Jump to content

Talk:Osama bin Laden/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Bin Laden's Iranian Connection

Should we include the meetings between Bin Laden's Egyptian associates and the Pasderan, his associates and the Iranian ministry of Intelligence and Security, as well as his personal meeting with an Iranian intell officer in Afghanistan, July 96? If so, where?

AaronXavier 21:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

"US Gov't not an independent source for tape's authenticity test"

"The authenticity of this tape and other post-September 11 tapes of Bin Laden is disputed. [4][5][6]. Furthermore, those tapes were never independently verified [7][8], however U.S. intelligence agencies claim their authenticity. Note that, U.S. Govt. being a part in the dispute cannot be considered an independent source for tapes authenticity test."

And those who dispute the authenticity of the tapes are unbiased, objective, independent observers? I deleted the last sentence there; it's nothing more than a not-too-subtle attack on the authenticity of the tapes with no evidence behind it. It'd be like saying "The authenticity of this and other post-September 11th tapes of Bin Laden is disputed. Note that many of those who dispute the authenticity have been long-time purveyors of 'conspiracy theories' and critics of the American government, and cannot be be considered independent sources."

Please see Proving a negative -- That Guy, From That Show! 14:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I added it back because that sentence doesn't deny tapes' authenticity. It's a note to prevent fallacy, something you failed to spot. --62.168.125.219 17:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


BinLaden denies it's authenticity - his word against the US government - the US government's word is questionable, how about Osama's?

Bin Laden is more truthful than the government any day of the week.

-G

I wouldn't go that far with that presumption. But, there is a large problem with many who don't trust OBL at all except for (*boggle*) completely trusting and agreeing with only one specific passage that they feel specifies that he undeniably admits to participating in 9/11 when in reality he only mentioned that he thought about applying 'an eye for an eye' regarding the USA at some point in that sentence.
They most often choose to not believe ANYTHING he has ever said yet oddly enough completely support and believe without reservation an ambiguous reference regarding thoughts of a reciprocal action.
-- That Guy, From That Show! 04:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Modified the phrasing on the perception of bin Laden's connections to terrorism

I changed the following line in the first paragraph from the following:

"Many in the West consider him a terrorist."

To

"He is widely regarded to be the organizer and financier of numerous acts of terrorism."

The original phrasing strikes me as a misguided attempt at NPOV; it is actually slightly-NPOV by implying that the perception of bin Laden as a terrorist is limited to "many" Westerners. In addition, the term "West," when used as a dilineation of culture, is archaic and should be used sparingly. The new phrasing omits "West" while avoiding an outright declaration that he is a terrorism.

This article is classic weaselism, the first paragraph about a person recognized to the public because of acts of mass murder doesn't even mention that and despite saying definitively later down in the article that he was responsible for murder/terrorism, the second paragraph calls him an 'alleged' terrorist.

Text should include motives of Osama bin Laden

I don't think the text of the article provides the motives and justifications in which Osama bin Laden has used. I think it should be necessary to include a headlind outlining what he's used as his reasoning for terrorist actions (as declared by the United States). I recently wrote a report on the subject and couldn't find any information from wikipedia, so i believe its important to include it for future scholars.

An Edit

Old Version:

Bin Laden continues to hold support and loyalty from much of the Muslim world. The West, particularly the United States, persistently sees him as the leader of a terrorist organization that seeks the destruction of the the West and the creation of a fundamentalist pan-Islamic caliphate.

New Version:

Bin Laden continues to hold support and loyalty from the extremist fringe of the Muslim world. The West, particularly the United States, persistently sees him as the leader of a terrorist organization that seeks the destruction of the the West and the creation of a fundamentalist pan-Islamic caliphate.

The old version was inflamitory and untrue, as the vast majority of the world's Muslims condemn Al Qaeda, it's leader, and religious-based violence in any form.


I didn't change it back, but this seems to be a POV edit, it's well established that a significant portion of the Muslim world, or 'much of', does hold a favorable opinion of Bin Laden. See polls such as this reported on by CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/08/poll.binladen/


The phrase "from the extremist fringe of" can be understood to include the possibility of "from much of", provided "extremist" refers to the nature of the ideas. Surely, more than half of the world's population believes such ideas to be "extreme". The opinion of the Moslems as a group is not relevant here. At times, entire peoples or nations have had extremist views; "extremist" does not imply "minority". In addition, the phrasing "from the extremist fringe of" is more sensitive to the Muslim part of this world that does not hold "extremist" views, of which there are millions, almost surely hundreds of millions. It is thus to be preferred.

Second Place in Time Poll

Noted while reading about Masashi_Tashiro and appropriated for Osama page.

61.71.68.10 11:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Some Edits I made

I just want to make people aware of some of the edits I just made to the last two paragraphs of this article about the recent tape just released by al-Jazeera. The easiest way to do so is to paste the way it was before above the way it is now. Tell me if you object to any of my edits.

Old version...

The speaker did not outline all of conditions for a truce in the excerpts aired by the Arab news network, but it did say that the withdrawal of U.S. forces (from Iraq and Afghanistan) was only one of several ``conditions [20][21].
The January 18th tape made reference to a the leak of a document apparently making note of President George Bush's alleged mention of a bombing of al-Jazeera offices; this story broke in the British press on November 22, 2005. In addition, it included comments that were indicative of it being recent, including a mention of declining favorbility in polls from Americans on whether to remain in Iraq or not.

My version...

The speaker did not outline all the conditions for a truce in the excerpts aired by the Arab news network, but he did say that the withdrawal of U.S. forces (from Iraq and Afghanistan) was only one of several ``conditions [20][21].
The January 18th tape made reference to the leaking of a British memo claiming that President George Bush had allegedly suggested bombing al-Jazeera's offices in Qatar to Prime Minister Tony Blair; this story broke in the British press on November 22, 2005. In addition, it included other comments that were indicative of it being recent, including a mention of polls that show the American public's declining support for remaining in Iraq.

My edits are in bold for your viewing pleasure!

paragon 10:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Osama visiting the West

The "Oxford" image caption reads: However, little evidence has turned up indicating bin Laden ever visited the West..

I don't believe that at all. It's been widely reported that the entire family, including Osama, visited Sweden (and in particular Falun) in the early 70's. Picture: [1] and a story mentioning the fact: [2]. After 9/11 there were plenty of stories in the Swedish press about this fact, with many interviews with locals who remembered them. (A large, rich Saudi family visiting small-town Sweden is certainly a memorable event, and was even more so in the 70's) Try googling for "bin Laden" and "Falun". I don't see how that is 'little evidence' or why someone would despute this. --BluePlatypus 15:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's an example (in Swedish) from 9/21 2001. If noone minds, I'm going to change the article. On one hand we've got the Swedish news stories, with witness accounts talking both about Osama and his brother Salem and a picture with both someone who looks like Osama and someone who looks like Salem (Salem in 1975) and on the other side there's a New Yorker story, which speaks of "mistaken identity" but doesn't actually provide any reason why that'd be the case, other than that someone who'd known bin Laden says otherwise. --BluePlatypus 23:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

succession box

does anyone have a strong opinion on the Al-Qaeda leader succession box? It was added today by an anon, and later deleted by another anon.--Alhutch 21:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It's balderdash. -Mr. Billion 23:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
That's a polite way of putting it. :) --Lee Hunter 23:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Last paragraph of the beginning section

I fixed some rather odd things in this paragraph -- I'm not sure it needs to be there at all. Your thoughts?

It says he has supporti n the Muslim world, which is important and true, and that the U.S. views him with antipathy, which is important and true. Maybe the last sentence can go. Graft 17:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Militant?

Is there a rational reason for labeling this guy and his organization as a "militant," and not a terrorist?

MSTCrow 02:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
That would be a good question you could pose to PBS, History Channel, Discovery Channel, USA Today, and many, many other text/video who use that same description.
10:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
This has been debated throughout the life of this article. Check the archives for pros and cons. --Lee Hunter 14:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


Reasons for Bin Laden's Activities

Apart from the reason given to the public for Bin Laden's destructive activities against the Western world "an opportunity to promote Wahabbism" and so forth, does anyone know the real reason for Bin Laden's hatred towards Americans?

