Talk:Al-Qaeda/Archive 3

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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

I suggest that we start with the part of the introduction in which everyone agrees and use this as a bare minimum on which to build. Can everyone agree with this much of the introduction?

Al-Qaeda (

Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, its stated purpose is to rid the Islamic world of outside coercion. The United States, United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Australia

, and many other governments consider Al-Qaeda to be included in the following definition of terrorism:

1. It intimidates or coerces the government or civil population
2. It breaks criminal laws
3. It endangers human life

The United States attributes Al-Qaeda with the

September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City, the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., and other attacks. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are the most recognized figureheads of Al-Qaeda, although terrorism experts

believe that Al-Qaeda has grown into a movement where most members have no contact with the figureheads.

If we can agree on this much, we can use it as a foundation and add to it. In doing so, please try to be objective. When we let our passions spill out onto the page, our definition becomes nothing but rhetoric—-it becomes unbelievable—-and that doesn’t do anyone any good.

The biggest error in this article is resolved when one considers what was said by Robin Cook in the London Guardian on 8 July 2005. Robin Cook was former British Former Secretary, former British intelligence agency MI-6 top official, and once had control of the British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). If anyone is qualified to define the facts of Al-Qaeda, it's he. He wrote:

"Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1523838,00.html)

The essential facts of this statement are: 1) Al-Qaeda was created by the United States; 2) Al-Qaeda's roots are political, not religious (STOP SLANDERING THE MUSLIM FAITH, but it is mostly the muslim faith because it is the catalyst for this movement: From the handbook of the Al Qaeda, "The most truthful saying is the book of Allah and the best guidance"); 3) Al-Qaeda was/is a derivation from people willing and able to serve American policy goals.

Auxiliary conclusions:

The CIA being what it is, the ties between Al-Qaeda and the CIA are not likely severed, because the CIA doesn't just "break things off" and Al-Qaeda serves the Bush administration's policy goals (eg generating public support for invading Iraq (9/11), distracting the public from the Downing St memos that establish that false pretext was created for the US-led invasion of Iraq (July 2005 London bombing), etc)

Based on the major media (and Wikipedia) assumptions about the nature of Al-Qaeda, people generally have a short supply of accurate knowledge about the history and present purpose of Al-Qaeda. Even if Al-Qaeda was NOT a CIA-created organization, Osama himself stated that Al-Qaeda terror was committed as acts of revenge for what the non-Muslim Western world has inflicted upon the Middle East. This relegates the religious component of the network as a secondary factor, behind the socio-economic factors for the hatred.

An example is illustrative. Some black people in the United States harbor hatred against white people due to the extensive history of slavery and racial repression that still persists in the U.S. prison system. Although race is not THE reason for the hatred (the slavery and opppression were the primary reason), the racial pattern makes it a workable division. Likewise, while Al-Qaeda has declared its hatred for Christians and Jews, this hatred really stems from the historical pattern of war that has (probably intentionally, though not necessarily) been framed around religious, racial, or national divisions. In the greater picture, these fractures have been used to manipulate people for the benefit of economic and imperial interests.

(above inserted by 134.215.217.104)

The Cook article is the first time I have seen that claim and I daresay he is probably wrong. I have never heard of "al-qaeda" being translated as "the database" as in a computer file but always as "the base" as in a physical location where members of the network interact. Not necessarily a formal military base but more at "base of operations." The "database" translation is totally new to me and it would be odd if you would say "database" with the same word in Arabic (though I invite correction from an Arabic speaker, which I am not). I think Cook probably misremembered what he had read in Benjamin and Simon or somewhere like that.--csloat 21:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't like a lot of this stuff, actually, even stuff that intersects with the current intro. E.g., "alliance of militant Islamist organizations" - lesquels? Can we name even one? If we can, it would probably be, err, Islamic Jihad which... means little or nothing at this point. Where did we learn that it is so structured? Where did we learn its "stated purpose"? That "definition of terrorism" bit is as awkward as a newborn lamb. Moreover, I think this intro puts too much emphasis on the nebulous present state of al-Qaeda, whereas I think the definite history of al-Qaeda is a better frame for the intro. Graft 03:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. Here are my reasons for wording it such:

• I agree that the definition of terrorism is awkward, but that is the exact language of the USA Act to define terrorism, and is thus adopted as the official definition for the PATRIOT Act and the War on Terrorism.
• An alliance can be loose or strong. It doesn't have to be more structured than a common goal. For instance, the group claiming responsibility for the London bombings is believed to be an organization allied with bin Laden's group only through purpose.
• Osama bin Laden has stated the purpose of Al Qaeda in his videos and writings. They are available at [english.aljazeera.net]
• I believe that the definite history was covered in the Intro. People usually like to have a brief idea of the current status of the item as well.

How would you word the intro? --Zephram Stark 04:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

That "alliance" bit is extraordinarily weak. I'd like this article to stick to the narrow definition of al-Qaeda as "bin Laden's group", which is how it was originally coined. In that sense, "allied through purpose" is basically meaningless. Does Shamil Basayev's group in Chechnya count? Or the IMU in Uzbekistan? Both of these are ostensibly "allied in purpose" with bin Laden, but I see no particular reason to call them "al-Qaeda".

As to "definite history", I meant: al-Qaeda should refer in the intro to the organization that bin Laden formed in 1996, not to the nebulous idea-thing it has become since 2002. References to him as a figurehead, etc., are thus not in line with that notion.

How I'd word the intro is not the issue at this point - I'd like to make clear what it is we'd like to say first. There seems to be substantial disagreement here on what this page is exactly about. Graft 05:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that we want this page to be about the facts. There is substantial disagreement, but I believe we can find some parts of the definition that are universally self-evident. If we start with the generally accepted, we can add more subjective parts to the definition as a second step. --Zephram Stark 22:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the use of the phrase "The United States attributes Al-Qaeda with the

September 11, 2001, attacks", as the AQ leadership has itself come out claiming credit for the attacks, and so it is misleading to phrase it such as to imply that there is some reasonable dispute over who actually committed the 9/11 attacks. Only people who've lost all touch with reality, and habitually wear tin-foil hats while looking out for black helicopters flying overhead, would claim that it wasn't AQ which committed the 9/11 attacks. I see no reason why such complete loons should be given any credence on wikipedia. Rich333

09:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

How about this as an agreed foundation on which to build?

Al-Qaeda (

USA Act

):

1. it intimidates or coerces the government or civil population; and
2. it breaks criminal laws; and
3. it endangers human life

Al-Qaeda is credited with the

September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City, the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., and other international attacks against military and civilian targets. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are senior members of Al-Qaeda's shura

council, and are believed to be in contact with some of the other cells of the movement.

If nobody has a problem with the neutrality of the above description, does anyone disagree with using it as our introduction and taking off the NPOV dispute? --Zephram Stark 13:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Is there anything objective that anyone would like to add to above proposed introduction? Please remember that all additions must not create primary or secondary sources of information, and that another editing war will only result in the page being locked again. If you have concerns with the proposed intoduction, now is the time to voice them. --Zephram Stark 20:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the second version, taking out "an international alliance of militant Islamist organizations" makes it appear that "a cadre of Arab fighters" is what it is today, which is wrong. That may have been what they started out as but my guess is that the minority of those who would call themselves members today have that background. Is "militant Islamist organizations" POV?? If so, how? Also I would like reference to the Madrid and London bombings after the 9/11 attacks, as they are highly publicized acts of Al-Qaeda. TH 09:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with what you say, TH. Taking your thoughts to their logical conclusion, however, would require us to disassociate the pictures and names of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri as leaders of the movement, since they had nothing to do with the London bombings. In essence, it would be conceding that the movement has grown beyond an "alliance of militant Islamist organizations." Terrorist experts believe this to be true, but are the editors of Wikipedia willing to concede that killing Osama and Ayman will do nothing to damage the movement? --Zephram Stark 17:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Who claims that London and Madrid are AQ's work? As the recent revelations about the shooting of the young Brazilian in London show, there is a lot of hype - and too many people running with it, instead of checking out facts. Take the London bombing: a bunch of British youths fed up with UK policies and wanting to do 'their bit' for Islam. Misguided, yes. Serious terrorist (on the scale and sophistication of 9/11) no. Especially the second lot, who couldn't even get their bombs to detonate. AQ is great for the media, but as long as we chase after a phantom enemy, we'll never win this 'war on terror'.

You're right. It doesn't make sense when you think about Al-Qaeda as a hierarchal organization with Usama at the head. That's why most terrorism experts consider Al-Qaeda to be a self-perpetuating movement with no direct influence between most of its self-proclaimed members.

