Talk:Al-Qaeda

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

OK, title is hyphenated, and in the article it isn't. And neither is it anywhere else. Please to rename to Al-Qaeda and fix redirects. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:53, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Well, wikipedia seems to agree with the hyphen. Cool. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:07, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
I decided to make the wording a bit more concise, hope you don't mind too much. δij^{i.broke.it.} 22:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Whoops, sorry--I didn't notice that you brought that up here before I reverted it. The article is almost painfully concise as it is, though (and actually a bit sparse)--I hope you don't mind that I restored the information. The electrocutioner (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Saying that it is a fundamentalist Sunni organization isn't exactly accurate. Oh well.δij^{i.broke.it.} 23:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The hyphen is correct, however it hardly matters as you're using the Arabic for dummies transliteration. Also, saying al-Qa'ida is much of an organization at all isn't exactly accurate. Their greatest asset is their non-existence, which lets a small band of 200 fanatics train thousands of others. Of course, the hacks passing as journalists these days assume that any group they have trained are hard line al-Qa'ida fanatics, which couldn't be farther from the truth.UncleHo (talk) 06:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
If you would like to use the currently fashionable transliteration, perhaps you could start by drumming up some support for renaming the Osama bin Laden article to use a spelling of his name that is unfamiliar to most of the English-speaking readership. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
The transliteration I use is generally accepted as the most correct among people who speak Arabic. We've tried our hardest, but you Euro-speakers seem to stick with the incorrect forms of lots of Arabic words, and you don't have much interest in learning the language. By the way, if you're going to be wrong, LX, you should at least try not being snooty about it.UncleHo (talk) 07:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I am not at all opposed to the correction of such errors, insofar as they are actually errors and not merely a violation of somebody's personal preferences in transliteration. But as this is an English-language Wiki and not directed primarily at the Arabic-speaking population, it would be counter-productive to use a transliteration that the average non-Arabic-speaker does not recognize. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 07:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
So either you insist on being wrong and snooty about it, or you are incapable of completing a sentence without sounding like a total dickhead. Which is it?UncleHo (talk) 09:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Every romanized version of it is "wrong". I'd prefer to keep the version people actually use. And maybe avoid calling anyone a dickhead in a spelling discussion. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 09:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct. However, when it comes to the consensus between Arabic speakers, you must choose between: "Learn Arabic, you anglo-imperialist bastard" and "This transliteration is LESS wrong than the others." Which is your choice?UncleHo (talk) 04:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

al Qaeda denialism?[edit]

I was just made aware of al Qaeda denialists by a friend of mine. He wants resources to point them at, even though I think it's a waste of time if they already believe an idea like that. I am going to research this, but the sites are blocked by the server here at work. Should I make it a "Denialism" page or add it to this article? Do we already have something like that?

I can point them in the direction of a few graves with friends of mine in them, if they like.

Has anyone heard of this crap before? The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 04:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? As in deny they exist or deny they pulled off 9/11? I've seen stuff passed around in truther circles suggesting they are actually CIA puppets or some such nonsense. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Deny that they exist. The truther thing should be a good start for some research into this. Thanks. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 05:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

yeah I've run into an AlQaeda denier today myself. I live in Saudi Arabia and it's extremely common to meet irrational people here. This person is a British expat who has converted to Islam. That AlQaeda is a fabrication, or a puppet of the USA, or a deliberate creation of the CIA (as opposed to an organization that grew out of another organization that at one point 3 decades ago benefitted from some CIA-sponsored training and arms), is a very common idea around here and some other countries in the Middle East, particularly Syria. Idiots there refer to the organization as "Al C I A-da" as a matter of course. Though the theories that bin Laden was a righteous martyr, that he was a Mossad puppet, that he is still alive, that he is a fictional character are also extremely prevalent. Often these theories directly contradict one another and they believe all of them simultaneously regardless— Unsigned, by: 86.51.185.62 / talk / contribs

So, what is it?[edit]

Is it a Wahabbi movement from Saudi Arabia, or did it originate out of the Eygptian jihadist movement as the intro states? the article makes conflicting claims. nobsOne who's been there. 03:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Updating[edit]

This page needs some updating; I'm going to begin a subsectin, ==post-Bin Laden era== and rearrange some other parts. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 21:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 01:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Here's some of the myths that need to be redone:
  • bin Laden and Zawahiri lived in relatively spacious and luxurious settings in Peshawar throughout the Afghan jihad and saw little if any fighting; myth has it they were frontline fighters taking on the Red Army which they, and Western media have built up.
  • The Afghani's did most of all the fighting. Arabs and Westerners, that is Western journalists and CIA folks giving aid, operated from Peshawar. The Western journalists in Peshawar rubbed shoulders daily with Arabs and created the myth likewise they were frontline jihadists.
  • When the Soviets withdrew, bin Laden went home, Zarqawi showed up, the Afghans fought each other, and some nutcase in Peshawar declared himself caliph. The point is, what has commonly be called "in Afghanistan" for decades now upon closer inspection, took place in Peshawar.
There's more myth here that's taken on a life of its own, particularly after 9/11. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 14:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

taking a break...[edit]

wow I'm burnt; taking a break to watch NFL...finish up later...nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 20:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

nbc cite[edit]

two obvious errors in the NBC link & citation: (1) bin Laden & the Mujahideen started receiving aid well before the 1982 Beirut bombing, not well after; further, the Beirut bombing sure as fuck was an Iranian operation, with whom the Saudis already were involved in a covert war with. Is it surprising Iran would attack the Saudi's allies in Beirut? Maybe the NBC author's point is Islamophobic, if not xenophobic: can't trust them there Muslims. (2) the story claims "in 1989, bin Laden was still viewed by the agency as something of a dilettante - a rich Saudi boy gone to war and welcomed home by the Saudi monarchy he so hated", which of coarse all the sources say is pure absolute bullshit. He loved the Saudi monarchy -- in 1989, and risked his life at their request -- and felt so betrayed by it in 1991 he ultimately did what he did. I quit reading there. Another, (3) the damn by-line is dated 1998 -- two years before the 2001 attack. Sheeesh.

Anyway, if the point is to make, or prove, a CIA-bin Laden connection, I assure I can find a much much better one than this lame ass, sad, paltry, NBC bullshit. It should come out at some point. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 04:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


Bosnia[edit]

No mention of Al Qaeda's involvement in Bosnia? Iran, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, and a bunch of misfits from North Africa all went to Bosnia to 'protect' the Bosnian Muslims, and by 'protect' I mean murder-rape the Croats and Serbs. Which was what they were all doing to each other; while you'd think from media depictions that no Serbs died in that war, the reality is that by the time it was over there were no 'good guys'. A number of the 9/11 hijackers were Bosnian War vets. The funny thing is the US should've been Al Qaeda's bestest friend 4evar; we came into the Bosnian War on the side of the muslims, we pretty much created the vacuum that let the Taliban take over, when Saudi Arabia was too damn lazy to defend themselves against Saddam/Iran we ended up doing their dirty work free of charge. Bunch of entitled bastards. CorruptUser (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)