Talk:Tiger Squad

Lead: long list of citations is not useful
The of the lead has, in sentence two, five references (which exclude the MEE and WashPost refs) to say that MEE + WashPost published claims; and six references (which include the MEE ref) in sentence three (final sentence).

Sentence two probably only needs the MEE and WashPost refs themselves - and maybe also one third party references to show that there were mainstream media echoes of the original articles? But five seems excessive, and distracting to the reader interested in verification against sources.

Sentence three makes a strong claim about a political leader of a country who happens to be a living person, so probably some more refs are useful for BLP reasons, but six seems a bit excessive. Do all four Arabic language sources make the claim? How about archiving them, so that we don't end up with a BLP-sensitive claim based on a dead url? Boud (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m okay with making the references more efficient. To your question about the four Arabic sources, I’ve looked them all over once more to check, and they do all specifically state that the Tiger Squad works under the direct orders and supervision of Mohammed bin Salman. LissanX (talk) 07:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * proposal/questions:
 * Proposal for sentence two - drop the two Mirror (tabloid) refs; drop the Nation (pk) ref; keep CBC + Outlook India as evidence that other mainstream sources consider the MEE source as serious; this drops from 5 refs to 2; any objections?
 * Questions for sentence three - Do all four Arabic sources state this as "their" journalistic judgment, rather than just saying that that's what MEE claims? Given that this is a BLP issue and that the references clearly look to the reader like they apply to the claim on MBS's responsibility and aim, maybe we should keep the two MEE refs + the four Arabic sources - unless there's a reason why one is less reliable/less appropriate in some way than the others.
 * Boud (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we should keep the one from the Nation and drop Outlook India, because the Nation is a newspaper while Outlook is a news magazine, so I think the Nation is a better reference. The rest of your proposals I agree with. As for the four Arabic sources, all of them cite the Middle East Eye as the source of their article. LissanX (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Others can come along later to this discussion and judge whether some of the four Arabic-language sources should be removed or not, and if yes, then which. Boud (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

The Washington Post column is another story
"According to David Ignatius, United States intelligence became aware in September 2018 of a "tiger team" to be created by Asiri for covert operations."

That sentence is basically fine and reflects the citation. But Ignatius in no way says this was a death squad, as was claimed here. Nor did he suggest it was related to any previous case or loyal to Mohammed bin Salman. Do not put lies in his mouth to support an entirely different theory posited by an entirely different person. Even if you're fine with twisting the facts to demonize the heels in the story, that's no reason to fuck with one of the "good guys". His integrity and livelihood as a columnist could be adversely affected if Wikipedia tells the public he wrote something he didn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:02, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please remember WP:AGF.
 * This issue seems to be resolved in - the final sentence of the lead states Ignatius' POV and lets the reader decide whether or not there's any difference between a "covert operations team" and a "death squad" (apart from which country the reader feels nationalistic about) and whether the English translations "tiger squad" and "tiger team" are significantly different. The wiktionary wikt:فرقة gives a long list of English translations, including "team", but not "squad". So I'm rather sceptical about a significant difference between "squad" and "team" here. Boud (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "Team" vs "Squad" is of little importance next to the problem of purportedly forming almost one year after it had allegedly killed Mansour bin Muqrin. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

