Talk:Abu Musab al-Zarqawi/Archive 1

Title

Should we keep this as American English "Musab" or international English "Mousab"? Which has more google hits? - 68.23.103.58 03:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Excised info

Who added the part about "towelhead terrorists and sandniggers." This is highly inappropriate.

I removed the following info since it doesn't seem to relate strongly to Zarqawi. Perhaps it could be incorporated into another article? Quadell (talk) 17:48, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

Polls of the US public have shown that up to 80% have stated a belief that Saddam Hussein actually planned or caused the 9/11 attacks. The role of these two individuals thus takes on an almost mythic importance. However, the Bush administration consistently denies that it created this impression in the public:

In an interview in September 2003, Bush said

"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th... What the vice president said was is that he (Saddam) has been involved with al-Qaida.

"And al-Zarqawi, al-Qaida operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. ... There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties."

Others counter that bin Laden and Saddam did not get along even against a common prime enemy, as the secular, socialist Arab nationalism of Saddam's Baath Party was largely incompatible with bin Laden's Islamism.[1] One of the audio tapes purported to be of bin Laden called for the overthrow of Saddam and his "secular, socialist, infidel" government, [2] and Britain's defense intelligence staff asserted that any fledgling relationship foundered on ideological differences.[3] The CIA had great difficulty backing up Bush's claims.[4] FBI investigators looking for a link said "we just don't think it's there."[5] Israel denied the Iraq and al-Qaeda connection (while asserting the connection between Iraq and Palestinian terrorism). [6]

Your Zarqawi article contains the following sentence: "But, the established connection between Al Qaida operative, Abu Musab al Zarqawi and Iraq has and remains a credible link. "

In its context it suggests that Zarqawi was a good reason for the Iraq invasion in 2003. Yet it provides no evidence to back up the statement.

I've fixed this in the article. By the way the information above about the audio tape is not quite correct; the tape did denounce Saddam as "secular, socialist, infidel" but did not actually call for his overthrow; MSNBC changed their report on that issue (follow your own link). But the point is still clear; there's no way al-Qaeda would have worked with Saddam.--csloat 01:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Politrix links

There are three new Politrix links in the External links section. I'm not sure they belong here -- especially the "Beheading a Day Keeps the Bad News Away" link. It's an interesting article, but I don't think it gives primary info about Zarqawi. The same for the other links, only less so. Quadell (talk) 18:23, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

I'm now removing the Politrix links. If you think they belong, tell us why here. Quadell (talk) 16:03, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

---

Juan Cole (American Middle East expert and Prof of History) quotes a 2003 CBS report: "We have exclusive new details tonight on talks between the US and Iran, a nation the President said was part of an axis of evil. Iran can help the American fight against terrorism, but apparently they have named a price." NBC (Brown) adds, "These three, among the most wanted members of Al Qaeda. The alleged poison expert who got medical treatment in Iraq, [Abu Mussab al Zarqawi]. Bin Laden's third oldest son, [Sa'ad bin Laden], known to be planning new Al Qaeda operations. The Al Qaeda spokesman, [Suleiman abu Gaith], famous for introducing bin Laden in this videotape after 9/11. Many US officials believe that Iran is willing to turn them and other key Al Qaeda operatives over to the US or their home countries -- for a price -- in exchange for members of an Iranian opposition group called the Mujahadeen al-Khalq, or the MEK. The MEK has been attacking Iran's Islamic government from Iraq and is now there under US military control."[7]

Polemic

An anonymous user informed us of the following. (I moved it down here, as it was inserted in the middle of a previous post of mine.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 11:35, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Death of Zarqawi?

All info relative to his alleged death months ago has been removed. What is up?

First, there were unverified reports from U.S. government sources that Zarqawi had died in 2002, killed by a missile in Afghanistan. (These reports came from Northern Alliance members who wanted to give good news to the U.S., so it may or may not have been true.) Even though the report was unconfirmed, it quickly became common knowledge that Zarqawi was dead.

Then Bush gave a speech in Cincinnati on October 7 (the day before Congress voted to give the Prez permission to go to war against Iraq) that proported to show al-Qaida/Iraq connections. Bush claimed that Zarqawi had not died, but had injured his leg in the attack, and went to Baghdad in 2002 to have his leg amputated. (This was his cheif example of how Saddam supposedly aided al-Qaida.) Powell repeated this claim in his famous speech to the UN, urging a resolution for war. (This information aparently came from Kurdish groups who wanted Saddam overthrown, so it may or may not be true.) It soon became "common knowledge" that Zarqawi had a wooden leg.

But then the Berg beheading was released on the Internet, and one of the killers (though he wore a mask) claimed to be Zarqawi, while reading a prepared statement. I don't know if it really was Zarqawi or not, but he didn't seem to have anything wrong with his leg. The U.S. was happy to believe this was Zarqawi, since that would indicate al-Qaida activity in Iraq, so the identity of the killer has rarely been questioned.

Then in March of 2004, an insurgent group in Iraq issued a statement that said Zarqawi had been killed in 2002 afterall. (Oddly, they said he was unable to escape the missile attack because of his wooden leg -- but I thought he had a wooden leg because of the attack. Weird.) Anyway, they had an obvious motivation to say this, so that the U.S. would stop demanding they hand over Zarqawi.

So I don't know if Zarqawi is alive or dead, whether he's ever had anything to do with Iraq or not, or whether he has one leg or two (or three). And I kind of doubt anyone in the U.S. government knows either. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 20:32, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

One very interesting thing you forgot to mention though is that Zarqawi was allegedly captured by the Iranians, who held him at least for some time. They were going to hand him over to the US, together with several other highflying al-Qaeda types, in exchange for Washington stopping to support the MEK, an anti-Iranian terrorist/guerrilla group. The neo-cons were opposed to this deal, they want to see regime in Iran as well (since it was so successful in Iraq I guess...) and they plan to use the MEK for that. They managed to prevent the deal, by having this meeting in Paris with Larry Franklin and other Iranian anti-government groups, which was then somehow reported in the press, with the result that the Iranians weren't happy collaborating anymore on al-Qaeda. So basically, there is good reason to believe that al-Zarqawi is still held by the Iranian governments. Juan Cole suggests that one reason why Washington is talking up al-Zarqawi's alleged terrorist group in Iraq, is that the implication would be that Iran realeased him, just to create more problems for the US occupation. I haven't followed this very closely, but I think it's based on relatively sound evidence. Juan Cole seems to be very knowledgeable, well-informed and critical without being a conspiracy nut. - pir 21:49, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about that twist. You're right, of course. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 23:08, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Have I misread the current version of this article? None of this is discussed in the article!

I put some of it in. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 02:20, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Something=Fishey

5 months ago this article was full of talk on Zarqawi's alleged death.

Yeago, I did a little digging, and I think you may be confused. The version from 5 months ago doesn't mention his death. Maybe you were thinking of a different article? – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 11:43, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Check the history for the activity around Nick Berg's beheading (it will be obvious from the edit summary's.

Is there any clear evidence that Zarqawi is alive at all? And I'm not talking about grainy pictures of a hooded man claiming to be Zarqawi, or other similar claims and third-hand reports. Is Zarqawi just another global brand of terrorism? Most of the media seem to accept he's alive and busy doing evil in Iraqi, but is there a basis for this or is it just an assumption? - pir 13:02, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Zarqawi just died

Zarqawi/Iraq myth

Alright, the whole story about Zarqawi being the mastermind and chief organiser of terrorism in Iraq is probably a myth, based on another intelligence "mistake". That's what an article in the respected conservative British paper Daily Telegraph suggests [8]. Don't know if the article will remain available without subscription, so I'll post the first few paragraphs here (fair use):

How US fuelled myth of Zarqawi the mastermind By Adrian Blomfield outside Fallujah (Filed: 04/10/2004)

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist leader believed to be responsible for the abduction of Kenneth Bigley, is 'more myth than man', according to American military intelligence agents in Iraq.

