This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Inspire (magazine) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 3 July 2010 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
Prior to INSPIRE, she used to work on jihadunspun.com, a reactionary Al Qaida website. http://www.cabaltimes.com/2013/08/22/canadas-department-of-terrorism/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamad ( talk • contribs) 17:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
further evidence that religion is stupid and appeals to selfish, self centered whiny babies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.72.252 ( talk) 01:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
But where is the website of the magazine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.131.217.8 ( talk • contribs) 01:14, 2010 July 2
I tried to download the file to read the magazine but Bitdefender says it contains a generic toolbar add virus. How stupid can these people be putting some kind of add virus on a magazine ? People are well equiped these days with kaspersky and bitdefender and notice these things. Pity cuse I would like to have a look at the magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.188.15.227 ( talk) 17:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Currently, the name reference " Mohsin" is vague. Following its Wikilink yields a disambiguation page. My guess is that this reference means
If someone can confirm this, please disambiguate the Mohsin Wikilink. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwr0 ( talk • contribs) 12:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
In the first paragraph, there is a sentence that reads
The tactic is used to generate over-reaction by the governments of its Muslim population with threats of individual jihadist attacks.
I've tried parsing that several different ways and I still can't figure out for sure what it means. Does it mean "The tactic (promulgating threats/fear of individual jihadist attacks) is used to incite over-reactions by governments against their Muslim populations"? Or something else? -- Jhfrontz ( talk) 19:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I recently came across a news item released by the West Midlands Police in the UK saying:
Ahmad admitted three counts of collecting information likely to be of use to a terrorist, including the al-Qaeda publication Inspire. This is the first successful prosecution for possessing the online jihadist magazine.
So it would appear that, in the UK,
Does anyone know which law this is referring to? Is Inspire indeed banned in the UK? If so, what would be appropriate section title for this information? Int21h ( talk) 00:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd be surprised if nobody has ever brought this up before, but there's another magaine with the same name of a very non-jihadist theme. Here's a link to one of the covers. Makes me wonder if there should be a disambiguation for this magazine. ---- DanTD ( talk) 19:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Pointless WP:SOAP discussion, no sources even offered to back up such a conspiracy, just personal opinions. -- Jethro B 00:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Yes, it's true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.141.161 ( talk) 20:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
|
In this article, it says people have been prosecuted and jailed for having copies of this magazine. I would like to have a browse through these magazines. What is the legality of having these magazines on your PC if you live in Australia? 60.231.88.114 ( talk) 10:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be an "error" in attribution the publication of the magazine to SITE Inst. 79.168.13.202 ( talk) 03:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
The first issue of this magazine contains instructions to make a bomb. Isn't a big problem ?
Personally, it bothers me a lot. If someone comes through Wikipedia and accesses this manual, and after he commits an attack with it ... Isn't a problem?
193.252.157.50 (
talk) 11:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
No because this magazine is a propaganda hoax relayed by the mainstream media like the weapons of mass destructions in Iraq or the incubators in Kuwait you know ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoufiGroto ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Anybody can read the PDF and see that this Inspire magazine is a stupid joke. the “Make a bomb in the kitchen of your mom” article and the usage of the word “terrorist” as a form of self reference. BoufiGroto ( talk) 08:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
This magazine is a fake take a look on this link: http://publicintelligence.net/al-qaeda-magazine-is-cupcake-recipe-book/
from the link:
In addition to these technical reasons for doubting the authenticity of “Inspire” magazine, other authors have also noted a number of obvious reasons for doubt:
The magazine contains statements from Bin Laden and Zawahiri, who are both “extremely secretive and issue statements rarely and directly to the media. It would be unusual for them to write for a third-party publication, especially one put out by the Yemen-based AQAP, with which they have little or no direct ties.
The magazine’s general tone and use of the English language is either clumsy or purposely intending self-parody. For example, the “Make a bomb in the kitchen of your mom” article and the usage of the word “terrorist” as a form of self reference. Gregg Carlstrom, a reporter for Al Jazeera noted that the logo used in the document is not the same as Al-Malahem’s normal logo.Jihadi forums openly claim that the magazine is fake and a construction of the “apostate hypocrit dogs” (sic)
BoufiGroto ( talk) 17:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes one of the tracks is "stormfront" but it does not mean that the link I posted above made an apology of nazism. What is stated about the Inspire magazine on the link is correct you can check in the PDF of Inspire avaible in the article BoufiGroto ( talk) 08:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Your source is 3 years old. A lot of issues have been published and a lot has emerged about Inspire since then. The statements of Bin Ladin and Zawahiri weren't written specifically for Inspire but are republished quuotes. The editor was a Pakistani-American named Samir Khan who was subsequently killed by an American drone strike in Yemen. As per the article, the possesion of the magazine is a crime in several countries [1] [2] [3], presumably the defence that the magazine is not real was not put before the courts. It is also not unheard of for Jihadists to ironically (or otherwise) refer to themselves as terrorists, Younes Tsouli for example. Gazkthul ( talk) 01:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
This article raise more questions about the authenticity of this so-called al-Qaeda magazine:
http://publicintelligence.net/does-anyone-take-these-al-qaeda-magazines-seriously/
--
Zequebe (
talk) 00:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Content is public domain as per primary authoritative source.
