Talk:Black September Organization

American Journalist
The article states, "According to American journalist Charlie Cranston John K. Cooley, the BSO represented . . . " Which was it? Was it Charlie Cranston or John K. Cooley? Or both? It seems that Cooley authored the quote, but I am somewhat ignorant of the subject. Can someone fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Rehtworc (talk • contribs) 19:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Arafat

 * Most likely, Arafat knew about the organization, and saw it as a convenient way to vent Palestinian direct action against Israel, but chose not to "get his hands dirty" by talking directly to the group.

Comment
Text removed from article because it's entirely speculative. Also, we have a sentence "sources say". Which sources? DanKeshet 18:02 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

Black September-Fatah links
The links provide evidence of the links, or at least claims of links. Why is Alberuni deleting them? Is every single source that says something Alberuni doesn't like "biased"? Jayjg 19:54, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Now that you mention it, yes. --Viriditas 20:27, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "Claims of links"? This is an encyclopedia not a forum for right-wing Israeli speculation and disinformation. If you are going to make political claims of terrorist links to Yasser Arafat you should be able to provide more substantive and reliable historical references than Sports Illustrated, Sony Pictures or World Net Daily. If it is a fact instead of right-wing speculation or book/movie promotion then why isn't this information provided in history books? --Alberuni 20:32, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Other links have been provided in the Yasser Arafat article. Jayjg 20:33, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * No, they are the same spurious sources. --Alberuni 20:36, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Who says they are spurious? --Viriditas 21:15, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * If it's factual history that Arafat led Black September and was responsible for the Munich massacre, you should be able to find a citation from a reliable historical account or text better than World Net Daily and Sony Pictures. If you can't, then it just shows how spurious the speculation is. Only those with a pro-Israeli POV would accept such speculation as fact because it reassures them that their biases are accurate. --Alberuni 21:45, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Black September Organization (BSO) was formed in 1971 as a clandestine wing of al-Fatah. BSO was founded with the objective to avenge the expulsion of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) from Jordan in September of 1970. This time was referred to as ?Black September,? hence the name chosen by the Black September Organization. While Black September was originally described as a splinter group of al-Fatah, direct linkages between the groups were revealed with the arrests of BSO agents. Al-Fatah formed Black September in order to circumvent an al-Fatah declaration that they would not interfere in the domestic policies of Arab nations. However, some al-Fatah members planned to assassinate King Hussein, ruler of Jordan from 1953 to 1999. Hence, Black September was partially formed in order to pursue this specific objective. While Black September failed several times to assassinate King Hussein, the group is notorious for a number of brutal, high-profile terrorist incidents. Black September expanded their list of targets from the Jordanian government to include Israeli and U.S. citizens and facilities. The group also carried out attacks against general ?Western? targets. Black September is infamous for its attack against Israeli athletes and coaches at the 1972 Munich Olympics. In retaliation for the attacks against Israel citizens and facilities, Israel launched a significant response to eliminate the terrorist organization. Israeli security forces retaliated against BSO terrorists in Western Europe and Lebanon. Following the Israeli response, al-Fatah dissolved Black September in December 1974.  Black September "Many terrorist experts speculate that Arafat controlled the BSO and utilized it as his primary military force. Arafat attempted to keep the association at arm's length to provide a factor of plausible deniability." More sources for dismissal: Jayjg 01:57, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * None of these sources support the claim in the article that Arafat controlled the group. The memoirs are being misquoted. Abu Daoud never claimed that Arafat controlled the group --Alberuni 06:13, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Surely it was not the cell structure which "offered plausible deniability to the Fatah leadership? Wasn't it simply that Fatah didn't in fact control Black September, and that it was a separate organisation?203.184.41.226 (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

