Talk:Al-Qaeda

Settlement of Neutrality Dispute

I suggest that we start with the part of the introduction in which everyone agrees and use this as a bare minimum on which to build. Can everyone agree with this much of the introduction?

Al-Qaeda (Arabic: القاعدة - al-Qā‘idah, "the foundation" or "the base") is the name given to an international alliance of militant Islamist organizations. Originally built from the cadre of Arab fighters who joined the mujahideen resistance movement against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, its stated purpose is to rid the Islamic world of outside coercion. The United States, United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Australia, and many other governments consider Al-Qaeda to be included in the following definition of terrorism:

1. It intimidates or coerces the government or civil population
2. It breaks criminal laws
3. It endangers human life

The United States attributes Al-Qaeda with the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City, the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., and other attacks. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are the most recognized figureheads of Al-Qaeda, although terrorism experts believe that Al-Qaeda has grown into a movement where most members have no contact with the figureheads.

If we can agree on this much, we can use it as a foundation and add to it. In doing so, please try to be objective. When we let our passions spill out onto the page, our definition becomes nothing but rhetoric—-it becomes unbelievable—-and that doesn’t do anyone any good.

The biggest error in this article is resolved when one considers what was said by Robin Cook in the London Guardian on 8 July 2005. Robin Cook was former British Former Secretary, former British intelligence agency MI-6 top official, and once had control of the British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). If anyone is qualified to define the facts of Al-Qaeda, it's he. He wrote:

"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." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1523838,00.html)

The essential facts of this statement are: 1) Al-Qaeda was created by the United States; 2) Al-Qaeda's roots are political, not religious (STOP SLANDERING THE MUSLIM FAITH, but it is mostly the muslim faith because it is the catalyst for this movement: From the handbook of the Al Qaeda, "The most truthful saying is the book of Allah and the best guidance"); 3) Al-Qaeda was/is a derivation from people willing and able to serve American policy goals.

Auxiliary conclusions:

The CIA being what it is, the ties between Al-Qaeda and the CIA are not likely severed, because the CIA doesn't just "break things off" and Al-Qaeda serves the Bush administration's policy goals (eg generating public support for invading Iraq (9/11), distracting the public from the Downing St memos that establish that false pretext was created for the US-led invasion of Iraq (July 2005 London bombing), etc)

Based on the major media (and Wikipedia) assumptions about the nature of Al-Qaeda, people generally have a short supply of accurate knowledge about the history and present purpose of Al-Qaeda. Even if Al-Qaeda was NOT a CIA-created organization, Osama himself stated that Al-Qaeda terror was committed as acts of revenge for what the non-Muslim Western world has inflicted upon the Middle East. This relegates the religious component of the network as a secondary factor, behind the socio-economic factors for the hatred.

An example is illustrative. Some black people in the United States harbor hatred against white people due to the extensive history of slavery and racial repression that still persists in the U.S. prison system. Although race is not THE reason for the hatred (the slavery and opppression were the primary reason), the racial pattern makes it a workable division. Likewise, while Al-Qaeda has declared its hatred for Christians and Jews, this hatred really stems from the historical pattern of war that has (probably intentionally, though not necessarily) been framed around religious, racial, or national divisions. In the greater picture, these fractures have been used to manipulate people for the benefit of economic and imperial interests.

(aboive inserted by 134.215.217.104)

The Cook article is the first time I have seen that claim and I daresay he is probably wrong. I have never heard of "al-qaeda" being translated as "the database" as in a computer file but always as "the base" as in a physical location where members of the network interact. Not necessarily a formal military base but more at "base of operations." The "database" translation is totally new to me and it would be odd if you would say "database" with the same word in Arabic (though I invite correction from an Arabic speaker, which I am not). I think Cook probably misremembered what he had read in Benjamin and Simon or somewhere like that.--csloat 21:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't like a lot of this stuff, actually, even stuff that intersects with the current intro. E.g., "alliance of militant Islamist organizations" - lesquels? Can we name even one? If we can, it would probably be, err, Islamic Jihad which... means little or nothing at this point. Where did we learn that it is so structured? Where did we learn its "stated purpose"? That "definition of terrorism" bit is as awkward as a newborn lamb. Moreover, I think this intro puts too much emphasis on the nebulous present state of al-Qaeda, whereas I think the definite history of al-Qaeda is a better frame for the intro. Graft 03:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. Here are my reasons for wording it such:

• I agree that the definition of terrorism is awkward, but that is the exact language of the USA Act to define terrorism, and is thus adopted as the official definition for the PATRIOT Act and the War on Terrorism.
• An alliance can be loose or strong. It doesn't have to be more structured than a common goal. For instance, the group claiming responsibility for the London bombings is believed to be an organization allied with bin Laden's group only through purpose.
• Osama bin Laden has stated the purpose of Al Qaeda in his videos and writings. They are available at [english.aljazeera.net]
• I believe that the definite history was covered in the Intro. People usually like to have a brief idea of the current status of the item as well.

How would you word the intro? --Zephram Stark 04:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

That "alliance" bit is extraordinarily weak. I'd like this article to stick to the narrow definition of al-Qaeda as "bin Laden's group", which is how it was originally coined. In that sense, "allied through purpose" is basically meaningless. Does Shamil Basayev's group in Chechnya count? Or the IMU in Uzbekistan? Both of these are ostensibly "allied in purpose" with bin Laden, but I see no particular reason to call them "al-Qaeda".

As to "definite history", I meant: al-Qaeda should refer in the intro to the organization that bin Laden formed in 1996, not to the nebulous idea-thing it has become since 2002. References to him as a figurehead, etc., are thus not in line with that notion.

How I'd word the intro is not the issue at this point - I'd like to make clear what it is we'd like to say first. There seems to be substantial disagreement here on what this page is exactly about. Graft 05:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that we want this page to be about the facts. There is substantial disagreement, but I believe we can find some parts of the definition that are universally self-evident. If we start with the generally accepted, we can add more subjective parts to the definition as a second step. --Zephram Stark 22:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the use of the phrase "The United States attributes Al-Qaeda with the September 11, 2001, attacks", as the AQ leadership has itself come out claiming credit for the attacks, and so it is misleading to phrase it such as to imply that there is some reasonable dispute over who actually committed the 9/11 attacks. Only people who've lost all touch with reality, and habitually wear tin-foil hats while looking out for black helicopters flying overhead, would claim that it wasn't AQ which committed the 9/11 attacks. I see no reason why such complete loons should be given any credence on wikipedia. Rich333 09:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

How about this as an agreed foundation on which to build?

Al-Qaeda (Arabic: القاعدة - al-Qā‘idah, "the foundation" or "the base") is the name given to a cadre of Arab fighters who originally joined the mujahideen resistance movement against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda's stated purpose is to rid the Islamic world of outside coercion. The United States, United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Australia, and many other governments consider Al-Qaeda to be included in the following definition of terrorism (adopted from the USA Act):

1. it intimidates or coerces the government or civil population; and
2. it breaks criminal laws; and
3. it endangers human life

Al-Qaeda is credited with the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City, the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., and other international attacks against military and civilian targets. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are senior members of Al-Qaeda's shura council, and are believed to be in contact with some of the other cells of the movement.

If nobody has a problem with the neutrality of the above description, does anyone disagree with using it as our introduction and taking off the NPOV dispute? --Zephram Stark 13:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Is there anything objective that anyone would like to add to above proposed introduction? Please remember that all additions must not create primary or secondary sources of information, and that another editing war will only result in the page being locked again. If you have concerns with the proposed intoduction, now is the time to voice them. --Zephram Stark 20:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the second version, taking out "an international alliance of militant Islamist organizations" makes it appear that "a cadre of Arab fighters" is what it is today, which is wrong. That may have been what they started out as but my guess is that the minority of those who would call themselves members today have that background. Is "militant Islamist organizations" POV?? If so, how? Also I would like reference to the Madrid and London bombings after the 9/11 attacks, as they are highly publicized acts of Al-Qaeda. TH 09:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with what you say, TH. Taking your thoughts to their logical conclusion, however, would require us to disassociate the pictures and names of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri as leaders of the movement, since they had nothing to do with the London bombings. In essence, it would be conceding that the movement has grown beyond an "alliance of militant Islamist organizations." Terrorist experts believe this to be true, but are the editors of Wikipedia willing to concede that killing Osama and Ayman will do nothing to damage the movement? --Zephram Stark 17:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Who claims that London and Madrid are AQ's work? As the recent revelations about the shooting of the young Brazilian in London show, there is a lot of hype - and too many people running with it, instead of checking out facts. Take the London bombing: a bunch of British youths fed up with UK policies and wanting to do 'their bit' for Islam. Misguided, yes. Serious terrorist (on the scale and sophistication of 9/11) no. Especially the second lot, who couldn't even get their bombs to detonate. AQ is great for the media, but as long as we chase after a phantom enemy, we'll never win this 'war on terror'.

You're right. It doesn't make sense when you think about Al-Qaeda as a hierarchal organization with Usama at the head. That's why most terrorism experts consider Al-Qaeda to be a self-perpetuating movement with no direct influence between most of its self-proclaimed members.

We've seen it happen numerous times through history and it's a very effective means of overthrowing a corrupt and powerful government:

1. A small band gives the government an excuse to take more control of its citizens.
2. Citizens feel their freedoms being subverted and rebel.
3. The corrupt government can't tell the difference between trouble-makers and concerned citizens, so it labels them all terrorists, evil-doers, or some such nonsense and tightens control even more.
4. More citizens feel their freedom taken and join the rebellion.
5. The cycle continues until the rebellion grows into a revolution and the government is overthrown. (The terrorists win.)

In rare occasions, like in Holland a few decades ago, the people seem to learn from history and break the cycle, but more cases are like the demise of the Soviet Union by a few dozen terrorists in Afghanistan. Granted, it took a while to bleed the USSR dry, but that's because they were only burning the equivalent of twenty billion a year on their futile war. The United States can't possibly hold out as long while going a half trillion a year farther into debt. --Zephram Stark 03:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda name origin and structure

---

I am new to posting here. I am trying to do a blog on Al-Qaeda's structure. According to Bahukutumbi Raman Punishment Terrorism. Bin Laden did not refer to the organisation as Al-Qaeda until after the January 2001 WTC Trial. The term Al-Qaeda was purely a domestic code.

I'm trying to put together a blog on the subject:

Al-Qaeda structure blog

Please feel free to reference this & it is a good idea to look up further articles & papers by Bahukutumbi Raman as well as Jason Burke.

---

Neutrality Dispute

I dispute the neutrality of the Al-Qaeda article. Subjective terms like "radical form," "terrorist," "extremist objectives," "liberal democracies," and "fundamentalist" betray the bias of the author.

Moreover, the article is factually incorrect. The term Al-Qaeda is an attempt to reduce the perception of a world-wide insurrection with millions of members to a manageable few thousand "terrorists." Usama bin Ladin has broadcast repeatedly that he and his followers have one goal: the unification of the Islamic states. Everything else in this article ascribing his motives is an extrapolation or a fabrication.

No leader of the insurrection has ever masterminded or intentionally inspired terrorism or an attack against a civilian target. The conspicuous absence of coercion in these attacks negates the author's assertion that they are "terrorist attacks."

One merely needs to listen to Usama bin Ladin's account of the September 11, 2001 attacks to know of his motivations: the two biggest threats to the Arab world today are the United States Military and Globalization. The Pentagon and the World Trade Center were the nerve centers of these threats. Weakening or destroying them was of strategic military importance and had absolutely nothing to do with the author's accusations of terrorism.

You're joking, right? You somehow find this to be a mainstream (antonym of "radical form") of Islam? - Tεxτurε (Tanstaafl is a nutter)7 July 2005 20:02 (UTC)

That certainly depends on your point of view. Most members of the movement would not call it radical. 7 July 2005 20:55 (UTC)

Of course, most schizophrenics deny their schizophrenia. Mr. Billion 7 July 2005 23:43 (UTC)

Nevertheless, neither the wording nor the general theme of the Al-Qaeda article can be considered written in a Neutral Point of View. If the Globalists want to write it and protect it so it cannot be changed, they should at least have the decency to add an NPOV_dispute notification. I have logged a Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection that reads "An NPOV dispute of the currently-protected Al-Qaeda page has been logged in the Discussion Tab for that article. The page must be unprotected in order for a NPOV_dispute notification to be added on the page. I can find no stated reason for locking the page in either the discussions or in the list of protected articles, but I suspect that the page is locked because the author knows that the current article does not adhere to the NPOV philosophy of Wikipedia."

A notification was added 8 July 2005 which claims that the current article was protected from editing to deal with vandalism. By going through the history of this article, one can see that April versions were written closer to a Neutral Point of View and that the currently protected version is the one that has been vandalized.[1]

An NPOV_dispute notification was added 8 July 2005, but the blatantly biased terms "radical form," "terrorist," "extremist objectives," "liberal democracies," and "fundamentalist" remain in the article. Pictures of leaders of one of the autonomous cells are still associated with the entire movement, endorsing the highly disputed American contention that the insurgence is managable and that martyrdom of Usama bin Ladin will damage the movement. I could list dozens of examples of partiality, but anyone looking from a Neutral Point of View can see that the entire theme of the article supports subjective claims of one party of the war as truth while ignoring fundamental claims of the other party. Not only is the use of an encyclopedia for the villification of an enemy unethical, it is also a dangerous over-simplification that can lead to wars that have no winning scenario.

"Extremist" is "One who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, especially in politics." according to American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Now considering the hundreds of millions of Muslims who don't blow things up in order to overthrow Western society, it's safe to say Al-Qaeda's measures are fairly far beyond the norm. Same goes for radical.

What possible problem could you have with "liberal democracies"? Al-Qaeda's founders, associates and members have explicitly spoken out against "decadent" democracy, calling it by name, on numerous occasions. And they are also known to loathe the tolerance and freedom (sexual, religious, etc) in Western societies. So "liberal democracies" is pretty much what they dislike, yeah.

The definition of "fundamentalist" that is usually used is a ultraconservative religious doctrine involving strict and total obedience to said religion as well as intolerance for other faiths. It's used in "Christian fundamentalist" fairly frequently too. I would personally disagree that what Al-Qaeda or the people who get called Christian fundamentalists want is a basic return to the fundamentals of their respective religion, but that's immaterial.