It's the united states... take your pick.

-G

He just doing his job as a CIA agent

You can call him a mercinary. 5/1/06 6:44 PM EST

He hates the US because it's the world's primary superpower and it is non-muslim. Following in the tradition of Mohammed, Bin Laden regards Islam (i.e. Allah's word) as the only legitimate source of governance and submission to it is required. More specifically, Bin Laden is unhappy that infidel US troops are on "holy" Islamic land, the land of Mecca and Medina--Islam's two holiest sites. US troops are there at the request of the Saudi government. According to Bin Laden's own statements, this is the fact that most enrages him--namely that he cannot dictate US-Saudi relations.

Also this entry is a bunch of PC nonsense. On the one hand we're told that only a small extremist fringe of muslims supports him (which of course is demonstrable rubbish given polling data colected post 9/11), but on the other tremendous care is taken to make this extremist fringe's argument that he is a "militant" and that his violence is born of legitimate grievance. And it ain't. But only Westerners would bend over backwards to placate their enemy who wishes nothing but their conversion or death. 

   *well put 69.141.213.168 19:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)hoorah

Who cares what he's classified as, anyone who conspires in killing hundreds and thousands of people, innocent people, civilians, non-combatants. Fact is, the majority of us "westerners" could care less what this man is called, we just want vengence for those who've been sacraficed for pointless hatred, media propaganda on the other hand is a different story. Over generalization only makes your point invalid, don't base everything off what you see on TV, especially the American press, who's goal is to make every incident into more hyped up drama for better ratings.

Ideas?

In May of 1996, the Sudanese government decided they'd had enough of bin Laden (or are just that willing to back-stab their former friends), and offered to give him over to US custody. It's the same year Clinton signed an executive order to destroy his network through any means necessary, however, the US turned down Sudan's offer. That's when he got kicked out and sent off to Afghanistan. Anyone who knows more about the topic have any idea why the US refused to take him??

I believe that then President Clinton believed that he needed some sort of legal charge against OBL, and not being able to think of one, kept the guy loose.
MSTCrow 08:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced quote in September 11 section

The "September 11" section doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia's standards for NPOV or verifiability. The section provides arguments for why each the videos of bin Laden making statements might not be valid, but says nothing on why the first quoted section should be believed. There probably really was a September 28 interview published in this magazine, but there is no link to a source. --Mr. Billion 06:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I anybody going to respond to Mr. Billion? I also noted a similar sentiment in an archived talk page for this article about the same quote (see similar complaint that has been neglected a response). I believe these concerns should be addressed. (Gaytan 15:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC))

Famous?

I am disappointed that the only person who has been added to the 'famous' people list of the 21st century is Osama Bin Laden. In six years, we have only one 'famous' person worth a mention?

Discussion?

"Bin Laden continues to hold support and loyalty from much of the Muslim world" Having worked in Saudi Arabia, UAE, Malaysia and currently with over 10 Muslims in my team, I can say categorically that few Muslims vocally support him. This is patently inaccurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mattsday (talk • contribs) 18:44, 24 February 2006.

Check out the article Worldwide perception of Osama bin Laden. A significant fraction of Muslims view him positively, according to the referenced Pew Global Attitudes Project. --Mr. Billion 00:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I had checked that, but do you think those who support Osama believe he did 11/9? As you read in the article he reject that he was involved in that attack. People who give some of their heart to him will think he done none of it. Almost islamist in my country (Indonesia) doesn't talk much about this and disagree about attacking WTC.Aditthegrat 15:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
He has always rejected that he plotted 9/11. His only mention regarding the actual events was his thoughts about 'an eye for an eye' and ambiguous statements about 'we' (muslims) involved with the actual attacks.
-- That Guy, From That Show!
Severable video- and audiomessages of Osama bin Laden confirm his involvement with 9/11. He gave detailed comments about the organisation of the assault both in the video found in Afghanistan and released by the US State Department on 13 December 2001 and in the audiotape released by al Jazeera 23 May 2006 where he commented about the trial of Zacharias Moussaoui. Otto 10:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Under "Appearance and Manner," "Resistance movement" is biased. This should be changed to militant organization or something along those lines.

Bosnian citizen?

Could someone please give a reference to his Bosnian citizenship since it is not mentioned in his Interpol profile? --Tone 11:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Guilty

Folks, Osama is guilty as hell. The only people who deny it are those who sympathize with Islamic terrorists or have checked their brains at the door. There is no real dispute. Please don't put the garbage that fills your typical Arab paper in the article. Bin Laden did it, he said so, and we will kill him for it.

The 911 section is simply propaganda. It needs revision or deletion. Someone do something about the Islamic conspirary theorists that are hijacking the artcle. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cestusdei (talk • contribs) .

(copied from User talk:RexNL by RexNL) The POV on it is mindboggling. The 911 myth site is ridiculous. Wikipedia should not be in the conspiracy theorist business. It's like arguing that Hitler was not responsible for the holocaust. Please change it or I will report it to wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cestusdei (talk • contribs) .

Being Dutch you should understand. Please rid the thing of POV. How about some facts instead of terrorist propaganda? Whoever wrote that section should be questioned by the FBI or Homeland Security.Cestusdei 00:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Quite a few Wikipedians have contributed to this article. This talk page and the talk archives should give you a sense of how much discussion and negotiation goes into it. Though there are a lot of differing opinions, the current article is a reflection of that negotiated consensus. Perhaps more importantly, the article's content is restricted by Wikipedia's policies on verifiability. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Negotiated? So you just put a little conspiracy theory in it to satisfy the Islamic terrorists? If a website says Osama is an alien maybe we could put that it? No one, no sane rational person, doubts that Osama was behind 911. Any more then one can deny the Holocaust. Anti-American POV seems to pass muster fairly easily I notice. Van Gough died for nothing. No one learns. Cestusdei 00:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You could add to the article. For instance, there isn't a single cite for good information to back up the statement in the introduction that OBL was behind the 9/11 attack. Find sources with quality information about that subject and add them to the article.
Saying that only insane people would reserve judgement about his guilt without evidence isn't helpful when trying to work with other editors.
—-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-03-15 09:54Z

I guess we could just take his word for it. He says he did it. That's good enough for me. It will be nice when his head is on a pike in Times Square. The whole thing reminds me of holocaust deniers who say they want a tape of Hitler ordering the holocaust. Osama was behind 911 and that's a fact whether you like it or not. I would add to the article but the Islamicists will just erase it. They seem to have staked it out as their own. We will have to wait until we capture Osama, but even then there will still be conspiracy theorists who will blame everyone except the terrorists.Cestusdei 04:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia standards do not include a "take one person's word for it" especially when that same person has said the exact opposite numerous times. We can't put on a psychic hat and try to figure out the motivations for such a thing.
I am not arguing about whether this person is guilty or not. This is an encyclopedia and we need to link to evidence & related facts when stating that person X did Y. It doesn't matter who person X is, they need to all be treated to the same standards. Actually, Wikipedia has a much lower standard than "innocent until proven guilty". So, if there is a mountain of evidence to support your view, it will be easy to add that information.
All I am asking is that you contribute and add the credible evidence that you have to the article. I and other editors who want articles to follow Wikipedia standards will respect reputable evidence of that sort that you currently have and are willing to contribute.
Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability for related information.
—-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-03-21 06:18Z

It's not easy at all. The jihadists erase anything they don't like right away. They post using sources that are ludicrous. Biased conspiracy websites that blame the Jews. I seriously doubt that any comments about his guilt will be allowed even when we catch him and he says (again) that he did it.Cestusdei 23:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Would there be any point to using the 9/11 commission report as a source, or is that just Western propaganda too? User: slimdavey

Didn't the first comment that was meant to be from Bin Laden say he didn't do it? But later, in tapes that were meant to be Bin Laden, he said he did do it?[[[User:Halbared|Halbared]] 09:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)]

How about a link to the videotape found in a home in Afghanistan in which Bin Laden says he ordered it, and includes detailed information about the attack? This is ridiculous. How can you let fanatics (and their idiot apologists) influence this entry? Is there also an argument on the "Earth" entry arguing that the world is flat? You really should be embarrassed.

