That State Department citation is misleading in it's title, because in reading it, it clealry answers the queastion as "no". RobS 00:55, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
- The passage is "According to the 9/11 Commission Report, Osama bin Bin Ladin and his comrades had their own sources of support and training, and they received little or no assistance from the United States" (which answers NO), and the state department citation answers NO. The title is an ambiguously worded question, and does not infer yes or no. --Hojimachongtalk 01:04, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
- A) yes but this may not be the place to do it. B) Definitely. I propose we use the 9/11 Report cited as this basis for this page. That document is more/less the definitve open source account up to that time. It is very interesting reading, and ambiguos in points. We should not accept all of it as doctrinaire, but serious students could learn much from a reading of that document about government secrecy, classifications, how to read reports of this nature, and when to investigate further. RobS 15:51, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
With all due respect I think that some aspects of this discussion is the very epitome of hair splitting. Whilst I would agree that precision is important is these matters surely there is one key question that needs to asked - was there enough evidence of collusion between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003? The answer to that question has to be a resounding no. To include unreliable accounts of meeting that may have taken place between Iraqis and Bin Laden in what is intended to be an article about al Qaeda is disgracefully partisan. Wilberforce 5th Sept 2007
Rob - if the part of the report that says that "cites Bin laden meeting with Iraqi intelligence officials in Khartoum as early as 1995" is citable, why is the part on page 66 saying that " . . . to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States" something that has no place in this encyclopedia? It's from the exact same document, after all. Sevenstring 12:21, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
- Read what your cite says; while the early cite reports on a known fact, the later does not deny facts, it only refers to an unknown--they have seen no evidence. Hence, it is inconclusive. Obviously al-Qaede operates under secrecy, and it is very well known of America's intelligence incompetence, and failures. To include that reference from the 9/11 Report, implying a conclusion of no relationship, is false and misleading. In the immortal words on Don Rumsfeld, "There are things that we know, there are things that we don't know, and there are things that we don't know that we don't know". RobS 13:22, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
Ok, some comments. This is the al-Qeade entry, it is not the 9/11 entry, nor the Incompetence of US Intelligence Community entry, nor the Criticism of the Bush administration and neo-con agenda entry. The value of the 9/11 Report gives us what studied movements and contacts of al-Qeada are known to US intelligence agencies, and the citations that are either (a) accessible through FOIA, or (b) remain classified. Also, the compilers of the Report were required by law to maintain operational integrity of on-going intelligence operations, i.e. the identity of sources. (Also, we must assume or allow for the plausibility that some sources and/or documents were withheld from the 9/11 Report). So, the value of the Report as it pertains to this article simply gives us a very thorough picture of al-Qaeda operations and movements that were known to (a) US Intelligence, and (b) made public through this report. PERIOD.
It is not possible to make any claims of "conclusions", etc. because of the gapping holes that the Report itself admits exists. Therefore, when the Report uses phrasing such as, "there is no evidence", this DOES NOT IMPLY ANYTHING in the way of expunging or excusing or rehabilitating or denying or ANYTHING. It is simply an area where either (a) information does not exist because an event never occurred, or (b) we are waiting for the discovery of information, or (c) the event occurred but will never be known.
So, to attempt to make this article into some sort of criticism of policy will not happen. This is an article about al-Qeade, and what is known of its history. PERIOD. It is not a disguised vehicle for criticism of policymakers & intelligence failures. RobS 18:05, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
- To settle the controversy and prevent another edit war, I'd like to determine the veracity of the statement made by the previous editor: "Although friendly contacts between Iraqis and Bin Laden continued, the Report determined that there was no evidence of any operational cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda leading up to 9/11." Is this statement true, or false? --JonathanDrain 17:27, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
- The report did not make a determination. If you feel the report is being misread, please cite the page and passage where a "determination" was made. Thank you. RobS 17:51, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
- So the word "determination" appears to be the sticking point. Is it thus the case that the Report merely found no evidence of operational cooperation, a statement which does not preclude the existence of operational cooperation having taken place in secret? --JonathanDrain 18:22, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
- I think you have the idea; to simply say "the official report found no evidence..." is misleading for possibly two reasons, (a) incompetence of the report investigators; and (b) withheld information. Either way, the report does not preclude complicity, as is often how its misquoted. So we need a simple, straight forward narration of facts, which the Report gives, yet is still not detminative in certain areas. While it is perhaps the best guide we can use, on the hand, we can not give what still may be accomplices a clean bill of health, based upon the Report. The Report does not do so, it only says, 'we don't know'. RobS 00:14, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
- Interesting. Are there other instances where the 9/11 commission is widely considered by experts to have been written by incompetents, or it is considered likely that information has been withheld, perhaps due to it being classified? --JonathanDrain 11:24, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
- Read it yourself. They keep saying "we just don't know." RobS 21:57, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
This article says at the top, "This article needs to be expanded. Please write more!" However, the page is currently locked! How are we supposed to expand the article if it's locked? --JonathanDrain 17:05, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
- It's unprotected now. RobS 17:11, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
Seems to be locked as of 5th September 2007
Leftist terrorist organization?
Couldn't help to notice that Al Qaeda is referred to as a leftist terrorist organization on the Terrorism page. This is not mentioned in this article at all and frankly I have never heard of it before. --Sachaztan 18:46, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
The following section does not reflect the source: The 9/11 Commission Report has tied al-Qaeda to the government of Ba'athist government of Saddam Hussein, specifically the alleged harboring of al-Qaeda second-in-command Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and cooperation in Saddam's war against the kurds. the 9/11 Commission Report cites Bin laden meeting with Iraqi intelligence officials in Khatroum as early as 1995. Bin Laden declined reported Iraqi offers of a safe haven, instead settling in Afghanistan. Friendly contacts between Iraqis and Bin Laden continued.
Nowhere in that source is Zarqawi mentioned, who wasn't even a player until after the US invasion. I thought this might be a mistaken reference to Zawahiri, but there's nothing about him being harbored there. Also, the source mentions several times that while contacts occurred between AQ and Hussein's government, there was nothing approaching an operational relationship between the two. Since the article is locked, I can't make the change. Dchall1 15:32, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
The word "mujaheddin" might be misspelled on the main page. There seem to be 2 accepted spellings of this word (neither of which is the one used) so maybe someone can fix this who knows which is right?