998, from an address book found by the CIA that was believed to belong to Osama Bin Laden when the CIA raided a place after the 1998 bombing, and was labeled "The base of Jihad", and listed those sympathetic to the cause of the Afghans, whom Bin Laden could count on to fight against the Russians. It appears that this is the main reason why the article wording was changed from "organization" to to the more accurate "movement". "Movements" are not "founded", organizations are. I think that wording the article should be changed so that it more accurately reflects the etymology of the term "Al Qeada". I think that it's CIA-financed origins are also an important enough part of it's history to be added to the description. For instance, "Al-Qaeda, alternatively spelled al-Qaida and sometimes al-Qa'ida, (Arabic: القاعدة‎; al-qāʿidah; translation: The Base) is an international Sunni Islamist movement, originating with CIA-sponsored militants during the Afghan war around 1988". That, to me, is the most accurate definition.71.168.97.187 (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Qaeda

This news story

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/27/world/africa/27pirates.html?pagewanted=2&th&emc=th

uses "Qaeda" rather than "Al-Qaeda". (I just mention this in case it is of interest.)

Wanderer57 (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Image: Cheney/Sultan?

What is the purpose of the Cheney/Sultan picture? I understand the section deals with US/Saudi relations during the Iraq invasion of Kuwait, but neither person is mentioned anywhere in the entire article text and neither person is a member of Al Qaeda or an affiliated organization. This seems random and probably has an associated POV. Fooburger (talk) 22:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Months with no response, when I get the required access level, I'll remove the image. Fooburger (talk) 04:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"Alleged" CIA involvement

While the DEGREE of involvement in the establishment and funding of the groups of individuals that later became know as "Al Qeada" can be disputed, the FACT that the CIA was involved in the formation of these groups is not "Alleged". The CIA admits this, and it is a historical certainty. The content of the article is accurate, but the title is misleading, appearing as if ANY CIA involvement is some kind of conspiracy theory. Remove the weasel word "alleged".71.168.97.187 (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

So the involvement of CIA is "alleged" and the attack from 9/11 is for sure blamed on "al-qaeda" ? Can you take the "alleged" from this story with CIA and "al-Qaeda" and put it in the story of the 9/11 attack ? This would be more accurate. Who is keeping this article on "al-Qaeda" from being edited ? There are mistakes in it, don't you hear this? Are you doing it on purpose or something? Nimeni12345 (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Nimeni12345

You would probably have more luck posting a link to a credible reference for your claim. It looks like this page is locked due to vandalism. Fooburger (talk) 04:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

KLA

Why no mention of links to the KLA and Chechnya??? 88.111.185.5 (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Because no one's mentioned them. Do so, if you wish--but only if it's accompanied with reliable citations. --Hiddekel (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Word Terrorist

From the article 'terrorism Sunni Islamist' Yet elsewhere I read 'Wikipedia has a policy of not calling people or groups "terrorist".' I see yet again the policy broken!Bettybutt (talk) 05:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not make a habit of spamming article talk pages. The label is applied here, as in 9/11, because that is how the organization is referred to in mainstream sources and by the United Nations. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 06:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Existence

Since it's impossible to prove a negative, who will offer proof that this group even exists except outside the fantasy of conspiracy theorists? Where are the headed notepaper and the registered offices? There are none. This is a made-up group by western "intelligence" (and I use the word lightly) agencies in their quest to steal natural resources. Can anyone "SITE" anything credible that lends credibility to their existence (besides obviously phoney videos and audios)? This whole episode is an insult to the intelligence. See the 9/11 Omission Report for less details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.101.109.156 (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Expansion of "Regional involvement#in the Middle East" section

I can't edit the article from this location. Would somebody please add the following to the beginning of the paragraph?

Following the Yemeni unification of May 1990, Wahhabi networks began moving missionaries into the country in an effort to subvert the capitalist north. Although it is unlikely bin Laden was directly involved, the personal connections he made would be established over the next decade and used to ...

203.24.110.83 (talk) 09:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Jermey Reynalds should be Jeremy Reynalds

see [7]

Jermey is a surname! ;-)

Jon Jermey.

