Talk:Timeline of al-Qaeda attacks

Military history: National / Middle East

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	National militaries task force
	Middle Eastern military history task force

As known most wikipedia editors are American, and there in lays my concern. onthe box of the 'al-Qaeda terror campaign' box 9/11 is in bold i find this unneeded and it also belittles those who have died in other attacks so i think it should be not bold. Cj105 11:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OPM-SANG

What about OPM SANG? OPM SANG predated Khobar towers, and was an al-Qaeda operation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.66.241 (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"terrorism's"-connotation-is-outdated

In the passage on 9/11, we read that it was the deadliest act of terrorism in history. It was a part of a war, and the USA named it the "war on terror". This was not an act of "terrorism" --- it was an act of warfare. The word 'terrorism' evokes a sense of innocence on the part of the US. We can agree that 9/11 sucked, while also respecting the fact that the US is not a perfectly moral nation. Respect, in this case, comes in the form of accurate diction.

If we can use the word 'terrorism' so casually, then let's call the Holocaust the most deadly act of terrorism. I think that evoked more terrified feelings for even longer than did 9/11.

Or maybe we can call the atrocity that is Hiroshima to be the most deadly act of terrorism.

POV

This article's infobox seems quite biased to the US and a bit innacurate (George W. Bush as an al-Qaeda commander?) Is there something here you all know about and I don't, or is that vandalism?? --S.O. E-L-I-Z-A (YB3) ^T@lk/_contribs 00:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military targets

Military targets are included in this list (USS Cole bombing, USS The Sullivans plot). Terrorism involves non-combatant targets, which these were not. Either these entries should be removed or the page should be renamed to reflect that more than terrorism activities are included here. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 01:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the attack agains Pentagon at 911. Also a military strike. Reko 11:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is no longer an article of just attacks targeting civilians, but rather a timeline of all al-Qaeda attacks ... it can include both military and civilian targets. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pagemove?

I think we should have an alternate name for this page, such as Timeline of al-Qaeda attacks, History of al-Qaeda attacks, or something similar. Comments?

P.S. Shouldn't this article go back at least to the 1993 WTC bombing? Why is Khobar Towers taken as the start? I am not overly familiar with the history of this and the main al-Qaeda article, so I will undertake no changes for now. Thanks, Black Falcon 01:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Al-Qaeda terror campaign → Timeline of al-Qaeda attacks — It seems more neutral. SeiteNichtGefunden 11:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Since this is not a vote, please explain the reasons for your recommendation.

Discussion

Done. I felt that the move was sufficiently uncontroversial so as not to require consensus-building. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khobar Towers Removed

I've removed the references to the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing as being an al Qaeda attack both here and in the KT main article (in which the word al Qaeda didn't appear for good reason).

Here the KT bombing was included with the description that al Qaeda is often "cited" as being as suspect and that the attack is often "ascribed" to them. This is generally called "ignorance" and isn't generally something you cite as supporting information.

As this was a serious matter involving people getting killed, it got investigated and was found to have been carried out by a different group without any known involvement of al Qaeda . There's an indictment, a description of what the investigation found and all the known players cited in the KT's own article.

The infobox still includes "1st Khobar Towers" as a listed attack which I don't know how to correct, so if you do, please remove it from there too. Attriti0n 02:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Bojinka

I understand it was in the planning stages, but I was wondering if there was information about when it would have been executed. Brian Pearson 14:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madrid attacks

I have removed the claim that Interpol and the Spanish government believe that Spanish Police was involved in the attacks. It is false and unsupported by the quoted sources.

--Larean01 10:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yemen

The source: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1001171,00.html?promoid=googlep

ATTACK DEC. 29, 1992 ADEN, YEMEN One hundred U.S. servicemen had just left the Gold Mohur Hotel, on their way to duty in Somalia, when the bomb hit. It killed two people in the hotel and seriously wounded four tourists. Two suspects reportedly had 23 bombs, two antitank mines, dynamite and machine guns.

Does not cite al-qaeda as being responsible. Vexorg (talk) 06:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this source say what day the attack happened? does it say where? It's certainly a valid source for that. Then other source(s) verify the "Al Qaeda" responsibility. Please stop removing valid sources. --Aude (talk) 06:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please show how this is a reputable source? Vexorg (talk) 06:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danish Embassy

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSSP66665 - "Soon after the blast, Yazid had claimed responsibility for al Qaeda in a posting on an Islamist website." - this is a very vague source Aude. It's just a hearsay claim. However, you are an administrator so I'm not going to fight with you over it. But personally I think this devalues Wikipedia when articles sound so definite based upon sources that are as weak as this. Vexorg (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia's verifiability policy -- "verifiability, not truth". It's not up to us to decide if al-Qaeda was responsible, but rather we need to go with what reliable sources say. In this case, the statement is properly attributed to Yazid. --Aude (talk) 06:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not expecting us to decide if Al-qaeda were responsible. I'm expecting a reputable source. But my edits are in good faith. I just want Wikipedia to reflect a reasonable source and not journalistic license. Vexorg (talk) 06:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is This a list of al-Qaeda attacks against USA/Western targets only?