Birthday

I'm curious about where the 3/10/57 date comes from. I don't thnk OBLs DOB is known. I'd like to see a cite for that. 15:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I added an Interpol cite where that specific date has been listed for 8 years. The vast majority of sources for other birth dates are from astrology related groups who use different dates to support (retroactively) their differing claims about OBL. Any sources after 9/11/2001 regarding his birth date and other matters should always be viewed with an extremely critical eye.
—-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-03-10 07:48Z

Civil Engineer & then MBA??

From numerous web sources and from the text in the one video referring to his background, there is evidence that Osama studied Civil engineering and completed his degree in 1979. Also there is evidence that he completed his another degree in 1981 in economics and public administration. I have included both in the text whereas the degree in 1981 was the only one referenced. The civil engineering degree would later prove instrumental in destroying skyscrapers.

Evidence of involvement in 9/11

Regarding the assertion that only the USA believes there is evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11; at least one Saudi Muslim scholar believes it. [3]. OhNoitsJamieTalk 17:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It is wrong to say that only USA believes that because even many people in USA does not believe him involved in 9/11 for example read Noam Chomsky and see this [4] video etc. I want to know that how can something is called evidence when it is not presented in any court of law? Even no one of us know about any such evidence (please do not give me reference of that freaky video). It is pity that some people are so biased towards him that they cannot accept the basic rule that every man is not guilty (innocent) until proved otherwise. Ibrahimfaisal 19:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the wording to "allegedly committed". --Lee Hunter 23:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Great! It is much better now. I tried to make the similar change couple of times but never able to maintain it more than 2 minutes. Let see how long it stays that way, until someone living in cocoon build by west media and Govt. change it back. Thanks --- Ibrahimfaisal 09:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

He said he did it. All evidence points to him. The only ones who don't agree are conspiracy theorists and terrorists. It's like saying Hitler wasn't responsible for the holocaust. Utterly ridiculous. It isn't alleged. He did it and will pay the price. Ibrahim you live in the cocoon of jihadist propaganda. Interesting that you are interested in "fairness" when in Pakistan Christians are routinely abused and killed on mere pretext.Cestusdei 23:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

All evidence points to him. The only ones who don't agree are conspiracy theorists and terrorists - yeah, totally! What a bunch of nuts... but hey you forgot mention another group of whacky conspiricy theorists who like to oh-so-subtly imply that Bin Laden was not responsible for 9/11: ...THE FBI!!!!! --81.158.54.181 20:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Calling everyone who disagrees with you a jihadist or terrorist accomplishes nothing. Though I personally suspect that Bin Laden was behind the attacks, that fact is not unequivocally established. The article presents many facets of the story, as a good article should. I don't understand why you think it's so important to make an absolute statement of guilt in the article. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess Hitler was innocent too. Let's change the article on him to reflect that he had nothing to do with the holocaust. The facts are not unequivocally established, right? Your argument looks a bit strange in that context doesn't it?Cestusdei 03:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you frigging kidding me? "Alleged involvement"? No one can argue that this man is (or at least was at the time) the principal founder and head of al Qaeda. He bankrolled the orgainizaion from it inception. Al Qaeda was responsible for the events of 9/11. Even if you think the man had his eyes shut and his hands over his ears while his lieutents were planning this, he was the leader and, ergo, was responsible. I realize we're striving for objectivity here, but lets not distort the facts to make the evil sound neutral. Check out the Ivan the Terrible article, it does not refer to his "alleged involvement" in the murders of his son or entire cities even though he was not formally convicted in a court of law. 35.12.22.223 16:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Slimdavey

Years or decades from now I suspect historians will be able to say with certainty exactly what his involvement was, just as we are with Hitler and Ivan the Terrible. The overall spin of the article certainly suggests that he was at least indirectly responsible; I don't understand what the problem is with reporting all sides of the issue. OhNoitsJamieTalk 16:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Another terrorist inside USA is found, he is actor Charlie Sheen, check [javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/showbiz/2006/03/23/hammer.sheen.911.theory.cnn','2006/03/30');]. You know in most of the European countries there is a law that anyone who disagrees or even question the holocaust will be punished. Recently an author of a book has been punished because of that law -- check [5]. However, you can easily make fun and abuse Muslim and Islam. It is the Game-of-Power. You are the boss and ruling the world. Go ahead and write back that "there is evidence" but this will not change the facts. Go ahead and call occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan as freedom of those countries. You are the boss... and I am the terrorist. You believe in Bush and according to me he is killing innocient people. Hence if Osama denies 9/11 again and again then I perfer to believe him over Bush Ibrahimfaisal 17:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we get it Ibrahimfaisal. You don't like America. This is way off topic and belongs somewhere else. No one is making fun of Islam, we are debating UBL's culpability in the 9/11 attacks. As to your point Jamie, I feel like Wikipedia has become conspiricy theory central in its quest for neutrality. Alternate theories or explanations seem to dominate articals, rather than being addressed as a footnote. slimdavey

Well, a vocal minority at September_11,_2001_attacks would disagree with that; attempts to add conspiracy theories to the main article are reverted by consensus, and a separate conspiracies article has been created. For current events, Wikipedia tends to reflect what's coming out of notable news sources. Bin Laden and associates have made inconsistent statements regarding 9/11, so that is reported in the article. News agencies (and even the FBI [6]) seem to be pretty certain that while Bin Laden is directly responsible for some high-profile terrorist attacks, his level of involvement in 9/11 has not yet been conclusively established. OhNoitsJamieTalk 18:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

No. I do not dislike USA because in USA there are many cool people like Noam Chomsky (I like him a lot) and many of my very good friends (I was in USA for a while). However, I cannot support baseless, without any evidence, official 9/11 story, written by a biggest terrorist Bush. Ibrahimfaisal 18:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Even though the evidence against Bin Laden would seem to be overwhelming, he has not yet been brought to trial so for the moment these remain as allegations. It's the same for anyone accused of a crime, large or small. --Lee Hunter 22:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Ibrahim, Noam is one of Lenin's useful idiots. Basically a moronic liberal mouthpiece who hasn't had an original thought in decades. No wonder he is popular on the left. Did you ever wonder if Homeland Security looks at entries like this to see if they can id any terrorist sympathizers? Ever been to gitmo? Nice place I hear.Cestusdei 04:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"Al-Qaida conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui testified Monday that he and would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid were supposed to hijack a fifth airplane on Sept. 11, 2001, and fly it into the White House...Moussaoui told the court he knew the World Trade Center attack was coming and he lied to investigators when arrested in August 2001 because he wanted it to happen" (Yahoo! News March 27th, 2006). Now that this had beed established in a court of law, can we accept that Al-Qaeda, and by extention Osama Bin Laden, is responsible for the events of 9/11? Slimdavey 22:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

For your answer check my talk in Moussaoui_talk under heading "American Justice System". Can you answer my TWO questions adequately? If I will get my answers then I will sure change my opinion, because I am a fair person otherwise please give me right to have my own opinion. Faisal 02:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It will be nice when they execute the SOB. One less terrorist. Christians don't get the right to their own opinion in Islamic countries. That's going to change. Eventually you will push us to far and that will finish the war. I have no time to debate systems when muslims murder innocent people and chop their heads off.Cestusdei 03:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Attaboy Rambo! Colin4C 19:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasnt expecting to see the words "allegedly committed". Kudos to the writer for being unbiased. HarveyB 20:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


Yeah, it's like with OJ. Some of us suspected he killed his ex-wife and her friend Ron Goldman. But the criminal trial clear that right up and now we all know he is innocent.

Why is everyone looking for an automatic trigger to say Osama bin Laden is guilty or not? Just because it was in a court doesn't make it factual...best example: DNA tests reversing verdicts. There is evidence saying he is responsible and evidence that he is not. Let's come up with a new statement that reflects that. Andy 13:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

OBL is on the FBI's "Most Wanted Terrorist" list, but NOT for 9/11. http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm Not even the FBI is claiming a connecting between OBL and 9/11. 80.171.39.72 09:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Even more disturbing is the fact that the CIA, FBI, and Interpol aren't even remotely interested in asking OBL about 9/11 related events.
-- That Guy, From That Show! 10:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Height

"FBI describes him as tall and thin, being 6' 4" (193 cm) to 6' 5" (195 cm) tall"

I've always heard him mentioned as 6' 6" - 6' 8" on news channels. Never this low as FBI states.