"Linked to" is a weasel term
Arafat/Fatah linked to Black September is just a sleazy way of spreading disinformation. See Avoid weasel terms. --Alberuni 13:23, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Read the sources above. The membership was the same, etc. Jayjg 21:46, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I NPOVified the article, adding "According to some evidence", etc. Unless there are serious objections, please remove the POV sign. I also moved the line about the MM up (so the reader knows what operation we are talking about) and the links down.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 09:58, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Much improved but still not NPOV.
 * "According to some evidence (see below), the organization had links (WHAT LINKS SPECIFICALLY? THEY WERE A SPLINTER GROUP) to various groups within the PLO, most notably Fatah and the PFLP. Some sources claim that the organization was controlled by Yasser Arafat, (WHO? WHAT SOURCE?) the leader of PLO. Mohammed Daoud Oudeh (Abu Daoud), the man who (claims) to have conceived of the attack), stated in his autobiography Memoirs of a Palestinian Terrorist, that funds for the massacre were provided by Mahmoud Abbas ((Abu Mazen) Secretary General of the PLO, led by Arafat ("though he (Abu Mazen) didn't know what the money was being spent for" YOU CONVENIENTLY LEFT OUT THE EXCULPATING LINE). ALEXANDER WOLFF reports that in his memoirs and a July 1999 interview with Sports Illustrated, 72-year-old Abu Daoud living with his wife on a pension provided by the Palestinian Authority, told Don Yaeger: "the [Munich] operation had the endorsement of Arafat" Though he wasn't involved in conceiving or implementing it" (AGAIN YOU CONVENIENTLY LEAVE OUT THE EXCULPATING LINE.) (WHAT EXACTLY DOES THIS "ENDORSEMENT" IMPLY?? THAT ARAFAT APPROVED THIS SPECIFIC OPERATION? NO. IT MEANS THAT THE PLANNERS OF THE MUNICH OPERATION BELIEVED THAT ARAFAT WOULD APPROVE IF HE KNEW ABOUT IT. THIS IS AKIN TO SAYING THAT "ARIEL SHARON ENDORSED THE SABRA AND SHATILA MASSACRE" BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT HE WOULD HAVE APPROVED OF IT IN ADVANCE EVEN IF HE DIDN'T! WE KNOW THAT WIKIPEDIA WOULD NEVER ALLOW THAT!"
 * NPOV version: "Black September was a radical splinter group of the PLO, drawing members from Fatah and the PFLP. Mohammed Daoud Oudeh (Abu Daoud), the militant who claims to have conceived of the attack, stated in his autobiography Memoirs of a Palestinian Terrorist, that funds for the massacre were provided by Mahmoud Abbas ((Abu Mazen) currently the Secretary General of the PLO "though he (Abu Mazen) didn't know what the money was being spent for". In a Sports Illustrated article about the autobiography and a July 1996 interview with the 72-year-old Abu Daoud, journalist Alexander Wolff claims that although Yasser Arafat was not involved in conceiving or implementing the attack, Abu Daoud believes that "the [Munich] operation had the endorsement of Arafat." --Alberuni 16:23, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I integrated most of your text and removed the NPOV note. As a sidenote, I have to admit that this time you were a bit more reasonable than usual. FYI, I have a policy to skip the all caps text.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 10:02, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily is not a reliable source
The document linking Arafat and the PLO to Black September is likely a forgery. It purports to be a poor quality reproduction of a "secret" State Department telegram from 1973 that the Jewish Virtual Library cites as coming from WorldNetDaily, a notoriously biased site. The supposedly secret document has no provenance indicating how WorldNetDaily came into its possession and there is no validation of its contents from any official verifiable source. If this is not the official position of the US government, why is Wikipedia perpetuating unsubstantiated Zionist hasbara propaganda? Deleted. --Alberuni 16:45, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're the arbiter of source reliability. Jayjg 18:46, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * WorldNetDaily is no more worthy of being an encyclopedia source than Jew Watch. If there is one independent, non-partisan, or official government source to verify this allegation, please point it out. If there is no independent verification, it does not belong in an objective encyclopedia; maybe its suitable for Jewish Virtual Library, but this isn't Ziopedia. Try to remember that as you curb your POV. --Alberuni 21:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Despite being uncivil about it, Alberuni's got a good point. World Net Daily is truly notorious, and can certainly not be considered a reliable source. - Mustafaa 21:22, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "Notorious" in what sense? I don't know that much about it, do other sources Talk: about Worldnetdaily? Jayjg 21:25, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look around [ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ the site]... let's just say their POV is beyond obvious, and their motives for faking something given that POV are clear. As usual with fringe news sources, there aren't too many comments on them online, although I quite like this blogger's. - Mustafaa 22:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A couple of articles have deigned to notice it:, , , , , , , although their own sources are no doubt a bit POV. And, of course, it's home of the notoriously Islamophobic Ann Coulter. - Mustafaa 22:20, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Abu Iyad and Black September
I thought it had been established that Abu Iyad, Arafat's security chief, was in charge of Black September. In his book Stateless, he wrote: "Black September was not a terrorist organization, but was rather an auxiliary unit of the resistance movement, at a time when the latter was unable to fully realize its military and political potential. The members of the organization always denied any ties between their organization and Fatah or the PLO."

