This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Ungovernable Force (talk | contribs) at 07:17, 23 October 2006 (→Terrorist?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 07:17, 23 October 2006 by The Ungovernable Force (talk | contribs) (→Terrorist?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Unassessed | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Archives
|
Pro Al-Qaeda Web sites
Recent news reports have been claiming that the Internet is full of Web sites in support of Al Qaeda. For example, Arnaud de Borchgrave of the Washington Times claims (8/24/6):
- Disillusioned Muslim youngsters are increasingly attached to the global Muslim community via the Internet -- and are angry at what they consider the anti-Muslim policies of the local government where they live. The estimated 5,000 pro-al Qaeda Web sites include recipes for mixing nail polish remover and hair bleach and detonating the explosive cocktail with the flash unit from a throwaway camera.
I find myself very skeptical of these claims. For example, typing "nail polish", "hair bleach" and "camera" as search terms in Google gets 1240 results, of which the vast majority appear not to be radical Muslim sites. I have seen too many reports of infringements on the free speech of ordinary American polemicists to believe that Al Qaeda enjoys free reign in Western countries or anywhere else. But then again... that search wouldn't bring up pages in Arabic. What's the truth here?Mike Serfas 03:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- NB You CAN mix acitone and a Base to make an explosive, but you need MUCH higher concentrations than are avalable to the genral public. You also need lab with cooling equipment and a blast proof vacume cabenet (so not you average school stuff) to get anything near a good reactant leval, and even if you did no sain person would do this by had because it is still very volitial, and you risk killing yourself. This is just scair mongering which all seems to come from one "security expert" on ITV news saying "it might be some sort of new bomb, like a liquid explosive, which we cannot detect" in relation to questions as to why airports were closed after a bomb threat when there is suposed to be bomb detecting equipment in the airports.
There is no such thing as a "binary bomb" where you mix two substances and they blow up. Houshold or otherwise. 62.232.65.170 15:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
There *are* such things as binary explosives; these are explosive compounds which are highly unstable in their final form but (relatively) safe when separated into two precursor compounds. Thus, the safe way to handle them is to keep them separate until the last possible moment; they aren't mixed together to form the actual explosive until just before detonation. --JaceCady 20:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
growth or reduction of Al Qaeda?
According to the recent White House report, Al Qaeda has been "signifcantly degraded" but the opposition Democrats are claiming something like more than a doubling in it's size since its dispersion from Afghanistan.
Which is it?
A section on the grown or shrinkage of Al Queda might be helpful.
--213.42.21.76 10:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Al Qaeda doesn't exist!
Watch these two videos. There is no organisation called Al Qaeda.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBVVs9hcmRY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQFC8AlCVjE&mode=related&search=
Both from a very good programme on the BBC.
Essentally in pursuing this thing called 'Al Qaeda' the US is chasing shadows, a non-existent phantom enemy.
I would have put this on the main page but it would be deleted.SmokeyTheFatCat 22:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Um ok. I think that is whats called a conspiracy theory.
A conspiracy theory used to be about someone conspiring to do evil but now it is a convenient way of argumentum ad homenum (sorry if wrong spelling) which is latin for attacking the speaker not the argument. In other words, if any evidence or questions come up that go against the flow, call it a conspiracy theory to discredit the person delivering the message. So if there is no evidence they exist except for many false arrests in US, UK, Oz and Canada these last few years lets dismiss it and tell that person they are a conspiracy theorist. The real conspiracy theory would be that Al Qaeda does exist LOL
In response to the BBC's assertion that Al Quida was a term cooked up by the USA and then later adopted by the group, I would like to see a comment about possible uses of "Al Quida" by detainees before 9/11, specifically by Khalid Sheik Mohammed during his detention *where he was allegedly waterboarded. There seems to be some evidence that he used the term, though his testimony, considering the torture and lack of transparency, is questionable.