It looks to me like that. What about a long list of alQaeda attacks in the Middle East and Southern Asia??
i.e In Saudi arabia there were at least 4 attacks that were claimed by alQaeda.

I hope someone can collect them all and add them to this article.

Cutedoctor (talk) 03:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that there are hundreds of attacks attributable to Al Queda not to mention every roadside bombing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Excluding roadside bombings this list is still woefully incomplete. Obviously the list should include non-US targets e.g. London and Madrid metro bombings. Erxnmedia (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this article were fully fleshed out, it should read like a list of battles in a world war, it's apparently just lacking in people moving all of the incidents into one article that puts them all together. It could be even larger if it were to link all attacks motivated by militant anti-west Jihad, of which Al Queda is only one variety. Bachcell (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Al Queda" itself is a fairly ill-defined entity, when you drill down to what is actually motivating individual people in Afghanistan, Somalia, Egypt, Yemen, Saudia Arabia, Iraq, etc. It is really not a single well-defined entity, there are many separate groups with different nationalities and languages and intents. These are unfortunately blurred into a single "Al Queda" in CNN and FOX style news accounts. It is possibly because of this that nobody that really knows the subject is drilling down, because (a) one drill down would focus on perhaps the Osama Al-Queda, which in reality has been mostly bombed into submission (b) a unified drill-down would have a hard time deciding whether to include say Taliban in scope because Taliban is not really al Queda, or American al Queda wannabees in scope because they are copycats, and so on; if all are in scope the article suddenly becomes both enormous and obscuring of the differences between various groups. So to some extent I think that unless someone can really prove that Al Queda actually exists as a functional organization and is not simply a Bush-era bogeyman, then maybe we should drop the article. If you can define what is Al Queda, then the article should be inclusive of all attacks on any soil for whatever purpose that are associated with the defined entity. Erxnmedia (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Al Queda" inspired violence should probably be expanded to all that the West classifies (or sometimes refuses to classify" as "Islamist terrorism" outside of large-scale formal military actions and resistance to normal US troops deployed in combat. Fort Hood is an excellent example of Islamist, Al-Queda thinking based violence that is nevertheless not considered terrorism on its wiki article. Awlaki has long been considered Al Queda by US intelligence but not by his own self-identification, and his friends and followers insist he has no relationship to AQ or even violence. Bachcell (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this list deal with Jemaah Islamiyah?

Does this list deal with Jemaah Islamiyah or not?--81.232.105.190 (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This "list of acts attributed or claimed by al-Qaeda or its affiliates, or suspected of being influenced by al-Queda or those working on its behalf" is worthless

It should be split into a factual list of acts they claim they have committed, and one with the "suspected of being influenced" hearsay. Marty Crabneck (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything non-factual here. I concur with the warnings that the sysop has left on your talkpage in this regard relative to your deletions.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too long

This is a list here of terrorist attacks. About half of these attacks involve al-qaeda or groups related to al-qaeda. I therefore added the deadliest ones to this article. However on 2nd thought the list it way too long and you can't fit all al-qaeda attacks on this page. The death toll below 70 casualties i have left out. Does anyone have thoughts on this? Pass a Method talk 12:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading

I just remove a bunch of attacks where it is not verified that the perpetrators were from al-qaeda. There are still a lot of other attacks where that is unclear or where it is simply suggested with no evidences. Babtt (talk) 03:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful to at least indicate in the beginning when "al Qaeda" started calling itself that; I don't think the attacks of 1992 or 1993 were initially attributed to "al Qaeda" csloat (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

number of victims of The 2007 Yazidi communities bombings

Not supported by sources given, contradicts main article on 2007 Yazidi communities bombings. See the talk page there where I note other examples on wikipedia where this 796 number is given (none with sources) but I provide there sources for the number 796. I'm not sure exactly how to go about changing all this... Yaakovaryeh (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a court of law

Thus the "The people responsible for these attacks deserve to die" part has no purpose here is is pretty much vandalism. I suggest locking the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Preda (talk • contribs) 00:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]