Talk:Mullah Omar/Archive 1

Comments

It is another person, Maulvi Omar of bajaur, not this Mullah Omar of Kandahar, who is believed to be killed in Oct 2008 in Bajaur, as qouted in last paragraph with reference number 26.

202.125.156.122 (talk) 05:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mullah Omar did not fight as part of the Mujahedeen with Haraket-e-Inquilab Islami, he fought with Hizb-e-Islami (The Party of Islam), as it clearly says on page 19 of Ahmed Rashid's book, which is cited (#13). (67.193.131.83 (talk) 18:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Major Vandalism

This article suffers from major vandalism and needs to be completely reworked. 68.205.41.34 (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Re: the recent edit removing information about the title Mullah Omar. I know nothing of Muslim history, but if he were claiming an ancient title, why not rewrite it but say so? If it is nonsense for him to do so, then the article should say so, but, knowing nothing about the religion, the title or the man, I can't see why this claim is unworthy of mention. What if a Spanish political leader suddenly started calling himself El Cid? For that matter, is it utterly meaningless that Martin Luther King was named after a great religious revolutionary? That fallen away Methodist, Ortolan88

amir al-mu'minin is the traditional title of the caliphs, the highest religious and political authorities in (sunni) Islam. parts of the information in the article was simply wrong, and the rest is highly dubious. If he called himself so, it should certainly be included as a fact in the article (for my part, I never heard about it), but not in this way. How would you think about a self-appointed pope? --Elian

Actually, in that general vicinity there have been religious/political leaders, who took similar titles. Shamil (1797-1871) of Chechnya/Dagestan (he fought the Russians in the Caucasus) had people say "Muhammad is the first prophet; Shamil is his second." It is not as uncommon as the article makes out. There is precedent. Danny

Hmm... "said to belong to the prophet Mohammed". Am I being picky or would "rumoured" be a better choice of word? Lezek

Unless they were written rumours, said seems perfectly accurate to me. -- Derek Ross

taken from the article: This intense piety manifested itself in the destruction of two large statues of Buddha which stood at the cliffs of Bamiyan in Afghanistan, which some had considered archaeological and historical treasures. Osama bin Ladin commended Omar for ordering this action.

The article doesn't get better if polemics and sarcasm from another POV are added. Surely these phrases can be formulated in a neutral way... --Elian

It's not sarcastic. His piety led him to order the destruction of what he considered idols. Feel free to rephase rather than delete. -- Someone else 03:19 Nov 3, 2002 (UTC)

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1010/p1s4-wosc.html

the large portions of the biographical data seem to be taken from this public domain article - christian science monitor does not seem to be biased in favor of mullah omar (in fact, the article is pretty much advocating intervention in avganistan). thus, the portions of the articles are restored - it is not true that it was wrong data.

CSM is not in any way, whatsoever "public domain". --mav

whatever, the information is from that article - maybe it should be rephrased, if it is not public domain - but the source is found.

it's not a question if the information can be found somewhere, the information is misleading and the writer of the article had obviously no clue about Islam:

"Omar is the first Muslim since the Fourth Caliph, a nephew of Prophet Mohammed, to publicly accept the Amirul title, a ranking in Islam nearly second to the Prophet. His title, "Commander of the Faithful," has not been adopted by any Muslim anywhere for nearly 1000 years." "The title of commander of the faithful which is characteristic of the caliph was created in the period of the first four caliphs. [...] The caliphs inherited the title c.o.t.f from each other. It became a characteristic of the ruler of the Hijaz, Syria, and the Iraq...Abd ar-Rahmnan III adopted the ways of the caliphs... he had himself called Commander of the Faithful and assumed the surname (...) This custom, which he was the first to practice, was followed and became an established one" (Ibn Khaldoun, one of the most important arabic historians)

The title amir al-mu'minin was carried by the Fatimids, the spanish Umayads, the Almohads, and is carried until today by the Kings of Saudi Arabia and Morocco (Gerhard Endreß, Der Islam) Besides, it's not amirul, at least as much as in English you don't say "commanderofthe faithful". The article is rubbish. --Elian

This article should be renamed to "Mohammad Omar", since the naming convention apparently omits titles such as Mullar, King, Sir etc. Some say he isn't qualified to call himself Mullah in any case.

yes, it should. --Elian

moved -- Someone else

---

I am not sure the photo on the page is legit. Look at the photo at this link: http://www.rightword.net/Anuke/photos/mullah_omar.jpg and compare it to the one on the page. I think at the very least, the image has been edited. I am not sure the features shown actually belong with the background. Note especially the eyes, and how they appear different.

