Talk:Al Qaeda - Revision history

RobSmith: /* User:Conservative proven wrong, AGAIN */

2026-07-25T03:22:35Z

User:Conservative proven wrong, AGAIN

RobSmith: /* Spelling Error? */

2026-05-22T17:25:08Z

Spelling Error?

Jsparks at 13:42, May 2, 2011

2011-05-02T13:42:29Z

Dchall1: Iraq relationship

2008-04-27T19:32:42Z

Iraq relationship

Wilberforce at 12:27, September 5, 2007

2007-09-05T12:27:44Z

Wilberforce: /* 9-11 Report */

2007-09-05T12:26:33Z

9-11 Report

Wilberforce: /* Wait what */

2007-09-05T12:17:22Z

Wait what

Sachaztan: Leftist terrorist organisation?

2007-07-31T22:46:08Z

Leftist terrorist organisation?

RobSmith: /* Wait what */ Sorry about that

2007-07-04T01:58:19Z

Wait what: Sorry about that

RobSmith: /* Some comments */ Read it yourself

2007-07-04T01:57:11Z

Some comments: Read it yourself

@@ Line 49: / Line 49: @@
 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?
-==[[User:Conservative proven wrong]], [https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Conservative_proven_wrong AGAIN]==
+==[[Category:User:Conservative proven wrong]], [https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Conservative_proven_wrong AGAIN]==
 [[User:Conservative]] has misrepresented the views of Rear Admiral [[James Stavridis]] is his more than 4 dozen [[warmongering]] [[troll]] screeds.

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:25, May 22, 2026
Line 48:		Line 48:
	== Spelling Error? ==		== Spelling Error? ==
	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?		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?
		+
		+	==[[User:Conservative proven wrong]], [https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Conservative_proven_wrong AGAIN]==
		+	[[User:Conservative]] has misrepresented the views of Rear Admiral [[James Stavridis]] is his more than 4 dozen [[warmongering]] [[troll]] screeds.
		+
		+	*On March 2, 2025 the ''[[London Telegraph]]'' reported former Supreme Allied Commander [[US Navy]] Four Star Admiral [[James Stavridis]] said that since the [[Trump administration]] made it clear that '''[[Ukraine aid\|aid to Kyiv]] could become a "[[geopolitical]] miscalculation of colossal proportions....We may be witnessing the last days of [[NATO]]".'''<ref>[https://archive.is/QrPQA End of Nato alliance could be ‘days away’, warns former commander], Cameron Henderson, ''[[The Telegraph]]'', 01 March 2025. www.telegraph.co.uk</ref>
		+	*Whenever a rising power (in this case [[China]]) confronts an established power (the [[U.S.]]) over the past two thousand years, the outcome very often leads to a global conflict. This occurs despite the fact that in most cases there is no advantage to either side in launching into a [[war]].<ref>[https://time.com/5945178/sleepwalk-war-with-china/ How the U.S. Could Sleepwalk into a War with China], [[James Stavridis]] and Elliot Ackerman, ''[[TIME magazine]]'', Mar 9, 2021. </ref>
		+	{{reflist}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:42, May 2, 2011
Line 45:		Line 45:

	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. [[User:Dchall1\|Dchall1]] 15:32, 27 April 2008 (EDT)		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. [[User:Dchall1\|Dchall1]] 15:32, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
		+
		+	== Spelling Error? ==
		+	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?

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:32, April 27, 2008
Line 38:		Line 38:

	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. --[[User:Sachaztan\|Sachaztan]] 18:46, 31 July 2007 (EDT)		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. --[[User:Sachaztan\|Sachaztan]] 18:46, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	== Iraq relationship ==
		+
		+	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,[2] 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. [[User:Dchall1\|Dchall1]] 15:32, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 == 9-11 Report ==
-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.
+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. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 12:21, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:26, September 5, 2007
Line 6:		Line 6:

	== 9-11 Report ==		== 9-11 Report ==
		+	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.

	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. [[User:Sevenstring\|Sevenstring]] 12:21, 6 June 2007 (EDT)		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. [[User:Sevenstring\|Sevenstring]] 12:21, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 ::I still cannot edit it? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 11:20, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
 :::It's unprotected now.  Sorry about that.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:58, 3 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. --[[User:Sachaztan|Sachaztan]] 18:46, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:46, July 31, 2007
Line 32:		Line 32:
	::I still cannot edit it? --[[User:JonathanDrain\|JonathanDrain]] 11:20, 2 July 2007 (EDT)		::I still cannot edit it? --[[User:JonathanDrain\|JonathanDrain]] 11:20, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
	:::It's unprotected now. Sorry about that. [[User:RobS\|RobS]] 21:58, 3 July 2007 (EDT)		:::It's unprotected now. Sorry about that. [[User:RobS\|RobS]] 21:58, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+
		+	== 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. --[[User:Sachaztan\|Sachaztan]] 18:46, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:58, July 4, 2007
Line 31:		Line 31:
	:It's unprotected now. [[User:RobS\|RobS]] 17:11, 1 July 2007 (EDT)		:It's unprotected now. [[User:RobS\|RobS]] 17:11, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
	::I still cannot edit it? --[[User:JonathanDrain\|JonathanDrain]] 11:20, 2 July 2007 (EDT)		::I still cannot edit it? --[[User:JonathanDrain\|JonathanDrain]] 11:20, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
		+	:::It's unprotected now. Sorry about that. [[User:RobS\|RobS]] 21:58, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 :::*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'.  [[User:RobS|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? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 11:24, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
 == Wait what ==