Nor Interpol. News channels tend to exaggerate numbers like this (often!) to make it seem very different from normal for "excitement" value. As far as the Osama bin Laden profile, I tend to trust Interpol more than most sources because they've updated their OBL profile over 8 years and haven't changed that or much other information in any seriously significant way. Any information about OBL after 9/11/2001 should be more suspect (imo) because he was transformed into more of a myth much like most popular (and un-) people. Actors come to my mind as an example of this problem with reporting about a (un)popular person.
Here is the profile from Interpol who have been actively after this man for a longer period of time than any others.
—-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-03-21 06:36Z

Osama is still alive

I think the recent news reports show that Osama is still alive. I will remove the wording in the Introduction that raises the question of his death.RonCram 08:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Osama is dead. I want to know that why he has not released any high quality video since long time, when he used to release many in a month. Do you really believe that he is not filming because of security concerns but those concerns was there always. The last "confession video" was of extremely bad quality and that was indeed the last video. I thought at that time (after seeing confession video) that USA are now sure that he is dead and he will never come back to deny the video. He never did and never will. "They" will continue using him for their propaganda but he is dead. Ibrahimfaisal 08:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I would like to think Osama is dead, but he did release a recording the CIA believes is authentic. Of course, you could be right. The CIA has proven themselves to be wrong many, many times.RonCram 15:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I have not seen any of his videos since a long time and faking voice technology is not that difficult to have. May be it is in "their" interest to keep his status alive or undecided. These are just my thoughts I have no evidence to prove or disprove these things. Hence under these conditions the best wikipedia could do is leave on the reader to decide and should give both sides view. I think current page on Osama is doing a good job. Faisal 16:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Faisal (aka "the jews did it") believes your Osama page is just great. You must be proud, Wikipedia. So proud. I think we can get a more accurate picture from Cairo Today.

Both the USA and "the Terrorists" can be seen as having motives for "keeping him alive"... Neither side is going to admit he is dead. The only way the US would do that is if they have the body. - Alech 03:11, 14 April 2006

When you hear a threat which is "probably" made by bin Laden, just remember that he's "probably" dead. Also think about who benefits from your believing he's alive.[7][8]
Hmm yes, a couple of reports, one practically a blog its so POV, and the other a conspiracy website, great choices to source a claim that he is probably dead there. There is no evidnece to suggest either way except debatebly the tapes, who benefits from his death doesnt really affect wether hes dead or not. Countless US attempts to kill him, with nothing to show, doesnt make me think he very dead, I reckon as soon as bin Laden was caught or killed Bush would rub it in everyones faces like he did with Saddam. Philc T+C 23:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Left handed people?

You know, sometimes some of the Wikipedia categories are a bit funny. I mean, of all the things to categorize Osama bin Laden as being, left handed is usually not one that would top most people's lists. It's just a bit funny to see the priority: terrorist, fundamentalist, left handed people. Get what I mean? Andrew Parodi 08:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Usma bin Laden is in fact, left handed. If you saw the confession tape he was writting with his right hand and was wearing a gold ring. Islamic Law prohibits the wearing of gold. In fact, I do not believe that is Usama at all for one reason. Los Alamos, NM has recently finished creating Voice "Morphing" Technology. [9]

Voice morphing

I am removing the following from the end of the September 11 section: "The reason for the dispute is that bin Laden is left handed and Islamic Law you cannot wear gold. In the videotape he writes with his right hand and wears a gold ring that is not "The Real" bin Laden. Now why it is also being disputed is because Los Alamos, NM has completed research on Voice "Morphing" Technology. [10]"

The reference is to a page that describes this technology, but which makes no reference to OBL or any of the tapes purported to bear his voice. As written, I think this statement is original research: it is putting forth a theory that it is not OBL on the tapes. It may well be that someone, somewhere, has made that claim for the reasons detailed. If so, that can be explained and a reference to the claim can be provided. Eron 21:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It does not say that for-sure the voice is faked. It says that it is possible that voice would have been faked and reference does point to a possibility. The reference does not need to point to OBL. I write research papers for international journal/conferences and every reference in any paper does not have to talk about the paper itself (just like a reference on OBL page does not has to talk about OBL directly). However, it should be relevant just like the reference you removed was very relevant. I did not get what is you problem with a valid reference. I am going to revert back it once again. ---- Faisal 05:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Is left handed and walks with a cane. FBI Wanted Poster it is not "The Real" Usama bin Laden in the tapes. http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm and I never did say the voices were fake I just stated facts which are well known.

Although I think there is no need for additional reference but I have added another reference. ---- Faisal 06:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Also make another reference with the bin Laden Confession Tape writes with right hand according to Government is left handed and if you get a nice close-up wears a gold ring on his right hand and Islamic Law prohibts the wearing of gold. http://www.npr.org/news/specials/response/investigation/011213.binladen.tape.html I just added the voice morphing as to the reasoning why a small majority think the voices are fake.

And for the gold ring on Usama's right finger.

Abu Moosa al-Ash'ari (may Allaah be pleased with him) reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Silk and gold have been permitted for the females of my ummah, and have been forbidden for the males." (Reported by Imaam Ahmad, 4/393; see also Saheeh al-Jaami', 207).

The market nowadays is filled with any number of items designed for men, such as watches, spectacles, buttons, pens, chains and so-called "medallions," made of gold of various standards, or completely gold-plated. One of the common sins occurs in competitions where among the prizes are men's gold watches.

Ibn 'Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) reported that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) saw a man wearing a gold ring; he took it and threw it aside, saying, "Would any of you take a burning ember from Hell and hold it in his hand?" After the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had gone away, someone suggested to the man: "Why don't you take your ring and benefit from it (sell it)?" He said, "No, by Allaah, I will never take it back when the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) has thrown it aside." (Reported by Muslim, 3/1655).

You have added the following statement: "The reason for the dispute is that bin Laden is left handed and Islamic Law you cannot wear gold. In the videotape he writes with his right hand and wears a gold ring that is not 'The Real' bin Laden. Now why it is also being disputed is because Los Alamos, NM has completed research on Voice "Morphing" Technology."
There are references for OBL being left-handed, and for the statement regarding wearing gold. However, based on those references you are drawing a conclusion: because of the information you have about OBL, and about the video, you believe that the person on the tape is not OBL.
This may be a valid conclusion - I am quite open-minded on the subject - but I believe that it qualifies as original research: "Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a 'novel narrative or historical interpretation.'"
As to the reference to voice morphing technology, while I recognize the value of general references in academic and other writing, the Wikipedia policy on original research also states "the only way to verifiably demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article." The voice morphing link does not provide a direct reference to any claim that this technology was used to fake OBL's voice on the tape.
There is a Wikipedia article devoted to the tapes, and some of the information you provide may well be of value there. As well, you look further up the page from your edits, near the top of the September 11 section, you will see a discussion of some of the earlier tapes that makes reference to the right hand and the gold ring that I think should clear up how to raise these points.
I'm not going to make any changes yet as I'd like to give you and others a chance to respond. But I think that, absent verifiable sources, the link and reference to voice morphing need to go, and that as a minimum the other arguments against the tape need to be put in a way that does not state as fact that it is "not 'The Real' bin Laden." Eron 17:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
That is strange to think that in an article on Cats, every valid reference should have word Cat mentioned in it. However, may be it could make some sense in case of original-research. But the new reference I have added (still might be a so called original research) directly talk about the tape [11]. What is your objection now? Secondly, I will be against any claim that says that for SURE on tapes the person was Bin-Laden or was not Bin-Ladin. Because no neutral entity had verified the tapes authenticity (CIA is NOT a neutral entity), hence we do not know for sure about the credibility of tapes. I believe that a good article should give both sides view and leave up to the reader to decide. You can change the wording to make the statements (conclusion) look more neutral and standing on the middle ground. But removing them and giving reader idea that you are sure about tapes authenticity, might not be a good idea. ---- Faisal 20:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Just to be clear; the original text states "However, as is the case with almost all tapes of bin Laden following September 11, the authenticity of this tape is also widely disputed." I cannot see how this can, in any way, be read to suggest that I or any other editor is "sure about tapes authenticity."
The new link you added seems to be to an online video about 9-11 that is one hour and twenty-one minutes long. Where exactly in that lengthy documentary is the reference to the use of voice morphing technology in faking the OBL tapes?
On further reviewing the article, I think that the other reasons for dispute that you raise - left vs right hand, gold ring - are covered pretty well in discussions further up the page of other videos. From the current version of the article:
"However, the quality of the tape is poor, and bin Laden is seen writing with his right hand, although according to the FBI he is left handed... Furthermore,he is shown wearing a gold ring, which some claim is forbidden for men by orthodox Islam."
I think all the statement about the later tape needs to do is note that the objections raised to it are the same as those for previous tapes. Eron 21:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


