Talk:Al-Qaeda/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I am new in talking and reaching consensus.

Anyways..

1)You stated that I am apparently a KSA linked account". This is false. If I was I would have done other info to white-wash KSA or its rulers. Infact, I don't deny that KSA did finance AQ affiliates across Yemen, Syria, etc. So did USA at one point in 80s, which is rarely acknowledged. (Directly or indirectly)

2) The fact that KSA & USA used to do this doesn't negate that other countries haven't. Infact, Pakistan have alleged of supporting it. However, what is proof is there is clear evidence of the Iranian regime aiding or abetting Al-Qaeda.

3) Its the 9/11 Commission report , various US Supreme Court judges that substantiated the connections of Iran and Al Qaeda as well as its support in various terror attacks. Are these Saudi or pro-Israel/neo-con think tank lobbies as well?

4) Statements of Iranian Generals themselves admitting their support to Al Qaeda. Are IRGC generals Saudi or pro-Israel/neo-con think tanks?

5) Statements of Bin Laden and Zawahiri themselves confirming their support from Iran. Are they too Saudi or neo-con think tanks?

6) Reporting of New York Times which reported the assassination of AQ no.2 in Iran. This is a *fact*, not fiction. A real event. Is NYT too Saudi or neo-con Think Tank?

7) Statements from Democratic Bill Clinton administration report on Embassy bombings, these are not "think tank interpretations". Its a statement which directly blamed Iran (in addition to Sudan)

8) Obama Administration, considered the most pro-Irab administration, sanctioning Iranian officials for harbouring AQ leaders. Is Obama too a neo-con?

9) The statements of Trump is as the President of U.S.A, not as a politician. Either way, Trump is a paleo-con and isolationist. So no grounds to delete his statement.

10) Pompeo is the only neo-con that was quoted who spat with Iran after assassination of Al Misri, AQ no.2. Again, the statement is as US secretary of state, not politician Pompeo. How can reporting facts be censured under the labels "neo-con" , "Saudi" , or whatever?

These are all political positions and it has nothing to do with facts. To link facts to a political position and then ban facts for being allegedly "political" ?

These perceptions are incorrect. First, you linked me with KSA. (Again assumptions based on your own political/individual tastes or biases) Then you said I made a lot of copyright violations. I agree. I am new here. And I didn't quite understand it. A moderator unbanned me after screening.

Even by your own reasons, you only have a problem with Pompeo speech(last section) on Iran-AQ axis since he's the only neo-con quoted. Even then, that needn't be deleted. I shall quote a refutation of Pompeo for exaggerating Iran-AQ ties.(which is probably true)

Even then, you need to understand that Pompeo's mainstream detractors didn't necessarily challenge Iran-AQ ties itself, only his exaggeration of it. The fact of an Iran-AQ strategic cooperation is now an established fact across all (mainstream)sections of geo-strategy/counter-terror experts. They only differ over its depth.

Hope you will reply User:TheTimesAreAChanging Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 11:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any academic specialists in your edit; your statement here contains a number of errors or unsubstantiated claims, such as the reference to "various US Supreme Court judges." I'm not sure what you mean by "(mainstream)sections of geo-strategy/counter-terror experts" in "The fact of an Iran-AQ strategic cooperation is now an established fact across all (mainstream)sections of geo-strategy/counter-terror experts," but if you are alluding to think tanks such as

WP:UNDUE weight.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk

) 12:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

If you don't like Heritage, see: Lawfare. https://www.lawfareblog.com/making-sense-iran-and-al-qaedas-relationship Lawfare institute is in cooperation with Brookings Institute both Liberal International thinktanks, nothing to do with neo-cons. One of the writers is a postdoctoral fellow at the Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC) at Stanford uni. Is he promoting "wild theories" as well?

Next,see what Obama era Committe on Homeland Security published in 2013. "Furthermore, Iran facilitated al-Qaeda members' travel in and out of Afghanistan prior to 9/11." Source:https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-113hhrg85684/html/CHRG-113hhrg85684.htm

It details Iranian ties to Al Qaeda. Also 2 former 9/11 Commission members disagreed with the Commission Report conclusion stating that Iran had direct involvement in 9/11 attacks. Are all these "nebulous theories" as well?

