Talk:Al-Qaeda/Archive 8

It only has a discussion of qutbism, but doesn't seem to have anything in the speeches from Bin Laden I've heard where he talks about punishing the West for mucking around in the mid-east. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Earthbound01 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that this sentence is a POV and not a fact. Many others could argue that other bombings killed more than 3000 people. Many of those bombings also comply with mosts definitions of terrorism. --zorxd (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• What other bombing killed 3000 or more at one time? ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.75.232.246 (talk) 05:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

At least both atomic bombs in 1945. It was called state terrorism by some people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Debate_over_bombings 9/11 was also called state terrorism by others since they pretend that it was supported by Afghanistan (tailiban regime)--zorxd (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget the firebombing of Dresden, a civilian target. 68.61.152.24 (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the sentence, but it still shouldn't be on there. Whether or not the nuclear bombs "count" towards this claim is a debatable matter, and it is not an encylopaedias place to insist that one side of that debate is correct. You can just put "The September 11 attacks were among the most devastating terrorist attacks in..." and it is indisputably correct. Petercrawley (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

"As of 2009, the group is believed to have between 200 and 300 members" Is this accurate and could it not be reworded to point out it has many more followers or those who use Brand "al-qeada" BritishWatcher (talk) 02:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The summary says "it was founded" based on the contention of a single person. Founded by who? I find it far more believable what that british foreign minister and fisk and other say that the name THE BASE refers to a database of the 30000 fighters who were hired indirectly by the CIA.

Robin Cook, former leader of the British House of Commons and Foreign Secretary from 1997-2001, wrote in The Guardian on Friday, July 8 2005,

Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. 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.^[1]

I respectfully request the wording of the first paragraph to reflect that. 85.197.25.108 (talk) 09:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

the real blame belongs to The SGI, a sick bunch of buddhist priest hater's and not the good people of Islam Dont you think it is time that the SGI where investigated for there part in 9/11? You do know that they helped pay for it dont you? That all the mising money the Japanese Govenment where looking fo in the late 1980's was being sent to Al Qeada. I THINK IT IS TIME THAT THE BLOOD THAT ISLAM IS ACCUSED OF SHEADING BE PUT IN ITS RIGHT PLACE!!! THAT DAISAKU ILKEDA FACE HIS CRIMES. THAT HE PAYED FOR THE TWIN TOWER'S TO BE DESTROYED!!! Look at it this way, Il Ke Da (spoken) = Al Qae Da (spoken). All we know is that they said they would die for "ALQAEDA/ Ilkeda". Long has the good people of Japan called the SGI yakuza, I thikn that they are more. THEY ARE TERROREST!!!203.171.199.50 (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaeda. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the devil only in order to drive the TV watcher to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US."

Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook died 4 weeks after this public declaration.

To who ever included the above, what was your point of discussion and may we have your source for this statement? Wolf3685 (talk) 09:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&v=r-hYorNi0nA

It's not exactly just some random news source, it's the BBC one of, if not the most credible news organisations in the world. I'd think information like this would be pretty relevant to this article (given that it states the group was fictional) Would someone like to add this/make it part of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.251.159 (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• It's The Power of Nightmares, which is already mentioned in the article. Uncle G (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Al-Qaeda involvement in Europe (AfD discussion)

Please contribute to the discussion. Uncle G (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that the alleged shooter was guided by Anwar al-Awlaki, who has been called an AQ recuiter, and he both endorsed the shooting, provided spiritual guidance to "follow islam" and informed his followers to kill US soldiers, shouldn't there be some mention here?

The WP page: He is currently associated with Iman University in Yemen. The university's students have allegedly been linked to assassinations, and it is headed by Abdul Majeed al-Zindani, who appears on US and UN lists as being associated with terrorism and al Quaeda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bachcell (talk • contribs)

No, that is what Wikipedia calls original synthesis. You are putting several individual facts together to imply there is some sort of al-Qaeda link to the Fort Hood shooting that has not, and may never be, true or proven. I have removed it, and consensus needs to be to include it, rather than to exclude it. Grsz¹¹ 22:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hell no! "[T]he shooter was guided by Anwar al-Awlaki"? ^{[citation needed]} You'll need a very reliable source that says exactly that. First, the al-Awlaki -to- al-Qaeda is tenuous at best. There is no real evidence that they are formally associated. The stretch is huge. And even the suggestion is a synthesis violation that clearly runs afoul of BLP. --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the portion about the interview. First, it strays too far away from any alleged al-Qaeda link and is better suited elsewhere. Even still, the quotes used were dubious and deceptive at worst. Grsz¹¹ 04:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course, if it's true that al-Awlaki didn't order or suggest the shootings to Hasan, as he says in the interview, but merely applauds the act after the fact, that would discredit those tin-hats who claim al Qaeda was behind it. --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The quote about endorsing because it was against the military seemed to imply that he endorsed it while discussing with Hasan, which is false. Grsz¹¹ 04:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Right now it seems to me that almost this entire section should be removed, or at least be renamed. The whole section on "American operations" deals with al-Awlaki's tenuous link to Al Qaeda, and half of that doesn't even talk about his time in America, which I think would be a prerequisite for inclusion in an "American operations" section. The real and verified Al Qaeda "American operations" are already covered in the "Attacks" section. Anyway, most of the section seems to be a bunch of insinuation about al-Awlaki (a living person and subject to WP:BLP)); can't we dispense with the insinuation and limit this article to actual verified members of Al Qaeda? Or at least move this material to sections on suspected Al Qaeda recruiters or spiritual motivators or something, which presumably would list a lot more people than al-Awlaki. Ketone16 (talk) 03:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the latter part of "Al-Qaeda enjoyed the Taliban's protection and a measure of legitimacy as part of their Ministry of Defense," is a ludicrous statement. This text cited as a source speaks only of protection, not of any services provided. See http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/113202.pdf The article taliban also implies that the words taliban, Ministry of Defense, and legitimacy are incongruous. 3M3RY (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The whole section is taken word for word from the Pravda article, cited at the end of the section. Despite the citation, the extended verbatim use is not acknowledged. Also, though the Washington Times is mentioned, no reference is given in either the Wikipedia article or the Pravda source. —Peregrinmac (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

why there are no reference at all for the 2nd paragraph?

Al-Qaeda has attacked civilian and military targets in various countries, the most notable being the September 11 attacks in 2001. These actions were followed by the US government launching the War on Terrorism. Between three thousand and four thousand members of the network have been captured, and many thousands more killed on the front in Afghanistan.

I know its obvious that nearly everyone knows that, beside conspiracy theorist, but still, shouldn't there by any reference over there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArielGenesis (talk • contribs) 00:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I certainly think it should be replaced with something more ambiguous until a reference can be found. The page Operation Enduring Freedom has no numbers of captured prisoners. It has been my impression that the amount of evidence the americans needing to assume that a person was a member of "al-qaeda" was very low at the time of the invasion. 06:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3M3RY (talk • contribs)

It is unbelievable that this papragraph remains unreferenced, for two glaringly obvious reasons: 1. It makes a precise statistical claim, which of course requires a precise reference to the peer-reviewed research which established the statistics, and 2. There clearly exists no such research - how are dead al-Qaeda members to be identified? Do they carry ID cards. Extremely poor Wiki editing on this page. BenW --87.115.27.99 (talk) 08:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I came to this talk page to make the same point as BenW, but I have too little knowledge of Al-Qaeda to find reliable sources or to rewrite the paragraph. Something must be done though! Podex (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is a solid, unbiased account of the group's presence in the world. All of the liberals and conspiracy theorists may just want to finally come to their senses and admit that some angry muslims crashed a couple of planes into the World Trade Center on the orders of bin Laden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.63.137 (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The dispute is not if "some angry muslims crashed a couple of planes" or not. The issue is details on those that didn't. 3M3RY (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

"A variety of sources—CNN journalist Peter Bergen, Pakistani ISI Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf, and CIA operatives involved in the Afghan program, such as Vincent Cannistraro—deny that the CIA or other American officials had contact with the foreign mujahideen or Bin Laden, let alone armed, trained, coached or indoctrinated them."

There is well known, easily accessible photographic evidence of Zbigniew Brzeziński meeting with Osama bin Laden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metaferon (talk • contribs) 04:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

One of these was the organization that would eventually be called al-Qaeda, formed by Osama bin Laden with an initial meeting held on August 11, 1988.[39]

This one no longer links to the article. It needs to be replaced in order to keep this information in the article. There might be other missing links.

Just Passing Through —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.141.91 (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This site [Peace] is against this Islamic organization.Agre22 (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)agre22

This sentence:

"Al-Qaeda has a long history with the CIA, especially their Special Activities Division. This famed special operations component of the CIA is the primary mission force of the United States in the war against Al Qaeda and has brought the most success.[142][page needed]"

Needs to be removed.

1) There is no mention of this in the book cited (Coll: Ghost Wars). Ghost Wars does not even follow the premise that CIA collaborated with Bin Laden. 2) The string "Special Activities" does not appear in a search of Ghost Wars. 3) The Wiki page for Special Activities Division does not contain any information on this claim. 4) The sentence is ambiguous. If Coll makes any mention of this it is probably in relation to the agency's hunting of Bin Laden in the 1990s and thereafter. Here the way the sentence is written and the context of the section it is located makes it appear the author is alluding to the CIA cooperating with Bin Laden, ie "long history". Coll simply does not make this claim.

There is no need to wait for an author to make a claim for the alleged page this is cited. Having this included is frivelous at best. If someone desires this to included please locate the specific page in coll where this is located. Thank you Chudogg (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence whatsoever that the supposed group 'Al-Qaeda' had anything to do with 9/11, and as such, the reference "the most notable being the September 11 attacks in 2001. " is very much at best speculation. This should be amended or is wikipedia just another source of propoganda, as opposed to an informative logical deliberated encyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.211.119 (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that your statement is correct. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has said several times that he was behind the attacks and as of December 2008 was going to plead guilty to that charge in his trial. It might be speculation in some form; however you said in your first sentence that "There is no evidence whatsoever that the supposed group 'Al-Qaeda' had anything to do with 9/11..." There is evidence; some people however dispute over that evidence. That does not mean there is no evidence. You also said the "supposed group 'Al-Qaeda'..." Al-Qaeda is not a supposed group most obviously considering it has an entire article on Wikipedia and has even admitted to many attacks against different groups and countries. One of those most recent admissions would be the "underwear bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's attempt to detonate an explosive on Northwest Airlines flight 253. I would suggest that you review your statement. Kitty, the lover of Kats (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Kitty, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has only claimed he was involved in the 9/11 attacks after he was tortured / water boarded, in any court of law his statements are void if they were made under duress. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.146.149 (talk) 02:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Why isnt there any mention about the fact that the whole "organisation" and its name was dreamed up by the Americans post 9/11, in fact there is no mention of organisation called "Al-Qaida" before that event, anywhere. Actually the thing now only has a name, but there still is no "organisation". Its all make believe, not real. 91.156.204.243 (talk) 08:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Shortly before his untimely death, former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told the House of Commons that “Al Qaeda” is not really a terrorist group but a database of international mujaheddin and arms smugglers used by the CIA and Saudis to funnel guerrillas, arms, and money into Soviet-occupied Afghanistan.

