Talk:Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 16, 2006.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Iraq (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Terrorism (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement, not for engaging in discussion for discussion's sake. Do not use them as a discussion forum.

Sources?[edit]

Somehow through multiple edits and reverts, all the sources have disappeared! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.59.210 (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Boy oh boy is this page gonna get vandalised[edit]

And they still reject any attempt to automatically protect FAOTD articles, although all the pictures that are shown on the main page are protected. --Orang gila 00:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Page protection unlikely[edit]

Just to answer the perennial question before it gets asked, Today's Featured Article is normally not protected. If vandalism gets severe, it may be semi-protected and full move protection may also be implemented, but normally, today's FA is not protected. If you want to help protect the page from vandalism, please watchlist it and help to revert the vandalism as it happens. Thanks, everybody.--Chaser T 00:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I just don't understand the wikipedia heirarchy sometimes. Why don't you guys fully protect/lock every featured article for the duration of its presence on the main page? It's an easy, harmless way to prevent people from clicking on the featured article to see what Wikipedia is all about and see pictures of penises and beastality all over the place. Considering the fact that the page is vandalized as I speak, people who click on it right now are going to look at and see Wikipedia has no credibility whatsoever. Just a suggestion. Uncreative 00:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe part of it is to encourage visitors to add information to these articles that they otherwise might not have been aware of. It seems a matter of deciding which was more important: encouraging people to "get their hands dirty" and edit the article; or locking the article to keep the current information in place. I'm of two minds on the matter, but I think the current system is fine so long as editors are vigilant. -- Kesh 01:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, a perfect example of a policy emphasizing editors over readers.--DaveOinSF 02:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The whole point of the policy is to encourage readers to become editors!--137.82.36.209 02:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes. God forbid someone come to Wikipedia wanting to learn some accurate information...--DaveOinSF 05:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's an absurd policy for a number of reasons, the primary one being that you can't very well demonstrate what is "featurable" about the encyclopedia when the article is constantly being trashed. You can weigh in on Wikipedia talk:Don't protect Main Page featured articles. –Outriggr § 01:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
As tagged above, this page is not for policy discussions. Please take it to the link mentioned above. -- Kesh 02:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Death Edit[edit]

Concerning the bit about Zarqawi's death, I removed the following.

"An Iraqi man, who claims to have arrived on the scene a few moments after the attack, said he saw U.S. troops beating up the badly-wounded but still alive Zarqawi.[118][119] In contradiction, Caldwell asserted that when U.S. troops found Zarqawi barely alive they tried to provide him with medical help, rejecting the allegations that he was beaten based on an autopsy performed. The account of the Iraqi witness has not been verified.[120] All others in the house died immediately in the blasts."

Because the claims have not been verified, I see no reason that it should be placed within the article, and to be quite frank, reeks of bias. If someone has proof of verification, feel free to change it back to the original, provided that a link or some form of proof or source of information is provided within. The "all others" part I removed as well because it didn't lead into the next section very well. Any writers with more skill and interest in the article than myself are welcome to make changes, as that is the beauty of wikipedia. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.234.66.219 (talkcontribs) 02:07, 16 December, 2006.

That edit was reverted earlier, as it was a verified report. Even if the incident did not occur as portrated, the text in the article maintained NPOV by also citing the military version of the event. I would say the text should stand as-is. We can't verify either the man's claim or the military's, but we can verify the existance of both reports. -- Kesh 02:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I reverted that edit because I thought it might have been accidental blanking. Sorry about that. If you use edit summaries on high-profile things like this, people won't mistakenly revert you like I did. I have no opinion on the section in question.--Chaser T 02:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Corpse image[edit]

Somebody either find a picture of him alive or remove the one of his corpse, this is making me sick. Vomiting should not be a normal reaction to any article on wikipedia. Haridan (talk) 23:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with a picture of his corpse being on the page. Obviously, his death was a major part of his life. I just don't think it should be in the infobox; it should be in the section detailing his death. Kaden Sotek (talk) 01:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the picture of al-Zarqawi's corpse contributes anything to the article. How many other articles on deceased persons have pictures of the person's corpse?

I see on the page it says the U.S. government distributed the image in a press pack. If the image was meant to demoralize the insurgency, I think the image would be better placed on the article on propaganda or psyops.

It's my understanding that most articles on deceased persons do not contain an image of the person's corpse.

Also, the supposed source of the image:

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/Transcripts/Slides/060608-zarqawi.pdf

..is no longer present as of December 15, 2006.