Also you didn't give a convincing reply to all my points which I wrote lengthy.Iran-AQ ties are acknowledged by Wikipedia elsewhere as well in "Iran and state-sponsored terrorism" article.

Anyways, I am undoing your deletion. I shall delete the statements of Pompeo (although in my view there's no reason except the alarming tone and more content) If you want anymore corrections, do reply.

User:TheTimesAreAChanging Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Disputed contents would better be well discussed before being added to such an important page. There is a famous saying: "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources"–

I fundamentally disagree with

WP:UNDUE weight problem. Does the average general-interest or academic text on al-Qaeda (which would be the appropriate analogue for this page) really focus so heavily on "connections" between Sunni Arab al-Qaeda and Shiite Persian Iran? I think that the answer is obviously no, and certainly nothing remotely close to those proportions (i.e., at least one page on Iran for every ten pages written about al-Qaeda) has been documented in any analysis of the voluminous coverage of al-Qaeda in academic or even general-interest sources. By comparison, the section on "Alleged Saudi and Emirati involvement" is a mere two sentences in length!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk

) 02:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

User:TheTimesAreChanging User:Mhhossein Okay I shall fundamentally decrease the section. However the claim that I didn't use "scholarly" source is false. 9/11 Commission Report is "something" unscholarly?

I shall decrease the contents. Obviously, total deletion of the section is not the way. If there's still contentions, do raise it here.

Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 05:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

User:TheTimesAreAChanging OK I agree that relations with other countries and AQ isn't something to be expanded. I ll try to limit it to less than 5 para Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 05:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

User:TheTimesAreAChanging I have decreased the content, this should do. However, some have tried to frame me for trying to "establish an Iranian relationship with Al Qaeda" which "doesn't exist". Obviously it does. It "doesnt exist" in the "worldview" of the allegators, either due to ignorance or biased by individual/political tastes. All the sources are from various federal court judges, the distinguished 9/11 Commission report, Obama-Clinton era state officials, admission of AQ as well as Iranian leaders, as well as real world events(for which there is no 2 interpretations). The propagators who just blindly reject all these proofs and facts are the ones actually embarking in "conspiracy or fringe theories". In addition, the AQ leadership itself is holed up in Iran, is that a "conspiracy theory" as well? Also to see international power relations in solely sectarian or political outlook is clearly childish. In politics, power trumps ideology. There are numerous examples throughout history wherein totally opposite camps( whether be it religion, sect,race or politics) have joined forces for perceived common interests. To ignore all this as "fringe conspiracy theory" is frankly ignorance or result of biased outlook.

Either way, I have shortened the data(which was a legit point). I hope there's no more issue.

If there are contentions,please do not delete, rather raise the issue for discussion. Thanks Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 07:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:SYNTHy statements from Trump and to a lesser extent Pompeo that fail to actually demonstrate the existence of an Iranian alliance of convenience with elements of al Qaeda. Trump is not generally considered a reliable source for factual statements and his assertion that Iran is a "leading state sponsor of terror" is based primarily on Iranian sponsorship of Shi'ite groups, especially Hezbollah, not al Qaeda in particular. The reliability of the Voice of America and Radio Farda citations in the last paragraph is also suspect, not least of all as they are being used to advance a rather extraordinary claim. As before, there are no academic sources in these paragraphs.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk

) 19:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

User:TheTimesAreAChanging It was never my intention "to demonstrate" Iranian support for Al Qaeda here. I am stating some facts and giving a summary. Mhhossein is also an active pro-Iranian wiki editor constantly creating Wikipedia articles in favour of Iran. (starting whole articles titled "alleged Saudi role in 9/11 attacks" as well as other pro-Iranian articles) etc. My writings ofcourse are not like that. And inevitably to use such a partisan like him as "moderator" in the dispute is unacceptable.