Several sources said the importance of Zarqawi, blamed for many of the most spectacular acts of violence in Iraq, has been exaggerated by flawed intelligence and the Bush administration's desire to find "a villain" for the post-invasion mayhem.

Zarqawi fuels his ambition with the release of a video of the beheading of Nick Berg

US military intelligence agents in Iraq have revealed a series of botched and often tawdry dealings with unreliable sources who, in the words of one source, "told us what we wanted to hear".

"We were basically paying up to $10,000 a time to opportunists, criminals and chancers who passed off fiction and supposition about Zarqawi as cast-iron fact, making him out as the linchpin of just about every attack in Iraq," the agent said.

"Back home this stuff was gratefully received and formed the basis of policy decisions. We needed a villain, someone identifiable for the public to latch on to, and we got one."

- pir 11:16, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Zarqawi and attacks in Iraq

Today (or yesterday) the U.S. began lauching sustained bombing attacks against Falujah. The reason was that the Alawi government demanded that the people of the city hand over Zarqawi, and the people of the city did not. Given his unknown whereabouts, it seems reasonable to suspect that the city did not turn over Zarqawi because he wasn't there. Could this be incorporated into the article? caralho de buceta? Also, just today, the U.S. finally froze the assets of Tawhid and Jihad, the group allegedly tied to Zarqawi. That's right; until October 15, 2004, the U.S. had allowed T&J funds to flow freely through American banks. (source) Could this be incorporated as well? – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 20:34, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

The first item hasn't really got much to do with Zarqawi. It's basically just the same propaganda trick they played with Saddam, saying he had to hand over the WMD or else he would face invasion, when it was quite obvious he couldn't hand them over because he didn't have any. Now they tell Fallujans they have to hand over Zarqawi, or else their city will be flattened, when it's relatively clear he's not in Fallujah. It's a cynical joke. Apart from the fact that it is terrorism in its purest form to use violence against civilians, to achieve political aims, the same old Nazi terror tactic of collective punishment. But then again, since Zarqawi seems to be little more than the pin-up villain that both Tawhid and Jihad and the "Coalition" use, maybe it does belong in the article.

About the asset freezing thing: they did the same thing in the UK yesterday. It's also a sick joke, because there are almost certainly no Tawhid and Jihad funds in the UK, and I would guess the same is true for the US. I read their money comes from Saudi Arabia, and it's mainly about sending a signal to our Saudi friends. But it really belongs to the Tawhid and Jihad article. To be honest, all the Iraq war propaganda is of such bad quality that I'm beginning to feel insulted. - pir 03:01, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Zarqawi in Fallujah?: Taken from a DOD briefing[9]

Q Do you think the terrorist leaders will stay? Not saying whether you think Zarqawi is there or not, but do you think there is a cell structure there that is prepared to fight U.S. forces?

GEN. MYERS: I think the most I'm fair to say is that -- well, time will tell. Some will probably stay, some probably will leave or have left.

Don't know exactly where to put this, but someone should add mention of Content discribed here: http://slate.msn.com/id/2108880

In response to the paragraphs from "zarqawi myth" piece, I think it should be removed. A lot has happened since Oct 16, like Zarqawi's allegence to al-Qaeda and bin Laden's audiotaped endorsement of al-Zarqawi.

What's this Mabus Crap?

I'm removing the story of Mabus and Nostradamus. The person who wrote it said "it is OK to report relevant views of people according to Wikipedia rules" but this is not a relevant view. The whole theory comes from a Nostradamus site which also lists Howard Dean and Dick Cheney as potential candidates for "Mabus." I just don't think this belongs here. --csloat 21:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that there are many theories about MABUS, and one of them is that it is Bush. However, in his case that would not be so interesting or important to report, as it not so interesting fact that someone would have this theory. The theory about MABUS in the case of Abu Masub is however intriguing and interesting - some people do consider it (not just on that site) to be a case, and it is worth reporting it. If there is a prophecy about someone than this should be reported in the site, even if you think that the prophecy is nonsense (as it is in my case, but I find it a relevant fact that there IS such a prophecy, in interpretations of many people). The wikipedia should REPORT about believes of people, even if you disagree what they believe in. Some people (bilion or so) believe that Jesus Christ resurected, and it is OK to report that here. Some people (probably many milions) believe there is something in Nostradamus prophecies, and many more find them intriguing. There is a well known prophecy about MABUS, the third antichrist, and this should be reported in wikipedia - it has much more place than some arbitrary speculations about what happens in year 2634 (that is in Wikipedia too). So I am adding this back, together with the theory about MABUS.

I see what you're saying, but this is a biography piece. Things can be interesting, lots of people can believe them, and yet not be relevant to the particular page under discussion. Perhaps this would work more in the "MABUS" page - with a link to this one to show the biography of the person the theory is about. Maybe, and I express no opinion about it, with a link on this page to that. --GeorgeOrr 02:42, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But prophecies about people, or something that is viewed as such, IS relevant to their biography - it can often affect their lives and biographies significantly.

So far, it has NOT affected his life significantly, and it's basically a bit of speculation not very well-connected to his life. It certainly doesn't deserve an extensive treatment - at MOST a link to the MABUS page in a "See Also" section. Graft 16:38, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• You say it's been "discussed on the talk page" when placing back the information. Doesn't look like a lot of discussion, here.... --BesigedB ^(talk) 17:51, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• And what has been discussed seems to be leaning against inclusion. You say "it can often affect their lives and biographies significantly." CAN being the opperative word. Can you site a source that this particular prophecy has affected him directly? Is there any evidence that he even knows about it let alone is affected by it? --64.94.180.150 23:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It would be relevant to their bio if in fact it affected their lives significantly. It hasn't. A lot of people believe in Tarot readings, and find them interesting and believe them to be relevant. But if someone went to a local fortune teller and asked them to interpret the cards concerning Abu Musab al-Zarqawi I wouldn't expect to see the results posted here ... unless it was he who went or in some way had been affected by it. -- GeorgeOrr 02:02, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have been watching this page for a while, and the Mabus conspiracy/mythology gets inserted so frequently that I believe it should be included, either as a section of this page, or at mabus. Something brief! Anyone who wishes to expound on the Mabus-Zarqawi link should put it in the Mabus section.Yeago 05:53, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Looking through Wikipedia I see a lot of pages have a string of one or two people constantly trying to add irrelevant sections. The rest of the community takes turns deleting it, patiently explaining why it's irrelevant, and then removing it again. One person, or even a few, repeatedly adding something irrelevant doesn't make it relevant. As you suggest, add it to a different page (like the Mabus page for instance) but not on a page where it has no relevance. I would completely change that view if someone could post on this discussion evidence that shows this prophecy has had a significant affect on the subject of the bio. --GeorgeOrr 01:27, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I guess that's where I differ--I think this Mabus connection is an interesting piece of 'trivia', which neccessarily has absolutely no significance whatsoever. It would be highly unusual to make reference to Zarqawi in the Mabus article, but make no mention of Mabus in the Zarqawi article. Typically, articles cross-connect. I would agree with you if maybe 50 or more people were up for the Mabus award, but the Nostradamus prophecy has only been interpreted to be a select few people. You said one or two people but I believe several more have attempted to interject Mabus trivia. I am in favor of adding a small tidbit about Mabus, and then telling future Nostradamus nuts to keep it to the Mabus section.Yeago 01:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've read through this discussion and I can't believe anyone is willing to defend this stuff. It makes Wikipedia look silly. It's fine to include your theories about Mabus on the Nostradamus page or the Mabus page, but not here. There's nothing wrong with a one-way link on the mabus page listing Zarqawi as one of the possible candidates for Mabus, but no mention of Mabus on this page. The same way you could have a page on Robert Fisk that mentions he wrote an article about Zarqawi, without putting Fisk on the Zarqawi page. No real encyclopedia would include such superstitions in a biography entry. I know wikipedia is different but it aspires to similar scholarly standards. --csloat 06:58, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

........

