Talk:Al-Qaeda/Archive 4

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 6

→

Archive 10

Some links that might be interesting reading:

http://www2.gol.com/users/coynerhm/think_again_al_qaeda.htm

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DFED.htm

Hashar 8 July 2005 13:27 (UTC)

Could someone add link to Serbian Wiki here? Just paste this ([[sr:Ал Каида]]) on the appropriate place. -- Obradović Goran (ta^lk 8 July 2005 17:57 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the claim that US never supported (at least directly) MAK on this page is inconsistent with othe wikipedia articles on this. For comparison see keywords Osama bin Laden and History of Afghanistan. Maybe even elsewhere. Although I do not know yet what is true (or at least most plausible statement) I believe that this should be resolved.

Could someone add [[gl:Al Qaida]], thanks--Rocastelo 19:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Can someone unlock this page? There's been a lot of fruitful discussion recently, and I think there's no longer much fear of vandalism. Graft 16:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

This article seems to have regained its "NPOV" tag without any resort to recent discussion or argument. The tag reappeared on 13th November with user Geeta who has never previously troubled the page with edits nor provided any reason for adding the tag on this occasion. There have been several recent additions some of which are likely to be unhelpful but surely adding the classification disputing NPOV requires some argument or discussion before it happens. --Alberdi 04:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag must be removed!

This article looks alright to me. Why does it have an NPOV tag? Regards, --Gramaic | Talk 07:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I would vote for the NPOV tag to stay Robneild 08:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Care to explain why? --csloat 09:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

In order to work with this article in a democratic way. I thought maybe we could vote on whether to keep the NPOV tag or not.--Gramaic | Talk 07:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Should the NPOV tag be kept or removed from the article? Please cast your votes.

Keep the NPOV tag

1. I would vote to keep the NPOV dispute tag for the obvious reason that a dispute exists over the Neutral Point of View of the article. Al-Qaeda is an extremely passionate term, but if you want people to take Wikipedia seriously, its terms must be defined in a dispassionate way. Many previous definitions didn't use vilification designations like "extremist objectives" and "fundamentalist" to describe the enemy. Articles written as recently as April didn't ascribe fantastic motivations to al-Qaeda actions like that of seeking to supplant Western society as a whole.

• Wikipedia cannot work with a mob mentality. If you want this project to be taken as a serious encyclopedia, what is factually correct must take precedence over what you wish reality to be. There factually is a dispute over the Neutral Point of View of this article. Voting for that reality to change will not change it. Taking off the NPOV dispute tag will not make the dispute go away. It will only hide evidence of the truth in favor of a fantasy that this mob is trying to create. Wikipedia allows for a mob mentality to trump factual information and dispassionate definitions, but you personally can choose to do what is right if you want Wikipedia to succeed. --Zephram Stark 13:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Remove the NPOV tag NOW! It must be removed or everyone here is a terrorist-lover!

1. --Gramaic | Talk 07:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
2. --csloat 07:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
3. --WolfKeeper 08:32, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
4. --TH 21:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Unless someone can give a good reason why the tag should STAY, I see no reason to have to resort to a vote... Graft 15:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I feel too newbie to remove it myself, but if someone more senior would do it I'd be happy enough. TH 21:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

(Sorry I couldn't resist, this is utterly !NPOV but this is the talk page) The advantage of having a vote, of course, among civilized people, is that the loser then will accept the result and we avoid an edit war, however if we are dealing with folks who are sympathizing with those people I doubt they will respect the result of a democratic process in any case... TH 21:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Exactly!--Gramaic | Talk 00:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Horsten, your definition of Democracy seems to be that majority has the ability to define reality for the minority. If people think that the POV of the article is biased, a majority vote can't change their thinking. I agree that, to avoid edit wars, we must go with the most popular definition, even if that definition disagrees with what the experts say, but we should at least place an NPOV notice on the article when other people think it is blatant propaganda. --Zephram Stark 04:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with that assesment of my democracy definition, nobody is "defining reality" for anyone but we are merely trying to state the facts in a way that the (hopefully vast) majority would consider NPOV. I don't think NPOV tag is a solution when a small minority have a radically different opinion from the large majority - this would simply cause every article about even slightly controversial subjects to consistently have an NPOV tag, and that would be detrimental to the value of Wikipedia, plus it would be fuel to the fire of those who claim that Wikipedia can not be taken seriously. If you do have specific sentences that you think are misrepresenting the truth, please write them here and explain what you would suggest changing in order to remove the alleged POV. Then we can take it from there, and base our discussion on something concrete instead of having a meaningless edit war of adding/removing the NPOV tag. TH 11:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

So I did it after all, (Wikipedia:Be_bold) after changing the only concrete criticized instance of NPOV I could find in the dispute (at the top of this page). Please feel free to reinstante the tag if you think I have acted in error, but please don't do so without commenting on your motivations for doing so here. TH 22:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

No need to reinstate the tag! Good for you.--Gramaic | Talk 00:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Several people have given reasons here in Discussion for the NPOV tag, but they were erased by a vandal with the excuse "don't let the Islamic fascists have a voice here. the article stands as is." I have reverted the initial section that gives some compelling reasons under the Neutrality Dispute section. I would like to add that we cannot defeat an enemy that we don't know. The article says, "it seeks to establish, via military and terrorist tactics, a radical form of Islamist ideology to supplant both current regimes in the Middle East and eventually Western society as a whole." This kind of talk is great for motivating the troops, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Nobody in the world, even President Bush, has claimed that al-Qaeda seeks to supplant Western society as a whole. Osama bin Laden has stated several times that the only purpose of his group is to give Islamic people a chance to unite, without outside hindrance, if that is what the Islamic people want to do. Whether we think that is a reason for war or not is a matter worthy of discussion, but we cannot have that discussion when our definition of al-Qaeda is based in fantasy and rhetoric.

Because there obviously is an NPOV dispute, I have placed the NPOV tag back on the article. --Zephram Stark 04:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

With all do respect, who cares what bin Laden says? This article is very NPOV and the reason why we don't need the NPOV tag is because bin Laden is a terrorist and murderer that heads a terrorist organization, that was behind 9/11, the Madrid bombings, and the recent terror that took place in London.--Gramaic | Talk 06:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

All that did is expose your own POV. We have to think of Osama bin Laden on neutral terms. Let's be cold with this one. WhisperToMe 13:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into an edit war with you, Gramaic. There factually is an NPOV dispute. If you can't see the NPOV problem with ascribing motivations to someone else that are in direct contradiction to what that person says, you may be a little too close to this subject. --Zephram Stark 13:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with him or anyone else doing that at all. It's not like everyone will tell you their true motivations. Provided people don't delete other peoples work (except in extreme circumstances), that doesn't usually violate NPOV.WolfKeeper

I suggest that you allow someone else to edit this article who can keep an objective point of view. I would be happy to work on that if you would like, but until a neutral article can be written or reverted, there factually is a dispute. Thank you for helping to keep Wikipedia factual. --Zephram Stark 13:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

That's incorrect. NPOV is not about writing from an objective point of view, it is about accurately expressing the different point of views (within reason). It's the wikipedian way. So I'm not clear that there really is an NPOV dispute here.WolfKeeper

You are correct that differerent points of view need to be expressed in an encyclopedia definition. In an NPOV article, these points of view are presented as POV, and not as fact. Objectivity is maintained by first presenting the parts that both sides of the dispute agree upon in a dispassionate way, followed by arguments for both sides of the issue presented as POV from biased sources.

I implore you to look at the introductory definition of Al-Qaeda and see if you can take the obvious hatred of the movement out—-to write it from a dispassionate standpoint. If you cannot, I would be happy to help. --Zephram Stark 20:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Fucking christ. If no one can ENUMERATE the reasons for the dispute and how they would like them to be resolved, then to hell with the NPOV disclaimer. Let's try and actually get some resolution of issues here, okay? Can you state clearly what the nature of this dispute is? I've only seen clouds of dirt so far. Please don't tell me it's "discussed above". State your case. Especially if this article is going to be locked down every two minutes on your insistence. Graft 17:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps if you can only find clouds of dirt in the NPOV dispute above, someone else would be a better editor for this article. Whoever wrote the description has obvious distaste for the movement and it shows in the introduction. I would be happy to help write a dispassionate description of the al-Qaeda movement if I can be of service. --Zephram Stark 20:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