== IN THE WEBSITES OF AMERICAN INTELLIGENCE AL QAIDA IS STILL JUST A PRIME SUSPECT NOT A PROVEN ATTACKER YET A WHOLE COUNTRY WAS PUSHED TO WAR ON BASIS OF A PRIME SUSPECT. == —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.109.20.84 (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I remove this??--John Bessa (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda in Pakistan, Iraq, and other countries

Why don't we have a section on the recent successes Al-Qaeda has enjoyed in Pakistan ?--128.62.184.72 (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Or Iraq (though I use the words "success" or "enjoy" guardedly as I don't see genocide or personal suicide as biological, social, or emotional successes). I think the problem is this: the page is locked. If the lock cannot be removed for whatever reason, then it is time to move to Wikiversity. Clearly, the topic needs to be discussed especially as psychology moves into the study of the hows and whys of terror.--John Bessa (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

History of the name

I still don't see why this section starts with "There is at least one public reference to the name "al-Qaeda" that pre-dates the 2001 trial." There are numerous public references prior to 1998. Please see talk history page for citations. Perhaps you could say this was the first U.S. Government's public pronouncment. However, even that would be wrong. There is a state department report from 1996. (See: "US lists Saudi businessman as extremis sponsor." Carol Giacomo August 1996 Reuters News), at the very latest.

I guess we are going to ignore the Arab media were using the term since the early 90s. And Although it counts for nothing, I am SURE there were numerous other U.S. pronoucements that just didnt happen to find themselves in the newswires and thus Lexis Nexis archives. I don't understand what the whole focus on "public" is, since there are numerous after the fact references and discussions, documents, etcetera that traced the term Al-Qaeda since its founding. Although I guess an esteemed website like Wikipedia always has to leave open the possiblity of monolothic international conspiracies building up quite an after the fact profile to cover their tracks.

This idea though that there could be one or even close to one reference to al-qaeda before 2001 is just bizarre. Although I know it is necessary to get the Jamal al-Fadl "invented al qaida" idea as early as possible in the article.

Anyways, I don't thinks it proper to mislead readers that the first pronoucement came from Clintons executive order. If its a popular enough opinion that the name came from Jamal al-Fadl i suppose its necessary to include it, but it should come with the knowledge that this goes against all available evidence to support it. Chudogg (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, according to ex Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Robin Cook [[8]], "Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. 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.". Unless he was lying, that is indeed the earliest known use. Sterango (talk) 02:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I recall hearing that the name more means "list" rather than computer file. A terror group named for a computer file strongly implies Western support, as Muslim guerrillas are not really "geeky" types. This really bears confirmation, because it damns the CIA if true (I think it isn't). —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Bessa (talk • contribs) 18:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The editor of the article is alluding to the (easily disproved) theory that the name "Al Qaida" wasn't in use prior to Clinton's executive order. The problem associated with that is that is was used for years prior to Clinton's executive order. A simple Lexus Nexus shows that it was in use to at least 1994. It is therefore impossible for the "Al Fadl" introduced the name theory to be accurate. The entire section should be removed. Furthermore, the citation provided as absolutely nothing to do with "here is at least one public reference to the name "al-Qaeda" that pre-dates the 2001 trial".

This was already fixed before like a year ago it's a shame to see this frivolous deception keep coming about.

Chudogg (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The term 'al qaeda' can also be found in news articles pre-dating Bin Laden's birth, just as the word 'base' can in English texts. The issue is not when the term first appeared, but when it was first used as the name of an organisation. If you have evidence of it being used in official documents as the name of an organisation rather than as a common noun prior to the executive order, and you can adequately reference it, put it in the article.

Bergen's arguments (1) that Bin Laden formed an organisation at a meeting in 1988 and (2) that this organisation adopted "Al Qaeda" as its name at this meeting are based on documents recovered in Bosnia, which refer interchangably to a 'base' ('al qaeda') and a 'military base' ('al qaeda al askariya') with no suggestion that either term is being used as the name of an organisation rather than a particular base near the border of Afgahnistan and Pakistan. Bergen has simply made a mistake in my opinion and his argument also directly contradicts the testimony of Al Fadl, who testified that he was present at the founding meeting of the organisation in either 1989 or 1990, and who is not listed as present in the minutes of the 1988 meeting detailed in the Bosnian documents. --Distinguisher (talk) 11:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to learn to comprehend English. Al Qaida has been used in reference to Bin Laden's organization since at least 1994. Nobody is referencing to any other uses of Al-Qaida other than you.

