Talk:Al-Qaeda

Even Osama Bin Laden credits others

Al Qaeda are not Islamic, they are ruining the image of Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakanqat (talk • contribs) 23:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC) Osama Bin Laden founded the original training centre "the base"? He states otherwise in BBC interviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.38.92 (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

'Qaeda' does not mean The Base. If research was done by the writers of this article, they would have found that in arabic, the supposed terrorist group's language, it means 'the book'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.125.103.98 (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Introduction section makes no sense

"al-Qaeda's operations have evolved from top-down controlled, to franchise associated groups, to lone wolf operators"

What is a franchise associated group and a lone wolf operator and how can they be described to be a part of Al-Qaeda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.225.104 (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Via funding and training for planing and attacks, supply of weapons or details on how to make weapons. One person can make an attack, they have far more chance of success if they get backing. The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It also cites that Al Qaeda are militant, they are not only militant, they spread the ideologies, and they are not all Islamic, they are people in disguise, please discuss so we can edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakanqat (talk • contribs) 23:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Al-Qaeda is Islamic – see here, here, here and here. All these either state or imply that Al-Qaeda is Islamic.
2. Al-Qaeda is militant (defined as: 1. vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause; 2. engaged in warfare; fighting, by [1]) – see here (states explicitly), here (states Al-Qaeda involved in bombing), here (states Al-Qaeda involved in bombing, also describes bombers as "Islamists") and here (Al-Qaeda spokesperson encourages American Muslims to purchase weapons and start killing people indiscriminately).

You arguments that Al-Qaeda is neither militant nor Islamic is about as fallacious as it is possible for an argument to get. Please remember: just because Al-Qaeda's definition of the word "Islamic" varies from yours, this does not mean they are not Islamic. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Having been reverted

Does anyone object to this edit? [2] reverted by passamethod. Given that Al-Qaeda are in fact operating under Salafist jihadism and it is well sourced we have two options, allow the edit to stand (personally I feel it is quite a good edit) or remove the unsourced and POV statement which has been reverted back in. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The source does not say that. That paragraph seperates salafism and al qaeda. Al qaeda and salafism are two different things Pass a Method talk 14:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, i have added no "statement" Pass a Method talk 14:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The source does not separate them at all, and Al Qaeda follow Salafism, which is quite clear in the source. Your revert was pointless. I shall put it back along with a few more sources to keep you happy. The Last Angry Man (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thats disputable. Either way, i think it is undue weight to add salafi associations to the intro. I would not mind it in the main text Pass a Method talk 15:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes I can see how having mention of their ideology in the lede would be undue [/sarc] As I said it can go back along with the reference which was just added into the info box. The Last Angry Man (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added an additional source to support Salafist jihadism under Ideolody in the upper right box. In general the lead should summarize the article. Salafist jihadism is clearly important, but it's difficult to get everything important in the lead without making the lead too long. "They ignore holy text etc." may be important to include to make clear that al-Qaida's religion/idelolgy is outside mainstream contemporary Islam, but it's a judgement call, and I'm undecided. It might be best to let things sit for a while and hear what others think. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Al qaeda is associated with dozens of other groups besides salafis. If we add all of them the lede would clogg. This is why i rmoved it from the intro. Pass a Method talk 16:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I had hoped after a few days a few others would have commented. It seems to me that for the sake of neutrality we ought make mention of the specific ideology they follow which allows them to ignore holy text which forbids the killing of people (without first giving them a chance to convert) and more importantly to kill fellow Muslims. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I would question using a term that was coined 15 years ago and may not have universal acceptance. Sources are more likely to describe al Qaeda as Islamic fundamentalists, and the term Wahhabi is more common that Salafi. TFD (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I managed to find some relatively recent sources [3][4][5] that describe Al'Qaeda as "Salafist" or "Salafi Jihadist". - SudoGhost 08:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The two sources I used are from academic publishers and both describe Al Qaeda as following the Salafist Jihad branch and this is the reason that they can do what they do, I feel it is important that their specific Ideology is mentioned in the lede as it is this which allows them to act against mainstream Islam. The Last Angry Man (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