I understood this to mean that Black September was a "claim name" attached to certain operations, rather than a fixed and specific group of people; or if it was a fixed group, it was a small number of Fatah people prepared to go the extra mile when required to. In the animal rights movement, if a group of people (or even one person) carries out a non-violent act, they might claim it as Animal Liberation Front. If it's violent, then it'd be Animal Rights Militia. It's the same thing here. Sorry if this issue has already been covered. Slim 10:44, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Re: Request for comment/Arafat and Munich
Regarding Arafat/Munich: Alberuni's NPOV version above is not accurate, in my view. Journalist Alexander Wolff did not write that Abu Daoud simply believed the Munich operation had the endorsement of Arafat (as though he wasn't sure whether it did or not). Rather, this journalist (and many others) reported that Abu Daoud stated, very clearly in his autobiography, that the operation did have Arafat's endorsement. Abu Daoud was in a position to know and he wrote in his book that he did know, not that he merely believed it. He was a primary source and what he said therefore has to be quoted, not interpreted. The phrase "had the endorsement of" does not mean "would have endorsed it had he known about it." It means "did endorse it" which of course means he knew about it.

Alberuni, I feel you may be flogging a dead historical horse here. Arafat never denied he was involved in Munich, so far as I know. There's no Middle East journalist that I know of who claims Arafat was not involved, even if only as an "endorser." My own feeling is to say he only endorsed it is already a charitable interpretation of history in favor of Arafat. Slim 01:51, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * A dead historical horse? :-)  Slim 07:19, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Arafat denied involvement in the Munich operation. Wolff claims that Doaud said that "the operation had the endorsement of Arafat," although Arafat wasn't involved in planning or conceiving of it. If Sports Illustrated's translation of Arabic and quote are accurate, which I doubt, it means that Arafat generally endorsed attacks on Israel and BSO took it upon themselves to plan Munich. If Arafat knew of it in advance, they would say he helped plan it. --Alberuni 05:42, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Another proof of the PLO "influence" is right in the article: "After the March 1973 attack, the organization was disbanded, apparently under pressure from the PLO, which believed that terrorist acts were damaging public perception of the Palestinian cause." But, if Arafat denied it, we have no choice but to trust him, even though all the evidence and participants say otherwise. And Alberuni, you are so right to doubt the correctness of SI, after all they are just another outlet of Hasbara world conspiracy.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 06:52, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "apparently under pressure from the PLO" Apparent to whom, I wonder? I have no doubt that Sports Illustrated is the most intellectual reference on Middle East politics that you have ever used. --Alberuni 07:17, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why PalestineFacts is not a reliable source
It is a hasbara propaganda channel. The quotes taken from there and Worldnetdaily will be deleted. This isn't Ziopedia. Get neutral sources and leave the hasbara at home.

Palestine Facts is a project of the Jewish Internet Association. 