We've seen it happen numerous times through history and it's a very effective means of overthrowing a corrupt and powerful government:

1. A small band gives the government an excuse to take more control of its citizens.
2. Citizens feel their freedoms being subverted and rebel.
3. The corrupt government can't tell the difference between trouble-makers and concerned citizens, so it labels them all terrorists, evil-doers, or some such nonsense and tightens control even more.
4. More citizens feel their freedom taken and join the rebellion.
5. The cycle continues until the rebellion grows into a revolution and the government is overthrown. (The terrorists win.)

In rare occasions, like in Holland a few decades ago, the people seem to learn from history and break the cycle, but more cases are like the demise of the Soviet Union by a few dozen terrorists in Afghanistan. Granted, it took a while to bleed the USSR dry, but that's because they were only burning the equivalent of twenty billion a year on their futile war. The United States can't possibly hold out as long while going a half trillion a year farther into debt. --Zephram Stark 03:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

---

I am new to posting here. I am trying to do a blog on Al-Qaeda's structure. According to Bahukutumbi Raman Punishment Terrorism. Bin Laden did not refer to the organisation as Al-Qaeda until after the January 2001 WTC Trial. The term Al-Qaeda was purely a domestic code.

I'm trying to put together a blog on the subject:

Al-Qaeda structure blog

Please feel free to reference this & it is a good idea to look up further articles & papers by Bahukutumbi Raman as well as Jason Burke.

---

I dispute the neutrality of the Al-Qaeda article. Subjective terms like "radical form," "terrorist," "extremist objectives," "liberal democracies," and "fundamentalist" betray the bias of the author.

Moreover, the article is factually incorrect. The term Al-Qaeda is an attempt to reduce the perception of a world-wide insurrection with millions of members to a manageable few thousand "terrorists." Usama bin Ladin has broadcast repeatedly that he and his followers have one goal: the unification of the Islamic states. Everything else in this article ascribing his motives is an extrapolation or a fabrication.

No leader of the insurrection has ever masterminded or intentionally inspired terrorism or an attack against a civilian target. The conspicuous absence of coercion in these attacks negates the author's assertion that they are "terrorist attacks."

One merely needs to listen to Usama bin Ladin's account of the September 11, 2001 attacks to know of his motivations: the two biggest threats to the Arab world today are the United States Military and Globalization. The Pentagon and the World Trade Center were the nerve centers of these threats. Weakening or destroying them was of strategic military importance and had absolutely nothing to do with the author's accusations of terrorism.

You're joking, right? You somehow find this to be a mainstream (antonym of "radical form") of Islam? - Tεxτurε (Tanstaafl is a nutter)7 July 2005 20:02 (UTC)

That certainly depends on your point of view. Most members of the movement would not call it radical. 7 July 2005 20:55 (UTC)

"Radical" means "root" (yes, even in the political sense, although some people seem to have bastardized it into meaning "extreme", thats not really what it means), Al-Queda means "the base", or alternatively "the root". So if they have no problem with the name Al Queda, then I don't see how they could have a problem with being called "radical" (ok, other than the fact that the word has been bastardised in modern politcal discourse). --Brentt 08:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, most schizophrenics deny their schizophrenia. Mr. Billion 7 July 2005 23:43 (UTC)

Nevertheless, neither the wording nor the general theme of the Al-Qaeda article can be considered written in a Neutral Point of View. If the Globalists want to write it and protect it so it cannot be changed, they should at least have the decency to add an NPOV_dispute notification. I have logged a Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection that reads "An NPOV dispute of the currently-protected Al-Qaeda page has been logged in the Discussion Tab for that article. The page must be unprotected in order for a NPOV_dispute notification to be added on the page. I can find no stated reason for locking the page in either the discussions or in the list of protected articles, but I suspect that the page is locked because the author knows that the current article does not adhere to the NPOV philosophy of Wikipedia."

A notification was added 8 July 2005 which claims that the current article was protected from editing to deal with vandalism. By going through the history of this article, one can see that April versions were written closer to a Neutral Point of View and that the currently protected version is the one that has been vandalized.[1]

An NPOV_dispute notification was added 8 July 2005, but the blatantly biased terms "radical form," "terrorist," "extremist objectives," "liberal democracies," and "fundamentalist" remain in the article. Pictures of leaders of one of the autonomous cells are still associated with the entire movement, endorsing the highly disputed American contention that the insurgence is managable and that martyrdom of Usama bin Ladin will damage the movement. I could list dozens of examples of partiality, but anyone looking from a Neutral Point of View can see that the entire theme of the article supports subjective claims of one party of the war as truth while ignoring fundamental claims of the other party. Not only is the use of an encyclopedia for the villification of an enemy unethical, it is also a dangerous over-simplification that can lead to wars that have no winning scenario.

"Extremist" is "One who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, especially in politics." according to American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Now considering the hundreds of millions of Muslims who don't blow things up in order to overthrow Western society, it's safe to say Al-Qaeda's measures are fairly far beyond the norm. Same goes for radical.

What possible problem could you have with "liberal democracies"? Al-Qaeda's founders, associates and members have explicitly spoken out against "decadent" democracy, calling it by name, on numerous occasions. And they are also known to loathe the tolerance and freedom (sexual, religious, etc) in Western societies. So "liberal democracies" is pretty much what they dislike, yeah.

The definition of "fundamentalist" that is usually used is a ultraconservative religious doctrine involving strict and total obedience to said religion as well as intolerance for other faiths. It's used in "Christian fundamentalist" fairly frequently too. I would personally disagree that what Al-Qaeda or the people who get called Christian fundamentalists want is a basic return to the fundamentals of their respective religion, but that's immaterial.

The pictures of leaders are pictures of people associated with or suspected of being associated with Al-Qaeda, and the article makes it very clear this is the case. Don't see your problem. --Jamieli 17:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that you can make an argument for al-Qaeda being extremist. As you can see, there are also people who can make an argument that they are not. Regardless, extremist is a highly subjective term that conveys no information except your personal feelings on the subject. An encyclopedia definition is for facts, not passionate subjectivity.

I would love to discuss your definition of democracy that seems to be in direct contradiction to the founding principles of the United States, your definition of freedom that seems to exclude the right of people to choose their own form of government, or how you think two people in a cave control a world-wide movement, but this isn't the place for it. An encyclopedia is for factual information and objective definitions. Thanks for helping to keep Wikipedia factual. --Zephram Stark 14:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Since when is the word "terrorist" biased? See terrorism:

The most common criteria are that:

The motive is political or religious

The target is civilian/noncombatant

The objective is to intimidate

The perpetrator is non-governmental

The act was unlawful

The act was violent

The act was premeditated

Al Qaeda has political motives - they target civilians - the attempt to intimidate - they are non-governmental - they commit unlawful acts - they commit voilent acts - they commit premeditated acts.

So if they meet all of the criteria of the definition of terrorism, then why can't we call them terrorists? Why are we trying to santize our language? Why can't we call a spade a spade anymore? If we let political correctness take over in this war on terror, we are doomed to failure :(

Larryfooter 9 July 2005 01:52 (UTC)

On this basis, the United States, Britian and Australia have all engaged in "terrorism", most notably when the United States used incendiary weapons against civilians in Fallujah. The entire act of invading Iraq was unlawful (since the UN never approved it), and it was pre-meditated, extreemly violent, and intended to further the coalition's interest. That aside, "terrorist" is normally considered a prejudicial term - one man's terrorist is another man's solider, resistance fighter, hero, whatever. There is no doubt the Osama bin Laden is a hero to many millions of people worldwide, capitalist propaganda notwithstanding. If Wiki is about neutrality, then either label both factions (Islamic Fundamentalists and Market Fundamentalists) as terrorists, or label neither. A good alternative label for al-Qaeda members would be "activists". Mark Micallef 04:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

If you’re going to rely on User:Jayjg’s book of Doublespeak for your definition, I guess you could justify anything you want. Even though NPOV definitions have been proposed for the term Terrorism (see Discussion), User:Jayjg reverts anything he sees in that and many other articles, regardless of their factual content and neutrality, when the content does not fit his blatantly biased view of reality. Please don’t take my word for it; you can see for yourself:

1. User_talk:Jayjg#Please_stop_edit-warring_with_your_POV.21
2. User_talk:Jayjg#Blocking
3. User_talk:Jayjg#Soapboxing.3F
4. User_talk:Jayjg#Your_Terrorism_Revert
5. User_talk:Jayjg#RE:__Witkacy_WP:POINT
6. User_talk:Jayjg#Striver
7. Special:Contributions/Jayjg

If you would like an NPOV definition of terrorism, I suggest using Webster’s International Dictionary-First-Third Editions—Terrorism: a mode of governing, or of opposing government, by terror and intimidation—or Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary—Terrorism: the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion.