If you are the anonymous author who is writing above about "the insurrection" of "millions" of people and conflating that with al-Qaeda, then please state clearly to me: What is this "insurrection" of which you speak? If your contention is only with the use of the words "extremist" and "liberal democracies", then those can EASILY be removed without slapping a dispute header on the article. You could have done that yourself with little fanfare and it would have caused no complaints. As to the word "terrorist", that perfectly accurately desribes a particular kind of tactic used by al-Qaeda. Graft 20:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not anonymous. I refer to al-Qaeda as a movement because that is how most international terrorism experts refer to the movement. With the advent of the internet, people can find out what is going on. They don't need a central leader to distribute information. Any one of us can access the U.N. site, for instance, and read about the 800,000+ children a U.N. fact-finding mission discovered that our sanctions murdered in Iraq between 1991 and 2005. We can research issues ourselves and act on those issues. One of my implementations is in helping to make sure that definitional facts aren't confused with vilification, because I believe that makes terrorism worse. For my words, I have been labeled a terrorist, I have been on the government CAPPS II list, and I have been called an al-Qaeda cell. My only threat to anyone is their misperception and fear of my words when I state the obvious. In writing this, I can assure you that I do not get direction from Osama bin Laden or any source but my own conscience. --Zephram Stark 20:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Page protected

The constant removing and readding of the NPOV template is doing nobody any favours. Some people dispute the neutrality of the article, therefore there is an NPOV dispute. Whether or not the article is or isn't NPOV there is a dispute about it. So I have protected the page with the tag on it. Please sort out the issues here, rather than squabbling over the template. Thryduulf 14:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

"Return to Afghanistan -- Taking advantage of an invitation from some Afghan warlords, al-Qaeda returned to Afghanistan" .... would it be possible to find some more detail about this Robneild 18:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I just received an e-mail (anonymous) that says, quote, "

"Al-Qaida,(sic) 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," admits former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, whose Foreign Office portfolio included control of British Intelligence Agency MI-6 and the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), in a column published by the UK Guardian newspaper.

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1523838,00.html)

In other words, the so-called "Al Qaeda," which was misnamed and misreported by Government/ Media as "The Base" (not the "database") and then promoted by the Government/ Media Cartel as the cause of all bombings and terrorism since the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001, is simply a database of CIA trained "terrorists" (or "freedom fighters," depending on your perspective) which has become a convenient Global Boogeyman for the 21st Century. What does this mean? The entire planet has been fooled into believing that an Islamic "organization" exists to promote the destruction of Western society, when in fact this "organization" is just a list of Pentagon/ CIA trained assassins, who can be used and discarded as needed."

And the URL of it's source is there, and it checks out from what I can tell. It says "...literally 'the database,'..."; can anyone confirm or disprove this? I included the second paragraph, althought not necessarily relevant, as .. well, it reads like a conspiracy theory and isn't sourced except for the line from British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook in The Guardian. Why would he be the only person who says it's "database" and not "base"? What gives? Sorry for the long comment. Zanturaeon 03:33, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

The Guardian??? Good god they don't count as a source. So let me get this straight - The CIA, famously short on Arabic language specialists, uses Arabic names for it's computer files.. oh yeah, makes as much sense as most of the stuff on this page.

Hey! Maybe we should ask Scheuer how to spell it and at least we’ll have one fact cleared up. :220.8.135.26 12:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that's what Cook is saying - he's saying "this is bin Laden's name for a database he had of mujahideen. The CIA helped train some of those mujahideen." Also, this is not "the Guardian", this is Robin Cook, who presumably should have some kind of credence in your book; he merely happens to be writing in the Guardian. Graft 14:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

After bin Laden left Afghanistan in the late 80's/early 90's, he ran a veteran's aid organization in Saudi Arabia for the mujahideen. The organization stayed in touch with many of the former fighters. I believe this is the start of the 'database' that Al-Qaeda refers to.--200.114.233.141 03:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The word Al Qaeda is a direct transliteration from the Modern Standard Arabic word meaning “The Base”. This drivel about it meaning “Database” is completely inaccurate. The words that represent database in the Arabic language sound nothing like Al Qaeda. Pick up an Arabic dictionary and find out for yourself. Maybe you should start by learning Modern Standard Arabic.

Thanks! The popular BBC documentary said the phrase was in reference to the place where the Mujahedin fighters were trained, and I figured that was sense enough. I was really looking for someone who knew Arabic to tell me. Appreciate it. :) (And, hm, maybe I should teach myself Arabic! :D) Zanturaeon 23:51, July 31, 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)

This is from my website: Osama Bin Laden issued his Fatwa(religious edict) in 1998 called International Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews & Crusaders (IFF): The IFF is an umbrella Organisation made up of the following groups on the USA's FTO list: 2. Abu Sayyaf Group 3. Armed Islamic Group (GIA) 6. Gama'a al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group) 8. Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM) 10. Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) 11. al-Jihad (Egyptian Islamic Jihad) 21. al-Qa'ida* There are other groups from Pakistan are: Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (HUM) Harkat-ul-Jihad-Al-Islami (HUJI) Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) There are more but I have yet to find a source on the Internet which has a definitive list. There are more now in Saudi Arabia & Iraq which take their name directly from Al-Qaeda -- Anonymous

You know, unsigned posts are probably the most annoying thing on Wikipedia. Anyway - the International Islamic Front is great, but the fundamental crux of this page, that remains to be answered, is: what the fuck is al-Qaeda? Is the Front the same thing? Does this imply that Abu Sayyaf and the GIA are somehow part of al-Qaeda? I don't think that's reasonable. The contention being made by Zephram Stark is that al-Qaeda is some sort of broader movement, an alliance of smaller groups. I think this is conjecture on his part, and I don't think the above is support for it. Graft 15:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that these groups carry out terrorist action using a three phase approach:

1.Attack infrastructure and security forces:This causes fear and demoralises security forces and causing fear and paranoia amongst populations.

2.Attacking emotional targets eg public places ,hospitals:This causes sock and ethnic strife.

3.Political targets :With resulting chaos as a result of 1&2;weaknesses in security become evident and hence political targets become accessable.This seems to be the main objective.

To me this seems to me the general pattern in Kashmir,Iraq,Caucauses and North Africa.If any body agree/disagree please comment.Hence even if these groups are not directly related they use the same strategy.

It is often said how different in backgroud these bombers are;however I think they share common traits.

1.They all seem to see themselves as put-upon.Unemployed who can not find work;he or she blames the society.Middle class person who having strived, see that he can not succeed in his goal eg to be the greatest scientist,writer,ruler of Saudia Arabia;again he blames the system.

2 They have an irrational belief system which 'merges' with the beliefs in (1).Although some beliefs may be justified others can not.

The same way gang members are made, from poverty. --Charlie Young and Sam Seaborn

I would disagree with the comparison - gang members and delinquents are made from poverty and hopelessness.

I think if you look through the biographies of the 9/11 suicide pilots, most of them had college educations and moderately sucessful careers. Some of them had families. I think it's a different, confusing phenomenon, about which i have little other insight.--Bmk 03:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• I think that we need to make clear that the bombings in London were the work of suicide bombers and not remote control devices, etc. 80.42.28.76 16:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Could someone add a link to Ido Wiki here? Just paste this ([[io: Al-Kaida]]) on the appropriate place. -

I've added this. Thryduulf 18:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Robin Cook Friday July 8, 2005 The Guardian

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.

This is dealt with above. I don't think "database" is the translation.--csloat 23:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Having said that, I would like to encourage all parties to get this business straightened out cuz it's getting ridiculous. What's it been now, 9 days? I'm sure there are others like me who just wanna make uncontroversial edits to the

. The contorversies don't concern wikipedians like us until we might by chance make an edit that is in itself controversial. I'm told to post here, that this is where I'll be heard. I feel I'm slowly, incidentally being sucked into the fight(s) over this article but I want no part of it. I fight only to have it unlocked for the general good, for freedom of access/speech. I would just like to be able to edit it a little. anyone have any words of wisdom/consolation for me?

thanks, Kzzl 19:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You would have to help resolve the dispute above in order to have the lock removed. --AI 20:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Was that supposed to be wisdom or consolation? Kzzl

Words of "wisdom." Now just click here. --AI 01:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems the dispute is over whether or not there is a dispute. LOL. I wouldn't worry about it, the problem is some of Wikipedia's admins who are obviously biased, engage in cabal yet deny that any cabal exists. Wikipedia as a project is doomed until they are removed from power. --AI 01:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I've unlocked the page following a request. If the dispute is about the NPOV tag, the tag should be kept if there's an NPOV dispute in which specific suggestions have been made to make the article more neutral that are actionable within our policies. If there are no such suggestions, the tag should come down. That is, there should be no drive-by tagging. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:23, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Although I notice that al-Qaeda is the popular spelling of the name used by the press it isn't a very good transcription of the Arabic (see

standard says القَاعِدة should be rendered as ʾˈalqaʾʿidaẗ. The older standard has al-qāʿidaͪ. The UN and Library of Congress standards are both al-qāʻidah. As the official transliterations can be a bit tricky, I would suggest that al-Qa`ida would be a better article title for the following reasons:

1. Al-Qa`ida is no more difficult to type.
2. It is a better representation of the Arabic word.
3. It suggests that the word should not rhyme with glider.
4. An encyclopaedia exists to correct common misconceptions rather than bolster them.

