Talk:Al-Qaeda

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force.

Archives

1 2

Pro Al-Qaeda Web sites

Recent news reports have been claiming that the Internet is full of Web sites in support of Al Qaeda. For example, Arnaud de Borchgrave of the Washington Times claims (8/24/6): [1]

Disillusioned Muslim youngsters are increasingly attached to the global Muslim community via the Internet -- and are angry at what they consider the anti-Muslim policies of the local government where they live. The estimated 5,000 pro-al Qaeda Web sites include recipes for mixing nail polish remover and hair bleach and detonating the explosive cocktail with the flash unit from a throwaway camera.

I find myself very skeptical of these claims. For example, typing "nail polish", "hair bleach" and "camera" as search terms in Google gets 1240 results, of which the vast majority appear not to be radical Muslim sites. I have seen too many reports of infringements on the free speech of ordinary American polemicists to believe that Al Qaeda enjoys free reign in Western countries or anywhere else. But then again... that search wouldn't bring up pages in Arabic. What's the truth here?Mike Serfas 03:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NB You CAN mix acitone and a Base to make an explosive, but you need MUCH higher concentrations than are avalable to the genral public. You also need lab with cooling equipment and a blast proof vacume cabenet (so not you average school stuff) to get anything near a good reactant leval, and even if you did no sain person would do this by had because it is still very volitial, and you risk killing yourself. This is just scair mongering which all seems to come from one "security expert" on ITV news saying "it might be some sort of new bomb, like a liquid explosive, which we cannot detect" in relation to questions as to why airports were closed after a bomb threat when there is suposed to be bomb detecting equipment in the airports.

There is no such thing as a "binary bomb" where you mix two substances and they blow up. Houshold or otherwise. 62.232.65.170 15:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There *are* such things as binary explosives; these are explosive compounds which are highly unstable in their final form but (relatively) safe when separated into two precursor compounds. Thus, the safe way to handle them is to keep them separate until the last possible moment; they aren't mixed together to form the actual explosive until just before detonation. --JaceCady 20:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

growth or reduction of Al Qaeda?

According to the recent White House report, Al Qaeda has been "signifcantly degraded" but the opposition Democrats are claiming something like more than a doubling in it's size since its dispersion from Afghanistan.

Which is it?

A section on the grown or shrinkage of Al Queda might be helpful.

--213.42.21.76 10:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al Qaeda doesn't exist!

Watch these two videos. There is no organisation called Al Qaeda.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBVVs9hcmRY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQFC8AlCVjE&mode=related&search=

Both from a very good programme on the BBC.

Essentally in pursuing this thing called 'Al Qaeda' the US is chasing shadows, a non-existent phantom enemy.

I would have put this on the main page but it would be deleted.SmokeyTheFatCat 22:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um ok. I think that is whats called a conspiracy theory.

A conspiracy theory used to be about someone conspiring to do evil but now it is a convenient way of argumentum ad homenum (sorry if wrong spelling) which is latin for attacking the speaker not the argument. In other words, if any evidence or questions come up that go against the flow, call it a conspiracy theory to discredit the person delivering the message. So if there is no evidence they exist except for many false arrests in US, UK, Oz and Canada these last few years lets dismiss it and tell that person they are a conspiracy theorist. The real conspiracy theory would be that Al Qaeda does exist LOL

In response to the BBC's assertion that Al Quida was a term cooked up by the USA and then later adopted by the group, I would like to see a comment about possible uses of "Al Quida" by detainees before 9/11, specifically by Khalid Sheik Mohammed during his detention *where he was allegedly waterboarded. There seems to be some evidence that he used the term, though his testimony, considering the torture and lack of transparency, is questionable.

Yes, there is no evidence that Al-Qaeda really exists.Everton 13:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sure there is loads of evidence that al Qaeda exists, though not necessarily in the form proposed by George Bush. See for instance one of these books:

Gilles Kepel: Jihad . the trail of political islam
Jason Burke: Al Qaeda casting a shadow of terror
Faisal Devji: landscapes of the Jihad

--Vindheim 13:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General comment on terrorism

This is all too convenient. Making us scared of an invisible enemy, we dont know where they are, we dont know when they will strike, we must remove your liberties, lock you up without evidence for your liberty and security. what a load of bollocks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.6.30 (talk)