The pictures of leaders are pictures of people associated with or suspected of being associated with Al-Qaeda, and the article makes it very clear this is the case. Don't see your problem. --Jamieli 17:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that you can make an argument for al-Qaeda being extremist. As you can see, there are also people who can make an argument that they are not. Regardless, extremist is a highly subjective term that conveys no information except your personal feelings on the subject. An encyclopedia definition is for facts, not passionate subjectivity.

I would love to discuss your definition of democracy that seems to be in direct contradiction to the founding principles of the United States, your definition of freedom that seems to exclude the right of people to choose their own form of government, or how you think two people in a cave control a world-wide movement, but this isn't the place for it. An encyclopedia is for factual information and objective definitions. Thanks for helping to keep Wikipedia factual. --Zephram Stark 14:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Since when is the word "terrorist" biased? See terrorism:

The most common criteria are that:

The motive is political or religious

The target is civilian/noncombatant

The objective is to intimidate

The perpetrator is non-governmental

The act was unlawful

The act was violent

The act was premeditated

Al Qaeda has political motives - they target civilians - the attempt to intimidate - they are non-governmental - they commit unlawful acts - they commit voilent acts - they commit premeditated acts.

So if they meet all of the criteria of the definition of terrorism, then why can't we call them terrorists? Why are we trying to santize our language? Why can't we call a spade a spade anymore? If we let political correctness take over in this war on terror, we are doomed to failure :(

Larryfooter 9 July 2005 01:52 (UTC)

On this basis, the United States, Britian and Australia have all engaged in "terrorism", most notably when the United States used incendiary weapons against civilians in Fallujah. The entire act of invading Iraq was unlawful (since the UN never approved it), and it was pre-meditated, extreemly violent, and intended to further the coalition's interest. That aside, "terrorist" is normally considered a prejudicial term - one man's terrorist is another man's solider, resistance fighter, hero, whatever. There is no doubt the Osama bin Laden is a hero to many millions of people worldwide, capitalist propaganda notwithstanding. If Wiki is about neutrality, then either label both factions (Islamic Fundamentalists and Market Fundamentalists) as terrorists, or label neither. A good alternative label for al-Qaeda members would be "activists". Mark Micallef 04:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

If you’re going to rely on User:Jayjg’s book of Doublespeak for your definition, I guess you could justify anything you want. Even though NPOV definitions have been proposed for the term Terrorism (see Discussion), User:Jayjg reverts anything he sees in that and many other articles, regardless of their factual content and neutrality, when the content does not fit his blatantly biased view of reality. Please don’t take my word for it; you can see for yourself:

1. User_talk:Jayjg#Please_stop_edit-warring_with_your_POV.21
2. User_talk:Jayjg#Blocking
3. User_talk:Jayjg#Soapboxing.3F
4. User_talk:Jayjg#Your_Terrorism_Revert
5. User_talk:Jayjg#RE:__Witkacy_WP:POINT
6. User_talk:Jayjg#Striver
7. Special:Contributions/Jayjg

If you would like an NPOV definition of terrorism, I suggest using Webster’s International Dictionary-First-Third Editions—Terrorism: a mode of governing, or of opposing government, by terror and intimidation—or Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary—Terrorism: the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion.

There have been several definitions of Terrorism over the centuries, but they all include the use of terror and at least some type of coercion. They have never been constrained to “non-governmental perpetrators,” “unlawful acts,” “premeditated acts,” “violent acts,” “political or religious motivations,” or “the targeting of civilians.” These constraints were only added after 9/11/01 by Americans to our unique definition for the sole purpose of propaganda. Our beloved president called the attack “terrorism.” How was it terrorism? Where was the coercion? How were our actions against Iraq not in the same category? We needed a new definition of terrorism. That’s where the ambiguity came into play.

Wikipedia has no definitive definition of terrorism because codifying it in ANY manner would show how our beloved president’s use of the term is inconsistent, contradictory, and brimming with irony.--Zephram Stark 9 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)

The 9/11 attacks were designed to create terror and create fervour among would-be supporters, nothing more. Your suggestion it was undertaken as a militaristic task is just ridiculous. The target was symbolic, not military. There are many, many, more targets of more military worth if that's what they wanted, ones that would be a lot easier to target. They struck the 9/11 towers because it was a SYMBOL of globalisation and US power, not because of strategic worth. They wished to create terror in the minds of the people who perpretrate the actions they opposed, and the people who support the actions. Al-Qaeda are not stupid, they do not believe blowing up the offices of Verizon, Avis and some Asian banks is going to have any real effect other than terrifying the public. When the US bombed things in its invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan, it did (or does) it to weaken the government it's trying to kick out. Not to terrify or anger the public. An act of terrorism would be if, for example, they started intentionally bombing Muslim shrines, or intentionally bombing crowded city centers, or something. So even if we accept the Webster's definition, Al-Qaeda still fits it, and the US actions in Iraq don't.

As for the definition of terrorism, a US report on terrorism released in late 2000 says the same thing about the organizations being non-governmental. So it's not a post-9/11 thing at all. And anyway, what difference does it make....whether the definition is non-governmental or not, Al-Qaeda still fits the bill.

"unlawful acts" is troublesome as it doesn't define under which laws it would be illegal. But it's immaterial, Al-Qaeda fits the bill anyway.

"premeditated acts" is weird. I've never heard of spontaneous, spur-of-the-moment terrorism.

can't see what problem you'd have with "political or religious motivations" (what other motivations are there?) or "targeting civilians". --Jamieli 17:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

This article is an embarrassment; "Bin Laden and the MAK were aided by the governments of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, but never by the United States, which channeled all of its support via the Pakistani intelligence service, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Directorate.". Why have "but never by the United States"... trying to cover up the fact that the US supported the people who were to become Al-Qaeda. The rest of the paragraph goes on to say no one knew who was receiving all this money. If you beleive this you are a moron....

I have to agree with the anon poster above - it's quite clear that the MAK did get support from the US indirectly through the ISI. The disclaimer in the text stands out as a little too defensive and it distorts the reality.--csloat 03:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I was going to fix that bit, but the page is locked. Is that for a good reason, still? Graft 02:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I have changed the wording of the main paragraph of complaint - well, the only I have seen a specific complaing against: "Bin Laden and the MAK were aided by the governments of"... and also removed NPOV tag. If someone wants to put it back, be my guest but please describe your reasons in detail so we can have a civilized discussion about it. TH 22:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Most of the specific NPOV disputes above and below have not been addressed. --Zephram Stark 14:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

That statement is just clarifying a common misconception, namely that the US directly funded AQ at some point. The funding of Afghani rebel forces, in their fight against the Soviet invasion, did end up in the hands of some of those who later became members of AQ and the Taliban, just as some of that same funding ended up in the hands of those who would later become the Northern Alliance. I get the feeling you'd rather have the article state "See! See! The US created and funded Al Qaeda! Americans eat Muslim babies, and drink the blood of the innocent!", but such nonsense does not belong in wikipedia. Rich333 09:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

This is a good point. If you are going to specifically implicate the U.S. through its aid to the mujahadeen of Afghanistan as responsible for the predictable (and predicted) but inevitable birth of an entity such as Al-Qaeda, you must also specifically include the U.K., China, Egypt and many others--even Israel--who contributed to the anti-Soviet campaign. To even attempt this you'd have to first establish this foreign aid to the mujahadeen as a prerequisite to the existance of Al-Qaeda.

I think the current formulation does that better than the former one... Graft 13:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Heads up on name Al Q.

According to that book by Daniel Benjamin, Sacred Terror, the name Al Qaeda was in fact used by Al Qaeda prior to 911. For some reason, I have seen the assertion on several Wiki pages that the name was coined by Western govts and Al qaeda adopted it later for media effect. But Benjamin's book cites one of Ramzi Yusef's buddies getting stopped on entry into the US prior to the first 1993 WTC attack with a book. The FBI mis-translated the title as the Foundation or something similar. (I don't have the book with me right now!) Only later did they realize what it meant, since the Arabic word was al Qa'eda. So that seems like prima facie evidence that al Qaeda was used at least once internally. And FYI Ramzi Yusef managed to slip away after that incident despite his friend getting arrested/deported. If anyone has the book and can cite the page, we can put the "Al Qaeda didn't use that name" bit to rest. Willowx 13:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't mean they used it as the name of an organisation, though. Some groups refer to their organisation as, for instance, "the Army", as the IRA do, but it isn't a formal name.

Ben Bulben 14:41, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But I think this already shows that the claim that the name was never used at all prior to 2001 to be false. Maybe the extent of the use of the name as their official name could be disputed. But swallowing a BBC documentary's version of events uncritically is surely a mistake. Nonetheless, the article is too onesided if it omits this dispute, since it makes it appear as if it the BBC version is not challenged. Willowx 5 July 2005 14:31 (UTC)

You've inserted your rebuttal on the Al-Qaeda name into the "Is al-Qaeda real?" section. They are two slightly different things. As it stands that section doesn't challenge the name per-se. I would suggest insertion at the top around "The origin of the name "al-qaeda" is disputed" or slight rewording to make it clearer that the program did challenge the name. Robneild 5 July 2005 17:14 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that it's been stated repeatedly that the name "al-Qaeda" has been used since at least 1998 after the embassy bombings. You can find it in numerous reports. Graft 5 July 2005 17:36 (UTC)

I've done researches about the earliest use of "al-Qaeda" or "al-Qaida" to refer as a terrorist organization, and the earliest document I could find mentionning it is from August 14th, 1996 STATE DEPARTMENT ISSUES FACTSHEET ON BIN LADIN. By the way, I'd also like to mention that Osama bin Laden has never mentionned in any of his interviews "al-Qaeda" or "al-Qaida", the only times "he" mentions it is in his videos which are widely believed to be authentic.

--SuperBleda 23:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

According to Benjamin and Simon it was used by OBL as far back as 1993 I believe. Loretta Napoleoni also makes this claim as I recall. I don't think it's very controversial. I think the question is what it referred to at the time and most people seem to say that it referred to the "base" as a physical place or base of operations where people met -- it was probably outside intel organizations that first used it to describe the organization itself. That link may be the earliest thing on the web mentioning it but it is likely in US intelligence and NSA documents going back to '94 or '95 I would guess. --csloat 02:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Have edited the following text:

Al-Qaeda believes that western governments, and particularly the American government, interfere in the affairs of Islamic nations against the interests of Muslims through economic and military support of regimes that oppress Muslims, such as by giving billions every year to Israel and vetoing every otherwise-unanimous United Nations condemnation of its alleged atrocities, invading and conquering Islamic countries, meddling in the affairs of Islamic governments and communities, causing the deaths of tens of thousands of Muslims via economic sanctions, and supporting tyrannical governments like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan with weapons, troops, and billions of dollars.

to read:

Al-Qaeda believes that western governments, and particularly the American government, interfere in the affairs of Islamic nations against the interests of Muslims. Their claims have included: The provision economic and military support to regimes seen by Al-Qaeda to oppress Muslims (particularly the US and it's support for Israel), vetoing of United Nations condemnations of Israel, attempts to influence the affairs of Islamic governments and communities and support for economic sanctions.

The previous paragraph was clearly based on opinion and bias, The edit is factial and unbiased.

---

in this wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11%2C_2001%2C_attacks it directly mentions Al Kaida responsibility for the 9/11 Attacks. But here in the main Al-Qaida entry, it only mentions the organization is "gained attribution" to have performed this attack. Is this a intermediary stage on the way to legitimizing this organization under the guise of objective description? Hitler has also "gained attribution" to having caused the second world war, I will not be surprised if this violence-condoning view will be sponsored here soon, too. And an insinuation for a recommended maximum sentence of 3 month probation for this naughty moustached militant, to follow, no doubt. (not a nazi! Hitler is not here to attribute this gravely smearing attribution! human rights watch! perhaps he would have preferred this entirely attributable (and true) description:

"A patriotic Austrian vegetrian, committed to world unity and harmony. Tireless Advocate of pacifism among his opponents" (wikipedia 2050 entry?...)

Relativist morality shall be our downfall.

• Talk:Al-Qaida/Creation - Sep 2003 archive*

*(archive from talk page creation up until September 2003 comments)

• Talk:Al-Qaida/Oct 2003 - Oct 2004 archive*

There's a fairly specific account of the history of al-Qaida by a defector named Jamal al-Fadl, who describes the structure of the organisation at its inception in Afghanistan in 1988 and its early activities in Sudan through the 90s. While I think it's true that it's made to be somewhat more than it is, and every Tom, Dick and Harry terrorist gets stuffed into the al-Qaida sack, I think it's reasonable to conclude based on the evidence of him and other defectors/captives that there is an organisation led by bin Laden with some sort of membership. I'll take the "sleeper cell" stuff with a grain of salt, but there is certainly some bit of truth in all the lies surrounding al-Qaida. Graft 17:23, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Let me take a shot at adding an NPOV - "according to" kind of statement. Diderot 21:28, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

"Others question whether this murky entity has more than a handful of true members." A good attempt at NPOV Diderot :-)

But there is a problem with this. Adam Curtis' assertion is that al-Qaeda is NOT a membership organisation, but a name given to those who loosely associate with Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri or who share the same point of view (i.e using terrorist attacks outside of Islamic Nations) on how to increase Islamist POV amongst the nations that are majority Muslim.

The Adam Curtis' three part BBC Documentary is now over. As a whole, information from the series seems to bring almost the whole of the current al-Qaeda Wiki article into the realm of POV! here is a short transcript of just a short segment from the final program. (It seems that The Guardian article may have misrepresented Adam Curtis' claims a little - in the above reference by FOo)

"...The reality was that Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri had become the focus of a loose association of disillusioned Islamist Militants who were attracted by the new strategy. But there was no organisation. These were militants who largely 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 realised that this was the term the Americans had given him. In reality Jamal Al-Fadl was on the run from Bin Laden: having stolen money from him. In return for his evidence the Americans gave him witness protection and hundreds of thousands of dollars. Many lawyers at the trial believe that Al-Fadl exaggerated and lied to give the Americans the picture of a terrorist organisation that they needed to prosecute Bin Laden..."