As far as references, I'm really dissapointed I have to go through this again. This must be at least the third or fourth time in reference to this article. It's really dissapointing the discussion page keeps gettting erased as well. I don't know how many dittoheads will keep coming in here before it is resolved that this isn't a matter of opinion, but one of historical record.

Earlier, during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Usama Bin Ladin drew on his family's wealth plus donations received from sympathetic merchant families in the Gulf region to organize the Islamic Salvation Foundation, or al-Qaida. The group established recruitment centers in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan that enlisted and sheltered thousands of Arab recruits to fight the Soviets. United Press International August 14, 1996, U.S.: Saudi financed Islamic extremists BY JORGE A. BANALES

I left Egypt with enormous popular and official support which was only appreciated later with shock by the regime. All the procedures were legal when I left in the middle of 1985, went to Jeddah and from there to Pakistan where I worked as a doctor with the Mujahedin, Zawahri said. When he settled in Peshawar he established, with Bin Laden's financial help, Al-Qa'ida (the base) to host Arab volunteers. The first and most active group that went to Afghanistan was made up of Adli Youssef, Ali Abdel-Fattah and Mohamed El-Islambouli who moved on after his stopover in Jeddah. "They all went to Peshawar via Saudi Arabia and played a leading role in organising the Arab-Afghan groups," an Islamist defendant said. When Zawahri managed to convince Bin Laden to establish Al-Qa'ida, Jihad members from a variety of Arab states came to have a hostel of their own. AL AHRAM WEEKLY, "The Afghan connection" April 14, 1994:

In 1985, he went to Saudi Arabia where he worked in a hospital. It was during this period that he met Osama Bin Laden, who established Al-Qa'ida, a base for volunteers en route from Egypt to Afghanistan. AL AHRAM WEEKLY, "Faces of Militancy" May, 1994:

Also see the State Department Report "US lists Saudi businessman as extremist sponsor." Carol Giacomo August 1996 Reuters News. This is in the Summer of 2006, and mentions Bin Laden's organization by name. The Jamal al Fadl states he began talking to U.S. intelligence in December of 2006. Clearly, the term Al Qaida had been in use some years prior to al Fadl, and the U.S. government itself had been using the term before al-fadl. And WELL before the 2008 Clinton Executive order which is still mistakenly blazing on the front page of the article.

Happy now?Chudogg (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, if you have relevant evidence, put it in the article instead of complaining that no one else has.--Distinguisher (talk) 09:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Al Fadl Section Removed. No verifiable sources to justify Robin Cook's (arguably not a reliable source) claim that Al-Fadl introduced/invented there term Al Qaeda to western intelligence due to RICO laws. Public Record goes back at least to 1994. Used in official documents in 1996. Relevent sections moved to Etymology for the debate over the origins (i.e. "Database" vs "military base").

If an editor finds it absolutely necessary to this al-fadl theory, rather than a nonsensical revert war, I would recommend that inclusion should take no more than a paragraph the size that the others are in Etymology, and should be stated clearly that media and government documents were published prior towards Al-Fadl's cooperation with U.S. intelligence. 20:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chudogg (talk • contribs)

TfD nomination of Template:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks

Template:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Aude (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"Allegedly"

'

Al-Qaeda has allegedly[7] attacked civilian and military targets in various countries, the most notable being the September 11 attacks in 2001.

So is that meaning to infer the insane proposition that perhaps Al Qaeda perhaps hasn't attacked anyone ever?!?!

It then goes in the next paragraph to say as fact that Al Qaeda has been carried out

suicide attacks and simultaneous bombings of different targets

If these are 'characteristic techniques of its violence surely it is then involved in violence. To suggest that Al Qaeda is non-violent is akin to suggesting that Adolf Hitler wasn't anti-semitic.

Yes it is blatant vandalism. As evident by the citation which goes to the 'no link between Iraq, al-Qaida' story. Would like to see whatever admin wrote that up and take ownership. NPOV tag emplaced until someone sane can come by and change it up. I feel like this article needs a baby sitter *sigh* Chudogg (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Osama Bin Laden is the prime funder of Al Qaeda. It is pretty undisputed that he is responsible for the attacks that took place on 9/11. We also have proved that Al Qaeda was responsible for bombing of the WTC in 1993. It was later discovered that the 1993 attack was meant to be accompanied by an attack on the pentagon. You are not being fair in saying Al Qaeda did not play a part. That would be ignorant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.193.15.53 (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Link 7 9/11 panel sees no link between Iraq, al-Qaidais wholly improper and does not support the use of the word ALLEGEDLY.