I just wanted to add one comment. The notion that Al Qaeda is somehow a Sunni organization is a factual mis-statement. It is a loose network of Islamic radicals with similar goals. A more accurate reference would be to Militant Islam. A review of the major known participants and 9-11 Hijackers shows a number of individuals who are not Sunni associated with Al Qaeda. Labeling this organization as Sunni is erroneous and does a great injustice to Sunni Muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.242.136.2 (talk)

I'm not sure I understand. When you say they are "not Sunni", do you mean to say they are Shi'a or some other denomination of Islam? Or do you mean they are not true Sunnis, or something along those lines? —Morning star 23:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protection

It seems that there has been a lot of vandalism recently by unregistered users; does anyone think semi-protection is in order? Trojan traveler 03:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would second that. —Morning star 23:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I was surprised to find taht there wasn't any here already. Kc4 21:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

more attack participants

right now, the list only contains the names of those who participated in the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks. surely we know the names of those who attacked the u.s.s. cole, the african embassies, etc. Parsecboy 19:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- And, surely we have some shred of empirical evidence linking those people with a structured organization calling itself "Al Qaeda"? Surely we do? Don't we? 74.104.100.186 00:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giant section headings

We need to shorten them. They currently look ridiculous. Any suggestions?-Localzuk^(talk) 11:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology section

The second paragraph of the etymology section should be removed since the only cited source for it's information is Globalresearch.ca, an ideologically and politically biased website that promotes bizarre conspiracy theories involving the supposed New World Order and such. It also features articles penned by people who've written for a neo-Nazi newsletter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Professor28 (talk • contribs)

Do you know which neo-Nazi newsletter?—Morning star 23:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Focus

Can we please remove these lines (or at least stick them in a revised form later in the document) they lend a very non-POV air to the piece. "Al-Qaeda has been linked to multiple acts of terrorism against U.S. interests and is known for planning and executing the September 11 attacks on New York's World Trade Center and The Pentagon. In response, the United States launched a war against Afghanistan, whose government was providing safe haven to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda members." When I began reading i got the impression this was more like a bio-article by the washington post on al-Qaeda rather than an encyclopeadiea article. Put the stated events in a section called actions or something. Thanks - --ISpyFace 13:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU! Finally, will you people please listen? You're violating your own rules then point the finger when someone tries to rectify it.

Terrorist?

Read this page on words to avoid : Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism

Either we should review the policy, or review this article. It's still funny that the example is in contradiction with the first sentence of this article.

Excellent Point - I think we should conform to the Policy as it currently stands.

These guys are terrorists. Anyone who denies that may also be interested in sensory deprivation. Cerebral Warrior 05:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with, I am not interested in sensory deprivation. The fact is that wikipedia's policy clearly states that the term terrorist should not be used as it is in this entry.