This article is the victim of so much corruptive editing, I wouldn't be suprised to know that it is the victim of some censorship program somewhere. I'll say no more....

I remember checking up on this article a few months ago and discovering all info about his death had been removed. Ayeum...

When you notice such things, check the "history" page and find (and re-post) the missing information if you can. That is the best way to deal with such edits over the long term. The history feature ensures that no information - useful or not - is ever really "deleted."

--csloat 04:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image debate

First 88.wtvr.wtvr.wtvr says "unverified," now heshe says copyright. WTf?Yeago 23:57, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Disinformation campaign

The U.S. military has since admitted that claims of Zarqawi's missing leg were part of a disinformation campaign.

Source? A disinformation campaign on whose part, the US military or Zarqawi's organization? Descendall

• The source is the 9/11 Commission Report. They don't say whose part, but they seem to mean Zarqawi's part. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 02:44, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Zarquawi walking on the new video released by Pentagon also does not look like somebody with prosthetic leg!

Drunk or not?

An anon editor erased the sentence about Zarqawi growing up poor, getting arrested for sexual assault, and drinking heavily. This stuff has been part of the page for a long time and nobody saw fit to remove it before. Who originally put it in? Is it accurate? If so, I think it's reasonable to include this information, "prurient" or no. --csloat 22:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article is the victim of so much indiscriminant and undocumented additions and removals. I don't know if it is still so, but I checked back a couple of months ago to find nothing about his being killed (which the CIA at one point had said). Now suddenly he's alive and well and responsible for everything. That's not to say that there's some Vast right wing conspiracy, however, its just another example of something just suddenly disappearing.Yeago 23:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sentences in Jordan

"Sometime in 2001, Zarqawi was arrested again in Jordan but was soon released. Later, he was convicted in absentia and sentenced to death for plotting the attack on the Radisson SAS Hotel.[9]"

Then

"Zarqawi was again sentenced in absentia in Jordan; this time, his sentence was death"

Which one is correct?

DaFLM.

Biased article

This article is biased against the United States and perpetuates "conspiracy theories" rather than allege that they exist. Juan Cole is an incredibly polemic source, why not provide some balance on this issue? Stating a lie over and over again eventually makes everyone reference it as fact.

What, in specific, are you referring to? General bromides mean little... Graft 21:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - the parent has no specific point to make, other than to whine about Juan Cole -- who, by the way, may have opinions, but his credentials and expertise make him a good source of information. Besides it isn't like he is somehow "pro-Zarqawi." Yeesh. csloat 00:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Nationality

Is he a Jordanian or a Palestinian? There are conflicting reports on this? PatGallacher 15:16, 2005 July 22 (UTC)

The background section of the article says he is the son of Palestinian refugees. -- Geo Swan 17:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know that, I can read, but at another point it says "Powell mistakenly referred to Zarkawi as a Palestinian" and he is normally described as a Jordanian. Can someone clarify? PatGallacher 23:33, 2005 July 22 (UTC)

The USA is the melting pot nation. Other nations aren't. Merely being born in some countries doesn't make you a citizen. Without regard to whether being born in Jordan makes the son of Palestinian refugees a Jordanian citizen, that doesn't mean real Jordanians would have thought of him as a Jordanian. It doesn't mean that he would see himself as a Jordanian, not a Palestinian.

As for Powell, I don't think there is any mystery there. Tenet duped Powell. And when he didn't lie to him, he briefed him very poorly. This gaffe is just a minor example Powell complained about the deeply inaccurate and inadequate briefings he was given. He was the member of the Bush administration with the greatest reputation for integrity. -- Geo Swan 04:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems that people are only "Palestinian" when it suits their cause. The media refuses to label this terrorist, Zarqawi, as a "Palestinian" because of his obvious atrocities, however, they and Wikipedia continue to label Al-Arian and Arafat, born in Kuwait and Egypt respectively, as "Palestinians". Let's face it, they are Arab Muslim terrorists, lets just call them that.

No; people are only "Palestinian" when they are actually of Palestinian origin. Zarqawi is not the son of Palestinian refugees; he is from a well-to-do family of Bedouin origin that has been in Jordan for at least 200 years.--csloat 19:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Al Zarqawi is Jordanian, he is not even a palestinian refugee, he is an original refugee. It is true that his true last name "Al-Khalayleh" kinda gives the impression that impression that he is from "Al Khaleel" (Hebron), but unlike the name implies, he is an actual Jordanian and this is a fact, trust me. "Al Khalayleh" family is actually bedouin. Eshcorp 14:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is blatantly POV!

Of all the Iraq-related articles I've seen on Wikipedia, this is one of the most biased. Zarqawi is not just wanted as a terrorist, he IS an ADMITTED terrorist. According to every Definition of Terrorism on Wikipedia, he IS a terrorist. Therefore, he should be called one. Since this is an encyclopedia, it doesn't have to read like a wanted poster (I'd like that personally,) but it does have to be accurate. I hope the following links are proof enough:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/ansar-al-sunna.htm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3483089.stm

I know the prevailing view on Wikipedia that 'terrorist' implies a negative connotation. This is because a terroristic act is negative. If this was an article about Charles Manson, it would call him a murderer. That's what he was. BQAggie2004 20:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I do strongly agree, I would very much like to see the word "terrorist" in the first line of the article as a main definition of who this person is. A terrorist. Eshcorp 14:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal of POV

I made some modifications to the original, any questions/comments/bitches/gripes/complaints are welcome.

I removed the following paragraph, because I could not find any legitimate news sources to back the claims up. Some of these claims come from Scott Ritter who is a controversial character. Also, the link from the Daily Telegraph is obviously biased. I haven't looked at the Russian link, but any webpage named 'war_nerd' does not appear credible. It's like getting your information from a web correspondant named 'BabyFaceHotMama094718.' I simply question the credibility of the sources:

"In one report, the conservative newspaper Daily Telegraph described as myth the claim that Zarqawi was the head of the "terrorist network" in Iraq. According to a U.S. military intelligence source, the Zarqawi myth resulted from faulty intelligence obtained by the payment of substantial sums of money to unreliable and dishonest sources. The faulty intelligence was accepted, however, because it suited US government political goals, according to an unnamed intelligence officer.[10] The Zarqawi myth has also been purported to be the product of U.S. war propaganda designed to promote the image of a demonic enemy figure to help justify continued U.S. military operations in Iraq[11], perhaps with the tacit support of terrorist elements who wish to use him as a propaganda tool or as a distraction.[12]"

I also could not find any credible information reguarding a disinformation campaign. If this was really true, American and British press would have jumped at the chance to publish it. I cannot find it anywhere, except for questionable cites:

"The U.S. military has since admitted that claims of Zarqawi's missing leg were part of a disinformation campaign." BQAggie2004 20:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your objections to these sources is bogus. The Telegraph is a conservative paper, true, but that in itself does not impugn its credibility. You haven't even looked at the other link because you don't like the nickname -- it claims to be an alternative newspaper; a silly nickname alone is not enough reason for destroying its credibility. You also do not make any claims against the other article, which cites several newspapers. These stories may be just stories, but they are cited often enough they should not just be ignored here.--csloat 21:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Why does this story not appear in any mainstream publication? CNN, Fox News, BBC, none of them carry this story. Even the liberal papers like the New York Times and Boston Globe don't have anything like this. They all would have jumped at this kind of story. I am not familiar with the Telegraph, but that article was anything but unbiased. To me, parts of it read more like an editorial.

The quote from the article: "Yet it now seems that the intelligence on which such claims are based is haphazard, scanty and contradictory."

If this is true, why hasn't it been reported in the mainstream press? We can't assume that there's a huge, right-wing conspiracy over the US and Britian to keep it out of the news. That doesn't make sense.