I realize "Wikipedia is not censored" but I think if people need to see his corpse (or purported corpse), a picture is present in the Washington Post link. --Pixelface 03:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

"How many other articles on deceased persons have pictures of the person's corpse?" - several. Uday Hussein and Qusay Hussein both do, as does Che Gueverra Raul654 03:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Pope Pius XII as well. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Answer this then, Mr. Big Raul, the uber-agent of Wikimedia Foundation who singularly determines which propaganda piece will be a featured article. How many articles about deceased people who were not considered enemies by the government of the united States of America include articles of the decedent's corpse?
And if enemies of the United States are exclusively selected for depiction of their corpses on the Internet by Wikimedia Foundation, will such images include links to articles on Geneva Conventions which prohibit violating the dignity of the dead? Mahkmed 22:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a poll regarding this issue located in Archive three. I encourage you to go to it and cast a vote so that we can get a better feeling of where consensus lies. This issue seems to be constantly brought up, and then later ignored. Agaib 04:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

As it says at the top of the Archive 3 page, archives are not supposed to be edited. Once a discussion is archived, it is, for all intents and purposes, closed. If people want to continue vote on the matter again, it needs to be done on this page, not in the archive. Stebbins 07:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed with Stebbins - Archives aren't supposed to be edited, so you can't direct people to vote in the archive. As it stands, there are more votes for removing the image than keeping it, anyway - so why has it been kept? The photo of a dead person speaks more about propaganda than being encyclopaedic. I'd vote to remove it. 210.11.75.170 (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

To Raul, yes all of those people have corpse images in their articles where they rightfully belong. They are all located in a section explaining the circumstances of their death as it provides good photo support. The infobox should not be a place to show his death. It is very disrespectful that the perception of the reader is focused on his death rather than his life. This article should not be have his corpse as the main picture to know what he looks like regardless of your political opinions of his actions. Free pictures of Zarqawi are readily available through a google image search. -WhiteFeet 13 May 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.103.200 (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

fake death[edit]

to me it seems that his death was all made up to counter his threat.Yousaf465

This is not a page for speculation. If you can provide evidence (or at least verifiable publications of this idea), it might be worth citing in the "Reports of... death" section. This comment really doesn't belong on the Talk page, though. -- Kesh 04:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment, Yousaf465. Never mind the replies such as Kesh's, who attempt to tell you you are out of place to respond on a discussion page with your perspective about facts in the article. Those who make it their business to go around Wikipedia telling other volunteers their comments are innappropriate or out of place are usually just queing up to run for administrator and are trying to show they know how to push others around. Despite Kesh's demeaning personal attack, which implied you innappropriately responded to Wikimedia Foundation's invitation to edit, your comments inspire me to seek the reports about evidence that supports your perception and include such information in the article.
With regard to Kesh's personal attack against you, this is no different than if Kesh attacked you for including in the discussion page about US space flights a comment that "it seems to me several of the flights ended in a crash." Such a comment would be an offering of your recollection and perceptions that can be used to find information relevant to the content of an informational database such as Wikipedia. If there were no articles about the crashes (there are, but for example), your comment could inspire creation of such articles. If there were articles to that effect, an editor truly interested in collaboration (which Kech does not appear to be interested in) would direct you to that article then inquire if you had recollections of information that could be researched and added to those articles. The appropriate response would be "thank you for your contribution" not "You are out of place, go away." The difference here is that Kesh is systematically intimidating those who doubt the veracity of this article by telling them they have no place in the discussion. The Wikimedia Foundation urges contributors to be bold in contributing content, and not to worry about incomplete or even innaccurate content -- someone will eventually shore up contributions with more facts, the Foundation and it's secret administrative agents imply. When you respond to the Foundation's solicitation to boldly contribute what you know, then Kesh or others of such ilk imply you have acted innappropriately, you can assure yourself you have been abused by someone who is gaming Wikipedia to advance their own political agenda. Mahkmed 22:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
:i only meant that if any evidence can found i will also try you people should also do the same.Yousaf465
My suspision was arosed when i saw the corpse image in detail if you compare the
Rubble and debris litter the site of the last safe house of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Hibhib, Iraq. The top insurgent target in Iraq, along with several of his associates, was killed during an air strike on the house June 7, 2006.
to the corpse image as it here [1] the extent of injuries to his boddy doesn't match with the assumed injuries in attack like this.Yousaf465

Amazing[edit]

Congratulations on making this an FA, despite the controversy. --Abeg92contribsBoomer Sooners! 04:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Mercenary2k 07:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

"Mass Murderer" Category[edit]

Is Zarqawi really deserving of being categorized as a "mass murderer?" This seems somewhat biased to me, unless you want to put Bush up as a mass murderer for his part in the Iraq War. Slinga 17:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It's only "biased" according to you, if you're a god-hating, anti-american liberal terrorist!
JK! LOL
And yeah, he's a mass murderer. So's bush. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.21.69.140 (talkcontribs).
Please keep the political bashing out of this. That aside, it's a valid question as to whether or not Zarqawi should be categorized as a mass murderer. -- Kesh 21:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Macabre Morons[edit]