There have been several definitions of Terrorism over the centuries, but they all include the use of terror and at least some type of coercion. They have never been constrained to “non-governmental perpetrators,” “unlawful acts,” “premeditated acts,” “violent acts,” “political or religious motivations,” or “the targeting of civilians.” These constraints were only added after 9/11/01 by Americans to our unique definition for the sole purpose of propaganda. Our beloved president called the attack “terrorism.” How was it terrorism? Where was the coercion? How were our actions against Iraq not in the same category? We needed a new definition of terrorism. That’s where the ambiguity came into play.

Wikipedia has no definitive definition of terrorism because codifying it in ANY manner would show how our beloved president’s use of the term is inconsistent, contradictory, and brimming with irony.--Zephram Stark 9 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)

The 9/11 attacks were designed to create terror and create fervour among would-be supporters, nothing more. Your suggestion it was undertaken as a militaristic task is just ridiculous. The target was symbolic, not military. There are many, many, more targets of more military worth if that's what they wanted, ones that would be a lot easier to target. They struck the 9/11 towers because it was a SYMBOL of globalisation and US power, not because of strategic worth. They wished to create terror in the minds of the people who perpretrate the actions they opposed, and the people who support the actions. Al-Qaeda are not stupid, they do not believe blowing up the offices of Verizon, Avis and some Asian banks is going to have any real effect other than terrifying the public. When the US bombed things in its invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan, it did (or does) it to weaken the government it's trying to kick out. Not to terrify or anger the public. An act of terrorism would be if, for example, they started intentionally bombing Muslim shrines, or intentionally bombing crowded city centers, or something. So even if we accept the Webster's definition, Al-Qaeda still fits it, and the US actions in Iraq don't.

As for the definition of terrorism, a US report on terrorism released in late 2000 says the same thing about the organizations being non-governmental. So it's not a post-9/11 thing at all. And anyway, what difference does it make....whether the definition is non-governmental or not, Al-Qaeda still fits the bill.

"unlawful acts" is troublesome as it doesn't define under which laws it would be illegal. But it's immaterial, Al-Qaeda fits the bill anyway.

"premeditated acts" is weird. I've never heard of spontaneous, spur-of-the-moment terrorism.

can't see what problem you'd have with "political or religious motivations" (what other motivations are there?) or "targeting civilians". --Jamieli 17:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

This article is an embarrassment; "Bin Laden and the MAK were aided by the governments of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, but never by the United States, which channeled all of its support via the Pakistani intelligence service, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Directorate.". Why have "but never by the United States"... trying to cover up the fact that the US supported the people who were to become Al-Qaeda. The rest of the paragraph goes on to say no one knew who was receiving all this money. If you beleive this you are a moron....

I have to agree with the anon poster above - it's quite clear that the MAK did get support from the US indirectly through the ISI. The disclaimer in the text stands out as a little too defensive and it distorts the reality.--csloat 03:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I was going to fix that bit, but the page is locked. Is that for a good reason, still? Graft 02:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I have changed the wording of the main paragraph of complaint - well, the only I have seen a specific complaing against: "Bin Laden and the MAK were aided by the governments of"... and also removed NPOV tag. If someone wants to put it back, be my guest but please describe your reasons in detail so we can have a civilized discussion about it. TH 22:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Most of the specific NPOV disputes above and below have not been addressed. --Zephram Stark 14:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

That statement is just clarifying a common misconception, namely that the US directly funded AQ at some point. The funding of Afghani rebel forces, in their fight against the Soviet invasion, did end up in the hands of some of those who later became members of AQ and the Taliban, just as some of that same funding ended up in the hands of those who would later become the Northern Alliance. I get the feeling you'd rather have the article state "See! See! The US created and funded Al Qaeda! Americans eat Muslim babies, and drink the blood of the innocent!", but such nonsense does not belong in wikipedia. Rich333 09:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

This is a good point. If you are going to specifically implicate the U.S. through its aid to the mujahadeen of Afghanistan as responsible for the predictable (and predicted) but inevitable birth of an entity such as Al-Qaeda, you must also specifically include the U.K., China, Egypt and many others--even Israel--who contributed to the anti-Soviet campaign. To even attempt this you'd have to first establish this foreign aid to the mujahadeen as a prerequisite to the existance of Al-Qaeda.

I think the current formulation does that better than the former one... Graft 13:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

According to that book by Daniel Benjamin, Sacred Terror, the name Al Qaeda was in fact used by Al Qaeda prior to 911. For some reason, I have seen the assertion on several Wiki pages that the name was coined by Western govts and Al qaeda adopted it later for media effect. But Benjamin's book cites one of Ramzi Yusef's buddies getting stopped on entry into the US prior to the first 1993 WTC attack with a book. The FBI mis-translated the title as the Foundation or something similar. (I don't have the book with me right now!) Only later did they realize what it meant, since the Arabic word was al Qa'eda. So that seems like prima facie evidence that al Qaeda was used at least once internally. And FYI Ramzi Yusef managed to slip away after that incident despite his friend getting arrested/deported. If anyone has the book and can cite the page, we can put the "Al Qaeda didn't use that name" bit to rest. Willowx 13:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't mean they used it as the name of an organisation, though. Some groups refer to their organisation as, for instance, "the Army", as the IRA do, but it isn't a formal name.

Ben Bulben 14:41, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But I think this already shows that the claim that the name was never used at all prior to 2001 to be false. Maybe the extent of the use of the name as their official name could be disputed. But swallowing a BBC documentary's version of events uncritically is surely a mistake. Nonetheless, the article is too onesided if it omits this dispute, since it makes it appear as if it the BBC version is not challenged. Willowx 5 July 2005 14:31 (UTC)

You've inserted your rebuttal on the Al-Qaeda name into the "Is al-Qaeda real?" section. They are two slightly different things. As it stands that section doesn't challenge the name per-se. I would suggest insertion at the top around "The origin of the name "al-qaeda" is disputed" or slight rewording to make it clearer that the program did challenge the name. Robneild 5 July 2005 17:14 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that it's been stated repeatedly that the name "al-Qaeda" has been used since at least 1998 after the embassy bombings. You can find it in numerous reports. Graft 5 July 2005 17:36 (UTC)

I've done researches about the earliest use of "al-Qaeda" or "al-Qaida" to refer as a terrorist organization, and the earliest document I could find mentionning it is from August 14th, 1996 STATE DEPARTMENT ISSUES FACTSHEET ON BIN LADIN. By the way, I'd also like to mention that Osama bin Laden has never mentionned in any of his interviews "al-Qaeda" or "al-Qaida", the only times "he" mentions it is in his videos which are widely believed to be authentic.

--SuperBleda 23:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

According to Benjamin and Simon it was used by OBL as far back as 1993 I believe. Loretta Napoleoni also makes this claim as I recall. I don't think it's very controversial. I think the question is what it referred to at the time and most people seem to say that it referred to the "base" as a physical place or base of operations where people met -- it was probably outside intel organizations that first used it to describe the organization itself. That link may be the earliest thing on the web mentioning it but it is likely in US intelligence and NSA documents going back to '94 or '95 I would guess. --csloat 02:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Have edited the following text:

Al-Qaeda believes that western governments, and particularly the American government, interfere in the affairs of Islamic nations against the interests of Muslims through economic and military support of regimes that oppress Muslims, such as by giving billions every year to Israel and vetoing every otherwise-unanimous United Nations condemnation of its alleged atrocities, invading and conquering Islamic countries, meddling in the affairs of Islamic governments and communities, causing the deaths of tens of thousands of Muslims via economic sanctions, and supporting tyrannical governments like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan with weapons, troops, and billions of dollars.

to read:

Al-Qaeda believes that western governments, and particularly the American government, interfere in the affairs of Islamic nations against the interests of Muslims. Their claims have included: The provision economic and military support to regimes seen by Al-Qaeda to oppress Muslims (particularly the US and it's support for Israel), vetoing of United Nations condemnations of Israel, attempts to influence the affairs of Islamic governments and communities and support for economic sanctions.

The previous paragraph was clearly based on opinion and bias, The edit is factial and unbiased.

