Talk:Al Qa'qaa

Excellent work on this article! Perhaps the bit on the aliminium tubes could be expanded: see Spinning the Tubes - Ta bu shi da yu 23:08, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nice expansion. Some notes:

• I do not believe the 1100 buildings figure to be substantiated - please provide references for that number. The only place I can find it linked to al Qa Qaa is in a FOX news story. However at the same time, there were stories circulating about "1100 presidential sites" and I think that Fox may have messed up. On the other hand, references to it having more like 110 buildings are more common. I looked at some low quality satellite photos but they aren't detailed enough to be sure, but it looks more like 100 than 1000.
  • Now that i've looked at the Global Security satellite photos, I think that 1100 is right. Sbwoodside 05:31, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• On what basis did you decide to call it Al Qa'qaa? I have not seen this spelling, anywhere. The IAEA, UNMOVIC and UNSCOM documents all refer to it as Al Qa Qaa (which should be re-added). The latest round of media has it Al Qaqaa (no apostrophe) which is probably based on the spelling used in the letter from the Iraqi government to IAEA on the 10th (This spelling I think shows up in UN documnets as well). So Al Qaqaa should also be there.
  • I'm told by reliable Arabists that the Qa'qaa spelling is the preferred one (actually, it should probably be Qa'qaa'). The emphasis is on the second syllable. The difference in spelling is simply because there's no consistent way to transliterate Arabic (see the numerous versions of Muammar al-Qaddafi's name for an example).
• I don't think it's accurate to say that the 3rd infantry "captured" the facility since what I have read indicates they did not leave a presence there.
  • The 3rd Infantry reportedly had to fight a brief battle (presumably with facility guards) before it was secured. "Captured" isn't the same as "occupied" - it simply means that one side took possession of the site, not that the site was then garrisoned afterwards.
• "the greatest explosives bonanza in history" quote is still anonymous as far as I know. I would put a qualifier on that quote, that it was a "reported" quote.
  • I agree - that's fair enough.
• many insurgent attacks have also been carried out with plastic explosives, I think, but I would have to research this more to be confident (certainly some were, notably the massive hotel attack) Sbwoodside 01:27, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • The vast majority have used converted munitions, I gather (shells and anti-tank mines for the most part). -- ChrisO 16:48, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Satellite imagery of Al Qa Qaa

There's some amazing satellite images here : [1]. It would be great if we could use them in wikipedia. Sbwoodside 05:25, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Can you secure a GFDL license for them? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:32, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If I had time... Sbwoodside 21:33, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would add one comment about the controversy. The controversy is not just about when the weapons were removed (looted) but why the weapons were not destroyed by an air strike during the air war. This would have ensured that they did not fall into the wrong hands, and is therefore another example of gross incompetence in the execution of the war. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edderd (talk • contribs).