1) Trump is "not generally considered reliable" - depends upon the political side you are on. Again these are all assertions, not factual statements and even if we assume he isn't, it doesn't matter here. Since he is quoted here for allegations, not proving. Second, Trump's abrogation of nuclear deal and face-of with Iranian admin was a historical event and it is recorded here. 2) Not really. If you read that letter, it would be revealed that one of the primary objectives was to urge his followers not to clash with Iran, rather cooperate with it and Al Qaeda has never attacked Iran. 3) as for "extraordinary claims", this appears extraordinary to you since you have taken up to defend the Iranian government. This is a news, real-world event. Either way, I shall put more sources into it.

 Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Shadowwarrior8: Firstly, you need to immediately stop making ad hominem comments against other users. Concentrate on the content, not the users. You can take it as a warning. Now going through your, at best, SYNTHY compilation of POVs:

– Iran had established relations with Al-Qaeda allegedly since the 1990s. This YOUR conclusion which is bein awkwardly Wikivoiced here by you. It's not that of the reliable sources (also don't tell me Rafizadeh's stories in Arab News are your RSs). So, don't use it again (unless you have a reliable source for saying it as a fact).

– The 9/11 Commission Report concluded that "the relationship between al Qaeda and Iran demonstrated that Sunni-Shia divisions did not necessarily" pose an insurmountable barrier to cooperation in terrorist operations." This does not mean Iran had supported from the Al Qaida, as YOUR section heading falsely suggests.

– Al-Qaeda is also alleged to have played a significant role in the 1996 Khobar Towers Bombings conducted by Saudi Hezbollah Like wise has nothing to Iran Al Qaida story. Don't combine this sentence with others to reach your desired conclusion. It leads to

WP:SYNTH

.

– Bin Laden's letters to his followers wherein he urged them to not be hostile against Iran were found What kind of Iran support do you see here?

- Between 2001-2010 Al-Qaeda operatives, including Saif Al-Adel, Saad bin Laden, Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, had taken up residence in Iran. What the hell? Again you're using RAFIZADEH's unique stories as a source for building an encyclopedia. LOL! How about "A number of al-Qaeda militants and family members of Osama Bin Laden fled to Iran after the US-led invasion of neighbouring Afghanistan in 2001. Iranian officials said they crossed the border illegally and that they were arrested and extradited to their home countries." (BBC).

Also, I stand with the

@TheTimesAreAChanging If you didn't reach consensus my mistake, I thought you two guys had settled your dispute. But to say I am an alt-account of Shadowwarrior is just the figment of your imagination. Please don't make stupid remarks Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Timber Sycamore should be included Farbne (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Farbne, these are the parts of the article on Timber Sycamore that talk about al-Qaeda directly:

US-backed rebels often fought alongside al-Qaeda's al-Nusra Front, and some of the US-supplied weapons ended up in the hands of the al-Nusra Front, which had been a major concern of the Obama administration when the program was first proposed.^[1]

Reporter

al-Qaeda in Syria, comparing the program to CIA support for the Afghan mujahideen, or American weaponry being seized by ISIL in 2014 in Mosul, Iraq.^[2]

The al-Qaeda article is already long.

SIZERULE recommends articles be split once they're over 50kB; al-Qaeda is almost 250kB. Is Timber Sycamore strongly enough connected to warrant a spot in the main article?—A L T E R C A R I  ✍

00:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Definitely not. Totally beyond due weight in this particular article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Add "Iran - Alleged Al-Qaeda involvement" to See also?

I was going to add Iran - Alleged Al-Qaeda Involvement to See also, but given the very recent RfC I thought it best to seek consensus first. My rationale for this addition is that we note in the infobox "Alleged, Denied", therefore it seems appropriate to provide further information about the controversy. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 18:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Since it's been 12 days with no comment, I added "Iran - Alleged Al-Qaeda ties" to "See also". Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 04:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

"Widely regarded as terrorist"

Currently the article describes AlQaeda as terrorist in wikivoice. Personally, I agree they are a terrorist org but according to

MOS:TERRORIST we should probably write this as "widely described as a terrorist organization". So I'll make that change.VR _talk

04:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I have just changed it. It does not need to be in that sentence as the next paragraph states which states (pun intended) designate it a terrorists organisation. See "Let the facts speak for themselves" -- PBS (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

al-Zawahiri bin Laden's mentor?