More often than not Wiki regresses to be the mouthpiece of US foreign policy; furthermore the articles that make it into "todays features article" are one-sided, biased, and poorly written opinion pieces that are construed by a bunch of macabre morons. I am disgusted with the continuance of violence in the Middle East and the constant fanning of the flames through these ignorant pieces of propaganda. If you look at the recent spell of articles on Wikipedia you will realize that the majority of them have tons of spin: Operation Wrath of Good, Iran, and now Abu - that's just a sampling. Never mind the fact that Milton Friedmann died - no news about that. I guess we live in a country where things are so good that the only way we can bring some sense of reality into our lives is by regressing towards hate and violence. That is very sad. Congratulations to those who continue to fight for truth and fairness. --Horn66.174.79.241 21:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not a place for political debate. You may want to register and create your own userpage to voice this opinion, or take it to a policy discussion page. -- Kesh 21:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Kesh's demeaning response aside, thank you for your response, "horn". Kesh abuses you by claiming your concerns about bias in Wikipedia comprise "political debate." Kesh's response is no more than an attempt to silence one side of a debate about Wikipedia content so that Kesh's prefered political faction can control that content.
I added a citation tag to the lead sentence. None of the sources cited in the article accurately say AMZ was the leader of Al-Queda -- they all either say US military intelligence alleges he was the leader of Al-Queda in Iraq, or they don't source their information and are hence unreliable sources for inclusion as encyclopedic content.
I removed the disparaging "Islamist" label. AMZ was a Muslim. "Islamism" is a disparaging reference not embraced by those described as Islamists. It's one thing for Wikipedia to have an article about what some right-wing Christians call some Muslims. It's entirely another to start declaring as fact, based on second-hand allegations from news sources, that a person "is" an Islamist. Would we write that anyone is a "racist" if that person does not profess to be a racist, or would we write that the person has been alleged to be a racist, and name the source of the allegation? Mahkmed 22:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
My response was not demeaning. This is a page for discussing the article itself, not political debate. Please refrain from continuing this.
As an aside, I have reverted your edit, Mahkmed. Islamist is a recognized term, even in Muslim communities, and the edit problem was exacerbated by your simply renaming the link "Muslim" while it still pointed at the same article. Also, your citation template was unwarranted, as there's an entire section devoted to citing the facts and disputes of his death. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kesh (talkcontribs) 22:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC).
Then if there is an entire section dedicated to debate over controvening accounts, why is only one account of his role declared factual in the lead? If you say his role is open for debate, according to the sources provide, I will revise the lead to reflect such ambiguity. If you intend to systematically revert my edits because I dared to expose your policital activities in Wikipedia, that's okay, becuase you will create a more explicit record of how wikipedia is used as a propaganda tool. Mahkmed 22:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, please se the talk page guidelines. This is not a place for debating politics. My own politics are solely concerned with keeping the article factual and free of bias. As an aside, please refrain from multiple malicious edits, as it can be considered vandalism. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kesh (talkcontribs).
Your shrill allegations of malice are but an escalation of your ongoing personal attack, against me and against other editors of this article. Your explanation of other's motives as political, while you characterize your own repetition of political views as "factual" is also a personal attack, in which you deny the intergrity of other editors while you unduly exagerate your own credibility. "Can be considered vandalism" -- that's cute. Daddy "can be considered Santa Clause" but that doesn't make him Santa Clause -- it makes those involved culbable in advancing a myth. Leave your myths at home. This is an effort to compile an accurate factual article. None of the sources cited in the article say he was the leader -- they say other sources said he was the leader. Stick to the facts, or go away. 172.191.209.29 23:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Couldn't have said it better myself. Mahkmed 23:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I've made my points above. If you wish to continue personal attacks, and off-topic discussion that is your perogative. It will be up to the admins to decide matters. I was simply attempting to give everyone involved a polite warning as to the violations of policy.
I will continue to monitor the article and correct malicious & mistaken edits, but this Talk topic has become inflammatory. -- Kesh 23:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
None can deny that he killed people. And none can deny that all of his actions are dispicable. He has planned the deaths of many innocents intentionally. You may call Bush a mass murderer if you wish, but none can deny what Zarqawi did. Besides, this article is about Zarqawi not Bush. Something to discuss about Bush? Then go to the Bush article! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.6.230.65 (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Admin abused admin tools to control content of article[edit]

I just received an e-mail from a friend who said an administrator who claims to be New York attorney violated a three revert rule to singularly control content of this article, attacked a user:talk page to remove the users comments, then blocked the user to prevent them from contributing to the content of this article contrary to the political agenda of the administrator Postdlf. This seems to be neither a transparent nor a collaborative approach to describing controversial international events. Lance48 23:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted?[edit]

Has this been deleted or is it my computer messing up?! Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 17:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No, you're right it's been deleted. The deletion log lists User:Jdforrester as having deleted it citing the "removing a revision". This needs to be put on the admin noticeboard and maybe another admin or bureaucrat needs to reverse this. Thethinredline 17:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Zarqawi dead us govt photo.jpg[edit]

I've changed this image to a link to the image page because the URL of the source..

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/Transcripts/Slides/060608-zarqawi.pdf

..is currently not available as of December 17, 2006 and I can't find it on www.archive.org.

I feel the image may violate WP:IUP as it is now unsourced. The IUP seems unclear on sources that lead to dead URLs.