---

in this wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11%2C_2001%2C_attacks it directly mentions Al Kaida responsibility for the 9/11 Attacks. But here in the main Al-Qaida entry, it only mentions the organization is "gained attribution" to have performed this attack. Is this a intermediary stage on the way to legitimizing this organization under the guise of objective description? Hitler has also "gained attribution" to having caused the second world war, I will not be surprised if this violence-condoning view will be sponsored here soon, too. And an insinuation for a recommended maximum sentence of 3 month probation for this naughty moustached militant, to follow, no doubt. (not a nazi! Hitler is not here to attribute this gravely smearing attribution! human rights watch! perhaps he would have preferred this entirely attributable (and true) description:

"A patriotic Austrian vegetrian, committed to world unity and harmony. Tireless Advocate of pacifism among his opponents" (wikipedia 2050 entry?...)

Relativist morality shall be our downfall.

There's a fairly specific account of the history of al-Qaida by a defector named Jamal al-Fadl, who describes the structure of the organisation at its inception in Afghanistan in 1988 and its early activities in Sudan through the 90s. While I think it's true that it's made to be somewhat more than it is, and every Tom, Dick and Harry terrorist gets stuffed into the al-Qaida sack, I think it's reasonable to conclude based on the evidence of him and other defectors/captives that there is an organisation led by bin Laden with some sort of membership. I'll take the "sleeper cell" stuff with a grain of salt, but there is certainly some bit of truth in all the lies surrounding al-Qaida. Graft 17:23, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Let me take a shot at adding an NPOV - "according to" kind of statement. Diderot 21:28, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

"Others question whether this murky entity has more than a handful of true members." A good attempt at NPOV Diderot :-)

But there is a problem with this. Adam Curtis' assertion is that al-Qaeda is NOT a membership organisation, but a name given to those who loosely associate with Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri or who share the same point of view (i.e using terrorist attacks outside of Islamic Nations) on how to increase Islamist POV amongst the nations that are majority Muslim.

The Adam Curtis' three part BBC Documentary is now over. As a whole, information from the series seems to bring almost the whole of the current al-Qaeda Wiki article into the realm of POV! here is a short transcript of just a short segment from the final program. (It seems that The Guardian article may have misrepresented Adam Curtis' claims a little - in the above reference by FOo)

"...The reality was that Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri had become the focus of a loose association of disillusioned Islamist Militants who were attracted by the new strategy. But there was no organisation. These were militants who largely planned their own operations and looked to Bin Laden for funding and assistance. He was not their commander. There is also no evidence that Bin Laden used the term al-Qaeda to refer to the name of a group until after September the 11th, when he realised that this was the term the Americans had given him. In reality Jamal Al-Fadl was on the run from Bin Laden: having stolen money from him. In return for his evidence the Americans gave him witness protection and hundreds of thousands of dollars. Many lawyers at the trial believe that Al-Fadl exaggerated and lied to give the Americans the picture of a terrorist organisation that they needed to prosecute Bin Laden..."

[at this point the programme delivers statements from Sam Schmidt (Defence Lawyer - Embassy Bombings Trial) and Jason Burke (a respected "expert" and author on al-Qaeda) to back up these claims.]

Zik-Zak 11:43, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC) revised Zik-Zak 18:45, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Haveing woke up to yesterdays news of the London Attacks. It cant be doing the Race Hatered already strive in the uk any good. I hope that the people responsable will meet the SAS as when they attack inocent members of the public your just asking to meet the deadly force of the SAS and they deserve the rath of the SAS. If the Same thing Happend Here in Northern Ireland where secterionism is the way here Im just speculateing But foreigners would expect a heavy upserge in raceial hatered violence. And thats what AL-Qaeda are doing here. They are not scareing the uk citzens at all Not in the slightest. But are heavily promoteing raceial hatered. And if this carrys on in the uk, Al-Qaeda and any other foreigners weather associated with Al-Qaeda or not can expect a ruff time in the uk curtesy of Al-Qaead

Regarding the recent intro edit - al-Qaida was created specifically to move the conflict into a broader arena, NOT to help in the Soviet conflict. There was already adequate infrastructure to do that (e.g. the MAK itself). Brother can I get an amen? Graft 23:08, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tried to find references for "In 1996 al-Qaida was expelled from Saudi". Didn't find any. Would be more likely for certain individuals expelled Robneild 09:29, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's Sudan that al-Qaeda was expelled from, not Saudi. Graft 23:14, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Graft reverted a recent change, saying "rv, since al-Qaeda was named well before 2001" It was my impression that al-Qaeda was not named well before 2001, but I could be mistaken. Does anyone have any evidence that the name existed before 2001? – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 21:14, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Yes I think the comments by 194.81.30.200 are valid, if a little unclear. We seem to accept in the article that al-Qaeda didn't call itself that until after 9/11, and 194.81.30.200's comments are just saying that in the west they didn't have a name until 2001 (all this doesn't mean that they didn't exist, just they weren't named). If we can find a reference before then fair enough. Robneild 21:31, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What al-Qaeda called itself I'm not clear on - "World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Crusaders and Jews" seems as likely as anything else. But by 1998, following the embassy bombings the term was in widespread usage to describe bin Laden's group. You can easily verify this via a google groups search. As far as I can tell, via Lexis-Nexis, that's the first appearance of the name in public. We can argue about whether it is self-styled (as jamal al-Fadl claims) or whether the U.S. gave it the name (as various others have claimed). But it was so named by 1998. Graft 01:52, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hey! My eyes have been opened regaring recent comments about widespread rejection of "Western Values" by Muslims!. If it would help, I suggest a comment be added to the Christianity page "Christians (who generally accept Western values) differ from Muslims (who widespreadly reject Western values)".

Sorry, for being facetious. Just want to make you think about how many Muslims are in the world. How many live in the USA or Europe etc. Robneild 20:11, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think "(which is fairly widespread in the Muslim world)" in the introduction should be removed, or replaced with (which most Christians believe is fairly widespread in the Muslim world) :-) unless there is of course strong evidence to back it up! Zik-Zak 20:24, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just can it - trying to make it reasonable is unreasonable. Graft 00:56, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I changed the wording from "rejection of Western values", which was far too blanket, to the more specific: perception (which is fairly widespread in the Muslim world) that Western culture and values are incompatible with Islam.

• You really need to specify even more than that. It's mostly Muslims in the Middle East and neighboring regions, specifically. Muslims in the US...and there are millions of them...and in Europe, and even in some Pacific Island areas, think that Western values can coexist or even integrate with Islam just fine.

In fact, one could find as much or more claim by Christian fundamentalists and religious leaders that Christianity itself conflicts with what many people consider Western values. Certainly the stuff that Middle Eastern Muslims find to be the bad signs of Western influence, like sex, gratuitous violence, mind and body alteration, materialism, et cetera.

In the case of both Christians and Muslims...and while we're at it Jews (

Hasidim

come to mind)...who object to many Western values, it's really more of a cultural thing than a religious one, just as some Islamic cultures think women must wear burqas to be good Muslims, and some do not.

1. The Persian culture of Iran, for example, does not require them, therefore Iranian Muslims do not...but in Saudi Arabia women will actually get shot (with guns, no joking) if they don't wear them.
2. Hasidim believe that Jews must have long hair and (with men) beards as a religious requirement, but they're directly descended from the Essenes, and still have that culture (the one of long haired and bearded Jesus, in fact), while most other Jews do not have it and think it's not necessary to be devout.
3. There are Christian sects in cultures lacking the nudity taboo who think God won't be offended at all by people walking around naked in public, too. But I think we all know what Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell, ultimately from temperate weather culture, think of that.

It's really about culture, not religion per se. "Muslim world" is as meaningless as "Christian world", when it comes to cultural taboos. Anyone versed on the subject can imagine the havoc that would be wreaked by trying to refer to "the Jewish world" monolithically in reference to, say, what kind of hairstyles men should have.

Actually, I just realized I should have simply pointed out the "Red states are being violated by decadent Hollywood immorality" thing everyone in the US is talking about right now. Americans don't think of Hollywood as the core of Western Values, but the Middle Eastern world does, and that's what they find anti-Islamic.

