Talk:Al-Qaeda

ARSE QAEDA

Leadership

I think that the statement "veracity of the information provided by al-Fadl and the motivation for his cooperation are both disputed" is a gross understatement. Jamal al-Fadl was recruited by Mustafa Shalabi in Brooklyn who was then working for the CIA in Operation Cyclone. He gave the leadership structure and a great deal more detailed information while being examined in court. He claims he knows this information because he was at the al-Qaeda founding meeting in Afghanistan which occurred in 1988 - more than 10 years before he was examined in court. Because of the time between his examination and the supposed founding meeting, the politically motivated trial, and his involvement in a CIA operation, I think his testimony should be taken with a heavy dose of skepticism.

That being said, I think the aforementioned quote should be reworded and stressed in some manner that further emphasizes the dubious quality of the information.

Torvum (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Etymology and Cognates of "Qaeda"

It is worth noting that "Qaeda" is a cognate of "Quds," which also has to do with bases or foundational principles and also happens to be the Arabic name of Jerusalem.

No it's not. Arabic is based on a three letter root stems. Al-Quds, roots qaf-dal-sin. Al-Qaeda, roots qaf-ain-dal. They are totally unrelated words. --129.67.145.161 (talk) 05:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Bin Laden Caption

Just a minor edit request. It currently reads:

Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir interviewing former al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, in 1997

To clarify, maybe change that to "... then al-Qaeda leader...". Fedjmike (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Done.OrangesRyellow (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Broader Influence

I nominate the following individual, Martin Lindstedt of the Missouri Militia (currently in prison for child molestation), and the umbrella organization Army of God for this section.

Lindstedt was the one who declared the support of the Missouri Militia for Al-Qaeda as the tower was coming down (CNN had this on their scroll at the bottom of the screen), and later went on to write how the Missouri Militia, and all other domestic Insurrectionist groups should emulate Al-Qaeda.

The notorious Army of God has also stated they admire the structure and tactics of Al-Qaeda, and urge people to emulate that structure.

http://whitenationalist.org/lindstedt/ http://nwhomeland.blogspot.com/2005/05/martin-lindstedt-arrested.html http://whitenationalist.org/lindstedt/swmolb14.html#Combatants etc... many more references, including his rant, specifically praising al-qaida from his prison cell can be found with a five minute search.

As far as Army of God I reference practically their entire website: http://www.armyofgod.com/ 97.127.185.196 (talk) 05:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia being used to write false history

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

---

It's very sad to see Wikipedia stating that Al Quaeda is a terrorist organization which was behind the events of 9/11. Many millions of people all over the world know this simply isn't true but, because it was widely reported in mainstream media, it is being stated as fact on Wikipedia. This system allows corrupted governments and compromised (or improperly functioning) media networks to very effective write false history. It seems a new system is badly needed. --Garrikal (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses reliable sources, not conspiracy theories, no matter how true you believe them to be. Wikipedia is not the place to correct accepted knowledge, its purpose is merely to reflect it. Fortunately, Wikipedia uses a creative commons license; as long as you give proper attribution you are more than welcome to take the content on Wikipedia and place it elsewhere, and modify it there however you'd like with whatever system you feel appropriate. You can easily take the content and make your own "new system" on your own website. - SudoGhost 21:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

SudoGhost indicates that Wikipedia is not the place to correct "accepted knowledge." If Wikipedia has no interest in truth and fact, then it's purpose may become questionable. If a conspiracy can be shown and proven, is Wikipedia able to accept facts if unable to recognize truth? Accepted knowledge based upon nontruths is not fact. People look for and rely upon reliable sources and based upon Wikipedia's denial of an avenue to accept facts may make it an unreliable source. Governments are admitting to the manufacture of "Al Qaeda" a term not used by the people being labeled, and it appears that Wikipedia may not allow these reliable sources. Why? CIA Truther (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no interest in what any and all random persons on the internet says is truth and fact. Just because you say one thing is "truth" and the other is "nontruth", that just ultimately boils down to the fact that you have an opinion on what the truth is, but that doesn't suddenly make it true. If Wikipedia were to ignore reliable sources whenever someone said they knew "the actual truth" then Wikipedia's purpose would become questionable. Your opinion is based on a fringe viewpoint with no basis in fact of any kind, and Wikipedia is not a means of promoting your opinion. As I said, Wikipedia is not the place to correct accepted knowledge, its purpose is merely to reflect it. As for "Wikipedia may not allow these reliable sources", it would help if you showed what "these reliable sources" were, and WP:RSN would be well suited to explaining why a particular source may or may not be considered reliable. - SudoGhost 00:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia's dilemma. Its' correct you can't just accept the word of anyone, but the problem also lies with what is deemed a reliable source. Mainstream media is no more reliable than anyone else and is just as open to corruption and propaganda. All mainstream media is, is media controlled by those with the most money, and thus Wikipedia is biased to the opinions of those with the most money. It's obvious beyond all reasonable doubt that the fictitious Al-Qaeda had nothing to do with 911 and other events attributed to it, but because the mainstream media won't even touch such research then in turn Wikipedia mirrors this bias abnd simply becomes an extension of the Mainstream media. This is why Wikipedia has little worth on these matters. Msot people I know don't trust Wikipedia. There is no solution to this however. 95.148.228.53 (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Edit request on 23 January 2013

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

---

CORRECTINFORMATIONNOW (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC) After reading your description and history of al-Qaeda is very one sided. It does not include an in depth analysis of all information on the web that tells the history of al-Qaeda and where the name came from. The "Alleged CIA involvement" section is one example of pure bias that assumes no connection.

I will site one link on the web: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqn0bm4E9yw

There is a massive amount of factual information that counters what is being reported by the creators of this Wikipedia page on al-Qaeda.

Financing for al_Qaeda completely covers up the relationship and funding of Osama bin Laden by the US Government through the CIA. al-Qaeda never existed. Osama was got funding from the CIA and at the time it was known as the Mujahideen.

Also if you search Osama bid-Laden you get that he created the name al-Qaeda this is factually incorrect.

From reading both of these pages al_Qaeda and Osama bid Laden it is clear that its is written by people who are beholding to the official line of the US Government.

Both of these pages need to be opened up for editing so that all the various facts can be sited.

Thanks for your great work at Wikipedia and I hope this allows these pages to have more information included.

Youtube is not a WP:RS for information, please provide sources for your proposals Darkness Shines (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree! I could only read a few sentences before I was flabbergasted by the wrongness in this article. Al Qaeda was not created by Osama bin Laden in 1988! Al Qaeda was created by President Carter and his adviser,Zbigniew Brzezinski, in 1979 in a cruel and wicked plot to use Afghans as pawns as they set up a situation to entice the Soviets into the invasion of Afghanistan. I'm certainly not going to try re-write this article but I am going to very much not trust Wikipedia if people are going to be blind sided by American revisionism.

RC Johnsen johnsenrc@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.165.107 (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

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