Any thoughts? --Gareth Hughes 20:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how it is in Britain, but the spelling Al-Qaeda has pretty much become uniform here in the past 4 years. It's true that it is not a very good transcription, but when Arabic words get pulled into English much of their original form is lost (like assassin). Here it is pronounced "Al Kayda".Heraclius 23:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Heraclius that "Al-Qaeda" has become the standard British-English spelling of the organisation. Most people pronounce it as "Al Kaida" but "Al Kai-eeda" (the first part of the second word rhymes with "sky" in both cases) and "Al Kayda" (rhymes with how "raider" is generally pronounced in SE England) is sometimes used. Thryduulf 13:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the discussion on the written English version of the name القَاعِدة is futile and endless, as all other transliteration discussions on any other words from any other languages might be. Regarding the i/e issue of Al-Qaida/Al-Qaeda: the word is read with i following the panctuation of standard Arabic, and is generally said with e in spoken Arabic (may I add that there are numerous dialects of spoken Arabic, Egyptian, Palestinian, Iraqui, etc.). In addition to the i/e issue, there are other issues that both popular versions of the name Al-Qaeda totally ignore, due to transliteration limitations. For example, the original Arabic word for Al-Qaeda comprises of two letters which doesn't have any nearly close equivalent in English: ق and ع, which in standard arabic are pronounced as throaty K/Q and A/E/I/O/U, respectively (while English K/Q and A/E/I/O/U has two other equivalent letters in Arabic). What I'm saying is that the only final version of the word can be the original written word in Arabic: القَاعِدة. Every transliteration is eventually determined arbitrarily, and so, in my opinion, and in accordance to what I mentioned above, both popular English versions are acceptable and we will never be able to choose one of them as final. Bauer - 22 November 2005

It seems the only solution to the neutrality debate is to recognize that there is no neutral point of view on this topic. We must agree to disagree and represent each perspective with balance. The terminology problem can therefore be addressed, as definitions of words like "terrorism" depend solely on the point of view being represented.

-An Advocate of Diversity

Someone, should give a breakdown of the history of the word. Presumably, there it is a compound word of the arabic words for "data" (or perhaps information) and "base", actually since the specifics of the mean of "base" are not natural to associate with this usage, perhaps the second component of the arabic is something else, like "file" or "collection" or "bundle" or something. Or perhaps it isn't a compound word, that arabic has suffixes or prefixes for "data", "info", "file" or whatever. But if there is any truth to this dead persons musings, a mere linguist should be able to resolve it.--Silverback 09:54, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not an Arabic speaker either, but I spoke with an Arabic speaker who told me that the word "qaeda" translates to "base" in every sense of the English word, and that "qaeda" could be use as an abbreviated form of "database," just as we might call a database simply "the base." I will contact Mustaffa and other Arabic speakers here to get them to weigh in. --Blackcats 21:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I have never called a database "the base." I don't know anyone who would do that in English. But I don't speak Arabic.--csloat 22:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

In my experience, that's pretty typical in English if you deal with (and talk about) databases a lot. You get sick of saying "that address is in the database," "that name is in the database," "we've got the medical history right here in the database," "the software log is right here in the database," etc. Eventually you get sick of saying "data" every time, so you just drop it and simply say "it's in the base." That's pretty typical for most languages to shorten the words for things that they talk about a lot. For example, a lot of Euoropean languages shorten their word for "university" to just "uni." People just tend to like to avoid having to repeat a lot of unneccesary sylables a lot. In the case of "database" to "base," that's dropping 2/3 of the sylables for the word, making it a lot quicker and easier to say - the same as with "internet" to "net". Now of course if you don't work with databases or the internet a lot, or if it's not clear from the context of the present discussion what you're talking about, then you'll probably say the whole word, so that people don't think you're talking about some other sort of base or net. Blackcats 05:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Except that in the case of "database" it is not even clear in plain english meaning why "base" was chosen to be part of the compound, while the "data" component is as obvious, as the "net" in internet, so shortening to the "base" is almost never used, even informally in verbal communications. Now if in Arabic, instead of "base" have a direct equivilent, a word more correctly translated into "foundation" in english was used, such a shortening might be more natural, since perhaps "foundation" better captures the "template" or "abstraction" or "idealization" elements of a database. However, absent its "data" qualifier, even "foundation" would be far more likely to be associated with its more fundamental Islamic meaning than with a database. Certainly the uncorroborrated comment of a dead man, on such an archane issue, does not need mention in this article.--Silverback 23:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea where the origins of the word came from (whether CIA or Koranic, the latter meaning that the Qaeda is "the foundation" referring to the Koran as the basis for all things). And although I have much respect for the late Robin Cook, the name al-Qaeda is not "literally" database. In Arabic, a database is translated literally as "qaedat ma'loomat" which means "information base" or "data base". It is also sometimes referred to as "shabakat ma'loomat" or "information network". Although it is possible for people to abbreviate "qaedat ma'loomat" into just "qaeda" when speaking among themselves, it is almost never referred to in print or formal settings as just "qaeda" because that would remove the context altogether. But it is possible in informal settings once the context is established because three syllables are always quicker to say than six. As to whether this has anything to do with the origin of the name of the group, I have absolutely no idea. Ramallite ^(talk) 17:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your expertise Ramallite. Now that he has verified that the word can indeed be used to mean database, I'm gonna restore Mr. Cook's statements to the article. It is notable that someone like him would state a different explanation for the origin of Al Qaeda's name, even if others disagree with it. Just because bin Laden says something doesn't mean it's the truth, and I personally would put more trust in Mr. Cook than I would in Mr. bin Laden. At any rate, since Mr. Cook's claims can no longer be debunked on simple linguistic grounds, there is no reasion for their exclusion from the article. Blackcats 17:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

What? He verified that it is highly unlikely that the word would be used in this way. "Almost never found" in print settings. At best "possible" in spoken settings. Robin Cook is just wrong here, and all al Qaeda scholars I have read on this conclude that the name first referred to the physical location where people met or passed through, not a "database." The assumption that the name was the CIA's doing is also not supported by any of this. You may trust Cook more than bin Laden in general, but on this issue there is no reason for the latter to distort anything here specifically, and in fact he is much closer to the information than Cook. I am going to delete Cook from the article again; it really just doesn't belong here as it was clearly a mistake on his part. --csloat 17:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

No - he (Ramallite) said precisely what I had said about it - that it was used that way - in informal settings once the context had been established. And that's how names of things often come about - out of the informal jargon of the people working on a certain project - people who know the context very well. You say that "there is no reason for the latter [bin Laden] to distort anything here." But that's circular reasoning. Because if it's true, and the organization's name did in fact come from a database of the CIA, then that fact would likely serve to discredit bin Laden in the eyes of potential supporters - if it were to become well known. You also imply that Mr. Cook wouldn't be "close to the information," but in his capacity in the British government it's quite likely he would have access to such information. At any rate, I'm restoring it to the article, because you've given no compelling reason for it's exclusion. Even if you (and all the "experts" who allegedly agree with you) feel that it's not possibly true, the fact is that Mr. Cook is a notable person, the Guardian is a notable source, and the fact that a notable person writes in a notable newspaper that the origin of an infamous organization's name is different than what most people thought - that fact is notable. Blackcats 02:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Also let me add - your entry says it was a "CIA database." The idea that the CIA would refer to a database in writing using an Arabic word that is rarely used that way in spoken language and almost never in print is sheer fantasy.--csloat 17:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't me who said it - it was Mr. Cook, so if he weren't dead I'd urge you to go argue with him about it. But at any rate, whatever agents in the CIA were recruiting for the mujahadin would mostly likely be fluent in Arabic, so there's nothing particuarrly strage about the idea that they would use shortened Arabic jargon to refer to their project files. And as Ramallite stated, it's much easier to say "al qaeda" than "al qaedat ma'loomat." Blackcats 02:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Cook did not say that; he said it was a database file but not that it was one created for the CIA. This is nonsense anyway -- Cook's claim "recruited and trained with help from the CIA" is basically accurate but the "help" was extremely indirect; it is extremely unlikely the CIA ever actually "recruited and trained" bin Laden or his followers among the Afghan Arabs. And Ramallite said that it was "possible" to use "qaeda" in this manner in spoken Arabic but "almost never" in print and formal settings. Ramallite please speak up here if you are reading this - it is my understanding that Blackcats is almost completely reversing the meaning of what you wrote above. In any case the interpretation that Cook has here seems both dead wrong (at the very least, all counterterrorism experts seem to think so) and completely non-notable, and on top of all that, the way it is written in the article distorts what Cook has to say (Cook never refers to it as a "CIA database").--csloat 06:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Why is this database nonsense back in the article? I thought it was agreed to remove it, and I don't see any further discussion below (am I missing it?) I don't know of any counterterrorism scholars who would agree with the claim that al Qaeda means "the database" in this context, and the paleonymology offered in the article sounds like complete nonsense to me.--csloat 05:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

sorry didn't see this response. See the "Lead" topic below. 64.163.4.225 20:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This sub-section was removed. User:Mov, the one who removed it gave the following explanation;

NPOV, war in Bosnia is a different topic from Al Qaeda, and there is no continuity from Sudan to Bosnian to Afghanistan. Was only added on August 9 2005.