The reason I question the 'war nerd' article is because I know that if I personally was using news articles to write anything academic, articles with a name like that probably wouldn't be acceptable sources. Even if the information is correct, it's very hard to take a source seriously when it comes from an 'alternative news' source. What is an 'alternative' newspaper? Does it give 'extreme' points of view? Is it read by people who like 'alternative' music? As I read down the page, porn links are popping up. '200 Beautiful Russian Brides a Week?' 'E-mail thousands of beautiful Russian ladies?' The only thing that I can say is that I should have opened the link earlier, I didn't realize that 'war nerd' is the name of the column.

Here are a few quotes from the front page. These are unedited and unexaggerated, and I include them to prove a point:

"How many Iraqis are trained up and ready to take over from the Americans? That number depends on how gullible - or high - you are. The eXile subjects a beer-drinking real estate agent to the whacky ups and downs of the Iraqi forces..."

""He liked to fuck whores in the ass, and not wear a condom, and then brag about it..." The incredibly sordid truth behind the bludgeoning death of Russia's spam villain..."

"The zany story of how the Washington Post's new correspondent, Peter Finn, helped sell a Pentagon-planted story about an Iraqi "victim" just in time to help shore up support for the war..."

www.exile.ru is clearly NOT a 'fair and balanced' news source.

I stand by my previous comments on calling Zarqawi and his 'insurgent' organization for what they are--terrorists. I feel this article should reflect the truth, reguardless of the validity of those news sources. BQAggie2004 23:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Obviously there is no right wing conspiracy; this appeared in a right wing paper. The line you quoted is anything but inaccurate and while this particular story may not have been picked up, the intel failures surrounding all of this stuff certainly has. Also I heard Octavia Nasr, a CNN translator and correspondent, articulate these views at a conference on Al Qaeda in December 2004, so it is not that far off the mainstream. The quote you erased included info about the publications making these claims so it is not inaccurate to include it - if you want to add reservations or refutations from more mainstream publications that would be terrific. I personally do not endorse these views, but I do think they are notable enough for inclusion. As for the "war ned" thing, that is the guy's email address - it is not his name, which is clearly on the article page. An "alternative news" source such as the Village Voice or LA Weekly in the US can be very credible, though you're right, this Russian one looks like a tabloid. I'll take that source out, but the claims about disinformation and mythology surrounding Zarqawi are quite notable without this article. As for the question of calling him a "terrorist" - I agree, but it is wrong to erase the fact that he is also a "militant" and is part of the "Iraqi insurgency."--csloat 23:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure where British right-wing stands compared to American politics, I have heard that in general, the British are shifted either to the left or the right of what Americans call moderate, I'm not sure, I'm probably wrong.

Perhaps something should be written that could cast doubt on the 'myth' claims, if something should be found. My point is that if this was credible, it would be as well known as Bush's 'yellow-cake' reference in the State of the Union. That kind of news would be HUGE in the US. But as you said above, these were 'views.'

If you look at the web page, the name of the column is the 'War Nerd.' It might be his e-mail too.

Technically, I guess you are right about the 'terrorism' reference. After all, Ted Kyzenski (the Unibomber) was a terrorist, but I don't think he was a militant. It should be noted that Zarqawi is a 'gurrella leader' and a 'militant' and a 'terrorist.' I'd find facts to back my claims up, but they are already in the article. He's not just wanted for terrorism, he is a self-proclaimed terrorist. BQAggie2004 00:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The War Nerd article, incidentally, is analysis. It doesn't claim to give any new information on the subject. He's just trying to put the puzzle pieces together, which is very relevant to this article. I'm going to restore some of what was removed. - Nat Krause 08:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Other incidents

I have removed the phrase "Western-owned" from "three Western-owned hotels". While CNN would have you believe that all the hotels were U.S.-owned, the Radisson SAS in question is a Scandanavian-based chain and is owned and operated by Palestinian-Jordainians. - Cybjorg 11:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I just read news that he has been dismissed as the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. If someone knows this for certain please update.

Terrorist or freedom fighter?

In the very first line Zarqawi is referred to as a terrorist. Where do you draw the line between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? Is it not better to preserve objectivism by saying something like ‘freedom fighter/terrorist’ or ‘viewed by some as a terrorist while others consider him to be a freedom fighter’?

History is written by the ‘victorers’ and it can be hard to distinguish who the good/bad guys are. Were the founding fathers of The United States of America freedom fighters or terrorist? Hezbollah? Chechnyens? The list goes on…

Per

Nobody considers Zarqawi a "freedom fighter." Some extreme Islamists may consider him a proud warrior, but the notion of "freedom fighter" is simply inappropriate here. "Terrorist" is not objective, perhaps, but it is descriptive, and it is based on the facts in front of everyone -- the targeting of civilians, the deliberate use of terror as an instrument of warfare, etc. IMHO, "psychopath" might be a more accurate description, but "terrorist" is certyainly more consistent with the way most of the world sees him, as well as with the way he represents himself. He most certainly does not lay claim to the basically Western notion "freedom fighter."--csloat 18:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, from an Islamic prosepective, he is a criminal who has killed many civilians. Nevertheless, from an objective position, he is FIGHTING U.S. occupation of Iraq, which could make him a freedom fighter. He represents the Sunni side of the freedom fight, while Sadr represents the Shia side. I'm sure they both hate each other, but they both hate the US as well. And no matter how much you sugarcoat it, it is an occupation. Actually it's a lot like the British takeover of India (if you have studied both, compare them) British took over, said they were doing Indians a favor and saving them from despotic rulers and in doing so killed thousands , tortured them, ridiculed them, called the freedom fighters terrorists etc. So we can compare it to that. Fkh82 01:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

You're just making stuff up. The term "freedom fighter" is a Western creation that has no resonance in Sunni or Shia culture in Iraq. Many Iraqis might see the Iraqi resistance as a heroic opposition to Western domination, but that is not the same as using the term "freedom fighter." The comparison to India is not unreasonable, but it also doesn't make Zarqawi or the Indian independence movement anything like "freedom fighters." Also I think it is ignorant to lump Zarqawi's fighters with the Sunni resistance to US occupation -- the latter is native Iraqi, while the former is made up of Islamists from all over with a religious mission that may or may not intersect with the Sunni resistance.-csloat 06:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Though my own opinion is that he is a terrorist, I believe many people think that he is a freedom fighter. And thoguh I really think it should be included that he is a terrorist even in the first line of the topic, I think it would be nice to make up a new section that has the same title as this one "Terrorist or Freedom Fighter?" whith some points about both POVs. Eshcorp 14:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Again the Berg spin turns up in Wikipedia articles

>beheading American Nicholas Berg, a civilian

Except that Berg was an israeli citizen, which the USA and Israel tried to keep secret, but the Haaretz newspaper leaked the info. Berg had known and hard proven links to one of the 9/11 hijackers (shared dorm room and laptop with him). There is every reason to believe that Berg was involved with Mossad, which Zarkavi did indeed claim so.

So Berg was neither an American, nor a civilian. As a spy, he had no expectation to live and I have no problem with spies being killed, since espionage is an extra-judicary activity. Spies do expect to be executed since Ms. Mata Hari, almost 90 years ago.

?

I may be a bit of a biased source, but I do know Berg's family in the US. They were questioned following 9/11 and again following his execution, and no claims of his involvement with Mossad were ever made by the US government. Likely, you have no more information on this issue than the US government has (despite the US government's unreliability regarding intelligence), and if I were you, I would think twice before rushing to say that you have no problem with the execution of someone you don't know. Mysticfeline 22:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Mysticfeline

vprotected

This article is no longer protected. Should we remove the {{vprotected}}tag?