Excerpt from an Apr.-Jun. 2004 article by Pierre-Henry Bunel, a former agent for French military intelligence. --Wool Bridge (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

These type of articles should be referred to as well: http://countusout.wordpress.com/2009/03/28/theres-no-such-thing-as-al-qaeda/ The idea is that Al Qaeda was just a Jehadi database which the Americans have extrapolated into an organisation. It does not exist as such. --Wool Bridge (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you really just cite countusout.wordpress.com? Kid, how old are you? Seriously, go to college first before getting your feet wet Chudogg (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC).

I came here to mention the same thing, having seen the YouTube video here entitled "BBC: al Qaeda Does Not Exist", which I think is 10 mins from the 3 hours of the BBC "The Power of Nightmares" 2004 (already cited or mentioned five times in total). The particular clip on YouTube features Jason Burke (author of "Al Qaeda", already cited in the article at no 132) talking about the highly unreliable witness, Jamal al-Fahdi, that the US used to prosecute bin Laden as the head of an organization. The US's legal system needed this severely flawed testimony in order to function, and at least some sources have said so.

So I don't understand why the article claims that al-Qaeda was started in the late 80s. The idea of there being any organisation looks much like a nationalist myth, and quite a borderline one. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability. Simply put, Jason Burke is one of the only published authors making these claims. "The Power Of Nightmares" is an appeal to motion which merely cites Jason Burke, not really making any claims of there own.

While there is mountains of evidence, perhaps thousands, maybe even tens of thousands of published works on al-qaida. Possibibly even hundreds of thousands academics study foreign relations all across the words. Factoring every peice of academic work on al-qaida, every paper, every thesis, every journal article, etcetera, may actually bring in Millions of various authors in many different academic disciplines from a variety of countries, ethnic, and ideological backgrounds.

So which is verifiable? It's literally a million to one.

The answer is self explanatory.

Further, I wish the talk page wouldn't keep getting edits removed. Over the years we keep getting more and more idiots that want to make the whole article about how Al-Qaida doesn't exist. There was a long multi-page thread on this topic which every single argument and source on the matter was thoroughly refuted. Seriously, if you want to BEGIN on this topic, look through the history from 2007 to present.

As you already mentioned, Jason Burke and his claims are indeed mentioned in the present article, despite going against the vast consensus of his peers. Thus, that should please all the editors of this topic in regards to Verifiability and NPOV. There is no need to change anything has it stands now (and believe me, it took many, many, many YEARS to get this right). Chudogg (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC).

It seems Chudogg needs to read the Wikipedia rules, specifically those pertaining to how one interacts respectfully and with good will. Referring to other contributers as 'idiots' and making derisive statements such as this: "Did you really just cite countusout.wordpress.com? Kid, how old are you? Seriously, go to college first before getting your feet wet" is completely unacceptable.

• Rayment, Sean (2010-01-03). "Al-Qaeda targets returning soldiers". The Sunday Telegraph. p. 4. Retrieved 2010-01-05.

Ottre 13:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This article discusses the pre-9/11 history of AQ in Afghanistan, and there are also articles on AQ's post-9/11 activities all over the world. But I see a gap when it comes to AQ's activities in Afghanistan and Pakistan right now. The Afghan Taliban and the Pakistan Taliban get most of the attention, but AQ is still there, still active, and still being pursued, and I wonder if something sensible can be said on this topic. Some basic facts:

1) Mustafa Abu al-Yazid is the officially designated head of AQ in Afghanistan. He gave a very frank interview with al-Jazeera last year[1] which is full of information.

2) Bin Laden and Zawahiri, AQ #1 and #2, are usually presumed to be hiding out in Pakistan. Al-Balawi, who carried out the Camp Chapman attack, was allegedly offering leads on Zawahiri's location. So the pursuit is ongoing, you just don't hear about it. Mporter (talk) 05:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

can some one respondMughalnz (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

it is about al qaeda . just added a section on their activities in Kashmir. do not try your ISI sponsored paid POV pushing editing here Wikireader41 (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think ISI is doing a great Job in India there 28 insurgencys raging in india and monkey singh prime ministere stated it is the greatest threat to india GAY HIND! looks like raw got a raw deal ;-) 86.158.238.222 (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm... what you think isi paying me to edit ?Mughalnz (talk) 04:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

May i again ask you for the third time ask to follow wp policy when engaging other editor please please refrain from using isi paid editing Mughalnz (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

may I again tell you to follow WP policy and not try your ISI sponsored paid POV editing here. stay away from WP and go get your dyslexia treated since you openly admit that you are 'dyslexic and lost'Wikireader41 (talk) 04:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• You can't get dyslexic treated are you really a doctor ( you should know this being a doctor) just because i am dyslexic does not mean you can discriminate ( this is how i interpret you response sense you first called me Pro-Pakistani Wahhabi pov pusher [not a Pakistani or Wahhabi] then mock me by saying i did not get taught English at a Madasrah ( a Muslim school).
• May i again ask you for the fourth time follow wp policy when engaging other editor please please refrain from using isi paid editing in describing me (i did not say that i am lost)( i am not getting paid by isi)
• Have you ever been Pov when you have edited any article (most likely)Thanks man kind regards Mughalnz (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2010 (UTCMughalnz (talk) 05:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Mughalnz (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I will write down in bullet points to explain why i have deleted some sentences *Global security is an unrealible source if it is reliable then it say indian conduct terrorist activities in pakistan etc as shown on sate sponsored terrorsim talk page*(there also some synthesis of you connecting ideas and creating your own point which are not stated by resources eg pov* it is about activities of al qaeda not kashmiri militants (whatever you wan to call them) they called al qaeda only by one analyst this not enough to make such a big claim* (kashmiri) you have written he is associated with al qeadabut their no official or reliable source that says he is qaeda member besides opinions from anlayst)*Indian army say the is no al qaeda in kashmir ^[2] 'Much has been said by the print and electronic media about Al Qaeda's presence in Jammu and Kashmir. But nothing has been established so far to corroborate these reports," Lt. Gen. H.S. Panag, GOC-in-C Northern Command told reporters after laying wreaths at the Dhruv War Memorial on the occasion of the unit's 36th Raising Day.'

• Globalsecurity.org is a well respected source extensively cited on WP. you are the only one who seems to believe that globalsecurity is not RS.

• Bruce Riedel is one of the foremost US counter terrorism experts and an advisor to Obama. he helped rewrite US policy in Af-Pak recently.

• Indian Army has stated clearly that they believe al qaeda supports Kashmiri militant groups. Council on foreign relations has also stated the same. do you want me to provide more sources saying what Indians think about AlQaeda involvement in kashmir ???

removing sourced info just to suit your POV and calling RS unrleiable will get you blocked 03:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

From the opening of the article: Between 3,000 and 4,000[citation needed] members of the network have been captured, and many thousands more killed on the front in Afghanistan.

When attempting to similarily mention how the group has been responsible for thousands of deaths (my way of balancing it out), it was contested as unsourced and POV. I just need a third opinion here. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"The September 11 attacks were the most devastating terrorist acts in American and world history, killing approximately 3,000 people."

A very devastating attack, and I mean no disrespect, but some would argue that much larger acts of terrorism have occurred. --138.73.181.153 (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

In the hading Jihad in Afghanistan in the 6th paragraph is the statement "estimated that were never more". This needs a "that there were never more" to be correct.

Can someone with sufficient privileges fix this please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathkatz (talk • contribs) 02:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I was struck by how much the History section departs from the narrative in the Power of Nightmares documentary series (I'm sure you're all familiar with this documentary, if not look it up.)

Is this a case where NPOV would result in a more balanced account of Al-Qaeda history? Typically, would the account that Al-Qaeda as an existing organization is a fiction created in a NY court room in 2001 - as mentioned in the Power of Nightmares - be reliable enough for inclusion in the article?

Of course, if other reliable sources - potentially the once that are currently part of the History section - would irrevocably prove Al-Qaeda did exist as an organization before 2001 the issue I rise here would be void. If however these sources or others would merely contend Al-Qaeda existed prior to 2001 - without providing primary sources - I'm struggling to find grounds for not including the Power of Nightmares views as well, as per NPOV. Devijvers (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The talk archives indicate that people repeatedly show up saying, what about Power of Nightmares, what about Robin Cook's "database" claim. I have created Alternative theories of Al-Qaeda to address this and related topics. The main page on Al-Qaeda is too big to deal with every misconception, dubious idea, and speculation about Al-Qaeda that exists, but perhaps, once this new page fills out, we can link to it where appropriate. Mporter (talk) 09:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This article has lots of links to established websites, but it has no link or source information when it cites the aproximate number of operating al qaeda commanders.

I have never commented on wikipedia but find this untrustworthy and questionable.

^ Noah, Timothy (2009-02-25). "The Terrorists-Are-Dumb Theory: Don't mistake these guys for criminal masterminds". Slate. http://www.slate.com/id/2211994/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.111.173 (talk) 07:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The source for the number of operatives is from 2001. Is that really the last year data was available? --70.177.55.109 (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The introduction paragraph says it's an islamist group, but isn't it extremist, without violating NPOV? --Tommy (msg) 03:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This article, regarding Al-Qaeda, contains misleading and incomplete information. The article's first paragraph states that Al-Qaeda is an Islamist group. This implies a connection to the religion Islam. However, this is not the case - Al-Qaeda does not follow Islamic fundamentals since Islam does not promote killing of other human beings in any way or for any reason whatsoever, as published in a journal by the Middle East Policy Council (link: http://www.mepc.org/journal_vol10/0306_wiktorowiczkaltner.asp) The first paragraph supports this addition.

The following should be communicated to the reader: Al-Qaeda is an Islamist group but does not follow the fundamentals of the Islamic religion. Without such clarification, the article is portraying a negative image of Islam, which is unacceptable, harmful to the religion's reputation, misleading, and incomplete.