"The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday that Osama bin Laden met with a top Iraqi official in 1994 but found “no credible evidence” of a link between Iraq and al-Qaida in attacks against the United States." 9/11 panel sees no link between Iraq, al-Qaida

If the statement was al Qaeda had alleged links between the government of Saddam Hussein it would be a proper link. This pushes the limits. The responsibility for the 9/11 attacks is supported in the article:

"The attacks were conducted by al-Qaeda, acting in accord with the 1998 fatwa issued against the United States and its allies by military forces under the command of bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, and others.[94] Evidence points to suicide squads led by al-Qaeda military commander Mohamed Atta as the culprits of the attacks, with bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Hambali as the key planners and part of the political and military command."

--Jogershok (talk) 07:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

We the People are the Foundation

"In Arabic qa'idah bayanat is database where bayanat is data and qa'idah is base." So if Al Qeada wanted to name themselves "the database" why didn't they? The speculation in this article about the meaning of that name originated with the U.S. intelligence community in an effort to obfuscate the broad base of support for this insurgency (whose leader's name was on the tip of every young Saud's toungue in August, 2001). By characterizing the name as a reference to a military base (Al Qeada has none) or a database (like Wikipedia) in the only acceptable public speculation about the name, intelligence ops effectively misdirected Al Qaeda's appeal -- at least in foreign languages -- to the foundation of society. The strategy was to appeal to the BASE, avoiding the authority of Arab governments who would intervene in an anti-industrialist insurgency. Until January, 2009, those of us U.S. born citizens who openly exposed the actual meaning of the term faced incarceration and torture as collaborators aka terrorists. Soldiergurl (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(public response to PM -- thanks for the Q, JM) -- it's about this article because to repeat without qualification speculation about the meaning of the name serves the purposes of those whose speculation is being repeated, which is not consistent with an encyclopedic mission. Soldiergurl (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been bold and removed the database section again. Yes, Robin Cook is notable, but his ideas here stand against everything we know about the organization. It's a fringy viewpoint which does not deserve the weight it's being given here. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 19:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Wahhabi roots of the al Qaeda(?)

The organization is clearly Sunni. I read on this page is influenced by the Wahhabi culture, described elsewhere on WP as mercenary clerics who put the Saud family into power a long time ago. Eventually, the Saud family as leaders, or perhaps owners, of Saudi Arabia, captured the important cities of Islam, Mecca and Media, with extreme violence. Also here in the WP is material about an attempted rebellion to release one of the cities from the Sauds. Bin Laden is Saudi, born to a leading Saudi family: is this significant, or just coincidence? The organization is Sunni, yet spread everywhere, Saudis are Sunni and Islam has historically annexed violently. Is history repeating itself?

Further, this article gives the al Qaeda religious creds (I wouldn't), so I am wondering if there is material supporting a "philosophical" al Qaeda "base" somewhere, perhaps in the original Wahhabi culture region. If so then Saudi Arabia's rejection of bin Laden for criticizing the Saudi relationship with the West, and his family's disowning of him (for whatever their reasons), may simply be posturing to protect the Western cash flow and to secure protection from Iraq. (which may cease if the US economic situation keeps deteriorating).

I do remember bin Laden's mother stating on TV that her son is innocent in the terror attack on the World Trade Center, and I specifically remember her naming the CIA as the guilty party. She was the original "truther."--John Bessa (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Emotionally potent oversimplification?

It seems that people close to Osama bin Laden (including OBL himself) understood the term 'Al-Qaeda' to be something entirely other than the name of an organisation. Initially al-Qaeda was "the base" of operations against the Soviet Union (literally, the training camps). According to Jason Burke's research, it developed into something else:

The word itself is critical. 'Al-Qaeda' comes from the Arabic root qaf–ayn–dal. It can mean a base, as in a camp or a home, a foundation, such as what is beneath a house or a pedestal that supports a column. It can mean the lowest, broadest layer of a large cumulonimbus-type cloud. And, crucially, it can also mean a precept, rule, principle, maxim, formula, method, model or pattern.