Mov, can you give a more detailed explanation as to why you removed the "Bosnia" sub-section? Thanks, --Gramaic | Talk 08:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

From --Alberdi 12:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

In the past, the Bosnian section has been chopped around in a partial manner by people who hold an established position on the former Yugoslavian conflict. Pro-Serb edits typically attempt to connect bin Laden to Mr. Izetbegović, exaggerate the influence or importance of the Arab fighters on the Bosnian Muslim side or attempt to portray BiH as a hotbed of radical Islamic activity. Several partial edits based on dubious/unconfirmed "news" resources have been eliminated to get to the text currently written.

Readers more partial to the Bosnian cause have adopted a different tack: to remove the section altogether, presumably to promote the view that al-Qaeda's Bosnian adventure never happened (citing NPOV).

I believe that the current edit, (not written by me but which I have just reverted), while not perfect, is not a bad stab at impartiality on what is very obviously a contentious subject:

It is well documented that al-Qaeda took an interest in the Bosnian conflict, acting as a recruiting office in Islamic countries, channelling money and men to Bosnia in a similar manner (albeit on a much smaller scale than it had in Afghanistan -- the best estimate for Bosnia is probably around 3,000 fighters). Several known associates of bin Laden (including one named in the Bosnian section) were present in Bosnia. Fundraising operations connected to al-Qaeda were operating from offices based in BiH (and have subsequently been closed down by the BiH authorities). All these instances are well documented. Indeed the presence of Arab fighters in Bosnia is sufficiently well established for their removal from Bosnian territory to be specifically dealt with by the Dayton Peace Accord.

However:

It is also generally accepted that the Arab fighters acted largely as an independent force beyond the control of the Izetbegović regime, that Bosnian Muslims failed to be persuaded to adopt the fundamentalist Islamic beliefs of the Arab fighters and have largely shunned all attempts by al-Qaeda to radicalise them. Further that the BiH Government post-Dayton supported their removal.

User:Mov states the need for continuity in the text between Sudan and Afghanistan. Continuity implies a straight line whreas al-Qaeda is anything but linear, operating as a loosely constructed internationally distributed network which can (and does) operate simultaneously in several theaters. If continuity is required, the handover from the Bosnian to the Afghan section does provide some degree of linearity. It is reasonable to accept that bin Laden was biding his time with some supporters in Sudan while other trusted hands were operating in Bosnia. Any correspondent who has covered Afghanistan will tell you that many of the Arab fighters who operated alongside the Taliban in the late 1990s were proud veterans of Bosnia.

I am not sure who User:Mov is. The ID appears to be unsullied by previous editing, but a frequent remover is 68.150.38.102. Please view other edits made under this ID to assess whether they are best placed to judge whether or not the Bosnian section expresses an NPOV and thus expunge an entire section...

The Bosnian section may be over-represented in terms of length (especially in comparison to the "al-Qaeda in Sudan" section which is woefully short), but it seems to me to present a NPOV supported with established information from reputable sources and little or no disputed material. --Alberdi 12:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

What is it meant by saying Bosnia comprised a large, but militarily weak component of the former Yugoslavia - whats a value of this information? Also, in what sence is it 'large'? Its about the size of Croatia, demographically and in area. Now, being a Croat, Ive never heard it said that Croatia is large in any sense of the word, not even relative to Yugoslavia. Much more common is to say that the entire nation could fit in one suburb of a larger metropolis :) In any case, any demographic etc information about Bosnia is in the article about Bosnia, whats it doing here? Now, war in bosnia is quite a debated topic, i know there is the croatian pov about it, the bosnian pov about it, and im sure there is a serbian pov about it. Why exacly is it then said Yugoslav disintegration saw some ethnic Serbs and some ethnic Croats within Bosnia, supported by their rump adjacent states (Serbia and Croatia), engage in a three way conflict against the Bosniaks dominated core. - this is certanly just one of the versions of the story - and one actually stated in a pretty extreme way. It being simply an aggression by the Serbs is a possible another.. The word 'core' is also a bit pov; even if though strictly geographically. I think this is quite a delicate issue, and one still debaded heavely in courts; i think encyclopaedia should not suppose much about it. In any case, this is the article: Bosnian_War about bosnian war; such 'summary-like' imprecision in explanation as this one, in articles quite thematically far from the main article, are imo horribly problematic, cuz anyone writing about a topic cannot trace all the summaries created like this and make the changes. Notice how there the war is indeed explained as agression by the serbs, or alternatively, a civil war, and, though Im possibly being media-brainwashed here (though attemptedly fairly critical of most pro-croat media spins on it), i find it quite strange for the conflict to be presented as simply a 3-way conflict, where implicitly, croats and serbs have an equally agressive stance to that fictitious 'bosniak core' (especially considering there being much cooperation of bosniaks and croats throuought the conflict, though this relationship did became a conflict sometimes) - possibly, and even this would be heavily contested, having some peretensions of expansion on areas allready inhabited by croats (that is, maybe supporting the idea of splitting or cantinisation of bosnia, like for instance in the Vance-Owen peace plan), but simply in a three-way war agains 'bosniak core'???? And then this article goes on to quote that book:Al-Qaida’s Jihad in Europe: the Afghan-Bosnian network, Evan Kohlmann - is there a wikipedia article about the book? Or about Evan Kohlmann? If so, where are the links to it? If not, why is this a reliable source? Is the guy a prominent historian? How was the book commented by other historians? Are these theories supported by any other source? My limited knowledge of this was that there indeed were some marginal numbers of mujahidin fighters there. That any of them were terrorists is quite a claim; that there was any connection of them ant Al-Qaeda, is i believe pretty damn hard to prove, and making such a claim indeed has the burdain of proof, especially considering the contraversy of the status of Al-Qaeda as an international network to begin with...If this is so 'well documented', could anyone quote the primary sources of this? I cannot see how any such details like recruitment plans of Al-Qaeda could be 'well documented', when its internationall existance itself can be contraversial... One should also take into account the context of this section; its existance seems to point to an 'Al-Qaeda link' with bosnia, and if you read it, it doesnt present much of a link... Finally, this is quite a long section, based only on this, by everything presended in this article, possibly amateur book, and finally doesnt present much - more or less, it can be summed up in - they went there, tried to radicalise the population, and failed. So, why is this 'activity' even relevant, especially to warrant a long section, with problematic 'summaries' and rehashing of unrelated information from other articles??? I wont directly edit this, so I dont butcher the article inappropriately, but i really hope someone will comment this and explain the justification of the current state of the article. --Aryah 12:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Why was this quote deleted?

and the plan was successful: within six months the Soviet army had crossed the border into Afghanistan, prompting Brzezinski to write to Carter, "we now have the opportunity of giving to the

Vietnam war

."

--csloat 00:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It is drawing the user to a conclusion not supported by the facts: The Carter administration was responsible for direct Soviet military involvement. This would mean that 6 months after a covert order was given to assist the Mujahidin, the effect was so successful as to draw the Soviets into Afghanistan. Seeing as how even the hastiest military plan, if you don’t count Market Garden, takes several weeks – months to plan and organize, this statement does not seem factually correct. There is plenty of space to discuss the impact of the CIA’s efforts in Afghanistan, but to say that Carter is responsible for the Soviet invasion is laughable. TDC 01:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed -- however, I asked why the quote was removed, not the judgment of 'success'. The fact is Brzezinski wrote that note, and that even though you and I agree he was wrong, he certainly represented it that way. If you want to qualify this statement without "original research," Steve Coll's study is authoritative here and I believe he specifically refutes Brzezinski in a footnote. But Brzezinski's judgment, and specifically that quote, are a significant enough part of the public understanding of this history that they belong there.--csloat 02:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the dispute can be resolved by summarizing Coll's quote without the part about "prompting." The two things happened in sequential order. Both are relevant to the article. The only dispute concerns whether or not one thing led to the other. --Peter McConaughey 15:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The word "prompting" refers to the invasion prompting Brzezinski to write to Carter -- that is not disputed. What is disputed is whether the CIA action caused the Soviet invasion.--csloat 17:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, Al Qaeda's prime objective is to stop the United States occupation of other nations, or at least what it calls "occupation", and that it has nothing to do with religion, ethnicity or anything else. And of course we should be calling it that other long name, rather than Al-Qaeda, if Al-Qaeda just means "the base". No wonder there's no kind of consensus on who they are. The London Bombings from earlier this year were committed by a group of Londoners who admitted to doing them, and called themselves "The European Al Qaeda" (sic) and they were neither arab or muslim. Suggesting that Al Qaeda has any basis on religion is naive. This is stated in an enormous number of speeches by Osama bin Laden. It has absolutely nothing to do with religion.