Therefore, I request that the statement, "Al-Qaeda members are not Muslims since they do not follow the fundamental values and teachings of Islam,"^[3] in part or whole, be added to the first paragraph of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.251.149 (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you also assert that Mohammed himself, and Saladin (a very well respected military commander as he was), as well as other Muslim figures throughout their history, were not Muslims? They indeed killed people and led military attacks, or even justified death in war in the same language as Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda have the wrong idea about Islam, and you have a point, but the implications of what you are saying are just too ridiculous. Neither Islam nor Christianity promote killing, but nonetheless some of the most respected characters from both religions killed many people. Charlemagne was a very bloody man but Catholics consider him to be in the highest circle of Heaven. The main point is, how do you determine a Muslim? Islamic authorities would tell you it is based on the consensus of the leading scholars of the Ummah, probably. Basically, Muslim scholars justify violence and have failed to condemn Al Qaeda or accuse it of apostasy, and their judgments, in Islamic Law itself, determine what the agenda of Islam should be, and it is only their place to accuse others of apostasy so unless you are an Islamic scholar yourself, you don't have the authority. To accuse Al Qaeda of apostasy has not been done by enough Muslim scholars to exclude these Jihadists from the Ummah as far as Islamic Law is concerned in the Sunni branch of Islam. Many Muslim scholars are imprisoned, themselves, as terrorists, which has led to the widespread view that the religion's own leaders and leading authorities are no more than terrorists, which would make their followers, the Muslims, the followers of terrorists, according to Islamic Law itself. This is unreasonable as scholars have been imprisoned for calling for Muslims to defend their lands, which is accord with Islam entirely. Al Qaeda didn't invent the notion. It has centuries of historical precedent right back to the crusades themselves, and Saladin must be a terrorist under the modern definitions --Earthprophet (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I will call myself a rather low ranked scholar here. I have shown enough merit to attain an 'A' Grade in the international O' Level exams managed by the British Council. I am also studying the Quran as of now with detail as well. Concerning the previous talk, killing is justified as long as it does not go against Islamic law. You can kill as a punishment for crimes such as murder and in Jihad. It is to not that Jihad does not allow the elderly, children or women to be killed or enslaved under any circumstances. Lets continue to the matter at hand. The definition was incorrect so I corrected it myself. Al-Qaeda is an Islamist group but however, it is also an un-Islamic, extremist and terrorist group. I believe(myslelf and as well as the British Council and the Cambridge university which both led me to this conclusion) these three missing words will complete the definition. Salmankhanpisces (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

your personal opinion is of no consequence here on WP. Al qaeda is widely regarded as an islamist organization. please provide citations from RS showing widespread support for the idea that Al qaeda is unislamic. IMHO that is a fringe theory and does not belong in WP. please read WP:FRINGE and WP:TRUTH before pushing your personal POV here. I appreciate that you personally might find them unislamic ( I personally think they are animals) but that does not mean we can add that to the article especially to the lead. that having been said provided we can find several RS saying that some Muslims consider al qaeda unislamic we may be able to add the info to the body of the article especially if these statements are from high ranking Islamic scholars and quoted in RS. Cheers.--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, does not -ist mean "a practitioner of, one concerned with or one adherent to" whilst -ic means "of or relating to, in the manner or style of"? So an Islamist should invoke an idea of a person strictly concerned with the practices and laws of the Muslims' faith, and Islamic should invoke the idea of a person loosely identifiable with or mimicking some characteristics of the faith. So then Islamist would more closely associate the faith with terrorism than would Islamic. Unless one is actually meaning to invoke the conservative Islamist movement, in which case the proper conception should be "Islamistic".

I would surmise the split over which term to use is actually derived from the association of the word Islamic to the high-profile terrorist attacks, and Muslims wishing to loosen some of the negative binds that are tied to their faith. So, I would like to point out, those that are most likely to be biased or bigoted against Muslims for the terrorist attacks are also likely to not notice a difference between Islamic and Islamist, or at least be able to build a new grudge quickly with the new word, and is really an argument that will benefit no one or thing in the end. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 15:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is this article locked from editing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't know, but could it be related to the use of unsubstantiated claims in the article without any counter points? Where have the original definition of Al-Qaeda gone, and why is it replaced completely with this folklore version?129.142.143.67 (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Five days ago, IronDuke changed the opening paragraph from:

is an Islamist group

to:

is a terrorist Islamist group

One the side-bar, the fact that it is designated a terrorist organization by several organizations and governments is prominent:

Designated as Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. State Department

Designated as Proscribed Group by the UK Home Office

Designated as terrorist group by EU Common Foreign and Security Policy

The wording on the sidebar is very careful. It doesn't say "is a terrorist organization"; it instead lists notable organizations that classify it as a terrorist organization, and allows readers to decide. This is important because not every notable organization classifies it as a terrorist organization. In addition, many have only classified it as such very recently. This is the embodiment of NPOV. When I reverted, I used the edit summary: "terrorist" is inherently non-neutral. Say who designates it a terrorist organization and who doesn't, and let the reader decide. IronDuke then reverted my edits, citing:

so is "serial killer," and yet...

Though Serial killer may necessarily convey negative emotions, it is a factual label because it's clearly defined. The only reasonable way to dispute a serial killer's status as such would be to dispute the occurrence of the act. Terrorist is not a "factual" label because it is not clearly defined. The US State Department defines it as a terrorist organization; not every organization and government does. Indeed, some would be more inclined to consider Al-Qaeda a resistance group, or even a freedom-fighting group. If there is dispute, Wikipedia should present the dispute, not one particular side.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 02:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

you might want to read WP:UNDUE before you make such neutral sounding statements. most countries and RS think of Al-Qaeda as a terrorist organization including Saudi Arabia & Pakistan. so calling it anything else is inherently non neutral and a form of POV pushing. please provide RS showing that somebody considers Al-qaeda a freedom/resistance movement and then we can give that due weight. that is a fringe opinion which does not belong on WP. also take a look at WP:FRINGE--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Stating what organizations consider Al-Qaeda a terrorist organization does not give the contrary undue weight. In fact, either solution would give the contrary opinion zero weight. Secondly, the notion that the term "terrorist" is ill-defined is not a "fringe opinion". Many notable scholars and media sources consider terrorism to be ill-defined or even non-definable. An article from the Center for Defense Information that "In attempting to define terrorism, the United Nations may indeed be attempting to define the indefinable."^[4] Additionally, Reuters and the New York Times refuse to use the label "terrorist" because they consider it ill-defined. These are not fringe opinions. By saying it "is a terrorist organization", we push that POV. By saying that the US State Department (which readers recognize as a reliable source) designates it a terrorist opinion, we present the reality in a neutral way.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 04:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Really you might want to take a look at what New York Times and Time have to say about al-qaeda(NYT), (Time). even in the Islamic world this organization is considered 'terrorist' since a major chunk of its victims happen to be Muslim.--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Calling groups "terrorist" groups is atypical for the New York Times. I thought they didn't use the term as a matter of principle, but apparently was mistaken. I know that Reuters refuses to use the term. The point is that Al-Qaeda's status as a terrorist organization is disputed because the term "terrorist" is so poorly defined. It is NPOV to give proper weight to the opinion that it is. But an opinion should never transcend into the realm of fact.

Furthermore, it is dangerous to use a strongly negative term in the first sentence. Ever wonder why the article on intelligent design doesn't start, "Intelligent design the false notion that..."? In that case, intelligent design's status as "false" is factual. Yet, instead of beginning the article by stating it is incorrect, it later states, "The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science." Readers recognize scientific consensus as a reliable authority on the matter, and form their own opinions.

I propose a compromise:

Al-Qaeda is an Islamist group founded sometime between August 1988 and late 1989. It operates as a network comprising both a multinational, stateless arm and a fundamentalist Sunni movement calling for global Jihad. It is widely considered a terrorist organization.

 dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 19:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to get bogged down in analogies, but I will say 1) "Though Serial killer may necessarily convey negative emotions, it is a factual label because it's clearly defined." is false. Serial killers are not clearly defined. Heck, "murderer" is not clearly defined, yet WP uses the word. 2) "Ever wonder why the article on intelligent design doesn't start, "Intelligent design the false notion that..."?" Actually, I never do wonder this. That's because scientists never say that ID is false -- it is, indeed, unfalsifiable. What I have said before, on this very page, is that I have yet to find an RS who claims that OBL is not a terrorist, and literally thousands of sources supporting the idea that he is. IronDuke 02:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that though we may not have a precise definition of 'terrorism' it is OK to use it since it is so widely used by RSs from around the world particularly as it pertains to Al-qaeda and its activities. at least in the case of this organization overwhelming majority of sources call it a terrorist organization and OBL a terrorist. that may or may not be the case for other organizations but that is another issue.--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that's alright. While I think that it is dangerous and that the compromise I listed above is preferable, I'm fine with this change.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 17:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't realize how strong the language was in WP:LABEL. It appears that the community consensus is that in-text attribution only should be used for contentious labels:

Biased labels, particularly when the label is negative—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, or a sexual practice a perversion—are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.

I think you both formed a compelling argument. However, small-scale consensus cannot override wide-scale consensus. So, for now, I have switched the article back to using in-text attribution only. I have no intention to provoke an edit war. If you want to challenge the consensus, go for it. If the consensus changes to permit the term as factual, or if you show that common sense should encourage it, that's great.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 06:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Ported from IronDuke's talk

I see you reverted12 my edits. I started a talk page discussion at Talk:Al-Qaeda#The term "terrorist" as factual; please share your thoughts.

On a different note, when you reverted my edits, you discarded changes you didn't dispute in the edit summary (see the bottom of the changes). I assumed you didn't (and don't) dispute those changes. It would have been preferable not to throw out the baby with the bath water and to have pasted the non-disputed changes. A cycle of "bold-revert" prevents improvement of the article and is contrary to consensus.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 03:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, there. I posted an update at Talk:Al-Qaeda; re-reading WP:LABEL changed my mind on the issue. WP:LABEL states:

are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution

If you want to challenge the policy, I'd welcome it. (Although I generally support it, I think thinking it through couldn't hurt.) However, the correct place to debate it is WT:WTA, not on individual articles like Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 06:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Dym, I hope you don't mind my stating this baldly, but you are entirely incorrect. There is no policy, no policy at all, against using the word terrorist. In addition to being inordinately silly, such a policy would violate NPOV. WP:WTA is a style guideline, which itself admits of exceptions. Is it something we should take seriously and keep in mind going forward? Not really. It's always been a poorly written hodgepodge, and never been binding in any case. It really just serves to confuse people. Therefore, in terms of overturning consensus, there is no need for me to "go for it." No such consensus exists. Let me be plain: I have an avalanche of reliable sources to support my view, as well as wiki policy, as well as -- oh yes -- common sense. You have your personal interpretation of a non-binding style guideline. Did you have anything else? IronDuke 22:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I mistakenly called it "policy" on your talk page; I am aware that it's a guideline. However, I think the guideline nevertheless reflects broader consensus. There has been involved debate with opinions on both sides at WT:WTA. For example, see this archive. Other examples: 1, 2, 3, and 4. You participated in the last one, but there appeared (to me) to be no consensus. I think the appropriate place to debate this is WT:WTA. At the very least, express your opinion there.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 06:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Update: I collected some debate at User talk:Dmyersturnbull/Terrorism debate, so that everyone can see the debate.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 07:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Right, aside from the fact that WTA is basically meaningless here, can you respond to my other points? IronDuke 01:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll take your points to be:

1. There is no consensus

I would say that there is consensus that the term terrorist should be attributed to specific sources, rather than used as factual. If you read the collection I linked, I expect you'll agree that there is consensus on that particular issue.

