Talk:Ayman al-Zawahiri

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)

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 the Hell does he have a dent in his forehead?

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

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?

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