BBC Newsnight
I notice some confusion at the end of the deletion discussion regarding this BBC source. He (or she) speaks of a squad created in summer 2018 to "target" critics (through unspecified means), to which all 15 Khashoggi suspects belonged. This seems likely to be the same team Ignatius' source and multiple intelligence agencies speak of, but clearly not the same one the Middle East Eye guy says formed in 2017 to "execute" critics, to which only five of the Khashoggi suspects belonged. Different dates, different numbers and different purposes strongly suggest different subjects, so this article should be split in two before any further conflation happens. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * BBC has its own source, the youtube link is just a excerpt of the entire program. I think you have a difficulty in grasping the fact that this article is about an organisation of 50 members and not the kill team of 15 members. The latter is a subset of former. The squad is 50 membered, the whole squad of 50 member doesn't move around, for example only 15 were mobilized for Khashoggi.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  21:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Then why does the Middle East Eye guy say five were mobilized for Khashoggi? Is this article about a team created in 2017 or 2018? And why did you say this same thing when reverting my removal of a Washington Post column? Can you at least see how those operations are made of entirely different teams? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read this story which is a translation of the arabic Al Jazeera story here
 * In the same article the subject is referred to as
 * Tiger Squad
 * Tiger Team
 * Tiger group
 * Tiger
 * Tiger Brigade
 * Clearly these are used as synonyms for the same group whose actual name is in Arabic so there is nothing surprising. BBC for example referred it as Tiger Team. Now just because you are unable to grasp this simple fact does nto mean you can remove reliably sourced texts on your whims. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  22:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * BBC referred to a team created in summer 2018 that sent 15 members after Khashoggi. The Middle East Eye (which is the sole basis of this Teller Report piece) referred to a team created in 2017 that sent five members after Khashoggi. By any name, how do you reconcile the reported fact that one formed after the other and sent a different number of members to Khashoggi? To me, it's impossible, they must be talking about different groups/squads/teams/bands (though the BBC and the Washington Post might be talking about the same one that this Wikipedia article isn't). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please re-read and follow WP:INDENT properly. I think you need to clarify more on your statement above. Specifically you should elaborate what (according to you) is the subject of the article. and why exactly the content you removed is a misfit here. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  22:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The subject (according to this article's lead) is "a Saudi death squad that consists of approximately fifty members from the military and intelligence agencies and has a mandate to carry out covert operations and executions." "Five members of the squad were part of the 15-member death squad who were sent to murder Khashoggi." "...the Tiger Squad was formed in 2017...".
 * The content I removed spoke of a covert operations team (not a death squad) whose planned formation US intelligence was aware of, as of September 2018. This jibes with BBC's report of a team that formed around the time (also not said to be a death squad), but not with the report that defines this article's topic. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I also fixed this edit of yours which falsely claimed BBC's source put the creation date in 2017. Now the article correctly cites both Newsnight and Ignatius in their own paragraph. Whether that paragraph has anything to do with the topic of this article is not yet clear, but I've left it in here for compromise's sake, till we learn one way or the other. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Appreciate your gesture. So what according to you is the "covert operation" Ignatius is referring to ? Middleeasteye clearly refer it as below Quote.
 * washingtonpost
 * BBC
 * washingtonpost
 * BBC

-- D Big X ray ᗙ  23:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe, as Ignatius says and you note him saying, the crown prince had told his subordinates this summer that he wanted Khashoggi and other Saudi dissidents brought home. Can't bring someone home if you kill him abroad. Nor her or them. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, do you know why does this crown prince wants to bring them home ? (hint is in the quotes above)-- D Big X ray ᗙ  00:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * To prevent them from talking to strangers. You'd misquoted the BBC video, and I've corrected it. If you'd rather I revert that, let me know and I'll provide the correct quote separately. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I am fine with your edits on the BBC info. I am not going to revert you.
 * The link You gave says
 * So clearly this is more than "prevent talking to strangers". He isnt a vampire baying for blood, nor is he a serial killer. He basically wants this Tiger Squad to do things to silence the critics, Silence may mean, Forcing to stop criticising, getting them to the Kingdom and incarcerating them, killing them depending upon the situation and plans. Hence the purpose of the Squad is to "silence the Critics", even if it means killing them (death squad). So I can clearly see all the three sources talking about the same team and same objective. Hence this content is not a misfit, let me know what you think of my statement and why you disagree if you disagree. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  00:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There are many ways to silence a critic. These include persuading him you're right, befriending him, paying him hush money, cutting off his communication with like-minded people, threatening his family, threatening his life, threatening his bank account, denigrating his credibility, removing his fingers and tongue, erasing his memory, dropping him off in a desert or outright killing him. These are all much easier to do in the privacy of your own home/kingdom.
 * I can understand then how you may assume a team tasked with silencing someone or bringing them home might kill them. But I can't understand where you get this idea that one group can form in two separate years or send a different number of members to the same event. The only logical way that can happen is if five members of MEE's 2017 hit squad were also members of the 2018 team the rest allege was formed to abduct dissidents, and that overlap can only indicate they're separate groups. Think of Audioslave, Rage Against the Machine and Soundgarden, if it helps. Close in many ways, but not close enough to meld into one. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I see we have an agreement about your first para, So I will directly address the second para now. I encourage you to check out Conflicting sources first. I think we all agree that this was a secret squad doing covert operations. The knowledge of its existence would also be not known to many. It is quite possible that the BBC source and the WaPo source came to know about it at different times, and also they might have different information about when it was created. Also Note that the WaPo article mentions the US Govt, came to know about it a month back. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  22:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There you go with this "it" talk again. I've advised you of the multiple differences between these multiple stories about multiple teams multiple times now, yet you point me to an essay about sources conflicting on a single subject. If alternative rock analogy can't get through to you, maybe sports parable can.
 * There you go with this "it" talk again. I've advised you of the multiple differences between these multiple stories about multiple teams multiple times now, yet you point me to an essay about sources conflicting on a single subject. If alternative rock analogy can't get through to you, maybe sports parable can.