[at this point the programme delivers statements from Sam Schmidt (Defence Lawyer - Embassy Bombings Trial) and Jason Burke (a respected "expert" and author on al-Qaeda) to back up these claims.]

Zik-Zak 11:43, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC) revised Zik-Zak 18:45, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Haveing woke up to yesterdays news of the London Attacks. It cant be doing the Race Hatered already strive in the uk any good. I hope that the people responsable will meet the SAS as when they attack inocent members of the public your just asking to meet the deadly force of the SAS and they deserve the rath of the SAS. If the Same thing Happend Here in Northern Ireland where secterionism is the way here Im just speculateing But foreigners would expect a heavy upserge in raceial hatered violence. And thats what AL-Qaeda are doing here. They are not scareing the uk citzens at all Not in the slightest. But are heavily promoteing raceial hatered. And if this carrys on in the uk, Al-Qaeda and any other foreigners weather associated with Al-Qaeda or not can expect a ruff time in the uk curtesy of Al-Qaead

Soviet occupation, etc.

Regarding the recent intro edit - al-Qaida was created specifically to move the conflict into a broader arena, NOT to help in the Soviet conflict. There was already adequate infrastructure to do that (e.g. the MAK itself). Brother can I get an amen? Graft 23:08, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tried to find references for "In 1996 al-Qaida was expelled from Saudi". Didn't find any. Would be more likely for certain individuals expelled Robneild 09:29, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's Sudan that al-Qaeda was expelled from, not Saudi. Graft 23:14, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda named before 2001

Graft reverted a recent change, saying "rv, since al-Qaeda was named well before 2001" It was my impression that al-Qaeda was not named well before 2001, but I could be mistaken. Does anyone have any evidence that the name existed before 2001? – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 21:14, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Yes I think the comments by 194.81.30.200 are valid, if a little unclear. We seem to accept in the article that al-Qaeda didn't call itself that until after 9/11, and 194.81.30.200's comments are just saying that in the west they didn't have a name until 2001 (all this doesn't mean that they didn't exist, just they weren't named). If we can find a reference before then fair enough. Robneild 21:31, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What al-Qaeda called itself I'm not clear on - "World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Crusaders and Jews" seems as likely as anything else. But by 1998, following the embassy bombings the term was in widespread usage to describe bin Laden's group. You can easily verify this via a google groups search. As far as I can tell, via Lexis-Nexis, that's the first appearance of the name in public. We can argue about whether it is self-styled (as jamal al-Fadl claims) or whether the U.S. gave it the name (as various others have claimed). But it was so named by 1998. Graft 01:52, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Muslim rejection of Western values

Hey! My eyes have been opened regaring recent comments about widespread rejection of "Western Values" by Muslims!. If it would help, I suggest a comment be added to the Christianity page "Christians (who generally accept Western values) differ from Muslims (who widespreadly reject Western values)".

Sorry, for being facetious. Just want to make you think about how many Muslims are in the world. How many live in the USA or Europe etc. Robneild 20:11, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think "(which is fairly widespread in the Muslim world)" in the introduction should be removed, or replaced with (which most Christians believe is fairly widespread in the Muslim world) :-) unless there is of course strong evidence to back it up! Zik-Zak 20:24, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just can it - trying to make it reasonable is unreasonable. Graft 00:56, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I changed the wording from "rejection of Western values", which was far too blanket, to the more specific: perception (which is fairly widespread in the Muslim world) that Western culture and values are incompatible with Islam.

• You really need to specify even more than that. It's mostly Muslims in the Middle East and neighboring regions, specifically. Muslims in the US...and there are millions of them...and in Europe, and even in some Pacific Island areas, think that Western values can coexist or even integrate with Islam just fine.

In fact, one could find as much or more claim by Christian fundamentalists and religious leaders that Christianity itself conflicts with what many people consider Western values. Certainly the stuff that Middle Eastern Muslims find to be the bad signs of Western influence, like sex, gratuitous violence, mind and body alteration, materialism, et cetera.

In the case of both Christians and Muslims...and while we're at it Jews (Haredi Judaism like Hasidim come to mind)...who object to many Western values, it's really more of a cultural thing than a religious one, just as some Islamic cultures think women must wear burqas to be good Muslims, and some do not.

1. The Persian culture of Iran, for example, does not require them, therefore Iranian Muslims do not...but in Saudi Arabia women will actually get shot (with guns, no joking) if they don't wear them.
2. Hasidim believe that Jews must have long hair and (with men) beards as a religious requirement, but they're directly descended from the Essenes, and still have that culture (the one of long haired and bearded Jesus, in fact), while most other Jews do not have it and think it's not necessary to be devout.
3. There are Christian sects in cultures lacking the nudity taboo who think God won't be offended at all by people walking around naked in public, too. But I think we all know what Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell, ultimately from temperate weather culture, think of that.

It's really about culture, not religion per se. "Muslim world" is as meaningless as "Christian world", when it comes to cultural taboos. Anyone versed on the subject can imagine the havoc that would be wreaked by trying to refer to "the Jewish world" monolithically in reference to, say, what kind of hairstyles men should have.

Actually, I just realized I should have simply pointed out the "Red states are being violated by decadent Hollywood immorality" thing everyone in the US is talking about right now. Americans don't think of Hollywood as the core of Western Values, but the Middle Eastern world does, and that's what they find anti-Islamic.

Ironically, half the West agrees with them, but isn't understanding that they're complaining about the same thing. Kaz 16:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence to back this up. In particular, I'd draw your attention to various implementations of sharia law in different countries which discriminate against non-Muslims in arenas such as court testimony, inheritance, immigration and naturalization and the like, which is incompatible with western notions of democracy and equality before the law. On values, well the sexual mores of the secular West are no more compatible with devout Islam than they are compatible with devout Christianity. The most basic Western banking practices such as charging interest on loans, also, can also present a major problem for Muslims wishing to remain faithful to their faith. All of these problems, once analysed, can be solved (and daily are solved by Western Muslims) by a little give and take, but it would be foolish to suggest that such give and take is on the menu in much of the Islamic world. --Minority Report (IT or PR enormity) 02:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

However, that is quite a broad statement, and the idea that there is no intersection between Western culture and Islam is totally ridiculous. In fact, there have been many attempts at reconciling the two within Islam. The fact that today such views are receding and rejectionist views are more prominent does not mean that this is or was always the case. Furthermore, it's also ridiculous for you to state that democracy and equality before the law are western notions. Anyway, I think the issue at hand is more YOUR perception that "western" values are incompatible with what you believe to be Islam. Graft 06:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• the idea that there is no intersection between Western culture and Islam is totally ridiculous.
  • Tnen it's just as well that nobody has made any such suggestion.
• it's also ridiculous for you to state that democracy and equality before the law are western notions.
  • Not exclusively so. But when non-Muslim westerners in Muslim countries object to being denied basic human rights, this poses those particular values as values that westerners prize above, for example, Islam. Democracy, or at least representative democracy, is not a problem for Islam.
  • It isn't a question of whether this or that idea is exclusively western in origin or exclusively western in adherence (few such ideas exist), it's a question of whether ideas that are highly prized in the west are perceived to be seriously at odds with certain Muslim beliefs that can be termed as "fundamentalist", and this perception is not limited to a few chaps with beards squatting in a cave on the Pakistan border.

• I think the issue at hand is more YOUR perception that "western" values are incompatible with what you believe to be Islam.
  • Then feel free to demonstrate that your belief is true. --Minority Report (IT or PR enormity) 15:33, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Now you're backpedaling - we've gone from "incompatible with Islam" to "seriously at odds with certain Muslim beliefs that can be termed as 'fundamentalist'". Your contention rests on the strength of two assumptions: first, that 'fundamentalist' Muslim beliefs are incompatible with Western values, and second, that these beliefs are widely held. While I might be inclined to agree with the former, since many so-called 'fundamentalists' are in fact reactionaries, rejectionists rather than traditionalists who base their interpretation of Islam on opposing Western values, I would be highly unlikely to favor the latter. The overwhelming majority of Muslims are NOT Islamists. Those are a small minority, and their relative prominence in political discourse and their control over the Kingdom (or, e.g., Iran, where the clerical regime is famously unpopular) should not be taken to suggest that they represent a popular viewpoint. The Muslim population of the world is somewhere around 1.5 billion, a great deal of it in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia. These Muslims are far more moderated in their attitude towards Western culture and values; thus, Islamist viewpoints have not made many inroads amongst these populations. Graft 18:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• we've gone from "incompatible with Islam" to "seriously at odds with certain Muslim beliefs that can be termed as 'fundamentalist'".
  • The first phrase describes the opinion of some fundamentalist muslims; the second phrase elucidates the reason why those muslims believe some western thought to be incompatible with Islam.

• Your contention rests on the strength of two assumptions: first, that 'fundamentalist' Muslim beliefs are incompatible with Western values, and second, that these beliefs are widely held.
  • It rests on neither.
• Islamist viewpoints have not made many inroads amongst these populations.
  • And this is quite immaterial. You seem to be both attacking and relying upon the false assumption that Islamic thought is monolithic. A view can be widespread without being generally accepted. If I thought, on viewing the evidence, that most Muslims believed as Al Qaeda does, I would write that this is the case. They don't. --Minority Report (entropy rim riot) 20:11, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If all you mean to say is that some others besides al-Qaeda believe thusly (i.e. other Islamists), then I agree with you, and your use of the tortured phrase "not uncommon" (i.e., "common") is the problem. Graft 20:48, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There are many reasons why I think the aside "not uncommon in much of the Muslim world" is wrong here. But just to start. This is an article on Al-Qaeda, not on the Muslim "world" in general. The sentence, with out the aside, is in context and NPOV. Lets be clear here, in this context the aside asserts: "Most of the individuals who follow Islam throught the world believe that Western culture and values are incompatible with Islam, which links them to radical terrorists". This statement is definately POV. For instance, someone else could have added the aside "not shared by the majority of peace loving Muslims" in the same place, and backed it up with examples the same as you've done Minority Report. Both are POV, and both muddy the water.

Also, implying that those that have a different opinion to yours are "foolish" is more than a bit discourteous in a fair debate. Zik-Zak 10:29, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• in this context the aside asserts: "Most of the individuals who follow Islam throught the world believe that Western culture and values are incompatible with Islam, which links them to radical terrorists".

• • No, please read it again. I think you will find that it says that the perception that Islam and western values are incompatible is "not uncommon in much of the Muslim world." I think it's important because the article as it stood was unbalanced, seeming to imply that such a perception was unique to Al Qaeda. This is so far from the case as to be worthy of some kind of note.

• implying that those that have a different opinion to yours are "foolish"

• • Please check again. I only said that it would be foolish to suggest that the give and take available for Muslims in the west is available much of the Muslim world. Please take more care with your reading of my statements. --Minority Report (IT or PR enormity) 15:26, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In reply:

• "Not uncommon" implies (or means the same as) "common"
• "in much" implies "most"

Which are quantitative statements; an assertion that it is known that most people within the given group hold the view. Now, if there was a wide reaching survey sampling the opinions of people within the given group. It would be seen as strong evidence to back up the claim. But so far, all we have are examples. Which don't prove the quantitative assertion. For every example given someone with an opposing point of view would likely come up with an opposing example (e.g. a long winded debate going nowhere fast).

Now, "Muslim World" as I understand it refers to all these people around the World: Islam_by_country. Thats about 23% of the Worlds population, of which less than a fifth live in "Arab" countries. So we would need evidence that the majority of this World group went along with the assertion.

The sentence Another main reason for their conflict with the United States is their perception that Western culture and values are incompatible with Islam talks about a cause of conflict being the asserted opinion about incompatibility of cultures. i.e. that belief is held so strongly that those that hold it are willing to fight, die and kill for it.

As I understand it, there are people, both Muslim and Christian who hold that extreme POV. There are also people from both sides that have no problem with co-operating with each other. And there are going to be those that have mixed views.

Again, there are going to be people that hold the POV that the West is incompatible with Islam, but at the same time, utterly condemn the men of violence (but instead look for other solutions to the problem). Also, because a society (east or west) is in some part subservient to their leaders does not follow that they have the same opinion as their leaders.

As I see it, the text that you have added (in different forms) misses these (and other) subtleties. leaving text which was statement of known fact (as far as I can tell) with POV

Another problem is tainting by association. To illustrate what I am trying to say here, here is the same or similar statement expressed in a different context:

Another main reason given for neo-nazi hatred of Jews is their perception (which is widespread amongst the followers of David Ike) of a world wide conspiracy by a mysterious cabal.

i.e

• A is bad.
• A believe C which is the source of their badness.
• Most Ds also believe C (bad naughty Ds).

Hope this helps clarify why I see POV in the statement you gave.

The link between al-Qaeda and others that agree with the principal of Islamic-states is dealt with in the first line of this article, which links to Islamism. which I would tentatively suggest is better place to capture the subtlety of the arguments. As this article is on the subject of al-Qaeda as an entity (or not) rather than the ins-and-outs or rights-and-wrongs of Islamism.

- Zik-Zak 21:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On the other hand, including this statement might seem to temper the apparent radicalness of al-Qaeda (i.e., there are other, more moderate groups like the Ikhwan who share this core belief with al-Qaeda), which is not necessarily an incorrect POV. Seeking to isolate the viewpoint of al-Qaeda suggests they are somehow beyond the pale; is that proper? Mere rejection of violence by others doesn't mean that al-Qaeda is ideologically isolated in general. Graft 22:49, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In which case I think your current edit reaches the best balance - Zik-Zak 17:13, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Awesome! (Al-Qaeda name)

This from this interview of UBL post 9/11. Straight from the horse's mouth:

We have one religion, one God, one book, one prophet, one nation. Our book teaches us to be brothers of a faith. All the Muslims are brothers. The name "al Qaeda" was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al Qaeda [meaning "the base" in English]. And the name stayed. We speak about the conscience of the nation; we are the sons of the nation. We brothers in Islam from the Middle East, Philippines, Malaysia, India, Pakistan and as far as Mauritania.