Al Qaeda believes, essentially, that USA is the mortal enemy of the entire world. They believe that America are trying to destroy other countries by taking them over. They use, as reference, the fact that USA has established Israel in the middle east, and are depriving Palestinians of the right to their land. The fact that Israel is not self sufficient, and would not exist without US aid (it would be invaded by its neighbours) is used as evidence of this.

However, Al Qaeda does not just hate America. They also hate Russia, China and any other country which tries to take control of other countries.

Many of the things that have been "attributed" to Al Qaeda have nothing to do with their core beliefs. September 11, for example, could not have been conducted by Al Qaeda because they have asserted that they will never attack a country in their own country. Their aim is primarily to stop that country from invading others. September 11, therefore, could not have been conducted by Al Qaeda, and there have been no substantial links to suggest that they could have done it. Given the evidence, it is far more likely that Saddam Hussein is responsible, as he had both motive and opportunity, as well as the fact that we have to have some reason for being in Iraq now.

A terrorist group, by definition, accepts responsibility for their actions. When they have conducted an attack, they send out a note to say that they did it. The vast majority of the incidents suggested there were actually claimed by other groups - for example the Kenyan embassy bombings were claimed to be conducted by a local Kenyan group who were upset at their wages and conditions. The fact that they claimed to be responsible, while Al Qaeda did not suggests evidence that Al Qaeda didn't do it. Or did they bribe them to say that?

Al Qaeda, however, are in Iraq. They were in Iraq in 1992 fighting with the kurds (the ones that Saddam Hussein killed) and they are in Iraq now, having allied with Hussein loyalists, or insurgents if you prefer. They did the London bombings earlier this year. They did the Madrid bombings in 2002. They have done an awful lot of terrorist things. and they've admitted to doing them.

Of course, then you've got the issue of nams. Because we've gone and given them the wrong name to begin with, then there's uncertainty about everything after that. Maybe we should just start calling them by the correct name and be done with it. Have Al Qaeda be a redirect to the actual name of the organisation. And then we can blame them for the right things.

As for the religious issues, obviously OBL is a very religious man. But there's a lot of muslims who speak like that that are not extremists. He's just using words to describe his beliefs. His beliefs are not based on religion. If they were based on religion, then he'd hate all Christians. It is not a jihad against all Christians - it is a jihad against America. Or, should I say, "American Imperialism". And Russia, and China.

Putting in any hint that its about islam is an insult to muslims. It creates a great amount of animosity by doing so. Zordrac 00:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

But it is (at least partly) about Bin Laden's version of Islam. You say it's a jihad against America and others the group sees as "imperialist." But jihad is an Islamic concept. Bin Laden has repeatedly said that what he is doing is in the name of Allah, and has issued fatwas (Islamic religious decrees) "in compliance with God's order" according to his interpretation of the Koran, and using the Koran to justify his own position in sort of the same way as Fred Phelps uses the Bible to justify his. It doesn't make sense to say that al-Qaeda's Islamist movement is unrelated to Islam. --Mr. Billion 07:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I added a sentence to the section about possible cooperation with Saddam. RonCram had added a link to a video from the late 1990s making the claim (which is now accepted to be false) that Saddam worked with al-Qaeda. I included a sentence summarizing major investigations of the issue and linking to the page

09:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Two Sides

I think there is two sides to the neutrality dispute. Personally I Think the article is making a great attempt at neutrality.On the other hand the topic is very controversial and it is very hard to please everyone.

I'm really new (first day new) and I have already seen some articles that seem more biased and are not rated for NPOV. Respectfully I think the NPOV notice should be removed. The article is about as neutral as it gets but with this topic you're always going to have somebody disputing it. Veritas Liberum 23:29 6 December 2005 (GMT)

An article can be written from a neutral point of view. Many revisions in the history of this article went undisputed for long periods of time. Eventually enough POV creep would emerge that it could no longer be considered neutral. That's where it is today.

The article didn't get any better or more accurate since the last time it was undisputed, it just got more POV. --Peter McConaughey 18:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

What I hoped to find in this article was information on al-Qaeda's involvement in the March 11th commuter train attacks in Madrid. It was al-Qaeda's most devastiting attack since 9/11. And it is very interesting that an Islamic terrorist organiztion would claim responsibility for the attacks considering the history between Islam and Spain. Doubly so considering that Spain has their own terrorists. As if ETA didn't do enough damage, now they're facing the threat of Islamic terrorists as well. I just think the discussion of this even and al-Qaeda's attacks on non-US interests should be presented more predominately. Wikipedia already has one lengthy article on 9/11, it doesn't need two.

And as everyone knows "the neutrality of this article is indispute". From what I read it didn't seem that bad. All in all just an informative atricle. The only thing I would see as controversial and possibly biased is the section on al-Qaeda. It seem like some of what is presented as fact in that section is something that may be true, but there is no way to say as it is in dispute worldwide at this moment and thus should not be presented as fact. I think it would be best just to mention al-Qaeda's alleged interests in Iraq and connections to Hussein and what they are and that they sparked the current war in the Gulf region. Leave it at that and link a few news articles and the "al-Qaeda and Hussein" article.

Maybe we should have one article titled "Al-Qaeda as defined by Fox News" and another article for the rest of the world. --Peter McConaughey 01:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I just read an excerpt from a most definitive book on Al-Qaeda that is coming out next month. The excerpt is in the new issue of Vanity Fair. It features pages of quotes from the most intimate people associated with al-Qaeda and clears up many of the POV and self-contradictory issues of this article. --Peter McConaughey 15:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Why was the NPOV tag reinserted into this article? Thanks, --Gramaic 05:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

An NPOV tag is added to an article when the general theme of a disputed piece is biased toward one way of thinking. Since most of our editors are western-influenced, international articles tend to have a western bent. In the case of this Al-Qaeda article, the description of the movement is based almost entirely on the propaganda used for a war against it. Twenty years from now, we will look back and realize that our characterization of Al-Qaeda is as silly as our 1960s characterization of Russia. We will marvel at how our blind hatred shaped our definitions and led us to do really stupid things. We will wonder why we had to repeat history again through the use of another evil ism.

One of the best ways of avoiding the appearance of

Wikipedia words to avoid:Terrorism. --Peter McConaughey

14:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I propose that we adopt a common goal of making the al-Qaeda article NPOV. This article used to be strong. Now it is weak with all sorts of unverified assertions. There isn't anything to lose by citing verifiable sources instead of asserting something that you believe to be true. It can only improve the strength of the article and everything in it. You can say virtually the same thing in a strong article as you can in a weak one. The only substantial difference is that you include who said it. Wikipedia is not a source. We cannot assert anything that is controversial or disputed. We can, however, cite other people that have made controversial and disputed claims, especially when those claims are balanced by opposing citations. This is the difference between a supermarket tabloid and a reliable encyclopedia. Which are we going to be? If we're going to be another

Encyclopedia Britannica, we're going to have to write articles from a neutral point of view. --Peter McConaughey

21:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Disputed sentences

Content must be based on

sources

.

• "Nearly every government and international organization considers al-Qaeda to be a terrorist organization." With this sentence, we either need to list notable government and international organizations, or we need to cite, in the article, the source of this opinion. It is too controversial for the narrative voice of the article to assert.

• "Al-Qaeda is widely regarded as responsible..." Again, we need to either cite someone who says that or we need to list specific examples. It is too controversial for the narrative voice of the article to assert.

• "...and the campaign is believed to provide the inspiration for many other subsequent international attacks." Says who? What leads us to this assertion? This is one of three theories explaining the structure of al Qaeda. Who espouses this theory?

• Overview-"According to statements broadcast by al-Qaeda on the internet and on satellite TV channels, the ultimate goal of al-Qaeda is to re-establish the Caliphate across the Islamic world, by working with allied Islamic extremist groups to overthrow secular or Western-supported regimes." Can we have any examples of these statements? If this is true, why not use a quote? The word "extremist" is highly POV.

• Overview-"...al-Qaeda is believed to have been implicitly involved in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar-Es-Salaam, Tanzania..." The United States government believes al-Qaeda to be implicitly involved in these attacks. If the source is the US government, then the U.S. government needs to be cited, not a passive reference to assumed fact.

• Overview-"The military leader of al-Qaeda is widely reported to have been Khalid Shaikh Mohammed..." Again, this is the opinion of the U.S. government. Is the U.S. government such a poor source that we are afraid to cite them?

let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. For starters which governments don't consider Al Qaeda to be terrorists? keith 18:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

To answer your question, for example, I haven't seen any evidence that, the Iranian government recognizes al-Qaeda as a terrorist organization. But this is not that important anyways. But what's important is citations from reputable sources that can support the assertion that "nearly every government and international organization considers al-Qaeda to be a terrorist organization." Saeed Jahed 12:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

User Cedar-Guardian wishes to add the following citing newspaper sources:

"The Al-Qaeda group in Iraq has claimed responsibility for rockets attacks on northern Israel from Lebanon, making it the first time the group has launched an attack on Israel from Lebanese territory on December 27, 2005. However, the statement published on an islamist web site could not be authentificated, no date is given for the attack, and it contradicted reports about the attack (It stated the use of 10 "Grad missiles" while three Katyusha rockets have been reported. Hence, it was not clear which attack it was referring to."