Further to the above, I've done some more digging on the link you provide, in the article, to the video entitled Loose Change. It is referred to as "a terrifying, masterful, well paced 9/11 conspiracy documentary that puts Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 to absolute shame," and described as showing "direct connection between the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the United States government." The wikipedia article notes that "Loose Change has been criticized as disinformation even within the 9/11 Truth Movement, which disagrees with many aspects of the official version of events on 9/11/01." Now I'm not going to dispute that there are many who hold such views, and there is nothing wrong with documenting those views. That said, I would hesitate to recommend this as an objective source on a very contentious subject. Eron 22:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay I will not object if your change does not make the article like official USA-Govt. article. I hope it will remain neutral. I am also one of those who do not believe in 9/11 official story (a fairytale) and I also do not believe that Osama played any rule in 9/11. Good luck with you edits and please be neutral. ---- Faisal 10:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


Why no Videos ??

I want to know that why Osama is not releasing any new Videos since loooong time. His deputy is regularly releasing videos and so are his supporters in Iraq? Second question is that why his deputy (may be now in command) never used to released any video when he was releasing videos? Why this fact is not sufficient for American citizen to believe that he is dead and they still buy his questionable audio tapes? Having voice technology is not that difficult... So once again 1) Why no videos by him? and 2) Why deputy is active?. Faisal

That's probably because he is in hiding because of the effort to hunt him down. -Wikipedia-fan

Would you like to give up *any* hints to your location if you were hunted by a superpower? :-)

Appearance and manner - picture

I have removed the picture that was recently added under Appearance and manner, a screen capture from a news program captioned "Osama bin Laden pointing gun with his left hand." I have two concerns about the picture. First, this is a poor quality image that is not clearly recognizable as OBL. It certainly could be him, but there is no information on the source of the image apart from it being a screenshot, so it is hard to verify. Second, and more important, it's use here is probably not fair use. The fair use copyright statement says "the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement." The picture is not used on this page to identify or comment on the station, program, or its contents. In fact, the station and the program are not even identified. This image was put up for another use; to show OBL using his left hand. That's not fair use of a screenshot under the copyright statement. Eron 12:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"Many in the West consider him a terrorist"

The article read "Many in the West consider him a terrorist." While this is not untrue, it may create the impression that people living outside the "Western world" overall consider him differently. There is of course an argument where the Western World begins and ends and whether this is at all a helpful concept. However, in countries usually not-considered part of the Western World, such as in East-Africa, many have been killed in Al-Qaeda attacks, and he is widely considered a terrorist. Hence I changed the text to "many consider him a terrorist" but would rather see a more factual the statement, possibly along the lines of "he is considered a terrorist by countries and organizations XYZ" or "polls indicate that .... consider him a terrorist". Perhaps someone can realize such a change or has better ideas how to improve this statement. I think it ought to be improved as the inverse statement is probably also correct: many consider him a terrorist and many do not. Another option would be writing that he is a terrorist, as he meets the Wikipedia Key Criteria of terrorism. That said, I believe that most deviations from the unreferenced "many consider" would be an improvement. gidonb 16:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I see it was entirely removed. That will also do the trick ;-) gidonb 16:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

bin Laden homosexual?

I have never heard anything of the sort and think that the comment in the childhood section should be removed or corroborated.

I never heard this either. I added a "citation needed" template. gidonb 12:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Will you also remove it after waiting for some time period or it will be remain there with "citation needed" always? --- Faisal 16:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Faisal, I sure would. Yet, a quick websearch I just conducted found no evidence to this end, so lets say the citation needed period is already over ;-) gidonb 16:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

He hung around the CIA and went by the name Tim Osman. What more evidence do you need? (Sorry that was uncalled or) HarveyB 3:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Faisal, you seem to be a real Bin Laden fan or at least a staunch defender. Plus the wikipedia folk really seem to like you. Give it time, as I'm sure you know, islam will eventually triumph in the West, which is what both you and bin laden dream of. What a wonderful world that will be for free speech and places like Wikipedia. In fact, Wikipedia will blossom under islamic control, I'm sure.

Tim Osman

I added Tim Osman to the list of names and aliases HarveyB 3:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC) http://www.orlingrabbe.com/binladin_timosman.htm

Name was added again after vandals removed it HarveyB 4:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The Database?

I have to question the accuracy of that translation, especially given how it's used as supporting evidence for Al Qaida being a CIA project. Isn't a better translation, "The Foundation"?

References

All the inline external links need conerting to footnotes. I've started, could someone finish? Computerjoe's talk 10:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Alleged

Yo - use of "alleged" is not consistent with other Wikipedia articles on the subject. Please see September 11, 2001 attacks and Organizers of the September 11, 2001 attacks, both of which definitively state that it was an al-Qaeda organized operation, without use of the word alleged. Are we arguing that those articles are POV? Otherwise, we should drop "alleged". Graft 19:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No, please change other articles :). Each article is written by different set of users. Hence it is not necessary that they express the information in a similar manner. I see no problem with it. I think he is alleged and no prove is presented against him except his recording which are disputed. --- Faisal 20:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Graft, I should add that the use of "he friggin did it and ran the whole operation, no doubt about it" has lessened overall in this and related articles due to the addition of more solid cites lately. I don't know what exactly his role in 9/11 was but the fact that the FBI, CIA, and Interpol are not looking for him in relation to 9/11 other than wanting to ask him some questions is contrary to the "he friggin did it" and strongly supports the 'alleged' as well at this time.

Again, this is not my advocation of his innocence or not. I do not lean in either direction as far as this article. This is an encyclopedia and we must make sure that we write about what is known and when we get to the edge of reliable information we must use very careful phrasing. It is up to the readers to make up their own minds after viewing the article(s) and the information (especially well cited ones) they contain.

With quite a bit of quality editing over the next month we could get this article close to being a featured one. If those with various conflicting views about OBL can work together and come up with wording that makes everyone unequally happy to a small extent the "Featured" goal is very likely possible in the near future.

Regards, -- That Guy, From That Show! 16:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, alleged is needed, obviously it was a conspiracy but Al Quaeda doesn't have people in the right agencies to have engineered the hoax, so yeah, alleged is needed. And maybe some text about why it would have been impossible for them to have controlled all of the events of that date, in the manner that they were controlled. Unless someone has evidence that Al Quaeda has agents in place in several key high-level positions, I for one think we should actually use the phrase, "falsely accused". But hey, I'm scared to edit this article, since my identity is already a permanent part of the wikipedia database. I have family I wouldn't want to 'die of an apparent heart attack' or 'get gunned down by a lone assassin' or 'fall out of a US Army helicopter over the Pacific Ocean'. Good luck to the rest of you, though. User:Pedant 06:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism and reverts

I ask that people who are using 'popups' or another tool to revert vandalism be very careful to check that the version being reverted to isn't one with just a bit less vandalism. Due to the high vandalism rate of this article, reverts often go back to another vandalized version because of a quick succession of attacks.

Regards, and I do make this mistake as well on occasion -- That Guy, From That Show! 16:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Grammar and Reference fixes

Several people are working hard lately to get this article in better shape overall. The high activity of late in this regard can often be mistaken as POV pushing when actually it may be (for example) getting rid of wordiness not necessary in the article, removal of similar statements repeated, or other changes to make the article more clear and concise.

So please, Assume Good Faith and help those who are working towards these goals.

