Talk:Abd al-Muhsin Al-Libi

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

category justification?

What is the justification for putting al-Libi in the al-Qaeda category?

I've read the transripts of several of the Guantanamo captives whose detentio was justified because of an alleged tie to the Revival of Islamic Heritage Society. According to them the RIHS is the most popular charity in Kuwait. Fouad al Rabia, who describes himself as an USA-phile, who convinced his employer, the Kuwaiti airlines, to buy Boeing, not Airbus, because he is such an USA-phile, said moderate Muslims, like himself, donate to the RIHS. Another Guantanamo captive, the guy who was the accountant for the Pakistan office of the RIHS gave such a convincing account of the fiscal controls the RIHS had in place, which prevented any possibility of funds being subverted, that he was one of the 38 captives whose Combatant Status Review Tribunal concluded they should not have been classified as an enemy combatant in the first place. Al Rabia also described the care with which the RIHS exercised fiscal controls.

The accountant, whose name I am blanking on, acknowledged that there had been a tie, in the past, between the Pakistan office of the RIHS and the Afghan Support Committee. But it had been prior to his arrival in Pakistan.

Another source I came across said that the two organizations had shared office space in the early 1990s.

One problem I have with O'Neill's allegation is that there are half a dozen organizations named "Afghan Support Committee", "Afghan Support Group", "Afghan Support Office". One of these groups had a British Lord as one of its directors. Another of these groups was a U.S. based group that was really just a front for the CIA. As you are no doubt aware the CIA tried to escalate the problems the USSR experienced while it tried to occupy Afghanistan during the 1980s.

They provided the anti-Soviet fighters with Stinger Surface-to-Air-Missiles. The provided them, through the CIA, with other kinds of support. One of the kinds of support they provided was to expedite the travel of militant, Islamic fundamentalists to Afghanistan. IIRC they obfuscated that they were behind paying the travel expenses by making it look like the charity Afghan Support mumble financed the travel expenses.

No-one, in the 1980s, worried about how dangerous the foreign militant Islamic fundamentalists might be to the USA after the Soviets were evicted.

But how do we know that that Afghan Support mumble that shared an office with the RIHS is the same Afghan Support mumble that the CIA used to send the proto-al-Qaeda types to Afghanistan to fuck up the Soviet occupation?

But surely, you ask, aren't members of the US counter-terror establishment smart enough, and professional enough, that they are able to distinguish groups or individuals who merely shared similar names? LoL. LoL. LoL. -- Geo Swan 23:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

clarification please...

Calling @Contributorzero: Clarification please, can you say where you got the text for your first contribution here? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abd_al-Muhsin_Al-Libi&diff=622609882&oldid=413991066

The reason I ask is that it looks like my style. I ported some deleted articles to other wikis, ones that didn't support the {{cite}} templates. I had to dumb down the references in those ported articles. But I kept them in multi-line format -- the same as the references here.

Anything I wrote here would be under a {{gfdl}} and a {{cc}} license. Info I ported and adapted to a lesser wiki would be under whatever license that wiki used. One of those I worked on had contributors retain all rights.

I have no problem, in principle, with my own content being re-used. But, in general, if you port material from another wiki, I think it is important to properly respect its attribution, even if that wiki is one where all material is in the public domain. Not attributing material from elsewhere can be a maintenance nightmare, as it makes other people work hard to figure out whether or not there has been a copyright violation.

So, Contributorzero, did you copy or adapt this material from elsewhere?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Abd al-Muhsin Al-Libi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 10:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]