Major revision

An anon inserted some praise of Bin Laden, which I thought POV. In the course of excising it, I realized that the article was disorganized. I rewrote extensively, trying to make it flow better. I need to look at the links and see if they're OK. Lots of the info needs references. I believe that there is further info out there. I remember reading about Omar's wives, the mansion he was building outside Kandahar, and the general shock when he went into a local shrine and laid hands on a robe said to have belonged to the prophet Muhammad. He donned the robe and showed himself to the crowds. All this needs to be documented. Zora 05:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism

Major fragments of this text are simply copied word for word from "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.6.219.210 (talk)

Could you specify which fragments exactly?--Konstable 06:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Specifically in the Overview section! "remarkably little is known..." is on page 287 of Ghost Wars. Elsewhere in the Wiki, fragments are taken word for word. Did Steve Coll help write this article?

I redid the overview, merging it with the initial section. Unsigned person, since you have Coll's book, maybe you could scan the history of this article to smoke out the originator of the plagiarism. Then we could fix the (rather serious) problem.

LDH 07:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding in Pakistan?

I am removing the line that claims Mullah Omar is hiding in Pakistan. There is no evidence to indicate that, and Mr Karzai's simply claiming as such does not merit it as fact.

I bet you feel silly now.65.209.62.115 (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

FWIW the guy at lower right in this montage http://wincoast.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=12750&d=1169354044 is purportedly Mullah Omar. The photo is from the reasonably sane paper Ash-sharq al-Awsat. LDH 09:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad Unspun

I deleted the ref to

http://www.jihadunspun.com/theplayers/mullahoverview.htm

because Jihad Unspun is a very untrusworthy commercial website. See e.g.

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Apr/08-205989.html

LDH 06:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you're going to call it "untrustworthy" because the US government says so and because it doesn't agree with their agenda? You might as well delete all website critizing ANYTHING since a lot of times, critical websites are deemed "untrustworthy" by other governments. Don't think I agree with the article or even the Jihad Unspun website, because I don't. But, to keep the article NPOV, I'm adding it back in. Armyrifle 14:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I call Bev Giesbrecht (=Jihad Unspun) untrustworthy because she lies constantly. That's the only reason. LDH 15:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

IMO we should just dispose of these maybe-copyrighted maybe-unsound images. Instead of hosting them here, we could say in the ref's (press, official sites) "contains a photograph" or "purported photograph" or whatever.

LDH 19:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

his position

Is Amir al-Mu'minin different from kalif?Does he became kalif?YODAFON 02:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bin Laden years

I'm surprised there's no text about the relationship between Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden. In Lawrence Wright's book The Looming Tower there's lots of information about this, and the negotiations between Mullah Omar and Prince Turki of Saudi Arabia about getting the Taliban to expel bin Laden. --RenniePet 14:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --BoogaLouie 17:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate navbox

There is something very confusing about calling Omar the "successor" and "predecessor" to Rabbani, especially when the title at the top of the box is the "self-called Commander of the Faithful" that I doubt Rabbani claims. Also, it's by no means obvious that Omar's term in power ended in 2001, not if he's affecting politics in 2006 and pro-Taliban commanders are still loyal to him. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Childhood

The background information for Mullah Omar states that his father died before he was born and that the responsibility for fending for his family fell to him (Omar). This would not be possible since it would be at least a decade before he would be old enough to accomplish much in the area of fending for a family (newborns and toddlers can't do much about putting food on the table). Therefore, his family must have relied on some other support system. I suspect this reference to Omar taking the responsibility for fending for his family has a POV issue behind it, meant to make out Omar to be a respectable man of noble character at the expense of presenting accurate, reliable information about his background. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.245.17 (talk) 04:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the information comes from Ahmed Rashid and having read his book on the Taliban, I can testify Mr. Rashid cannot be accused of portraying the Taliban in a favorable light. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In further (albeit heuristic) defense of the information, in extremely poor families an amount of responsibility falls on the eldest child that most comfortable people can't even imagine. When he was two he probably didn't help much. When he was four, he may well have been the (literal) breadwinner. 49giantsharks (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So that gave his mother at least 4 years to find bread (probably more, even Afghan 4 year olds are not superman (unless of course he was a boy-toy as that occurs a lot there. Reading the article it makes sense that he provided for his family by being prostituted very early on. It may also explain his demented psychological state later in life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.166.112.176 (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Childhood 2.