What is mainstream Islam? Or are you just making things up as you go along? Are you saying Salafists follow a heretic sect of Islam? If so, you are mistaken. For example, in Mecca and Medina, several of the mainstream muslim scholars will describe themselves as Salafis. Pass a Method talk 16:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I mean salifists are an extreme branch, it is the ideology followed by Al Qaeda nd has to be mentioned in the lede, as does the fact that salifists are quite different in they view those who are not salifist as heretics and thus can be killed contrary to the Koran. This is the mainstream view on Al Qaeda you know. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

your ramblings indicate you know absolutely nothing about Salafism. Did you know the current leading imam of Masjid al-Haram is a Salafi? Sunni muslims will consider your statement as blasphemy since Salafis model themselves after the first generation of Muslims (also called Salafis). Stop speaking about issues you are totally unfamiliar with. Your assertiveness on issues you're clueless about are starting to get annoying. Pass a Method talk 17:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

"When commentators analyze Salafism, it is crucial to distinguish between mainstream Salafism and the kind of revolutionary Salafism promoted by al-Qaeda."[6] Al-Qaeda's branch of Salafi Jihadism is not the entirety of Salafism, but this does not mean that this is invalid. But perhaps it does need to be clarified that not all of Salafism shares this viewpoint. - SudoGhost 17:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry my rambling is not clear enough for you :o) Let me try to be clear, Al Qaeda`s ideology is salifist jihadism right? This is an extremist ideology yes? It is what allows them to ignore writings which forbid the killing of civilians and fellow muslims, right? This needs to be refelected in the lede as it is important to point out that this is an extreme form of Islam and that your average salafist is not a salafist jihadist? Is that a little clearer? The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Its not true that all al-Qaeda members are Salafis. For example, one notable Al Qaeda member Anwar Awlaki never addressed Salafis in dozens of video recordings (to my knowledge). He simply addresses fellow Sunni Muslims. Plus i oppose the use of Salafism because its definition is even vague among Muslims themselves, many of whom accuse other Salafis of not being "true" Salafis. I think such controversial statements should be moved to a sub-section of this article. Pass a Method talk 18:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

To say that because someone addressed Sunnis and not "fellow Salafis" means that not all Al'Qaeda members are Salafis is original research which is contradicted by reliable sources saying that Al'Qaeda is Salafi. If you back your statements up with reliable sources, it would carry a lot more weight, but at this point it is your opinion against the weight of reliable sources saying otherwise, per WP:VNT. - SudoGhost 18:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

(ecx2)Your wrong, this article is about Al Qaeda, the group, not different members of said group. We have no shortage of sources which state unambiguously that the group is salifist jihadist. How is the definition vague? One of the sources I added discusses in in some detail. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I have never disputed Al Qaeda has Salafi elements. I agree it does. But i say that the sentence proposed by TLAM has not been accepted by all editors, hence should be reowrded, or proposals should be made. TFD and Tom Harrison have expressed doubts. Pass a Method talk 18:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ No content on Wikipedia is accepted by all editors, this alone is not a reason to reword something. Reliable sources showing that the content needs to be changed, or some policy issue such as WP:WEIGHT or WP:NPOV are a valid reasons to reword something, and unless I'm missing it, you have not demonstrated this to be the case. If you want to propose some rewording, do so. - SudoGhost 18:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Tom said he was undecided, TFD was wrong in that he thought salifist jihad was not mainstream terminology, which I have let hi know on his talk page. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay i will reword it, tell me what you think Pass a Method talk 18:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, lets get some input from some other editors Pass a Method talk 19:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Why not propose a change here and we will discuss it, I am quite sure we can come to an amicable agreement. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Assertions about the size of Al Qaeda then, now?

The lead paragraphs to this article currently asserts that al Qaeda is a growing threat.

I am concerned this is misleading.

Following al Qaeda's attacks on 9-11 all kinds of professional alarmists emerged who will certainly say that. But there are other commentators who will say that the actual number of individuals on al Qaeda's payroll were small in 2001, and have been considerably reduced.

I suggest Al Qaeda in Iraq, and Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, are separate organizations, with their own leadership -- and their own articles. They have grown. But I consider it misleading to write this article as if those other organizations were part of the original al Qaeda. Note, when Zarqari was alive, at a certain point he decided to rename his organization to "Al Qaeda in Iraq". He swore "bayat" to OBL. But OBL's control over him was extremely weak, confined only to exhortation. Al Qaeda central wanted AQiI to curb the number of civilian casualties, and couldn't get Zarqari to comply. Why? Because they remained separate organizations.

Last weekend a 60 minutes segment included an interview with the USA's senior General in Afghanistan, who said that only 50 or so al Qaeda members remained alive in Afghanistan. The original al Qaeda has lost its leader, and the USA has claimed to have killed off a succession of individuals who were its third in command.