The word or phrase 'al-Qaeda' was certainly in use by the mid 1980s among the Islamic radicals drawn from all over the Muslim world to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan alongside the local resistance groups. Given that it is a common Arabic word, this should not surprise us. For most of them it was used in a relatively mundane sense: to describe the base from which they operated.

However, the word al-Qaeda was also used by the most extreme elements among the radicals fighting in Afghanistan, particularly those who decided that their struggle did not end with the withdrawal of the Soviets from the country in 1989. Abdallah Azzam, the chief ideologue of the non-Afghan militants drawn to fight alongside the mujahideen and an early spiritual mentor of bin Laden, used the word to describe the role he envisaged the most committed of the volunteers playing once the war against the Soviets was over. In 1987 he wrote:

"Every principle needs a vanguard to carry it forward and [to] put up with heavy tasks and enormous sacrifices. There is no ideology, neither earthly nor heavenly, that does not require… a vanguard that gives everything it possesses in order to achieve victory… It carries the flag all along the sheer, endless and difficult path until it reaches its destination in the reality of life, since Allah has destined that it should make it and manifest it. This vanguard constitutes the strong foundation (al-qaeda al-sulbah) for the expected society."

Some analysts have taken this statement to indicate that a group called 'al-Qaeda al-Sulbah' had been formed by the time Azzam wrote these words. However, it was clear, not least from the constant references to vanguards elsewhere in radical Islam thought at the time and previously, that Azzam was talking about a mode of activism, not talking about an organisation. Azzam certainly saw al-Qaeda as a base, but a base that was to be composed of individuals committed to the cause who would, through the cumulative weight of their actions, instigate great change. They would be the 'foundation' for the edifice Azzam hoped to construct, the bottom layer of the towering cloud, the foot of the pedestal. In short, they would be a revolutionary 'vanguard of the strong' who would radicalize and mobilize the Islamic world. Azzam was not referring to an extant organisation. He was referring to a 'tactic'.

Al-Qaeda: Casting A Shadow Of Terror (London & New York: I.B. Tauris, 2003

Jason Burke has examined original court documents (USA vs Usama bin Laden) and interviewed people familiar with Osama bin Laden who say, unequivocally, that al-Qaeda was not the name of an organisation, but rather a mode of activism and formula for success. Burke makes the case that the FBI were desperate to "pin down" OBL as the head of an organisation, making it much easier to prosecute all of those associated with him, and thus preferred a simplification. He even reproduces the interrogation transcript of no less a figure than Khalfan Khamis Mohamed:

Prosecution: Did you ever ask KK Muhamed whether or not he ever heard of the term bayat?

FBI: Yes, we did.

P: What did he say?

FBI: He said he had not.

P: And did you ask him about the term al-Qaeda?

FBI: Yes we did.

P: And what did he say?

FBI: He said that al-Qaeda was a formula system for what they carried out, talking about the bombing.

P: And did you ask him whether or not he'd heard of a group called al-Qaeda?

FBI: We did.

P: And what did he say in response?

FBI: He claimed he'd never heard of a group called al-Qaeda.

This view is entirely credible and well supported. See also, "Think Again: Al Qaeda", Foreign Policy (May/June 2004), accessed at http://www.foreignpolicy.com. Dynablaster (talk) 04:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

LexusNexus shows that Arab media were using the term "Al Qaida" or various spellings to refer to Bin Laden's organization by atleast early 1994. How does that fit into your hypothesis?Chudogg (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not my hypothesis. The extract above comes from author Jason Burke. How many results does LexusNexus return exactly? And by results I do not mean Arab media sources that describe Afghanistan as "the base of Jihad" or "the base for volunteers" etc; I mean sources that unambiguously say "Al-Qaeda" was the name of an organisation. I believe the answer is one. On a separate note -- and this constitutes original research -- I asked a translator familiar with captured Iraq materials how many times he came across the term "Al-Qaeda" in Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) documents before the year 2001. 'Not a single occasion', came back the answer! Instead the Mukhabarat referred to Osama bin Laden as "the Saudi dissident" and the people around him as "Bin Laden's group". Peter Bergen speculates that OBL wanted to keep the organisation a closely guarded secret (presumably that is his explantion for why so many people missed it). Jason Burke argues 'no', this is a misreading of the available record (in the FBI's case, a willful misreading). Burke is a credible source and his work is published in respected journals. He deserves to be quoted. Dynablaster (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

A missing truth "Drugs"

With the origin of this group in Afghanistan, why does this page not contain any reference to the enormous amount of drugs produced in this area...via opium ?

