Talk:France knew of and told CIA about al-Qaeda hijack plans prior to 9/11

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search


I reverted this because the CIA was handed the report...and it says so near the bottom of the article. DragonFire1024 05:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that the info was shared with the US is an important part of the story and have therefore moved it higher up in the article - per inverted pyramid. –Doldrums(talk) 05:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok :) DragonFire1024 05:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • This article says Taliban and Chechen were organizing the plot, but Washington Post article says al-Qaeda was part of it, too.
  • Washington Post article describes the plot as "hijack an aircraft," while this article says "attack was going to involve U.S. jetliners"

Tomos 05:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly article says ANYTHING about any "Chechens"? Page 1, page 2 [1] and page 3 [2].

It says about "Uzbeks", "Uzbekistan" and "Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan". Is it like these early days of the American interventions, when the "Chechens, Arab and Pakistani" foreign fighters turned out to be Uzbeks, Arabs and Pakistanis? < here, an English version for you. -- 21:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google translate is blocked for me by Le Monde's website, I am redirected to the front page. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre-Antoine Lorenzi[edit]

who's he? –Doldrums(talk) 10:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Please read the article. Use any automatic translation, if you can't speak English. Check out w:Chechnya (a region in Europen Caucasus) and w:Uzbekistan (a country in Central Asia) in Wikipedia, if you don't know the difference. -- 22:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google translation:

Uzbek spies thus inform the French agents. At the time, the opposition of the fundamentalist Moslems to the mode pro-American of Tachkent federated in the Islamic Movement of Ouzbékistan, the MIO. A military faction of this party, taken along by certain Taher Youdachev, joined the camps of Afghanistan and lent allegiance to Usama Bin Laden, promising to him to export its Djihad in Central Asia. Military records and correspondences of the MIO, found in Afghan Al-Qaida camps, attest some.

Alain Chouet kept in memory this episode. He directed until October 2002 the Service of information of safety, the subdivision of the DGSE charged to follow the terrorist movements. According to him, the credibility of the Uzbek channel finds its origin in the alliances passed through the general Rachid Dostom, one of the principal Afghan chiefs of war, Uzbek ethnos group him also, and which fights the talibans then. To like its guards of the services of safety of close Ouzbékistan, Dostom infiltrated some of its men within the MIO, until in the structures of command of the Al-Qaida camps. Thus it informs his friends of Tachkent, by knowing that its information walks on then towards Washington, London or Paris.

Contrary to what one would think, Uzbeks are Uzbeks, not Chechens and not Eskimos. You can also click and learn more about Mr. Tahir. -- 22:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove sources and do not add information that is not sourced. That is what the sources say...I am sorry if you do not like that. DragonFire1024 22:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The information that Osama bin Laden’s group, working with Taliban militants and Chechen rebels, had been plotting the move was passed on to Bill Murray, head of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Paris bureau, Le Monde daily said. [3]
"One document prepared in January 2001 was entitled "Plan to hijack an aircraft by Islamic radicals," and said the operation had been discussed in Kabul at the start of 2000 by al Qaeda, Taliban and Chechen militants." [4].
Thats what they say. Do not remove sources. DragonFire1024 22:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source is ONE - it's Le Monde. The other sources are mindlessly repeating the mistake of Reuters India without reading the original. Did YOU read the ORIGINAL article? It's above, translated. You can check and translate it yourself, too -,1-0@2-3224,36-896448@51-892780,0.html Just do it! -- 22:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did...if the Post and the Daily Times messed up thats NOT my fault. Thats what they reported and thats what we reported. Talk to them if you have an issue with their reporting. I have no control over it. DragonFire1024 22:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are acting very strange. You don't believe Le Monde, but you believe what the others say "Le Monde daily said" (and they didn't read the article too, and are all repeating the same mistake made once, one after each other - and they call themselves journalists, who should check out their facts before writing anything?). Above, I even linked you to the Wikipedia articles about the nation, organisation and man from the article (because the English spelling is obviously different than the French). I hope you're not a pro journalist yourself. You should believe what you saw in the Le Monde with your very own eyes, not what the others are, in fact, lying about it. -- 22:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problemwith Reuters or the Post or the Daily Times then write to them. If they are misleading thats their fault not mine or Wikinews's fault. We have NO control over what reports say. We reports what the reports say. Again, I will not repeat my self anymore, tell them that they messed up. DragonFire1024 22:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the French "Rachid Dostom" is the English w:Rashid Dostum. He is indeed ethnic Uzbek, of course (there are no Chechens in Afghanistan). -- 22:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You don't have to be Afghan. to be in Afghanistan...Terrorists are terrorists and come from all over the world. DragonFire1024 22:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And so, do you think Wikinews is about spreading every false information in the media, even when you checked and found out it's really false? I think not. The article should be about what Le Monde REALLY said. If they wrote "Le Monde said" it was Martians, you would write this too? Gen. Dostum - he's not a terrorist, he's "just" a treacherous warlord (even for Afghanistan - he betrayed everyone in the 1990s) and a notorious war criminal. And currently the chief of the Afghan National Army. (Ethnic Uzbeks are a large minority in Afghanistan, which borders Uzbekistan.) -- 22:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Its NOT a mistake...if it is then all the 100+ articles are wrong. DragonFire1024 10:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like they're all cut & paste from Reuters since the wording is identical on many. Your sources mostly use the paragraph:

Le Monde printed a copy of part of the note. In early 2000 in Kabul, Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden met with Taliban leaders and armed groups from Chechnya and discussed the possibility of hijacking a plane after takeoff in Frankfurt, Germany, the note said, citing Uzbek intelligence.

which implies that Le Monde printed this. But the Le Monde article does not mention Chechens at all. Nyarlathotep 12:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again whose fault is that? Thats what the SOURCES say. Find others that say other wise. Again I doubt Highly that 100 articles are incorrect. But don't want to follow sources, then its not my problem. DragonFire1024 17:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and when an apparent error is pointed out in our article, we say thank you nicely, check if there is an error and post a correction if necessary. pls remember that anyone who brings an error to our notice is doing us a big favor. if they are unfamiliar with how wikis work, lets work with them to address their concerns/fix the issue. remember WP:BITE. –Doldrums(talk) 19:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

looks to me the ( Google Translate version of the) Le Monde article does talk about Uzbek, not Chechen militants and we may need to issue a correction. have also sent an e-mail to Reuters asking about it. so far, Reuters doesn't look like it's issued a correction. let's see. –Doldrums(talk) 19:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google translate no longer works on many news sources within the French speaking world. I was unable to translate the article in its entirety, but used my limited French and translation of quotes and other text sections to establish that Le Monde makes zero mention of Chechens. There is the slim possibility that the printed version contained details not given in the online version, but I - sadly - suspect that one person's screwup (or bias) has spread through the entire MSM. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually use translation, so I don't know how qualities of different services compare. But Altavista's Babelfish is linkable and offers fr->en translation.

the Le Monde article (page1)

I agree that there seems to be a mistake in English media. The article speak of w:en:Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan and w:en:Tohir Yo‘ldosh. Tohir has some connection to Chechen rebels [5], but he is not representing or leading them as far as I (a novice) can tell.

I wonder if French& English speaking countries, such as Canada and Swiss report this differently.

Tomos 17:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little search on this, and it seems French-language media are also reporting that Chechen was involved in it. Some French-language sources:

  • AFP Apr 16, 2007 14:45 in la-Croix [6]
  • AFP Apr 16, 2007 in France24 [7]

Some English language sources presumably having familiarities with French-language media

  • AFP Apr 16, 2007 in France 24 [8]
  • AP Paris Apr 16, 2007 in International Herald Tribune Europe [9]
  • Journal Chretein [10]

So why even the French-language media speak of Chechens?

I came to think this is not a mistake.

Le Monde article has the following quote from the DGSE report

"Selon les services ouzbeks de renseignement, le projet d'un détournement d'avion semble avoir été discuté en début d'année 2000 lors d'une réunion à Kaboul entre des représentants de l'organisation d'Oussama Ben Laden…"

It speaks of the early 2000 meeting between Osama and others. Who are others? In the Le Monde article, the quote is incomplete and it is not shown. It is possible that one of the parties was Chechen Rebels, as reported by others.

What about Uzbeks, you might wonder. But what Le Monde reports about Uzbek armed groups (IMU) was its cooperation with Osama in 2001, it seems to me.

AFP or some other news organization might have reported where Le Monde had not, and hence the reference to Chechens everywhere.

Another possibility I can imagine is that someone mistook Tchétchène with Tachkent (Chechen and Tashkent) in some complicated way so that it resulted in an error.

Tomos 18:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the French might be taking it from Reuters too, not reading Le monde for themselves. Of course Le Monde may also have shared their sources with Reuters or other news outlets. However, one thing is absolutely clear: the three leters "Tch" of the French word Tchétchène do not appear in the Le Monde article. Therefore any articles which claim that this Le Monde article talks about Chechens is wrong. I demonstrated above that many English langauge sources clearly state that Le Monde said Chechens.
Uzbek millitants are important here since they are the source of the information, but yes there is no real indication that the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan was interested in the attacks. We should maybe clear this up in our article. Nyarlathotep 00:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source (according to Le Monde) were the Dostum's Afghan Uzbeks who had infiltrated the IMU ("up into the structure of command of the al-Qaeda camps"), and it was Dostum who then shared the intel with the Uzbek regime of Islam Karimov. The source wasn't the Movement but the double agents within it. -- 19:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One plane or more?[edit]

Hi. I am just reiterating a point I previously made. It seems that the English sources suggest that the French intelligence was about a plot involving "an" airplane, whereas in this Wikinews article, it is reported as involving multiple "jetliners."

I am sorry if I sound nit-picking, but is it just me who see a difference of significance between a simple hijacking plot and plot involving multiple hijackings ?

Tomos 16:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS I'd already checked Washington Post saying it was one-airplane hijack #Inaccuracies?, I have just checked the other cited source, Daily Times, to make sure I am not raising a stupid question. They says the same as the Washington Post. Tomos 16:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please add this article to Category:9/11. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Jcart1534 05:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


{{edit protected}} Please add this article to Category:Washington Post. Green Giant (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Pi zero (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]