Ironically, half the West agrees with them, but isn't understanding that they're complaining about the same thing. Kaz 16:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence to back this up. In particular, I'd draw your attention to various implementations of sharia law in different countries which discriminate against non-Muslims in arenas such as court testimony, inheritance, immigration and naturalization and the like, which is incompatible with western notions of democracy and equality before the law. On values, well the sexual mores of the secular West are no more compatible with devout Islam than they are compatible with devout Christianity. The most basic Western banking practices such as charging interest on loans, also, can also present a major problem for Muslims wishing to remain faithful to their faith. All of these problems, once analysed, can be solved (and daily are solved by Western Muslims) by a little give and take, but it would be foolish to suggest that such give and take is on the menu in much of the Islamic world. --

02:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

However, that is quite a broad statement, and the idea that there is no intersection between Western culture and Islam is totally ridiculous. In fact, there have been many attempts at reconciling the two within Islam. The fact that today such views are receding and rejectionist views are more prominent does not mean that this is or was always the case. Furthermore, it's also ridiculous for you to state that democracy and equality before the law are western notions. Anyway, I think the issue at hand is more YOUR perception that "western" values are incompatible with what you believe to be Islam. Graft 06:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• the idea that there is no intersection between Western culture and Islam is totally ridiculous.
  • Tnen it's just as well that nobody has made any such suggestion.
• it's also ridiculous for you to state that democracy and equality before the law are western notions.
  • Not exclusively so. But when non-Muslim westerners in Muslim countries object to being denied basic human rights, this poses those particular values as values that westerners prize above, for example, Islam. Democracy, or at least representative democracy, is not a problem for Islam.
  • It isn't a question of whether this or that idea is exclusively western in origin or exclusively western in adherence (few such ideas exist), it's a question of whether ideas that are highly prized in the west are perceived to be seriously at odds with certain Muslim beliefs that can be termed as "fundamentalist", and this perception is not limited to a few chaps with beards squatting in a cave on the Pakistan border.

• I think the issue at hand is more YOUR perception that "western" values are incompatible with what you believe to be Islam.
  • Then feel free to demonstrate that your belief is true. --
    Minority Report (IT or PR enormity)
    15:33, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Now you're backpedaling - we've gone from "incompatible with Islam" to "seriously at odds with certain Muslim beliefs that can be termed as 'fundamentalist'". Your contention rests on the strength of two assumptions: first, that 'fundamentalist' Muslim beliefs are incompatible with Western values, and second, that these beliefs are widely held. While I might be inclined to agree with the former, since many so-called 'fundamentalists' are in fact reactionaries, rejectionists rather than traditionalists who base their interpretation of Islam on opposing Western values, I would be highly unlikely to favor the latter. The overwhelming majority of Muslims are NOT Islamists. Those are a small minority, and their relative prominence in political discourse and their control over the Kingdom (or, e.g., Iran, where the clerical regime is famously unpopular) should not be taken to suggest that they represent a popular viewpoint. The Muslim population of the world is somewhere around 1.5 billion, a great deal of it in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia. These Muslims are far more moderated in their attitude towards Western culture and values; thus, Islamist viewpoints have not made many inroads amongst these populations. Graft 18:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• we've gone from "incompatible with Islam" to "seriously at odds with certain Muslim beliefs that can be termed as 'fundamentalist'".
  • The first phrase describes the opinion of some fundamentalist muslims; the second phrase elucidates the reason why those muslims believe some western thought to be incompatible with Islam.

• Your contention rests on the strength of two assumptions: first, that 'fundamentalist' Muslim beliefs are incompatible with Western values, and second, that these beliefs are widely held.
  • It rests on neither.
• Islamist viewpoints have not made many inroads amongst these populations.
  • And this is quite immaterial. You seem to be both attacking and relying upon the false assumption that Islamic thought is monolithic. A view can be widespread without being generally accepted. If I thought, on viewing the evidence, that most Muslims believed as Al Qaeda does, I would write that this is the case. They don't. --
    Minority Report (entropy rim riot)
    20:11, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If all you mean to say is that some others besides al-Qaeda believe thusly (i.e. other Islamists), then I agree with you, and your use of the tortured phrase "not uncommon" (i.e., "common") is the problem. Graft 20:48, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There are many reasons why I think the aside "not uncommon in much of the Muslim world" is wrong here. But just to start. This is an article on Al-Qaeda, not on the Muslim "world" in general. The sentence, with out the aside, is in context and NPOV. Lets be clear here, in this context the aside asserts: "Most of the individuals who follow Islam throught the world believe that Western culture and values are incompatible with Islam, which links them to radical terrorists". This statement is definately POV. For instance, someone else could have added the aside "not shared by the majority of peace loving Muslims" in the same place, and backed it up with examples the same as you've done Minority Report. Both are POV, and both muddy the water.

Also, implying that those that have a different opinion to yours are "foolish" is more than a bit discourteous in a fair debate. Zik-Zak 10:29, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• in this context the aside asserts: "Most of the individuals who follow Islam throught the world believe that Western culture and values are incompatible with Islam, which links them to radical terrorists".

• • No, please read it again. I think you will find that it says that the perception that Islam and western values are incompatible is "not uncommon in much of the Muslim world." I think it's important because the article as it stood was unbalanced, seeming to imply that such a perception was unique to Al Qaeda. This is so far from the case as to be worthy of some kind of note.

• implying that those that have a different opinion to yours are "foolish"

• • Please check again. I only said that it would be foolish to suggest that the give and take available for Muslims in the west is available much of the Muslim world. Please take more care with your reading of my statements. --
    Minority Report (IT or PR enormity)
    15:26, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In reply:

• "Not uncommon" implies (or means the same as) "common"
• "in much" implies "most"

Which are quantitative statements; an assertion that it is known that most people within the given group hold the view. Now, if there was a wide reaching survey sampling the opinions of people within the given group. It would be seen as strong evidence to back up the claim. But so far, all we have are examples. Which don't prove the quantitative assertion. For every example given someone with an opposing point of view would likely come up with an opposing example (e.g. a long winded debate going nowhere fast).

Now, "Muslim World" as I understand it refers to all these people around the World: Islam_by_country. Thats about 23% of the Worlds population, of which less than a fifth live in "Arab" countries. So we would need evidence that the majority of this World group went along with the assertion.

The sentence Another main reason for their conflict with the United States is their perception that Western culture and values are incompatible with Islam talks about a cause of conflict being the asserted opinion about incompatibility of cultures. i.e. that belief is held so strongly that those that hold it are willing to fight, die and kill for it.

As I understand it, there are people, both Muslim and Christian who hold that extreme POV. There are also people from both sides that have no problem with co-operating with each other. And there are going to be those that have mixed views.

Again, there are going to be people that hold the POV that the West is incompatible with Islam, but at the same time, utterly condemn the men of violence (but instead look for other solutions to the problem). Also, because a society (east or west) is in some part subservient to their leaders does not follow that they have the same opinion as their leaders.

As I see it, the text that you have added (in different forms) misses these (and other) subtleties. leaving text which was statement of known fact (as far as I can tell) with POV

Another problem is tainting by association. To illustrate what I am trying to say here, here is the same or similar statement expressed in a different context:

Another main reason given for neo-nazi hatred of Jews is their perception (which is widespread amongst the followers of David Ike) of a world wide conspiracy by a mysterious cabal.

i.e

• A is bad.
• A believe C which is the source of their badness.
• Most Ds also believe C (bad naughty Ds).

Hope this helps clarify why I see POV in the statement you gave.

The link between al-Qaeda and others that agree with the principal of Islamic-states is dealt with in the first line of this article, which links to Islamism. which I would tentatively suggest is better place to capture the subtlety of the arguments. As this article is on the subject of al-Qaeda as an entity (or not) rather than the ins-and-outs or rights-and-wrongs of Islamism.

- Zik-Zak 21:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On the other hand, including this statement might seem to temper the apparent radicalness of al-Qaeda (i.e., there are other, more moderate groups like the Ikhwan who share this core belief with al-Qaeda), which is not necessarily an incorrect POV. Seeking to isolate the viewpoint of al-Qaeda suggests they are somehow beyond the pale; is that proper? Mere rejection of violence by others doesn't mean that al-Qaeda is ideologically isolated in general. Graft 22:49, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In which case I think your current edit reaches the best balance - Zik-Zak 17:13, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This from this interview of UBL post 9/11. Straight from the horse's mouth:

We have one religion, one God, one book, one prophet, one nation. Our book teaches us to be brothers of a faith. All the Muslims are brothers. The name "al Qaeda" was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al Qaeda [meaning "the base" in English]. And the name stayed. We speak about the conscience of the nation; we are the sons of the nation. We brothers in Islam from the Middle East, Philippines, Malaysia, India, Pakistan and as far as Mauritania.