This ought to settle any dispute over where the name came from... Graft 23:51, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Unless he's lying. This can be sourced, but it should not be taken as fact. --Ben 07:52, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why would he be? This is at least as reliable as the sources that say the U.S. government named the organization. I'd like to soften out some of that language claiming the name was given. Anyway, it's clear that (a) he now is content to use "al-Qaida" as the name of the group, and (b) he claims that it always was the name. Graft 16:50, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didn't see this section until just now, but please check what I wrote above. One of Ramzi Yusef's pals got caught with a book titled "Al Qaeda" upon entry to the US prior to the 1993 WTC attack. At the time the FBI didn't have a clue what the name "Foundation" meant. I cite this from that Benjamin book "Age of Sacred Terror", which I read but do not have with me right now. If anyone has it, we can cite that and put to rest the myth that Western Gov'ts made up the word.Willowx 13:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly what Benjamin and Simon's book says. This info is also in Loretta Napoleoni's book Modern Jihad. And the quote above from the interview explains context. Why is this even being debated?--csloat 03:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

World Islamic Front for etc., etc.

This bit is in the "Names" section as another name for al-Qaeda. But I don't think that's accurate - the World islamic front business was announced in 1998, well after al-Qaeda was operating. Seems more like a "project", or, say, a "front" - an initiative launched by al-Qaeda. Anyone wanna weigh in before I axe the bejesus out of that line? Graft 05:53, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Regarding debate on the line "...seeks to defend, via military and terrorist tactics". If you compare other terrorist organizations you will see that (at least the ones I look at) they don't describe themselves as using terrorist tactics. For instance the IRA says they seek "British withdrawal from Ireland". It seems to then be usual for third parties to label a group as a terrorist organization. I suspect that within Al-Qaeda their mission statement is to "carry out a holy war...." etc. (i've got no idea really), however, I have doubts that they have an aim to use terrorist tactics, or consider themselves to be terrorists. It would then be correct to go on to say that the majority of countries in the world regard them as terrorists. Robneild 11:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) as muslims we can use the book as an excuse to kill, maim and hurt innocent people as we are too coward to declare war as we will run like scavenging pigs into the undergrowth. As a non muslim mohammed would be ashamed that you use the qu'ran and his dealings in medina as an excuse to wage war on the innocent, why not use his teachings from mecca to do some good in the world as the muslims who kill innocent people like those in london are nothing but cowards who deserve to live with pigs and eat from the bile and filth they live in

Al Qaeda Name

I was told that the members of this group do not call themselves Al Qaeda.

I was told they call themselves something like "Al Neda".

I did not hear the name Al Qaeda until the 1998 US Embassy bombings in Africa.

TV News Reports said that a man named Usama Bin Laden had a group named Al Qaeda.

A reporter named John Miller actually got to interview Usama Bin Laden.

It would be nice if someone found out the real name of this terrorist group is.

Supercool Dude 20:22, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Would interest me too. Speaking of naming, I am also interested why you guys think that the 'Qa_e_da' spelling is more appropriate then the 'Qa_i_da' spelling? I would even use them in the title as alias, as "Al Qaeda (Al Qaida)". 50 : 50. As you detailedly wrote, the 'Qaida' is just a different translation. But as you only use the '-e-' spelling in the title, the reader gets the idea of this being a BETTER spelling. I figure both are absolutely equal - or aren't they?

Well, we have to choose a spelling, and "Qaeda" is the most common way to refer to the group by Anglophones. WhisperToMe 23:49, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Purported cult

This material is from the article List of purported cults, which we are paring down to a pure list. Editors here can best evaluate its statements and decide how to integrate it into this article. Thanks, -Willmcw 21:21, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda

The actions of this terrorist organization against civilians in the name of their beliefs, along with their use of suicide bombers, classifies it as a dangerous cult according to activists and religious scholars.

Thanks Willmcw, that gives context to the label "dangerous cult".--AI 23:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but please note that the above assertion, which has since been deleted from the List of purported cults, is unsourced. -Willmcw 23:46, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Revenge of Racist Terror

If the Al-Qaeda/Taliban and their allies in Iraq win the War on Terrorism, i would be taken to Osama Bin Laden and Mohammed Omar and be seduced and manipulated by them in order to complete my fall to the dark side and in the future, lead a purge of the United Nations that would spark a World civil war in which i redeem myself and die to destroy the Human Racist Imperial Caliphate Emirate at the end of the war. - John-110V--Ed Telerionus 15:07, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

John-1107, you should read the article "Wikipedia is not a soapbox."--AI 23:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Sounds familiar. Mr. Billion 23:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Islamist Arab regimes

This text keeps popping up despite my attempts to edit it to a more rounded and balanced version:

direct support by means of arms or loans for anti-Islamist Arab regimes

I think there are clearly several ways to look at this sentance, and the 'anti-Islamist' tag is extremely hard to prove. I doubt very much that the USA supports regimes because they are 'anti-Islamist' although they may have supported states (israel being an example) which contain elements who could be called 'anti-Islamist'.

I'm unhappy with the whole paragraph containing this phrase, because despite my recent edits (see top of article) it has still been changed to reflect a clear opinion and fails to concentrate on the facts of the matter.

Errm. I think I may have written that (or I've written something like it in the past); I was thinking of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, mostly. The former is notable for its persecution of Islamists especially. But I meant more in the sense of "Arab regimes that persecute Islamists". Graft 18:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Power of Nightmares

The article on the BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares" is in need of a criticism section. I invite all who have seen it, particular those of a neo-conservative leaning, to visit and contribute. (The documentary is widely available for download on filesharing networks) Seabhcán 28 June 2005 18:08 (UTC)

The thesis presented in the documentary (as regards al-Qaeda, at least) is that the organisation didn't exist per se before the White House began using the term (originally in 1998 regarding the East African embassy bombings, but much more stridently after September 2001). The US essentially tied together many disparate threads of primarily nationalist terrorism to create a fantasy enemy. However, the idea of a powerful, shadowy international terrorism organisation was as useful to people like bin Laden as it was to the hawks in the US administration (who wouldn't want their own huge "batcave" installation?), and one could argue that al-Qaeda has thus become quasi-real in a case of self-fulfilling prophecy; groups that would previously have identified themselves differently (including bin Laden's small cadre) will now stick "al-Qaeda" in their name somewhere - this may have happened just this morning in London. This view of al-Qaeda does have merit and should be worked into the article somehow, perhaps as a reworking of the "is it real?" section. - toh 2005 July 7 18:44 (UTC)

Dispute over actual existence of Al Qaeda

I think some kind of acknowledgement that the existence of the group as an organised terrorist network, as opposed to an umbrella term for many seperate Islamist fundamentalists, should be included as part of the article's opening. Just a brief reference would be fine, but as it currently stands, the claims made in The Power of Nightmares are presented almost as a crackpot conspiracy theory undeserving of wider attention. Unless there's any opposition to this, I'm going to add a sentence akin to "Some dispute the existence of al-Qaeda as a legitimate organised network of terrorists, citing..." and then a reference to a source for this opinion. Thoughts? SnoopLogg 6 July 2005 22:32 (UTC)

I don't think anyone credible disputes the existence of al Qaeda as an organized group, no matter what the film says. I've watched parts 1 and 2 of the film and I don't recall them making the claim as it is portrayed here. But in any case it's clear that OBL was using the term as early as 1993 (though in a different sense) and that he (and his associates) were consciously creating an organized network of terrorists. And since 2001 there is certainly an "al Qaeda" now; notice Zarqawi's organization in Iraq having a public dialogue swearing allegiance to OBL and henceforth calling itself "al Qaeda in the land between the two rivers". I don't know what you mean by "legitimate" in this context but the claim that "al Qaeda is an organized network of terrorists" is certainly not disputed in any credible circles that I'm aware of. --csloat 7 July 2005 01:02 (UTC)

I'm with Snooplog on this: the evidence you quote about people swearing allegiance to "al Qaeda" is not actually contradictory to the notion that al Qaeda - as it is portrayed in the popular media - does not actually exist. No-one disputest hat al Qaeda exists, but the idea that it is a global network of organised terrorists has and is disputed, not only by the Power of Nightmares but also in Jason Burke's book "Al-Qaeda: The True Story of Radical Islam". Axon 7 July 2005 16:52 (UTC)

That's not correct - or perhaps I was not clear enough above. Burke (and other counterterrorism writers) does not argue that al Qaeda does not exist; what he argues is that it is not a centralized network. It is, rather, distributed, spread out, made up of contingent alliances, and we are seeing that even more today with the rise of "al Qaeda in Europe" after "al Qaeda between the rivers." Look at p. 8 of his book -- "This is not to say that al-Qaeda does not exist, but merely that the labelling implies that bin Laden's group is something that it is not. To see it as a tight-knit organization, with 'tentacles everywhere', with a defined ideology and personnel, that had emerged as early as the late 1980s, is to misunderstand not only its true nature but the nature of radical Islamism then and now. The contingent, dynamic and local elements of what is a broad and ill-defined movement rooted in historical trends of great complexity are lost. What bin Laden was able to do, between 1996 and late 2001, was provide a central focus for many of these disparate elements." So if that is the claim you want to make in the article, I agree with it, and I prefer to cite a terrorism expert or journalist than a documentary film, and I think the wording "does al Qaeda exist?" (as it is phrased in the article) is highly misleading. To say that al Qaeda is not an organized network is also misleading; it is just a very different kind of network than, say, the IRA.--csloat 7 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)

I have seen much comparison with the IRA on this discussion page. If you blow up something in Northern Ireland and claim it for the IRA, it won't be taken seriously. There are secret codewords that the IRA uses when claiming responsiblity for attacks. "Al-Qaeda" doesn't seem to have such a system, so there's no reason to believe any claims of responsibility. Also, the fact is that their are doubts over the existence of Al Qaeda. There is no need to get into a discussion of whether it exists or not. Any encyclopedia will inform the reader of all the relevant and interesting facts, and I am sure any reader wishing to know about Al Qaeda will want to be informed about the dispute. Wikipedia should not express a point of view on whether it's true or not. --167.127.163.141 12:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I see, your argument is that al Qaeda does not exist because they don't have the same communication methods as the IRA? Uhh, that's compelling. Is there any reason not to believe their claim of responsibility? The fact is that nobody seriously researching this has doubt about al Qaeda's existence. There are discussions -- not so much disagreements, even -- about the nature of their network. That's an organizational issue -- al Q is a hydra-headed monster with no central authority. OBL is a figurehead at this point, and probably plays no role in directing operations. Various groups operate separately, with minimal contact. This is a new kind of organization. That does not mean it doesn't exist. The only people who think it doesn't exist are those who believe George Bush is behind it or whatever. Here on earth, among the folks actually paying attention to this stuff, there is no debate, IMHO. --csloat 20:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

So you'll believe anything until you see evidence to the contrary? It's better to have an open mind until the issue is closed. Despite what you say, many of those who are seriously researching the issue do doubt that it exists. Readers of Wikipedia will be interested in the fact that there is dispute over it's existence. You said the only people who dispute this are people who think George Bush is behind it - well that's clearly complete rubbish. Most of the serious researchers, as you call them, would not say that. If the only reason you want to keep the fact of the existence of the dispute hidden from Wikipedia readers is your own stupid prejudices about where the doubters are coming from, then you need to rethink your position. Admit it, you've made a lot of incorrect assumptions about the political opinions of the doubters. Anyway, by your logic, we should delete the articles on all the religions because most of religions are not correct. --167.127.163.141 12:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

So if you name just one "of those who are seriously researching the issue" who doubt that al Qaeda exists, I will, I don't know; eat my hat? Will that satisfy you? Then please, do tell us, the name of one serious terrorism researcher who does not believe that al Qaeda exists.--csloat 12:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Jason Burke, chief reporter for the Observer, one of the biggest Sunday newspapers in the UK. He's one of the more high profile doubters that I know of. He's written books about Al Qaeda. Just to clarify, are we discussing whether or not Al Qaeda exists, or discussing whether or not Wikipedia should mention the dispute? The Flat_Earth theory is on Wikipedia, even though I don't know of any researcher or scientist, serious or not, who agrees with it. --167.127.104.11 15:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Here's a relevant Burke quote:

Al-Qaeda remains useful as a term to describe bin Laden, his close associates and the infrastructure created in Afghanistan between 1996 and 2001. We now need to recognise that, as that construction has now been effectively demolished, so should the label "al-Qaeda" be jettisoned, or at least understood as describing something other than a coherent structured organisation.

Here's another relevant Burke quote, from p. 8: "This is not to say that al-Qaeda does not exist." Look, anon editor - I already quoted Burke above; he does not dispute the network's existence; he just argues that the nature of the network is very different from a network like, say, Hamas, or the Mafia. I think we are agreed on this but for some reason the language is getting in the way -- I don't think there is anyone with a legitimate perspective that says "al Qaeda does not exist." Rather, there are discussions -- not even disputes -- about the nature of the network. It is a very different kind of organization (and that is part of the reason it has been so successful -- that, and the bush admin's bungling, imho). But it does exist. I also agree with Graft below -- 2001 was a key moment. But the organization existed and operated before that; the 1998 attacks in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam were very well orchestrated and timed (and these places are 400 miles apart). That was certainly the work of an organization.--csloat 00:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

This article more or less uses the term to describe that first part - it's the history of that organisation. Some of the later stuff in this article (the attributions) are crap, and I hate them - properly I think most of that is speculation and doesn't really belong here. However, it probably should go some place, and for now it rests here.