Qutb also influenced bin Laden's mentor, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

I have serious doubts if al-Zawahiri can be described as bin Laden's mentor.

ISBN 978-1-9821-7052-3

.

This declaration of war made no mention of Zawahiri’s lifelong goal of overthrowing the “near-enemy” Egyptian regime and instead was focused on bin Laden’s “far-enemy” goal of attacking America. Nor did the declaration cite Sayyid Qutb, Zawahiri’s key ideological guide, who had made the case in the 1960s that secular Arab regimes should be overthrown. Instead, the declaration cited the medieval Islamic scholar Ibn Taymiyya, who had advanced the idea that jihad was the most important duty of a Muslim after belief in Allah. Bin Laden had co-opted Zawahiri to be part of his holy war against the United States, not the other way around, which was the dominant narrative in the years after the 9/11 attacks.

p. 92

The urtext for the view that Zawahiri wielded Svengali-like influence over bin Laden was Lawrence Wright’s story in The New Yorker, “The Man Behind Bin Laden,” published a year after the 9/11 attacks. The article asserted that “according to officials in the C.I.A. and the F.B.I., Zawahiri has been responsible for much of the planning of the terrorist operations against the United States.” In fact, there is no evidence that Zawahiri had a role in the planning of any of al-Qaeda’s major anti-American attacks against the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000, and 9/11 itself. Wright went on to win a Pulitzer Prize for his 2006 book, The Looming Tower, a book that has many strengths, but that also inflated Zawahiri’s role in bin Laden’s anti-American jihad. Wright did, however, note in The Looming Tower that when Zawahiri merged his small group into al-Qaeda in June 2001, it “was bin Laden’s organization, not Zawahiri’s.” I had also overestimated Zawahiri’s importance to bin Laden’s thinking in my 2001 book, Holy War, Inc. After examining all of the evidence, I have since concluded that Zawahiri was a marginal figure when it came to influencing bin Laden’s views, and he played only a minor role in the actions of al-Qaeda in the years leading up to the 9/11 attacks. This view is also shared by Michael Scheuer, who led the bin Laden unit at CIA from 1996 to 1999; by Daniel Coleman, the FBI agent who investigated bin Laden for six years before 9/11; and by the Egyptian dissident Montasser al-Zayyat, who spent years in prison in Egypt with Zawahiri. Zayyat explained, “Osama bin Laden had an appreciable impact on Zawahiri, though the conventional wisdom holds the opposite to be the case. Bin Laden advised Zawahiri to stop armed operations in Egypt and to ally with him against their common enemies: the United States and Israel.” This was also the conclusion of Noman Benotman, a former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, who knew both bin Laden and Zawahiri, who said it was bin Laden who told Zawahiri, “Forget about the ‘near enemy’ [the Egyptian government]. The main enemy is the Americans because they dominate the whole area and they’re supporting these Arab regimes.” Abu Walid al-Misri, an Egyptian living in Afghanistan who knew both bin Laden and Zawahiri well, also says that Zawahiri played only a minor role in al-Qaeda before the 9/11 attacks.

In fact, Azzam was bin Laden's mentor.

ISBN 978-1-9821-7052-3

.

The Palestinian cleric Abdullah Azzam, who in the mid-1980s would become bin Laden’s key mentor, took up arms against the Israelis after the Israeli army took his hometown in Palestine during the 1967 war. Azzam, then a twenty-six-year-old high school teacher, moved into neighboring Jordan and joined military training facilities known as “the bases of the sheiks,” and he took part in small-scale raids into Israeli territory. These were the beginning of Azzam’s forays into what would become effectively his full-time career of fomenting holy war and also writing influential books inciting jihad.

ISBN 978-0-19-979065-4

.