Regards, -- That Guy, From That Show! 17:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

strawman

One paragraph erects a strawman that the US government supported MAK, saying that "some" say this (but never mentioning who these "some" are, never mind citing), and then goes on to cite how the US government claims this is not true. It is pointless to contradict something with many citations, when we're not even told who is being contradicted. I guess we're not allowed to know who was claiming this and what evidence they had. I am removing this. Ruy Lopez 20:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

May Tape

So, the latest bin Laden tape (transcript available here[12]) should definitively put the nail in the coffin of any "bin Laden didn't do it" theorists, shouldn't it? NOW can we get rid of 'alleged'? Graft 04:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If some agency could make/create one fake tape then the same agency could can make 10000 tape. Whats the difference it would make? If a lie is told 1000 times then it become a ture. Really? --- Faisal 18:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so this agency makes a tape that flatly contradicts their message, points out huge flaws in the conviction of Moussaoui and generally makes the American government look like idiots on the subject of Guantanomo? You're not being rational, here. Like all conspiracy theorists, there exists no standard of proof you are willing to accept. Would ANYTHING convince you that Osama was responsible for 9/11, or will you always insist that some evil genius has concocted whatever evidence appears? Come on. Graft 19:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I am just indicating a possiblity. Forget about my views and your views. Why cannot the voice not faked. Which independent antity has verified it? The article says -
The authenticity of this tape and other post-September 11 tapes of Bin Laden is disputed. [13][14][15]. Furthermore, those tapes were never independently verified [16][17], however U.S. intelligence agencies claim their authenticity. Note that, U.S. Govt. being a part in the dispute cannot be considered an independent source for tapes authenticity test.
What difference new tape makes on above sentences? OBL has not made any new allegation against the Govt. excapt things that was aready said and are in media. If someone had to fake a tape and make people believe it is real do you really think that he should put in it Govt. praises. --- Faisal 20:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I ask you seriously: what would convince you that OBL was responsible? Graft 21:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
If he goes to trial and all evidences related to [9/11] are made public. The trail is open and conducted in fair manner. If he is proven guilty than I will be convince. --- Faisal 13:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Why you think USA does not held public trials for other [9/11] related personalities. They already have many of them, really big one than poor Z.M. They already have [9/11] planner in their custody (according to media claims). May be even his public trail could establish a clear link and I got convince against OBL. --- Faisal 13:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I think they don't hold public trials because it would abrogate their claimed executive authority to arbitrarily detain suspected terrorists by setting a precedent. Once you've put KSM on the stand, you can never claim that it's too dangerous to put other terrorists on trial. They want the ability to arbitrarily detain suspects. Graft 16:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
The May Tape needs adding to the artical, i'll go through the translation for notable quotes to add. I'll do this tomorrow. This is the final nail in the OBL didn't do it but the doublethinkers will never believe, no trial even if they where on the jury would be enough.Hypnosadist 16:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Graft, I hope that now you can understand that why I am not 100% sure about OBL guilt. Hence please leave it alledge until something change regarding OBL connection with [9/11]. --- Faisal 13:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Osama Family and Childhood

At the end of the first (and the context of the second) initial paragraphs in this section, there are unverifiable, inappropriate comments added by some vandal.

I tried to edit it, but it did not show up...

Someone with authority please fix this problem...

There is also similar vandalism at the end of the first paragraph in the "Usage variations of Osama's name" section.

The fact that this article is on Wiki is a sign that information is still free and it is good that we can keep it as objetcive as possible without getting it to propaganda or tools for different groups agendas. First I feel a bit afraid to read an article like this..

Fanatic muslims can be angry at me or I could become one my self :-) then I get a bit afraid that NSA, CIA or any of you people are catching my IP nr right now putting me on a list that can make it difficult to go to USA next time, take a loan or I could even be taken from home put on a Island somewhere without trial and this is all scary right? But we deserve the right to find out who Usama is if we whant right?.. so thanks Wiki --Swedenborg 07:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Appearance and Manner: Plagiarism?

Some of the Appearance and Manner section seems to be overly similar to the linked FBI poster, with some lines directly stolen. John 17:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Not good. If it is true then it should be rewritten. --- Faisal 19:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV - This article fails to be neutral, its just US government propaganda!

I specifically inserted Osama's first major interview after 9/11 into this article 18 months ago, and it was left for over 12 months intact. In it, Osama denied any part in 9/11 - an important point. Now I find videos all experts agree are faked quoted as fact, but the interview quote is gone. This article is NPOV. Osama gave an overlooked interview shortly after 9/11, published in a Karachi-based Pakistani daily newspaper, Ummat, on September 28, 2001:

"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle........The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself ..... there are dozens of well-organized and well-equipped groups capable of causing such large-scale destruction. "

The involvement / guilt of OBL in 9/11 remains unproven speculation. The article has to reflect this doubt, otherwise it is clearly NPOV, and should be tagged as such. Timharwoodx 22:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agreed with everything you said before even reading it. --Striver 23:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
See this link for more on the video tapes. This reminds me of the Itanium page, when HP employees started logging on, and erasing all the negative comments about the chip. We can either grow up and write a sensible bio on OBL, or the NPOV tag has to stay for keeps. I think the interview quote SHOULD be in as a minimum. Timharwoodx 23:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I am going to try to put that material back. --- Faisal 16:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
HIs personal facts are fair. His terrorist activities are written as conspiracy theorists. His past terrorist activities are omitted. I will put NPOV on it. Mrdthree 18:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Are the OBL video tapes 'externally verifiable, reliable' information?

.......... and so on

I think the OBL video tapes fail the WIKi test.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.

The videos are heavily disputed, and certainly NOT 'reliable, published sources.' Major news organisation, NYT, Pravda, Guardian, among others, have ALL published articles questioning the authenticity of the videos. Given the videos do not conform to the WIKI inclusion guidelines, I think all reference to them should be stripped from the OBL bio. Timharwoodx

I view that they should be breaken out to some other article, and this article devoting a section for linking to that article. Further, this article does not even mention that a arabic newspaper anounced his burial, his family atteding. And what about the 2001 dubai hospital visit when he chated with the FBI? --Striver 09:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I think the videos should have their own page, with a big NPOV slapped on it. There are just too many questions about them to be part of a serious biographical article, as anything other than an aside. The 2001 visit by the CIA was published in Le Figaro, an internationally respected newspaper, based upon a tip stated to be from French intelligence. We're putting stuff like the videos in, which clearly fail the reputable source and verifiability test, and excluding information like the CIA visits, which DOES pass the WIKI verifiability guidelines i.e. published source with long term track record of editorial reliability. No evidence that could be used in a court of law has ever been produced to show OBL carried out 9/11. The article fails to reflect the facts of the situation, hence is NPOV. Timharwoodx 11:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, here we go:

I think some of those pages probably need mergers. Look, I'm going to hyperlink in the video pages, but otherwise remove many of the reference to the videos from the bio. Since they are not verifiable sources of information, I think they fail the WIKI content guidelines, as set out above. Timharwoodx 23:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've talked everyone through what I did and why. The video tapes are 'junk sources' that fail the WIKI guidelines for inclusion in a serious biographical article. If you want to write about them, please do so on the linked sub pages. They are certainly notable, but not 'externally verifiable, reliable.' Thanks. Timharwoodx 23:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with both of you. Those tapes are extremely doubtful. --- Faisal 16:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Whereabouts

I just deleted the whole section. On consideration, NONE of the information presented is verifiable, therefore also fails Wikipedia:Verifiability guidelines. Timharwoodx 00:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. In fact, most of the information presented is verifiable, because most of the information presented says that "X has reported that bin Laden is at location Y." This information can be verified by clicking the link given.
I can see your point--we don't want the section to look like a collection of "Elvis sightings"--but I also don't think that's sufficient reason to delete the section wholesale.
Nobody (almost nobody, anyway) knows where bin Laden is. Nobody has actually "verified" his location, but that is no reason to throw out all information on his possible whereabouts.

