Talk:Algerian rebel group claims kidnapping of two Austrians in Tunisia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The group is internationally known as the GSPC, despite their attempts to rename themselves last January to imply a tie between themselves and the "actual" AQ. They have separate aims, membership and absolutely no ties to the AQ group, and shouldn't be credited as such - it can be confusing for editors, much moreso for readers. Sherurcij 01:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Are you kidding me? Show me where Al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb is still referred to as Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat. Show me where their plegde to Al Qaeda means that they are not an Al Qaeda group. Al Qaeda is by definition a loosely defined international organization, the main charactaristic of which is to pledge loyalty to the umbrella group. No better way to do that than to change your name to include "Al Qaeda". Even Al Jazeera calls them "Al Qaeda's North African branch". I insist that you revert your changes or explain yourself in a more informed way. --SVTCobra 02:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Have a link to the AJ quote? It doesn't particularly prove anything, but I'd be curious to see its context. Anyways, just because w:Charles Bishop (pilot) pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, doesn't mean the media should be reporting that "al-Qaeda flew a plane into a Tampa building". Groups that don't share any organizational structure, leadership or plots with each other have no direct links to each other - they are simply trying to "share" credit so that multiple groups can profit from a single bombing -- every time the real AQ blows something up, GSPC gets to say "See, that's our big brother, we're tough", and everytime GSPC blows something up AQ gets to say "See, the media is talking about AQ as the big bad wolf". The fact it helps foster media paranoia when groups share a name is something that we should be working against, not to help them achieve. Sherurcij 02:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Al Jazeera and their use of "Al Qaeda's North African branch" is in the sources. Pledging allegiance seems to be plenty of affiliation. According to Wikipedia, allegations of connections to AQ predate 2001. --SVTCobra 12:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Have a link to the AJ quote? It doesn't particularly prove anything, but I'd be curious to see its context. Anyways, just because w:Charles Bishop (pilot) pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, doesn't mean the media should be reporting that "al-Qaeda flew a plane into a Tampa building". Groups that don't share any organizational structure, leadership or plots with each other have no direct links to each other - they are simply trying to "share" credit so that multiple groups can profit from a single bombing -- every time the real AQ blows something up, GSPC gets to say "See, that's our big brother, we're tough", and everytime GSPC blows something up AQ gets to say "See, the media is talking about AQ as the big bad wolf". The fact it helps foster media paranoia when groups share a name is something that we should be working against, not to help them achieve. Sherurcij 02:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)