This ought to settle any dispute over where the name came from... Graft 23:51, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Unless he's lying. This can be sourced, but it should not be taken as fact. --Ben 07:52, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why would he be? This is at least as reliable as the sources that say the U.S. government named the organization. I'd like to soften out some of that language claiming the name was given. Anyway, it's clear that (a) he now is content to use "al-Qaida" as the name of the group, and (b) he claims that it always was the name. Graft 16:50, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didn't see this section until just now, but please check what I wrote above. One of Ramzi Yusef's pals got caught with a book titled "Al Qaeda" upon entry to the US prior to the 1993 WTC attack. At the time the FBI didn't have a clue what the name "Foundation" meant. I cite this from that Benjamin book "Age of Sacred Terror", which I read but do not have with me right now. If anyone has it, we can cite that and put to rest the myth that Western Gov'ts made up the word.Willowx 13:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly what Benjamin and Simon's book says. This info is also in Loretta Napoleoni's book Modern Jihad. And the quote above from the interview explains context. Why is this even being debated?--csloat 03:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

This bit is in the "Names" section as another name for al-Qaeda. But I don't think that's accurate - the World islamic front business was announced in 1998, well after al-Qaeda was operating. Seems more like a "project", or, say, a "front" - an initiative launched by al-Qaeda. Anyone wanna weigh in before I axe the bejesus out of that line? Graft 05:53, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Regarding debate on the line "...seeks to defend, via military and terrorist tactics". If you compare other terrorist organizations you will see that (at least the ones I look at) they don't describe themselves as using terrorist tactics. For instance the

11:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) as muslims we can use the book as an excuse to kill, maim and hurt innocent people as we are too coward to declare war as we will run like scavenging pigs into the undergrowth. As a non muslim mohammed would be ashamed that you use the qu'ran and his dealings in medina as an excuse to wage war on the innocent, why not use his teachings from mecca to do some good in the world as the muslims who kill innocent people like those in london are nothing but cowards who deserve to live with pigs and eat from the bile and filth they live in

Al Qaeda Name

I was told that the members of this group do not call themselves Al Qaeda.

I was told they call themselves something like "Al Neda".

I did not hear the name Al Qaeda until the 1998 US Embassy bombings in Africa.

TV News Reports said that a man named Usama Bin Laden had a group named Al Qaeda.

A reporter named John Miller actually got to interview Usama Bin Laden.

It would be nice if someone found out the real name of this terrorist group is.

Supercool Dude 20:22, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Would interest me too. Speaking of naming, I am also interested why you guys think that the 'Qa_e_da' spelling is more appropriate then the 'Qa_i_da' spelling? I would even use them in the title as alias, as "Al Qaeda (Al Qaida)". 50 : 50. As you detailedly wrote, the 'Qaida' is just a different translation. But as you only use the '-e-' spelling in the title, the reader gets the idea of this being a BETTER spelling. I figure both are absolutely equal - or aren't they?

Well, we have to choose a spelling, and "Qaeda" is the most common way to refer to the group by Anglophones. WhisperToMe 23:49, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This material is from the article List of purported cults, which we are paring down to a pure list. Editors here can best evaluate its statements and decide how to integrate it into this article. Thanks, -Willmcw 21:21, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda

The actions of this terrorist organization against civilians in the name of their beliefs, along with their use of

suicide bombers

, classifies it as a dangerous cult according to activists and religious scholars.

Thanks Willmcw, that gives context to the label "dangerous cult".--AI 23:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but please note that the above assertion, which has since been deleted from the List of purported cults, is unsourced. -Willmcw 23:46, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

If the Al-Qaeda/Taliban and their allies in Iraq win the War on Terrorism, i would be taken to Osama Bin Laden and Mohammed Omar and be seduced and manipulated by them in order to complete my fall to the dark side and in the future, lead a purge of the United Nations that would spark a World civil war in which i redeem myself and die to destroy the Human Racist Imperial Caliphate Emirate at the end of the war. - John-110V--Ed Telerionus 15:07, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

John-1107, you should read the article "

Wikipedia is not a soapbox."--AI

23:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Sounds familiar. Mr. Billion 23:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This text keeps popping up despite my attempts to edit it to a more rounded and balanced version:

direct support by means of arms or loans for anti-Islamist Arab regimes

I think there are clearly several ways to look at this sentance, and the 'anti-Islamist' tag is extremely hard to prove. I doubt very much that the USA supports regimes because they are 'anti-Islamist' although they may have supported states (israel being an example) which contain elements who could be called 'anti-Islamist'.

I'm unhappy with the whole paragraph containing this phrase, because despite my recent edits (see top of article) it has still been changed to reflect a clear opinion and fails to concentrate on the facts of the matter.

Errm. I think I may have written that (or I've written something like it in the past); I was thinking of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, mostly. The former is notable for its persecution of Islamists especially. But I meant more in the sense of "Arab regimes that persecute Islamists". Graft 18:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article on the BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares" is in need of a criticism section. I invite all who have seen it, particular those of a neo-conservative leaning, to visit and contribute. (The documentary is widely available for download on filesharing networks) Seabhcán 28 June 2005 18:08 (UTC)

The thesis presented in the documentary (as regards al-Qaeda, at least) is that the organisation didn't exist per se before the White House began using the term (originally in 1998 regarding the East African embassy bombings, but much more stridently after September 2001). The US essentially tied together many disparate threads of primarily nationalist terrorism to create a fantasy enemy. However, the idea of a powerful, shadowy international terrorism organisation was as useful to people like bin Laden as it was to the hawks in the US administration (who wouldn't want their own huge "batcave" installation?), and one could argue that al-Qaeda has thus become quasi-real in a case of self-fulfilling prophecy; groups that would previously have identified themselves differently (including bin Laden's small cadre) will now stick "al-Qaeda" in their name somewhere - this may have happened just this morning in London. This view of al-Qaeda does have merit and should be worked into the article somehow, perhaps as a reworking of the "is it real?" section. - toh 2005 July 7 18:44 (UTC)

I think some kind of acknowledgement that the existence of the group as an organised terrorist network, as opposed to an umbrella term for many seperate Islamist fundamentalists, should be included as part of the article's opening. Just a brief reference would be fine, but as it currently stands, the claims made in The Power of Nightmares are presented almost as a crackpot conspiracy theory undeserving of wider attention. Unless there's any opposition to this, I'm going to add a sentence akin to "Some dispute the existence of al-Qaeda as a legitimate organised network of terrorists, citing..." and then a reference to a source for this opinion. Thoughts? SnoopLogg 6 July 2005 22:32 (UTC)

I don't think anyone credible disputes the existence of al Qaeda as an organized group, no matter what the film says. I've watched parts 1 and 2 of the film and I don't recall them making the claim as it is portrayed here. But in any case it's clear that OBL was using the term as early as 1993 (though in a different sense) and that he (and his associates) were consciously creating an organized network of terrorists. And since 2001 there is certainly an "al Qaeda" now; notice Zarqawi's organization in Iraq having a public dialogue swearing allegiance to OBL and henceforth calling itself "al Qaeda in the land between the two rivers". I don't know what you mean by "legitimate" in this context but the claim that "al Qaeda is an organized network of terrorists" is certainly not disputed in any credible circles that I'm aware of. --csloat 7 July 2005 01:02 (UTC)

I'm with Snooplog on this: the evidence you quote about people swearing allegiance to "al Qaeda" is not actually contradictory to the notion that al Qaeda - as it is portrayed in the popular media - does not actually exist. No-one disputest hat al Qaeda exists, but the idea that it is a global network of organised terrorists has and is disputed, not only by the Power of Nightmares but also in Jason Burke's book "Al-Qaeda: The True Story of Radical Islam". Axon 7 July 2005 16:52 (UTC)

That's not correct - or perhaps I was not clear enough above. Burke (and other counterterrorism writers) does not argue that al Qaeda does not exist; what he argues is that it is not a centralized network. It is, rather, distributed, spread out, made up of contingent alliances, and we are seeing that even more today with the rise of "al Qaeda in Europe" after "al Qaeda between the rivers." Look at p. 8 of his book -- "This is not to say that al-Qaeda does not exist, but merely that the labelling implies that bin Laden's group is something that it is not. To see it as a tight-knit organization, with 'tentacles everywhere', with a defined ideology and personnel, that had emerged as early as the late 1980s, is to misunderstand not only its true nature but the nature of radical Islamism then and now. The contingent, dynamic and local elements of what is a broad and ill-defined movement rooted in historical trends of great complexity are lost. What bin Laden was able to do, between 1996 and late 2001, was provide a central focus for many of these disparate elements." So if that is the claim you want to make in the article, I agree with it, and I prefer to cite a terrorism expert or journalist than a documentary film, and I think the wording "does al Qaeda exist?" (as it is phrased in the article) is highly misleading. To say that al Qaeda is not an organized network is also misleading; it is just a very different kind of network than, say, the IRA.--csloat 7 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)