I feel that the image should only be reinstated if it has been approved by a consensus of editors. If I've misinterpreted WP:IUP, comments are welcome. --Pixelface 00:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Fake death now answer[edit]

pl check my last pos tin the topic fake death and pl answer it.User talk:Yousaf465 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yousaf465 (talkcontribs) 07:42, December 30, 2006 (UTC)}

  • He's dead.--Looper5920 12:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Claiming he's not dead because a picture of his face is actually recognizable doesn't work. You have to explain why his injuries should be more severe than indicated, which will be difficult if the picture only shows his face. For all you know, the entire lower half of his body could be missing! If you want to continue this conspiracy theory, you'll need more substantial evidence. -- Kesh 20:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

George Galloway?[edit]

In the headline 'Arguments downplaying Zarqawi's importance', I added a quotation by Respect MP George Galloway made on the BBC's 'Question Time', which was directley relevant to the evident. I'm new to Wikipedia, but I don't see a problem with what I did.

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TpUR5zfWZw —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.108.192.46 (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Unquoted[edit]

The unquoted reactions on Zarqawis death can refer to this url: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5058478.stm. 0v3r533r 12:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction in the article?[edit]

According to the lead of the article, Al Zarqawi was "a Jordanian born Palestinian." But according to the Biography section, he was the "son of a native Jordanian family." How are the two compatible? AecisBrievenbus 07:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Issue With Source 16[edit]

This is a really good article but I have issue with the neutrality of a source in the biography section, fifth paragraph. The source is number 16, and it links to Bill O'Reilly's website, to an article from September 2004. The sentence that uses source 16 for reference talks about Zarqawi's involvement in Afghanistan and his involvement in Iraq before the US invasion. I do not believe that he was involved in Iraq before the invasion, based on a number of sources, including the 9/11 Commission Report and O'Reilly himself. O'Reilly has since said it was a mistake to invade Iraq, but it was an understandable mistake due to the evidence at hand. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0616-01.htm This is worth a look. Otherwise a good article.

65.30.92.14 05:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

i removed the sentence about Uday, but the other information is accurate. i also removed the source since it's not a very good source. rather than tag an entire article as disputed, next time make an edit that fixes the problem. that's what wikipedia is all about. Anthonymendoza 17:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the Iraqi involvement piece has gotten back in, and Source 16 is still being used. The site in question, PWHCE.org, is not a good source as you can see by the bio of the lead contributor: http://www.pwhce.org/trevor.html. I am deleting. Jazzcowboy (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Zarqawi image change?[edit]

The first picture of Zarqawi shows him un bearded and lacking the usual characteristics of a mujahid. This may confuse readers, I propose it be changed. Guleed M. A. 22:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Issue was fixed Guleed M. A. 20:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Place of birth Zarqa not Amman

Full Transcript Of Zarkawi Video[edit]

In the name of Allah the most Gracious the most Merciful

Mujahedeen Shura Council of Iraq

Then fight in Allah\'s cause thou are held responsible only for thyself and rouse the believers. It may be that Allah will restrain the fury of the disbelievers; for Allah is the strongest in might and in punishment (Alnisa’a:84)

O’ Banner’s holders stand, Where are the lions of Anbar? Where are the lions of Salah Aldeen? Where are Baghdad’s men? Where are the knights of Ninawah and the champions of Dyalah? Where are the courageous of Kurdustan? Where are you the lions of Monotheism?

Be fully aware of the apostate media sources.

I swear by Allah, that they have nothing with us except the sharp swords, and between them and us will only be the frightened nights.

I swear by Allah that America will be defeated in Iraq.

(Anasheed)

(Field commander is talking):

As for the developing and manufacturing, the brothers, by the grace of Allah have developed and improved two missiles in Alanbar province in particular.

(When missile was fired): Against the make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. (Alanfal:60)

(Anasheed)

A message for Mankind

(Sheikh Osama) I focus this call to the young men of Islam; gather together in fighting the crusades and the Jews, and remember Allah at all times repeatedly, by Allah, it’s either victory or martyrdom. No one will surpass his fate, and he who ever turns out to be a martyr, his sole will freely be flying around the paradise as it wishes, close to the throne of Allah; what a great difference between being near his family and/or near his lord. O’ young men of Islam every where, especially those near the battles, where the obligation is further; O’ young men in Aljazeera, Egypt, and Sham; O’ siblings of Salah Aldeen, O’ knights of Mohammad Alfateh, continue your support to your brothers in Iraq, whereby the gravest of the wars is continues, and its fire is on the rise, the crusades have invaded them, killed thousands of them, and abducted thousands, whishing to eliminate them. And they are instead, by the grace of Allah, fighting the crusades patiently, giving up all they’ve got for the sake of Allah and in order to defend themselves. May Allah be with them and those who support them.

(sheikh Abu Musaab) All praise be to Allah granting might to his religion with his victory, lowering the infidels with his supremacy. Sorting circumstances by his order; Plotting for the disbelievers with his arrangement; He who alternated the days with his divine justice. And peace be upon who Allah raised the minaret of Islam with his sword.

My treasured nation, I am conversing to you not with falsehoods, hoping to find with you open ears and prudent hearts, for the honest man does not deceive his family.

The crusade enemy, when invaded Iraq, meant to control this nation and reinforce the Zionist state, from the Nile to the Euphrates. However, Allah granted your sons the Mujahedeen by standing firm before the strongest crusaders attack to the Islamic land. They stood strong against this attack for over three years, disbursing their soles and their wealth. They stood against this massive military, media, and economical attack not for anything except to defend you, your religion, your sons, and your honor. Allah dispersed the enemies’ gathering and their defeat became clearer to who ever has eyesight and prudent heart. Here are your sons, by the grace of Allah, indulging into one battle after another, and attack after attack; they by the will of Allah hold the upper hand in the battle field now.