[LINKS REMOVED]
And a variety of mirrors.
I strongly dissuade you from making false claims of copyright, Inspire Magazine is public domain.
yes. call them yourself.
[LINKS to MIRRORS REMOVED]
Yes, prior to Al-Aulaqi's death, contact was made to the university in Saana, and directly with the editor (both now deceased) to verify the appropriateness to mirror their publication and the correct form for citation in journal publications. Al-Aulaqi indicated that the content of the magazines shall be openly distributed and is public domain. On the release date of #10, mirror sponsor received a message from current editor and distributor indicating availability of #10 and requesting open distribution. The majority of their content is released initially via various forum sites due to infrastructure failures, posted to archive.org, and sent to various mirrors for public redistribution, directly from the source producer. There is public logs of exactly this announcement process from the originator.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
reference 44 wrong URI Remove extra slash at the end. Correct URI: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-16/melbourne-man-stands-trial-over-terrorism-magazines/4633060 212.170.201.56 ( talk) 13:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Normally, in articles about magazines using {{ Infobox magazine}} as this one does, the url is given for the "website" parameter. Here, it is conspicuously absent. Given the subject's prominence in news media coverage, this begs the question: Why? In looking at this Talk page for a possible answer, there appears to be no satisfactory explanation. Notwithstanding some past discussion here of questionable provenance, censorship, copyright concerns, etc., omission of the magazine's url from the Wikipedia article about it needs better justification than that. JGHowes talk 00:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
What is the website? If there is a website URL that can be verified to be authentic, I will start a proposal and list it as a RfC. Int21h ( talk) 03:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Per the conversation here, please do not add the indicated url to this article again. -- Epeefleche ( talk) 18:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
We had an example of the magazine. Now it's gone. Why is it not appropriate? -- Netpi ( talk) 23:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
@ Jehochman: By your action, unregistered editors have been blocked from editing this talk page since June 6, 2013 [4]. The reason given is "Persistent violations of WP:LINKVIO, IP editors socking". I don't agree there is a policy-based reason to keep the links out, and find it highly improper for you to claim consensus to keep the link out while preventing the IP editors who posted the link from using the talk page to have a say in the matter. And I have no idea at all how a purely IP editor can possibly "sock"! (If you think someone with an account is logging out to vote twice, that's a matter for SPI) Recently I started a discussion at [5] and felt there was support for generally not protecting talk pages long-term, and this is a prime example. Wnt ( talk) 23:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I have reviewed the request for unsemiprotection, in light of the presumption against long-term semiprotection unless a need for it can be shown. In this instance, however, I conclude that both the article and its talkpage should remain in their current state. Accordingly, the request is denied. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
This section is sorta ridiculous. It seems to imply that possession of the magazine is somehow illegal in the UK. The UK is not some kind of back water police state. People don't get arrested for possession of a magazine. NickCT ( talk) 13:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Inspire (magazine). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I have removed various external links that likely point to copyright violations. We should not link to content that violates copyright, and I see no indication that the various uploaders own the copyright to the magazine. Huon ( talk) 01:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Inspire (magazine). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
In section 5 "open-source jihad" the article claims the 2011 Frankfurt Airport Shootings were inspired by false footage produced by Al-Quaeda.
"Open source jihad" allowed for an emotional response to events and validation in smaller, less spectacular attacks, such as Arid Uka's attack on American servicemen in Germany on March 2, 2011. Uka had no training except from the Internet, where he saw a fake video of American servicemen raping a girl. Though the video was falsified al-Qaeda propaganda, it was meant to elicit strong responses from their followers.
2 things.