It still remains protected. --Hillhead15 15:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Main Photo

I can't help but feel that a dark, poorly-exposed and brooding photo is fairly POV in itself, when describing your "enemy" - I'm not going to replace it myself though, without first soliciting for a couple other opinions and suggestions for replacements (I have no problem using the photo in the article, but it should not be the main photograph) Sherurcij 06:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think we're likely to find a picture of the man reclining on a sofa wearing jeans, a shirt open to expose his immaculately-groomed chest hair and a smile. Joking aside, it's either the current photo, or some grainy photo taken from a distance that may or may not be him. --Last Malthusian 22:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

That photo is the most famous photo of al Zarqawi, and that is why it is the first, I don't think that should be changed. Eshcorp 14:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

PSYOP Cartoon Caption

Pretty minor, but the way I'm reading it the translation looks like it should be "Zarqawi" instead of "al-Zarqawi"? Is is Is

"Al-Zarqawi" and "bin Laden" are analogous in that they are both last names. Omitting "al" is the same mistake as removing "bin", I never heard "Laden" by itself before. -- Eagle^amn 05:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Even though the Arabic caption reads (?) just "Zarqawi"? Is is Is

True, the name alone is "Zarqawi", and, unlike "Bin Laden" Al can be taken out but doesn't need to be. It is extremely popular in jordan to actually add the prefix Al- ("the") to some of the last names. Removing the "Al" would just make more confusion, beside, it is correct as it is. Eshcorp 14:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Boy oh boy is this page gonna get vandalised

And they still reject any attempt to automatically protect FAOTD articles, although all the pictures that are shown on the main page are protected. --Orang gila 00:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Death Edit

Concerning the bit about Zarqawi's death, I removed the following.

"An Iraqi man, who claims to have arrived on the scene a few moments after the attack, said he saw U.S. troops beating up the badly-wounded but still alive Zarqawi.[118][119] In contradiction, Caldwell asserted that when U.S. troops found Zarqawi barely alive they tried to provide him with medical help, rejecting the allegations that he was beaten based on an autopsy performed. The account of the Iraqi witness has not been verified.[120] All others in the house died immediately in the blasts."

Because the claims have not been verified, I see no reason that it should be placed within the article, and to be quite frank, reeks of bias. If someone has proof of verification, feel free to change it back to the original, provided that a link or some form of proof or source of information is provided within. The "all others" part I removed as well because it didn't lead into the next section very well. Any writers with more skill and interest in the article than myself are welcome to make changes, as that is the beauty of wikipedia. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.234.66.219 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 16 December, 2006.

That edit was reverted earlier, as it was a verified report. Even if the incident did not occur as portrated, the text in the article maintained NPOV by also citing the military version of the event. I would say the text should stand as-is. We can't verify either the man's claim or the military's, but we can verify the existance of both reports. -- Kesh 02:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted that edit because I thought it might have been accidental blanking. Sorry about that. If you use edit summaries on high-profile things like this, people won't mistakenly revert you like I did. I have no opinion on the section in question.--Chaser T 02:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Page protection unlikely

Just to answer the perennial question before it gets asked, Today's Featured Article is normally not protected. If vandalism gets severe, it may be semi-protected and full move protection may also be implemented, but normally, today's FA is not protected. If you want to help protect the page from vandalism, please watchlist it and help to revert the vandalism as it happens. Thanks, everybody.--Chaser T 00:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I just don't understand the wikipedia heirarchy sometimes. Why don't you guys fully protect/lock every featured article for the duration of its presence on the main page? It's an easy, harmless way to prevent people from clicking on the featured article to see what Wikipedia is all about and see pictures of penises and beastality all over the place. Considering the fact that the page is vandalized as I speak, people who click on it right now are going to look at and see Wikipedia has no credibility whatsoever. Just a suggestion. Uncreative 00:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe part of it is to encourage visitors to add information to these articles that they otherwise might not have been aware of. It seems a matter of deciding which was more important: encouraging people to "get their hands dirty" and edit the article; or locking the article to keep the current information in place. I'm of two minds on the matter, but I think the current system is fine so long as editors are vigilant. -- Kesh 01:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a perfect example of a policy emphasizing editors over readers.--DaveOinSF 02:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The whole point of the policy is to encourage readers to become editors!--137.82.36.209 02:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. God forbid someone come to Wikipedia wanting to learn some accurate information...--DaveOinSF 05:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's an absurd policy for a number of reasons, the primary one being that you can't very well demonstrate what is "featurable" about the encyclopedia when the article is constantly being trashed. You can weigh in on Wikipedia talk:Don't protect Main Page featured articles. –Outriggr § 01:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

As tagged above, this page is not for policy discussions. Please take it to the link mentioned above. -- Kesh 02:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Amazing

Congratulations on making this an FA, despite the controversy. --Abeg92contribsBoomer Sooners! 04:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Mercenary2k 07:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

"Mass Murderer" Category

Is Zarqawi really deserving of being categorized as a "mass murderer?" This seems somewhat biased to me, unless you want to put Bush up as a mass murderer for his part in the Iraq War. Slinga 17:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It's only "biased" according to you, if you're a god-hating, anti-american liberal terrorist!

JK! LOL

And yeah, he's a mass murderer. So's bush. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.21.69.140 (talk • contribs).

Please keep the political bashing out of this. That aside, it's a valid question as to whether or not Zarqawi should be categorized as a mass murderer. -- Kesh 21:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

fake death

to me it seems that his death was all made up to counter his threat.Yousaf465

This is not a page for speculation. If you can provide evidence (or at least verifiable publications of this idea), it might be worth citing in the "Reports of... death" section. This comment really doesn't belong on the Talk page, though. -- Kesh 04:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, Yousaf465. Never mind the replies such as Kesh's, who attempt to tell you you are out of place to respond on a discussion page with your perspective about facts in the article. Those who make it their business to go around Wikipedia telling other volunteers their comments are innappropriate or out of place are usually just queing up to run for administrator and are trying to show they know how to push others around. Despite Kesh's demeaning personal attack, which implied you innappropriately responded to Wikimedia Foundation's invitation to edit, your comments inspire me to seek the reports about evidence that supports your perception and include such information in the article.

With regard to Kesh's personal attack against you, this is no different than if Kesh attacked you for including in the discussion page about US space flights a comment that "it seems to me several of the flights ended in a crash." Such a comment would be an offering of your recollection and perceptions that can be used to find information relevant to the content of an informational database such as Wikipedia. If there were no articles about the crashes (there are, but for example), your comment could inspire creation of such articles. If there were articles to that effect, an editor truly interested in collaboration (which Kech does not appear to be interested in) would direct you to that article then inquire if you had recollections of information that could be researched and added to those articles. The appropriate response would be "thank you for your contribution" not "You are out of place, go away." The difference here is that Kesh is systematically intimidating those who doubt the veracity of this article by telling them they have no place in the discussion. The Wikimedia Foundation urges contributors to be bold in contributing content, and not to worry about incomplete or even innaccurate content -- someone will eventually shore up contributions with more facts, the Foundation and it's secret administrative agents imply. When you respond to the Foundation's solicitation to boldly contribute what you know, then Kesh or others of such ilk imply you have acted innappropriately, you can assure yourself you have been abused by someone who is gaming Wikipedia to advance their own political agenda. Mahkmed 22:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

:i only meant that if any evidence can found i will also try you people should also do the same.Yousaf465

My suspision was arosed when i saw the corpse image in detail if you compare the

Rubble and debris litter the site of the last safe house of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Hibhib, Iraq. The top insurgent target in Iraq, along with several of his associates, was killed during an air strike on the house June 7, 2006.

to the corpse image as it here [13] the extent of injuries to his boddy doesn't match with the assumed injuries in attack like this.Yousaf465

Admin abused admin tools to control content of article

I just received an e-mail from a friend who said an administrator who claims to be New York attorney violated a three revert rule to singularly control content of this article, attacked a user:talk page to remove the users comments, then blocked the user to prevent them from contributing to the content of this article contrary to the political agenda of the administrator Postdlf. This seems to be neither a transparent nor a collaborative approach to describing controversial international events. Lance48 23:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted?

Has this been deleted or is it my computer messing up?! Trampikey ^{(talk to me)(contribs)} 17:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No, you're right it's been deleted. The deletion log lists User:Jdforrester as having deleted it citing the "removing a revision". This needs to be put on the admin noticeboard and maybe another admin or bureaucrat needs to reverse this. Thethinredline 17:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Zarqawi dead us govt photo.jpg

I've changed this image to a link to the image page because the URL of the source..