Hey, don't knock sensory deprivation! Seriously though, it goes against neutrality unless they have self-identified as terrorists. Simple as that. And yes, I do think al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization, but I also think it's pov to say that here. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 07:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have openly confessed to being anti-American despite being American by birth. You have also insulted your President. That makes you, in my opinion, a traitor. Cerebral Warrior 07:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'm a traitor. So what? Last I checked, traitors were allowed on wikipedia and had just as much a right to edit as patriotic Americans. Heck, we'd even allow Osama bin Laden to edit if he had a computer and an internet connection. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 07:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Although I really don't mind being called a traitor that much, I do know this was meant to be a huge insult in your eyes. Your intent was clearly a violation of that policy, as well as general respect for others. Perhaps consider commenting in a more polite manner. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 07:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cerebral Warrior has been given his last warning for repeated personal attacks and addition of biased material to articles. yandman 08:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the simple solution to this problem be to attribute the claims that they are a terrorist organisation, ie 'According to the US and UK Governments Al-Qaeda are a terrorist organisation'? And provide a citation of course.-Localzuk^(talk) 09:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That exact sentence is in the intro, at the end. I've removed "terrorist" from the beginning. See the OBL article talk page for the general reasons why. yandman 10:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I had assumed that as people were commenting about its use that it was just being done in the way you have now removed. It is fine as it stands now.-Localzuk^(talk) 10:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Al-Qaeda is terrorist or not depends, of course on yuor definition of the term. If terrorist is someone who blows up bombs in public place to scare the government and the public, then Al-Qaeda most certainly fits. --Vindheim 12:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. Calling Al-Qaeda "terrorist" implies that what they're doing is wrong, an opinion that an encyclopaedia can't give. What we can do is say "the governments of here, there and them consider Al-Q a terrorist organisation (cite)... " yandman 12:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, calling them "terrorist" implies (as per the Wikipedia definition) that they use "terror" to acheive their goals. The fact that they attempt to instil "terror" in civilians is a fact, not a POV. Cerebral Warrior 13:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read our policies. We can only label a group as something if they themselves have called themselves it or if a third party such as the US Govt. have said it. We must attribute it too. This is done to prevent wikipedia having any opinion (and regardless of what you think, calling a group 'terrorists' is an opinion - as some people believe that they are freedom fighters and the workers of 'god').-Localzuk^(talk) 14:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as people agree that the local population of an area would be pretty terrorised when planes are crashed into buildings or when bombs go off in trains, organistaions like Al-Qaeda will be called terrorists. This is not about whether their cause is legitimate. It is about whether or not they use terror as a tool to achieve their objectives. Cerebral Warrior 15:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that Hiroshima was not a military objective. Terror has always been a "tool" in war. yandman 16:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Qaeda is not a legitimate state, like Japan, and hence does not have the right to declare war against anyone. Thus, the US or any other country is not at war with Al-Qaeda, and their terrorist actions cannot be compared to those of the US during World War 2. Nontheless, go ahead and try convincing the community to term Hiroshima a terrorist incident. Cerebral Warrior 16:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cerebral Warrior, please realise that this argument is the exact reason we have a policy of not using terms such as 'terrorist'. It is subjective to label an organisation, government or person as being terrorist - for example I think the US government is a terrorist organisation due to their tactics, also the UK government is also a terrorist organisation. However, I do not think that these should be included in any article and are purely my views. It is a common held view that Al-Qaeda is a terrorist group but that is not enough. It has to come from an official organisation such as the CIA, MI6 etc... - which is what we have at the moment. -Localzuk^(talk) 17:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please realize that we routinely refer to Al Qaeda as a terrorist organization on Wikipedia. See September 11, 2001 attacks as an example. Oh, and what you refer to is not a policy. Cerebral, you can ignore their bullying POV tactics. Morton devonshire 18:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morton, do not call my tactics bullying. Thank you. Anyway, it is policy via the WP:NPOV policy. Terrorist is a subjective term and the words to avoid is a guideline that is there to explain a little why it shouldn't be used. Using the argument that 'other articles use the term' is completely flawed - as they also violate WP:NPOV.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

al-Qaeda admits to doing everythnig that would fit them under the term "terrorist" according to the majority of the world population, and world governments, as represented by the UN, US, UK, and NATO. They have told their followers to carry out terrorist acts, and people have commited terrorist acts in their name. The issue of if they are terrorist organization being POV is moot, terrorism to you may be a negative implication, but its simply a tactic, and some are proud to be terrorists. If they were not they would attempt to move away from what clasifys them as such, like Hamas and Hazbollah did. Those proud of the title stick to the same tactics such as Abu Sayyaf. --Nuclear Zer0 20:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you try to prevent us from calling an organisation that kills innocent women and children terrorists, how can you expect to be treated in a civil manner? I have always believed that people can never truly understand why terrorists need to be destroyed until it is their turn to pick up hastily sewn together pieces of their loved one from a makeshift morgue. Cerebral Warrior 19:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could we keep the emotional speeches for the politicians, please? And any more personal attacks will be deeply regretted. I was hoping I would be able to convince you without having to pull the rulebook out, but never mind. See Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism. yandman 20:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what personal attacks you are reffering to but calling al-Qaeda a terrorist group isn't one, unless you are stating you are a member and personally offended by the labeling. As per the above link I guess we can simply state:

"Al-Qaeda is the name given to an international Islamic fundamentalist campaign... The Government of the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Russia, Iraq, Isreal, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Philippines and Egypt regards Al-Qaeda as a terrorist organization, this includes world bodies such as NATO and the UN primarily because the use terror as a tactic to effect political and religious change"

Doesn't that seem kind of pointless ... Isn't that almost everyone? --Nuclear Zer0 20:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not pointless. Simply because there are people out there who do not think they are terrorists. Every claim that they are terrorists must be accompanied by a citation to back it up. This is not me thinking Al-Qaeda are in the right or anything like that. It is simply trying to make sure that Wikipedia is of high quality and its content is presented in a neutral manner. This is not something we can compromise on, it is one of the fundamental principals that govern this site. Breaking it is not allowed at all. Simple really.