 * To be clear, Mr. Humphreys is a fictional character. But the loose resemblance to actual people and events is entirely intentional. If two teams can share that many similarities (and differences) in an overall talent pool of around 400 people, think of the possibilities when we're drawing Tiger Teams from about 2,000 members of the ruling house, near 700,000 enlisted men and a literally uncountable number of spooks. I know you want this article to survive badly enough to grasp at straws, and I sympathize, but put aside your emotions and preconceptions for a second and just think about the plain cold numbers. Of 702,000 people, 14,040 entirely distinct teams of 50 can be formed. Counting for crossover, that number becomes too high to bother calculating.
 * Given this, isn't it likely that two might share the name of one of the top five generally-accepted badass mascots of the animal kingdom? And given this statistical probability, don't you agree a reliable source should connect the 2017 MEE Tigers with the 2018 BBC/WaPo/CSIS/CIA/MI6/etc Tigers, rather than a couple of Wikipedians who have a vested interest in winning a deletion discussion? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you are claiming WaPo and MEE are talking about completely different and unrelated "Tiger Squads" ? -- D Big X ray ᗙ  21:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, continually. Or if not completely different, different enough that one can send five of its members to the same event the other sent fifteen. So possibly related enough to exist together in the real world, but not linked enough for a shared Wiki page. That is, presuming the MEE exclusive guy isn't lying or mistaken about a death squad's existence, as I've contended he might be since this article was created. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Lets look at the similarities.
 * 1) Both are named as the Arabic word whose english translation is Tiger team or Tiger Squad etc etc.
 * 2) Both are commanded by Ahmad Asiri, the deputy chief of the Saudi intelligence service
 * 3) Both are created to conduct covert operations
 * 4) Both are created to target opponents, both inside and outside of the Kingdom

Differences
 * 1) MEE source claims it was created More than a year ago. while WaPo source does not clarify the date of creation while BBC source claims it was Summer of 2018

Adding more: this is my personal opinion based on my own understanding that Asiri selects his team members for a particular covert operations from this pool of 50 members of the Tiger Squad.

Clearly this is what appears to me as a single group whose date of establishment is disputed among the 2 sources. A clear case of Conflicting sources, In such a case the right way to handle this is that the article should report both and attribute the info to that source, instead of choosing the favourite source and culling the other one from the article. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  21:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The MEE Tigers "are unflinchingly loyal to Riyadh's young crown prince, commonly known as MBS." Though "the source denied knowledge of who issues commands to the tiger squad". So the Asiri similiarity is a difference. Both are said to be created for covert operations against dissidents, but only the MEE Tigers are said to be assassins, a death squad or something similar. That's different.


 * If Asiri pulls members for one job from one fifty-deep pool, he can't pick just five (as MEE says) and all fifteen (as everyone else says). The five need to be from a subfaction, at least, for this single-pool theory to make sense. Or one side's story is literally incredible, and should be discounted.