- Yes, there is no evidence that Al-Qaeda really exists.Everton 13:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- sure there is loads of evidence that al Qaeda exists, though not necessarily in the form proposed by George Bush. See for instance one of these books:
- Gilles Kepel: Jihad . the trail of political islam
- Jason Burke: Al Qaeda casting a shadow of terror
- Faisal Devji: landscapes of the Jihad
General comment on terrorism
This is all too convenient. Making us scared of an invisible enemy, we dont know where they are, we dont know when they will strike, we must remove your liberties, lock you up without evidence for your liberty and security. what a load of bollocks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.6.30 (talk • contribs)
I just wanted to add one comment. The notion that Al Qaeda is somehow a Sunni organization is a factual mis-statement. It is a loose network of Islamic radicals with similar goals. A more accurate reference would be to Militant Islam. A review of the major known participants and 9-11 Hijackers shows a number of individuals who are not Sunni associated with Al Qaeda. Labeling this organization as Sunni is erroneous and does a great injustice to Sunni Muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.242.136.2 (talk • contribs)
- I'm not sure I understand. When you say they are "not Sunni", do you mean to say they are Shi'a or some other denomination of Islam? Or do you mean they are not true Sunnis, or something along those lines? —Morning star 23:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Semi-Protection
It seems that there has been a lot of vandalism recently by unregistered users; does anyone think semi-protection is in order? Trojan traveler 03:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- I would second that. —Morning star 23:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Frankly I was surprised to find taht there wasn't any here already. Kc4 21:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
more attack participants
right now, the list only contains the names of those who participated in the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks. surely we know the names of those who attacked the u.s.s. cole, the african embassies, etc. Parsecboy 19:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- And, surely we have some shred of empirical evidence linking those people with a structured organization calling itself "Al Qaeda"? Surely we do? Don't we? 74.104.100.186 00:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Giant section headings
We need to shorten them. They currently look ridiculous. Any suggestions?-Localzuk 11:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Etymology section
The second paragraph of the etymology section should be removed since the only cited source for it's information is Globalresearch.ca, an ideologically and politically biased website that promotes bizarre conspiracy theories involving the supposed New World Order and such. It also features articles penned by people who've written for a neo-Nazi newsletter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Professor28 (talk • contribs)
- Do you know which neo-Nazi newsletter?—Morning star 23:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
American Focus
Can we please remove these lines (or at least stick them in a revised form later in the document) they lend a very non-POV air to the piece. "Al-Qaeda has been linked to multiple acts of terrorism against U.S. interests and is known for planning and executing the September 11 attacks on New York's World Trade Center and The Pentagon. In response, the United States launched a war against Afghanistan, whose government was providing safe haven to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda members." When I began reading i got the impression this was more like a bio-article by the washington post on al-Qaeda rather than an encyclopeadiea article. Put the stated events in a section called actions or something. Thanks - --ISpyFace 13:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Terrorist?
Read this page on words to avoid : Misplaced Pages:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism
Either we should review the policy, or review this article. It's still funny that the example is in contradiction with the first sentence of this article.
- Excellent Point - I think we should conform to the Policy as it currently stands.
- These guys are terrorists. Anyone who denies that may also be interested in sensory deprivation. Cerebral Warrior 05:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- To begin with, I am not interested in sensory deprivation. The fact is that wikipedia's policy clearly states that the term terrorist should not be used as it is in this entry.
- Hey, don't knock sensory deprivation! Seriously though, it goes against neutrality unless they have self-identified as terrorists. Simple as that. And yes, I do think al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization, but I also think it's pov to say that here. Ungovernable Force 07:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- To begin with, I am not interested in sensory deprivation. The fact is that wikipedia's policy clearly states that the term terrorist should not be used as it is in this entry.
- These guys are terrorists. Anyone who denies that may also be interested in sensory deprivation. Cerebral Warrior 05:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- You have openly confessed to being anti-American despite being American by birth. You have also insulted your President. That makes you, in my opinion, a traitor. Cerebral Warrior 07:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yep, I'm a traitor. So what? Last I checked, traitors were allowed on wikipedia and had just as much a right to edit as patriotic Americans. Heck, we'd even allow Osama bin Laden to edit if he had a computer and an internet connection. Ungovernable Force 07:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, and see Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. Although I really don't mind being called a traitor that much, I do know this was meant to be a huge insult in your eyes. Your intent was clearly a violation of that policy, as well as general respect for others. Perhaps consider commenting in a more polite manner. Ungovernable Force 07:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)