Its choosday innit ( talk) 20:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Edit: I found what I believe to be the first addition of this section here by user:Nurg in October 2011: https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=prev&oldid=453341811 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Its choosday innit ( talk • contribs) 20:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Inspire (magazine) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 3 July 2010 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
Prior to INSPIRE, she used to work on jihadunspun.com, a reactionary Al Qaida website. http://www.cabaltimes.com/2013/08/22/canadas-department-of-terrorism/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamad ( talk • contribs) 17:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
further evidence that religion is stupid and appeals to selfish, self centered whiny babies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.72.252 ( talk) 01:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
But where is the website of the magazine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.131.217.8 ( talk • contribs) 01:14, 2010 July 2
I tried to download the file to read the magazine but Bitdefender says it contains a generic toolbar add virus. How stupid can these people be putting some kind of add virus on a magazine ? People are well equiped these days with kaspersky and bitdefender and notice these things. Pity cuse I would like to have a look at the magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.188.15.227 ( talk) 17:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Currently, the name reference " Mohsin" is vague. Following its Wikilink yields a disambiguation page. My guess is that this reference means
If someone can confirm this, please disambiguate the Mohsin Wikilink. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwr0 ( talk • contribs) 12:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
In the first paragraph, there is a sentence that reads
The tactic is used to generate over-reaction by the governments of its Muslim population with threats of individual jihadist attacks.
I've tried parsing that several different ways and I still can't figure out for sure what it means. Does it mean "The tactic (promulgating threats/fear of individual jihadist attacks) is used to incite over-reactions by governments against their Muslim populations"? Or something else? -- Jhfrontz ( talk) 19:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I recently came across a news item released by the West Midlands Police in the UK saying:
Ahmad admitted three counts of collecting information likely to be of use to a terrorist, including the al-Qaeda publication Inspire. This is the first successful prosecution for possessing the online jihadist magazine.
So it would appear that, in the UK,
Does anyone know which law this is referring to? Is Inspire indeed banned in the UK? If so, what would be appropriate section title for this information? Int21h ( talk) 00:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd be surprised if nobody has ever brought this up before, but there's another magaine with the same name of a very non-jihadist theme. Here's a link to one of the covers. Makes me wonder if there should be a disambiguation for this magazine. ---- DanTD ( talk) 19:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Pointless WP:SOAP discussion, no sources even offered to back up such a conspiracy, just personal opinions. -- Jethro B 00:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Yes, it's true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.141.161 ( talk) 20:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
|
In this article, it says people have been prosecuted and jailed for having copies of this magazine. I would like to have a browse through these magazines. What is the legality of having these magazines on your PC if you live in Australia? 60.231.88.114 ( talk) 10:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be an "error" in attribution the publication of the magazine to SITE Inst. 79.168.13.202 ( talk) 03:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
The first issue of this magazine contains instructions to make a bomb. Isn't a big problem ?
Personally, it bothers me a lot. If someone comes through Wikipedia and accesses this manual, and after he commits an attack with it ... Isn't a problem?
193.252.157.50 (
talk) 11:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
No because this magazine is a propaganda hoax relayed by the mainstream media like the weapons of mass destructions in Iraq or the incubators in Kuwait you know ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoufiGroto ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Anybody can read the PDF and see that this Inspire magazine is a stupid joke. the “Make a bomb in the kitchen of your mom” article and the usage of the word “terrorist” as a form of self reference. BoufiGroto ( talk) 08:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
This magazine is a fake take a look on this link: http://publicintelligence.net/al-qaeda-magazine-is-cupcake-recipe-book/
from the link:
In addition to these technical reasons for doubting the authenticity of “Inspire” magazine, other authors have also noted a number of obvious reasons for doubt:
The magazine contains statements from Bin Laden and Zawahiri, who are both “extremely secretive and issue statements rarely and directly to the media. It would be unusual for them to write for a third-party publication, especially one put out by the Yemen-based AQAP, with which they have little or no direct ties.
The magazine’s general tone and use of the English language is either clumsy or purposely intending self-parody. For example, the “Make a bomb in the kitchen of your mom” article and the usage of the word “terrorist” as a form of self reference. Gregg Carlstrom, a reporter for Al Jazeera noted that the logo used in the document is not the same as Al-Malahem’s normal logo.Jihadi forums openly claim that the magazine is fake and a construction of the “apostate hypocrit dogs” (sic)
BoufiGroto ( talk) 17:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes one of the tracks is "stormfront" but it does not mean that the link I posted above made an apology of nazism. What is stated about the Inspire magazine on the link is correct you can check in the PDF of Inspire avaible in the article BoufiGroto ( talk) 08:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Your source is 3 years old. A lot of issues have been published and a lot has emerged about Inspire since then. The statements of Bin Ladin and Zawahiri weren't written specifically for Inspire but are republished quuotes. The editor was a Pakistani-American named Samir Khan who was subsequently killed by an American drone strike in Yemen. As per the article, the possesion of the magazine is a crime in several countries [1] [2] [3], presumably the defence that the magazine is not real was not put before the courts. It is also not unheard of for Jihadists to ironically (or otherwise) refer to themselves as terrorists, Younes Tsouli for example. Gazkthul ( talk) 01:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
This article raise more questions about the authenticity of this so-called al-Qaeda magazine:
http://publicintelligence.net/does-anyone-take-these-al-qaeda-magazines-seriously/
--
Zequebe (
talk) 00:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Content is public domain as per primary authoritative source.