2. WP:NPOV is on your side

I think that the term is inherently non-neutral. As you pointed out, serial killer is also non-neutral. However, serial killer is defined more definitely. A murderer is someone who kills a person with intent, and a serial killer is someone who murders more than three people. Terrorism is no better-defined than freedom fighter is.

3. Common sense is on your side

I don't see how (Mind elaborating?). However, my common sense tells me that no term lacking an agreed-upon definition belongs in an encyclopedia.

4. Reliable sources use the term terrorist

We are making an encyclopedia. Not every word that is commonly used needs to be included. What is essential is that we convey the information, not that we use specific terms the media likes. The compromise I suggested conveys the information neutrally and without extrapolation.

5. I am arguing based on a "personal interpretation of a non-binding style guideline"

No, I'm arguing against the overriding of large-scale, long-term consensus with small, limited non-consensus existing at one particular time.

I believe that the correct place to debate this is WT:WTA, not here. Do you have any objection to arguing your point there? Perhaps, in the meantime, we can achieve temporary consensus here:

Describe al-Qaeda's actions as "terrorist" actions. Do not describe al-Qaeda as a "terrorist organization". The first paragraph will begin:

al-Qaeda... is an Islamist group founded sometime between August 1988 and late 1989. It operates as a network comprising both a multinational, stateless arm and a fundamentalist Sunni movement calling for global Jihad. It is widely considered a terrorist organization.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 04:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

R to bull:

1. There is no consensus at the collection you linked to, from my memory of my own participation there, and even if there were, it wouldn't matter: WTA has long said that there are exceptions, which is why we debate the merits of the term in this case here, rather than generally there. Obviously so.
2. Your points are all pretty much off target here. Serial killer is still a vague term, and yet used. As is murderer. And yet we use the terms. And you are particularly wrong about comparing "terrorist" to "freedom fighter." The comparison is frequently made, but no less willfully reductive and obtuse for its ubiquity. There are professors whose sole field of study is terrorism. I know of no reputable professor of "freedom fighting."
3. "my common sense tells me that no term lacking an agreed-upon definition belongs in an encyclopedia." Your common sense would be very wrong then. I don't have enough time to teach you what language is, and I shouldn't have to: you seem literate enough. We have many, many article here about terms that have no "agreed-upon" definition. The mind boggles, really.
4. This is where your argument really falls to the ground, no? I have virtually every reliable source in existence on this subject on my side, you have nothing whatever. There is no more to be said than that.
5. No, you are in fact wiki-lawyering your way around the fact that you have no RS's whatever to support your claim, just a gut feeling and a non-binding style guideline (did I mention how the guideline itself says it is non-binding)?

You seem like a smart enough person, but your position holds no merit at all -- not even a little bit. It's the kind of wiki-navel-gazing that makes some pretty smart people laugh at this encyclopedia, when the "rules" (which as you now know, aren't actually rules) override what virtually every reliable source on the planet says -- media, analysts, government, scholars. How about less bending non-existent rules, and more finding sources? IronDuke 04:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of wikilawyering or using "bull". I don't have a "claim" about Al-Qaeda; I have a claim about what is preferable on the relevant articles. Assuming that I have a hidden agenda is completely unreasonable. I saw your edit and disagreed. I was willing to discuss its merits, and I still am.

I want to address two issues first:

1. "my common sense tells me that no term lacking an agreed-upon definition belongs in an encyclopedia." Your common sense would be very wrong then. I don't have enough time to teach you what language is, and I shouldn't have to: you seem literate enough. We have many, many article here about terms that have no "agreed-upon" definition. The mind boggles, really.

I failed to explain my point well. My issue isn't that the word doesn't have a precise, mathematically definable meaning. It's that the factors used in defining the word are disputed. Is it the method, the goals, or both? Terms like murderer and serial killer don't have precise mathematical definitions, but their use is not significantly contentious.

1. And you are particularly wrong about comparing "terrorist" to "freedom fighter." The comparison is frequently made, but no less willfully reductive and obtuse for its ubiquity.

Perhaps. I'm not an expert on the subject, nor do I pretend to be.

I don't take WP:RS as religiously as you do. We should not, in my opinion, merely collect reliable sources an stick them together to form an article. Prose is important. General neutrality is important. I believe that the notion that general neutrality and style are important factors has consensus on Wikipedia. Read the intro to the article on the Ku Klux Klan. Is KKK racist? Yes. Is it extremist? Yes. Does every (or nearly every) RS call it a hate group? Yes. Yet, there seems to be consensus not to begin the article with "KKK is a racist, extremist hate group". Just because a reliable source (indeed, even all reliable sources) calls al-Qaeda a terrorist organization doesn't mean we should, much less in the first sentence. I think that WP:NPOV and even WP:MoS should sometimes trump WP:RS.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 18:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I requested a third opinion. I reverted my own edit to Osama bin Laden, leaving the term describing group and persons in all but the first sentence.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 19:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

First, apologies for shortening your name to "bull." People shorten mine to "Duke," and I'm okay with that, so... is there an abbreviation you're okay with, or must one type out the entire thing? Second, apologies if I implied you had a hidden agenda -- it seems quite open to me. Which is fine, I just happen to disagree with it. I'm not sure how useful the analogies you keep bringing up are -- I think it gets us off on a tangent. This is not an article about the KKK, and different factors may be at work there. For the record, I have no problem calling them any of the adjectives you used, though your example is clumsy. Also, when you say things like (ellipses added) "[The term] murderer... is not significantly contentious," you make me feel frankly depressed. I can't even begin to unpack that if you can't see, instantly, why that's very, very wrong (let's just start with the fact that "murder" is defined differently all over the world). I see that you are not an expert on this topic, and there's no shame in that. I invite you, then, to delve more deeply before making more edits on it. You are now using the manual of style (which, as I have shown, does not support your position) to trump RS's, which are the only reason this encyclopedia is any use at all. WP is inherently unreliable, which is why we must use RS's to support important facts. And you can't invoke NPOV when you cannot name a single source which supports your position. Seriously, Wikipedia is, at its best, a work of scholarship. It's okay if you don't want to add to that, but not okay if you want to take away from it , and leave us looking silly into the bargain. I'm happy to have more opinions, but I am going to bring the article back to reality, rather than wikiality; please do some reading before you edit this article or others like it again. IronDuke 20:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I also posted more generally below. Just wanted to address what you wrote above; the discussion got ahead of me. In the US, 'bull' is used as an abbreviation for 'bullshit'. I had assumed that's what you meant. Dmyersturnbull, dmt, dmyerst, or anything else I'd recognize is perfectly fine with me :)  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 02:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

When you say "NPOV," what RS's disagree that AQ is a terrorist org? (Thanks for weighing in, BTW). IronDuke 22:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The only RS I can think of off-hand which contests the description of Al Qaeda as terrorist, inasmuch as he disagrees with the use of the term full-stop, would be Robert Fisk. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 23:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Where does he say that? I'm not disagreeing, just curious. And do you think under that scenario, given virtually every RS in the world besides Fisk agrees, that both opinions should be equally weighted? IronDuke 00:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, he doesn't explicitly say that he doesn't consider Al Qaeda terrorists, but here is a good example of his views on the general matter. I should point out, however, that the 3O process explicitly does *not* create a consensus, is not a tiebreaker, and should not be used as such. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 00:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(I have no article editing history with articles of this type that I am aware of.) I agree with the 3rd opinion above. User:dmyersturnbull seems to have shown that consensus supports explicit attribution of the contentious label. BigK HeX (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the third and fourth opinions. IronDuke, perhaps you can agree to this?  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 02:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly I'm supposed to be agreeing to. IronDuke 00:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

"Changing 'It is widely considered a terrorist organization' to 'It is considered a terrorist organization by such organisations as X, Y, and X', and removing those designations from the infobox." In other words, follow WP:WTA and use explicit attribution only.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 05:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

whyy are we now changing the once biblical names of these citieswhe i was in school we called persia persia, vietnam was called siam, why the change? Was the red sea and the ark found in Iraq, is that is why it makes the muslims so upset because the promised land was the land of the jews? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.192.199 (talk) 08:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Because those are the names used by the people living in those countries. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 08:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Vietnam has never been called Siam, you're thinking of Thailand. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 08:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Promised by who? --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 08:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the land belongs to the people whose ancestors have been living there for the better part of two millenia. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 08:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• We do not _know_ when "Al Qaida" was formed. So the correct term would be: It is claimed by _ _ _ (fill in) (add reference) that Al Qaida was formed .... (fill in estimated time period) .
• Furthermore: we do not know for a _fact_ that "Al Qaida" attacked the WTC. Osama Bin Laden is not even charged with complicity in this event by neither the FBI or any other US law enforcement agency.
• Thirdly: Al Qaida is a western term, a name given by western intelligence, more specific: US intelligence services, so the correct term is still Al Qaida / Al Qaeda is the name and term given to what is considered a loosely knit group or group of "cells" that adhere to certain islamic principles (add references) - This would be a linguistically logically coherent way of addressing what we _call_ "Al Qaeda" / "Al Qaida"
  

Furthermore, everyone keeps talking as if there actually _is_ a visible Al Qaeda out there that you can point top and look at and analyze. I have never seen or heard any such credible evidence. And no, I wont bother to accept any right wing republican author's fine newly published written work, or book published recently to cash in on the hunger for new creations on the subject. I think we need actual factual evidence from primary sources. My two cents. Nunamiut (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

To respond to your points:

1. We do not _know_ when "Al Qaida" was formed... I think the date range is verifiable enough. If you see a way to improve the wording without causing it to sound too weak and uncertain, please do.

2. We do not know for a _fact_ that "Al Qaida" attacked the WT... Al-Qaeda is responsible for the attacks. Physical evidence demonstrates that, and al-Qaeda has claimed responsibility. Osama has been accused of crimes and is wanted by Interpol and the US.

Osama is not wanted for 911 on the FBI's wanted site. The reason he is not cited for 911 is because there is no evidence of his involvement. Vexorg (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

He is listed in the FBI Ten Most Wanted list. Check before posting.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 04:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes that's right, he's on the FBI's most wanted list. I said that in my post above. And as I've correctly stated above he's is not wanted for 911 on the FBI's wanted site - [here is the link]. You should follow your own advice and 'Check before posting.' Given the level of this discussion you are probably not aware that, the late, Benazir Bhutto publically named Bin Laden's killer on the BBC. Anything else I can help you with regarding 911 and al-Qaeda? Vexorg (talk) 01:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"I said that in my post above." No, you didn't. Instead, you said "Osama is not wanted for 911 on the FBI's wanted site." I see now that you meant he wasn't charged with the 9/11 bombings. That's not (on a literal basis) what you wrote, so it's not how I interpreted it.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 05:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

3. Al Qaida is a western term... No, al-Qaeda is a group. Its name is an Arabic name, not an English name. We use a transliteration from the Arabic القاعدة because this is the English Wikipedia. Al-Qaeda calls itself al-Qaeda.