There is no verification that the claim was made on behalf of al Qaeda in Iraq, the statement got material facts about the attack wrong (both in terms of numbers and types of rockets), furthermore the attack came from an area dominated by a militant Shiite group with a long history of antipathy to al Qaeda. Attacks from this area are a commonplace. Nothing makes this attack unusual save for the claim of attribution to al Qaeda. All known sources including Israeli intelligence dispute the accuracy of the claim.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a tittle-tattle sheet and this claim falls well below the standards of verification we would need to warrant its inclusion. --Alberdi 04:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph I wrote could be verified [1][2]. It was featured on many news networks including cnn. I've also added why it could be wrong. So why did you remove it? CG 18:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Because it stinks and even the sources you quote rubbish it in their text. --Alberdi 03:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Please prove your point with a better argument that it stinks. Thank you . CG 17:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Quoting your source:

A senior Israeli security source questioned the claim.

The Israeli security source said: "For this to be true, it would mean that Al-Qaeda, a virulently anti-Shiite group, has penetrated the heartland of Hizbullah, a virulent Shiite group, on such a scale that it can mount a rocket salvo independently.

"This claim should be regarded with extreme skepticism," he said.

I have to agree with Alberdi - the claim certainly doesn't merit inclusion based on the thin available evidence. Unless you have something more definitive? Graft 02:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

But why disregard this event? It has been reported by many major news networks (cnn, euronews...). We don't have to say "AL-qaeda fired a rocket" but we could describe the event with all the clues that led to doubt and skepticism. Do we have to erase this fact if an israeli officer have denied it? CG 15:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason the story went everywhere was it was part of a Reuters report which originated in Cairo and all news organisations take the service. Furthermore the date of release coincided with the Christmas holidays when news is thin and many newsdesk experts on the region would not have been available to assess the claim. A rocket attack on Israel is not an unusual story. If we examine it, what made the story "news" was that a person unknown made a claim for resposibility to an Islamist website which al-Qaeda has used in the past. The claim was not substantiated by any other source and contained little information aside from 'facts' which are known to be wrong (number and type of rockets). Furthermore it doesn't fit the known political landscape of the region. It was thus rubbished not just by Israeli intelligence but also by the Fatah chief in Lebanon and pretty much every other authoritative commentator. There are many claims to al-Qaeda responsibility and assessing their veracity will always be subjective. For the reasons stated above, I don't think this one makes it and the only other person to comment so far appears to share my view. --Alberdi 09:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I found this article -- www.omninerd.com/2005/12/30/articles/45 -- about Al-Qaeda's strategy. It's well written and referenced. Good for an external link?

Dont think al-Qaeda has a leader. This is quite a POV comment for the picture. helohe (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Switched to "founder", which is what Osama bin Laden says in its lead. Redquark 19:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed this image / subtitle entirely because no verifiable information exists associating Osama bin Laden with the "al-Qaeda organization", other than perhaps generalized approval of its attributed actions by him. Association between bin Laden and al-Qaeda was retroactively fitted by USA analysts, political spin, and corresponding mass-media publication of those assertions. From any primay sources available, bin Laden has never referred to himself or to his small circle of subordinates as or associated with "al-Qaeda". 71.162.141.213 16:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC) [[Image:Osama-med.jpg|thumb|right|[[Osama bin Laden]] founded al-Qaeda in the [[1990s]].]]

This sort of tomfoolery is really irritating. Even if you don't accept that the numerous statements he's made (e.g. the one in support of Zarqawi) in the name of al-Qaeda are genuine, there's the famed Ummat interview that most cranks accept as genuine where he denies involvement of al-Qaeda in 9/11. So... you lose, sorry. Putting it back in. Graft 16:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's great that this article makes a specific attribution for the view that al-Qaeda is responsible for the 9/11 attacks. But to simply say that the 9/11 commission holds that view seems to downplay the wide acceptance of that view around the world. I don't suggest we go back to the fuzzier wording of "It is widely reported...", but how about an attribution that is both specific and conveys the dominance of the belief? For example, how about attributing the view to the United Nations? It would need a citation, and I don't have one yet. But I want to see if others here agree, and perhaps if anyone has such a citation. --Allen 00:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I dont know who the leader is Usama bin Ladin , but i know who trained him for a use and after there was no use abandoned him. Thats how organizations like these are formed.

• sigh* How come people think they are clever when they point out OBL was partly trained by the USA? What's the point? Are you saying AQ was constructed by the USA through OBL? Did the USA instill Islamic fundamentalist views in him? Is it OBL who is running around killing people using the military skille he was taught? Should the USA NOT have supported Afghanis against the Sovjet invasion? What are you exactly getting at? The military training OBL received is hardly to blame for the succes of AQ. Are you really saying that anybody who receives training from the USA could mastermind something like AQ? Is training in the use of RPG's really that impressive? Celcius 14:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Should the video, in which Osama Bin Laden mentioned that he would be willing to negotiate peace with the "west" and al-Qaeda under certain conditions, be mentioned in this article? The video hasn't been talked about much, and US is of course following its "we don't negotiate with terrorists" policy (which I personally disagree with completely, but that's another story and doesnt belong in wikipedia :) ). Would probably be an interesting thing to mention somewhere in the article. --85.49.224.196 01:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

correct me if I'm wrong, but Bin Laden did not offer to negotiate peace, rather he proposed a possible truce with HIS conditions. Feel free to mention the truce, but also mention that it is common practice among Islamic extremists to talk of truce when they want to reconstitute their offensive capabilities. And a question: How do you negotiate with someone who believes that his God wants him to kill you because you are the "infidel"? If you come up with that solution, you should be given the Nobel Peace Prize. Jeravicious 22:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Through out the article, it changes from al-Qaeda to Al-Qaeda to al Qaeda... which one is it? What is the correct capitalization/hyphenation? jess523s 04:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a flag Image:Flag of al-Qaeda.svg, is that in any way "official" and should be posted in the article? Añoranza 11:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not known to be official. This is most due to the fact that a flag such as this would not often be displayed outdoors or around people not close to whichever group it belongs to.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(esperanza) 2006-05-12 09:33

What does the Arabic writing mean? --FOo 02:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Using my rusty Persian I can recognize the words Allah (Arabic term for God) and Muhammad along with a bunch of other ones. It says something along the lines of "There is no god but Allah; and Muhammad is Allah's messenger." It is the creed in Islam which emphasises the oneness of God and Muhammad as his messenger. However, I'm not a Muslim, so it should be verified by someone with more credentials. Saeed Jahed 15:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The word qaeda in Arabic literally means camp, not base or foundation. While similar in meaning, it means a camp with tents. The name is supposed to suggest security and mobility all at once.

Many of the "access dates" were incorrect and a lot of them had a date before the published article. Many of them didn't have the date of the article as well.

02:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Adding Al-Qaeda to the Category:Terrorist organizations along with the IRA, LTTE and Hammas.Hypnosadist 20:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Please change references to this person into past tense. --68.97.208.232 18:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The article has been mysteriously blanked out. I suspect vandalism, I need help!

Calling al-Qaeda a "terrorist organization" in the first sentence of the article, without stating that this position is not officially shared by the administration of every country (or also by some large populations within certain Islamic countries such as Iran), can not be considered a neutral point of view. However, the sentence that follows seems to do a good job of revealing (in a neutral manner) al-Qaeda's status as a "terrorist organization." I want to discuss this before changing the word "terrorist" in the first sentence. Saeed Jahed 13:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Strictly, by previous 'other' Encyclopedic standards and Wikipedia as well, al-Qaeda cannot be described as a terrorist organization except in quotes where {whoever} specifically is quoted as describing them as such.

On example of this is the problem that much of the Muslim 'world' (and many others) considers USA attacks to be of a terrorist type (rapes, executions, torture, large bombings, etc...) of civilians to be terrorist activities.