I've found this in the section:

"He was known to have often sex with sheeps during his early teenage years, and was locally well known as "Sheep-molester Mohammed" due his zoophilic habits."

Although it is funny and have certainly made me laugh for a few minutes, I doubt it has got anything to do with real life facts (but who knows), so I've deleted it. Winyetta (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bombing/death

More links and details on the bombing, a bunch of notable people got knocked out. [1],[2],[3]

71.191.40.106 (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is not the same guy. See the second link:

This is apparently not the Mohammed Omar, known better as Mullah Omar, the leader of the Afghan Taliban in exile.

71.191.40.106 (talk) 04:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Predator strike

this is not the same Mohammed Omar, is it? 'US strike' kills Taleban leader Rmhermen (talk) 02:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-I second this question. The facts look right, because he joined the taliban in the 90s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.233.91.73 (talk) 03:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not the same. See above. 71.191.40.106 (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen anything on U.S. national T.V. news about Mohammed Omar being killed. Kingturtle (talk) 12:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ARTICLE IS VERY POORLY WRITTEN AND SPEWED WITH WAR PROPAGANDA. TRYING TO SHOW HIM AS A VILLIAN- RATHER THAN A NEUTRAL COMMENTARY. ANY "INTERVIEWS" AFTER THE INVASION OF AFGHANISTAN ARE MORE SUSPECT. IF THEY DO NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT HE LOOKED LIKE, HOW ARE THEY SO SURE IT WAS HIM AND NOT NATO WAR PROPAGANDA?

Wikipedia is at it again

"He is wanted by U.S. authorities for defending Afghanistan from a NATO invasion."

See the pro-Taliban POV edit there.

This is why I will never trust this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.99.202.223 (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Ghani Baradar

Seems like some mention of Abdul Ghani Baradar should be included. According to a recent Newsweek article, Abdul Ghani Baradar is now Omar's number-two guy.[4] 173.49.135.190 (talk) 02:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Name

The article name should also include the word "Mullah" to make the person's identity much more clear. I know it is a title, but he is widely known as "Mullah Omar". So it is not a title any more, but it is part of his name. There are other Mohammad Omars - like the current governor of Kunduz Province. It is just a suggestion and I will wait for few days before moving the page and see what other Wikipedians will suggest. (Ketabtoon (talk))

While we generally don't include titles in article names, but I agree that it is near synonymous with him; and we have many articles that "mistakenly" use Hazrat/Hafiz and similar titles. Pretty sure some of the Popes may have "Pope" in their articletitle as well. shrugs I've got nothing against the idea. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wrong link

where is written "Operation Enduring Freedom" now link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001-present) and should link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Enduring_Freedom

dead???

is he really dead?!--70.54.33.64 (talk) 06:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe but not sufficient verified yet. IQinn (talk) 06:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Taliban says he is alive. [5] IQinn (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So far, only media agencies are saying it. Until a Pakistani or Afghan government official agrees with the report, I would reserve judgement on its veracity. Cla68 (talk) 07:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's dead now. link Inkan1969 (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dates, places, etc seem wrong

I don't know much about this but the dates and places seem out of whack in several places. I thought folks like Nek Mohammed were a generation after this guy, and wouldn't have led anyone against Russia. The "several Muslims consider him to be emir" should probably be "the Taliban consider him...", and there are too many "thought to have beens" in here, which make the thing look like a gossip column.

Mullah Omar no more FBI’s most wanted

Should be incorporated into the article. Geo8rge (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo source

The magnumphotos website as a photo source is not reliable, because it's heavy on scripts (not just JavaScript), won't display in Firefox, and won't display with NoScript on. -Mardus (talk) 02:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mullah Omar photos (discussion moved here)