It is written under "Command Structure" that: "Al Qaeda is not an organization. Al Qaeda is a way of working." "What exactly al-Qaeda is, or was, remains in dispute." I believe these facts are important enough to be right at the top of the article. In general I agree that the scope of sources that this article appears to be derived from represents a much too narrow view and I fully support the points made by Nunamiut. /Carl

4. Furthermore... Al-Qaeda is a distinct group. It is organized and has leaders. Primary sources are cited in the article. If you see a source being used that is not credible, please do fix it.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 05:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Im response to your points  dmyersturnbull  . There is no evidence of al-Qaeda carring out 911. Bin laden did not claim responsibility for it. the video, if you care to watch it, of him allegedely claiming responsibility is a fake. You can see that by watching the video. Al-Qaeda is NOT a distinct group, it is a movement fabricated by the FBI to label a bunch of disparate Islamists. Unfortunately Nunamiut the Wikipedia works is not by evidence but by reference to politically biased sources that are deemed credible. This means anyone with enough money to own a mainstream media outlet can print a load of lies and nonsense and this gets into Wikipedia. Someone with little money can print the truth and it won't go into Wikipedia as it's not deemed a credible source. So really wikipedia is just a mirror of politically biased maisntream media. And as such for articles like this it is worthless. This article is dreadful and is a major example of the failings of wikipedia. Vexorg (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I approve of your promotion of reality (as you discuss on your user page), but you need to do so within the auspices of verifiable reliable sources. If you want to demonstrate these opinions as anything more than fringe theories, you'll need to provide evidence, and if you want Wikipedia to reflect that reality, reliable secondary sources need to cite that evidence.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 04:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh yes Evidence. You said "Al-Qaeda is responsible for the attacks. Physical evidence demonstrates that, and al-Qaeda has claimed responsibility" - There is no evidence Al-Qaeda was resposible for the attacks and they did not claim responsibility. Kalid Sheik Mohammed, an Islamist made a worthelss confession after being tortured hundreds of times by the USA. It's worth remembering that just because a 'source' is a big money corporate it doesn't make it relaiable when it comes to the truth. people with lots of money have political agendas you know. Of course I don't have evidence that Islamists, the West calls Al-Qaeda, did not commit 911 any more than you have evidence they did. Wiipedia should reflect this fact and not present stuff printed with political motivation in mainstream mewspapers as fact as it devalues Wikipedia. Of course you are entitled to believe your theories on 911 like I am mine. Please provide evidence that Al-Qaeda committed 911. I won't hold my breath. Vexorg (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There is contrary view of the "mainstream" view on 9/11 attacks. As an experienced editor, you should also know that every argument has its place and know this isn't a forum for such discussions. I looked at the various "theories" out there as a neutral 3rd party and most of it can't hold water. I've seen the attacks, and kept track of leading up to the events leading to the invasion of Afghanistan. I even read about Ahmad Shah Massoud assassination when it was nothing but a barely perceptible blip on the radar. Even Loose Change gave up some of its arguments when they couldn't defend them properly in their later editions. The "Evidence" is there in the various YouTube vids that are taken from various news organizations if you're willing to dig for them. Next thing you'll say you are amoung the 10% of people that don't believe that man went to the moon.--Hourick (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think this is about "belief". I think it's about verifiable fact. It is not reasonable to pick your preferred belief and say "Oh, it's my belief. It's true for me." There is overwhelming evidence of Al-Qaeda's guilt. Osama confessed in a video. Do you have a reliable source that argues against its authenticity? The FBI, which you argued does not believe Osama is guilty led an investigation that pointed to al-Qaeda. The investigation used witness testimony, handwriting, passports, and credit cards. The investigation is credible, and the evidence is verifiable. If you choose to reject reliable authorities on the matter in favor of a conspiracy theory, you need to do more digging before others are willing to take you seriously, and simply saying "I have no evidence but believe it regardless" is insufficient. (Sorry for the "distancing quotation marks"; I'm not actually quoting.)  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 05:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

we have a dedicated article 9/11 conspiracy theories which is aptly titled 'conspiracy theories' for readers who wish to believe/explore those ideas.--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

if any of you have evidence that Al-Qaeda committed 911 then please provide it. You cannot. Osama did not confess in a video. Have you actually seen the video? I have and it's not him. This comment above is telling ... "If you choose to reject reliable authorities on the matter " - how are they reliable? Even the BBC carried a the news story of the staged event of pulling down Saddam's statue. The BBC got caught using pro-Ahmadinejad rally pictures last year and presented them as anti-Ahmadinjad rallies. It also got caught using pro-Georgian PR agencies for the 'news ' coverage of the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia nad the Russian response. The BBC is one of the 'regarded' reliable media outlets. Yet it's been caught lying and selective reporting on numerous occasions. So no, what you say are reliable authorities are in fact not reliable.

FBI investigation into 911 and concluding it was Al-Qaeda? How have you verified this evidence? Unless you actually work for the relevant FBI department you cannot verify this evidence. So it boils down to belief. I would call it folly to simply believe something the FBI, CIA, etc says simply because they say it's so. In fact it's dangerous when so many people are unquestioning of such organisations as it allows the political mandate for those organisations ( which are always politicaly motivated ) to go ahead with whatever agendas they have.

And where Wikipedia has lost a lot of value is because it allows the presentation of material as fact when there's no verifiable evidence of it being fact. A Wikipedia article on 911, for example, should never specifically say Al-Qaeda, or anyone else, committed the attacks because the actual perpetrators are not publically known. The article of course should explore the possible perpetrators, including Al-qaeda, but should be worded to that effect.

i.e The statement "Al-Qaeda committed 911" is unverifiable. The statement "The US authorities claim AL-Qaeda committed 911" is verifiable and should be the preferred method of dealing with the subject

I couldn't care less if people who unquestioningly believe organisations like the FBI don't take me seriosuly. I cannot take them seriously for simply believing the FBI because they say something. Unless you have evidence it's all about belief. Vexorg (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I feel for you Vexorg. I watched a 20/20 story in the 80's. Diane Sawyer talked to the CIA and members of the US military about a CIA operative named Osama Bin Laden who had 'gone rogue'. She asked them how this would affect the war in Afganistan.

Bin Laden was prime time news in the eighties. Now, wikipedia quotes sources that say the CIA didnt know who he was until 1996.

I dont know what this says about intelligence gathering in the United States, but if the CIA had tuned into 20/20, they would have learned about Bin Laden 8 years earlier. Paradoxically, they would have learned it from themselves. Yourliver (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Al-Quaeda is an extremist terrorist group of homicidal cave-dwelling dickfaces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.192.203 (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Can someone fix this sentence "Osama bin Laden is the emir was the Senior Operations Chief of al-Qaeda (although originally this role may have been filled by Abu Ayoub al-Iraqi)." ? It is the second paragraph under "Leadership". It's very jarring to read and makes no real sense.163.151.2.10 (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This needs to be discussed and changed immediately. The definition is somewhat faulty. Al-Qaeda is not Islamist according to Wikipedia's definition of Islamism. The group either believes it self to be Islamist or is deemed so by those who do not comprehend the the word 'Islamist'.

Secondly, it can not possibly be called a Sunni organization as the Sunni sect goes by the Sharia according to which killing civilians/bystanders is not justified in Jihad. In a way, it can even be called another Muslim sect as it belief's are every different from the general Muslim masses.

The 'is considered terrorist' phrase needs citation as per Wikipedia guidelines and the need for wikipedia to stay neutral, as per the guideline's requirements.

The phrase 'calling for global jihad' need some elaboration as the term 'jihad' has several meanings. It can be holy war, or can be a struggle to stay moral. It can be violent or non-violent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salmanpisces (talk • contribs) 06:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This article should not contain Jon Stewart's purported Wikipedia definition of al-Qaeda as "an extremist terrorist group of homicidal cave-dwelling dick-faces."  Mr JM  00:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite correct. Sometimes they come out of their caves and live in tents. Well spotted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.80.176.182 (talk) 09:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

Straight to the point. Al-Qaeda is not an Islamist organization. I'll provide solid reference for this. Got the the wikipedia page for islamisim. Forms of terrorism and suicide are against Islamic beliefs. You can refer to this is the quran or any Muslim scholar. Which is why it's not islamist. I fixed it once but some one changed it again...

Salmanpisces (talk) 04:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"I'll provide solid reference for this". Sorry but until you do, the change you are requesting will not be made. sonia♫ 08:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I fully support this request; "an international terrorist network" or "an international terrorist organization" would be more appropriate. Al-Qaeda is a terrorist group, not an Islamic anything.

• http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/RL33038.pdf
• http://articles.cnn.com/2002-01-24/us/inv.al.qaeda.documents_1_nuclear-weapons-al-qaeda-weapons-program?_s=PM:US
• http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-John-Brennan-at-the-Center-for-Strategic-and-International-Studies/
• http://www.cfr.org/publication/9126/alqaeda_aka_alqaida_alqaida.html
• http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/033104.pdf
• http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100923/pl_yblog_upshot/white-house-al-qaeda-shifting-focus-to-small-scale-terror-attacks
• http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/al-qaida.htm
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us+canada-10635806
• http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-27/france-seeks-talks-with-al-qaeda-linked-kidnappers-in-niger-morin-says.html

Heck, you can even call it a "racist organization"^[5] if you like! ~dee^(talk?) 12:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

According to this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-hYorNi0nA from BBC it seems that Al-Qaeda is fictional —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.13.110.144 (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Just for something to think about, while we are discussing these semantics (I use that word in the more general, rather than pejorative, sense). I think it may be more precise to all them an " international Islamic terrorist group". Yes, of course, much of mainstream Islam (especially in the US, etc) does not support terrorism, and considers it against Islam. However, like any religion, there are varying interpretations of what is and is not against Islam, just as there are varying sects/denominations/interpretations within Christianity, concerning what is and isn't supported by the bible. Saying something is or is not against the precepts of Islam is a bit hard to make as a statement, when there are differing factions within the religion. It would be akin to saying, Christianity does not support the requirement of a priest as intercessory to God. Some sects do, some don't. In terms of Al Quaeda, they are a group motivated by their specific interpretation of Islam, which some portion of muslims agree with. So calling them an Islamic terrorist organization is defensible, although I would recommend making it clear that some factions within Islam do not hold their actions to be supported by Islam. The flip side of that is whether or not it's necessary. IN that case, I would check out what we call other terrorist organizations like the IRA, ETA, etc. I understand the desire of moderate muslims to distance themselves from that radical branch of Islam, but to say that they are not supported by Islam ignores differing interpretations. Their motivation is Islamic religious/cultural in origin, as opposed to a group like the IRA, being motivated by nationalism, etc. Regardless, we should make a distinction between Islamist and Islamic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.219 (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we all need to first agree that "militant Islamist group" does not adequately describe Al-Qaeda. I agree with the person above me in that "Islam", in some sense, should be mentioned, since Al-Qaeda openly bases its actions on [their interpretation of] the religion. Perhaps a better alternative would be: "international Islamic terrorist network" or "international Islamic terrorist organization" ~dee^(talk?) 14:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}} Activities ascribed to it may involve members of the movement Please change "ascribed" to "described" 203.99.221.151 (talk) 06:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