Psychologically and spiritually, the Afghan jihad shaped bin Laden more than any school had. His mentor, Shaykh Abdullah Azzam, a charismatic Jordanian of Palestinian descent, provided ideological and theological guidance and became a driving force behind bin Laden’s entry into the jihad environment. Bin Laden looked on Azzam as a spiritual father and mentor, and fell under his spell. Azzam was to bin Laden what Qutb was to Zawahiri. Both Azzam and Qutb belonged to a radical Islamist school of thought, though with similarities and differences, and both were martyred.

--Jo1971 (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

"Alleged allies" in infobox

Can we please remove these overly cited speculations that countries like United States, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates etc.. are "allies" to Al Qaeda from the infobox and restrict them to the text? These overly speculations made by analysts can be contradictory to each other and are mere speculations that are denied by all accused countries. At this point, we can include every country in the world as "allies" to Al Qaeda based on some analysis. Might as well include China, Russia, North Korea, Japan, India, and the whole European union in the infobox without context as the infobox does not provide the platform to explain the context from the sources cited as the text. Gorebath (talk) 04:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Totally agree. It's not how infoboxes should be used. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of

Qaedat al-Jihad into Al-Qaeda

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion was to merge. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 22:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

---

The name Qaedat al-Jihad is the formal name of Al-Qaeda as you can see in the beginning of Qaedat al-Jihad article, so why don't we just merge it into al-Qaeda plus the info in this article is added in the page of al-Qaeda. Kiro Bassem (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Support 'Qaedat al-Jihad' and Al-Qaeda are the same thing. I don't understand why this page is separate anyways. PatriotMapperCDP (talk) 7:52 PM 22 August 2021 (EST)

Strong Support Yeah, they are the same thing, see Name. 197.52.52.134 (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Support they are the same thing Crimsonlux (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Support From reading the Qaedat al-Jihad article, yeah it's ridiculous that the two articles haven't been merged yet. They should be merged and the "official name" should be mentioned in the main al-Qaeda article. --Kaleb David (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Support yep, they are the same thing, I wonder why they weren't merged from along time. 102.46.87.122 (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Super Support It's just an alternative name. Other articles have (alternatively known as) or (professionally known as) as an introduction. I see no reason why it can't be merged with the parent article. 2406:5A00:B488:1C00:9E04:9E08:7C0A:1DB8 (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Support No reason for a different article when it's just a different name Areferencetopeterkropotkins1892booktheconquestofbread (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Support per nom - DownTownRich (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Support per nom. It's been more than 5 months since the proposal was submitted. and no one opposed the proposal. So why isn't it being closed? --খাত্তাব হাসান (talk) 09:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2022

This edit request to Al-Qaeda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2A02:A03F:60A0:CA00:F552:69F8:CC10:5FFC (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I want add like info on Kosovo and macedonia also allies bc there more than that for example u should put USA (1992-2001)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Infobox length

Can we trim the infobox? It is ridiculously long, spanning from the lead down four sections on my desktop browser. ― 

Talk

05:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2022

This edit request to Al-Qaeda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove suggestion that the Ukrainian government supports Al-Qaeda. The source does submit any evidence (or even mention, for that matter) an affiliation between the Ukrainian State and the Al-Qaeda organization. For this reason, any such conclusion can certainly be considered unfounded and biased. 190.230.190.222 (talk) 03:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done —Sirdog (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

"2009 attempted defection of 5 Virginians" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect

2009 attempted defection of 5 Virginians and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 8#2009 attempted defection of 5 Virginians until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TraderCharlotte (talk

) 03:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2022

This edit request to Al-Qaeda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Saif al-Adel will be the new leader of Al-Qaeda Frisk4o (talk) 04:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

asking

who is the al qeada leader now after the ayman zwahiri 149.54.12.132 (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

size of armies

a lot of these army sizes are outdated 66.172.248.7 (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2022

This edit request to Al-Qaeda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

It's a shi not suni 212.34.22.136 (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a

"change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me

) 17:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Date of foundation is contested

A comment regarding this edit. The date and the founding members are contested and there is no clear evidence that Abdallah Azzam really attended the alleged foundation meeting (he was not even an al-Qaeda member).