I have seen much comparison with the IRA on this discussion page. If you blow up something in Northern Ireland and claim it for the IRA, it won't be taken seriously. There are secret codewords that the IRA uses when claiming responsiblity for attacks. "Al-Qaeda" doesn't seem to have such a system, so there's no reason to believe any claims of responsibility. Also, the fact is that their are doubts over the existence of Al Qaeda. There is no need to get into a discussion of whether it exists or not. Any encyclopedia will inform the reader of all the relevant and interesting facts, and I am sure any reader wishing to know about Al Qaeda will want to be informed about the dispute. Wikipedia should not express a point of view on whether it's true or not. --167.127.163.141 12:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I see, your argument is that al Qaeda does not exist because they don't have the same communication methods as the IRA? Uhh, that's compelling. Is there any reason not to believe their claim of responsibility? The fact is that nobody seriously researching this has doubt about al Qaeda's existence. There are discussions -- not so much disagreements, even -- about the nature of their network. That's an organizational issue -- al Q is a hydra-headed monster with no central authority. OBL is a figurehead at this point, and probably plays no role in directing operations. Various groups operate separately, with minimal contact. This is a new kind of organization. That does not mean it doesn't exist. The only people who think it doesn't exist are those who believe George Bush is behind it or whatever. Here on earth, among the folks actually paying attention to this stuff, there is no debate, IMHO. --csloat 20:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

So you'll believe anything until you see evidence to the contrary? It's better to have an open mind until the issue is closed. Despite what you say, many of those who are seriously researching the issue do doubt that it exists. Readers of Wikipedia will be interested in the fact that there is dispute over it's existence. You said the only people who dispute this are people who think George Bush is behind it - well that's clearly complete rubbish. Most of the serious researchers, as you call them, would not say that. If the only reason you want to keep the fact of the existence of the dispute hidden from Wikipedia readers is your own stupid prejudices about where the doubters are coming from, then you need to rethink your position. Admit it, you've made a lot of incorrect assumptions about the political opinions of the doubters. Anyway, by your logic, we should delete the articles on all the religions because most of religions are not correct. --167.127.163.141 12:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

So if you name just one "of those who are seriously researching the issue" who doubt that al Qaeda exists, I will, I don't know; eat my hat? Will that satisfy you? Then please, do tell us, the name of one serious terrorism researcher who does not believe that al Qaeda exists.--csloat 12:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Jason Burke, chief reporter for the Observer, one of the biggest Sunday newspapers in the UK. He's one of the more high profile doubters that I know of. He's written books about Al Qaeda. Just to clarify, are we discussing whether or not Al Qaeda exists, or discussing whether or not Wikipedia should mention the dispute? The Flat_Earth theory is on Wikipedia, even though I don't know of any researcher or scientist, serious or not, who agrees with it. --167.127.104.11 15:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Here's a relevant Burke quote:

Al-Qaeda remains useful as a term to describe bin Laden, his close associates and the infrastructure created in Afghanistan between 1996 and 2001. We now need to recognise that, as that construction has now been effectively demolished, so should the label "al-Qaeda" be jettisoned, or at least understood as describing something other than a coherent structured organisation.

Here's another relevant Burke quote, from p. 8: "This is not to say that al-Qaeda does not exist." Look, anon editor - I already quoted Burke above; he does not dispute the network's existence; he just argues that the nature of the network is very different from a network like, say, Hamas, or the Mafia. I think we are agreed on this but for some reason the language is getting in the way -- I don't think there is anyone with a legitimate perspective that says "al Qaeda does not exist." Rather, there are discussions -- not even disputes -- about the nature of the network. It is a very different kind of organization (and that is part of the reason it has been so successful -- that, and the bush admin's bungling, imho). But it does exist. I also agree with Graft below -- 2001 was a key moment. But the organization existed and operated before that; the 1998 attacks in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam were very well orchestrated and timed (and these places are 400 miles apart). That was certainly the work of an organization.--csloat 00:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

This article more or less uses the term to describe that first part - it's the history of that organisation. Some of the later stuff in this article (the attributions) are crap, and I hate them - properly I think most of that is speculation and doesn't really belong here. However, it probably should go some place, and for now it rests here.

I think most of these problems could be solved by recognizing that 2001 was a seminal moment in the history of al-Qaeda, and writing the transformation into the body of the article. That is, if we simply make explicit that, at one time there was this real thing, al-Qaeda, and now it has more or less become this ill-defined cloud floating vaguely above the world, we'll avoid all the pissing contests we seem to insist on having. Graft 16:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I should add that theories of the sort that al-Qaeda has NEVER existed, is a construct, a figment of the imagination, etc., should not be given serious consideration, and I don't think that's what Burke or anyone else worth their salt is saying. Rather, we should say that maybe al-Qaeda does not exist at present, though it definitely did in the past. Ja? Graft 16:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Graft, I concur with what you've said. And, by the way guys, I apologize for some of the language I used talking to csloat. --167.127.104.11 16:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC) (My IP is changing, I should probably log in)

Thanks; I didn't mean anything personal either. Graft I don't agree with the last part -- "al Qaeda does not exist in the present". Again I think it is reasonable to speak of "al Qaeda" -- certainly they refer to themselves that way - but I agree with you that it is not the same org that it was in 1998. Again, there are questions about the nature of the organization, but there is nobody -- not even Burke, who is a reasonable authority here -- that disputes its existence.--csloat 00:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Note the critical 'maybe'. I'm just saying it may be ok to have a speculative paragraph about the structure of al-Qaeda now (including the possibility that it may not exist any longer as an organisation), so long as we acknowledge its reality of its existence in the past. Graft 15:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree about the wording of the "Does al Qaeda exist" section, it should really be re-worked. This article already explains that Al-Qaeda is a loose affiliation, not a SPECTRE-like worldwide terrorist network. I saw The Power of Nightmares and it's assertions were dubious to say the least. 81.131.222.197

That's not correct - or perhaps I was not clear enough above. Burke (and other counterterrorism writers) does not argue that al Qaeda does not exist; what he argues is that it is not a centralized network Uh, if you read my comments, I did not actually claim the al Qaeda does not exist (I clearly state this, in fact). What Burke and the Power of Nightmares does say about Al Qaeda is that it isn't the international organisation as claimed and many of the acts attributed to it are actually groups acting independantly. What is more, I see no reason to give primacy to journalistic book over a documentary film than any other form of journalism. Axon 7 July 2005 20:09 (UTC)

What is written in a book is usually clearly attributed and cited and can be easily checked; film is able to take licence that books -especially scholarly books - cannot easily get away with. The BBC documentary expresses a point of view; some would say it connects together a lot of things that don't logically follow. In any case, I think we should change the section whenever this page is unprotected so that it does not seem to claim that "al Qaeda doesn't exist" as an organized group, which is just hogwash.--csloat 7 July 2005 23:39 (UTC)

Since its already been established that UBL is a CIA asset who freely enjoyed the right of entrance into the U.S until before 9-11, why should we believe it when UBL says there is an Al-Qaeda, since the CIA and Mossad are famous for false flag and black ops? -- Capone

I'm sorry, did the nurse forget to stop by with your medication today? --csloat 09:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I heard a couple of years ago a BBC foreign correspondent explaining that Al Qaeda is pretty much just a name for a vague ideology, rather like 'communism' (or perhaps 'the mafia'). Not the name of a specific organisation. Although as mentioned above this has now been mutated into denoting 'the terrorist organisation headed by Osama Bin Laden', which may be just a small band of people under his control.

The way in which some politicians use it to speculate about various attacks round the world being attributable to 'al Qaeda' seems to me quite likely to be a Bush-ist way of trying to link all kinds of disconnected terrorism to OBL (cf invasion of Iraq), and thereby to imply that OBL's own band of terrorists is (like J Edgar Hoover's communism) a largely invisible but ubiquitous global threat. Whether this is the intention of using the word in this way is not clear; however, it has that effect. Ben Finn 21:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm still curious what evidence there is of an organized network of terrorists. As it stands, al-Quaeda is just too useful a concept not to be used both by the Bush administration and its allies, and by scattered terrorists and terrorist cells - not to mention the media. I find it really hard to believe that bin Laden or his followers possess the kind of resources to organize much of anything, especially after the invasion of Afghanistan, and I think it is fair to ask who would benefit from maintaining a fictional terrorist organization. Especially considering the incredible effort to control and manipulate the media in Iraq.

If there are no other evidence, I think the description of al-Quada as a global terrorist network should be described as an unsubstantiated claim by the US government, to be taken or rejected purely on faith.

Oh, and regarding The Power of Nightmares, well - surely this is nothing new? Politicians have always played on public paranoia, from the Punic wars, through the Nazi fear of a global jewish conspiracy, and to current foreign politics by our remaining superpower. [[User:ketil|ketil], 27 July 2006.

Should someone add that Al-Qaeda (or a spinoff group) were responsible for the 7_July_2005_London_bombings???