If it wasn’t for the continuous and ongoing media muting, you would’ve seen the astonishing. By Allah it’s the championships and the victories coming to us, and you my nation should thank Allah for this great bounty, that Allah prepared a group of your sons the Mujahedeen defending you and protecting your honor, otherwise the Sunnah in Iraq would’ve been in between a revulsion crusade and a betraying Shiite. And the women of the Sunnah would’ve been on the laps of the revulsion crusades and the betraying Shiites; Abu Ghraib and the interior ministry jails remain memorable.

My treasured nation, We are in Iraq a stone throw from the Masjed Alaqsa, we fight in Iraq and our eyes are on Alqsa which will never be freed except with a guiding Quraan and a prevailing sword; “but enough is thy Lord to guide and to help” (Alforqan:31)

The history and experience had showed that you have no one after Allah except your Mujahedeen sons; they are your protection, your strong shield, and your beating heart. They become happy to your happiness and sad to your sadness; they stay up all night for your protection and have jealousy for you. Their hearts burst in sorrow for your state, and their tongues never stop chanting: O’ Allah elevate the state of humiliation and defeat away from my nation, O’ Allah bring back victory to my nation.

As for the American administration, and to its chairman the cross banner’s holder Bush, we say to him and to whoever is swimming in his space from the Jews and the crusades and form the Shiites and others, we say that you will never be safe in the Islamic land, and by Allah you will never feel secured so long we still have a beating nerve and a moving eyelash. Previously, our leader Osama Bin Laden may Allah protect him, had offered you a long truce. It could’ve been better for you and those who are with you if you’d have accepted, but your arrogance pushed you to refuse. Here you are today, running from east to west trying to find solutions “will not stand except as stands one whom the evil one by his touch hath driven to madness” (Albaqarah:275). You turned to be a grave liar, betraying your own people that everything is under control, and then soon everyone finds out about your lies and so on. You became like the one who’s treating himself from alcohol by alcohol. You were never at any time truthful with yourself or your people, although it’s found some truth in your great grandparents you are fully detached from. Why don’t you show the truth about your soldiers and their inferior state of struggle? Why don’t you tell your people about the continuous suicides amongst your soldiers? Why don’t you tell your people that your soldiers can never go to sleep unless they take the hallucinating and drugging pills? So they become like cattle driven by your war generals, the Neozionists, to the killing fate. Why don’t you tell your people about the congregational escape and the defiance among your troops?

Listen you grave liar and insolent one; your dreams will never come true, our blood and bodies are between you and your imaginings. And what is coming your way is much greater than what passed by the will of Allah.

The game of rotten democracy that you brought to Iraq, after you gave hope to people about freedom, happiness, and the economical/personal security; all of these lies went with the winds and will never come back by the will of Allah.

There we see you today, trying with all what you got to bring together the clusters, the parties, the partners from your tails to bring about a handicapped government that it might pull you out from your crucial pitfall.

We believe that any government you place in Iraq, whether be it from the betrayal Shiites or Zionist Kurds, or your tails from the Sunnah; it will only be an apostate government that will aid the crusades, and it came only to be a poisoned dagger stabbed in the heart of the Islamic Nation.

America learned today that its planes, tanks, momentous troops, and its tails from the Shiites army will never be able to finalize the battle with Mujahedeen. Therefore, it’s trying to surround the Jehad by pushing its tails from those who are counted to Sunnah, those who accepted to play the role and be a rope that tightens around the Sunnah’s necks and pull the Americans from their defeat. They used those who use the Islamic slogans as a mask to spread their masters’ propaganda on the importance of organizing the military and the police, and confuse the Muslims with their mixed messages injecting poison in honey, forgetting intentionally or not that every occupier through out history used a cover up face from the occupied to use them in order to establish a solid base and embezzle the wealth of the country and its people. Allah has said: “And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them” (5:51) That is by constituting for this life and the hereafter. And Allah has said: “for Pharaoh and Haman and (all) their hosts were Men of sin” (28:8)

Therefore, we repeat our warning to whoever is trying to reorganize and spread the military and the police forces, which was established only to be a tool for the occupier in their bigger plan, and to implement laws other than the law of Allah. Be extremely aware, those who join these apostate forces have nothing with us except the sharp swords, and between them and us will be nothing except grave days and nights. Allah has said;” Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil: so fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan” (4:76)