--Mr. Billion 01:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

But thats exactly what you end up with - a collection of "Elvis sightings". You could write thousands of words on 'claimed sightings.' NONE of which is verifiable in terms of accuracy. Where oh where would it end? We could be adding sightings in 20020! On top of which, the President of Pakistan said in 2002 he was sure bin Laden was dead. Which would make ALL of the sightings bogus. Many of the sightings are incompatible, having bin Laden in different locations, in similar time periods. I'm open to a concensus, but personally I'd rather have the "Elvis sightings" on a different page like the videos, as I don't think either is a reputable source for inclusion in a serious biography. I just think a line in the sand has to be drawn somewhere, or everytime an "Elvis / Osama sighting" hits the wires, we'll get a new line added to the bio. The bio should be what we can back up, sub pages should contain the speculation i.e. videos, sightings, etc. Timharwoodx 07:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've now moved all the sightings to a sub page linked from the main. Hopefully this can accommodate the various opinions in this matter. But as you termed it, I did feel the Osama page was becoming filled with "Elvis sightings". And so much information of such questionable / unconfirmed origin was not suitable for a serious biographical page. Timharwoodx 08:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Musharraf's assertion that OBL was dead in 2002 would seem to be contradicted by the 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 tapes of him being alive. National Geographic had an interesting article in 2004 about the likelihood that Osama was still residing somewhere along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, his last confirmed location.
If "the bio should be what we can back up", why then are you apparently in favor of including speculation that he is dead? This seems a double standard, especially since the guesses that he's dead have more evidence against them (videos of him alive) than the guesses that he's at some particular location. --Mr. Billion 15:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The bin Laden video tapes are *HEAVILY DISPUTED*. For one thing, the person in them looks NOTHING LIKE bin Laden. The 2004 tape saw no increase in the greyness of Osama's beard from 4 years earlier. Remarkable considering Osama was greying rapidly in 2001. Also, the faces are too fat. The post 2001 fakes not even good work.
Consider, Osama was unable to live without constant kidney dialysis and medical treatment. This is what the Pakistani President was saying. What chance do you think of such a sick man who needs constant expert medical treatment, surviving, running from cave to cave, in the Pakistani mountains, for several years? NONE. I would say a number of factors point to Osama's death:
  • 1) The Taliban said he died
  • 2) A funeral notice was issued
  • 3) Donald Rumsfeld said in April 2002 he had not heard of bin Laden since December 2001
  • 4) The video tapes are obviously faked - why fake them if the real person is alive?
  • 5) Osama's constant need for hospital treatment makes the hiding in the caves hypothesis a non starter. He was too sick to go on the run.

You have to differentiate between what the mainstream media put out, and what the facts of the situation are. The facts clearly point to most likely Osama being DEAD. Now if people want to post 'Elvis sightings' then go ahead, but I can't see how a serious bio can have so much unfounded speculation, when the logic of the situation points overhwelmingly to the individual being dead.

The post 2001 videos are almost certainly fakes........ judge for yourself. I posted some links above. Even if you don't agree, I would say the level of dispute about the videos as sources, rules then out, based upon the WIKI verfiability guidelines.

.....and so on. Even mainstream political figures are now saying the bin Laden tapes are most likely coming from Karl Rove, because they always seem to come at moments when Bush needs them most.

Timharwoodx 16:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now you've gone and revealed yourself to be a believer in some sort of massive conspiracy theory. What you've just said there is rather nutty. --Mr. Billion 20:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, Mr Billion, now you've gone ahead and revealed yourself to be a government shill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.122.199.40 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 10 July 2006

Yes, I'm actually one of those journalists the administration paid to promote its policies. --Mr. Billion 06:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Billion, I was wondering if you could put in a good word for me with your employers. I would also like to get in on the gravy train! Thanks, csloat 08:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, me too, I'm broke and I spend a lot of time here, I could help delete all the stuff the govt. wants covered up, if the pay is good. Is it? User:Pedant 05:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone believe the official 9/11 story any longer?

I thought I was going to get shot down in flames when I said:

  • Osama denied carrying out 9/11
  • Osama appears to have died in Dec 01
  • The US government has been unable to produce credible evidence of his involvement in 9/11
  • Osama's constant need for hospital treatment makes it impossible for him to be on the run
  • The videos are fakes - bad ones at that

I mean thats all clearly referenced and everything, the points pass the verifiability test, but I can see Loose Change 2 seems to be turning the tide of opinion in this matter.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848

Anyone who has not seen Loose change 2, have a look. Final cut should be out soon. Timharwoodx 14:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Crackpot consipiracy theories have no place in this article. I'm sure there's a "9/11 conspiracy" page that you can add to. Dav2008 03:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Please justify your characterization that these are "Crackpot consipiracy theories" User:Pedant 05:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Bin Laden is NOT wanted by the FBI in connection with 911

The common misconception is that Usama/Osama Bin Laden is wanted by the FBI on charges of masterminding the September 11, 2001 attacks. This simply is not true. Go to the official FBI website and look up the ten most wanted fugitives. You will see that he is wanted for the 1998 embassy bombings, but he is not wanted by the FBI in connection with 911. This, I have been told, is because in order to be on the FBI's wanted list, one must be first indicted by a grand jury. In the case of Osama (Usama) Bin Laden, they do not have enough evidence to indict him.

That has been fixed the last I checked/edit the article last month (I am mostly on a wikibreak at this time). I helped with others to fix the article to reflect the fact that the CIA/FBI (even after 5 years) do not want OBL for 9/11 except to interview him about it. If any contrary text has been inserted into the article it should be removed due to the fact that official CIA/FBI home web site cites completely support your assertion.
Additionally, Interpol which has had public notices for OBL 'wanted' for close to a decade, also do not want him for 9/11. Their public stance, exactly like the FBI/CIA official position, agree that he is not wanted regarding 9/11.
Regards, -- That Guy, From That Show! 23:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Disagree with POV that Osama bin Laden is not wanted by CIA and/or other U.S. Intelligence agencies for 9/11. There is less than meets the eye with respect to the FBI's "lack of evidence" connecting OBL to September 11, 2001. Unfortunately, the U.S. Government, both the Bush administration (executive branch) and the Republican-majority congress (legislative branch), decided to respond to the September 11 attacks as an act of war (see Authorization for Use of Military Force -- the wording is breathtakingly broad) and matter for the U.S. Military, not as a crime and matter for the US Department of Justice (also part of the executive branch) to adjudicate in U.S. Federal Courts (judicial branch). While the FBI has conducted some investigations of the suspected 9/11 hijackers, the FBI was not asked by the U.S. Government to collect evidence with the aim of convicting Osama bin Laden in a U.S. Court, let alone the standards required by the International Criminal Court, for the 9/11 attacks. Furthermore, the FBI does not have the operational responsibility to conduct extensive investigations outside U.S. territory that require the sharing of classified information with foreign intelligence services; that is what the CIA and the various U.S. Department of Defense intelligence agencies do. (The U.S. Government is huge and the different departments and agencies have very different functions and, for the most part, do not really go out of their way to cooperate with each other.)
The FBI is organized to investigate crimes and accumulate evidence for building criminal prosecutions in US Federal courts. Once the U.S. Government decided to take the military-only path to respond to the September 11 attacks, then the primary search for Osama bin Laden went to CIA and the Defense Department intelligence agencies and special operations command. The previous criminal investigations by the FBI of Osama bin Laden under the Clinton administration -- see bin Laden FBI Wanted Poster -- are serious enough to ensure that most other nations' law enforcement agencies will likely cooperate with the FBI. This means that there are very few countries or territories where Osama bin Laden can safely travel without threat of extradition to the U.S. or U.S. allies.
With bin Laden's freedom of movement severely curtailed, the Bush administration simply assigned the task of finding Osama bin Laden to the intelligence agencies and the military, who are not bound by the restrictions placed on the FBI by the U.S. Justice Department and U.S. Federal Courts. The military and ex-military contractors likely operating in Western Pakistan do not have search warrants and are operating entirely outside of the U.S. criminal justice system's procedures. This explanation is not an attempt to justify this approach, merely an attempt to describe how the Bush administration decision-makers look at the world. For the most part, once they receive an "appropriately worded" authorization passed by both houses of the U.S. Congress signed by the U.S. President, they can do whatever they feel is necessary to achieve the goals of their mission, consistent with U.S. executive branch guidelines and some consideration of keeping any "collateral damage" to a minimum lest it appear in the International media. For example, a U.S. Delta Force soldier or U.S.-financed mercenary who may discover bin Laden's location in Western Pakistan is not particularly worried about bin Laden's legal status. Again, this is not a justification, just an explanation of how these people look at things. -- historypre 06 July 2006

regardless...WHY is the statement being removed?