I tried to but the page is protected against editing; I'm not sure why but I have not been paying close attention to the last edit war here. Somebody fix this? There's a line already about warnings to London in the wake of the Madrid bombings; a sentence or two with a link should go after that.--csloat 7 July 2005 19:19 (UTC)

It's far too early to be adding that kind of info. It hasn't been confirmed who is responsible. 81.131.222.197

Are you nuts? A group calling itself "Secret al Qaeda in Europe" took credit, issued a statement, and of course it has every indication of an al Qaeda attack -- simultaneous bombings, tightly coordinated. I don't think anyone in their right mind doubts who is responsible for this. Besides, this info is on the page for this incident (linked above).--csloat 7 July 2005 19:36 (UTC)

No, are you? Different groups take responsibility for bombings all the time, most of them aren't really responsible, but it's all publicity. Al Qaeda on the other hand, doesn't usually claim responsibility for its acts. It's likely to be some kind of affiliate, but we should probably exercise caution at this stage. If you want to argue with someone who's nuts you can read the POV complaint at the bottom of the page. 81.131.222.197

Heh, OK, but there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that this is IRA or anyone else. Who else do you think it could be -- PETA? The Black bloc? It's clearly an al Qaeda affiliate and I don't see any reason to doubt the statement made taking credit. And in fact al Qaeda has taken credit for a lot of its actions so it's not completely correct to say they don't usually claim responsibility. This is clearly an al Qaeda affiliate group and everyone talking about it on the radio here (NPR mostly) has clearly affirmed that view.--csloat 7 July 2005 23:34 (UTC)

Even if it is by no means 100% clear that Al-Qaeda was responsible for the terrorist bombings, there is a widespread suspicion that even officials (the London police) have confirmed) plus their own statement. So in the name of free information, at least that should be mentioned. Something like "It is also alleged from various sides that Al-Qaeda was responsible for the London Underground and bus bombings on 7 July 2005. A statement from a previously unknown group, "The Secret Organization of Al-Qaeda in Europe" claiming responsibility, seems to back this allegation, although the authenticity of the statement and the group's connection to Al-Quaeda have not yet been independently verified." TH 8 July 2005 09:02 (UTC)

This is all starting to become gray, for me - what do we mean when we say "al-Qaeda" in this context? If we're referring to the organisation started in the 90s by OBL and later based in Sudan and Afghanistan that provided terrorist training and may have coordinated some attacks, I see no way at all to ascribe this attack to them. If we mean "some Islamist terrorists", that may be the case, and one could state that this is a reasonable hypothesis. But I'm not sure what "It's clearly an al Qaeda affiliate" means. Did they get a franchise license? Are they "with the band"? What? Just because we suspect that Islamist terrorists were behind this does not mean one should start throwing the word "al-Qaeda" around loosely. Graft 8 July 2005 21:37 (UTC)

We are not the ones throwing the word around - the group in question calls itself "Secret al Qaeda in Europe", and to my knowledge, there arn't any other groups with credible claims of responsibility. If they call themselves Al Qaeda, thats good enough for me. That is, unless anybody has access to Al Qaeda's franchise license documents... --Bletch 9 July 2005 01:54 (UTC)

Yes, but in this article, al-Qaeda has a specific meaning, i.e. the organisation I mentioned above - the fact that the "Secret al-Qaeda etc." organisation calls itself that does not mean it's "good enough". When the "Real IRA" claimed a bombing, people didn't go around ascribing it to the "IRA". Graft 9 July 2005 02:21 (UTC)

There should be nothing Grey or unclear here ... Al Qaeda has threatened Britian a number of times (see http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127881,00.html) and even recently published a magazine prioritizing attacks on the UK (see al-Qaeda's Biweekly Online Training Manual, Places High Priority on Attacks upon British Targets at http://siteinstitute.org/terrorismlibrary/magazines/magazine1/issue7.pdf). And as mentioned above, they even claimed responsibility for it.

The mere fact that there is a debate raging here on whether or not Al Qaeda was responsible for this attack is absurd.

The existence of Al Qaeda is HIGHLY debateable, at least as reported in the Western media. This discussion of the London bombings urgently needs some balance. I suggest we add these links:

• Who did the London Bombings?
• The birth of the London bomb Official Story
• What's Behind the London Attacks?

Graft - why would you trying to defend them by questioning their obvious responsibility?

And 81.131.222.197 - yes it's early, but they obviously did it - and to say that a "splinter group" of Al Qaeda is not Al Qaeda simply confuses the issue ... the mafia is the mafia - whether its the gambinos or columbos is irrelevant - can't we at least call a spade a spade anymore? Larryfooter 9 July 2005 01:49 (UTC)

WHOSE obvious responsibility? If, tomorrow, I go and bomb some place and release a communique saying "Al Qaeda of Boston has bombed Trump Towers," does that mean everyone should run around saying "al Qaeda did it!"? Al-Qaeda is NOT "the mafia". It is not a generic term describing Islamist terrorists. If you think that is accurate, you're misapprehending what al-Qaeda is, or at least was. As to your "trying to defend them" canard - please. I'm merely trying to ascertain whether al-Qaeda is being redefined so broadly that the mere fact that a bombing occurs means, by necessity, that al-Qaeda was responsible. This seems to be the plank along which we're running. Is this what we mean? Can we have some fucking clarity? Graft 21:58, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Graft has a valid point. Many groups have taken the names of the

, for instance, but only a few such groups can be legitimately said to be or have grown directly from the original organization. Knowing how precisely to identify such a nebulous entity as a worldwide terrorist group is difficult since it necessarily operates secretly, and with both the fame/notoriety achieved by bin Laden's group after 9/11, and the provocation of radical Muslims and middle-easterners resulting from the Iraq war, al-Qaeda can easily attract new members and/or copycat groups who adopt the name simply for its effect. It's possible that this "Secret Al-Qaeda in Europe" is one such copycat group. Any group of idiots enamored with extremist ideology and willing to commit violence while calling themselves "al-Qaeda" can have a convincing claim to actually being al-Qaeda, even if none of the idiots actually knows any real al-Qaeda members. If the individuals responsible for the London bombings are captured and one of them is found to have been or to have communicated with a known al-Qaeda member, then the group responsible for this attack can clearly be said to be al-Qaeda. As it is, we only know what the idiots did, not who they are. There was an American idiot (I think in 2002) who had planned to begin a series of Unabomber-style mail bombings across the U.S. If he had been able to do so without leaving any evidence as to his identity, no doubt a lot of people would have speculated that it was al-Qaeda.
I don't think Graft is trying to "defend" the group responsible because they may not be the "real" al-Qaeda; he's simply advocating a finer distinction of who's who and caution about jumping to conclusions. I've noticed that sometimes people get frustrated with these discernments and just try to lump all the "bad guys" together. I think that frame of mind was probably a factor in bringing the U.S. into the misadventure in Iraq.
We should keep in mind that our information is limited and the people responsible have not yet been apprehended. There is a possibility that this group is a copycat and not a direct splinter group of al-Qaeda. I guess there's also a remote possibility that the web site's claim of responsibility is a hoax or diversion of some kind.
From what I've seen, it would be perfectly safe to say that the London attack is likely the work of an al-Qaeda affiliate, but to say that it's certain that it was al-Qaeda itself is overstepping. --Mr. Billion 00:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The article is an external link in regards to the alleged Al Qaeda threat in London.

We know now that there IS a very real threat of terrorism conducted by Al Qaeda throughout the world.. and now in London.

NO, we DON'T know that. The public has put blind faith in the myth of Al Qaeda. We need to foster a balanced debate about the identity of this so-called terrorist network.

"The public has put blind faith in the myth of Al Qaeda"?? You make the same type of argument that the FlatEarth Society uses when explaining that we've all been duped by the "establishment" into believing that the Earth is round when in fact it is flat. Bravo! Jeravicious 17:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

This Islamic terrorist orgnaisation is the responsable for various terrorist attacks arround the world. Most recently the bombs in the capital of the United Kingdom, London. The British PM, Tony Blair, spoked about these events calling them "barbaric". The ironic part of all these is that George W. Bush, the current US president, is in continous contact with members of this terrorist oranaisation...eventhough he is trying to capture and put and end to Al Qaeda.

The article is currently protected (by OldakQuill) because of a spate of vandalism. They forgot to add the vprotect tag though, which I've now done. I've also added the NPOV tag as requested further up the page. Thryduulf 8 July 2005 11:59 (UTC)

I do not agree that the article needs an NPOV tag. And I don't think you should have added the tag while the page is protected - from

Wikipedia:Protected_page under Policy: "Do not edit a temporarily protected page except to add a protected page notice." TH

8 July 2005 12:42 (UTC)