While I am not condoning actions by any of the parties involved, labeling with loaded words like 'terrorists' of people who were previously called 'freedom fighters' (history repeats itself) while they are conducting the same activities when described under the opposite label they were previously raises many red flags in this context.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 04:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you removed the fact that they have been labelled as such by various governemnts. This of course doesn't mean they are, but it seems ridiculous to not mention that in the intro somewhere. I am not saying we should say they are terrorists, in fact I don't believe wikipedia should ever label any group that way, but we should mention some of the major governements that do, as well as a mention of the fact that some groups (and list the major ones) disagree. The Ungovernable Force 05:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Added a new sentence to the introduction, with appropriate external references to working, relevant government web pages, simply stating that the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia include al-Qaeda on their respective lists of terrorist organizations. The sentence also has hyperlinks to other Wikipedia articles, most notably

List of terrorist organisations for "lists". I cannot find a working link to either an official United Nations or European Union web page listing al-Qaeda as a terrorist organization, therefore those assertions are not made. This approach removes the POV labeling concerns raised by That Guy, From That Show! but reflects the fact that the current governments of these four countries have chosen include al-Qaeda on their lists of terrorist organizations, which is both NPOV and verifiable.--Historypre

21:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems good. Also, if there are any notable people, groups or countries that say they aren't a terrorist organization (including al-Qaeda itself), maybe include that too, just to present both sides. The Ungovernable Force 04:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

- We hear about it so much on the news, so where is it? 71.15.47.152 15:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC) - Also of interest is the first mention of Al qaeda on usenet: - [3] - I'm not sure it would be appropriate for the article. 71.15.47.152 15:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I doubt al-Qaeda itself actually has a website. Various different groups are active on the Internet, though, so those are probably what are being referred to when news articles say that some video has appeared on "a militant website." I think Hamas and Hezbollah both have their own websites, and there are various lesser-known nuclei of web sites for Islamic extremists and their organizations. Probably most news sources don't link them or mention the URLs or names because they don't want to "promote" the websites and give them extra hits. --Mr. Billion 19:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I cite the relevant passage in the article, but allow me to reproduce it here.

And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.

And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy. Destruction is freedom and democracy, while resistance is terrorism and intolerance.

This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions as Bush Sr did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known, and it means the throwing of millions of pounds of bombs and explosives at millions of children - also in Iraq - as Bush Jr did, in order to remove an old agent and replace him with a new puppet to assist in the pilfering of Iraq's oil and other outrages.

So with these images and their like as their background, the events of September 11th came as a reply to th

So I'm not sure what possible argument there is for his not claiming responsibility.

None but context. It's not a major issue though to me, he was involved, the only real dispute is minor, that he dodges responsibility by careful wording and surrounding context. I've read that and other transcripts many, many times. It's easy to take a few sentences and say 'here is the smoking gun' but within context it's not quite so clear.

That said, I'll leave it, the only thing that I would like changed in that section is the new 'consensus opinion in USA' stuff. It's irrelevant and should be removed. If we use USA opinion to fill in articles we should also balance it with opinions from other governments.

Let the readers freely form their own opinions instead of using 'USA says/believes it's true' to support assertions.

example: Most of the USA public still believes that Saddam Hussein was also involved with the 9/11 attacks but that isn't useful in articles about him and more than USA opinion does here.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 02:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, with the quote from the October 2004 video and reference, the 'consensus opinion in USA' sentence should be removed for balance and emphasis. This section now lays out the evidence for readers to draw their own conclusions, while describing the pertinent events.--Historypre 04:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad we were able to reach a compromise here but you're continued exhortations to read the article and consider it in context makes me wonder if you've done the same. Bin Laden says he got the idea for 9/11 from watching the towers of Lebanon be attacked--how is any vague reference to "context" change that into something other than a claim of responsibility? Really, if this isn't a smoking gun, I'm not sure why it isn't. (Note I'm not claiming it's the smoking gun *that he did it*--just the smoking gun that he's claimed responsiblity for it. I think it's probably more likely than not that Bin Laden's connection with 911 was pretty tangential, like funding guys who carried it off without ever telling him about it. Because he denied and denied it, but at some point decided it was profitable to start taking credit for it, probably to make his threats seem more serious. Bin Laden's a pretty crafty rhetorician. That said, when says he did it, yeah, I think that's the smoking gun for ... well, him saying he did it.)

Ok, I'll toss context aside for this particular post. We can revisit it soon if you wish. I'll temporarily agree that the passage above is enough to stand on it's own for the sake of argument. That keeps it simple and if I can knock your 100% belief that he said he did it in that passage down just a bit without using the rest of the document to support my assertions it should follow that I cast more doubt with context discussions.

You said That said, when says he did it, yeah, I think that's the smoking gun for ... well, him saying he did it. Are you 100% absolutely sure he said that?

And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.

And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy. Destruction is freedom and democracy, while resistance is terrorism and intolerance.

'This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions as Bush Sr did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known, and it means the throwing of millions of pounds of bombs and explosives at millions of children - also in Iraq - as Bush Jr did, in order to remove an old agent and replace him with a new puppet to assist in the pilfering of Iraq's oil and other outrages.

Did he say I did it or did he say I thought about it?

-- That Guy, From That Show! 09:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither, he says he conceived it. I think the statement speaks for itself, but let me quote Duke University Bruce Lawrence's take on the quotation: "For the first time caliming direct responsiblity for the attacks, bin Laden links them with the American-backed Israeli invasion of Lebanon in June 1982." Messages to the World, p. 237-238. Lawrence spent a few years analyzing bin Laden's texts, so fi there was some kind of equivocation there, I think Lawrence would have caught it.

I think the current treatment in the article, where the relevant portion of the quote appears, lets readers see the text as spoken, as well as follow the hyperlink to the

high-rises in the 1982 invasion of Lebanon: "as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children."^[1]

(emphasis added)

Again, seeing the quote allows the reader to decide whether or not "it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America ..." translated into later action. Also, please sign your comments in this section -- there is even a convenient little button, third from the left, in the Wiki editor toolbar.--Historypre 19:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I think the "appeared" is just flabby hedging, but I'm fine with it for now if that's the compromise needed. If the statement itself really left room for doubt--which I think is is an unreasonable position--then there would be no need for the "appeared"--the "appeared" is just there to influence the reader into accepting the author's unreasonable view that bin Laden's words don't show direct responsibility. But the guy who made it is in here every day, so I know when I have to acquiesce.

"Appeared" isn't hedging. Even after reviewing the transcript/video, the US Government didn't feel that it was clear enough to warrant indicting OBL for 9/11). If it was unambiguous, he would have been charged as a conspirator for the 9/11 attacks much like other people have been.

As mentioned, the transcript is linked for everyone to read and decide for themselves.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 09:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is. The governmnet isn't indicting Osama because it hasn't captured him. If you think the feds are unsure about 911, you might want to listen to the statements of top cop GW Bush sometime. I'll tell you what, how about we take out the "appears" and replace it with a conclusory sentence--"some wonder if that's really proof, though, since despite the government's unequivocal imputation of blame, it has yet to indict the still at-large bin Laden."

The full English text of the

01:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Subheadings added

I organized the article a bit. The diff looks like I took an axe to the article but actually I just moved some sections (without changing content) in an attempt to make the Table of Contents more useful and informative.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 09:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article?

This article still needs quite a bit of work to be ready for being placed on the main page.

One concern of mine is that the article is rather unweildy in size (57K). I suggest that the 'Activities' subheading be split off into a separate article due to it taking up quite a bit of space. Another problem: that section that has the least amount of references/cites.

IMO, a short summary and link to a subpage would make getting this article featured on the main page much easier.

(A lot of work during the next month on the rest of the article, a peer review, and then try for featured article?)

-- That Guy, From That Show! 01:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: RE: RE: RE: Militant vs Terrorist (ack)

A few people seem to equate avoiding terms like 'Terrorist' as an indication that those who use 'Militant' are somehow biased and/or support Osama bin Laden somehow. This is not the case.

Reading the talk archives for this and similar articles is a good way to find out why 'Militant' is often more accurate and non-biased.

Also, the guideline for Wikipedia writing style explains the problem(s) with the word 'Terrorist' specifically in detail. For those new to Wikipedia or not familiar with this guideline I suggest that you read

Words to avoid

.

Regards, -- That Guy, From That Show! 01:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Lead

The lead is way too long. A few short paragraphs is enough. At its current size, it wouldn't even be considered a stub if it were an article on its own. That's not to say the extraneous information should be discarded, but it should be filed away under the appropriate headers. Remember, it's supposed to be a summary and an introduction to the topic, not a section in itself. —

Ethiopia

02:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur and encourage a way work on fixing this situation ASAP.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 04:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

LThat entire paragraph covering a couple minor notables' opinion on the origin of the name does not belong in the introduction. There's a whole section on the name later on for that. And it only gives a single pov regarding the name, out of several pov's out there. By the way what happened to the others? They used to be here. Further, "that guy" it should be clear to you that the use of "database" is not concensus, as evidenced by your need to constantly defend it since adding it very recently (with a rather misleading edit summary by the way), over the previous stable version that had indeed been discussed several times. I will add a couple more references including the previously-removed quote from bin Laden himself that show your addition about the database is not remotely common knowledge nor is it undisputed.

'Common knowledge' is not encyclopedic. The editors have worked on this article for quite a long time and wandering in while making major changes without reaching consensus with the dozen or so active editors is not a good way to help Wikipedia especially when it is noted on this talk page that doing so is inadvisable.