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/Transcripts/Slides/060608-zarqawi.pdf

..is currently not available as of December 17, 2006 and I can't find it on www.archive.org.

I feel the image may violate WP:IUP as it is now unsourced. The IUP seems unclear on sources that lead to dead URLs.

I feel that the image should only be reinstated if it has been approved by a consensus of editors. If I've misinterpreted WP:IUP, comments are welcome. --Pixelface 00:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Macabre Morons

More often than not Wiki regresses to be the mouthpiece of US foreign policy; furthermore the articles that make it into "todays features article" are one-sided, biased, and poorly written opinion pieces that are construed by a bunch of macabre morons. I am disgusted with the continuance of violence in the Middle East and the constant fanning of the flames through these ignorant pieces of propaganda. If you look at the recent spell of articles on Wikipedia you will realize that the majority of them have tons of spin: Operation Wrath of Good, Iran, and now Abu - that's just a sampling. Never mind the fact that Milton Friedmann died - no news about that. I guess we live in a country where things are so good that the only way we can bring some sense of reality into our lives is by regressing towards hate and violence. That is very sad. Congratulations to those who continue to fight for truth and fairness. --Horn66.174.79.241 21:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not a place for political debate. You may want to register and create your own userpage to voice this opinion, or take it to a policy discussion page. -- Kesh 21:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Kesh's demeaning response aside, thank you for your response, "horn". Kesh abuses you by claiming your concerns about bias in Wikipedia comprise "political debate." Kesh's response is no more than an attempt to silence one side of a debate about Wikipedia content so that Kesh's prefered political faction can control that content.

I added a citation tag to the lead sentence. None of the sources cited in the article accurately say AMZ was the leader of Al-Queda -- they all either say US military intelligence alleges he was the leader of Al-Queda in Iraq, or they don't source their information and are hence unreliable sources for inclusion as encyclopedic content.

I removed the disparaging "Islamist" label. AMZ was a Muslim. "Islamism" is a disparaging reference not embraced by those described as Islamists. It's one thing for Wikipedia to have an article about what some right-wing Christians call some Muslims. It's entirely another to start declaring as fact, based on second-hand allegations from news sources, that a person "is" an Islamist. Would we write that anyone is a "racist" if that person does not profess to be a racist, or would we write that the person has been alleged to be a racist, and name the source of the allegation? Mahkmed 22:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

My response was not demeaning. This is a page for discussing the article itself, not political debate. Please refrain from continuing this.

As an aside, I have reverted your edit, Mahkmed. Islamist is a recognized term, even in Muslim communities, and the edit problem was exacerbated by your simply renaming the link "Muslim" while it still pointed at the same article. Also, your citation template was unwarranted, as there's an entire section devoted to citing the facts and disputes of his death. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kesh (talk • contribs) 22:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

Then if there is an entire section dedicated to debate over controvening accounts, why is only one account of his role declared factual in the lead? If you say his role is open for debate, according to the sources provide, I will revise the lead to reflect such ambiguity. If you intend to systematically revert my edits because I dared to expose your policital activities in Wikipedia, that's okay, becuase you will create a more explicit record of how wikipedia is used as a propaganda tool. Mahkmed 22:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, please se the talk page guidelines. This is not a place for debating politics. My own politics are solely concerned with keeping the article factual and free of bias. As an aside, please refrain from multiple malicious edits, as it can be considered vandalism. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kesh (talk • contribs).

Your shrill allegations of malice are but an escalation of your ongoing personal attack, against me and against other editors of this article. Your explanation of other's motives as political, while you characterize your own repetition of political views as "factual" is also a personal attack, in which you deny the intergrity of other editors while you unduly exagerate your own credibility. "Can be considered vandalism" -- that's cute. Daddy "can be considered Santa Clause" but that doesn't make him Santa Clause -- it makes those involved culbable in advancing a myth. Leave your myths at home. This is an effort to compile an accurate factual article. None of the sources cited in the article say he was the leader -- they say other sources said he was the leader. Stick to the facts, or go away. 172.191.209.29 23:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself. Mahkmed 23:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've made my points above. If you wish to continue personal attacks, and off-topic discussion that is your perogative. It will be up to the admins to decide matters. I was simply attempting to give everyone involved a polite warning as to the violations of policy.

I will continue to monitor the article and correct malicious & mistaken edits, but this Talk topic has become inflammatory. -- Kesh 23:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

None can deny that he killed people. And none can deny that all of his actions are dispicable. He has planned the deaths of many innocents intentionally. You may call Bush a mass murderer if you wish, but none can deny what Zarqawi did. Besides, this article is about Zarqawi not Bush. Something to discuss about Bush? Then go to the Bush article! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.6.230.65 (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Fake death now answer

pl check my last pos tin the topic fake death and pl answer it.User talk:Yousaf465 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yousaf465 (talk • contribs) 07:42, December 30, 2006 (UTC)}

• He's dead.--Looper5920 12:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Claiming he's not dead because a picture of his face is actually recognizable doesn't work. You have to explain why his injuries should be more severe than indicated, which will be difficult if the picture only shows his face. For all you know, the entire lower half of his body could be missing! If you want to continue this conspiracy theory, you'll need more substantial evidence. -- Kesh 20:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

George Galloway?

In the headline 'Arguments downplaying Zarqawi's importance', I added a quotation by Respect MP George Galloway made on the BBC's 'Question Time', which was directley relevant to the evident. I'm new to Wikipedia, but I don't see a problem with what I did.

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TpUR5zfWZw —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.108.192.46 (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Unquoted

The unquoted reactions on Zarqawis death can refer to this url: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5058478.stm. 0v3r533r 12:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction in the article?

According to the lead of the article, Al Zarqawi was "a Jordanian born Palestinian." But according to the Biography section, he was the "son of a native Jordanian family." How are the two compatible? Aecis^Brievenbus 07:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Zarqawi image change?

The first picture of Zarqawi shows him un bearded and lacking the usual characteristics of a mujahid. This may confuse readers, I propose it be changed. Guleed M. A. 22:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Issue was fixed Guleed M. A. 20:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Place of birth Zarqa not Amman

Claimed to have slept with a suicide vest

Prior to his death, Zarqawi was often seen in photos wearing a suicide vest, and he claimed that he slept in one. Yet there were no reports that he had one on when he died. Can anyone confirm this one way or another?

BTW: Claims of sleeping with a suicide vest had also been made about his aide, Mohammed Khalaf Shakar, who surrendered without a fight when he was caught.
-- Randy2063 15:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wot no picture?

How can this possibly be a FA when it lacks a picture of the person in question? I know the image-fascists are completely out of control, deleting practically everything at their private whim, but even so there has to be some way of illustrating the subject of this article? Vilĉjo (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it's less to do with rights of 'fair use' of a picture, and more because there's so much dispute about even the basics of this guy's life and career. Look above and you'll see that his death picture is disputed by some, for instance.--Lopakhin (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"years of service" is not an appropriate term

To me there's something wrong with using the words "years of service" in this article.He was a terrorist and not a soldier.Nor did he technically "serve".

How many terrorists get a "years of service" mention, and if it's correct he should have that by his name then surely osama bin laden should have the same treatment and so should any other terrorist on wikipedia for that matter.

I know one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter and all that but this still seems odd.

Just thought i'd put the opinion out there and see if anyone agreed ?

