Talk:Al-Qaeda

Before you add a comment...

Please note that several editors have already mentioned Adam Curtis's television program, "The Power of Nightmares." You are welcome to discuss changes to the article related to that program, but there is no need to repeat the premise. Gazpacho 09:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Archives

1 2 3

Year of foundation controversy

I think the claim that al-Qaeda was established in 1988 should be treated with far more caution in the article. It certainly shouldn't open with this claim as if it has been established beyond doubt. The claim appears to be based on a single source (Peter Bergen's book). This claim should be discussed in the article by all means, but not stated as an established fact.
The text about Bergen's year-of-foundation claim in the 'origin of name' section is also unclear: Journalist Peter Bergen cites a document from 11 August 1988 establishing al-Qaeda and referring to it as "the base." [i.e., establishing al-Qaeda and referring to it as "al-Qaeda"] The document contained the minutes of the first meeting establishing the organization: "This document outlines the discussion between bin Laden, referred to as 'the Sheikh', [Bin Laden is not actually named!] and Abu Rida, or Mohamed Loay Bayazid, to discuss the formation of a 'new military group', which would include 'al Qaeda (the base).' [So the new group they are referring to is not al-Qaeda itself, but would include it]
There is nothing in this that convinces me that what is being referred to is any more than a military or training base, but I haven't read the Bergen book. To my knowledge, no statement had ever been issued in the name of al-Qaeda prior to 9/11. The 1998 'fatwa', for instance was issued in the name of "The World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders".
If there is consensus on this issue, I'd like to remove the claim about the year of foundation from the introduction and info box. Someone with a knowledge of the Bergen source needs to clear up that part of the text as well.--Distinguisher 01:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

links to ICU not there? this article full of nonsese?

The article states these points for "connections to the ICU" when the first bullet dosen't have anything to do with al-qaeda and the second is rather dubious...

-Hassan Abdullah Hersi al-Turki, a military leader in the Islamic Courts Union, and formerlyleader of Al-Itihaad al-Islamiya (AIAI) was designated under US Presidential Executive Order 13224 as a terrorist financier on June 3. 2004.[60]

-Aden Hashi Farah Ayro, leader of the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) youth movement, Hizbul Shabaab, was said to have gone to Afghanistan to train with Al-Qaeda before 2001, according to Matthew Bryden of International Crisis Group.[61][62]

In my humble opinion, this entire article ranges from dubious claims to utter nonsense. Isn't this supposed to be the encylopedia written by the people? Why is this article being allowed to be filled with such garbage, when other articles are subject to intense scrutiny?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.225.205.95 (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Why the History

Given that Al-Qaeda wasn't established or even named untill 2000-2001, why is there such an emphasis on history in the article? much of the history contained is inaccurate, poorly cited and irrelevant, why is it there? Surely it would be better suited to an acticle on bin Laden or on Islamic Fachism/Terrorism in general, it has nothing specific to do with Al Qaeda. This article is very poor, it contains unsubstantiated rumors on the groups activity and presents it as fact. With such widespread dispute among academics and experts (not politicians and press secretaries) as to whether a structured organisation under the name Al-Qaeda exists - why does this article state so many 'facts' about the organisation?

question

cit.:"Al-Qaeda has committed multiple acts of terrorism and is best known for planning and executing the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York's World Trade Center and The Pentagon."

wouldn't it be more logical to say that multiple acts of terrorism/terror have been committed in the name of al-quaida? since the article lead-in states that the organizational structure is not known, this would be a more apt expression. 84.184.204.67 21:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless known Al-Qaeda members and leaders state that they were directly responsible publically, you're right. OverSS 18:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm also with user 84.184.204.67 on that... you're correct, most attacks were carried "in the name of...".

But I'll go even further than that: I dare anyone to give me any proof that does'nt come from secret services that AT LEAST one major terror attacks was committed by Al Qaeda. I want links, names, facts, or anything else that can be verified by other people than secret service agents or politicians.

---

There is no evidence that Al Qaeda has any method of validating individuals as members. Therefore, the only thing that actually makes someone a member of Al Qaeda is their own identification as an Al Qaeda member, so any attack made by a person who claims to be a member of Al Qaeda is therefore an attack by Al Qaeda. It's not as if they need a membership card or have their name on an official list of members. Besides the recognition by dozens of governmens around the world of Al Qaeda as a terrorist organization, the United Nations has done so as well. See: http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/1267Template.htm. Furthermore, Osama bin Laden, the creator of Al Qaeda, has been recorded making statements and acting in ways that would lead any reasonable person to believe that he was involved in the planning of the attacks of 9/11. Even before 9/11, bin Laden was implicated in a number of other attacks. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. Grand juries are made up of regular, common citizens, not politicians, who see the evidence against the defendant. --68.6.100.228 00:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

RE: Can we tone down the Anti Islam sentiment

Yes, Osoma Bin Laden IS A MUSlIM. He just doesnt follow your or any moderate version of Islam. Al-Queda follow the version of Islam of the past Islamic caliphates, Turks, Mongols, Arabs, Afghans, and Persians who offensively invaded, conquered, pillaged, and plundered most of the middle east, south asia, and parts of africa and europe. Within less than 100 years after the death of Mohhamed, the Arab Muslims (ie the earliest Muslims) started to offensively invade and wage Jihad on non-Muslims, hence a violent trait and a violent history which is irrefutable and solid Islamic history.

What Osama Bin Laden is doing is absolutely no different from what the earliest Muslims did in order to spread Islam and establish their caliphate. He is waging an offensive Jihad against non-Muslims and is killing innoccent people, which is more of the same for Islamic history and its 1000+ year timeline. Muslims killed pagans, idolaters, heathens, and infidels routinely for hundreds of years (reference: Chachnama/ Timurs autobiography/ Al-Beruni's works/ Aurangzeb / Khiljis / Armenian Genocide / Nuristanis / Taslam Aislam / Quran itself) and are continuing to do so.

As the quran states in chapter 9:

"After the sacred months have past, slay the idolaters wherever you find them".

and dont give me that historical-context excuse crap, because then the entire Quran must be taken into context including the "good stuff" such as "there is no compulsion in religion" which Mohhamed invented when he did not have any power.

Yes, Osama Bin Laden is a muslim, Just like Hitler was a Christian or KKK is a Christian Group. Why label someone who has nothing to do with teachings of Islam and drag him with actual mainstream Islam. And Yes Muslim Caliphate did crusade and conquered countries but so did Roman Empire, Greek Empire, Alexander the Great's Empire, Persian Empire. Every Great empire was formed through battles, NO EMPIRE was formed through Peace negotiation. The difference is that while Muslims allowed every other faith to be practised, the Romans/Greek and other Empire NEVER allowed any other faith to be practised, they simply banned other religion from their empire. For example, the Jews were banned from Jerusalem until Caliph Omar(R.A) took over it in 638 AD and also without any bloodshed (This is the only conquest of Jerusalem without any bloodshed, and yet the Crusaders responded 1099AD by KILLING every muslims, jews and even Christians because they were non-white and dressed like Arabs). Taking about genocide, i can go on listing numerous genocide caused by non-muslims, The French caused Genocide, the unnamed Red-Indian Genocide, the recent Rwanda Genocide and many many more. But, why talk about them. How about the recent 6,55,000+ Iraqi's death after US invasion, I guess they dont count to you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [Special:Contributions/74.111.238.236|74.111.238.236]] (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

what a neutral point of view.. it is like muslims are the only group in history caused violence. I think violence is a matter of human trait, not religion. There are many who are non-muslim and violent. Attila, Genghis Khan, numerous Crusaders - who killed many pagans as muslims did;).. now, let's take another look. though Genghis Khan has known for his violence, mongolian people loves him and thinks he was a good guy. similarly some magyars, turks, germans take Attila as a ferocious but great warrior. And crusaders, to some people they were great warriors and to others they were invaders, rapers,.. I respect your idea and hope you do as well. I believe every religion has peaceful ways and there must be no compulsion at all since it is a matter of belief. I hate what terrorist did in the past and yet this isn't because of religion but those people's violent nature, if there were no religion then they would find something else to claim as a reason. 14:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

So what are you saying? That since other groups apart from muslims have caused violence and disaster we can safely neglect the influence of militant religions like islam? Sure, you're entitled to believe that violence is a matter of human trait not religion but since you have no argument supporting your belief it becomes rather uninteresting. What you're saying in effect is that religion has no bearing on human conduct which is just plain nonsense. Regarding the relativistic point of view "to some people they were great warriors and to others they were invaders, rapers...", I can only remind you that the conclusion you're trying to pull doesn't work. To some the earth is round and to some it's flat. So what? Should we conclude then that the formation of the earth depends on your point of view? What about paedophilia? To some it's just good sex (the molesters) and to some it is both repugnant and extremely unethical. Should we conclude that since people disagree on this subject neither is right (or wrong)?

Actually, yes. Paedophilia is repugnant and extremely unethical in our society. But it was not, for example in the ancient greece. Homosexuality was repugnant and unethical in Europe and US one century ago. It is not anymore. So what? That's all about the criterias of the society in which you live. And we should conclude that the formation of the earth IS question of point of view. Why? Because people who believed that earth was flat were exactly the same than you. EVERYTHING is about point of view, guy. Read some Descartes, man.

Characterization of first WTC attack as "largely ineffective"

Does anyone else think that characterization is too vague and should be adjusted to include the actual number of casualties, cost of property damage, and (perhaps) its signficance to the fundamentalist Jihad? Amysrobot 20:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Added the actual casualties. People can make their own value judgements of the effectivity of the attack. --Petercorless 03:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

He did it?

Anyone notice that The_Lizard_Wizard took credit for an Israeli hotel bombing? [1]

Living Persons Tag??

I looked through the archives to see if this question has been raised before; and seeing that it hasn't: why is the Biographies of Living Persons template on this article's talk page? This is the article on the group/organization/movement, not a biographic article on bin Laden or another person affiliated with the group. Is there another reason as to why the {{Blp}} is attached to this article? I'm really just curious. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 21:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda UK??

Does anyone think the link Al-Qaeda UK is of any merit to the article at all? Lukelastic 20:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like a terribly serious site. And clearly not connected to any form of official al Qaeda stuff. If indeed 'official' is a meaningful term in this context. I see the link has been removed from the article, and support this decision. This article is here to provide an informative introduction to the terrorist organisation Al Qaeda, not to collect all miscellaneous information with the words 'Al Qaeda' in it on the internet. -- TinaSparkle 10:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at it Tina... However, I do think its discussion of some serious issues is of some merit. Are the pages - now in a separate satire section - what you mean by 'It doesn't seem like a terribly serious site.'? I agree that the term 'official' is not very relevant; likewise, anyone can claim to represent al Qaeda and act as they please. Is this merely a philosophical distinction, or is it a relevant one when discussing al Qaeda? Lukelastic 14:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Typo

Although it has appeared in some papers the name "Abu Taha al-Sudan" is erroneous and should be "Abu Taha al-Sudani". Tried to fix it but I don't have the credentials :) LDH 08:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There are many, many, many different variations of Arabic names translated to English. It's been an especial problem with the Somali war. I have found it easier to simply make referrals/aliases than try to correct all variants. --Petercorless 03:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The first country to seek the arrest of Bin Laden  ?

The first country in the world to seek the arrest of Osama bin Laden was Libya according to the Interpol Secretary General Ronald. K Noble http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/speeches/SG20030416.asp Islampedia 02:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

utter presumtion - too much information, not enough facts

For such an important topic theres waaaay too much "This does not cite its references or sources", in fact this all seems to be party line opinion of Al-Qaeda.

People will use this as reference and i presume the people are who white washing here have done it with this in mind ... theres only one real reference indicating that things arent as shown in the media.

"An alternative theory, presented in the BBC film series "The Power of Nightmares", states that the name and concept of al-Qaeda was first used by the U.S. Department of Justice in January 2001"

theres a long history of government elements and false flag terrorism, its more than just a theory ... its a matter of fact. "manufactured consent"

but lets stick to PROVEN FACTS - youve listed 16 'suicide airjackers' ... many are STILL ALIVE and well at home, if even this isn't correct how much else can be.

its very simple ... you are alive or you are dead ...

youve listed 4 suicide bomber for 7/7 ... hows this a fact when there hasn't been a full investigation. yet again government tell media what to say, then youve let people repeat it here as fact.

Basically you list alot of things as fact, probably tryin to force history into compliance with an impressive amount of 'information'and its not proven its subjective.

the alternative theories on al-qaeda all quote sources and are cross referenced, with commentry by qualified individuals ... your theories are all unproven party line.

just because its in a history book, doesnt make it history —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.15.62.111 (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

I am starting add in references and to clean up text. The most glaring faux pas I found today was the mention of Al Qaeda beginning its "crusade" against the west. I changed the word to jihad. --Petercorless 03:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Use of the term jihad

I do not agree jihad is a completely different concept Opinion of Islamic scholars on Jihad Islampedia 18:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not utterly different concept in terms of miltary goals, but socio-linguistically, generally an Al Qaeda operative would use the word "crusade" as a pejorative description of Western/Christian imperialism, as it has been used to refer to the Ethiopians in Somalia, or the US in Iraq. Osama bin Laden certainly would never have a literal crusade, which is a war dedicated to the Christian cross and a fight against non-Christians or heretical Christians. He would have a jihad, which is a war to retake lands from non-Muslims or heretical Muslims. It is not "completely different," but it is still incorrect. --Petercorless 20:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree crusade is incorrect. I do not agree that jihad is the term which is correct here. Sentences here should be written in a way to present all perspectives. Jihad is similar to crusade from the point of view of an extremist Alqaeda Member this should not be the term wikipedia uses cuz this will generalize the concept in the wrong direction. At least the different Opinion of Islamic scholars on Jihad should be made clear here with a link to make the sentences NPOV ( Take a look at the opinions on the link u we will see that it is difficult to link the term jihad with war. As a native arabic speaker I can not understand this wrong translation Islampedia 20:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

We can add "self-declared" to modify jihad, but that is what Osama bin Laden calls it himself: "It is a duty now on every tribe in the Arab Peninsula to fight, Jihad, in the cause of Allah and to cleanse the land from those occupiers." While there are also metaphorical "crusades" and spiritual (not violent) jihad, this is the way the term has been construed by the members of Al Qaeda, and fellow mujahideen. -- Osama Bin Laden "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places" 1996

It is difficult to consider your reference as neutral, the owner of this irrelevant webpage is Israeli. However, if u see the title the term war is considered in the title which is more accurate and neutral than the term jihad which has another meaning . Yes the extremists use the term as equal to war but in wikipedia either war' should be used or jihad with a clear note on the other different opinions on the word 'jihad' because leaving it this way drives any Christian to think that jihad == holy war which is wrong. You can find this misunderstanding in many articles on the web some of them because the writers do not know the meaning of jihad' but many because writers are interested to keep jihad==holy war , the reasons for this are clear. To my knowledge, any Muslim who is not wahabi like Bin Laden agrees on this. Either we keep jihad and explain that it is misused by Bin Laden or we use war Islampedia 03:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep - The term jihad is how the war in Afghanistan, as well as the wars waged by Osama bin Laden since then, have been referred to by Al Qaeda itself. The term also came up in Somalia vs. Ethiopia invoked by Al Qaeda. While there are other forms of non-violent jihad, those are not what Al Qaeda generally is referring to. On the page describing Al Qaeda, we need to use the term as Al Qaeda means to use them. To otherwise blandize the article by reducing jihad to the more generic "war" loses the semiotic differentiation that Al Qaeda itself asserts. It is not just waging "war." It purports to wage jihad. There is a lot of clarification on the jihad pages, including offensive jihad, defensive jihad, etc. Such need not be rehashed here. --Petercorless 05:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering that Al-Qaeda is understood as an extremist group by most, their outlooks on Islam differ greatly in many ways to traditional Muslims. In this article, using jihad should be modified by "self-declared" as I'm assuming that most Muslims would not agree with an "extremist" organization. It will look odd to apend it to every mention of AQ declaring a jihad, so perhaps a small notice somewhere should be made. :War and crusade are not the correct terms to use here; but the way jihad is being used is also incorrect. OverSS 14:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point. When referenced, "jihad" should be "self-declared jihad" and "jihadist" should be "militant on self-declared jihad". "Jihadist" is a loaded term, like "islamist". With neutral POV: What is happening? Violence; war. With the analysts POV & reference: Why are they doing it? Self declared jihad. Concepts should be separate! Lukelastic 00:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Cetainly, the way jihad is used in this article would only cause misconceptions of the word's meaning. OverSS 18:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps in this rather extreme case (where everyone except Al-Qaeda agree that it is unadulterated warmongering (albeit to match the warmongering of its opponents)) it is acceptable to use "jihad" (note the hidden redirect), or be long winded, and use something like " war (self-declared a jihad) ". John Vandenberg 06:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the choices here, I think being long winded would be more appropriate. OverSS 18:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Al Qaeda =? The database ?

Database is Qaedat Al Bayanat قاعدة البيانات in Arabic .. The Base is 'Al Qaeda' القاعدة in Arabic. In Arabic we use 'Al Qaeda' as translation to 'The Base'. For Database we could use simply 'al Bayanat' البيانات ignoring the first part when we speak about a database which means that the idea of translating 'Al Qaeda' to 'The database' is not correct even if it is linked with some database of the extremists because they would call it 'Al Bayanat' and not 'Al Qaeda' if they mean the database. The term has more military concept here and could not be linked with a 'database'. I do not know if I am correct Islampedia 21:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

List of members

The list of members near the bottom of the page does seem bias, as it includes the London bombers who are not always recognised as its members, yet ignores its confirmed members involved in other attacks/plots --Boris Johnson VC 19:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It is definitely sporadic. It will also likely grow over time. I suggest the section be split and moved to a separate page: "List of Al Qaeda members." Notations in such a list should be clear to cite when there are claims of membership by the person themselves, formal distinctions/designations by governments, law enforcement and militaries (such as FBI or Interpol, Executive Orders, court evidence, etc.), versus unproven or even disproven allegations and suspicions. Proposed: Please Vote on whether you think we should split the list of members to a new page. --Petercorless 23:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Votes and polls are generally not used in wikipedia, see WP:POLL. In a nutshell, this says that Decisions are not made by popular vote, but rather through discussions by reasonable people, working towards consensus. Polling is not forbidden, but should be used with care.

On the matter in hand, I think that if you feel there is sufficient material to expand the list as it stands into a substantial article of its own, then go ahead - as long as someone is going to put the work in fairly soon. I don't see the need to split it, if it is just going to remain in the same state. But there is definate potential for a quality list if the things mentioned above are included (and cited). →Ollie (talk • contribs) 00:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Initial "a" minor case

Hi.

Ad this line at the first line of code:

{{lowercase|title=al-Qaeda}}

...it´s the "trick" to obtain an initial low case.

I do not do it due to my "filtered" internet access. I am afraid of mangling words.Randroide 15:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This is no different from the typical Wikipedia article. We don't slap this on all articles just because initial capitalization is turned on in the article names on English Wikipedia. This template does not belong here. Al-Qaeda properly has a capital A when it is used at the beginning of a sentence, as I have just done here. Gene Nygaard 15:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've just corrected all instances of the name outside of quoted text in line with the rule that the initial 'a' should be upper case when sentence initial and lower case elsewhere. --Distinguisher 18:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

flag

On War in Afghanistan (2001–present), the combatant al-Qaeda is depicted on the right hand infobox using the flag to the left . Yet it isnt show here. Is this the flag the organisation uses, or has it been chosen by an external influence? John Vandenberg 06:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

All Muslims believe that this is the flag of the Muhammad. Al Qaeda used this flag to gain sympathy from all Muslims. Another example is the Islamic Courts Union ICU in Somalia they used the same flag. What is written on the flag is Shahadah the first Pillar of Islam Islampedia 22:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Al-Qaeda has no exclusive use of this flag. Also see: Hizb ut-Tahrir, Islamic Khilafah ... Interestingly, the Taliban's official flag was the inverse of black script on white. Again, that is not an exclusive use of the Shadadah. Other organizations use it too. --Petercorless 04:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe that the sources of either the flag image on this page or the flag image on the article page meet the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Both are based on what someone says the flag looked like when they saw it. Should an alternate image be used in the article?--Nowa 21:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

These flags, for example, are said to fly over the graves of certain Al Qaida fighters. The photo is allegedly from AP, but I cannot find the original source. --Nowa 22:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

WTF?? THIS IS NOT AL-QAEDA FLAG ? This is a Flag containing the Shahada of Islam. Many Many organizations uses this flag and they have nothing to do with Al-Qaeda. Please DELETE THIS Flag from this page. ANd also, this flag wasn't taken from a reliable source ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.111.238.236 (talk • contribs) 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This has recently been used to justify the flag, however it clearly says it is for Jihad in general, as part of the flag of Islamic Khilafah. To associate Al-Qaeda with the Jihad flag is a very long shot; brilliant reliable sources will be needed before I will countenance it as it looks like a logical fallacy: Unless all Al-Qaeda is the official Jihad organisation of the Muslim world, the flag is more general than Al-Qaeda. If the flag is being used by Al-Qaeda, it is because they consider their operation to be a Jihad; unless that Jihad is official endorsed. In short, this flag should not be used indiscriminately to "fill in an infobox". If you need such an image, try this one. John Vandenberg 01:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

More than one image of bin Laden shows him in front of a "flag of Jihad", seeming to give evidence for the flag being adopted by, and a representation of, al-Qaeda. The fact that the flag is used by other groups means nothing to its appropriateness for al-Qaeda. If Zimbabwe adopted a new national flag tomorrow, and that flag just happened to be that of the United Nations, that wouldn't make it any less the flag of Zimbabwe. The fact that the inverse, a black Shahada on a white background, is accepted as the flag of the Taliban, and of Afghanistan under Taliban rule, when that flag is also not exclusive to the Taliban should be a further indication that adoption and use by a group of a flag makes that flag the flag of that group, regardless of its use elsewhere. Lexicon (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If Zimbabwe adopted the United Nations, it would be inappropriate to use that flag as the icon to signify Zimbabwe as a party to a conflict that they participated in, as it causes more confusion that it solves. i.e. using that flag would be disinformation and pandering to the POV that the Zimbabwe govt would be trying to spread.

I am also not in favour of the "black Shahada on a white background" being used for the flag of Taliban, but I havent researched that one so I dont hold as strong a position and subsequently wont remove it unless there is consensus.

Flags are chosen to be distinct from other flags in order that they are representative; in the case of the al-Qaeda flag, it was co-opted to assume representation, which unless it is well-founded, is inappropriate. John Vandenberg 23:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Our enemy in this war "on terror" is not just al Qaeda, it is the whole Jihadist movement of which al Qaeda is just the most organized part. So I think that the flag is quite appropriate for al Qaeda. JRSpriggs 12:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

IMO, by using this flag, we are misappropriating a Muslim icon to represent an enemy in the war on "terror". In effect, using this flag for the enemy combatant defines Islam as the enemy. Perhaps that isn't too far from the truth.

I have no problem with the flag being used further down in the article with prose describing how it is being used. However unless a government or a number of reputable publications use this flag to signify al Qaeda, Wikipedia shouldnt officially tag the organisation with this flag. John Vandenberg 13:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If anyone "misappropriated" the flag, it was the Jihadists in general and al Qaeda in particular. Complaining that we use it to represent them makes as little sense as complaining that we use the Swastika flag to represent the Nazis when it is a Hindu religious symbol. JRSpriggs 06:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

al Qaeda doesn't exist

Please watch this extract from a BBC documentary on the subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBVVs9hcmRY It speaks for itself. SmokeyTheCat 09:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The documentary doesn't say al-Qaeda doesn't exist. It says al-Qaeda isn't a hierarchical organization. Gazpacho 11:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point. According to this CNN reference cited in the article [2], the structure of al Qaeda is "super cells" (that) operate on their own without guidance from the men who once trained and directed them. Does that suggest that al Qaeda is an "organization" in the same sense that Alcoholics Anonymous is an organization? (with obviously very different purposes) --Nowa 13:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

We know they exist. The Justice Department took a group of people and gave them the name al-Qaeda long ago. This was necessary otherwise RICO prosecution would have completely stalled. Without a named organization the Justice department was screwed. So, they used the name of the Mujahideen database used to track USA-backed Afghanistan fighters.

The problem now is that once the organization al-Qaeda was officially created by the Justice Department, the real issue became 'are they several dozen people' vs 'could there be hundreds of them' vs 'are they just a flag to fly under to be credible'.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 14:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

When John Walker Lindh was discovered in Afghanistan, he said that Osama bin Laden funded the Arab branch of a movement called Ansar who were trained in his camps. So there was a named movement, but the name wasn't "al-Qaeda" at that time. It seems a little bizarre that the article considers the BBC documentary an "alternative" on equal terms with Osama's own remarks. Gazpacho 21:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is wrong where it says Al Qaeda is a paramilitary organisation. Al Qaeda is an idea that many muslims share. Tony Blair admits this in an interview, and George Bush is the first person to mention this term, before he does you will notice that no islamic group will ever mention the name Al Qaeda, only after Bush mentions it do they take on the name. 88.110.251.34 02:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

See above. Gazpacho 03:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I took the "Rhetoric" section which is generally the criticism of the use of the term and moved it lower in the article. I also found it was unsourced, and also POV. I do not want to expunge it prejudicially, but it needs to be better-written. Someone unsympathetic to the section could easily delete it, or we could have an edit war such as is common on the 9/11 conspiracy pages. I'd prefer to see this section written better and sourced. There is indeed fair criticism of the "bogeyman" aspects of the use of Al-Qaeda, and a need to describe the assertions and counter-arguments about the size and influence of the organization. Let's do our Wikibest to make it a buff section. --Petercorless 07:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

With al-Qaeda there are so many gaps in knowledge that people turn to rumor to satisfy the demand. However, the solution to rumors is to remove them, not to add opposing rumors. Peter Bergen talked face-to-face with Osama. He has made a career of reporting on Osama's activities. Adam Curtis does not have a comparable background. He ignores the 1996 fatwa. He presents "contradictory" statements from sources that... aren't. But if you're looking for an indictment of the NeoConspiracy, Curtis delivers, and that's what seems to drive viewers to this article. The Curtis production might be useful for the source material it includes, but its conclusions are by no means the only ones that have been drawn from the same information. Gazpacho 08:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

As the BBC programme extract above says the name Al-Qaeda only came into existence because of an unreliable witness in a US court prosecution. All there is is an idea, an idea of doing damage to the USA in anyway possible. You can't declare war on an idea. Nor can you ever win such a war. The article should make this clear. SmokeyTheCat 14:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

religious affiliation?

in summary says they are sunni muslim, but in other articles of christian terrorist groups, they are just "paramilitary", and not christian? how about removing sunni muslim from this article, or adding Christian terrorist to articles like the "lord's resistance army"? or can we not have that on a predominately christian edited site? we must make it muslim biast right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.246.244.184 (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Articles about terrorist groups should identify their ideology as specifically as can be supported from reliable sources. Terrorist groups are not "Christian terrorist groups" merely because they recruit in a part of the world that is predominantly Christian Gazpacho 03:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The LRA believes the ten commandments should be made the law of the land. They are 100% Christian organization, just like al qaeda is 100% muslim. Your Christian bias is evident in that you corrected the lord's resistance army article to delete this FACT, and then added sunni to this article. You are such a bigot fascist, just like all the other wikipedia editors. Both articles should feature there religion in the summary if that is a major part of their ideology. If you remove the LRA christian references, do the same on this and all other related articles. If you don't, then i'll be putting up your smiley face on my blog for my 1721 feedburner subscribers to see. Don't be surprised if this is at the top of digg and reddit by tomorrow.

I didn't edit the LRA article, and your personal attacks and threats are not likely to have any desired effect. Gazpacho 05:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It is best to go to the LRA page and add in the fact that they are Christian religious extremists. There are indeed hate groups and extremist groups which perpetrate violence in the Christian world, and where they are appropriately identifying their religious faith as the cause of their violent acts, they are marked such. --Petercorless 07:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The article says that al Qaeda's religion is Qutbism, but I heard elsewhere that it is Salafism. How is this reconciled? JRSpriggs 09:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Al Qaeda is conundrum within conundrum. It both exists and doesn't. It doesn't really have a set ideology beyond protest and anger against Western domination in the world, especially Western influence both within Middle-East and the larger Muslim community throughout the world. Different cells have different religious ideologies within the broad school of Islam. It acts in a very successful way by not having a set ideology, because doesn't really exist per se. It is influenced by many ideologies, mainly Qutbism. Which in itself is a derived of a Western ideology of anarchism, vis a vis - 'Propaganda of Deed', and of a revolutionary vanguard. For Qutb subjection to Allah was through action and was influenced by Salafism. Salafism can be seen as the Sunni Islam equivalent of Puritanical Christianity - trying to strip Islam of all it's 'invented' and 'foreign concepts' and promote Jihadism. Wahabism is also important as it is the mother of these ideologies, it also tries to purify Islam of it's 'invented and 'foreign'. In conclusion, they do not really have a set religious ideology or aim, as the organisation is so disparate. madkaffir 18:40, 26 March 2007 (BST)

Lots of work to be done on this page

Ok, I just spent a few hours correcting numerous typos, fixing badly structured sentences, and other errors. However, the huge problem with this article is the referencing. Dozens of assertions are made for which zero references are provided. This is a serious problem. Even obvious references are missing in such cases where a book is mentioned as a source but the reference isn't given for page number, author, etc. Hopefully somebody can jump in and start tackling that problem.

Also, the section on al-Qaeda financing (and the later section on current US efforts to block it) is abysmal. More content needed! akronpow 20:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It also doesn't help when people blow away properly-referenced parts of the article. Mrph. --Petercorless 09:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Just because a piece is properly-referenced does not mean it's relevant to the main topic. Read through the Madrid section- there is no flow, and there is way too much text for this incident given that it's no longer linked to al-Qaeda. The section should have one link to the Wiki article on the Madrid bombings along with a sentence saying al-Qaeda is no longer linked to the incident, with a suitable reference. The event description is totally irrelevant to the broader topic of al-Qaeda. And the last sentence about a later suicide bombing is even more irrelevant. akronpow 22:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Akronpow. Well, things are not as simple: The al-Qaida link is highly dubious, but the Spanish Judiciary still supports that link, and it has been widely claimed that al-Qaida was involved in the attacks.

It can not be honestly said that al-Qaeda is no longer linked to the incident. It can be said that the al-Qaida link is highly dubious and disputed, but you need several sources to tell the whole history.

I agree with you about the later suicide bombing. I remove that block of text. Randroide 14:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Madrid

The last sentence says two Spanish police, Guardia Civil informers, and a Spanish policeman. Isn't this redundant? If it was three Spanish policemen, it should say so. This sentence is very confusing.akronpow 15:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda and the internet

I've been trying to solve the references problem for this section, but I can't find anything referencing how the December 2004 video bypassed al-Jazeera. If we can't find anything, the assertion should be removed until a source if found.akronpow 15:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Existence of Al Qaeda

I think there needs to be a section in this article debating the existence of Al Qaeda. I cite The Power of Nightmares. Goldfishsoldier 01:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It already does? - The article mentions The Power of Nightmares and its questioning of the existence of Al-Qaeda: "According to the controversial BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares, al-Qaeda is so weakly linked together that it is hard to say it exists apart from Osama bin Laden and a small clique of close associates. The lack of any significant numbers of convicted al-Qaeda members despite a large number of arrests on terrorism charges is cited by the documentary as a reason to doubt whether a widespread entity that meets the description of al-Qaeda exists at all. The extent and nature of al-Qaeda remains a topic of dispute." Perhaps a more careful read? --Petercorless 01:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

See section 17 above "Al quaeda doesn't exist."SmokeyTheCat 15:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You will also note the reference to the neologism Al-Qaedaism, which references your point as to whether Al Qaeda is a formal organization or a less-formal political movement or philosophy. In other words, we thought of that, and the article speaks to the issue. --Petercorless 21:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The attacks image