I think most of these problems could be solved by recognizing that 2001 was a seminal moment in the history of al-Qaeda, and writing the transformation into the body of the article. That is, if we simply make explicit that, at one time there was this real thing, al-Qaeda, and now it has more or less become this ill-defined cloud floating vaguely above the world, we'll avoid all the pissing contests we seem to insist on having. Graft 16:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I should add that theories of the sort that al-Qaeda has NEVER existed, is a construct, a figment of the imagination, etc., should not be given serious consideration, and I don't think that's what Burke or anyone else worth their salt is saying. Rather, we should say that maybe al-Qaeda does not exist at present, though it definitely did in the past. Ja? Graft 16:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Graft, I concur with what you've said. And, by the way guys, I apologize for some of the language I used talking to csloat. --167.127.104.11 16:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC) (My IP is changing, I should probably log in)

Thanks; I didn't mean anything personal either. Graft I don't agree with the last part -- "al Qaeda does not exist in the present". Again I think it is reasonable to speak of "al Qaeda" -- certainly they refer to themselves that way - but I agree with you that it is not the same org that it was in 1998. Again, there are questions about the nature of the organization, but there is nobody -- not even Burke, who is a reasonable authority here -- that disputes its existence.--csloat 00:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Note the critical 'maybe'. I'm just saying it may be ok to have a speculative paragraph about the structure of al-Qaeda now (including the possibility that it may not exist any longer as an organisation), so long as we acknowledge its reality of its existence in the past. Graft 15:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree about the wording of the "Does al Qaeda exist" section, it should really be re-worked. This article already explains that Al-Qaeda is a loose affiliation, not a SPECTRE-like worldwide terrorist network. I saw The Power of Nightmares and it's assertions were dubious to say the least. 81.131.222.197

That's not correct - or perhaps I was not clear enough above. Burke (and other counterterrorism writers) does not argue that al Qaeda does not exist; what he argues is that it is not a centralized network Uh, if you read my comments, I did not actually claim the al Qaeda does not exist (I clearly state this, in fact). What Burke and the Power of Nightmares does say about Al Qaeda is that it isn't the international organisation as claimed and many of the acts attributed to it are actually groups acting independantly. What is more, I see no reason to give primacy to journalistic book over a documentary film than any other form of journalism. Axon 7 July 2005 20:09 (UTC)

What is written in a book is usually clearly attributed and cited and can be easily checked; film is able to take licence that books -especially scholarly books - cannot easily get away with. The BBC documentary expresses a point of view; some would say it connects together a lot of things that don't logically follow. In any case, I think we should change the section whenever this page is unprotected so that it does not seem to claim that "al Qaeda doesn't exist" as an organized group, which is just hogwash.--csloat 7 July 2005 23:39 (UTC)

Since its already been established that UBL is a CIA asset who freely enjoyed the right of entrance into the U.S until before 9-11, why should we believe it when UBL says there is an Al-Qaeda, since the CIA and Mossad are famous for false flag and black ops? -- Capone

I'm sorry, did the nurse forget to stop by with your medication today? --csloat 09:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

London Bombings

Should someone add that Al-Qaeda (or a spinoff group) were responsible for the 7_July_2005_London_bombings???

I tried to but the page is protected against editing; I'm not sure why but I have not been paying close attention to the last edit war here. Somebody fix this? There's a line already about warnings to London in the wake of the Madrid bombings; a sentence or two with a link should go after that.--csloat 7 July 2005 19:19 (UTC)

It's far too early to be adding that kind of info. It hasn't been confirmed who is responsible. 81.131.222.197

Are you nuts? A group calling itself "Secret al Qaeda in Europe" took credit, issued a statement, and of course it has every indication of an al Qaeda attack -- simultaneous bombings, tightly coordinated. I don't think anyone in their right mind doubts who is responsible for this. Besides, this info is on the page for this incident (linked above).--csloat 7 July 2005 19:36 (UTC)

No, are you? Different groups take responsibility for bombings all the time, most of them aren't really responsible, but it's all publicity. Al Qaeda on the other hand, doesn't usually claim responsibility for its acts. It's likely to be some kind of affiliate, but we should probably exercise caution at this stage. If you want to argue with someone who's nuts you can read the POV complaint at the bottom of the page. 81.131.222.197

Heh, OK, but there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that this is IRA or anyone else. Who else do you think it could be -- PETA? The Black bloc? It's clearly an al Qaeda affiliate and I don't see any reason to doubt the statement made taking credit. And in fact al Qaeda has taken credit for a lot of its actions so it's not completely correct to say they don't usually claim responsibility. This is clearly an al Qaeda affiliate group and everyone talking about it on the radio here (NPR mostly) has clearly affirmed that view.--csloat 7 July 2005 23:34 (UTC)

Even if it is by no means 100% clear that Al-Qaeda was responsible for the terrorist bombings, there is a widespread suspicion that even officials (the London police) have confirmed) plus their own statement. So in the name of free information, at least that should be mentioned. Something like "It is also alleged from various sides that Al-Qaeda was responsible for the London Underground and bus bombings on 7 July 2005. A statement from a previously unknown group, "The Secret Organization of Al-Qaeda in Europe" claiming responsibility, seems to back this allegation, although the authenticity of the statement and the group's connection to Al-Quaeda have not yet been independently verified." TH 8 July 2005 09:02 (UTC)

This is all starting to become gray, for me - what do we mean when we say "al-Qaeda" in this context? If we're referring to the organisation started in the 90s by OBL and later based in Sudan and Afghanistan that provided terrorist training and may have coordinated some attacks, I see no way at all to ascribe this attack to them. If we mean "some Islamist terrorists", that may be the case, and one could state that this is a reasonable hypothesis. But I'm not sure what "It's clearly an al Qaeda affiliate" means. Did they get a franchise license? Are they "with the band"? What? Just because we suspect that Islamist terrorists were behind this does not mean one should start throwing the word "al-Qaeda" around loosely. Graft 8 July 2005 21:37 (UTC)

We are not the ones throwing the word around - the group in question calls itself "Secret al Qaeda in Europe", and to my knowledge, there arn't any other groups with credible claims of responsibility. If they call themselves Al Qaeda, thats good enough for me. That is, unless anybody has access to Al Qaeda's franchise license documents... --Bletch 9 July 2005 01:54 (UTC)

Yes, but in this article, al-Qaeda has a specific meaning, i.e. the organisation I mentioned above - the fact that the "Secret al-Qaeda etc." organisation calls itself that does not mean it's "good enough". When the "Real IRA" claimed a bombing, people didn't go around ascribing it to the "IRA". Graft 9 July 2005 02:21 (UTC)

There should be nothing Grey or unclear here ... Al Qaeda has threatened Britian a number of times (see http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127881,00.html) and even recently published a magazine prioritizing attacks on the UK (see al-Qaeda's Biweekly Online Training Manual, Places High Priority on Attacks upon British Targets at http://siteinstitute.org/terrorismlibrary/magazines/magazine1/issue7.pdf). And as mentioned above, they even claimed responsibility for it.

The mere fact that there is a debate raging here on whether or not Al Qaeda was responsible for this attack is absurd.

The existence of Al Qaeda is HIGHLY debateable, at least as reported in the Western media. This discussion of the London bombings urgently needs some balance. I suggest we add these links:

• Who did the London Bombings?
• The birth of the London bomb Official Story
• What's Behind the London Attacks?

Graft - why would you trying to defend them by questioning their obvious responsibility?

And 81.131.222.197 - yes it's early, but they obviously did it - and to say that a "splinter group" of Al Qaeda is not Al Qaeda simply confuses the issue ... the mafia is the mafia - whether its the gambinos or columbos is irrelevant - can't we at least call a spade a spade anymore? Larryfooter 9 July 2005 01:49 (UTC)

WHOSE obvious responsibility? If, tomorrow, I go and bomb some place and release a communique saying "Al Qaeda of Boston has bombed Trump Towers," does that mean everyone should run around saying "al Qaeda did it!"? Al-Qaeda is NOT "the mafia". It is not a generic term describing Islamist terrorists. If you think that is accurate, you're misapprehending what al-Qaeda is, or at least was. As to your "trying to defend them" canard - please. I'm merely trying to ascertain whether al-Qaeda is being redefined so broadly that the mere fact that a bombing occurs means, by necessity, that al-Qaeda was responsible. This seems to be the plank along which we're running. Is this what we mean? Can we have some fucking clarity? Graft 21:58, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Graft has a valid point. Many groups have taken the names of the Ku Klux Klan or the Nazis, for instance, but only a few such groups can be legitimately said to be or have grown directly from the original organization. Knowing how precisely to identify such a nebulous entity as a worldwide terrorist group is difficult since it necessarily operates secretly, and with both the fame/notoriety achieved by bin Laden's group after 9/11, and the provocation of radical Muslims and middle-easterners resulting from the Iraq war, al-Qaeda can easily attract new members and/or copycat groups who adopt the name simply for its effect. It's possible that this "Secret Al-Qaeda in Europe" is one such copycat group. Any group of idiots enamored with extremist ideology and willing to commit violence while calling themselves "al-Qaeda" can have a convincing claim to actually being al-Qaeda, even if none of the idiots actually knows any real al-Qaeda members. If the individuals responsible for the London bombings are captured and one of them is found to have been or to have communicated with a known al-Qaeda member, then the group responsible for this attack can clearly be said to be al-Qaeda. As it is, we only know what the idiots did, not who they are. There was an American idiot (I think in 2002) who had planned to begin a series of Unabomber-style mail bombings across the U.S. If he had been able to do so without leaving any evidence as to his identity, no doubt a lot of people would have speculated that it was al-Qaeda.
I don't think Graft is trying to "defend" the group responsible because they may not be the "real" al-Qaeda; he's simply advocating a finer distinction of who's who and caution about jumping to conclusions. I've noticed that sometimes people get frustrated with these discernments and just try to lump all the "bad guys" together. I think that frame of mind was probably a factor in bringing the U.S. into the misadventure in Iraq.
We should keep in mind that our information is limited and the people responsible have not yet been apprehended. There is a possibility that this group is a copycat and not a direct splinter group of al-Qaeda. I guess there's also a remote possibility that the web site's claim of responsibility is a hoax or diversion of some kind.
From what I've seen, it would be perfectly safe to say that the London attack is likely the work of an al-Qaeda affiliate, but to say that it's certain that it was al-Qaeda itself is overstepping. --Mr. Billion 00:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Get rid of the 'made up terror' article at the bottom of this page.

The article is an external link in regards to the alleged Al Qaeda threat in London.

We know now that there IS a very real threat of terrorism conducted by Al Qaeda throughout the world.. and now in London.

NO, we DON'T know that. The public has put blind faith in the myth of Al Qaeda. We need to foster a balanced debate about the identity of this so-called terrorist network.

This Islamic terrorist orgnaisation is the responsable for various terrorist attacks arround the world. Most recently the bombs in the capital of the United Kingdom, London. The British PM, Tony Blair, spoked about these events calling them "barbaric". The ironic part of all these is that George W. Bush, the current US president, is in continous contact with members of this terrorist oranaisation...eventhough he is trying to capture and put and end to Al Qaeda.

Protection & NPOV tag

The article is currently protected (by OldakQuill) because of a spate of vandalism. They forgot to add the vprotect tag though, which I've now done. I've also added the NPOV tag as requested further up the page. Thryduulf 8 July 2005 11:59 (UTC)

I do not agree that the article needs an NPOV tag. And I don't think you should have added the tag while the page is protected - from Wikipedia:Protected_page under Policy: "Do not edit a temporarily protected page except to add a protected page notice." TH 8 July 2005 12:42 (UTC)

more links

Some links that might be interesting reading:

http://www2.gol.com/users/coynerhm/think_again_al_qaeda.htm

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DFED.htm

Hashar 8 July 2005 13:27 (UTC)

sr: wikilink

Could someone add link to Serbian Wiki here? Just paste this ([[sr:Ал Каида]]) on the appropriate place. -- Obradović Goran (ta^lk 8 July 2005 17:57 (UTC)

US support to MAK

I would like to point out that the claim that US never supported (at least directly) MAK on this page is inconsistent with othe wikipedia articles on this. For comparison see keywords Osama bin Laden and History of Afghanistan. Maybe even elsewhere. Although I do not know yet what is true (or at least most plausible statement) I believe that this should be resolved.

Galician interwiki

Could someone add [[gl:Al Qaida]], thanks--Rocastelo 19:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Unlock this page?

Can someone unlock this page? There's been a lot of fruitful discussion recently, and I think there's no longer much fear of vandalism. Graft 16:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Disputed

This article seems to have regained its "NPOV" tag without any resort to recent discussion or argument. The tag reappeared on 13th November with user Geeta who has never previously troubled the page with edits nor provided any reason for adding the tag on this occasion. There have been several recent additions some of which are likely to be unhelpful but surely adding the classification disputing NPOV requires some argument or discussion before it happens. --Alberdi 04:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag must be removed!

This article looks alright to me. Why does it have an NPOV tag? Regards, --Gramaic | Talk 07:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I would vote for the NPOV tag to stay Robneild 08:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Care to explain why? --csloat 09:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

In order to work with this article in a democratic way. I thought maybe we could vote on whether to keep the NPOV tag or not.--Gramaic | Talk 07:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep the NPOV tag

1. I would vote to keep the NPOV dispute tag for the obvious reason that a dispute exists over the Neutral Point of View of the article. Al-Qaeda is an extremely passionate term, but if you want people to take Wikipedia seriously, its terms must be defined in a dispassionate way. Many previous definitions didn't use vilification designations like "extremist objectives" and "fundamentalist" to describe the enemy. Articles written as recently as April didn't ascribe fantastic motivations to al-Qaeda actions like that of seeking to supplant Western society as a whole.

• Wikipedia cannot work with a mob mentality. If you want this project to be taken as a serious encyclopedia, what is factually correct must take precedence over what you wish reality to be. There factually is a dispute over the Neutral Point of View of this article. Voting for that reality to change will not change it. Taking off the NPOV dispute tag will not make the dispute go away. It will only hide evidence of the truth in favor of a fantasy that this mob is trying to create. Wikipedia allows for a mob mentality to trump factual information and dispassionate definitions, but you personally can choose to do what is right if you want Wikipedia to succeed. --Zephram Stark 13:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Remove the NPOV tag NOW! It must be removed or everyone here is a terrorist-lover!

1. --Gramaic | Talk 07:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
2. --csloat 07:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
3. --WolfKeeper 08:32, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
4. --TH 21:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Unless someone can give a good reason why the tag should STAY, I see no reason to have to resort to a vote... Graft 15:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I feel too newbie to remove it myself, but if someone more senior would do it I'd be happy enough. TH 21:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

(Sorry I couldn't resist, this is utterly !NPOV but this is the talk page) The advantage of having a vote, of course, among civilized people, is that the loser then will accept the result and we avoid an edit war, however if we are dealing with folks who are sympathizing with those people I doubt they will respect the result of a democratic process in any case... TH 21:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Exactly!--Gramaic | Talk 00:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Horsten, your definition of Democracy seems to be that majority has the ability to define reality for the minority. If people think that the POV of the article is biased, a majority vote can't change their thinking. I agree that, to avoid edit wars, we must go with the most popular definition, even if that definition disagrees with what the experts say, but we should at least place an NPOV notice on the article when other people think it is blatant propaganda. --Zephram Stark 04:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with that assesment of my democracy definition, nobody is "defining reality" for anyone but we are merely trying to state the facts in a way that the (hopefully vast) majority would consider NPOV. I don't think NPOV tag is a solution when a small minority have a radically different opinion from the large majority - this would simply cause every article about even slightly controversial subjects to consistently have an NPOV tag, and that would be detrimental to the value of Wikipedia, plus it would be fuel to the fire of those who claim that Wikipedia can not be taken seriously. If you do have specific sentences that you think are misrepresenting the truth, please write them here and explain what you would suggest changing in order to remove the alleged POV. Then we can take it from there, and base our discussion on something concrete instead of having a meaningless edit war of adding/removing the NPOV tag. TH 11:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

So I did it after all, (Wikipedia:Be_bold) after changing the only concrete criticized instance of NPOV I could find in the dispute (at the top of this page). Please feel free to reinstante the tag if you think I have acted in error, but please don't do so without commenting on your motivations for doing so here. TH 22:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

No need to reinstate the tag! Good for you.--Gramaic | Talk 00:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Several people have given reasons here in Discussion for the NPOV tag, but they were erased by a vandal with the excuse "don't let the Islamic fascists have a voice here. the article stands as is." I have reverted the initial section that gives some compelling reasons under the Neutrality Dispute section. I would like to add that we cannot defeat an enemy that we don't know. The article says, "it seeks to establish, via military and terrorist tactics, a radical form of Islamist ideology to supplant both current regimes in the Middle East and eventually Western society as a whole." This kind of talk is great for motivating the troops, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Nobody in the world, even President Bush, has claimed that al-Qaeda seeks to supplant Western society as a whole. Osama bin Laden has stated several times that the only purpose of his group is to give Islamic people a chance to unite, without outside hindrance, if that is what the Islamic people want to do. Whether we think that is a reason for war or not is a matter worthy of discussion, but we cannot have that discussion when our definition of al-Qaeda is based in fantasy and rhetoric.

Because there obviously is an NPOV dispute, I have placed the NPOV tag back on the article. --Zephram Stark 04:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

With all do respect, who cares what bin Laden says? This article is very NPOV and the reason why we don't need the NPOV tag is because bin Laden is a terrorist and murderer that heads a terrorist organization, that was behind 9/11, the Madrid bombings, and the recent terror that took place in London.--Gramaic | Talk 06:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

All that did is expose your own POV. We have to think of Osama bin Laden on neutral terms. Let's be cold with this one. WhisperToMe 13:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into an edit war with you, Gramaic. There factually is an NPOV dispute. If you can't see the NPOV problem with ascribing motivations to someone else that are in direct contradiction to what that person says, you may be a little too close to this subject. --Zephram Stark 13:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with him or anyone else doing that at all. It's not like everyone will tell you their true motivations. Provided people don't delete other peoples work (except in extreme circumstances), that doesn't usually violate NPOV.WolfKeeper

I suggest that you allow someone else to edit this article who can keep an objective point of view. I would be happy to work on that if you would like, but until a neutral article can be written or reverted, there factually is a dispute. Thank you for helping to keep Wikipedia factual. --Zephram Stark 13:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

That's incorrect. NPOV is not about writing from an objective point of view, it is about accurately expressing the different point of views (within reason). It's the wikipedian way. So I'm not clear that there really is an NPOV dispute here.WolfKeeper

You are correct that differerent points of view need to be expressed in an encyclopedia definition. In an NPOV article, these points of view are presented as POV, and not as fact. Objectivity is maintained by first presenting the parts that both sides of the dispute agree upon in a dispassionate way, followed by arguments for both sides of the issue presented as POV from biased sources.

I implore you to look at the introductory definition of Al-Qaeda and see if you can take the obvious hatred of the movement out—-to write it from a dispassionate standpoint. If you cannot, I would be happy to help. --Zephram Stark 20:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Fucking christ. If no one can ENUMERATE the reasons for the dispute and how they would like them to be resolved, then to hell with the NPOV disclaimer. Let's try and actually get some resolution of issues here, okay? Can you state clearly what the nature of this dispute is? I've only seen clouds of dirt so far. Please don't tell me it's "discussed above". State your case. Especially if this article is going to be locked down every two minutes on your insistence. Graft 17:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps if you can only find clouds of dirt in the NPOV dispute above, someone else would be a better editor for this article. Whoever wrote the description has obvious distaste for the movement and it shows in the introduction. I would be happy to help write a dispassionate description of the al-Qaeda movement if I can be of service. --Zephram Stark 20:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

If you are the anonymous author who is writing above about "the insurrection" of "millions" of people and conflating that with al-Qaeda, then please state clearly to me: What is this "insurrection" of which you speak? If your contention is only with the use of the words "extremist" and "liberal democracies", then those can EASILY be removed without slapping a dispute header on the article. You could have done that yourself with little fanfare and it would have caused no complaints. As to the word "terrorist", that perfectly accurately desribes a particular kind of tactic used by al-Qaeda. Graft 20:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not anonymous. I refer to al-Qaeda as a movement because that is how most international terrorism experts refer to the movement. With the advent of the internet, people can find out what is going on. They don't need a central leader to distribute information. Any one of us can access the U.N. site, for instance, and read about the 800,000+ children a U.N. fact-finding mission discovered that our sanctions murdered in Iraq between 1991 and 2005. We can research issues ourselves and act on those issues. One of my implementations is in helping to make sure that definitional facts aren't confused with vilification, because I believe that makes terrorism worse. For my words, I have been labeled a terrorist, I have been on the government CAPPS II list, and I have been called an al-Qaeda cell. My only threat to anyone is their misperception and fear of my words when I state the obvious. In writing this, I can assure you that I do not get direction from Osama bin Laden or any source but my own conscience. --Zephram Stark 20:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Page protected

The constant removing and readding of the NPOV template is doing nobody any favours. Some people dispute the neutrality of the article, therefore there is an NPOV dispute. Whether or not the article is or isn't NPOV there is a dispute about it. So I have protected the page with the tag on it. Please sort out the issues here, rather than squabbling over the template. Thryduulf 14:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

"Return to Afghanistan -- Taking advantage of an invitation from some Afghan warlords, al-Qaeda returned to Afghanistan" .... would it be possible to find some more detail about this Robneild 18:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Al Qaeda (one more thing on the name!)

Okay, I just received an e-mail (anonymous) that says, quote, "

"Al-Qaida,(sic) 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," admits former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, whose Foreign Office portfolio included control of British Intelligence Agency MI-6 and the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), in a column published by the UK Guardian newspaper.

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1523838,00.html)

In other words, the so-called "Al Qaeda," which was misnamed and misreported by Government/ Media as "The Base" (not the "database") and then promoted by the Government/ Media Cartel as the cause of all bombings and terrorism since the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001, is simply a database of CIA trained "terrorists" (or "freedom fighters," depending on your perspective) which has become a convenient Global Boogeyman for the 21st Century. What does this mean? The entire planet has been fooled into believing that an Islamic "organization" exists to promote the destruction of Western society, when in fact this "organization" is just a list of Pentagon/ CIA trained assassins, who can be used and discarded as needed."

And the URL of it's source is there, and it checks out from what I can tell. It says "...literally 'the database,'..."; can anyone confirm or disprove this? I included the second paragraph, althought not necessarily relevant, as .. well, it reads like a conspiracy theory and isn't sourced except for the line from British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook in The Guardian. Why would he be the only person who says it's "database" and not "base"? What gives? Sorry for the long comment. Zanturaeon 03:33, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

The Guardian??? Good god they don't count as a source. So let me get this straight - The CIA, famously short on Arabic language specialists, uses Arabic names for it's computer files.. oh yeah, makes as much sense as most of the stuff on this page.

Hey! Maybe we should ask Scheuer how to spell it and at least we’ll have one fact cleared up. :220.8.135.26 12:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that's what Cook is saying - he's saying "this is bin Laden's name for a database he had of mujahideen. The CIA helped train some of those mujahideen." Also, this is not "the Guardian", this is Robin Cook, who presumably should have some kind of credence in your book; he merely happens to be writing in the Guardian. Graft 14:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

After bin Laden left Afghanistan in the late 80's/early 90's, he ran a veteran's aid organization in Saudi Arabia for the mujahideen. The organization stayed in touch with many of the former fighters. I believe this is the start of the 'database' that Al-Qaeda refers to.--200.114.233.141 03:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The word Al Qaeda is a direct transliteration from the Modern Standard Arabic word meaning “The Base”. This drivel about it meaning “Database” is completely inaccurate. The words that represent database in the Arabic language sound nothing like Al Qaeda. Pick up an Arabic dictionary and find out for yourself. Maybe you should start by learning Modern Standard Arabic.

Thanks! The popular BBC documentary said the phrase was in reference to the place where the Mujahedin fighters were trained, and I figured that was sense enough. I was really looking for someone who knew Arabic to tell me. Appreciate it. :) (And, hm, maybe I should teach myself Arabic! :D) Zanturaeon 23:51, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Groups allied with Al-Qa'ida

I don't like a lot of this stuff, actually, even stuff that intersects with the current intro. E.g., "alliance of militant Islamist organizations" - lesquels? Can we name even one? If we can, it would probably be, err, Islamic Jihad which... means little or nothing at this point. Where did we learn that it is so structured? Where did we learn its "stated purpose"? That "definition of terrorism" bit is as awkward as a newborn lamb. Moreover, I think this intro puts too much emphasis on the nebulous present state of al-Qaeda, whereas I think the definite history of al-Qaeda is a better frame for the intro. Graft 03:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

This is from my website: Osama Bin Laden issued his Fatwa(religious edict) in 1998 called International Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews & Crusaders (IFF): The IFF is an umbrella Organisation made up of the following groups on the USA's FTO list: 2. Abu Sayyaf Group 3. Armed Islamic Group (GIA) 6. Gama'a al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group) 8. Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM) 10. Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) 11. al-Jihad (Egyptian Islamic Jihad) 21. al-Qa'ida* There are other groups from Pakistan are: Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (HUM) Harkat-ul-Jihad-Al-Islami (HUJI) Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) There are more but I have yet to find a source on the Internet which has a definitive list. There are more now in Saudi Arabia & Iraq which take their name directly from Al-Qaeda -- Anonymous

You know, unsigned posts are probably the most annoying thing on Wikipedia. Anyway - the International Islamic Front is great, but the fundamental crux of this page, that remains to be answered, is: what the fuck is al-Qaeda? Is the Front the same thing? Does this imply that Abu Sayyaf and the GIA are somehow part of al-Qaeda? I don't think that's reasonable. The contention being made by Zephram Stark is that al-Qaeda is some sort of broader movement, an alliance of smaller groups. I think this is conjecture on his part, and I don't think the above is support for it. Graft 15:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Strategy of Al-Qaeda and related groups

It seems to me that these groups carry out terrorist action using a three phase approach:

1.Attack infrastructure and security forces:This causes fear and demoralises security forces and causing fear and paranoia amongst populations.

2.Attacking emotional targets eg public places ,hospitals:This causes sock and ethnic strife.

3.Political targets :With resulting chaos as a result of 1&2;weaknesses in security become evident and hence political targets become accessable.This seems to be the main objective.

To me this seems to me the general pattern in Kashmir,Iraq,Caucauses and North Africa.If any body agree/disagree please comment.Hence even if these groups are not directly related they use the same strategy.

How are suicide bombers made

It is often said how different in backgroud these bombers are;however I think they share common traits.

1.They all seem to see themselves as put-upon.Unemployed who can not find work;he or she blames the society.Middle class person who having strived, see that he can not succeed in his goal eg to be the greatest scientist,writer,ruler of Saudia Arabia;again he blames the system.

2 They have an irrational belief system which 'merges' with the beliefs in (1).Although some beliefs may be justified others can not.

The same way gang members are made, from poverty. --Charlie Young and Sam Seaborn

London Bombings - Suicide

• I think that we need to make clear that the bombings in London were the work of suicide bombers and not remote control devices, etc. 80.42.28.76 16:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

io:wikilink

Could someone add a link to Ido Wiki here? Just paste this ([[io: Al-Kaida]]) on the appropriate place. -

I've added this. Thryduulf 18:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Robin Cook point of view

Robin Cook Friday July 8, 2005 The Guardian

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.

This is dealt with above. I don't think "database" is the translation.--csloat 23:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I am ignorant of the details of the contentiousness that has kept this page locked

Having said that, I would like to encourage all parties to get this business straightened out cuz it's getting ridiculous. What's it been now, 9 days? I'm sure there are others like me who just wanna make uncontroversial edits to the Al Qæda. The contorversies don't concern wikipedians like us until we might by chance make an edit that is in itself controversial. I'm told to post here, that this is where I'll be heard. I feel I'm slowly, incidentally being sucked into the fight(s) over this article but I want no part of it. I fight only to have it unlocked for the general good, for freedom of access/speech. I would just like to be able to edit it a little. anyone have any words of wisdom/consolation for me?

thanks, Kzzl 19:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You would have to help resolve the dispute above in order to have the lock removed. --AI 20:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Was that supposed to be wisdom or consolation? Kzzl

Words of "wisdom." Now just click here. --AI 01:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems the dispute is over whether or not there is a dispute. LOL. I wouldn't worry about it, the problem is some of Wikipedia's admins who are obviously biased, engage in cabal yet deny that any cabal exists. Wikipedia as a project is doomed until they are removed from power. --AI 01:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I've unlocked the page following a request. If the dispute is about the NPOV tag, the tag should be kept if there's an NPOV dispute in which specific suggestions have been made to make the article more neutral that are actionable within our policies. If there are no such suggestions, the tag should come down. That is, there should be no drive-by tagging. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:23, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Al-Qa`ida — how do we spell it?

Although I notice that al-Qaeda is the popular spelling of the name used by the press it isn't a very good transcription of the Arabic (see Arabic transliteration). The ISO 233 standard says القَاعِدة should be rendered as ʾˈalqaʾʿidaẗ. The older standard has al-qāʿidaͪ. The UN and Library of Congress standards are both al-qāʻidah. As the official transliterations can be a bit tricky, I would suggest that al-Qa`ida would be a better article title for the following reasons:

1. Al-Qa`ida is no more difficult to type.
2. It is a better representation of the Arabic word.
3. It suggests that the word should not rhyme with glider.
4. An encyclopaedia exists to correct common misconceptions rather than bolster them.

Any thoughts? --Gareth Hughes 20:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how it is in Britain, but the spelling Al-Qaeda has pretty much become uniform here in the past 4 years. It's true that it is not a very good transcription, but when Arabic words get pulled into English much of their original form is lost (like assassin). Here it is pronounced "Al Kayda".Heraclius 23:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Heraclius that "Al-Qaeda" has become the standard British-English spelling of the organisation. Most people pronounce it as "Al Kaida" but "Al Kai-eeda" (the first part of the second word rhymes with "sky" in both cases) and "Al Kayda" (rhymes with how "raider" is generally pronounced in SE England) is sometimes used. Thryduulf 13:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the discussion on the written English version of the name القَاعِدة is futile and endless, as all other transliteration discussions on any other words from any other languages might be. Regarding the i/e issue of Al-Qaida/Al-Qaeda: the word is read with i following the panctuation of standard Arabic, and is generally said with e in spoken Arabic (may I add that there are numerous dialects of spoken Arabic, Egyptian, Palestinian, Iraqui, etc.). In addition to the i/e issue, there are other issues that both popular versions of the name Al-Qaeda totally ignore, due to transliteration limitations. For example, the original Arabic word for Al-Qaeda comprises of two letters which doesn't have any nearly close equivalent in English: ق and ع, which in standard arabic are pronounced as throaty K/Q and A/E/I/O/U, respectively (while English K/Q and A/E/I/O/U has two other equivalent letters in Arabic). What I'm saying is that the only final version of the word can be the original written word in Arabic: القَاعِدة. Every transliteration is eventually determined arbitrarily, and so, in my opinion, and in accordance to what I mentioned above, both popular English versions are acceptable and we will never be able to choose one of them as final. Bauer - 22 November 2005

Diversity Proposal

It seems the only solution to the neutrality debate is to recognize that there is no neutral point of view on this topic. We must agree to disagree and represent each perspective with balance. The terminology problem can therefore be addressed, as definitions of words like "terrorism" depend solely on the point of view being represented.

-An Advocate of Diversity

Database

Someone, should give a breakdown of the history of the word. Presumably, there it is a compound word of the arabic words for "data" (or perhaps information) and "base", actually since the specifics of the mean of "base" are not natural to associate with this usage, perhaps the second component of the arabic is something else, like "file" or "collection" or "bundle" or something. Or perhaps it isn't a compound word, that arabic has suffixes or prefixes for "data", "info", "file" or whatever. But if there is any truth to this dead persons musings, a mere linguist should be able to resolve it.--Silverback 09:54, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not an Arabic speaker either, but I spoke with an Arabic speaker who told me that the word "qaeda" translates to "base" in every sense of the English word, and that "qaeda" could be use as an abbreviated form of "database," just as we might call a database simply "the base." I will contact Mustaffa and other Arabic speakers here to get them to weigh in. --Blackcats 21:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I have never called a database "the base." I don't know anyone who would do that in English. But I don't speak Arabic.--csloat 22:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

In my experience, that's pretty typical in English if you deal with (and talk about) databases a lot. You get sick of saying "that address is in the database," "that name is in the database," "we've got the medical history right here in the database," "the software log is right here in the database," etc. Eventually you get sick of saying "data" every time, so you just drop it and simply say "it's in the base." That's pretty typical for most languages to shorten the words for things that they talk about a lot. For example, a lot of Euoropean languages shorten their word for "university" to just "uni." People just tend to like to avoid having to repeat a lot of unneccesary sylables a lot. In the case of "database" to "base," that's dropping 2/3 of the sylables for the word, making it a lot quicker and easier to say - the same as with "internet" to "net". Now of course if you don't work with databases or the internet a lot, or if it's not clear from the context of the present discussion what you're talking about, then you'll probably say the whole word, so that people don't think you're talking about some other sort of base or net. Blackcats 05:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Except that in the case of "database" it is not even clear in plain english meaning why "base" was chosen to be part of the compound, while the "data" component is as obvious, as the "net" in internet, so shortening to the "base" is almost never used, even informally in verbal communications. Now if in Arabic, instead of "base" have a direct equivilent, a word more correctly translated into "foundation" in english was used, such a shortening might be more natural, since perhaps "foundation" better captures the "template" or "abstraction" or "idealization" elements of a database. However, absent its "data" qualifier, even "foundation" would be far more likely to be associated with its more fundamental Islamic meaning than with a database. Certainly the uncorroborrated comment of a dead man, on such an archane issue, does not need mention in this article.--Silverback 23:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea where the origins of the word came from (whether CIA or Koranic, the latter meaning that the Qaeda is "the foundation" referring to the Koran as the basis for all things). And although I have much respect for the late Robin Cook, the name al-Qaeda is not "literally" database. In Arabic, a database is translated literally as "qaedat ma'loomat" which means "information base" or "data base". It is also sometimes referred to as "shabakat ma'loomat" or "information network". Although it is possible for people to abbreviate "qaedat ma'loomat" into just "qaeda" when speaking among themselves, it is almost never referred to in print or formal settings as just "qaeda" because that would remove the context altogether. But it is possible in informal settings once the context is established because three syllables are always quicker to say than six. As to whether this has anything to do with the origin of the name of the group, I have absolutely no idea. Ramallite ^(talk) 17:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your expertise Ramallite. Now that he has verified that the word can indeed be used to mean database, I'm gonna restore Mr. Cook's statements to the article. It is notable that someone like him would state a different explanation for the origin of Al Qaeda's name, even if others disagree with it. Just because bin Laden says something doesn't mean it's the truth, and I personally would put more trust in Mr. Cook than I would in Mr. bin Laden. At any rate, since Mr. Cook's claims can no longer be debunked on simple linguistic grounds, there is no reasion for their exclusion from the article. Blackcats 17:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

What? He verified that it is highly unlikely that the word would be used in this way. "Almost never found" in print settings. At best "possible" in spoken settings. Robin Cook is just wrong here, and all al Qaeda scholars I have read on this conclude that the name first referred to the physical location where people met or passed through, not a "database." The assumption that the name was the CIA's doing is also not supported by any of this. You may trust Cook more than bin Laden in general, but on this issue there is no reason for the latter to distort anything here specifically, and in fact he is much closer to the information than Cook. I am going to delete Cook from the article again; it really just doesn't belong here as it was clearly a mistake on his part. --csloat 17:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

No - he (Ramallite) said precisely what I had said about it - that it was used that way - in informal settings once the context had been established. And that's how names of things often come about - out of the informal jargon of the people working on a certain project - people who know the context very well. You say that "there is no reason for the latter [bin Laden] to distort anything here." But that's circular reasoning. Because if it's true, and the organization's name did in fact come from a database of the CIA, then that fact would likely serve to discredit bin Laden in the eyes of potential supporters - if it were to become well known. You also imply that Mr. Cook wouldn't be "close to the information," but in his capacity in the British government it's quite likely he would have access to such information. At any rate, I'm restoring it to the article, because you've given no compelling reason for it's exclusion. Even if you (and all the "experts" who allegedly agree with you) feel that it's not possibly true, the fact is that Mr. Cook is a notable person, the Guardian is a notable source, and the fact that a notable person writes in a notable newspaper that the origin of an infamous organization's name is different than what most people thought - that fact is notable. Blackcats 02:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Also let me add - your entry says it was a "CIA database." The idea that the CIA would refer to a database in writing using an Arabic word that is rarely used that way in spoken language and almost never in print is sheer fantasy.--csloat 17:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't me who said it - it was Mr. Cook, so if he weren't dead I'd urge you to go argue with him about it. But at any rate, whatever agents in the CIA were recruiting for the mujahadin would mostly likely be fluent in Arabic, so there's nothing particuarrly strage about the idea that they would use shortened Arabic jargon to refer to their project files. And as Ramallite stated, it's much easier to say "al qaeda" than "al qaedat ma'loomat." Blackcats 02:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Cook did not say that; he said it was a database file but not that it was one created for the CIA. This is nonsense anyway -- Cook's claim "recruited and trained with help from the CIA" is basically accurate but the "help" was extremely indirect; it is extremely unlikely the CIA ever actually "recruited and trained" bin Laden or his followers among the Afghan Arabs. And Ramallite said that it was "possible" to use "qaeda" in this manner in spoken Arabic but "almost never" in print and formal settings. Ramallite please speak up here if you are reading this - it is my understanding that Blackcats is almost completely reversing the meaning of what you wrote above. In any case the interpretation that Cook has here seems both dead wrong (at the very least, all counterterrorism experts seem to think so) and completely non-notable, and on top of all that, the way it is written in the article distorts what Cook has to say (Cook never refers to it as a "CIA database").--csloat 06:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Bosnia

This sub-section was removed. User:Mov, the one who removed it gave the following explanation;

NPOV, war in Bosnia is a different topic from Al Qaeda, and there is no continuity from Sudan to Bosnian to Afghanistan. Was only added on August 9 2005.

Mov, can you give a more detailed explanation as to why you removed the "Bosnia" sub-section? Thanks, --Gramaic | Talk 08:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

From --Alberdi 12:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

In the past, the Bosnian section has been chopped around in a partial manner by people who hold an established position on the former Yugoslavian conflict. Pro-Serb edits typically attempt to connect bin Laden to Mr. Izetbegović, exaggerate the influence or importance of the Arab fighters on the Bosnian Muslim side or attempt to portray BiH as a hotbed of radical Islamic activity. Several partial edits based on dubious/unconfirmed "news" resources have been eliminated to get to the text currently written.

Readers more partial to the Bosnian cause have adopted a different tack: to remove the section altogether, presumably to promote the view that al-Qaeda's Bosnian adventure never happened (citing NPOV).

I believe that the current edit, (not written by me but which I have just reverted), while not perfect, is not a bad stab at impartiality on what is very obviously a contentious subject:

It is well documented that al-Qaeda took an interest in the Bosnian conflict, acting as a recruiting office in Islamic countries, channelling money and men to Bosnia in a similar manner (albeit on a much smaller scale than it had in Afghanistan -- the best estimate for Bosnia is probably around 3,000 fighters). Several known associates of bin Laden (including one named in the Bosnian section) were present in Bosnia. Fundraising operations connected to al-Qaeda were operating from offices based in BiH (and have subsequently been closed down by the BiH authorities). All these instances are well documented. Indeed the presence of Arab fighters in Bosnia is sufficiently well established for their removal from Bosnian territory to be specifically dealt with by the Dayton Peace Accord.

However:

It is also generally accepted that the Arab fighters acted largely as an independent force beyond the control of the Izetbegović regime, that Bosnian Muslims failed to be persuaded to adopt the fundamentalist Islamic beliefs of the Arab fighters and have largely shunned all attempts by al-Qaeda to radicalise them. Further that the BiH Government post-Dayton supported their removal.

User:Mov states the need for continuity in the text between Sudan and Afghanistan. Continuity implies a straight line whreas al-Qaeda is anything but linear, operating as a loosely constructed internationally distributed network which can (and does) operate simultaneously in several theaters. If continuity is required, the handover from the Bosnian to the Afghan section does provide some degree of linearity. It is reasonable to accept that bin Laden was biding his time with some supporters in Sudan while other trusted hands were operating in Bosnia. Any correspondent who has covered Afghanistan will tell you that many of the Arab fighters who operated alongside the Taliban in the late 1990s were proud veterans of Bosnia.

I am not sure who User:Mov is. The ID appears to be unsullied by previous editing, but a frequent remover is 68.150.38.102. Please view other edits made under this ID to assess whether they are best placed to judge whether or not the Bosnian section expresses an NPOV and thus expunge an entire section...

The Bosnian section may be over-represented in terms of length (especially in comparison to the "al-Qaeda in Sudan" section which is woefully short), but it seems to me to present a NPOV supported with established information from reputable sources and little or no disputed material. --Alberdi 12:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

TDC Edit (11/15/05)

Why was this quote deleted?

and the plan was successful: within six months the Soviet army had crossed the border into Afghanistan, prompting Brzezinski to write to Carter, "we now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war."

--csloat 00:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It is drawing the user to a conclusion not supported by the facts: The Carter administration was responsible for direct Soviet military involvement. This would mean that 6 months after a covert order was given to assist the Mujahidin, the effect was so successful as to draw the Soviets into Afghanistan. Seeing as how even the hastiest military plan, if you don’t count Market Garden, takes several weeks – months to plan and organize, this statement does not seem factually correct. There is plenty of space to discuss the impact of the CIA’s efforts in Afghanistan, but to say that Carter is responsible for the Soviet invasion is laughable. TDC 01:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed -- however, I asked why the quote was removed, not the judgment of 'success'. The fact is Brzezinski wrote that note, and that even though you and I agree he was wrong, he certainly represented it that way. If you want to qualify this statement without "original research," Steve Coll's study is authoritative here and I believe he specifically refutes Brzezinski in a footnote. But Brzezinski's judgment, and specifically that quote, are a significant enough part of the public understanding of this history that they belong there.--csloat 02:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the dispute can be resolved by summarizing Coll's quote without the part about "prompting." The two things happened in sequential order. Both are relevant to the article. The only dispute concerns whether or not one thing led to the other. --Peter McConaughey 15:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The word "prompting" refers to the invasion prompting Brzezinski to write to Carter -- that is not disputed. What is disputed is whether the CIA action caused the Soviet invasion.--csloat 17:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Al Qaeda and religion

As I understand it, Al Qaeda's prime objective is to stop the United States occupation of other nations, or at least what it calls "occupation", and that it has nothing to do with religion, ethnicity or anything else. And of course we should be calling it that other long name, rather than Al-Qaeda, if Al-Qaeda just means "the base". No wonder there's no kind of consensus on who they are. The London Bombings from earlier this year were committed by a group of Londoners who admitted to doing them, and called themselves "The European Al Qaeda" (sic) and they were neither arab or muslim. Suggesting that Al Qaeda has any basis on religion is naive. This is stated in an enormous number of speeches by Osama bin Laden. It has absolutely nothing to do with religion.