 * A summer creation makes sense for a September discovery, but to presume the best spooks in the world didn't know about a roving band of killers for close to a year is a bit far-fetched. Also strange that after discovery, none of them (even anonymously) described the group as something similar to a roving band of killers, or accused them of anything before Khashoggi. Why not, if they suspected as much? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify your point on who leads, MBS vs Asiri, FYI Asiri directly reports to MBS. so MBS is the supreme "boss" there is no conflict here.
 * InedibleHulk i think you are misquoting MEE, let me copy the relevant text from MEE>
 * I am not sure how you are claiming that MEE's death squad is 5 membered whereas everyone else's is 15. It is clear to me that MBS selected 5 members from his bodyguards and they also featured in the Khashoggi team. Khashoggi team also had 10 other members from the pool of 50. there is no confusion on this. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  22:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The Wiki article claims twice that five MEE Tigers were part of the 15-member Khashoggi team, once saying those five "spearheaded" it. Not sure who wrote that, but it doesn't reflect the source as well as I figured it might. Does MBS select people to join the tiger pool and trust Asiri to select which of those to use for a job?
 * Regardless of your or my mind, connecting these teams which we know to have several differences, despite no sources explicitly connecting them, is against WP:SYNTHESIS. I mentioned that in my football story, but since that's been collapsed, it bears repeating.
 * Killing can be a kind of covert operation, but we shouldn't assume every covert operations team is a death squad. All six sports teams known as the Pittsburgh Pirates were (or are) sports teams, and baseball's a sport, but we likewise can't assume every mention of the Pirates in a sporting context has anything to do with baseball. Might be strictly hockey (analogous here to forced repatriation). When all of the sources that agree the Tigers were formed in 2018 all omit the murder accusations, and the only source that accuses the Tigers of a being a death squad is the only one to claim a 2017 debut ("Although MEE was not able to confirm the information disclosed"), and neither mentions the other, it strongly suggests two teams to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * the wiki article can be tweaked to correct this information. There is no contradiction among any source that the Khashoggi team was 15 membered.
 * It is common practice by the Royals to use the best soldiers among the military as their personal bodyguards. None of the sources has mentioned who selects the Tiger Squad, but it can be safely be assumed by me that the head of the Squad, Asiri selected them, the Prince obviously will not be the best guy to test their military and intelligence gathering skills, the Intelligence chief is clearly more qualified to do this. When MBS wanted to add 5 of his own bodyguards in the Squad, he clearly is trying to make sure the team contains some of the best soldiers that Saudi military can offer. The idea of using own bodyguard will also help MBS to make sure that if ever there is any clash of interest between Asiri and MBS, his own bodyguards in the squad would be able to do what MBS wanted. These are of course my own personal opinions and no source for them. and none of this can go into the article.
 * What goes into the article can only be what the sources have claimed so far.
 * MEE Article claimed the Squad was formed a year back, and it also mentions several killings that this group had done in the past year.
 * I think we should just wait for Erdogan to do his work "of exposing the Saudis" and journos to report more on this Squad. Till then let the status quo of this article remain.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  23:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The contradiction involves whether the 15-man Khashoggi crew comprised five members of a death squad (all tight with and selected by MBS) and ten other guys of unclear membership (MEE Guy doesn't explain, anyway), or 15 members of a 2018 team on a covert mission to bring Khashoggi home that happens to share an extremely common group name.
 * If we were following sources properly, the capture team described by multiple reputable outlets citing multiple intelligence sources would be the one in the lead, and the death squad described by one anonymous guy weeks ago and not corroborated by anyone else since would be the one with the two short sentences (or more properly not at all). The status quo here is a backward mess of original research and confusion, but if that's the way you prefer, I'm content with the Talk Page showing it's simply the way you prefer. Till Erdogan does his work, at least, whatever that's supposed to mean. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * MEE article clearly states that the Tiger Squad was involved in Khashoggi's killing(all 15 of them being the members of the squad) 5 members of the Tiger Squad was involved in Khashoggi's killing, there is no such confusion. Please read the MEE article again. And here is what I referred by Erdogan's work-- D Big X ray ᗙ  01:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you're reading between the lines on that. Wouldn't five Tiger Lads (a full third) be enough to say the whole...let's say "ambush"...back home was involved? Even one bad apple can spoil the bunch. In any case, the article doesn't say "involved" once, just implies it. Find me a sentence that says all fifteen were members of the death squad version, if you want me believe you. If you don't care whether I believe you, at least do it for the sake of your article, which still twice says there were only five Assassin Tigers in the more widely reported group of Homing Tigers. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. You are right, MEE doesnt say all 15 were Tiger Squad. I have updated what MEE says and nothing more. thanks for pointing out. We will just have to wait for more sources to provide us more clarity. Till then only what has been reported should stay. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  03:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. You are right, MEE doesnt say all 15 were Tiger Squad. I have updated what MEE says and nothing more. thanks for pointing out. We will just have to wait for more sources to provide us more clarity. Till then only what has been reported should stay. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  03:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