Regardless of historypre's longwinded account, the statement is in fact true, so explain to me why it keeps being removed? Is there actually a consensus to remove this factual and verifiable relevant text? User:Pedant 05:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I am puzzled as well. There has never been anything even remotely close to a consensus (or even a debate that Y can recall) about it being not true.
Please see the bottom of this talk page for the latest about this Wikipedia anomaly concerning this article. The statement has been repeatedly removed even though it is completely true.
-- That Guy, From That Show! 06:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Lead section

I find this sentence:

Bin Laden and al-Qaeda have allegedly carried out a number of terrorist attacks worldwide and it is often believed that they were involved with the September 11, 2001 attacks on The World Trade Center in New York City, The Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia and the failed hijacking of United Airlines flight 93, which killed at least 2,986 people.

somewhat misleading because it implies that at least 2,986 people died in the flight 93 hijacking. How about which combined killed at least 2,986 people ? WhiteCat 07:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


Now for that the US has taken down this bad guy in the Diyola province of Iraq, whose very name alone is very difficult to spell let alone pronounce when do we intend to boil and to narrow down and to tighten the noose on Osama's neck and his precise location and his whereabouts. I was under some impression of that perhaps Osama had been killed by a large scale earth quake in Kaarachi that was reported on Wikipedia some time ago. I only come to think on this only because. He is always releasing an audio tape. Whereby more discernible clues might be able to be drawn from a video tape. If he is such an emboldended terrorist. It seems he goes to great lengths to hide hiself. He is surely not hiding in the central molten core of the earth. Why has not someone provided any data and information and support to help the authorities narrow down his present day where abouts. With all of the collective might and military force of all of the United States and the rest of the global coalition. Taking into account all of the people who have been incarcerated. I would have to think there must be some useful data somewhere that could help to nail this guy. If Osama is the head of the snake, and we kill that snake. I do not think Osama's body will regenerate itself.

Summerblynk@Yahoo.com Cuyahoga County, Cleveland, Ohio, 10:15 AM, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


very scary stuff to think about summerblynk... Do you feel the osama/cia connection is adequetly discussed in the article? WikiTony 03:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I do profoundly enjoy reading Wikipedia on the Internet and also the neutrel point of view that it strives to maintain. And I hope that more people all over the earth with Google Earth and many other programs through the Internet can help to hunt down Osama. I continue to this very day to absorb massive amounts of data into my head to think about. Summerblynk@Yahoo.com Cuyahoga County, Cleveland, Ohio, 04:10 AM, 28th June 2006 (UTC)


Football fan

Why is there no mention of Osama bin Laden being a big football fan? He's a Arsenal London fan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.176.0.50 (talk • contribs)

do you have any proof of this? do you have a source to cite? if so, feel free to add the information... - Adolphus79 17:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Its well known that he's an Arsenal fan (Arsenal London, who the hell says that?!)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/funny_old_game/1650069.stm

TheMongoose 19:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed this following anonymous edit because it seemed rather flippant, and out of context: "It is rumoured he supports Arsenal F.C." 84.12.149.41 Revision as of 11:44, 3 July 2006 | But, if this sports tidbit is in fact true, it would be an interesting addition to the secular bin Laden, if it could be fleshed out with proper context details, dates, sources, etc.Steven Russell 05:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Semi-Protect

I have requested an admin to Semi-Protect this article because of recent cases of vandalism. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 20:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Oxford

Although there is a photo with a caption referring to Osama bin Laden's time at Oxford, nowhere else is it mentioned. In any other profile attendance at Oxford would be noted, so this should be corrected, and any critical events that occurred during this time should also be included. QuinnHK 01:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

CIA closes down Osama-search unit

f.y.i.

It does not make sense to me

It does not make sense to me, lots of details including height and colour of eyes but no concrete evidence and proofs. I can see some people are emotional about the subject and I cannot blame them but one needs a clear head and open investigative eyes when dealing with subjects of this nature. Will we ever find this guy or he will disappear in the mist like the ending of the classic black and white movies? I don’t know, I love to know but with CIA closing down the search units I don’t think we will ever know. The truth is sometimes too close for comfort while we are reaching out to find it! Kiumars 00:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Who doubts the accuracy of translation of bin Laden's confession tape?

I was amazed to read here that someone has doubted the accuracy of the translation of bin Laden's confession. Who is the Arabic scholar who has said this? The article does not provide any source. It appears some kind of strange POV is being pushed here. RonCram 14:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

There were a couple of different claims on this - one claim was that the video was of someone other than bin laden, a completely staged video created at Langley or wherever. The second claim was that the video was real but it was a sting operation; that bin Laden was duped into saying things that made him sound guilty by a spy at the party. (See Calgary Herald, December 16, 2001 p. A3). The third claim is that the translation was flawed in subtle ways that made OBL's claims more ominous. I don't think claims #1 or 3 are credible, but I don't know Arabic so I can't speak for #3. #2 may be true but it hardly lets bin Laden off the hook. I did a bit of research on this at the time and have a few articles on my computer that probably arent on the web before. CNN 12/14/01 quotes a Pakistani video expert saying "The tape is an American fabrication. There is no truth in this evidence. They made this up to justify their attacks on Afghanistan." BBC the same date publishes claims that OBL was probably talking about terrorist attacks from 98 or 2000 rather than 2001. BBC quotes another video editor saying "The more the person's head is facing away from the camera, the easier it is to con it. A lot of the picture of [Bin Laden] is side on and that does open the possibility that someone else's voice could be put on top." There are other similar published statements. I can't find anything offhand documenting #3 that is published (I'm just looking through my files; there is no reason to research this systematically right now), but I do have an email that was circulated on Islamic listservs that claims "we are Arabic translators and the words of OBL in the US Gov tape and what is being written are not accurate. The use of "We asked" "We expected" and "We calculated" are in fact not the words used as he actually says "They asked" "They said" "They calculated".....these are the words of a spectator not a MASTERMIND!!" Hardly a credible source, though; I couldn't tell you the names of the alleged translators (though the claim does not sound unreasonable). In any case the whole debate is academic; bin Laden has since made plenty of statements leaving no doubt that he considers himself the inspiration for the 9/11 attacks and that he played some significant role in them more directly.--csloat 16:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
It is not an entirely academic debate for some, since some also consider all post-September 11, 2001 videos and other communications where bin Laden appears to implicate himself in the 9/11 attacks to be inauthentic as well. However, it appears that none of the English language print or broadcast media has questioned the translation of the December 13, 2001 video (hence the fact tag in the article). The mention of the December 13, 2001 video in the September 11 section of this article is merely to provide balance to the initial al Jazeera denial and the subsequent denial in the Ummat bin Laden interview (whose authenticity itself has been doubted since the questions were submitted in advance to a Taliban representative and written answers were returned through a Taliban representative -- no face-to-face meeting took place between Ummat and bin Laden). A web-based resource that attempts to rebut the "it is not bin Laden" claims raised by some can be found at 911myths.com.--Historypre 17:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Those who believe every post-911 video was faked are simply not credible. As for people questioning the translation, your 911myths link led me to this page, where the German press questions the translation: link. Not that any of this tells us much, since OBL has since pretty much taken credit for the attacks. Those who will believe everything is faked will not be convinced by actual evidence anyway, so I think it is still accurate to say the entire debate is academic at this point.--csloat 22:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Blogs are not credible news sources

I have deleted the entry about a blogger talking to the FBI about bin Laden. Wikipedia policy does not allow for original research. The blogger could well be a wikipedia editor. For this reason, bloggers are not considered credible news sources for citation. RonCram 14:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with removing this but for different reasons. First, the sources cited here are not technically blogs; they are news outlets of a sort. See American Free Press. Not necessarily reliable news sources, but not blogs. Second, the reason for blogs not being considered credible has nothing to do with whether or not the author could be a wikipedia editor. