Talk:Al-Shabaab (militant group)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Al Shabaab now really 'cell of Al Qaeda'? Nop. I would say it's window kissing, created out of despair.[edit]

First alinea contains: '..Shabaab ...is the Somalia-based terrorist cell of the militant Islamist group al-Qaeda, formally recognized in 2012.

Are they?

When Algerian/Malian Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat joined Al Qaeda, they changed their name into Al Qaeda in the Magreb (West). When Yemeni Salafist extremists became an obedient cell, they were named Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

When Al Shabaab becomes a cell, meaning part of Al Qaeda, they would logically be renamed into Al Qaeda in the Horn of Africa.

This hasn't happened. It means that Al Shabaab has not in majority decided to start taking orders from Al Qaeda. Probably the leaders of the 'foreign legion' in Al Shabaab would want that. But they only control a minority of the foot soldiers, and the Al Shabaab 'home legion' leaders have a primarily national agenda. They want to force Islamic morals on the clan-lords and the 'national army' obliging them to stop drugging their soldiers on Khat, and to stop extorting the economy in general, and especially the economy of the poor into standstill. for that, they think they need a fighting force that can not be abused by any of the clan lords. For them, foreign help only served a national goal. Last year, their most outspoken leader suggested that if some Al Shabaab leaders wanted to fight foreigners, they should move to Pakistan or Afghanistan.

Al Shabaab's formal top leader (Godane) is getting increasingly marginalized, because his territory gets slowly conquered by Kenyan forces and clan-lord militia's, as a result his tax base (from road blocks) gets him less dollars, and hundreds of internationalista's (from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Southern Russia and western countries) have trickled out of his legion.

In 2010, Al Qaeda still tried to throw out Godane, (Godane refused, supported by many Shabaab commanders, which proves how much Al Qaeda really has a say in Somalia) but with both Godane further weakened even within Al Shabaab, and Al Qaeda also increasingly desperate for having achieved nothing remarkable for a long time, they now decided to declare a full allegiance without much strings attached.

Where's the beef? There is no. No communication lines (Except through memory sticks smuggled into Kenya with the occasional trusted traveler, apparently taking many weeks to cover the 5000 km distance to Pakistan). No lines of financing between the two. No people traveling up or down between the two.

And, most importantly, the majority of Al Shabaab increasingly refusing to take orders from Godane and his circle.

But if they can't even get their organization's names lined up, then certainly nothing else has happened, except that they told each other, they would hope to read more about each other in the international press.

So how best describe this media event? It's an attempt by one increasingly marginalized top Shabaab leader to talk some purpose and order into his belligerent co-leaders and rank and file.

There is one more reason to object, calling Al Shabaab a cell of Al Qaeda. They are much more then that. Because contrary to AQIM and AQAP and Al Qaeda in Pakistan / Afghanistan, they do really have a local / national social agenda. That is their prime purpose, and as long as the rest of the armed actors in Somalia make an even much bigger mess then they do, they will easily survive the de facto end of Al Qaeda.

Maybe the most relevant thing about this 'merger' is, that with the Americans leaving Afghanistan, and nothing much to be achieved for extremist Salafi internationalistas inside Somalia, maybe this is more like an invitation by a desparate Al Qaeda 'central command' for the Al Shabaab internationalistas, to get out of Somalia, back into Afghanistan.Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:SomaliForces.png Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:SomaliForces.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:SomaliForces.png)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Flag of the African Union.png Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Flag of the African Union.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Flag of the African Union.png)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Reduce section 'Collaboration with Aqim and Boko Haram'[edit]

The section called 'Collaboration with Al-Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb and Boko Haram' is based on one source, the US general, in charge of fighting Al-Qaeda in North Africa. He provides no prove or sources.

So what evidence is there? One (uncheckable) Nigerian report says, two members of Boko Haram have received bomb-making training by Shabaab internationalistas, and consequently planted two bombs in Nigeria. If true, contact between the two groups most likely was lost, the moment the Boko Harami's returned to Nigeria. Otherwise the general would have known it and used it in his statements.

Contact between Aqmi and Boko Haram: Was a wild rumor in march 2012. Hundreds were spotted by anonymous sources in Gao, Northern Mali, better organized and equipped then they ever were in Nigeria, their huge military convoy supposedly having crossed several countries unnoticed. Twenty weeks on still no shred of evidence, or even re-appearing of the rumor. It was all bollocks. They were Malinese black people, ex Tuareg slaves, fighting on the Aqmi-side, because they thought Aqmi would protect them against atrocities by Tuareg and other Mali groups. I hear from Mali that it was a traditional Tuareg leader, nick-naming them Boko Haram. No journalist ever checked the claim.

So there is no hint of proof for actual collaboration.

My guess: The general is spinning very meager evidence, trying to cheer up the budget for his operations.

Same for the claims by Niger president about Aqim, Tuareg and international terrorism: His also unattributed claim apparently comes from Algerian intelligence sources, who earn most of their budget by spinning such rumours through 'credible' sources into the international media.


Shall we reduce the claim to its true proportions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pieter Felix Smit (talkcontribs) 10:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

move from Ash-Shabaab (Somalia)[edit]

I have not seen any discussion of the recent move. Two separate issues were addressed by it, namely the replacement of "Ash" by "Al", which I have no problem with, and the dropping of the "Somalia" qualification, which I think is wrong. The word is simply the Arabic for "youth", and is the name of at least six football clubs. It is tendentious, perhaps even offensive, to make a political movement the primary topic. Al-Shabaab (Somalia), would be best, if not the longer forms such as Harakat al-Shabaab al-Mujahideen. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The move was per WP:COMMONNAME, as "Al-Shabaab" is what the organization is commonly known as. A hatnote to the effect that "Al-Shabaab redirects here" would then normally be indicated. Nonetheless, given the seniority of the various eponymous football clubs (they apparently went by the name first), a disambiguation could perhaps work. I think a better one, though, would be "Al-Shabaab (militant group)" since its insurgent ideology seems to be its defining characteristic. The organization is also multi-ethnic and appears to be branching out; it isn't strictly based in Somalia anymore. Additionally, there don't appear to be any other militant organizations with the name "Al-Shabaab" (there's one group with a similar but not identical long name "Ash-Shabab al-Mu'min", but it's commonly known as the Houthis); so "Al-Shabaab (militant group)" seems ideal. Middayexpress (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I'd be quite content with "Al-Shabaab (militant group)". SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok. Middayexpress (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Australia ban?[edit]

The link supposedly referencing an Australian ban on Al Shabaab goes to a BBC news article that doesn't mention Australia. Now I'm sure the Australian government has indeed listed Al Shabaab as a banned group but the link needs to be changed. Tigerman2005 (talk) 00:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Malware Link Removal[edit]

--Gary Dee 15:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus, without prejudice. There's a temptation here for relisting this item. However, without any sort of interference to eliminate poor arguments, I doubt there is going to be consensus for this move. So, let me set a few things straight: al-Shabaab, al-Shabab, and ash-Shabāb are all transliterations of the same word, and so standard practice of differentiating articles by minor spelling differences doesn't really apply here. If the PRIMARYTOPIC claim for the term -- however it is to be transliterated -- wants to be made, one is free to open a new move request. However, be sure to make it a multi-page move request (moving al-Shabab to another title), and one may (or may not) want to take the advice of waiting another month or two for when this group is no longer as prominently in the news. -- tariqabjotu 15:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


Al-Shabaab (militant group)Al-Shabaab – Regrettably, this is now the primary meaning. All other possible meanings are spelt Al-Shabab and can be dealt with at that article. We often do differentiate articles by minor differences in spelling etc. see e.g. Top hat and Top Hat. PatGallacher (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose Looks like WP:RECENTISM on its face. Do you have any sources? And while minor differences in spelling are one thing, minor differences in transliteration, IMO, are another matter. This group can be referred to as "Al-Shabab" too, as you can see from ABC News, the Christian Science Monitor, and even Al Jazeera, for example. --BDD (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
    • It definitely reflects the recent (~5yr) prominence of the group but what other term called "Al-Shaba(a)b" is even remotely as notable as this group?  AjaxSmack  02:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Firstly الشباب ("the youth" ash-Shabāb) is a generic term. Second, Pat, Top hat/Top Hat doesn't apply to non-Latin script names. Like many (most?) non-Latin scripts Arabic has competing transliteration systems - see romanization of Arabic. Plus both Middle East and western sources tend to be pretty random anyway, witness Saudi footballer names. In this case all the variant romanizations of الشباب need to be on the basic dab page and the rest disambiguated. Third all BDD's objections too. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Ash-Shabāb is a generic term in an Arabic dictionary but "Al-Shaba(a)b" has a primary encyclopedic meaning in English and it is not "youth".  AjaxSmack  02:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support a move to Al-Shabaab or Al-Shabab per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. (Al-Shabab [one a] seems more common than the spelling in the current title.) A few local sports clubs and a village of 3,000 are no competition. —  AjaxSmack  02:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Googling "Al-Shabab" -wikipedia gives you page after page of the results on the the Somali group. Let's get a grip on WP:RECENTISM, shall we. It's defined as, "writing or editing without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention." It has nothing to do with primary topics or article titling. 41.181.202.174 (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
You're partially right. Avoiding recentism doesn't necessarily mean shunning primary topic claims for recent topics. But it does mean you need to be careful assessing evidence for such claims. Google itself tends to give results very heavily slanted towards recent events if it thinks you're searching for a news-related topic, which in this case it certainly does. Al-Shaba(a)b isn't al-Qaeda; I don't think it's yet a given that they're a primary topic. Let's revisit this in a few months when they're not one of the main headlines around the world and see if there's still merit for such a move. --BDD (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
The group has been making worldwide headlines for over five years. The village and various other local football squads listed on the DAB page have never made any such headlines.  AjaxSmack  03:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
But those are all transliterations of the same Arabic word. There's no indication why some are written with the double A and some aren't, and as I demonstrated, the terrorist group has been referred to by both English spellings. As long as we're using arbitrary transliterations, we can't seriously expect readers to keep up. You and I can disagree as to whether this group is primary topic on the merits, but this hair-splitting about spelling just won't do. --BDD (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
By current Wikipedia practice, an extra a is enough of a disambiguator as the nominator noted above ("We often do differentiate articles by minor differences in spelling etc. see e.g. Top hat and Top Hat.") My own argument is also based on PRIMARYTOPIC which still hasn't really been refuted. The sum of the items at any of the spellings is far less important than the militant group and this has been true since not long after the group's formation in 2006 (before Obama redirected to Barack to give some perspective.)  AjaxSmack  02:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Spelling[edit]

Leaving aside questions of primary meaning etc. for the moment, can we clarify if the normal spelling of this group is with or without the double "a"? PatGallacher (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

We can clarify the alternatives. Romanization of Arabic#Comparison table gives us the line
0627 alif aː ā ʾ ā aa aa / A a a/e/é
but there isn't any such thing as the "normal" spelling in Wikipedia. We have to use WP:COMMONNAME. A combination of the possible standard transliterations and my observation of the usage in good sources prompts me to say double a. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Ivory poaching[edit]

Two days ago, I posted a new section on the connection between Al-Shabaab and the illegal trade in elephant ivory, which provides about half of the known funding for their activities. Specifically, it has come to light in the past four years that Al-Shabaab has been complicit in the deaths of tens of thousands of elephants, and the murders of at least 60 wardens. I provided reliable sources from no less than four UK newspapers. However, Middayexpress has decided to delete my edits and move parts of them to the "Timeline" section for October & November 2013. This is nonsensical. The media has been reporting on this very problem since 2010; it is not an "October and November of 2013" issue. The correct procedure would've been for Middayexpress to start a new section here to discuss the possibility of a move; this, he did not do. His actions are unilateral and arbitrary. I reverted his changes, which he then reverted again. I'm posting fair warning here about observing proper decorum and collegiality before I request protection. I would ask that all interested parties read and comply with Wikipedia:Dispute resolution before changing the contributions of other editors, and particularly, Wikipedia:Edit warring, "the three-revert rule". Bricology (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

It is contrary to WP collegiality to remove other editors' edits without creating a discussion about the *possibility* of doing so in the "Talk" section. Consequently, I am going to revert the changes you made to my addition to the Al-Shabaab (militant group) article. DO NOT change it again without following WP's conventions for proposing changes to editing.Bricology (talk) 05:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, your edit was not removed. It was instead redacted for neutrality and moved to the page's appropriate activities timeline [1]. This was clearly indicated in the edit summary too. Also, if an edit pertaining to living persons is poorly sourced or otherwise non-neutrally presented, an editor is actually encouraged to removed it and immediately per the WP:BLP policy ("editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page[...] contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"). Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Middayexpress wrote "It was instead redacted for neutrality and moved to the page's appropriate activities timeline..." In the first place, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, moving my edit to "timeline". If you actually did know anything about the subject, you'd know that the connection between Al-Shabaab was anything but a 2013 issue. SOFREP reported on it in June of 2012[1]. Vanity Fair reported on it in August of 2011[2]. Many other news sources likewise reported the connection before 2013. "Also, if an edit pertaining to living persons is poorly sourced or otherwise non-neutrally presented, an editor is actually encouraged to removed it and immediately per the WP:BLP policy". Have you ever heard of The Independent? The Daily Mail? The Spectator? The Express? They are as well-sourced as any sources you are going to find. I provided no less than five primary sources, all of them accepted internationally as reliable sources. So you can drop the patronizing attitude and stop messing with other editors' properly done edits. Revert it again and I'll not only re-revert, I'll apply for protection.Bricology (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Please settle down and also have a look at User:Kwamikagami's comment below. You are placing undue weight on the ivory story by locating it outside of the activities timeline where it belongs. If the ivory issue began before 2013, then simply put it in its appropriate historical chronology on the timeline to show its evolution. Middayexpress (talk) 07:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Again, Middayexpress, you either presume that you have the power to unilaterally change other editors' work or you misunderstand the relevant issue, or both. The reality is that this isn't a timeline issue. I already cited two media stories, from 2011 and 2012, which makes putting the same information into the "timeline" section nonsensical. The "Twitter" section encompasses events that transpired between 2011 and 2013. Are you going to move it to the "timeline" section as well? How 'bout the "Drought" section, which was ONLY for 2012? Ditto, the "Merge with Al-Qaeda" section. The fact is that every section in the article could be shoehorned into the "timeline", but for many of them, it's absurd to do so. Bricology (talk) 08:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
The Twitter material is part of the larger Propaganda section on Al-Shabaab's use of propaganda techniques. The Merger with Al-Qaeda section also represents a major shift in the group's operational structure, so it warrants a separate section. The poaching issue is significant, but it is only one of the various ways that Al-Shabaab raises funds. Perhaps then we should group the cited funding material under one section and place poaching under there as a sub-section, like Twitter under Propaganda. Middayexpress (talk) 09:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Middayexpress wrote "The Twitter material is part of the larger Propaganda section on Al-Shabaab's use of propaganda techniques. While I agree that subject is significant enough to warrant a section of its own, it's far less so than Al-Shabaab being reported throughout the media as being the single largest factor in the decline of elephants in East Africa, or the murders of 60 rangers/wardens. More significantly, the "Twitter" issue is one that had a known beginning and is unlikely to develop any further, whereas the elephant poaching issue has existed for years, and is certain to unfold for years to come. Burying it in the "timeline" section is not only nonsensical due to it not being an isolated or finite incident, it also downplays the significance of the issue.Bricology (talk) 09:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Understood. But do you agree that the poaching issue here ultimately falls under funding? That is, after all, why Al-Shabaab is doing it i.e. to raise funds for its operations. Middayexpress (talk) 09:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Of course I understand that! But that in no way means that the matter should be relegated to the timeline. I could just as easily say that the "Merger with Al-Qaeda", "Internal rift", "Collaboration with AQIM and BH" and "Split with Hizbul Islam" sections are all just organizational issues, and therefore they should all be combined into one "organization" section, or that the events associated with them should be relegated to the timeline. It would be one thing if Al-Shabaab was doing something mundane to provide funding. But doing something that is so overwhelmingly significant as being a key player in the extinction of an endangered species, in a business that spans the globe, and that this connection has been receiving so much media attention, elevates the matter far above mere "fundraising".Bricology (talk) 09:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Combining the "Merger with Al-Qaeda", "Internal rift", "Collaboration with AQIM and BH" and "Split with Hizbul Islam" sections under organizational structure actually makes sense. According to the Elephant Action League, Al-Shabaab requires at least $1,500,000 per month to cover its operational expenses, and revenue generated from the ivory trade can cover a large portion of those costs. So poaching is a fundamentally funding-based activity for the group; it should therefore probably be grouped under funding. Middayexpress (talk) 10:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Bricology, even without BLP concerns, if you make an edit, it's up to you to justify it, not up to others to refute it. — kwami (talk) 06:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
kwami wrote "even without BLP concerns, if you make an edit, it's up to you to justify it, not up to others to refute it." You don't know what you're talking about. 1. The subject of Al-Shabaab's connection with the illegal ivory trade was entirely absent from their article. Given the importance of the connection in the media (not to mention in reality, with them being complicit in the death of tens of thousands of elephants and 60 humans), it needed to be clearly stated. 2. Everything I posted was properly sourced from reliable sources. 3. The proper procedure for editing another's contributions is through the "talk" page, not through making arbitrary, unilateral edits. Bricology (talk) 08:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the edit was not removed. It was instead redacted for neutrality and moved to the page's appropriate activities timeline [2], which the linked BLP policy certainly supports. Middayexpress (talk) 08:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Wrong. "Truth" is not an argument. Read WP:TRUTH and WP:BOLD. — kwami (talk) 08:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Middayexpress wrote "It was instead redacted for neutrality..." "Neutrality"? Please explain how my quoting information from five respected national or international news sources in any way impinges upon WP:NPOV. What part of my edit do you claim lacks neutrality? Weasel words like "redacted for neutrality" is really just Wikipedia:Assume bad faith.Bricology (talk) 08:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Redaction for neutrality aren't weasel words. They are a core pillar of WP:NPOV. Middayexpress (talk) 09:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Middayexpress wrote "Redaction for neutrality aren't weasel words." Except that no one modified any of the content I added for neutrality. Really. I've just compared what I posted and what is in the "timeline" section now, and there have been no modifications for neutrality. Are you being disingenuous in trying to portray me as somehow violating WP:NPOV? Bricology (talk) 09:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

You should not interpret redactions of your edits by others as personal challenges. They are actually a standard part of the Wikipedia collaborative process. That said, here is what you wrote:

Al-Shabaab has been accused of being an integral part of the illegal trade in ivory, and of killing 60 wardens and 30,000 elephants in 2012 alone. Al-Shabaab hires poachers to kill the elephants and remove the tusks, for which the group pays the poachers $50-100 per kilogram. The majority of the ivory is shipped to customers in China where it is sold for $3,000 per kilogram.[3] It is estimated that Al-Shabaab earns £400,000 every month from this trade.[4][5][6] According to the conservation group the Elephant Action League, Al-Shabaab derives roughly half of its operating budget in the area from the ivory trade.[7]
In late 2013, as an initiative sponsored by Prince Charles and Prince William, the British Army sent 25 members of the 3rd Battalion, Parachute Regiment to Kenya to be based 200 miles north of Nairobi where they are acting as a training force for Kenyan rangers engaged in elephant conservation efforts.[8][9]

And here is the timeline redaction:

  • November 16 The Elephant Action League, an independent organization fighting elephant exploitation and wildlife crime, asserts that the illegal export in poached ivory by Al-Shabaab via ports in southern Somalia provides the group a monthly income of between $200,000 to $600,000 USD. The tusks are cut into blocks and hidden in crates of charcoal, the latter of which is under a UN-imposed embargo.[12][13] Al-Shabaab is also accused of killing 60 wardens and 30,000 elephants in 2012 alone, and reportedly hiring poachers to kill the elephants and remove the tusks, for which the group pays the poachers $50-100 per kilogram. The majority of the ivory is shipped to customers in China, where it is sold for $3,000 per kilogram.[14]

Not a huge difference there, other than showing the full range of monthly income the group is alleged to earn from poaching, explaining from where and how the tusks are actually shipped, and putting the poaching reports in chronological order. The assertion that "Al-Shabaab derives roughly half of its operating budget in the area from the ivory trade" is also notable, but appears to be incorrect since the Elephant Action League indicates that "a quick calculation puts Shabaab's monthly income from ivory at between US$200,000 and US$600,000[...] maintaining an army of roughly 5,000 men, each earning US$300 USD, demands at least US$1,500,000 a month, of which the ivory trade can supply a big chunk of it" [3]. So it should probably instead read: "According to the Elephant Action League, Al-Shabaab requires at least $1,500,000 per month to cover its operational expenses, and revenue generated from the ivory trade can cover a large portion of those costs." Middayexpress (talk) 10:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://sofrep.com/8039/al-shabaab-trades-elephant-ivory-ak47s/
  2. ^ http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2011/08/elephants-201108
  3. ^ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/illegal-ivory-trade-funds-alshabaabs-terrorist-attacks-8861315.html
  4. ^ http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/442115/British-troops-drafted-in-to-save-elephants-from-Al-Shabaab-terrorists
  5. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2498178/British-troops-deployed-save-Kenyan-elephants-illegal-slaughter-trade-funding-terrorist-attacks.html
  6. ^ http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/11/how-al-shabaab-is-keeping-the-african-ivory-market-alive/
  7. ^ http://elephantleague.org/project/africas-white-gold-of-jihad-al-shabaab-and-conflict-ivory/
  8. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2498178/British-troops-deployed-save-Kenyan-elephants-illegal-slaughter-trade-funding-terrorist-attacks.html
  9. ^ http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/11/how-al-shabaab-is-keeping-the-african-ivory-market-alive/
  10. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2498178/British-troops-deployed-save-Kenyan-elephants-illegal-slaughter-trade-funding-terrorist-attacks.html
  11. ^ http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/11/how-al-shabaab-is-keeping-the-african-ivory-market-alive/
  12. ^ "How al-Shabaab is keeping the black-market African ivory trade alive", The Spectator, in: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/11/how-al-shabaab-is-keeping-the-african-ivory-market-alive/
  13. ^ "Africa’s White Gold of Jihad: al-Shabaab and Conflict Ivory", Elephantleague.org, at: http://elephantleague.org/project/africas-white-gold-of-jihad-al-shabaab-and-conflict-ivory/#
  14. ^ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/illegal-ivory-trade-funds-alshabaabs-terrorist-attacks-8861315.html

Links[edit]

>> Al-Shabab 'retreat' in battle for town>> Uganda warns of Somali Shebab fuel tanker attacks(Lihaas (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)).

Al Jazeera article[edit]

Some usful info here? Al Jazeera link: Somali farmers benefit from al-Shabab reforms In Somalia's breadbasket, many welcome al-Shabab's move to expel foreign aid groups and build canals. Hamza Mohamed Last updated: 10 Mar 2014 07:29 2.31.5.221 (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Was just going to post this. The article could use some balance to show its support network.(Lihaas (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)).

lead description[edit]

GregKaye 19:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Occupation of territory and religious law different things[edit]

The statement that "As of 2013, the group has retreated from the major cities, but imposes strict forms of Sharia law in some rural regions" is wrong. Occupation of territory, Sharia law in those territories, are two different things, requiring different sentences.Royalcourtier (talk) 07:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Split Proposal[edit]

As this article is currently 237KB and has a "very long" tag, I propose that the Timeline section be split into it's own article, on the model of Timeline of Boko Haram insurgency. Gazkthul (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

As no objections have been raised, split out the timeline section to Timeline of Al-Shabaab related events Gazkthul (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Garissa attack[edit]

There is nothing here about the April 2 attack in Garissa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.212.103 (talk) 11:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

External link to ivory report[edit]

I replaced the link to the EAL "White Gold of Jihad" report with An Illusion of Complicity: Terrorism and the Illegal Ivory Trade in East Africa, a more recent analysis by the Royal United Services Institute showing that the EAL's claims are "largely wrong". —Coconutporkpie (talk) 04:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in reading about investigations by Interpol and the UN Environment Programme, the UN Monitoring Group, CITES, and TRAFFIC also finding no significant connection to the ivory trade for inclusion in this article, here's a news story about it: McConnell, Tristan (14 November 2014). "Illegal ivory may not be funding African terror group". USA Today. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 05:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The report by Interpol/UNEP that characterized the EAL's findings as "highly unreliable" can be found here: Nellemann, C.; Henriksen, R.; Raxter, P.; Ash, N.; Mrema, E., eds. (2014), The Environmental Crime Crisis – Threats to Sustainable Development from Illegal Exploitation and Trade in Wildlife and Forest Resources. A UNEP Rapid Response Assessment. (PDF), Nairobi; Arendal, Norway: United Nations Environment Programme, GRID-Arendal, ISBN 978-82-7701-132-5 Coconutporkpie (talk) 04:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Al-Shabaab (militant group). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Al-Shabaab (militant group). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 27 external links on Al-Shabaab (militant group). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Al-Shabaab (militant group). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Al-Shabaab (militant group). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Al-Shabaab (militant group). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Terror Monitor as a source[edit]

I reverted the following edit since it is not clear to me that Terror_Monitor.org is a reliable source. Plus I'm not sure we can use a tweet as a source. Nonetheless, if someone can show why the source is acceptable, then we can add it back in. --Nowa (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

"The terrorist organization whined about anti-Shabaab military assistance provided to Somali militias by the USA.[url=https://twitter.com/Terror_Monitor/status/836251331065069569 |title= |last=|first=|date=27 Feb 2017 |website=Twitter |publisher=Terrormonitor.org]"

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Al-Shabaab (militant group). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Al-Shabaab (militant group). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)