I do not think the picture used in the current article is the only known image of the man. This screen-shot of Mullah Omar in 1996 holding the cloak of Muhammad filmed by the BBC shows him [6], This image is also believed to be of him before he lost his right eye [7], This image of a man described as being Mullah Omar [8] looks very similar to this image [9] and this image [10],[11] shown in this Vanity Fair article [12] also bears similarities with [13], in terms of the beard line along the mans cheekbones. --Ritsaiph (talk) 03:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times article I'm referencing shows the same photo that's in the article, and says it's the only known photograph of him. -Mardus (talk) 03:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, "the only known photograph" rules out films, and other photos are not confirmed with certainty that it is him. I can qualify the caption with the word 'confirmed'. -Mardus (talk) 03:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I forget to add these images:[14],[15],[16]--Ritsaiph (talk) 04:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no more certainty that the image used in the article is him then any other image which purports to be him. The New York Times can make any statement they like regarding this, it doesn't mean that they are correct. Far more reliable sources use many images depicting him than just the one used in the article stating it is the only one known. This article states that a different image is one of the few images known to be him [17] while this states that the two images used by the U.S State Department, of which the one from the article is from, are not of Omar [18]. So there is no real consensus over which images are of him or not, nor of when each picture was taken. This article describes the current image used in the article as being taken from the late 1990's [19], in contrast to the Vanity Fair article which stated it was taken in 1993. I'm not saying the image is not of him, but I am saying that stating it is the only confirmed photo or the only known photo of him is probably not a correct statement. It might give readers the impression that it could be true, when it might not be. --Ritsaiph (talk) 04:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times caption under the photo states 'photograph' and not just 'image', and the three images you referred to are all from the same source, which appears to be a video, so the statement of 'photo' as in 'photograph' taken with an actual photo camera and not a video camera stands correct. The Al Jazeera article has a different photo that says "one of the only known photos". I suppose the New York Times did its due diligence in fact-checking, and found out that the photo in this article and their article is the only known photograph where there person depicted is unambiguously confirmed as Mohammed Omar. The iconicphotos.wordpress.com source is a blog and not a reputable source. The New Yorker photo is the same photo as that in this article and the State Department website; just that the photo from Magnum at the New Yorker site has better photographic quality, while the State Department version of the photo looks like an enhanced copy of a photocopy. The qualifier 'confirmed' works, because Omar's loss of one eye makes his appearance distinct and easily identifiable, so there can be no ambiguity as to who that person is. The image at the Al Jazeera site deserves more scrutiny. -Mardus (talk) 12:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Death date

Since the Taliban, who are in the best position to know, have denied reports that Mullah Omar died in 2013 and say instead that he died within the last two weeks, why does this article give the 2013 date? JRSpriggs (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's to happen about the stories 'claiming' to be Omar? Obviously if he died in 2013 he wouldn't have been the one to issue a fatwa about ISIS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.210.228 (talk) 12:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence of the lead says of reports that Omar died in 2013, "These reports were confirmed by the Afghan intelligence agency and the Taliban the following day.< ref>"Afghanistan says Taliban leader Mullah Omar died 2 years ago". msn.com.</ref>" The cited report says "... though it was not confirmed by the Taliban or Pakistan." (emphasis added). In other words, the citation which supposedly confirmed that the Taliban agreed with the 2013 death date, does not in fact say that. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect birth date

The article currently lists the birth date as 1950-1952. The cited articles, as well as the sidebar, state 1950-1962. Note the third digit change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCEA:17F0:D1FA:61CE:5105:74 (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editing of article

It has come to my attention that as soon as recent reports of this individual hit the news in the last week, editors have constantly changed and added rather bizarre and amateurish statements and additions to this article. I will revert any nonsense. --Ritsaiph (talk) 07:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Death place