I don't think it should be the first thing for readers to see (at the top), it's a little POV to have it there, both by it possibly implying either good reasons to propagate hostility against them, or showing their "achievements". --84.249.253.201 19:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your objection is noted, yet this was put there instead of other images which have been objected to in the past including pictures of Osama bin Laden, the flag of Al-Qaeda, and other images. Remember that the subject is controversial, and that any picture could be objected to. However, this is not a graphical depiction such as, say, a photograph of a bomb attack. In the overall context of what could have been shown, it seems mild. What is your suggestion for a suitable image? --Petercorless 21:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I thought of other more or less extremist groups that came into my mind (regarding your last question). I thought of the template on Hamas' page, for example. --84.249.253.201 00:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. --Petercorless 09:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Political Party

In The article the Political Party infobox is used. This may seem like a minor issue but i have serious problems with this. Al-Qaeda is not a political party it is a group of religious fanatics who MURDER innocent men, women and children. Had they atleast tried to engage in the political process as othergroups (such as the IRA) have i would have no problem with this. But in my opinion placing Al-Qaeda as a political party legitimises their methods. And as such i think this infobox should be removed. Any opinions? Pat 09:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I put it there because the template is the closest thing we have in Wikipedia to represent the group. They are not a military unit, and should not be represented by that. They are not a state, and therefore do not deserve the infobox reserved for a country. As a global organization, it is also not appropriate to give them the infobox of a civil war faction like the Islamic Courts Union. The closest approximation to what we have in Wikipedia is a political party. Considering that Al Qaeda has political motives, the notion that we represent them as a political "party" is not unreasonable. Compare Hamas or Hezbollah which likewise use the political party box. --Petercorless 19:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

However Hamas and Hezbollah are actively involved in the political process, while Al-Qaeda is not. You arguement is specious. If you have a valid point feel free to make it. Furthermore to consider that Al-Qaedas motives are political ergo they should be represented as a political party is stupid. Were Al-Qaeda a political party they would be seeking a halfway peaceful resolution. It is therefore unreasonable to represent Al-Qaeda as a political party because that would require to stop slaughtering innocent women an children. Pat 21:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what difference it makes. There isn't a large sign on the infobox stating political party, it's just the best template to summarise a few details about the group. The only mention of political party is in the wikicode itself - only people who edit the page see it, if they spot it even then. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 22:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Ollie. --Petercorless 22:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok im willing to admit defeat lol Pat 13:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Bias?

Peter Bergen is cited multiple times as a source in this article but I can't find a single mention of Robert Fisk. Fisk has interviewed bin Laden three times, the first interview being as early as 1994, so it seems natural that he'd be mentioned somewhere in the article. I am guessing that the absence of any mention of Fisk is due to the fact that he is a controversial figure in the American mainstream.

Here are some quotes by Fisk on the allegation of CIA involvement with Al-Qaeda:

"Some of [bin Laden's] current Afghan fellow fighters had been trained earlier by the CIA in the very camps that were the target of the recent US missiles." - September 21, 1998

"[Bin Laden] was involved in the funding networks, which probably are the ones which still exist. They were trained, armed, organized by the CIA, Pakistan, Egypt, and others to fight a holy war against the Russians." November 1st, 2001

http://www.robert-fisk.com/fisk_talks_with_usama_bin_ladin.htm http://www.robert-fisk.com/chomsky_interview5_nov1_2001.htm

Neebe 06:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I just hope Fish (fisk) is not swimming anymore Catarcostica 08:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Goals of Al-Qaeda

Hi

Could someone add to this page an outline of the the stated goals of Al-Qaeda on this page and provide links to other pages where applicable.

Thanks Dcolford2000 16:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Is Al-Qaeda an urban myth?

After reading the 'information' posted here, and several of the comments, it seems to me that Al-Qaeda (at least as it is currently referred to) is an invention of the United States government and that bin Laden and several other Muslims have decided it is in their interests to agree to its 'existence'.

If Wikipedia is suppose to be a scholarly site providing education on a wide variety of topics what is this thinly veiled propaganda doing here? At the very least it should be labeled as a study of the power of myth and propaganda. The effort to discuss Al-Qaeda as fact would be extremely humorous except for the fact it helps propagate very dangerous disinformation which is used as a primary foundation for the 'war on terror' which, of course, is just more disinformation.

Wikipedia needs to make a conscious decision whether dissemination of this category of 'information' adheres to its mission.

69.179.91.111 06:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

'start of militant operations against civilians'

The attack against the US Cole can hardly be described as an attack on civilians and Al Zawahiri was murdering people long before 1993 so the title does not work.