This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I know this is very incomplete. Some stuff to add...
ObsidianOrder 04:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
LOL. Add this to your list:
Seriously, this is a laugh. Nearly everything on your timeline is sourced from Weekly Standard, Washington Times, and other right wing publications. There's even a freerepublic link or two. Worse, the points made are innacurate, distorted, and completely counter to every bit of common sense (not to mention intelligence information) that we have. Meetings are cited that didn't take place, and many of your claims are based on Michael Moore-worthy innuendo. This crap has been refuted over and over again by legitimate journalists, but of course people keep perpetuating the claim because it serves their political interest. So now ObsidianOrder has copied his web page here, making us refute these mostly inaccurate statements one by one.
And WTF is up with the title of this page?? I looked at this a couple hours ago and it was something else. The current name is terrible but I guess it makes a point. But direct refutation might make the point more, umm, directly.
Anyway, thanks for wasting everyone's time, OO. I plan to refute this crap line by line over the next few months and hopefully anyone else researching this topic will join in. Eventually this page will be a snopes-style refutation of this tired and overplayed argument. -- csloat 09:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I copied my page, since it is the most complete synopsis of this type you will find. I hereby donate it to Wikipedia ;) By all means, if you can refute them, do so. I am genuinely interested in this, and I don't think it's a waste of time. I have also researched it in depth and have found substantial refutations for only a couple of claims (which are not in this list, although perhaps they should be together with the refutation). There is no innuendo, only the (alleged) facts stated in the most concise, factual way I could, with a source for each. "right wing publications"? You mean The Guardian, PBS and Ney Yorker? Damn, I didn't know those were right wing. (btw the freerepublic link simply cites a Evening Standard article). As for the title, well, people keep moving it around :-/ What title do you propose? ObsidianOrder 09:46, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Weekly Standard and the other pubs I named are right wing. You're right the ones you name here are not, but they are not where most of these claims come from. I'm not going to mess with the title -- I think "alleged" should stay, but I'm not going to fight the issue, because I think the substantive issues are more important. It will take me a while but as I've been researching this I have seen answers to most of this, so I will find them and link them and so forth, and then this will be, as you say, the most complete synopsis on this issue. -- csloat 10:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
ObsidianOrder, you claim the 9/11 link is for visual timeline, that is ridiculous, the SUPER POV implication is that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, you can't include that without a citation. Separately, I am still surprised a DS9 fan such as yourself had the full details on all the anti anti-war arguments including the pentagon's usage of banned weapons (such as phosphorus projectile weapons) but I will save that for another article and another time. Why do you seemingly defend the U.S. military POV so ardently and have all the counter arguments ready at your immediate disposal? zen master T 06:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Tony, I'd appreciate it if you at least talked the move over before doing it. I disagree, I'd say the "alleged" part is pretty well covered in the text (although of course you can help improve that). Some links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda almost certainly exist, whether or not they are significant and whether or not there are links with 9/11 is a different question. Even if you really don't believe any such thing exists - have a look at Loch Ness Monster (hint: it's not the Alleged creature living in Loch Ness). I will undo the move, if you really insist on such a move, let's talk it over and then to go through Wikipedia:Requested moves. ObsidianOrder 07:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Update: I was not aware that it is possible to revert a move as long as it was back to an existing redirect without an edit history, so I messed that up by editing the "Links between Al-Qaeda and Iraq" page. Sorry. I moved back to the closest thing possible. Let's avoid any further move craziness, shall we? If you really want to do a move, please (a) propose your favorites here (b) talk it over until we have a small set of possibilities (c) post those on Wikipedia:Requested moves and wait for the vote. Okay? ObsidianOrder 11:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
How about "Alleged Links between Iraq and al Qaeda"? Also, since the title is Iraq, not Saddam, this should include information about al Qaeda's new freedom of operation in post-Saddam Iraq.-- csloat 17:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That title is/was better. zen master T 07:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Both you and Tony have done controversial moves which would obviously be opposed without either talking about them or going through the procedure for doing a move, in effect relying on the fact that such a move is not immediately undoable because of the created redirect page. This is very much in bad faith. I will get an admin to restore the status quo ante and then you can go to Wikipedia:Requested moves where you can propose alternatives for the title so that everyone has a chance to discuss them and vote. ObsidianOrder 09:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I just read this section after making my comment above (in things to do). I think "Alleged links between al Qaeda and Iraq" is fine. The "non-operational" thing is mumbo jumbo; that should be added to the intro - the fact that the 911 Commission established (conclusively I might add) that there were no operational links. What's interesting is OO talking about bad faith here yet in the above comment indicates that the sum of the Iraq-alQ connection is probably "only in the form of diplomatic feelers." If that is the case, why is that not stated plainly at the beginning of the article? I suspect that OO is well aware that most of these claims are BS but is putting them out there anyway because they support his political position -- they are throwaway arguments. But perhaps he really believes all this stuff. Anyway I suggest that this page can be made much better not only with point by point refutation but also with key statements of the conclusions of major organizations and committees that have actually studied this. I also think there should be a section specifically discussing this as part of the discredited "state sponsorship" theory of terrorism that was nonsense back in the mid-90s when Laurie Mylroie (perhaps following in the footsteps of Claire Sterling) put it forth with regard to the WTC bombing and is still nonsense now. In my very-POV and not-so-humble opinion, this thoroughly refuted theory is the biggest obstacle we have to real counterterrorism in the 21st century. -- csloat 09:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
So shouldn't the title have Alleged in it? zen master T 18:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I know this is very incomplete. Some stuff to add...