Al Qaeda believes, essentially, that USA is the mortal enemy of the entire world. They believe that America are trying to destroy other countries by taking them over. They use, as reference, the fact that USA has established Israel in the middle east, and are depriving Palestinians of the right to their land. The fact that Israel is not self sufficient, and would not exist without US aid (it would be invaded by its neighbours) is used as evidence of this.

However, Al Qaeda does not just hate America. They also hate Russia, China and any other country which tries to take control of other countries.

Many of the things that have been "attributed" to Al Qaeda have nothing to do with their core beliefs. September 11, for example, could not have been conducted by Al Qaeda because they have asserted that they will never attack a country in their own country. Their aim is primarily to stop that country from invading others. September 11, therefore, could not have been conducted by Al Qaeda, and there have been no substantial links to suggest that they could have done it. Given the evidence, it is far more likely that Saddam Hussein is responsible, as he had both motive and opportunity, as well as the fact that we have to have some reason for being in Iraq now.

A terrorist group, by definition, accepts responsibility for their actions. When they have conducted an attack, they send out a note to say that they did it. The vast majority of the incidents suggested there were actually claimed by other groups - for example the Kenyan embassy bombings were claimed to be conducted by a local Kenyan group who were upset at their wages and conditions. The fact that they claimed to be responsible, while Al Qaeda did not suggests evidence that Al Qaeda didn't do it. Or did they bribe them to say that?

Al Qaeda, however, are in Iraq. They were in Iraq in 1992 fighting with the kurds (the ones that Saddam Hussein killed) and they are in Iraq now, having allied with Hussein loyalists, or insurgents if you prefer. They did the London bombings earlier this year. They did the Madrid bombings in 2002. They have done an awful lot of terrorist things. and they've admitted to doing them.

Of course, then you've got the issue of nams. Because we've gone and given them the wrong name to begin with, then there's uncertainty about everything after that. Maybe we should just start calling them by the correct name and be done with it. Have Al Qaeda be a redirect to the actual name of the organisation. And then we can blame them for the right things.

As for the religious issues, obviously OBL is a very religious man. But there's a lot of muslims who speak like that that are not extremists. He's just using words to describe his beliefs. His beliefs are not based on religion. If they were based on religion, then he'd hate all Christians. It is not a jihad against all Christians - it is a jihad against America. Or, should I say, "American Imperialism". And Russia, and China.

Putting in any hint that its about islam is an insult to muslims. It creates a great amount of animosity by doing so. Zordrac 00:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

But it is (at least partly) about Bin Laden's version of Islam. You say it's a jihad against America and others the group sees as "imperialist." But jihad is an Islamic concept. Bin Laden has repeatedly said that what he is doing is in the name of Allah, and has issued fatwas (Islamic religious decrees) "in compliance with God's order" according to his interpretation of the Koran, and using the Koran to justify his own position in sort of the same way as Fred Phelps uses the Bible to justify his. It doesn't make sense to say that al-Qaeda's Islamist movement is unrelated to Islam. --Mr. Billion 07:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Al Qaeda and Saddam

I added a sentence to the section about possible cooperation with Saddam. RonCram had added a link to a video from the late 1990s making the claim (which is now accepted to be false) that Saddam worked with al-Qaeda. I included a sentence summarizing major investigations of the issue and linking to the page where this issue is discussed more fully. I really don't think that debate needs to be hashed out on this page too.--User:Commodore SloatCcsloat 09:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Two Sides

I think there is two sides to the neutrality dispute. Personally I Think the article is making a great attempt at neutrality.On the other hand the topic is very controversial and it is very hard to please everyone.

I'm really new (first day new) and I have already seen some articles that seem more biased and are not rated for NPOV. Respectfully I think the NPOV notice should be removed. The article is about as neutral as it gets but with this topic you're always going to have somebody disputing it. Veritas Liberum 23:29 6 December 2005 (GMT)

An article can be written from a neutral point of view. Many revisions in the history of this article went undisputed for long periods of time. Eventually enough POV creep would emerge that it could no longer be considered neutral. That's where it is today.

The article didn't get any better or more accurate since the last time it was undisputed, it just got more POV. --Peter McConaughey 18:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

This aritcle's Neutrality, and US-centrism

What I hoped to find in this article was information on al-Qaeda's involvement in the March 11th commuter train attacks in Madrid. It was al-Qaeda's most devastiting attack since 9/11. And it is very interesting that an Islamic terrorist organiztion would claim responsibility for the attacks considering the history between Islam and Spain. Doubly so considering that Spain has their own terrorists. As if ETA didn't do enough damage, now they're facing the threat of Islamic terrorists as well. I just think the discussion of this even and al-Qaeda's attacks on non-US interests should be presented more predominately. Wikipedia already has one lengthy article on 9/11, it doesn't need two.

And as everyone knows "the neutrality of this article is indispute". From what I read it didn't seem that bad. All in all just an informative atricle. The only thing I would see as controversial and possibly biased is the section on al-Qaeda. It seem like some of what is presented as fact in that section is something that may be true, but there is no way to say as it is in dispute worldwide at this moment and thus should not be presented as fact. I think it would be best just to mention al-Qaeda's alleged interests in Iraq and connections to Hussein and what they are and that they sparked the current war in the Gulf region. Leave it at that and link a few news articles and the "al-Qaeda and Hussein" article.

Maybe we should have one article titled "Al-Qaeda as defined by Fox News" and another article for the rest of the world. --Peter McConaughey 01:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Vanity Fair

I just read an excerpt from a most definitive book on Al-Qaeda that is coming out next month. The excerpt is in the new issue of Vanity Fair. It features pages of quotes from the most intimate people associated with al-Qaeda and clears up many of the POV and self-contradictory issues of this article. --Peter McConaughey 15:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV again?

Why was the NPOV tag reinserted into this article? Thanks, --Gramaic 05:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

An NPOV tag is added to an article when the general theme of a disputed piece is biased toward one way of thinking. Since most of our editors are western-influenced, international articles tend to have a western bent. In the case of this Al-Qaeda article, the description of the movement is based almost entirely on the propaganda used for a war against it. Twenty years from now, we will look back and realize that our characterization of Al-Qaeda is as silly as our 1960s characterization of Russia. We will marvel at how our blind hatred shaped our definitions and led us to do really stupid things. We will wonder why we had to repeat history again through the use of another evil ism.

One of the best ways of avoiding the appearance of McCarthyism in the eyes of our children and future generations is to write articles from a neutral point of view. As a very minimum, we need to avoid words that betray righteous indignation. For more on this, see Wikipedia words to avoid:Terrorism. --Peter McConaughey 14:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I propose that we adopt a common goal of making the al-Qaeda article NPOV. This article used to be strong. Now it is weak with all sorts of unverified assertions. There isn't anything to lose by citing verifiable sources instead of asserting something that you believe to be true. It can only improve the strength of the article and everything in it. You can say virtually the same thing in a strong article as you can in a weak one. The only substantial difference is that you include who said it. Wikipedia is not a source. We cannot assert anything that is controversial or disputed. We can, however, cite other people that have made controversial and disputed claims, especially when those claims are balanced by opposing citations. This is the difference between a supermarket tabloid and a reliable encyclopedia. Which are we going to be? If we're going to be another Fox News, we can let things like this slide, but if we want to live up to the minimum standards of Encyclopedia Britannica, we're going to have to write articles from a neutral point of view. --Peter McConaughey 21:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Disputed sentences

Content must be based on verifiable sources.

• "Nearly every government and international organization considers al-Qaeda to be a terrorist organization." With this sentence, we either need to list notable government and international organizations, or we need to cite, in the article, the source of this opinion. It is too controversial for the narrative voice of the article to assert.

• "Al-Qaeda is widely regarded as responsible..." Again, we need to either cite someone who says that or we need to list specific examples. It is too controversial for the narrative voice of the article to assert.

• "...and the campaign is believed to provide the inspiration for many other subsequent international attacks." Says who? What leads us to this assertion? This is one of three theories explaining the structure of al Qaeda. Who espouses this theory?

• Overview-"According to statements broadcast by al-Qaeda on the internet and on satellite TV channels, the ultimate goal of al-Qaeda is to re-establish the Caliphate across the Islamic world, by working with allied Islamic extremist groups to overthrow secular or Western-supported regimes." Can we have any examples of these statements? If this is true, why not use a quote? The word "extremist" is highly POV.

• Overview-"...al-Qaeda is believed to have been implicitly involved in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar-Es-Salaam, Tanzania..." The United States government believes al-Qaeda to be implicitly involved in these attacks. If the source is the US government, then the U.S. government needs to be cited, not a passive reference to assumed fact.

• Overview-"The military leader of al-Qaeda is widely reported to have been Khalid Shaikh Mohammed..." Again, this is the opinion of the U.S. government. Is the U.S. government such a poor source that we are afraid to cite them?

let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. For starters which governments don't consider Al Qaeda to be terrorists? keith 18:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Dodgy responsibility claims

User Cedar-Guardian wishes to add the following citing newspaper sources:

"The Al-Qaeda group in Iraq has claimed responsibility for rockets attacks on northern Israel from Lebanon, making it the first time the group has launched an attack on Israel from Lebanese territory on December 27, 2005. However, the statement published on an islamist web site could not be authentificated, no date is given for the attack, and it contradicted reports about the attack (It stated the use of 10 "Grad missiles" while three Katyusha rockets have been reported. Hence, it was not clear which attack it was referring to."

There is no verification that the claim was made on behalf of al Qaeda in Iraq, the statement got material facts about the attack wrong (both in terms of numbers and types of rockets), furthermore the attack came from an area dominated by a militant Shiite group with a long history of antipathy to al Qaeda. Attacks from this area are a commonplace. Nothing makes this attack unusual save for the claim of attribution to al Qaeda. All known sources including Israeli intelligence dispute the accuracy of the claim.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a tittle-tattle sheet and this claim falls well below the standards of verification we would need to warrant its inclusion. --Alberdi 04:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph I wrote could be verified [2][3]. It was featured on many news networks including cnn. I've also added why it could be wrong. So why did you remove it? CG 18:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Because it stinks and even the sources you quote rubbish it in their text. --Alberdi 03:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Please prove your point with a better argument that it stinks. Thank you . CG 17:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Quoting your source:

A senior Israeli security source questioned the claim.

The Israeli security source said: "For this to be true, it would mean that Al-Qaeda, a virulently anti-Shiite group, has penetrated the heartland of Hizbullah, a virulent Shiite group, on such a scale that it can mount a rocket salvo independently.

"This claim should be regarded with extreme skepticism," he said.

I have to agree with Alberdi - the claim certainly doesn't merit inclusion based on the thin available evidence. Unless you have something more definitive? Graft 02:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

But why disregard this event? It has been reported by many major news networks (cnn, euronews...). We don't have to say "AL-qaeda fired a rocket" but we could describe the event with all the clues that led to doubt and skepticism. Do we have to erase this fact if an israeli officer have denied it? CG 15:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason the story went everywhere was it was part of a Reuters report which originated in Cairo and all news organisations take the service. Furthermore the date of release coincided with the Christmas holidays when news is thin and many newsdesk experts on the region would not have been available to assess the claim. A rocket attack on Israel is not an unusual story. If we examine it, what made the story "news" was that a person unknown made a claim for resposibility to an Islamist website which al-Qaeda has used in the past. The claim was not substantiated by any other source and contained little information aside from 'facts' which are known to be wrong (number and type of rockets). Furthermore it doesn't fit the known political landscape of the region. It was thus rubbished not just by Israeli intelligence but also by the Fatah chief in Lebanon and pretty much every other authoritative commentator. There are many claims to al-Qaeda responsibility and assessing their veracity will always be subjective. For the reasons stated above, I don't think this one makes it and the only other person to comment so far appears to share my view. --Alberdi 09:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda strategy

I found this article about Al-Qaeda's strategy. It's well written and referenced. Good for an external link?

Osama bin Laden, leader of al-Qaeda

Dont think al-Qaeda has a leader. This is quite a POV comment for the picture. helohe (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Switched to "founder", which is what Osama bin Laden says in its lead. Redquark 19:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

attribution for 9/11 responsibility

I think it's great that this article makes a specific attribution for the view that al-Qaeda is responsible for the 9/11 attacks. But to simply say that the 9/11 commission holds that view seems to downplay the wide acceptance of that view around the world. I don't suggest we go back to the fuzzier wording of "It is widely reported...", but how about an attribution that is both specific and conveys the dominance of the belief? For example, how about attributing the view to the United Nations? It would need a citation, and I don't have one yet. But I want to see if others here agree, and perhaps if anyone has such a citation. --Allen 00:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

al-Qaeda's "peace offer"

Should the video, in which Osama Bin Laden mentioned that he would be willing to negotiate peace with the "west" and al-Qaeda under certain conditions, be mentioned in this article? The video hasn't been talked about much, and US is of course following its "we don't negotiate with terrorists" policy (which I personally disagree with completely, but that's another story and doesnt belong in wikipedia :) ). Would probably be an interesting thing to mention somewhere in the article. --85.49.224.196 01:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Encontra del imperio gringo

El ataque a los estados unidos (11 de septiembre) fue uno de los mejores y mas complejos 

ataque a estados unidos. me gustaria que repitiera, ya que la economia de este gran mounstro

hizo verlo como un pobre estupido frente al mundo. lastima por la poblacion que sufrio las

concecuenias. pero del resto unamonos y digamos:

                                    RESISTENCIA!!!
                                    OPOSICION!!!

                                    CONTRA EL IMPERIO GRINGO!!!

                                    ABAJO BUSH!!!

                                 Y EN UN CANTO CON ARMAS DIGAMOS: "REVOLUCION"!!!]]