Having said the previous, and having mentioned the defeat of the enemy and his paraphernalia. The enemy is trying today to seduce two kinds of people to the alleged parliamentary game to harvest the fruits of the Mujahedeen whom only trying to make the word of Allah prevails. The first kind of which is the one trying to attach oneself with the Mujahedeen, although they never lived the Mujahedeen life nor they ever supported them at the occupation time. The second of which is those who had at the beginning the honor of fighting the crusades, however what counts is the end; their efforts won’t be accepted by the law of Islam unless they strive with action to make the word of Allah prevails, using what Allah lawfully guided us with, the clean means, not by using evil parliaments striving to have the word of Allah mixed with other man made constitutions and laws. The aim does not justify the means here. Although these two kinds, and whoever follows their footsteps, allege that they are trying with these parliaments to implement the law of Allah. However, the actions and the historical experiences oppose their myth. Anyone that is following the political map in Iraq knows that the majority of the parliaments’ members are from the Shiites and the atheists of Kurds and Sunnah, not to mention those of the mixed motion believes. Therefore, the heavy side in the balance of the parliaments will always be in the hand of evil. Allah has said: “beware of them lest they beguile thee from any of that (teaching) which Allah hath sent down to thee” (5:49)

And Allah has said: “Fast thou not turned thy vision to those who declare that they believe in the revelations that have come to thee and to those before thee? their (real) wish is to resort together for judgment (in their disputes) to the evil one, though they were ordered to reject him but Satan\'s wish is to lead them astray far away (from the right” (4:60)

As for you patient truthful Mujahedeen, may Allah accept from you and us the best of deeds, and may Allah bless your Jehad. You were able by the will of Allah and his support to stop this crusades’ attack and you’ve bounded him with injuries. Thus, continue your Jehad and operations, and elevate your hits, it’s only the sign of victory and it’s the last breath of the cross worshipers in the land of two rivers. The low fighting self-esteem of the crusades’ soldiers is an only obvious sign in Iraq. Therefore, renew your intentions, and correct yourselves, and carry on together against your enemy. Your enemy is uncovered, by the will of Allah, weakened, unprotected, and broken in pieces. Do not give him a chance to take its breath, continue your stabbings one after the other, O’ Banner’s holders stand, Where’s are the lions of Anbar? Where are the lions of Salah Aldeen? Where are Baghdad’s men? Where are the knights of Ninawah and the champions of Dyalah? Where are the courageous of Kurdustan? Where are you the lions of Monotheism? O’ siblings of Khaled and Muthananh, Saad and Meqdad and Salah Aldeen. Where are the immigrants? Where are the supporters? Where are the people of Surat Altawbah and Alanfal? Where are the people of Alfath and Alqital?

O’ leaders of this nation; who is for the crying women, who is for the jailed dignified women, who is for the purified women in the jails of the Shiites. O’ Allah, there is no life except the life of the hereafter, O’ Allah grant victory to immigrants and their supporters.

Be very aware from the embezzlers, with their masters the crusades, trying to surround you. Be aware and extremely aware from putting down your weapons, and then you will harvest nothing but the defeat, beat and crush in this life and the hereafter. You were always supplicating to Allah day and night to ease the way for you to join the Jehad in Afghanistan and Chechnya or other places. After that, Allah chose you for the trade of Jehad at your own land, and opened for you the doors of paradise. Be extremely aware of closing these blessed doors, be aware “And be not like a woman who breaks into untwisted strands the yarn which she has spun, after it has become strong”(16:92)

Do not let the trade of Jehad depart your land; otherwise you will be disgraced and you’ll be only ruled by the scum; “they set you hard tasks and punishments, slaughtered your sons and let your women folk live” (2:49)

“If ye turn back (from the Path), He will substitute in your stead another people; then they would not be like you” (47:38)

Finally, I glad tied the nation by establishing the Mujahedeen Shura Council of Iraq, which will be by the grace and will of Allah as the kernel for the establishment of an Islamic State, in which, the word of Allah prevails. All praise be to Allah, the efforts are being joined, and the hands are being extended and shaken for the obedience of Allah and his messenger and the Jehad in the cause of Allah. And this Council will be, by the will of Allah, an umbrella for every truthful Mujahed. I am honored to be one member of this blessed Council under its blessed leadership. At the same time remaining the Ameer ( leader) of the Alqaeda Organization in the land of two rivers ( Iraq).

The servant of Jehad and Mujahedeen, glorifying Allah, your brother Abu Musaab Alzarqawi. Friday, 23 Rabii Awal 1427, April 21, 2006.

All praise be to Allah.

(Anasheed)

(One of the commanders in Anbar speaking)

In the name of Allah the most gracious the most merciful, and peace be upon our prophet Muhammad his family and companions.

I welcome our beloved sheikh in the land of Anbar, the land of Jehad. And we ask Allah to keep it a thorn in the eyes of the disbelievers.

I would like to inform about the great victory in the battles of Ramadi, killing many of the disbelievers and taking over the center and headquarter of the infidels. Taking over the city for several days, preventing the crusades from even coming near it. And this operation was a clear message against the visit by the infidels’ ambassadors ( Rice and Straw). In general, the self esteem of the Mujahedeen is high, in opposite to the infidels whom are always in continuous deterioration.

As for the developing and manufacturing, the brothers, by the grace of Allah have developed and improved two missiles in Alanbar province in particular. , that will be used soon, one has the ability to travel 40km with a 50kg warhead, here’s a picture of it…

Then fight in Allah\'s cause thou are held responsible only for thyself and rouse the believers. It may be that Allah will restrain the fury of the disbelievers; for Allah is the strongest in might and in punishment (Alnisa’a:84)

And the other is anti armored vehicles, is carried on the shoulder and has been internally modified to penetrate armored vehicles, and here’s a picture of it.