[LINKS REMOVED]
And a variety of mirrors.
I strongly dissuade you from making false claims of copyright, Inspire Magazine is public domain.
yes. call them yourself.
[LINKS to MIRRORS REMOVED]
Yes, prior to Al-Aulaqi's death, contact was made to the university in Saana, and directly with the editor (both now deceased) to verify the appropriateness to mirror their publication and the correct form for citation in journal publications. Al-Aulaqi indicated that the content of the magazines shall be openly distributed and is public domain. On the release date of #10, mirror sponsor received a message from current editor and distributor indicating availability of #10 and requesting open distribution. The majority of their content is released initially via various forum sites due to infrastructure failures, posted to archive.org, and sent to various mirrors for public redistribution, directly from the source producer. There is public logs of exactly this announcement process from the originator.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
reference 44 wrong URI Remove extra slash at the end. Correct URI: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-16/melbourne-man-stands-trial-over-terrorism-magazines/4633060 212.170.201.56 ( talk) 13:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Normally, in articles about magazines using {{ Infobox magazine}} as this one does, the url is given for the "website" parameter. Here, it is conspicuously absent. Given the subject's prominence in news media coverage, this begs the question: Why? In looking at this Talk page for a possible answer, there appears to be no satisfactory explanation. Notwithstanding some past discussion here of questionable provenance, censorship, copyright concerns, etc., omission of the magazine's url from the Wikipedia article about it needs better justification than that. JGHowes talk 00:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
What is the website? If there is a website URL that can be verified to be authentic, I will start a proposal and list it as a RfC. Int21h ( talk) 03:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Per the conversation here, please do not add the indicated url to this article again. -- Epeefleche ( talk) 18:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
We had an example of the magazine. Now it's gone. Why is it not appropriate? -- Netpi ( talk) 23:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
@ Jehochman: By your action, unregistered editors have been blocked from editing this talk page since June 6, 2013 [4]. The reason given is "Persistent violations of WP:LINKVIO, IP editors socking". I don't agree there is a policy-based reason to keep the links out, and find it highly improper for you to claim consensus to keep the link out while preventing the IP editors who posted the link from using the talk page to have a say in the matter. And I have no idea at all how a purely IP editor can possibly "sock"! (If you think someone with an account is logging out to vote twice, that's a matter for SPI) Recently I started a discussion at [5] and felt there was support for generally not protecting talk pages long-term, and this is a prime example. Wnt ( talk) 23:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I have reviewed the request for unsemiprotection, in light of the presumption against long-term semiprotection unless a need for it can be shown. In this instance, however, I conclude that both the article and its talkpage should remain in their current state. Accordingly, the request is denied. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
This section is sorta ridiculous. It seems to imply that possession of the magazine is somehow illegal in the UK. The UK is not some kind of back water police state. People don't get arrested for possession of a magazine. NickCT ( talk) 13:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Inspire (magazine). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I have removed various external links that likely point to copyright violations. We should not link to content that violates copyright, and I see no indication that the various uploaders own the copyright to the magazine. Huon ( talk) 01:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Inspire (magazine). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
In section 5 "open-source jihad" the article claims the 2011 Frankfurt Airport Shootings were inspired by false footage produced by Al-Quaeda.
"Open source jihad" allowed for an emotional response to events and validation in smaller, less spectacular attacks, such as Arid Uka's attack on American servicemen in Germany on March 2, 2011. Uka had no training except from the Internet, where he saw a fake video of American servicemen raping a girl. Though the video was falsified al-Qaeda propaganda, it was meant to elicit strong responses from their followers.
2 things.
Its choosday innit ( talk) 20:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Edit: I found what I believe to be the first addition of this section here by user:Nurg in October 2011: https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=prev&oldid=453341811 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Its choosday innit ( talk • contribs) 20:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)