Seems this is unrealistic from merely a logical perspective ?

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"Afghanistan is currently the primary producer of the drug. After regularly producing 70% of the world's opium, Afghanistan decreased production to 74 tons per year under a ban by the Taliban in 2000, a move which cut production by 94 per cent. A year later, after American and British troops invaded Afghanistan, removed the Taliban and installed the interim government, the land under cultivation leapt back to 285 square miles, with Afghanistan supplanting Burma to become the world's largest opium producer once more. "

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The September 11 attacks in 2001

There seems to be an error in this article and apparently I cannot edit it. The error is in the first paragraph: "Al-Qaeda have attacked civilian and military targets in various countries, the most notable being the September 11 attacks in 2001". Shouldn't we take this out from a wikipedia page since we all know this is not true ? Nimeni12345 (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Nimeni12345

Since we all know this is not true? That, at best, is an inaccurate statement. Those that are thought by the intelligence communities to have committed the attacks on 9/11 are thought to be associated with Al Qaeda. However, the idea that "Al Qaeda" is responsible for the attacks on 9/11 is, at the very least, disputed, and should not be described in the article as if this is an undisputed fact. It is not. However, if you are suggesting that the mention of 9/11 be removed completely or that conspiracy theory wording is added to the article, I disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.97.187 (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so let's call it an inaccurate fact as you wish. Shouldn't wikipedia present an inaccurate fact as "it is believed to have happened like this" or "X and Y are accusing them of this" ? If wikipedia presents inaccurate facts as certainties in every article, it means you cannot trust wikipedia as a source of information. Is this the reality, wikipedia folks (or whoever is keeping this article from being edited) or are you willing to correct the mistake? Nimeni12345 (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Nimeni12345

seeing that both bin Laden and al Zawahiri have admitted to planning these attacks (and to being satisfied with the result) it would be weasely to pretend that they did not do it. --Vindheim (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but "weasely??," is that a word?--John Bessa (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I, and [hundreds of] millions of other americans, watched him personally claim responsibility for the 9/11 attacks.Prussian725 (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Many people believe that that video was not Osama Bin Laden at all. Even if he had claimed to be responsible for the attacks, this in itself is not proof. Captain Prog (talk) 14:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Many have also seen UFOs. That is why it is called "truthing,"--John Bessa (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as it is general consensus yet nothing has happened I will edit this to state it is an unconfirmed fact. If anyone disagrees please post arguments on here since I haven't read any here yet. Arienh4^(Talk) 11:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The true is NOBODY can say unequivocally that they know who attacked the US on 9-11-01. So posting a "fact" statement on what is supposed to be a well researched website when there is no coherent evidence that solidly decodes what happened that day in September is simply wrong. All avenues of thought on this matter should be considered, and allowed on public disclosure websites like this. Who is it that doesn't want the public to have the opportunity to make their own mind up about one of the most tragic events in American history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senlegaff09 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

What is truly a disgrace is the Arabic Wikipedia article about Al-Qaeda. Talk about biases in favor of this organization, which devotes more space to the misbehaviour of the United States causing a "natural consequence" than the actual activities the group is believed to engage or the philosophies it expouses.69.229.5.5 (talk) 06:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I am in agreement with its removal. The FBI has had to admit there is no way they could tell who the real hijackers are as no evidence survived (accept for a phony passport) to tell who they were after several of the supposed hijackers were found to be alive. Not that means one of two things One they can't tell who did it or two Al-Qaeda has teleportation technology which means we shouldn't be screwing with them.Kevin7557 (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Kevin7557Kevin7557 (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree, citation definitely needed. Since it is a widespread belief it shouldn't be too challenging to dig up a newspaper article stating the group claimed responsibility for the attacks. I'd do it myself, but I can't edit the page.

Thanks Beganlocal (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.187.44.97 (talk) 08:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)