82.21.204.72 (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with that statement that "years of service" is inappropriate. I DISAGREE however that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. We may have been Germany's enemy, but we sure as hell weren't terrorists. In fact, I don't know of one single terrorist that wants freedom for their people. They all wish to establish strict Islamic law across the world. How are they freedom fighters? But yeah, I agree about the years of service thing. -Brad Kgj08 (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Diversity

i know that this to totally irrevealt to what you might be reading but hey oh well deal with it my name is Ph.D and that's all the information that you need. there are many issues that we as a country and as a world but most of all as a cilivization must understand and what there is to understand is this word called diversity. people fear what they don't understand so we as a race tries to belittle the other guy who we might feel is getting there foot one notch higher up in the game. i've been in many situations where i've been sterotyped and judge but how, how can you be judgemental and steroypical when in the long run only god knows what that person has been through. what is the meaning of war and why are we at war. to me it feels as if the world is trying to gain full supremacy of all others but for what. thats why we are all divided by contients because we all have something differnt. that goes back to that word diveristy. who gives us the right to run out of a resource and then feels to get more we have to takeover another country to get what we want.

Is that how they had you write your thesis? :) Talk pages are for discussing what further needs to be done to improve the article, not for discussions of opinions and other such things. FFLaguna (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Corpse image

Somebody either find a picture of him alive or remove the one of his corpse, this is making me sick. Vomiting should not be a normal reaction to any article on wikipedia. Haridan (talk) 23:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with a picture of his corpse being on the page. Obviously, his death was a major part of his life. I just don't think it should be in the infobox; it should be in the section detailing his death. Kaden Sotek (talk) 01:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the picture of al-Zarqawi's corpse contributes anything to the article. How many other articles on deceased persons have pictures of the person's corpse?

I see on the page it says the U.S. government distributed the image in a press pack. If the image was meant to demoralize the insurgency, I think the image would be better placed on the article on propaganda or psyops.

It's my understanding that most articles on deceased persons do not contain an image of the person's corpse.

Also, the supposed source of the image:

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/Transcripts/Slides/060608-zarqawi.pdf

..is no longer present as of December 15, 2006.

I realize "Wikipedia is not censored" but I think if people need to see his corpse (or purported corpse), a picture is present in the Washington Post link. --Pixelface 03:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

"How many other articles on deceased persons have pictures of the person's corpse?" - several. Uday Hussein and Qusay Hussein both do, as does Che Gueverra Raul654 03:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII as well. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Answer this then, Mr. Big Raul, the uber-agent of Wikimedia Foundation who singularly determines which propaganda piece will be a featured article. How many articles about deceased people who were not considered enemies by the government of the united States of America include articles of the decedent's corpse?

And if enemies of the United States are exclusively selected for depiction of their corpses on the Internet by Wikimedia Foundation, will such images include links to articles on Geneva Conventions which prohibit violating the dignity of the dead? Mahkmed 22:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a poll regarding this issue located in Archive three. I encourage you to go to it and cast a vote so that we can get a better feeling of where consensus lies. This issue seems to be constantly brought up, and then later ignored. Agaib 04:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

As it says at the top of the Archive 3 page, archives are not supposed to be edited. Once a discussion is archived, it is, for all intents and purposes, closed. If people want to continue vote on the matter again, it needs to be done on this page, not in the archive. Stebbins 07:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Stebbins - Archives aren't supposed to be edited, so you can't direct people to vote in the archive. As it stands, there are more votes for removing the image than keeping it, anyway - so why has it been kept? The photo of a dead person speaks more about propaganda than being encyclopaedic. I'd vote to remove it. 210.11.75.170 (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

To Raul, yes all of those people have corpse images in their articles where they rightfully belong. They are all located in a section explaining the circumstances of their death as it provides good photo support. The infobox should not be a place to show his death. It is very disrespectful that the perception of the reader is focused on his death rather than his life. This article should not be have his corpse as the main picture to know what he looks like regardless of your political opinions of his actions. Free pictures of Zarqawi are readily available through a google image search. -WhiteFeet 13 May 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.103.200 (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources?

Somehow through multiple edits and reverts, all the sources have disappeared! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.59.210 (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Image of Corpse

I don't know much about the consensus here, but is the image of his corpse (granted it is not unnecessarily graphic) really the one we should be using to actually represent his likeness. Are there any images that feature him alive? How many articles about people have images of their dead bodies as the de facto image of representation (in other words, their main picture)? I could see the point if it was in the Death section but it strikes me as absurd that a featured article on a person would use the image of their dead body as the main image in the article. Saddam Hussein's doesn't do so, and neither does almost all of the other articles about deceased people. The great kawa (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I like to see him dead ha but the feature picture should be one of him alive. Anyone have any suggestions? -Brad Kgj08 (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Third'ed. Its kind of despicable to mock the dead like that, whether you like them when they were alive or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.187.148 (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not despicable. Like EVERYTHING else in a person's life, a person's own actions and choices determine their worth. Some people reduce their worth so fully that they drop below the bar where I consider them "human". We are born deserving rights, by nature of being sentient beings. But by our own actions, we can lose those rights. It takes more to be "human" than to just be born a homo sapiens. Being a member of the human race takes membership dues. Not just an accident of birth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.60.87 (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You should read this talk page a little more fully, as there is already a current topic about it. :) There was already a poll conducted at the top of the third archive of this talk page, and it was voted to keep this picture. FFLaguna (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed, with several spanking new Public Domain photos of the man. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 00:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sinjar Records

Using this information from West Point there is a lot of mistakes that need to be correct on the top page.

Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) (based at West Point[[14]])
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony/pdf/CTCForeignFighter.19.Dec07.pdf
--OxAO (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

rough work

According to the US Treasury these five men were accomplices of Al Zarqawi: [15] Geo Swan (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Mohamed Abu Dhess
• Shadi Abdalla
• Aschraf Al-Dagma
• Ismail Shalabi
• Djamel Moustfa

Powell quote

Sorry if this has been discussed before. Should we fix the mistake in the block quote by Colin Powell: "Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, an associated in collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda lieutenants". I see that the source has this exact text, which is I guess why we have it. I didn't watch the video, but I assume this is a transcript error and he actually said "an associate and collaborator". Thoughts? Staecker (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a source worded that way, yes, otherwise [sic]. (Hohum ^@) 18:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, found another source, put it in. Staecker (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Work needed

Hello everyone! This article currently appears near the top of the cleanup listing for featured articles, with several cleanup tags. Cleanup work needs to be completed on this article, or a featured article review may be in order. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

"Field Commander"

why isn't it listed that for awhile he personally lead his group in some battles on the front and personally lead attacks on rival militias —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.173.73 (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If you can cite it then go ahead and add it, but remember all content must be verifiable. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 05:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Revert of TucsonDavid's edits

I have reverted TucsonDavid's possibly NPOV-violating edits based on an IRC discussion in hope that this can be discussed rather than having an editor hit 3RR. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Believe that instead of stating he ran a paramilitary training camp, that it would be proper to state it was a terrorist training camp. and I would like to see if we can reach a consensus on it. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 06:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

More stuff

• "U.S. military: Al-Zarqawi was alive after bombing." CNN. Friday June 9, 2006. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Powell UN Iraq presentation, alleged Terrorist Network.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Powell UN Iraq presentation, alleged Terrorist Network.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Issue With Source 16

This is a really good article but I have issue with the neutrality of a source in the biography section, fifth paragraph. The source is number 16, and it links to Bill O'Reilly's website, to an article from September 2004. The sentence that uses source 16 for reference talks about Zarqawi's involvement in Afghanistan and his involvement in Iraq before the US invasion. I do not believe that he was involved in Iraq before the invasion, based on a number of sources, including the 9/11 Commission Report and O'Reilly himself. O'Reilly has since said it was a mistake to invade Iraq, but it was an understandable mistake due to the evidence at hand. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0616-01.htm This is worth a look. Otherwise a good article.