  Not done: Ascribed is the correct word to use in that sentence; described would not make any grammatical sense. Ascribed in this context means "attributed". Thanks, Stickee (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

not al-qaeda http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/apr/09/july7.uksecurity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelzeng7 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Al Qaeda was non founded in pakistan it was Afghanistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.250.215 (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is clear where it was founded. Check out information-please's article: http://www.infoplease.com/spot/al-qaeda-terrorism.html --Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

can someone edit the quote to point here: Mos Eisley Cantina AS THE PAGE IS LOCKED I CANNOT DO THIS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.178.239 (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

What quote are you talking about? Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

How does Al-Qaeda have anything to do with Star Wars anyway?--Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}} For a recent update on Al Qaeda in "further readings" ^[6] 69.86.25.59 (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

  Done -Atmoz (talk) 14:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

We need sources for the "Strategy" section. Where did you get the information about strategy anyhow? Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The description of Qutb's influence is stilted and not very neutral. Having actually read Qutb, most of his actual argument is that Islam is simply natural law and that what is learned about nature is also learned about Islam. This is not a particularly controversial view as it goes right back to the concept of seeking knowledge (ilm) and the continual refinement of religious doctrine (ijtihad).

Qutb certainly did say a lot of political things about his own time and these are cherry-picked (as are the hadith) to justify the current political or ideological objective of the movement. That is not to say that the "caliphate" these movements would create would look anything like Qutb's proposal.

This section should be rewritten. Also the specific actions that al-Qaeda has taken credit for (not just accused of) that have led to its being described as a "terrorist" organization would be a little more solid than saying just that "most of the world considers it to be" such.

The article also needs much more on the way in which al-Qaeda deliberately decentralized itself using the medium of the US attack. There are whole books on this. It was a deliberate strategy all the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.112.92 (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it worth noting that there is a similar word to Mohit garg in the English language : Alcaide ? This is used to specifically to refer to a commander of a Spanish or Portugese fort. This is the word that the Spanish and Portugese use themselves, it is found in Cervantes Don Quixote. yahoo dictionary Its etymology is from from the Arabic al-q'id, the leader : al-, the + q'id, leader, active participle of qda, to lead. It is either a interesting coincidence or perhaps an insight into the groups true thinking, as opposed to stated thought process. The leadership of the group often talk about Spain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.249.120.131 (talk) 10:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not any coincidence at all, see Semitic root! That's how Arabic works. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Request to change link in information box, "Ben Laden" to "bin Laden" or "Osama bin Laden".

Brodie1600 (talk) 02:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It hasn't been officially announced that Ayman AlZawahri is the new leader. He might not be. Leader name needs to remain anonymous for now, I guess? ThanksMoshirah (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• McGirk, Tim. "Al-Qaeda's Big Post–bin Laden Cash Crunch ." TIME. Tuesday May 3, 2011.

This talks about how AQ's finances have been disrupted WhisperToMe (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Both simple pronunciation guides are variations of the (technically incorrect) American pronunciation "al-ky-da". The Arabic word has four syllables (al-qaa-`e-da) and this is reflected in the four-syllable pronunciation that I think at the very least British people unanimously use (al-ky-EE-da), so at least one of the simple pronunciation keys should reflect this. Samplayle87 (talk) 16:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. I think - somewhat embarrassingly for my countrymen - that this pronunciation came from a quasi-illiterate woman who had spoken with one of the 9/11 plane-jackers and repeated it in that way on a television interview. You can look back at various places on the 'net to get video of it. At the time, I had a strong feeling that this was probably wrong, as she had a problem with her native tongue, and was hardly a good source for Arabic words or any dialect thereof. It seemed to me that after that interview, a great segment of the press stuck with it. HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Surely a demonstrably false pronounciation cannot be the fault of just the one (unnamed) woman. She must have been very influential!

The History section of this article implied that the resistance to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was motivated by fundamentalist Islam, and that most fighters were fundamentalists. The Wikipedia article, Soviet war in Afghanistan, makes no such assertion. The primary source which seems to make this point, http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/24198 is from a socialist/left wing POV publication. The article implies that the resistance was a 'top-down' affair, led by a feudal aristocracy. I've changed the wording of the article to reflect this. I question Greenleft Magazine as a reliable source. Tapered (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This image is used as the "flag of Al Qaeda" all over Wikipedia, even as casual and superfluous thumbnail, as if this was about a participating nation in some sports event. Can people please muster some minimal skepticism? The source of this flag is a single, unverifiable report made to Flags of the World in September 2004[2]. The reporting user stated that "The flag is being debated as either Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi’s al-Qaeda (Ansar al-Zarqawi) flag or the al-Qaeda flag in Iraq" and that he himself (having served in Iraq for six months) had a captured banner with this design, and that another personal acquaintance of his has another version, with white lettering.

Now this report, even if unverifiable, sounds credible enough to excuse people who state that "this is a flag seen in some beheading videos back in 2004, and captured in some al-Qaeda safe-houses at the time". It is certainly not enough to excuse using this as a generic logo of al-Qaeda all over Wikipedia.

Additionally, will you please take note that the reporting user is identified as "Colonel Emerson Begolly". I don't know if anyone touting this flag in terrorism articles has ever bothered to google the name. A "Colonel Emerson Begolly" is entirely unknown to the internet other than in the context of this very flag. But a person called "Emerson Begolly" (not a Colonel) is very well known to the internet. And Emerson Begolly isn't exactly a very likely or frequent name. Emerson Begolly is a "Nazi buff turned Jihadi" who was arrested by the FBI this past January.

It is as likely as not that this person, clearly an utter nutcase, has made up this flag and the story connected with it, out of thin air back in 2004 and posted it to FOTW. If there is, by some weird coincidence, a bona fide Col. Emerson Begolly somewhere, I will be very surprised, but until we have verified that there is, this flag design clearly shouldn't be used anywhere on Wikipedia. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 16:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to sift through beheading videos just to research this, but here[3][4][5] is some evidence that whenever al Qaeda members feel they need some sort of wall hanger or logo, they simply use the white-on-black Shahada also used by the Taliban and by Islamic extremists in general.[6] In other words, there is no "flag of al Qaeda", but if you absolutely must use some sort of logo, just take File:Flag of Jihad.svg, the "reverse Taliban flag" that has been displayed on some pro-al-Qaeda websites from 2001.

The internet has it that "Nazi Jihadist" Emerson Begolly was obsessed with watching beheading videos, so it may well be that he was acquainted with wall decorations in this context. So perhaps his story about the yellow dot used in such a flag isn't entirely made up. But as long as we don't have independent verification of this, I don't think Mr. Begolly, in spite of his expertise in the field, quite qualifies as a WP:RS. --dab (𒁳) 16:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

ok, so researching the "black flag of jihad" I found this, a youtube video collecting black flags in videos released by Islamic terrorists. So, Begolly or no Begolly, it turns out that in 2004, various beheading videos were released with a black flag that contained some sort of yellow or white dot. The video quality isn't sufficient to tell whether there is an inscription inside the dot. This concerns the videos of the beheadings of Eugene Armstrong, Jack Hensley, Nick Berg, Georgi Lazov, Kim Sun-il and Shosei Koda, all killed in 2004. The flags all look slightly different. The dot thing seems to have disappeared again after 2004. None of these flags corresponds to File:Flag of al-Qaeda in Iraq.svg exaclty. There usually seems to be additional writing surrounding the dot. --dab (𒁳) 19:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

well it doesnt look like any flag i have seen on TV. that is the limit of most peoples relation to al-qaeda muslim and non-muslim, at least anywhere inclined towards regular use of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.154.152 (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The organization described at World Islamic Front is just al-Qaeda by another name. That article should be merged into this one. Variations in the translation from Arabic (especially dropping words to make the name shorter) are responsible for the difference between "World Islamic Front" and "International Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Crusaders and the Jews" (i.e. al-Qaeda). JRSpriggs (talk) 05:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a plethora of Category:Jihadist organizations, and "al-Qaeda" is just a loose network of these. If the "World Islamic Front" was a pre-9/11 sobriquet taken up by al-Qaeda proper, it would be nice to see some reference to the effect. You will note that the claim "Terrorism experts consider the 'World Islamic Front"' synonymous with al-Qaeda" has just been sitting there, since 2005, woefully unsubstantiated, and has also been contested in allcaps in the past. --dab (𒁳) 11:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

There is an error In the leadership section stating Bin Laden was killed on May 1 st 2010 this should be changed to the correct date of May 1st 2011

Ash66656 (talk) 03:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

  Done Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda is a very loose network and brodi is da bomb. It isn't an organisation in any formal sense. Such a grouping cannot be said to have an "army". Even the best organised and most contralised terrorist organisation has at most a number of cells of activists/soldiers/fighters, call them what you will. But to call the whole an army would be just wrong. As Al-Qaeda is particularly decentralised (partly by choice, partly because it isn't single organisation) reference to an "army" is faintly ridiculous. And of course if it was an army, its fighters would be soldiers subject to the protection of international conventions - no more disappearing into the legal limbo of Guantanamo Bay, or waterboarding. So I don't think the American's would welcome the exaggerated reference to an "army"!

Army can also mean "a body of persons organized to advance a cause". This definition does fit al Qaeda, even if their organization is fairly loose. --Khajidha (talk) 15:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

In a column for the Guardian four weeks before his death, Robin Cook described Al-Qaeda as a product of a western intelligence:

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

Regards.--79.16.165.43 (talk) 12:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It is no doubt the case that this opinion has been voiced online and in print. Is it notable? Probably to some limited extent. Is it The Truth? Hard to tell (to say the least). So if the western bloc had acted very differently from how it did during the Cold War, would the world today be a better or a worse place? That's a question you could only answer from the vantage point of a full overview of the Multiverse as it spawned since 1945. --dab (𒁳) 11:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

unsigned comment added by 121.45.19.46 (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

...but Ayman al-Zawahiri[7]. 96.26.213.146 (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I request the phrase "assassination on 1 May 2011 by US forces" in the leadership portion be changed to "death on 1 May 2011 during a U.S. Navy SEAL operation".