There have been many attempts to introduce Karachi as his death place in the infobox factually. That claim was made by the Afghan intelligence and has been dismissed by the Taliban and has also not been verified independently. Please do not instate dubious, unverified claims. Faizan (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General Ization, I don't get your point. Why do you believe just being sourced makes someone's claims accurate enough to be put here without verification? Faizan (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"A spokesman for Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security earlier told the Associated Press that Omar, who had a $10m U.S. State Department bounty on his head, had died in a Karachi hospital." What kind of verification do you think we should undertake of this report? What I don't understand is why you're persistently removing the citation. Perhaps it should be in the body rather than the infobox, and include inline attribution of the source, but when someone removes cited content with the edit summary "not verified", and the content matches the statements at the source, it fails the smell test for me. General Ization ^Talk 21:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karachi is not a safe heaven for terrorists. The Taliban have rejected that claim, in fact, the Taliban said that he did not even go to Pakistan for a single day. that's why it needs to be verified. Any other county has also not claimed that he died in Karachi. Faizan (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and we've never had any reason to doubt what the Taliban say up until now, have we? An alternative to removing the cited content is to add something to indicate that it is not universally accepted as fact, i.e. {{disputed-inline}}. General Ization ^Talk 21:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it is used in the infobox, could you kindly restore/move the citation you removed to the first sentence of the Death section, where it sources what the Afghan government said on July 29, and to resolve the current cite error being generated for the ref named "time-2015"? General Ization ^Talk 21:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could restore it yourself, anyway, I have moved it. I am sorry for that cite error. Faizan (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mullah Omar has lived in Karachi, Pakistan, since 1979, he "worked as potato vendor." [20] How can someone say that he never spent a day in Pakistan? I wonder what is in the brains of these people who claim to be so religious but they lie like 4 year old kids.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 08:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Omar first arrived in Karachi in 1979 to study at the Jamia Binoria Dar-ul-Aloom... he graduated in 1982 and returned to Afghanistan... Omar regularly visited Karachi until founding the Taliban movement in the mid-1990s and its subsequent seizure of most of Afghanistan... After the 2001 overthrow of the Taliban regime, its leadership fled to cities in Pakistan. Many lived as refugees in Peshawar and Quetta, western Pakistani cities near the border with Afghanistan, but most headed for Karachi, the former Taliban minister said. However, Omar did not leave Afghanistan until late 2002, despite the urgings of his colleagues, according to the sources. When he did, he headed to Karachi. 'Karachi was Omar’s natural destination because he had lived there for quite some time and was as familiar with the city as any other resident,' said the former Taliban official, who was a member of the Quetta Shura, the Taliban’s cabinet-in-exile."