(Anasheed)

فبما رحمة من الله لنت لهم ولو كنت فظا غليظ القلب لانفضوا من حولك فاعف عنهم واستغفر لهم وشاورهم في الأمر فإذا عزمت فتوكل على الله إن الله يحب المتوكلين}

“It is part of the mercy of Allah that dost deal gently with them. Wert thou severe or harsh hearted, they would have broken away from about thee: so pass over (their faults), and ask for (Allah\'s) forgiveness them in affairs (of moment). Then when thou hast taken a decision, put thy trust in Allah. For Allah loves those who put their trust (in him” (3:159)

{إن ينصركم الله فلا غالب لكم وإن يخذلكم فمن ذا الذي ينصركم من بعده وعلى الله فليتوكل المؤمنون} If Allah helps you, non can overcome you: if he forsakes you, who is there, after that, that can help you? in God, then, let believers put their trust (3:160)

Sheikh Ayman Alzahahre’s voice: O’ Islamic Nation, the turf of Iraq now is the most dangerous field of Jehad in this century. Therefore, the nation must support the courageous Mujahedeen that are fighting in the very forefront defending the honor of Islam and its dignity.

(Anasheed)

Sheikh Abu Musaab: by Allah, American will be defeated in Iraq, by the will of Allah, and it’ll leave Iraq humiliated, crushed, and defeated by the will of Allah.

Do not forget us from your supplications.

Your brothers in the Media Committee. __________________ http://www.w-n-n.com/showthread.php?t=12069

Zarqawi tribe[edit]

Zarqawi tribe In Jordan more one million

Claimed to have slept with a suicide vest[edit]

Prior to his death, Zarqawi was often seen in photos wearing a suicide vest, and he claimed that he slept in one. Yet there were no reports that he had one on when he died. Can anyone confirm this one way or another?

BTW: Claims of sleeping with a suicide vest had also been made about his aide, Mohammed Khalaf Shakar, who surrendered without a fight when he was caught.
-- Randy2063 15:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wot no picture?[edit]

How can this possibly be a FA when it lacks a picture of the person in question? I know the image-fascists are completely out of control, deleting practically everything at their private whim, but even so there has to be some way of illustrating the subject of this article? Vilĉjo (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it's less to do with rights of 'fair use' of a picture, and more because there's so much dispute about even the basics of this guy's life and career. Look above and you'll see that his death picture is disputed by some, for instance.--Lopakhin (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"years of service" is not an appropriate term[edit]

To me there's something wrong with using the words "years of service" in this article.He was a terrorist and not a soldier.Nor did he technically "serve".

How many terrorists get a "years of service" mention, and if it's correct he should have that by his name then surely osama bin laden should have the same treatment and so should any other terrorist on wikipedia for that matter.

I know one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter and all that but this still seems odd.

Just thought i'd put the opinion out there and see if anyone agreed ?

82.21.204.72 (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with that statement that "years of service" is inappropriate. I DISAGREE however that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. We may have been Germany's enemy, but we sure as hell weren't terrorists. In fact, I don't know of one single terrorist that wants freedom for their people. They all wish to establish strict Islamic law across the world. How are they freedom fighters? But yeah, I agree about the years of service thing. -Brad Kgj08 (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

to be great is to be misunderstood[edit]

Diversity[edit]

i know that this to totally irrevealt to what you might be reading but hey oh well deal with it my name is Ph.D and that's all the information that you need. there are many issues that we as a country and as a world but most of all as a cilivization must understand and what there is to understand is this word called diversity. people fear what they don't understand so we as a race tries to belittle the other guy who we might feel is getting there foot one notch higher up in the game. i've been in many situations where i've been sterotyped and judge but how, how can you be judgemental and steroypical when in the long run only god knows what that person has been through. what is the meaning of war and why are we at war. to me it feels as if the world is trying to gain full supremacy of all others but for what. thats why we are all divided by contients because we all have something differnt. that goes back to that word diveristy. who gives us the right to run out of a resource and then feels to get more we have to takeover another country to get what we want.

Is that how they had you write your thesis? :) Talk pages are for discussing what further needs to be done to improve the article, not for discussions of opinions and other such things. FFLaguna (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Image of Corpse[edit]

I don't know much about the consensus here, but is the image of his corpse (granted it is not unnecessarily graphic) really the one we should be using to actually represent his likeness. Are there any images that feature him alive? How many articles about people have images of their dead bodies as the de facto image of representation (in other words, their main picture)? I could see the point if it was in the Death section but it strikes me as absurd that a featured article on a person would use the image of their dead body as the main image in the article. Saddam Hussein's doesn't do so, and neither does almost all of the other articles about deceased people. The great kawa (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I like to see him dead ha but the feature picture should be one of him alive. Anyone have any suggestions? -Brad Kgj08 (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Third'ed. Its kind of despicable to mock the dead like that, whether you like them when they were alive or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.187.148 (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
No, it is not despicable. Like EVERYTHING else in a person's life, a person's own actions and choices determine their worth. Some people reduce their worth so fully that they drop below the bar where I consider them "human". We are born deserving rights, by nature of being sentient beings. But by our own actions, we can lose those rights. It takes more to be "human" than to just be born a homo sapiens. Being a member of the human race takes membership dues. Not just an accident of birth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.60.87 (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You should read this talk page a little more fully, as there is already a current topic about it. :) There was already a poll conducted at the top of the third archive of this talk page, and it was voted to keep this picture. FFLaguna (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting[edit]

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sinjar Records[edit]

Using this information from West Point there is a lot of mistakes that need to be correct on the top page.

Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) (based at West Point[[2]])
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony/pdf/CTCForeignFighter.19.Dec07.pdf
--OxAO (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

rough work[edit]

According to the US Treasury these five men were accomplices of Al Zarqawi: [3] Geo Swan (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Powell quote[edit]

Sorry if this has been discussed before. Should we fix the mistake in the block quote by Colin Powell: "Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, an associated in collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda lieutenants". I see that the source has this exact text, which is I guess why we have it. I didn't watch the video, but I assume this is a transcript error and he actually said "an associate and collaborator". Thoughts? Staecker (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a source worded that way, yes, otherwise [sic]. (Hohum @) 18:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, found another source, put it in. Staecker (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"Field Commander"[edit]

why isn't it listed that for awhile he personally lead his group in some battles on the front and personally lead attacks on rival militias —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.173.73 (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If you can cite it then go ahead and add it, but remember all content must be verifiable. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 05:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Work needed[edit]

Hello everyone! This article currently appears near the top of the cleanup listing for featured articles, with several cleanup tags. Cleanup work needs to be completed on this article, or a featured article review may be in order. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Revert of TucsonDavid's edits[edit]

I have reverted TucsonDavid's possibly NPOV-violating edits based on an IRC discussion in hope that this can be discussed rather than having an editor hit 3RR. Logan Talk Contributions 05:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Believe that instead of stating he ran a paramilitary training camp, that it would be proper to state it was a terrorist training camp. and I would like to see if we can reach a consensus on it. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 06:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

More stuff[edit]

File:Powell UN Iraq presentation, alleged Terrorist Network.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:Powell UN Iraq presentation, alleged Terrorist Network.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Time spent in jail contradiction[edit]

Under the subheading "terrorist" the article states that he was arrested in Jordan in 1996 and spent 5 years in jail, until his release in 1999. There's obviously an error here somewhere - either in the time of his arrest, release, time spent in jail, or that figure could be a combined time spent in jail, rather than time for this particular crime? There are two relevant references here (7 and 9), however checking revealed both are broken. I can find a working link to reference 7, (which I'm now fixing) however it doesn't state the years spent in jail, but does state that he spent 6 years in jail (not 5). I'm editing this section of the article to reflect that reference, while leaving the paragraph with the broken reference 9 in, but adding a dead link to the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owheelj (talkcontribs) 05:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Sometime in 2001, Zarqawi was arrested in Jordan but was soon released. He was later convicted in absentia and sentenced to death for plotting the attack on the Radisson SAS Hotel.[edit]

His arrest in 2001 is merely an allegation and there are no contemporary press accounts of this arrest and release, and no signs of a trial (source http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq_188&scale=1#complete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq_188). His link to the attack on the Radisson comes from an Associated Press article from 4 April 2001 which stated that Jordanian officials had two new suspects for the bombing of the Radisson (see Flat Earth News by Nick Davies) but the Jordanians had already tried 28 people and sentenced 6 of them to death 7 months before this press release and Zarqawi wasn't mentioned once. He was convicted in absentia but to 15 years in prison, not death.

The training camp specialized in poisons and explosives[edit]

This is directly contradicted by Luke Harding of the Observer who reached the camp and reported "The terrorist factory was nothing of the kind - more a dilapidated collection of concrete outbuildings at the foot of a grassy, sloping hill. Behind the barbed wire and a courtyard strewn with broken rocket parts, are a few empty concrete houses. There is a bakery. There is no sign of chemical weapons anywhere." ... Harding concludes that Powell's allegation is "clearly little more than cheap hyperbole". (source http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/feb/09/iraq1). Troops went to this site after the invasion of Iraq and found nothing but old rat poison.

In late 2004 he joined al-Qaeda, and pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden.[edit]

This is flatly untrue. Al-Tahwid was set up in competition to al-Qaeda (Zarqawi had religious differences with bin Laden) and on one occasion refused to share money that had been raised for both groups by sympathisers in Germany. (source: Senate Intelligence Committee). The events in 2004 were orchestrated by US Strategic Communications (source http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/09/AR2006040900890.html) and had more to do with creating a story for the invasion of Iraq than it had to do with the truth of Zarqawi's political agenda.

This article requires major revisions in the light of facts that have come to light since the invasion. [[User:|SleepyHead]] (talkcontribs) 12:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Question about aircraft used in killing[edit]

I think this is appropriate to point out here. The Wikipedia page says that United States Air Force F-16C aircraft were used in the killing. "Seal Target Geronimo" by Chuck Pfarrer says that a Predator drone was used. Any contradictions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.97.17.18 (talk) 08:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)