The proposed wording does not change the fact that American forces were responsible for his death, but changes the tone from one of targeted killing (assassination) to casualty during a capture operation.

178.76.190.16 (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The infobox says that al-Qaeda is a Kharijite organization, citing a book as a source. No mention of this is made in the article. Also, I'm pretty sure that Kharijism is distinct from Sunni Islam, which is definately part of al-Qaeda ideology. Finally, the Wikipedia page on Kharajites says that the only surviving Kharijite sect is the Ibadi sect, which is almost entirely located in Oman. If al-Qaeda is Kharijite, then wouldn't it be more centered in Oman than in other Islamic countries? 71.184.241.68 (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, problem resolved. 71.184.241.68 (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

reverting all my edits - i was totally wrong 1.World wide Caliphate/they never wanted play world domination fantasies 2.Strategy/complete original research by me and Adamrce none of the sources actually supported any of this 3.Criticism/we need to face reality.None of the sources acutally supported the three changes i and Adamrce made Lightpositive ^talk 16:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify; it was a simple misunderstanding, i did not make bad edits on purpose i thought the edits were good before finally realising that they were wrong but since i have now reverted those edits there is no problems anymore Lightpositive ^talk 18:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Sir, all what I changed was missing details from the source. Yes, I made a linguistic-mistake at the end, lol. Anyways, I'll take a second look later today. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 00:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I got your point. I felt something weird about it the first time and was planning to come back, lol. Thanks :) ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 08:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The statement "The attacks were conducted by al-Qaeda, acting in accord with the 1998 fatwa issued against the U.S. and its allies by military forces under the command of bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, and others." in 7.4 is incorrect. It doesn't reflect a fact, but an assumption.

As is correctly stated later: "Messages issued by bin Laden after 11 September 2001, praised the attacks, and explained their motivation while denying any involvement." Al-Qaeda has (in any official statement) denied involvement in the attacks.

At least there should be a note about this and statements like "The attacks were conducted by al-Qaeda..." should be removed (as there's no factual corroboration for this statement).

ReinierK (talk) 03:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  Not done: There are also sources that then claim that they were behind it. bin Ladin may have claimed that they were not, expecially at the beginning but then later for instance here [8][9] it was claimed that they were. Jnorton7558 (talk) 06:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

can anyone please change the article to the 00:52, 16 July 2011 revision, i agree with the content the user made but i do not understand his behavior, why did he reverted his own edits, especially when they were so good. Anyway the revision had very many reliable sources and made the article so much understandable , i know there were edits later by Adamrce and Gira2be but i think it is possible to include them while reverting to the said revision Volykr yilevas (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The edits by LightPositive were considered original research, as it's not what the source specifically said. I've tried to fix it, but the editor was fair-enough to revert it all. We can only write whatever is directly mentioned in reliable sources. Thanks... ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 20:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Note: My comment was solely based on the recent reverts that were pointed toward. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk

  Done Seems to me that the edits for this page by Lightpositive had many reliable sourced indeed, ive researched this sockpuppet's contributions and concluded a small part of them were actually constructive like this one and if you see the article history adamrce added edits relative to the ones Lightpositive made Shanesterman (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"global militant Sunni Islamist militant group" 76.11.136.228 (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  Done, and thanks for the eye. Cheers ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 08:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

My request is that in the box on the left where it says Leader- Ayman al-Zawahiri, it should say Leader- Ayman al-Zawahiri (2010-present)

                                                                                                        Osama Bin Laden (1988-2010)

MrFender98 (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

  Done, even though it might get removed if there's any future disputes. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 09:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Should section on criticism for al Qaeda reflect the very low opinions that westerners hold for al Qaeda, or does that go without saying?108.18.223.72 (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Al Qaeda was set up by the CIA as a network of its own trained combatants, as has been told to the public.STOP YOUR PROPAGANDA AND LIES! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.44.126 (talk) 12:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Al Qaeda is the name of a database of suspected terrorists - it is not an organsiation! prefix:Talk:Al-Qaeda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.83.12.157 (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I have read the above opinions too in the press. How does this wikipedia article manage to assert the existance of "Al Qaeda" so categorically?--Timtak (talk) 12:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

We reflect what the RSs say. If you have relevant RS material, feel free to include it.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Try not to be so obvious when sock pupeting. It's just sad. If it was a CIA group, they wouldn't be speding billions to kill it. Joesolo13 (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence of the second paragraph reads: "Al-Qaeda has attacked civilian and military targets in various countries, such as the September 11 attacks, 1998 US embassy bombings and 2002 Bali bombings." Is there any particular reason why the attacks are listed in this order? Perhaps they should be listed in chronological order: "Al-Qaeda has attacked civilian and military targets in various countries, such as the 1998 US embassy bombings, September 11 attacks and 2002 Bali bombings." Also, the wording could be improved: "Al-Qaeda has conducted attacks on civilian and military targets in various countries, such as the 1998 US embassy bombings, September 11 attacks and 2002 Bali bombings."

I'll make these changes if nobody disagrees in the next week or so. DrJimothyCatface (talk) 12:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not a big change to wait for the community's response. I agree with your wording and sequence, and suggest making the change. Whoever disagrees can discuss it here. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 04:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Using the active, one-word-fewer "attacked" is better than the suggested revision to "conducted attacks". There should also be a serial comma place before "and".--Epeefleche (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

  Done -- looks like the topic has done --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Not quite, the source says in 1988 "Bin Laden reunites with Ayman al-Zawahari, longtime al-Qaeda leader, and they announce a new coalition, the International Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Crusaders and the Jews" So they are not also known as the "international islamic front for jihad against the crusaders and the jews" The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone bar Public awareness[10] believe Al-Qaeda are not a terrorist group? The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

First your opinion does not matter, only sources matter, second Wikipedia has a policy of not calling people or groups "terrorist". This is not an indication of condoning "terrorist" activities, but of neutrality, and avoidance of passing judgment, affirming or denying. Public awareness (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

First it is not my "opinion" Second the "policy" you quote is a "guideline" figure out the difference. I notice you have reverted terrorist out four times, slow edit warring is still edit warring. As you say, only sources matter. So you will have no issue with my restoring terrorist with a source? The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy is to avoid using the word terrorist, this is true...unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. Looking through the sources in the article, the reliable sources do appear to widely use terrorist to describe Al-Qaeda. Therefore, using terrorist is not a violation of the Wikipedia policy you cited. It doesn't matter what any editor believes, if it is widely referred to as such by multiple reliable sources, the article should reflect this. - SudoGhost 00:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It is widely labeled a terrorist organization in western sources, not widely labeled in reliable sources. But it still does not matter, commonly held opinions still require attribution and cannot be stated as fact. A vast number of sources would also state that Hitler or Pol Pot were evil bastards yet I'm sure you will all agree that the intro to Pol Pots article should not be "Pol Pot was some evil bastards who was a communist aka supported the worst economic system ever...." Public awareness (talk) 01:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Now it is five times, I will keep opinions out of wikipedia's voice. If you have a source which call Al-Qaeda a terrorist organization you can add it, but you must attribute the opinion to the notable source. See Irgun, the organization is widely thought of as a terrorist group, yet wikipedia does not take a side on the matter and only states facts and notable attributed opinions. Public awareness (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I have sourced it as agreed, it is however not opinion and I am unsure of were you get this from. The source is from Routledge which I assume you will agree is a high quality source. Stating facts do not require attribution, do you have a source which says they are not a terrorist group? Or is it just your opinion that they are not :o) The Last Angry Man (talk) 01:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

When sources already in the article refer to the group as a terrorist organization, it is not an editor's opinion. Here are a few sources already present in the article that refer to the article's subject specifically as "terrorist":

• Al-Qaeda is an international terrorist network...[11]
• Foreign Terrorist Organizations List: Al-Qaida[12]
• ...the terrorist organization[13]
• ...the terror network[14]
• Bin Laden and his terrorist organization, Al-Qa’ida[15]

The others I looked through used words such as "terror" and "anti-terrorism", but I only listed above ones that specifically stated that Al-Queda is a terrorist organization/group/network. Mind you, I did not look though all of the references, but those few I did look at overwhelmingly referred to the article's subject as terrorist. Therefore WP:WEIGHT, in conjunction with WP:TERRORIST, dictates that we place this word in the article. - SudoGhost 01:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Even if 100% of sources had the opinion that celebrity X was ugly, their article would not read that "Celebrity X is ugly" it would state that "Celebrity X won 1st place in Rolling Stone's list of ugliest celebrities". Get it? Opinions are not facts. If an opinion is notable it can be stated with attribution that the opinion is popular. Public awareness (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong, WP:WEIGHT if majority of sources call them terrorists then so do we. The Last Angry Man (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

A majority of sources do not however, a majority of western sources may, but not sources. Public awareness (talk) 01:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

And how did you garner this? Al Jazeera refers to them as terrorists, and Bin Laden's former cook "knew al-Qaeda was a terrorist group" (although I don't hold this reference with much weight, as it was part of a plea deal to have a Guantanamo sentence reduced), these are not merely "labels" by Western media. A majority of sources do refer to them as terrorists, merely saying they do not does not negate this. - SudoGhost 02:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. As a matter of objective fact, Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to say if you can't understand that both terrorist and freedom fighters are two opinionated ways to say militant. Public awareness (talk) 01:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not at all the case. In fact, Freedom fighter and militant are two euphemisms for terrorist. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I have asked at the reliable sources noticeboard about the removal of terrorist and the source used. fell free to comment The Last Angry Man (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I had added this in the little box that PW had put up there on the right but he altered my post so I am moving it down here. re Reuters not using the word terrorist. Except that they have done 4260 times :o) The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The page you reference in the book does not support your edit. TFD (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

"The size of bin Laden’s organization, its political goals, and its enduring relationship with a fundamentalist Islamic social movement provide strong evidence that al-Qaeda is not a terrorist group but an insurgency." - US Lieutenant Colonel Michael F. Morris, 2005, A military paper based solely on whether Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization or an insurgency. Public awareness (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyone participating in this discussion should actually read the entire document.

"Given the challenges of definition and the shared use of the same tactical repertoire, it is hardly surprising that the terms terrorism and insurgency frequently appear synonymously."

I'm not alone in knowing that the word terrorist is misused very often.

"the use of terror in and of itself does not equate to terrorism; the former is merely a tactical tool of the latter. Lawrence Freedman suggests that the terror of terrorists equates to “strategic” terrorism, because it is the primary means by which they pursue their agenda. However, the terror insurgents employ is more tactical in nature, since it is only one of several violent tools such groups wield. This parsing underscores the point - a variety of agents, including states, insurgents, or even criminals as well as terrorists may employ the same techniques of terror."

This is why I never tried to expunge parts in the article that say that al-Qaeda had executed "terrorist attacks".

New York Times, Michael Scheuer, former CIA chief of the team in charge of Osama knows that al-Qaeda is a "global Islamic insurgency, rather than a traditional terrorist organization". Public awareness (talk) 02:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with the consensus here, which is well stated (and reflected) in the above comments by, among others, SudoGhost--who did a wonderful job debunking Public's mis-characterization of the guideline in his first comment above.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus here there is only a conversation between SudoGhost and I and I am waiting for his reply to my 5 western sources, a US pres, a journalist, a news agency, a US Lieutenant Colonel, and CIA, that say that al-Qaeda is not a terrorist organization. The last two sources are discussing the exact question that is here, is it a terrorist organization or an insurgency, of course answering the later. How often Fox news fails to understand the meanings of words is irrelevant. The calling of insurgent groups terrorist groups is done on purpose by bias agencies, and fools who don't know better, to malign them.

To Epeefleche, if you believe your words, and believe it is right to state as fact that organizations that are commonly known as terrorist organizations are stated to be so factually in wikipedia's voice, than I will let you know that there is the same error over at Lehi (group) and Irgun. If your purpose here is honest and your purpose is to improve wikipedia, than you will go and 'fix' these two articles as well. If you do not, and maintain your position here, than it is clear why you edit. Public awareness (talk) 05:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Five or six editors have commented in this section, apart from you all support having terrorist in the description. Your recent revert was against consensus and as such I have reverted you. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yet most of these editors making this consensus have made no real arguments or are failing WP:Competence. The reason why WP:DEMOCRACY exists is to keep this travesty of a discussion from being meaningful. A few editors who have explicitly shown they can not understand the difference between a terrorist group and an insurgent group should have no say in forming a consensus on the matter. Public awareness (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

All editors have the right to speak, that is how wiki works. I think you need to read up on what an insurgency actually is, as should the two sources you gave which back that rather peculiar view. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I am confused that "PA" is unaware of the above consensus ("there is only a conversation between SudoGhost and I"). I think the views of the other editors is clear in their above entries. PA's desire not to hear what is being said runs afoul of our core rules on consensus. I would ask him to respect consensus, and discontinue edit warring against consensus.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

TLAM is stating that the only sources presented here which discuss the difference between insurgency and terrorist are wrong, and he is right. I do not see how he can be seen as being a useful part of this conversation, Harrison brings no sources and says things like "In fact, Freedom fighter and militant are two euphemisms for terrorist." which shows a lack of basic understanding, and Epeefleche has brought no argument at all to this discussion. Weight is determined by quality of arguments given, thus its SudoGhost and I. Now stop bickering and bring sources which prove your point. Show me sources which discuss whether Al-Qaeda is a terrorist group, an insurgency, a liberation group, freedom fighters, what have you. I do not care what your opinion is, show sources. Public awareness (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Help yourself to any of these 106,000 results which state they are terrorists. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

0 of the sources on the first page argue the point. Let me repeat in hopes you hear what I'm asking for. Those sources do not discuss what Al-Qaeda is, they label them terrorist without thought. Show me sources which discuss whether Al-Qaeda is a terrorist group, an insurgency, a liberation group, freedom fighters, what have you. Get a source which says the opposite of "The size of bin Laden’s organization, its political goals, and its enduring relationship with a fundamentalist Islamic social movement provide strong evidence that al-Qaeda is not a terrorist group but an insurgency." Those 106,000 results only show how "terms terrorism and insurgency frequently appear synonymously." Public awareness (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I've taken this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Al-Qaeda. Public awareness (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Saying that "wikipedia has a policy of not calling people terrorist" is not universally true. Wikipedia discourages this kind of divisive terminology "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". Type "Al-Qaeda" into google news search and I'd be willing to bet the first 5 results would describe the group as terrorist. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

You twisted the quote, "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." I demand attribution, why can I not have attribution? Public awareness (talk) 03:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment They're terrorists. Time to move on.JOJ ^Hutton 00:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Your opinions do nothing to help this discussion.

P.S. Ronald Reagans believed Al-Qaeda to be freedom fighters. Public awareness (talk) 03:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Reagan said no such thing about Al Qaeda, he was referring to the taliban insurgents who were fighting against the soviet invasion. The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• PA, I just want to make two suggestions before we go any further:

1. You're right to say that WP:TERRORIST states you should use in-text attribution when assigning such labels. If you feel so strongly about this then perhaps the best way for you to respond is to insert the attribution yourself? Look for sources using the word "terrorist" to refer to/describe Al-Qaeda and insert them into the lead (yes I know that usually citations shouldn't be required for the lead; this is an exception because they are specifically required by WP:TERRORIST). If you can't find any such sources, then perhaps you're right in saying it's an inappropriate word to use.

The sentence you're looking for is the third one. I've stated many times now I would never touch that sentence, it's highly appropriate. Public awareness (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

1. Read this page, and consider it carefully. I'm not saying that you're an "amateur" or that anybody else here is a "professional", but ask yourself if you can see any similarities between the way the amateur acts on that page and the way you're acting here. Bear in mind that the overwhelming majority of the editors discussing this issue disagree with you.

Just like Galileo Galilei, the overwhelming majority won't stop me. I won't allow editorialism of wikipedia and neither should you. Here's a list of organizations you can go add opinions to in wikipedia's voice. Public awareness (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Please don't take this personally; I don't want to fight with another editor over this, just to resolve the issue. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Why not make a bigger mention of the fact that several major nations refer to them as terrorists, so then we are not putting words in any one's mouth. But I do understand the rationale for not using the word, it is not a neutral, objective term and one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I could very well call the American independence movement and their civilian advocates who attacked British positions and bombed British colonial homes and plantations terrorists, and it could be an accurate statement because they used the same means, but I bet no one would argue for that inclusion! S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It is the 3rd sentence of the lead and does get an entire section in the body as well. Thank you for understanding SGGH, I hope no article does call the American revolutionaries terrorists, but rather sticks to the facts of what their actions were and let the reader conclude for themselves. Public awareness (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Public awareness has now been blocked as a sock of the banned editor User:Passionless, so this discussion may no longer be relevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I love how a few editors even jumped on the banned users bandwagon. Even going so far as to redo the banned users edits.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The whole sentance about the "U.S.-Isreal alliance" being an alliance of Christians and Jews to destroy Islam has to be removed. It's very POV, and i doubt we could find ANY reliable sources to support that. It could be changed to somthing along the lines of them beliving it is, but the way it's stated implies that the U.S. and Isreal are out to destroy Islam. Joesolo13 (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean this section in the lede? Reported beliefs include that a Christian-Jewish alliance is conspiring to destroy Islam,^[9] which is largely embodied in the U.S.-Israel alliance, and that the killing of bystanders and civilians is religiously justified in jihad. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It seems very much al-queda POV. Joesolo13 (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Well the first line is sourced, I will check the source for reliability. The second part is un-sourced and ought be removed. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

That's good, my problem is mostly with the second part. The first part would be their belif, which we can't control, but stating that realtions between two contries constitues their belief is unfair without numerous reliable sources. Joesolo13 (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to ask that to see if anyone could give me an answer backed by a government. The UN Security Council may pass laws against terrorism, but they refuse to define it. The issue in ascribing a definition to terrorism, at least by the US, is that the general layman opinion of what constitutes terrorism would include a number of groups that the US backs. Not to mention that a number of CIA actions in the past could easily be classified as terrorism. So, lacking a definition, the word can be thrown around all they want without ever having to define it.

But, for us, we can't ascribe a term to anything if there isn't a definition for it. We have to be equal in how we describe things, neutral. And if we are going to say that one group is a terrorist, then we also have to do so for others, if they by sourced description fall under whatever definition we choose to follow. Silverseren^C 23:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

"The current definition in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 is consistent with international comparators and treaties, and is useful and broadly fit for purpose, subject to some alteration" according to this fellow [16] However my preferred definition escapes me momentarily, I will post it tomorrow. For the US state and Defence dept`s look here[17] The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Terrorism is whatever reliable sources say it is, not what we think it is.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That's what i'm asking, is there a clear definition of terrorism accepted by world governments and stated in reliable sources? Silverseren^C 00:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this even a reliable source? I'm not quite sure where it's from. Silverseren^C 00:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I am unsure of it`s reliability but it is correct in it`s description of the US State and Defence dept`s definitions. I can always post direct links if you wish? The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Direct would be better, yes. Silverseren^C 14:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Will have to dig them out later, sorry. Here is the FBI one for now.[18] The Last Angry Man (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That's helpful, so the general definition is "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives". So would that include any actions by a government against another government and its population that is not considered war? Silverseren^C 16:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I have seen that written yes, however terrorism by the state against the populace or another countries population falls under state terrorism. Might I ask as to why you are making general purpose inquiry's on terrorism on this articles talk page? The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It's related to what was discussed above at Terrorist?. I just wanted to see what criteria were being used here as a definition, because you can find sources describing practically any militant group in the world as being terrorists. For that matter, under the definition I stated before, wouldn't the IRA fall under that as well? Silverseren^C 04:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

(out)No, there is a difference between the IRA fighting an insurgent campaign against an occupying force and what Al-Qaeda has done and continues to do. Their attacks on american targets before 9/11 for instance, how exactly can those be described as fighting against an occupying power? Or 9/11 of course. I`m sorry, but regardless of what definition is used there can be no doubt that Al-Qaeda are terrorists, by their fruits shall you know them. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure one could argue that, from Operation Desert Fox and other such events leading up to September 11th, that the US was an occupying power, but I digress. It's definitely not an argument I want to get into, even if it is partially about the labeling of this article. I just wanted to get some responses about the use of terrorist in the article's lede. Silverseren^C 14:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

"al-Qaeda's operations have evolved from top-down controlled, to franchise associated groups, to lone wolf operators"

What is a franchise associated group and a lone wolf operator and how can they be described to be a part of Al-Qaeda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.225.104 (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Via funding and training for planing and attacks, supply of weapons or details on how to make weapons. One person can make an attack, they have far more chance of success if they get backing. The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It also cites that Al Qaeda are militant, they are not only militant, they spread the ideologies, and they are not all Islamic, they are people in disguise, please discuss so we can edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakanqat (talk • contribs) 23:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Al-Qaeda is Islamic – see here, here, here and here. All these either state or imply that Al-Qaeda is Islamic.
2. Al-Qaeda is militant (defined as: 1. vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause; 2. engaged in warfare; fighting, by [19]) – see here (states explicitly), here (states Al-Qaeda involved in bombing), here (states Al-Qaeda involved in bombing, also describes bombers as "Islamists") and here (Al-Qaeda spokesperson encourages American Muslims to purchase weapons and start killing people indiscriminately).

You arguments that Al-Qaeda is neither militant nor Islamic is about as fallacious as it is possible for an argument to get. Please remember: just because Al-Qaeda's definition of the word "Islamic" varies from yours, this does not mean they are not Islamic. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)