Hegghammer, Thomas (2020). The Caravan. Abdallah Azzam and the Rise of Global Jihad. Cambridge University Press. p. 352.

ISBN 978-0-521-76595-4

.

Precisely when al-Qaida was founded is not clear. Until recently, it was believed that the group emerged in August 1988, because the Tareekh Osama collection contains documents that can be interpreted that way.

p. 353

However, this appears to be a misinterpretation, as Mustafa Hamid and Leah Farrall have also argued. For one, the content of the three documents is not what one might expect from the record of a constituent assembly. The language is vague, at times almost cryptic, and the tone of the recorded discussion is polemic rather than unified and enthusiastic.
[...]
A more plausible interpretation of the three documents is therefore that they record meetings in which representatives of an already existing al-Qaida organization unveiled their new plans to representatives of the Services Bureau so as to get their approval and coordinate their activities with them. This would explain why the unnamed sheikh in the 11 August meeting – who was most likely Tamim al-Adnani (more on this below) – comes across as so defensive of the status quo. It also would explain the presence of Abu Burhan and Tamim al-Adnani in the latter meetings.
This interpretation is strengthened by two other sources which suggest that al-Qaida had been founded before the August 1988 meeting. One is the testimony of Mustafa Hamid, who says the group had been founded in the autumn of 1987. The other is Madani al-Tayyib, who told Lawrence Wright that he had joined al-Qaida on 17 May 1988, leading Wright to note that “the organizational meeting on August 11 only brought to the surface what was already covertly under way.” On balance, then, al-Qaida appears to have been founded earlier than previously believed, although it is not possible to specify a foundation date. Early 1988 seems a good bet, but any time between August 1987 and July 1988 is conceivable.

p. 354

Abdallah Azzam has often been described as a “co-founder of al-Qaida,” but this is almost certainly inaccurate. In fact, there is no evidence to suggest that he was anything more than an observer during the emergence of the new group. The confusion about Azzam’s relationship with al-Qaida has two origins. The first is the article titled “al-qa‘ida al-sulba” (the Solid Base) which Azzam wrote in al-Jihad magazine in April 1988. Some analysts have interpreted this article as a concept paper for an al-Qaida organization, but it is not. The article merely says Afghanistan is the territorial base on which the Islamist movement must establish itself before it can make further conquests. The second source of confusion has been the Tareekh Osama documents. Lawrence Wright and others have suggested that Azzam attended or even initiated the first of the August 1988 meetings which, in their interpretation, led to the foundation of al-Qaida. However, as we have seen, these meetings were probably not about the founding of al-Qaida in the first place. Moreover, the evidence for Azzam’s presence there is slim, as he is not mentioned explicitly as an attendee in any of the three key Tareekh Osama documents.

Hamid, Mustafa; Farrall, Leah (2015). The Arabs at War in Afghanistan. London: Hurst & Company. p. 108–111.

ISBN 978-1-84904-420-2

.

MH: To my knowledge this meeting in 1988 was not to form al-Qaeda, because the organisation was already in the process of being established. It was to form a joint Arab Council to oversee the work in the Arab-Afghan yard, which at that time had a number of issues relating to mismanagement and disorganisation, as well as disagreements as to who should be in charge of what.
LF: Yes, that was my interpretation too, particularly since bin Laden’s remark looks to be part of a conversation about the performance of the Arab-Afghans: how time had passed and things were still not organised and goals were not met in the military work. In that context, the conversation looks to be about solidifying what was already in place for al-Qaeda, and streamlining training and membership selection processes, as well as planning and coordinating the work.
[...]
LF: Just to clarify: the group existed before the training started on this practical path Abu Ubaydah wanted, but it was not fully organised?
MH: Yes, as I said, after Jaji people rushed to join al-Qaeda; it was not prepared for this and it took some time for the work to be organised, especially in the training.

--Jo1971 (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• InfoboxHez.PNG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)