Why can no-one see that blanket calling of any organisation as terrorist is subjective. It is the opinion of whoever claims that and as such requires attribution and citation.-Localzuk^(talk) 20:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see the subjectiveness, who says they are not a terrorist organization? so far I named a 5th of the world population, does anyone claim they do not carry out terrorism? --Nuclear Zer0 20:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, they themselves have not named themselves as terrorist. Please stop going on about this. I you have any problems with the policy or guideline on this, please take it up there. We are not going to get past this as it is a fundamental concern within wikipedia. If you believe those of us who insist on sticking to the policies, the please take it to dispute resolution. -Localzuk^(talk) 20:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please point me to the policy. So far all I see is a guideline, and you have not proven its NPOV, because you have not shown anyone arguing they are not terrorists. --Nuclear Zer0 20:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, they themselves more than likely don't see themselves as a terrorist organisation. This is enough to make the term subjective.-Localzuk^(talk) 21:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but your opinion on what they see themselves is not enough to overrule NATO and the UN collectively. Further since they have never denied it, there really is no arguement here. If you stumble across a policy however please let me know. --Nuclear Zer0 21:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have told you the policy, it is quite simple. There are many people in Iraq who think that al-qaeda are not a terrorist organisation. This is enough to make the term subjective. It is a word that carries negative connotations. As I said before, asking for attribution and citation is normal and should be done in all cases. Also, NATO and UN do not represent every person on the earth - their view is also an opinion.

I have just had a quick chat on the IRC channel about this and the overwhelming majority there see's the word as being subjective but thinks it should be included with citations and attribution. The other suggestion was to use a different term such as 'Militant Organisation'. Along with the attribution of the word terrorist surely this is acceptable? I am not asking for the word to be removed completely, just that it is used in a NPOV manner.

Also, guidelines aren't just there for the sake of it. They are not policies, but they should be followed. You shouldn't just ignore them.-Localzuk^(talk) 21:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you have noone saying they arent terrorists? Do you have a WP:RS WP:V source of those people in Iraq saying that? The problem I have is you think its negative, not that it is. The people who support bin Laden, I believe, would not say he doesnt commit terrorism, just that the terrorism is okay because of who its against. I do not think anyone would say blowing up a car in a market in Iraq is not terrorism, or at least someone who can be taken seriously by Wikipedia. So present some sources of these people who pass WP:RS and WP:V stating they are not terrorists. --Nuclear Zer0 22:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O and please do not attempt to use IRC as proof of anything again, its actually not prefered since there is no proof of it and posting IRC logs are not permitted etc. You should know better then that. --Nuclear Zer0 22:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already done (here and on OBL, PLO etc... ad infinitum). You'll notice that the lead sentence says "armed islamist" and at the end of the intro we have a sentence saying "...is regarded as a terrorist org by ...". This is the standard format for all our militant islamist encyclopaedia. 86.71.62.251 21:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And that is all I, and others, are wanting.-Localzuk^(talk) 21:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but thats not how Wikipedia works, using one article for an excuse of another is pointless. One thing is broke so we break them all ... sorry doesnt work. --Nuclear Zer0 22:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as you do not seem to understand our policies and guidelines on this matter, I advise you to take it to somewhere else, such as the WP:WTA talk page or if you want something more specific, how about an RFC on the matter? I am definitely not going to change my mind on this. My idea is a compromise between not including the word at all and including it in an unsourced form. It follows our policies and guidelines, whereas your suggestion doesn't.-Localzuk^(talk) 22:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering your admission to not work toward some middle ground I consider this discussion closed. You have not provided any policy that states it cannot be listed as terrorist group, and further you have not presented a single source that says the group is not a terrorist group or that even certain people feel they are not. Since you are now working against the basic principle of Wikipedia I will simply choose to ignore your comments here unless they provide some evidence as requested. Thank you and good day. --Nuclear Zer0 22:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have already given several methods of compromise - attribution and citation. You are the one going against the community - ie. by breaking WP:WTA and WP:NPOV. I shall be requesting an RFC on this matter.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop wasting my time if you have no proof that they do not see themselves as terrorists or that someone that passes WP:RS and WP:V doesnt see them that way. --Nuclear Zer0 23:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Henry Bunel

I was going to edit this portion of the article out, but I figured I should say something here first. I don't really think the entry about Pierre Henry Bunel belongs in this article; it makes sweeping claims about the al-qaeda organization (going as far as to say that OBL is an "American agent"), and its only source is a left-leaning Canadian website.Trojan traveler 16:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]