So, it sounds like the actual members of the original al Qaeda is currently about one hundred individuals -- including individuals not much different than Salim Hamdan, who wouldn't pose a real threat to anyone outside of Afghanistan because they couldn't navigate their way through an airport. My impressions is that the actual number of members of the original al Qaeda was that if you only counted those who were on al Qaeda's payroll, or who were cooling their heels in an al Qaeda sponsored safehouse, or who were serving under al Qaeda officers on the Taliban's front lines, there were never more than a couple of hundred members. In the decades preceding 9-11 thousands of trainees may have passed through al Qaeda's training camps, but weren't most of them basically religious tourists, who weren't going to abandon their homes, jobs, families to commit to becoming jihadist fighters? Geo Swan (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

A WSJ article in Sept 2011 quotes a pentagon spokesman who says the government's current estimate is 3000-4000 members. The same article claims that "the core membership at anywhere from 200 to 1,000. The next shell, of affiliated fighters or funders, is made up of thousands or tens of thousands. And there could be tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of adherents, based on polls and online-forum traffic"96.49.243.17 (talk) 08:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

STRATFOR (example here: http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110502-bin-ladens-death-and-implications-jihadism) tends to assume that al-Qaeda has three layers. Together, these constitute the "organization" we call al-Qaeda ("organization" is how they themselves call their group even though it has always been loose and goal-oriented rather than having any coherent internal process), and the three layers of al-Qaeda have very few ties except for between key communicators in the al-Qaeda center:

Core Organization: the group of bin Laden associates that now includes al-Zawahiri, Adam Gadahn and probably at best a few hundred other operatives and is in either Pakistan or in the FATA which includes Waziristan. This part is the elite group of trainers with expertise, and they alone executed 9/11.* In some definitions, like used by the contributor above, this group is al-Qaeda and it has been shrinking or blending into the Tehrik-i-Taliban basically (which itself is not shrinking). Much of the War on Terror has been about this layer only.

Regional Franchises: includes al-Qaeda in the Arabian Perninsula (AQAP), Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), possibly al-Qaeda in Somalia and in other locations. They are growing in skill and numbers, and the Christmas 2009 underwear bomber originated with AQAP. Some operations but not many have been done by the US against this layer but it mainly relies on the security forces of the states in question to deal with this layer. I would say that total regional operatives number at 'near' but are not exceeding 10,000.

Grassroots Operatives: Difficult to track, but could include the Fort Hood shooter and the 7/7 cell that bombed London rail and bus targets, and are now seen increasingly as a focus for inspiration by the central organization and a particular interest of Gadahn's due to the center's increased operational isolation. This is basically a concern for domestic security policy in the West and cannot be beaten with military intervention. There is no way of knowing how many grassroots operatives exist as anyone at any time who chooses to act on al-Qaeda inspiration becomes one of them.

• An additional point: just because al-Qaeda has not carried out major attacks recently does not mean they are weaker or less numerous. They may indeed be stronger than ever, but are simply being held back by increased surveillance and security measures in our countries. For instance, hijacking a plane or smuggling dangerous objects aboard is now effectively impossible because air security have measures in place to prevent this. Al-Qaeda could have 10,000 hijackers but it would not do them any good anymore because we have adapted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.5.150.96 (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

What about this?

Perfect heading for what i need to ask? What about London 7/7 2005? That was Al Qaeda scum too was it not?English n proud (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gzun4ehFjeA Al-Qaeda is not an organization?

UK government says there was no connection to al-Qaeda in 7/7 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/apr/09/july7.uksecurity).

This only means they did not commission the attack. It does not mean that al-Qaeda had no committees of extremists who agitate, e.g. on the Internet or in training camps and in mosques, and that their agitation caused these attacks. Al-Qaeda incited but did not coordinate these acts, unlike 9/11, which had the full management muscle of al-Qaeda behind it in training, appointment and command throughout their mission. Al-Qaeda's management is mainly directed towards running away from bombs flying their way nowadays, so they can only incite homegrown extremists in the West to kill for them rather than doing it themselves.

--81.5.150.96 (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

AL QAEDA ARE NOT ISLAMIC, THEY ARE RUINING THE IMAGE OF ISLAM SO WHEN SOMEBODY SAYS THAT THEY ARE DOING SO, DONT REMOVE WHAT HE SAID, DISCUSS BEFORE REMOVING DUDE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakanqat (talk • contribs) 23:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see here for my answer to your similar comment further up the page.

Also, no one on wikipedia is required to discuss a revert with you before performing it; see WP:BRD. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)