Source here

It is an established fact that Taliban commanders and leaders are heavily influenced by Pakistan, the Pakistanis instruct the Taliban to say to the media that Omar was not for a day in Pakistan. Just like they have been saying that Osama bin Laden was not in Pakistan until Americans went to Pakistan and killed him there and the whole world became witness to this.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 08:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Faizan is Pakistani and usually has a difficult time with anything that reflects negatively on the country.65.209.62.115 (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is an agenda for both the Afghan and Pakistani defense and security establishments to deny that the founder of the Taliban movement died on their soil. Krzyhorse22 stop misconstruing what your cited source details. It mentions that he visited Karachi in 1979, not that he had "lived in Karachi, Pakistan, since 1979" as you stated. You imply that he has lived their continuously in Pakistan, in order to remove any attachment to Afghanistan. Furthermore, the source states that he lived in Karachi "between late 2002 and early 2005" not that he had lived there continuously after the Taliban's downfall or even spent his final days there. Your source then reads "It’s impossible to independently confirm this version of Mullah Omar’s activities" so even this version of events you cited is mere speculation at this point. What is more, this version is in contradiction to many other sources which claim the Pakistani intelligence apparatus knew Omar's whereabouts and sheltered him. This source states it was "a highly secretive, compartmentalized network in Karachi" which protected the Taliban leadership and Omar. --Ritsaiph (talk) 08:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Control your emotions. You don't seem to understand about the Afghans in Pakistan. Read that article. Omar is considered one of these refugees living in Pakistan since 1979. Whenever one of these refugees (like Omar) go back and forth between the two countries he is still considered an Afghan refugee living in Pakistan. In other words, physically being in Afghanistan for some time does not alter the official status of the refugee, that's how Pakistani law and UNHCR view it. All the sources confirm that he has been living (on and off) in Karachi, Pakistan. What's the point in denying this? Pakistanis (the entire nation) will always deny that these people (terrorists, Taliban, al-Qaeda, etc.) live or lived on their soil, just like they denied that Osama bin Laden lived on their soil. And no, I didn't say Omar lived continuously in Karachi. It's established fact that he was ruling Afghanistan from c. 1995 to late 2001, why would you even assume that I said such? This is only the talk page, we may not use precise words but only make a point. Only a dumb ass would assume that Omar was in Afghanistan from 2003 to his death when every village of southern Afghanistan was monitored by NATO-led forces. Omar had $10 million dollars on his head and too many enemies in Afghanistan, it's extremely unlikely that he was in Afghanistan. The population is too small to hide amongst, plus there were many spies searching for him who had the $10 million on their mind.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a secret that Taliban leaders grew up in Pakistan, and are openly going everywhere in Pakistan with the assistance of Pakistan's government. [21]--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cite for me where Pakistani law and UNHCR state that assertion. Otherwise refrain from making false statements of belief. I'm aware of the subject travelling to Pakistan (The country directly bordering his homeland Afghanistan, directly bordering his native Kandahar province) in the early 1990's. I thought to be a refugee depended entirely on your current circumstances, not your past. So he was forever an Afghan refugee, even when he was living in Afghanistan throughout most of the 90's and the de-facto Head of State of Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001? You did state he had lived in Pakistan continuously since 1979, I quote you: "Mullah Omar has lived in Karachi, Pakistan, since 1979". Please, don't deny things you have typed on this talk page.--Ritsaiph (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're an incompetent POV-pusher, I don't waste time with POV-pushers. When someone holds the status (for example) of a lawful permanent resident (LPR) in the United States and he legally lives outside the U.S., he is still considered as living in the United States despite being physically outside the U.S. Suppose Omar was born in Afghanistan, he then legally entered the U.S. in 1979 and obtained an LPR status and then he also lived in Afghanistan, we would recognize him as an LPR of the U.S., and simply say he lived in the United States since 1979. I don't know what country you're from but Wikipedia is based in the United States so we use the laws of U.S.A. in situations such as this.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A POV pusher. That's rather amusing coming from someone who seems to think that the Taliban are somehow anathema to Afghanistan. How did you go from citing Pakistani and UNHCR law to the law of the United States concerning lawful permanent residents in order to prove a point? Cite for me what you stated: "that's how Pakistani law and UNHCR view it". I try to not waste my time on idiots who do not support their assertions with facts and forget what they state, but in your case, I will make an exception. --Ritsaiph (talk) 05:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nonsense you write here evidently shows that you're not only biased but also you know very little about the Taliban and Pakistan, especially the city of Karachi where 18 million Pakistanis live. UNHCR is an agency of the United Nations which is based in New York (USA). The way it views Afghan refugees is the way the United States view them. According to Pakistani law, Afghans living in Pakistan are "legal residents" of Pakistan. They each carry an ID card issued by Pakistan's federal government, it's the equivalent of an "alien registration card" issued to noncitizens in the United States. Bottom line, Mullah Omar was a "legal resident" of Pakistan since 1979. He was living in Pakistan from late 2002 until April 2013. There is substantial evidence to support this, but to claim he was living in Afghanistan while there were 100,000 Americans (and one million Afghans) looking for him is like saying he was living in Texas. The Taliban and their historical Pakistani supporters may assert that he was not even for one day in Pakistan but that does not make it true. Pakistanis have asserted the same about Osama bin Laden from 2001 to 2011.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you and me were at a bar somewhere, I would be slapping you around in front of chicks like how Moe Howard slaps Curly and Larry.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was plenty of opportunity for Omar to live in Afghanistan after 2001. A $10 million bounty is meaningless if you have no idea what exactly the person looks like. In Omar's case, he was so unrecognizable due to his reclusive nature, that he would allegedly venture on the streets of Kandahar and overhear what Kandaharis would say about the Taliban regime.[22] That may or may not be true. But what is true is that the vast majority of Afghans did not know what he looked like. The Americans got it wrong when they posted the wrong images of Mullah Omar on their wanted cards [23], [24], [25], [26]. A commonly used picture for Mullah Omar by the U.S was just a bearded Afghan man that appeared in a BBC article in 1999 [27], [28]. --Ritsaiph (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you would hit a girl in a bar? You are a freak. --Ritsaiph (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think for a minute to how dumb your logic is? You make it seem as if Omar had no friends and nobody ever saw his him. Do you have any idea how many people saw him and were constantly meeting him since his birth until his death? In southern Afghanistan, everyone know each other through tribe, clan, family connection and etc. It's almost impossible for a stranger to live there without revealing himself. Even a person of other ethnic group cannot mix with others. Sure, they (those who were close to him, especially family and friends) knew exactly where he was all the time. They are all completely poor people and you know what poor people would do in such situations. There is always one snitch. Unless you're going to say Omar was some kind of a 007 agent who could fool all the people by putting on masks of other people and pretending to be someone else. Does it make any sense for someone who is wanted so badly to wonder around in an area where he is wanted? Sure it's possible he could've been in Afghanistan. It's also possible that he could've been living near the White House. I have no problem with theories, but to say he was not for one day in Pakistan is simply illogical. And no, I don't hit females. You do not behave like a female. You behave more like StanTheMan87 (talk · contribs) / StanMan87 (talk · contribs)--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't behave like a female?? You behave more like a misogynistic 13 year old. Perhaps being rejected by your first crush was what led you to lead a life of stupidity on the internet. --Ritsaiph (talk) 02:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been online since February 1997. Just imagine how many failures in life I've seen come and go.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]