ObsidianOrder 04:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
LOL. Add this to your list:
Seriously, this is a laugh. Nearly everything on your timeline is sourced from Weekly Standard, Washington Times, and other right wing publications. There's even a freerepublic link or two. Worse, the points made are innacurate, distorted, and completely counter to every bit of common sense (not to mention intelligence information) that we have. Meetings are cited that didn't take place, and many of your claims are based on Michael Moore-worthy innuendo. This crap has been refuted over and over again by legitimate journalists, but of course people keep perpetuating the claim because it serves their political interest. So now ObsidianOrder has copied his web page here, making us refute these mostly inaccurate statements one by one.
And WTF is up with the title of this page?? I looked at this a couple hours ago and it was something else. The current name is terrible but I guess it makes a point. But direct refutation might make the point more, umm, directly.
Anyway, thanks for wasting everyone's time, OO. I plan to refute this crap line by line over the next few months and hopefully anyone else researching this topic will join in. Eventually this page will be a snopes-style refutation of this tired and overplayed argument. -- csloat 09:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I copied my page, since it is the most complete synopsis of this type you will find. I hereby donate it to Wikipedia ;) By all means, if you can refute them, do so. I am genuinely interested in this, and I don't think it's a waste of time. I have also researched it in depth and have found substantial refutations for only a couple of claims (which are not in this list, although perhaps they should be together with the refutation). There is no innuendo, only the (alleged) facts stated in the most concise, factual way I could, with a source for each. "right wing publications"? You mean The Guardian, PBS and Ney Yorker? Damn, I didn't know those were right wing. (btw the freerepublic link simply cites a Evening Standard article). As for the title, well, people keep moving it around :-/ What title do you propose? ObsidianOrder 09:46, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Weekly Standard and the other pubs I named are right wing. You're right the ones you name here are not, but they are not where most of these claims come from. I'm not going to mess with the title -- I think "alleged" should stay, but I'm not going to fight the issue, because I think the substantive issues are more important. It will take me a while but as I've been researching this I have seen answers to most of this, so I will find them and link them and so forth, and then this will be, as you say, the most complete synopsis on this issue. -- csloat 10:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
ObsidianOrder, you claim the 9/11 link is for visual timeline, that is ridiculous, the SUPER POV implication is that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, you can't include that without a citation. Separately, I am still surprised a DS9 fan such as yourself had the full details on all the anti anti-war arguments including the pentagon's usage of banned weapons (such as phosphorus projectile weapons) but I will save that for another article and another time. Why do you seemingly defend the U.S. military POV so ardently and have all the counter arguments ready at your immediate disposal? zen master T 06:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Tony, I'd appreciate it if you at least talked the move over before doing it. I disagree, I'd say the "alleged" part is pretty well covered in the text (although of course you can help improve that). Some links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda almost certainly exist, whether or not they are significant and whether or not there are links with 9/11 is a different question. Even if you really don't believe any such thing exists - have a look at Loch Ness Monster (hint: it's not the Alleged creature living in Loch Ness). I will undo the move, if you really insist on such a move, let's talk it over and then to go through Wikipedia:Requested moves. ObsidianOrder 07:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Update: I was not aware that it is possible to revert a move as long as it was back to an existing redirect without an edit history, so I messed that up by editing the "Links between Al-Qaeda and Iraq" page. Sorry. I moved back to the closest thing possible. Let's avoid any further move craziness, shall we? If you really want to do a move, please (a) propose your favorites here (b) talk it over until we have a small set of possibilities (c) post those on Wikipedia:Requested moves and wait for the vote. Okay? ObsidianOrder 11:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
How about "Alleged Links between Iraq and al Qaeda"? Also, since the title is Iraq, not Saddam, this should include information about al Qaeda's new freedom of operation in post-Saddam Iraq.-- csloat 17:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That title is/was better. zen master T 07:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Both you and Tony have done controversial moves which would obviously be opposed without either talking about them or going through the procedure for doing a move, in effect relying on the fact that such a move is not immediately undoable because of the created redirect page. This is very much in bad faith. I will get an admin to restore the status quo ante and then you can go to Wikipedia:Requested moves where you can propose alternatives for the title so that everyone has a chance to discuss them and vote. ObsidianOrder 09:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I just read this section after making my comment above (in things to do). I think "Alleged links between al Qaeda and Iraq" is fine. The "non-operational" thing is mumbo jumbo; that should be added to the intro - the fact that the 911 Commission established (conclusively I might add) that there were no operational links. What's interesting is OO talking about bad faith here yet in the above comment indicates that the sum of the Iraq-alQ connection is probably "only in the form of diplomatic feelers." If that is the case, why is that not stated plainly at the beginning of the article? I suspect that OO is well aware that most of these claims are BS but is putting them out there anyway because they support his political position -- they are throwaway arguments. But perhaps he really believes all this stuff. Anyway I suggest that this page can be made much better not only with point by point refutation but also with key statements of the conclusions of major organizations and committees that have actually studied this. I also think there should be a section specifically discussing this as part of the discredited "state sponsorship" theory of terrorism that was nonsense back in the mid-90s when Laurie Mylroie (perhaps following in the footsteps of Claire Sterling) put it forth with regard to the WTC bombing and is still nonsense now. In my very-POV and not-so-humble opinion, this thoroughly refuted theory is the biggest obstacle we have to real counterterrorism in the 21st century. -- csloat 09:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
So shouldn't the title have Alleged in it? zen master T 18:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)