"the tiger of the south"

 * ميدل إيست آي: تعرف على فرقة النمر.. آلة بن سلمان لإسكات المعارضين


 * Middle East A: Know the Tiger Band.. Bin Salman machine to silence opponents:

"... "Tiger Squad" as it is well known to the American intelligence services ... the group was named after General Ahmed al-Asiri, deputy head of Saudi intelligence, ... known among his colleagues as the tiger of the south, and since the war on the coalition on Yemen, the Saudi media also began to be called the beast, and he loved this title." ---93.211.219.199 (talk) 07:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Tiger Squad = Saudi Rapid Intervention Group (SRIG)
 * 17 March 2019 NYT: It Wasn’t Just Khashoggi: A Saudi Prince’s Brutal Drive to Crush Dissent.
 * 18 March 2019 MEE: MBS death squad involved in torture of Saudi women's rights activists:


 * "Assiri is well-known among his colleagues as 'the Tiger of the South'. Since the coalition's war [on Yemen] the Saudi media also started calling Assiri 'the Beast', and he liked this nickname," the source said. --93.211.211.3 (talk) 05:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The allegations and what is known to public
What part of Alleged operations you don't understand? Why are you having such a hard time understanding the very easy-to-comprehend distinction between an allegation and what is known to the public? SharabSalam (talk) 08:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you
I appreciate your response. Anyways I am not here to fight. I understand what allegation is but when it is only written without providing the other point of view it seems to be a reality to readers! Or what do you think? Regards, Smny2018 (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm I don't think that it seems like reality to readers but I agree that we need to add the other "point of view"/story but that doesn't mean we should remove the allegations. If you have the sources then write the other point of view next to the allegation.SharabSalam (talk) 12:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Other sources for this
In light of these, I plan to remove the single source tag. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  13:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * BBC Newsnight
 * Washington Post David Ignatius 2018
 * NYT and US officials : "Members of the team that killed Mr. Khashoggi, which American officials called the Saudi Rapid Intervention Group,"
 * https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/mbs-death-squad-involved-torture-saudi-womens-rights-activists-report
 * https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/members-saudi-team-murdered-khashoggi-received-training-us-report
 * https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-45906396
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/how-the-mysteries-of-khashoggis-murder-have-rocked-the-us-saudi-partnership/2019/03/29/cf060472-50af-11e9-a3f7-78b7525a8d5f_story.html?utm_term=.b7929ce722bb
 * The article currently uses MEE 17 times (ceratin MEE sources are used multiple times) to backup some statements, and just 5 other sources, so one source tag applies. And it is not just the numebrs: the core of the article that is based on MEE. WikiHannibal (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks . The article definitely uses more than one source.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Happy to help. The tag should not be added now that we have several independent sources based on their own independent investigation/reports The IP user has also pointed a few other sources from the region, but I am not so sure if they satisfy our RS criteria. I would leave that for the local editors to decide.  D Big X ray ᗙ  18:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, the tag is now unjustified. Which IP are you talking about, ?. I speak Arabic, I might be able to help to see these sources from the region.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * SharʿabSalam▼, I was referring to this section above, where the IP user has shared sources for expanding this article.  your review will be very useful in judging the site and the content matter. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  18:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitely helps, not the Arabic ones but the English ones. Let me just open my laptop and I will add them. There are also some interesting stuff there.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Yesterday I added what I think is a highly reliable Russian source but it got removed by an editor saying it is not reliable!. Today I added this source https://www.bellingcat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Lord-of-the-Flies_Redacted_6-25-19.pdf .--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, as it seems my explaantion in my edit summaries was not enough, I will try to explain here. There are several problems but the most important one is the third one:
 * 1) Adding Prince Mansour bin Muqrin, based on a source which says "Ходят слухи, что он был попросту сбит «тигриной командой» после ставшей знаменитой «расправы над принцами»,", as I partially quoted in my edit summary is not reliable. "Ходят слухи" can be translated as "rumor has it". No attribution, no indication of how the journalist got the info. Wiki is not rumors, so when the source itself acknowledges it repeats rurmors, wiki cannot report them as facts.
 * 2) Aljazeera just reports about NYT report, so Aljazeera in this case is not an independent source and there is no point adding it. It does not make the article any more credible, just confuses the reader.
 * 3) The biggest problem is that neither NYT nor Aljazeera say the Rapid Intervention Group is another name for the Tiger Squad. We cannot attribute the actions described in the NYT article to the Tiger Squad. What if, theoretically, there are more squads/groups, and what if some members are members of both of them? What is described in the History and composition section does not necessarily apply to the Rapid Intervention Group described by NYT. The link is established by NYT through Khashoggi's assassination so it is OK to mention the NYT report, and the Rapid Intervention Group in the section about the "alleged operation" but to interperet it in a way that Rapid Intervention Group = Tiger Squad would be WP:OR. If one of the sources says Rapid Intervention Group is the same as the Tiger Squad, please quote it here. Bellingcat does that, and in this it interprets (and perhaps slightly twists?) the original sources. Bellingcat uses open source info, and does not claim it has access to witnessess, journalists etc. on the groupnd, or intelligence reports. I think both newspapers are very well aware why not to make that link (bcs. there are no sources proving Rapid Intervention Group = Tiger Squad), otherwise they would link the two and have an even better story.
 * 4) Consequently, the victims reported by NYT cannot be attributed to the Rapid Intervention Group; also without providing a summary in the article about what the Tiger Squad did to them, the list is not helpful; the list served as a quick summary of the names of the victims of the alleged operations described in the article; the people you added, are of course, part of 2017–19 Saudi Arabian purge anyway.
 * 5) The One source tag is used in several ways. It says "This article relies largely or entirely on a single source." Much info in this article comes only from MEE, and the problem is, quoting WP:ONESOURCE: "Original research: Information in a single-sourced article beyond what is drawn from its lone source is likely original research – facts and ideas not already published by reliable sources." and Inaccurate information: Without additional citations providing access to further information about the single source's content, it is possible for inaccurate or outdated material to persist.

On a personal note, it is not my intention to disrupt useful additions to the article but to report facts as facts, and "alegations" and "rumors" as what they are; all, of course, properly attributed. I also think it quite possible the two names mean the same group but my personal opinion is irrelevant. Info has to be backed by sources, not our interpretation. The sources Bellingcat uses can be used in this article to back up the connection between TS and SRID. But it would be much better if the sometimes conflicting info was kept separate and attributed properly to the sources. I advise not to add yources which just retell other sources and not to add info not presented as fact. WikiHannibal (talk) 11:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Salam, when you respond, kindly copy and quote the lines from comment above and then reply inline in separate subsections. This will make the discussion easier to comprehend. regards.  D Big X ray ᗙ  11:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , no need for that. His whole comment can be summarised by saying it is original research or SYNTH. it's not, the first source that published reports about the tiger squad said it is called the rapid intervention group by American officials and another source also says the same. The other points are all related except the Russian source which I don't want to discuss right now. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Both MEE(which is the source that firstly reported about tiger squad) and bellingcat are considered reliable sources. Both says that the are the same group no original research here.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)