Talk:Ayman al-Zawahiri

Video

I recently viewed a German-language documentary in which video of al-Zawahiri in Egypt during the 1980's was shown. He was shouting at the camera (in English) "Do not underestimate us! We are Muslims!" I am uncertain his level of proficiency in English, so I cannot say whether he is fluent or not. --Cormac Canales 13:24, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Prisoners in Iran don't give video interviews

Since his appearance on television speaking about the recent bombings in London it is very unlikely that he is imprisoned in Iran. That story should be deleted. Otto ter Haar 21:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I reverted (Oterhaar (talk · contribs)) removal of content and a removed "most likely" wording which was unattributed. If I am incorrect please discuss here and correct the article without simply removing data. --AI 23:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I gave my arguments already above which you simply ignored. What now is written in the article about imprisonment in Iran is nonsense. It is more likely he stays with bin Laden because of the video from September 2003. I suggest Waziristan because it is mentioned in the article about bin Laden and also in a television interview with president Musharraf from Pakistan when he visited the Netherlands last year. Otto ter Haar 09:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

But he can't be with Bin Laden, because Osama bin Laden is dead already. He died back in december 2001! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.190.18.32 (talk) 04:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Ok, you can revert it to the last version by you. --AI 03:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Relationship to Sayyid Qutb

The Sayyid Qutb article mentioned that al-Zawahiri is a student of Muhammed Qutb (i.e. sayyid's brother). Which article is right? Also, has al-Zawahiri ever claimed that he was a student of Qutb? or that his ideas are based on, or has been influenced by, one of the Qutbs? (this as opposed to just being a member of the muslim brotherhood). --Alwiqi 03:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

intercepted NEWLY TRANSLATED LETTER to alZarqawi10/18/205

I am looking for the text of the strategy letter sent from Ayman al Zawahri to Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Should be included as an important exposition leading up to constitutional vote in Iraq

The Arabic text is here and the English here at the ODNI ... the letter is considered by many to be a forgery.--csloat 00:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Not dead until it's confirmed

Whoever keeps editing this page with the sub-heading 'Death' and describing al-Zawahiri dead, please stop until there's actual confirmation from the US State Department.

He was not there, offical word from Pakistan. However the US missile attack killed 18 people, ten of them women and children. May Allah avenge that on the infidels, because there is no other law but eye for eye, teeth for teeth! Oh the slain children!

Congratulations. You're an idiot.

True though that might be, the real idiots here are the CIA. It's understandable that they made a mistake, but unbelievable that they were willing to murder 18 civilians to kill this guy. Why bomb? Why not shoot, or better yet... arrest?

Because the Americans are complete cowards who prefer to murder innocent people from a distance while hiding behind high technology weapons. Isn't that quite obvious by now?

Unfortunately, it's all about whether the collateral damage is worth killing the target. If this was a mid-level Al Qaeda figure, the strike might not have occurred, but since they believed the no.2 was there, they felt they had to take the chance. If Ayman Al-Zawahiri was killed, that would have been a huge blow to the terrorist group and saved countless lives in the future. As for troops going there and arresting him? That's completely unfeasible. US troops have no jurisdiction in Pakistan and it would be illegal for them to enter that area. Pakistani troops could have gone to the area, but they lack the intel and technology (and to be perfectly blunt, the training, organizational skills and the competence) we have, and by the time they mobilized around the village hours would have passed and Al-Zawahiri would have been gone anyway. This strike looks like the result of bad intel anyway, and it's a shame eighteen people died in vain.

"US troops have no jurisdiction in Pakistan and it would be illegal for them to enter that area." Oh, I see. US troops have no jurisdiction but US missiles do. Right. Neocon logic at its finest.

You're a fucking idiot. I'm a liberal. I was giving you a logical, fact-based answer why troops can't go into the area... I never gave my opinion on whether it was right or not, but you were all too quick to draw your own conclusions. If you would rather just hear opinions, fine.

Well, you have certainly proven how intelligent you are. --68.217.111.17 19:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Obviously more intelligent/mature then you with your petty attacks that have nothing to do with the article being discussed. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be non-biased. I was giving a non-biased answer/rationale why troops aren't allowed in the area. If you would rather I just revert to a frothing-at-the-mouth lunatic who launches into a tirade about neocons, cowards and infidels you're in the wrong place. Try the Yahoo! boards.

We shouldn't be saying Zawahiri wasn't there until there is confirmation that he wasn't. So far, nobody reliable is indicating anything either way... I'm changing the article to reflect that.

An article from Aljazaeera.net [[1]] states that the 18 people killed were described by the villagers as innocent civilians. In addition the article states "Incidentally, unidentified Pakistani officials have been quoted in news reports as saying that up to 11 extremists are believed to be among the dead." With that being said, I think it's premature to say that all of the people killed in the attack were innocent.

The WP article doesn't say that all the people killed in the CIA attack were innocent children and civilian villagers (although many were). Pakistan condemned the US attack and loss of innocent life. That's what the WP article says and it is accurate. --68.217.111.17 18:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

I see at the bottom about the recent bombing. If I am not mistaken "Maybe Pakistan will think twice before willingly harbouring terrorists" is not informational, but a spiteful message.

Pretty nice guy

I don't see why he gets such a bad rep. We had coffee one time in Faisalabad and talked about Jihad vs. McWorld. He had some pretty interesting viewpoints.

Could You do me a little favour and publish the where-abouts of Cofer J Black?(Black tried to murder this very nice guy.)

Dent in his head

Why does he have a dent in his forehead?

Zawahiri has a "prayer burn on the forehead". [2] It is condidered a mark of piety.

---

There is something in the hadith to the effect that pious people get these prayer burns. In Zawahiri's case it is probably a self-inflicted scar for propaganda purposes. When he was held in Egypt he did not have this scar. The only two cases of such scars that I have seen are Zawahiri and another al-Qaida guy whose name I can't remember and who is probably dead by now. LDH 09:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Who does #2 work for?

How do we actually know he's the #2. He's always been the spokesperson. Osama was the posterboy, but I think al-Zawahiri = al Qaida #1 operations officer. (In my opinion)

And that's exactly what's wrong with your rationale: It's your opinion. You have no evidence to support your theory that Al-Zawahiri is number 1, so I doubt that's going to appear on his Wikipedia page anytime soon. Al-Zawahiri is more out in the open than OBL, because it's important to the organization that OBL isn't killed (as videos may give away his location).

While you might think that he's #1 in Al Qaida, there's no denying that he's a piece of #2.

Would being #2 put him on par with Dick Cheney?

First off, to assert that either is true or not is arguing from ignorance. Neither of you actually know. It is reported in the media that OBL is the leader, but if Al-Queda is a secretive terrorist organization, no outsider can claim knowledge of its inner workings. Unfortunately, the only rational assertion is that we do not know whos in charge, but OBL is the apparent leader. Iconoplast 22:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Fate unknown

In the NY times today, US officials reported that it isn't known whether Al-Zawahiri is dead or alive. There has been none of the usual chatter following an attack like this. When Al Qaeda leaders have escaped strikes in the past it's usually followed by a proclamation by the group pointing to the operation's failure, but there has been no such statement this time. US officials also mantain that foreigners were killed in the attack, meaning that at least some Al Qaeda members might have been present at the time of the strike. I have edited a line into Ayman's entry pointing to the ambiguity of his fate, since it isn't confirmed that he's alive (or dead) at this stage.

It is now believed that at least some Al Qaeda leaders were killed. CNN article

Who believes? Who wants to believe? Wait for facts. WP is not a rumor mill, or at least, it should try not to be one. --68.217.110.69 02:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

You should heed your own advice. I, and others, are editing the entry to reflect the uncertainty of the situation. It hasn't been confirmed that Al-Zawahiri is alive. Nothing has been confirmed one way or the other. If he's alive, please present definitive evidence (rebuff from Al Qaeda, new video/audio tape from Al-Zawahiri, etc) besides comments from "unnamed officials" as you say. I will correct the grammatical errors, but I'm sure you've made one or two typos in your life as well.

Provide a source other than "unnamed officials" otherwise it is gossip and disinformation. --68.217.110.69 02:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The US government has not commented on the Damadola attack. Why are some editors attempting to insert false information? --68.217.110.69 02:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

"although the US government mantains that there is no indications to whether he's alive or dead" Excellent grammar, to boot! --68.217.110.69 02:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Proving once again that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones... "Unnamed U.S. government officials reportedly claim although they do not know if al-Zawahiri was killed, they believe some foreign fighters were among those killed"

Whether or not there were any Al Qaeda members there, obviously some US officials believed/still believe there were. Please stop removing this information. — TheKMan^talk 02:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

What unnamed U.S. government agents believe or want you to believe is not the same thing as a US government position or what the "US government maintains". This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not your high school yearbook. --68.217.110.69 03:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to argue against news sources all you want... — TheKMan^talk 03:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

When AP says an unnamed government official claims that Bush lied about WMDs, that doesn;t make it correct to say that "the US government maintains that Bush lied about WMDs." When you learn to read, comprehend, write and attribute sources, your edits will last longer. --68.217.110.69 03:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Bush may have said there were WMDs in Iraq, when none were found, but that doesn't change the fact that he said what he said. I'm under the impression the US government never changed its mind, but chose to stop mentioning it. — TheKMan^talk 03:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

You still don't seem to understand attribution of sources. You are confusing unnamed government employees speaking without attribution with government spokesmen explaining official government positions. But at least your last edit was a good cleanup. --68.217.110.69 03:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I never disputed that there is a difference between "unnamed government employees" and "official government positions". It just didn't warrant a deletion of the section of the article (the changes you later made were fine). — TheKMan^talk 03:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

KMan, thanks for your help. And to the other poster, I hope we can come to an understanding/compromise. I hope you don't mind, but I fixed some grammatical errors to make the entry flow a little better. Tell me if you think it's okay as is.

New information this morning

AP is reporting that the provincial government has confirmed that militants were killed in the strike. This takes away Pakistan's defence that only civilians were killed. Have edited a couple lines to reflect these changes.

"Eight men, five children, five women"

This is mainly directed at the poster who keeps on inserting this line into the article about the strike last week on al-Zawahiri. While some Pakistani officials said this was the make-up of the victims, this claim was also accompanied by a since disproven claim that all the victims were civilians and that no al-Qaeda members were present. This means that information is suspect at best and downright wrong as worst, so it has no place in the entry until it's actually CONFIRMED that there was eight men, five children and five women. Since most of the bodies were carried away and buried before authorities could move in that will probably never be proven.

Alive...

He was not killed in the bombing and he has a new tape out: http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/world/13748692.htm -- cheers, —This user has left wikipedia 18:41 2006-01-30

Links to transcripts

I think the best effort should be made to provide links to partial transcripts of his audio and video messages, not to give any legitimacy to what he's saying but rather to provide insight into his writings and character. Right now there are only brief one line synopsis, most of which don't even have quotes. --BlueTruth 18:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Please could all contributors endeavour to remain civil at all times. Editors (anonymous IP addresses or logged-in) failing to adhere to WP:CIVIL are at risk of being blocked from Wikipedia. You can sign your contributions on talk pages using four tildes (like this: ~~~~) Thanks, Proto||type 09:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Video messages

I think the list of video messages is really helpful, and would be even more so if we could dig up transcripts for all of these. It would also be great if someone would start making a similar list on the Osama bin Laden page. These speeches and videos are an important part of the historical record (and very important to counterterrorism research); it is odd that nobody seems yet to have bothered to try to collect them all in one place (whether in wikipedia or elsewhere).--csloat 15:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with you and did some effort to collect their comments, but only this year alone they sent such a number of tapes that it is hard to follow. Otto 13:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Bin Laden has Videos of Osama bin Laden and al-Zawahiri should have Videos of Ayman al-Zawahiri. Although, like bin Laden, this would also cover audio tapes. I have made it red, now go ahead and start it. Robert C Prenic 11:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Opinions on inclusion of South Park reference

An IP has been deleting the South Park reference. I reverted it because he/she did not put any justification for the edit, and it is my opinion that blanking edits should always provide justification for the delete (unless it's bv, of course).

That said, I'm not sure how enyclopedic it is to include that piece of information. Maybe it should be deleted. Opinions? --Jaysweet 15:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the reference very much. It puts some humour in an otherwise very serious and over-sensitive subject. Otto 16:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Reverted again with comment on User_talk:81.104.164.160#Ayman_al-Zawahiri:_Opinions_on_inclusion_of_South_Park_reference. Otto 08:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's encyclopedic. If we mentioned every time a comedy show mentioned a historical figure, we'd be nothing but joke references. It should be omitted. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Poet and author

I find this hard to believe. Iolakana•T 19:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The summary for Adolf Hitler does not contain a reference to his abilities as a painter, surely this moron does not deserve this soft treatment.

Some fan of Zawahiri was calling him "sheikh" in this article, and was flattering the bilious, tedious old man as a writer and poet. Zawahiri's writings are the same old stuff that all terrorists write: he narrates ancient history to get his audience drunk on self-pity, and then he exhorts them to become heroes by committing indiscriminate murder in revenge. The only "poem" he is known for is a sarcastic parody of another poem -- the sort of thing you see on the washroom wall of a boys' school. That work of art by Zawahiri appeared in a 2007 as-Sahab video in which he snarls about Hamas compromising with Fatah and implicitly with Israel.

LDH 23:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Spelling - transcription from Arab

Is it Al Zawahiri, al Zawahiri, al-Zawahiri or Al-Zawahiri? In this article I read most of the time al-Zawahiri so I changed the others to that. Consequently it should then also be al-Jazeera and al-Qaeda (and not one of the other three choices). Otto 11:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

All of those are valid transliterations, but I believe our guideline would be to use al-Zawahiri. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"Abu Rijional", "Abur Ration".

Hello, surely the aliases "Abu Rijional", "Abur Ration" were jokes, no? I took the liberty to remove them. They've been in there for quite a few revisions though... -- 77.7.135.73 14:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a note regarding a source: In the history section, Zawahiri is noted to be working on another book. One source for this info is the "Militant Ideology Atlas, Compendium", published by the US Military Academy, page 360. -fx6893

Desanatizing

"Terrorism" was replaced with vague references to "violence" and "attacks" in many places in the article. Hunting down and killing dozens of tourists is not a punchup or tit for tat - it's using terror to destroy Egypt's economy and build up Western v. Muslim hatred. Let us not censor pretending it's NPOV. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Q&A Debate?

What happened to this offer where he takes questions? This was advertised in December 77.96.20.58 (talk) 12:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)