Israel and the Jewish people are under attack in one of the front line battles of the war between peaceful Western nations and hostile forces that seek to destroy our civilization, our freedom and way of life. Every channel must be utilized to resist and convert others to our defense and support. In the 21st century, the Internet is one of the battlefields of that war and JIA is determined to hold the line. - Jewish Internet Association --Alberuni 05:34, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Alberuni, your entire argument is fallacious. This article is about Black September.  NPOV policy is about presenting both sides, even if you disagree with the claimants.  Your disputes with the POV in question have nothing to do with the organization, and everything to do with your inability to adhere to NPOV policy.--Viriditas 05:39, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The sources are biased Zionist sources. They are being used as sources for claiming that Arafat is the chief BSO terrorist, which is typical for Zionists to believe that about Israel's arch-enemy. They are unreliable and they admit that they should utilize every channel to convert others to their way of thinking. Hasbara! Should I quote Jew Watch on articles about Israel? --Alberuni 05:45, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Please review my user page: "If you can finally pin them down in Talk:, they insist that you provide evidence for every statement of fact you make, and when you do, they insist that all your sources are "unreliable" or "biased". Jayjg 06:12, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should learn to find and use independent, unbiased sources instead of your usual POV neoconservative hasbara. --Alberuni 06:16, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I did not produce these sources, and you are definitely not the arbiter of what sources count as "biased". Jayjg 06:18, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * When a Zionist propagandist says "Every channel must be utilized to resist and convert others to our defense and support," it;s pretty obvious that they are biased. --Alberuni 06:21, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * However, it says nothing about falsifying facts. On the contrary, the Palestinefacts website states "Every fact and assertion on this web site is backed-up by elaborate documentation hyperlinked right into the materials presented or available in the supplemental references. If you question anything, follow the links for more and more in-depth discussion and information. The most authoritative sources were sought and are presented for each topic. Lies and propaganda are excluded." Jayjg 06:25, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * When a propagandist says "Every channel must be utilized to resist and convert others to our defense and support," and also "lies and propaganda are excluded," that means that they are feeding you pure unadulterated bullshit. And, by the way, the documentation is not hyperlinked into the page about the Munich attack. I guess they expect us to believe their "authoritative sources," read Dore Gold and the IDF. --Alberuni 06:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

5 reverts in one day, Alberuni
I correct myself, looking over the record that's actually 5 reverts in one day for you, Alberuni. I strongly encourage you to respect Wikipedia policies, of which you are well aware. Jayjg 06:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I strongly encourage you to get a life. --Alberuni 06:40, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Please review No personal attacks Jayjg 06:44, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I reviewed it but I didn't find anything in there that could help you get a life. --Alberuni 06:47, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arafat and Munich: primary sources
Alberuni, there are three primary sources who appear to have talked about Arafat and Munich:

(a) Arafat -- If, as you say, he has denied involvement, please supply a quote or citation of some kind, so that his denial can be included in the article;

(b) Abu Iyad -- He was Arafat's security chief and he wrote a book in which he talked about Black September. Yet you deleted his quote from the article. Why?

(c) Abu Daoud -- He says he planned Munich and that Arafat "endorsed" it. If you're saying he wrote his book in Arabic, and that he gave the Sports Illustrated interview in Arabic, can we find the original Arabic and have it translated by some Arabic-speaking Wikipedians? My understanding is that he spoke fluent English and would have given the interviews to the journalist and the publisher in English. I am willing to try and track down the Sports Illustrated journalist to ask him if you, Alberuni, are willing to find out whether Abu Daoud's book was written in Arabic, then translated. Let me know if you think we should do that.

Even if Abu Daoud did give the interview in Arabic, and if the book was written in Arabic, don't you feel the translators would have been extra careful to get that crucial bit right? Slim 07:19, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Is the Cooley quote accurate? "Cut-offs"?
Did the Cooley quote actually use the word "cut-offs"? "Each cell's members were kept ignorant of other cells. Leadership was exercised from outside by intermediaries and 'cut-offs'" The correct term is "cut-outs". --Alberuni 17:23, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Alberuni, I'll check the quote and get back to you. Slim 20:35, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, he uses the word "cut-offs." Cooley got this information after interviewing members of Fatah, including Arafat and Abu Iyad, and also people he believed were Black September operatives, so maybe they said "cut-offs". It was written in 1973; perhaps the word was used then. The quote's on page 123 of the original 1973 edition ISBN 0 7146 2987 1. If you think it might be a mistake that Cooley or his interviewees made, you could add [sic] after the word to signal that. Slim 20:43, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Munich Games Aftermath
There should be something on there about the after math of the munich games with the following facts:

1) The leaders of it were tracked down and killed. 2) Part of the operation included Barak going into lebanon 3) During one of the assasinations of an alledged black sepetermber person they killed the wrong person in i believe norway, that cuased a bit of a raw between israel and normay (I believe it was some european country) Since Israel wanted its spy back.

I dont have the source on me, i saw it on a special on the history channel. But its relavent to it.


 * Most of that information is found in the Munich Massacre article. Jayjg 19:14, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"terrorist"
When I looked up Black September, the 2nd entry directed me to a page about a "terrorist" organization. Why is the word "terrorist" surrounded by quotation marks? { unsigned}

Lead in paragraph describes them as "militant organization". I think this is a mislabeling based on the era (time Frame) of their operation. If they operated after 2002 they would be called a "Terrorist organization". Why are they labelled as inactive status - and no mention of how /why classifed such Wfoj3 (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

People murdered/assisinated

 * Recent remarks by Abu Daoud, the alleged mastermind of the Munich kidnappings, deny that any of the Palestinians assassinated by Mossad had any relation to the Munich operation, this despite the fact that the list includes 2 of the 3 surviving members of the kidnap squad arrested at the airport

Has it been clearly established that the people killed/murdered/assisinated by Mossad were indeed the people arrested? Given the covert nature of such an operation as well as the covert nature of the people involved, establishing a clear link between the two would seem rather difficult, especially in 1973... Nil Einne 15:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

CIA
In the Movie Munich the CIA is said to support Black September financially. Is this true? Anyone have any sources? Tchadienne 16:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Munich never said anything about the CIA funding black september

Western month as a name?
Why was the group called "Black September" instead of being named after a month of the islamic calendar? 193.171.121.30 20:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the English name. The Arabic name apparently refers to aylul, which is the Arabic name for September. It's a secular organization, which is probably why they did not name themselves after the Islamic month.--Doron 20:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Khartoum hostage crists.jpg
The image Image:Khartoum hostage crists.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --02:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Marriage
Any thoughts on this link http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200112/hoffman where the author claims Black September was dissolved by all its members being married off? The current article doesn't mention anything about how Black September ceased to exist. --Gwern (contribs) 02:52 13 April 2009 (GMT)

Black September operations after its official end?
In the Global Terrorism Database, I see there's a group called "Black September II", which had several attacks, including 4 fatalities and dozens of injuries, and in one case, it targeted Jordanian diplomats (Azmi Al-Mufti, Bucharest, Romania, 1984). Should the operations of this organization be included in this article or make a new one? bogdan (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2014

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed for over two weeks. Jenks24 (talk) 10:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Black September (group) → Black September Organization – This was the group's official name. --Relisted. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC) Charles Essie (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

why not terrorist
why is Black September not called a terrorist organization, they clearly fit all criteria, kidnapping and killing a group of civilians is clearly terrorism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.175.17.21 (talk) 16:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

why not terrorist
Why is Mossad not called a terrorist organization, they clearly fit all criteria, kidnapping and killing civilians is clearly terrorism?

In fact, let's go out on a limb: why are any groups, armies, politicians, etc. etc. who support killing of other groups not called terrorist organisations?

The uncivilised practices of egoists who feed their fragile egos in their lust for power never cease to amaze.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Black September Organization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120429154347/http://www.trophort.com/001/159/001159176.html to http://trophort.com/001/159/001159176.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

"Black September"
The usage and primary topic of Black September is under discussion, see talk:Black September in Jordan -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 03:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Black September Organization. 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/20040626080910/http://www.sonypictures.com:80/classics/oneday/html/blacksept/ to http://www.sonypictures.com/classics/oneday/html/blacksept/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikiprojects
There were a lot of Wikiprojects - I removed some that were only relevant to Munich like Germany and Olympics. The main attack makes sense for those Wikiprojects, but this article doesn't seem like a good fit. Seraphim System ( talk ) 18:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Munich massacre
This section is badly written. It now links to an actual article about the attacks but then covers topics in the aftermath. This should be rewritten 119.18.0.229 (talk) 13:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)