65.30.92.14 05:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

i removed the sentence about Uday, but the other information is accurate. i also removed the source since it's not a very good source. rather than tag an entire article as disputed, next time make an edit that fixes the problem. that's what wikipedia is all about. Anthonymendoza 17:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the Iraqi involvement piece has gotten back in, and Source 16 is still being used. The site in question, PWHCE.org, is not a good source as you can see by the bio of the lead contributor: http://www.pwhce.org/trevor.html. I am deleting. Jazzcowboy (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Time spent in jail contradiction

Under the subheading "terrorist" the article states that he was arrested in Jordan in 1996 and spent 5 years in jail, until his release in 1999. There's obviously an error here somewhere - either in the time of his arrest, release, time spent in jail, or that figure could be a combined time spent in jail, rather than time for this particular crime? There are two relevant references here (7 and 9), however checking revealed both are broken. I can find a working link to reference 7, (which I'm now fixing) however it doesn't state the years spent in jail, but does state that he spent 6 years in jail (not 5). I'm editing this section of the article to reflect that reference, while leaving the paragraph with the broken reference 9 in, but adding a dead link to the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owheelj (talk • contribs) 05:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

In late 2004 he joined al-Qaeda, and pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden

This is flatly untrue. Al-Tahwid was set up in competition to al-Qaeda (Zarqawi had religious differences with bin Laden) and on one occasion refused to share money that had been raised for both groups by sympathisers in Germany. (source: Senate Intelligence Committee). The events in 2004 were orchestrated by US Strategic Communications (source http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/09/AR2006040900890.html) and had more to do with creating a story for the invasion of Iraq than it had to do with the truth of Zarqawi's political agenda.

This article requires major revisions in the light of facts that have come to light since the invasion. [[User:|SleepyHead]] (talk • contribs) 12:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Question about aircraft used in killing

I think this is appropriate to point out here. The Wikipedia page says that United States Air Force F-16C aircraft were used in the killing. "Seal Target Geronimo" by Chuck Pfarrer says that a Predator drone was used. Any contradictions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.97.17.18 (talk) 08:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080307074259/http://www.jamestown.org:80/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2370029 to http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2370029
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930221530/http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=12328 to http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=12328
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061012035813/http://70.168.46.200/Released/07-13-06/ISGZ-2004-019920-HT-DHM2A.pdf to http://70.168.46.200/Released/07-13-06/ISGZ-2004-019920-HT-DHM2A.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 17 external links on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114091835/http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel06/mostwantedterrorists022406.htm to http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel06/mostwantedterrorists022406.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051227194433/http://news.scotsman.com:80/topics.cfm?tid=825&id=505822004 to http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=825&id=505822004
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100311083517/http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm1118.cfm to http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm1118.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130604161015/http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi/20060608-025601-3434r.htm to http://washingtontimes.com/upi/20060608-025601-3434r.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20160120134429/http://www.cpa-iraq.org/transcripts/20040212_zarqawi_full.html to http://www.cpa-iraq.org/transcripts/20040212_zarqawi_full.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070416102821/http://www.msnbc.msn.com:80/id/5280219/site/newsweek to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5280219/site/newsweek
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080709020154/http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3540586/ to http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3540586/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061102110604/http://70.168.46.200/Released/07-11-06/ISGZ-2004-019920.pdf to http://70.168.46.200/Released/07-11-06/ISGZ-2004-019920.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061102110548/http://70.168.46.200/released/04-24-06/ISGZ-2004-019920.pdf to http://70.168.46.200/released/04-24-06/ISGZ-2004-019920.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080422042535/http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/04/wirq04.xml to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/04/wirq04.xml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100118221903/http://www.azstarnet.com:80/sn/attack/132868 to http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/attack/132868
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080516191151/http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060608/D8I41K780.html to http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060608/D8I41K780.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060630020239/http://www.alertnet.org:80/thenews/newsdesk/L08233828.htm to http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L08233828.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060621210134/http://www.boston.com:80/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/06/09/al_qaida_likely_to_alter_marketing_efforts/ to http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/06/09/al_qaida_likely_to_alter_marketing_efforts/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080307045942/http://www.itv.com:80/news/439ac3b5af99ab7fb431c746e82e02b1.html to http://www.itv.com/news/439ac3b5af99ab7fb431c746e82e02b1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080307144040/http://www.comcast.net:80/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2006/06/09/410184.html&cvqh=itn_zarqawi to http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2006/06/09/410184.html&cvqh=itn_zarqawi
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070522112938/http://news.scotsman.com:80/columnists.cfm?id=860432006 to http://news.scotsman.com/columnists.cfm?id=860432006

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080308125917/http://www.chicagotribune.com:80/news/nationworld/chi-070523bush-intelmay23,1,386519.story?track=rss to http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-070523bush-intelmay23,1,386519.story?track=rss
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071020154655/http://www.avot.org/article/20060918070400.html to http://www.avot.org/article/20060918070400.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071115013927/http://www.msnbc.msn.com:80/id/9831216/wid/6448213/site/newsweek to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9831216/wid/6448213/site/newsweek
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120722191629/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1132475588009&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1132475588009&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141029010152/http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,1792817,00.html to http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,1792817,00.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151117030211/http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,1793028,00.html to http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,1793028,00.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150926093628/http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,1794019,00.html to http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,1794019,00.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060630031401/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/iraq_al_zarqawi;_ylt=AiXlfZa9CUN7_QnTLEYt_6lX6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iraq_al_zarqawi;_ylt=AiXlfZa9CUN7_QnTLEYt_6lX6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121024104418/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060617/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_insurgent_tape_7 to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060617/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_insurgent_tape_7
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121024104430/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060701/ap_on_re_mi_ea/bin_laden_tape_14 to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060701/ap_on_re_mi_ea/bin_laden_tape_14
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090109170643/http://news.scotsman.com:80/latest.cfm?id=1513392006 to http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=1513392006

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090803224622/http://www.commondreams.org:80/headlines04/1005-01.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1005-01.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/18/books/review/zarqawi-face-of-the-insurgency.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070210133840/http://drinkingliberally.org:80/blogs/louisville/archives/2006/03/ to http://drinkingliberally.org/blogs/louisville/archives/2006/03/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13jul20041400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/s108-301/sec12.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13jul20041400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/s108-301/sec12.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4524563/site/newsweek/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Contradicting information about Abu Abdul Rahman al-Iraqi - was he dead or alive?

Fox said the Iraqi PM stated Abu Abdul Rahman al-Iraqi was killed along with al-Zarqawi: http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/06/08/abu-musab-al-zarqawi-killed-in-bombing-raid.html Reuters said Abu Abdulrahman al-Iraqi wrote a letter heralding the death of al-Zarqawi: https://web.archive.org/web/20060630020239/http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L08233828.htm
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Death-of-a-Terrorist-Leader-HOW-AIDE-S-BETRAYAL-2517598.php stated al-Iraqi led U.S. forces to al-Zarqawi and was killed along with him.
CNN stated they were both killed same day. http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/08/iraq.al.zarqawi.1929/

The current version of this wikipedia article has the Reuters' version.Level C (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060921074629/http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf to http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060930220648/http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf to http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060921074629/http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf to http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Call for discussion

This edit excises about 2k of text. IMO it should be explained or reverted... Geo Swan (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Reverted. Edit history shows he's a persistent vandal. 142.167.242.182 (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Chalk, Peter 2012":

• From Peshmerga: Chalk, Peter, Encyclopedia of Terrorism Volume 1, 2012, ABC-CLIO
• From Ansar al-Islam: Chalk, Peter, Encyclopedia of Terrorism Volume 1, 2012, ABC-CLIO

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Jund al-Sham

The article claims that Jund al-Sham was founded by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi between 1989-1992. First, as can be seen from his article and various sources, he wasn't following jihadist ideology until he goes to Afghanistan (1989) and comes back to his homeland (1992). Secons, his biographies that are written by Jean-Charles Brisard and Fouad Hussain don't mention such an organization. The only source for that information is this The Washington Post article. On the other hand, another article claims that "...Jund al-Sham is believed to have first emerged in Afghanistan in 1999, established by Syrians, Palestinians and Jordanians with links to the Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi...". So I remove this content from the article since there's no reliable source or claim for that part.--Nanahuatl (talk) 09:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Video missing

can anyone find it? https://web.archive.org/web/20220208182949/https://www.dvidshub.net/video/16302/us-air-strike-al-zarqawi Victor Grigas (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)