Anon, please consider this is a friendly tip about how to work well with others in improving Wikipedia.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 21:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Common knowledge is indeed encyclopedic. It refers to undisputed/uncontroversial information that does not need to be sourced such as the fact that arabs speak arabic. However you got it backwards, I was referring to common knowledge because you were putting in information, specifically the database translation, in the very first line as if it was common knowledge. My point, which you clearly missed, is that fitting some sources who corroroborate that claim in somewhere later on does not common knowledge make, especially given the existence of counter arguments, such as those which I added. And btw please stop lecturing me on wikipedia consensus, I can plainly see from the edit history where additions were made and by whom, and what the article did and didn't look like throughout its history. I see you have repeatedly reverted people that disagree with your recent change on "database". I see you alone pushing that pov. You are the one that needs to honor consensus. 64.163.4.225 22:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The majority of your claims are completely false and the rest are misrepresentations of what I have contributed to this article. You doing this sort of thing does not reflect on me badly in any meaningful way. The major contributors to this articles have all been quite willing to work together and understand that I (like them) want to improve the article vs edit warring and attacking specific editors.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 02:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Please point me to the discussion where consensus was achieved to make your addition of "database". I see no discussion regarding it in the last nine months. Every previous discussion has ended with it being roundly refused. Your arguments seem to be somewhere between pedantry and bluff. Do you understand how the history tab works? do you realize there are search features in all major browsers? Calling my statements "false" regarding what anyone can plainly see in the article history is simply bizarre. Are you just trolling perhaps? At any rate, do not repeatedly delete sourced relevant additions.You will get yourself banned. Do not revert more than 3 times on the same artcle per day or you will get blocked. I continue to wait patiently for an actual argument regarding the actual content, other than vague references to "policies". 64.163.4.225 18:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I see following a quick glance throught the recent history, I just jotted down the dates but of course can get links if anyone needs them...

• article started out with "the base" back in 2001 which it remained most of the time since then, with the addition of "the foundation". There appear to have been a couple disagreements later last year which ultimately resulted in no change. The last several months it was unchanged as this until...

• you changed it to database on 8 April
• Mrbillion changed it back to "base" on 8 April.
• you changed it to database on 18 May.
• Themean changed it back to "base" on 28 May
• some mystery anon changed it to "database" on 14 July, and ten hours later (back at work?) you removed foundation and rewrote the Robin Cook paragraph to remove dissenting claims.
• Redaktoer changed it back to "base" on 20 July.
• you changed it to database on 20 July.
• then I changed it back and here we are...

Did I miss any? We appear to have you plus an anon (with one edit in his entire history) vs. three users plus me (also anon). 64.163.4.225 20:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation of changes are often helpful yet are easily disruptive when purposely taken out of context to highight a specific lone persons point of view. Random out of context diff claims that are selected out of context are easy and only take moments to pick. Most of the contributors here (like me) have contributed at least 20,000 edits without serious disputes so we must be doing something relatively right regarding improving Wikipedia as a whole.

Your anonymous attempts to provoke a conflict edit-war between me and Mr Billion, Themean, Redaktoer, and others is silly and pointless, We are here to inform as best as we can, not to primarily edit war instead. We are all here to write an encyclopedia not engage in childish immature in-fighting.

Trying to play the most productive editors here against each other will not work in the long term.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 06:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The question at hand is whether al Qaeda should mean "database." Nobody with any credible reputation as an Arabist or counterterrorism scholar would endorse that notion.--csloat 09:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this section was supposed to be about the lead summary. It turned into false accusations about sock-puppetry by myself and narrowed down to talk about one sentence. I've just fixed that sentence so there shouldn't be an issue at this point.

Also, I don't appreciate be accused of using sockpuppets to edit an article.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 16:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Yom's point was about the intro being too long. I think that's a pretty good point. We can reduce the length of the introduction by moving some stuff to a more appropriate section. For instance, we can move the note about naming to the Notes About Naming section.

A few interesting links about the name of al-Qaeda: EMM News Explorer has a listing of different names that the group's referred to in different languages. They give three different Arabic names for al-Qaeda:

لتنظيم القاعدة (ar), القاعدة (ar), and قاعدة (منظمة) (ar)

"لتنظي" seems to mean something like "organization," judging from the Google translations.

"القاعدة" seems to mean "base," although the word could also have an alternate meaning as "database". If you look at the Arabic Wikipedia al-Qaeda page, the translation has the name as "Base (Organization)". (Interestingly, in the text of the article the translation actually calls it "al-Qaeda." I don't know what to make of that.)

Globalsecurity says it means "the base." FAS says it means "the base." The American Heritage Dictionary says it means "the Base." Search Google and you have more than 800,000 hits for "qaeda +base" and "qaeda +foundation" compared to about 100,000 hits for "qaeda +database". "Base" seems to be the more widely used meaning. --Mr. Billion 21:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, Show, you seem to have re-inserted the sentence "Many other sources agree with this origin of the phrase," which I had deleted because the "many other sources" cited to back up that claim was the original source given at the beginning of the paragraph. And why did you erase the other two paragraphs entirely? I can see why we don't need the loony explanation that it comes from Isaac Asimov's Foundation novels, but the quote from bin Laden seems to be quite germane. I'm reverting back to Revision as of 00:25, 22 July 2006, and keeping the {{lowercase|al-Qaeda}} tag. --Mr. Billion 21:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, it was a hasty honest error/oversight on my part.

And, regarding other issues, I apologize to all of the editors here about how I've come across recently. I'm not normally like this I hope the relatively small amount of problems with myself and others (relatively vs my # of edits) will be taken consideration as the recent activity being extremely unusual. (I have had some recent personal issues in RL for a few months but I won't lean on that as an excuse, I need to not let that effect my work here).

So, I'm going to limit most of my activities to this and related articles for a while to copy-editing and vandal reversion until such time I get my RL issues straightened out.

Keep up the good work and I look forward to working together again soon on this and related articles.

This is a sincere apology, I really do mean it.

Thank you all for your contributions and especially nicely/maturely explaining how you feel about my recent edits.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 03:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

PS: I'd like to re-quote the start of this section due to the importance and the fact that I pretty much hijacked an excellent observation about improving this article.

....back to our regularly scheduled programming

The lead is way too long. A few short paragraphs is enough. At its current size, it wouldn't even be considered a stub if it were an article on its own. That's not to say the extraneous information should be discarded, but it should be filed away under the appropriate headers. Remember, it's supposed to be a summary and an introduction to the topic, not a section in itself. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 02:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I've re-removed the lowercase tag. The "al-" in al-Qaeda behaves like the "de" in de Gaulle or the "von" in von Karajan. That's to say, it behaves like an ordinary word: capitalized at the start of sentences and titles, otherwise lowercase. So capitalizing "Al-Qaeda" in the title is perfectly correct. The lowercase tag is intended for cases like "iPod" or "k.d. lang", where (arguably) the first letter should be kept lowercase regardless of context.--CJGB (Chris) 19:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Makes sense. Thanks. --Mr. Billion 23:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I stand by the major contributors to this article. Mr Anon User:64.163.*.*, I do understand that you have your own views (new, you have less than a dozen edits) about this subject but I will not be provoked by you into an edit-war started by you against others who have worked extremely hard to make this article as well as possible given the differences of our personal opinions.

NPOV is our aim. That is central to the Wikipedia policy and standards. Even if I don't agree completely, I will agree and abide by consensus. Please understand that not everyone will get their own way and have articles worded exactly as they would like them to be. You wish this article were written exactly as you want it to be. This will not happen, you need to work with others in a more constructive manner.

Regards, -- That Guy, From That Show! 06:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Settle down, Show. I don't think anybody's trying to provoke anybody. --Mr. Billion 19:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The comment is stricken out. As I noted above I have unfortunately been acting a bit hasty lately and it seems my better judgment has also a bit clouded recently.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 03:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It's okay. Sorry to hear about all that. No hard feelings. --Mr. Billion 03:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that feedback, it is appreciated more than I can put into words.

Regards, -- That Guy, From That Show! 05:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Genocide?

Does Al-Qaeda want to exterminate non-Muslims - Jews and Westerners including Americans? --206.255.18.154 18:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Not really; the endgame, such as it is, appears to be a wide ranging caliphate under Islamic law. Cultural extermination maybe part of it, however, and that would qualify as genocide. Mtpt 18:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

At this time (and for quite a while previous), they would prefer that non-muslims leave. Like any movement of this magnitude (all other religions included) this may well change in the future.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 23:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that under the rule of the Umayyads and Abbasids, as well as Spanish Moors, that non-muslims were tolerated (though they were taxed). Correct me if I'm wrong though... So would a caliphate follow that lead in Al-Qaeda's view?

Omicronpersei8, s*d off!

Why you keep reverting my additions? Give it up already. The Palestinian government has already expressed zero interest in admitting AlQaeda members to its cause. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by Phakedc (talk • contribs

) 23:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

1. ^ "Full transcript of bin Ladin's speech". Al Jazeera. November 01, 2004. Retrieved 2006-07-12. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)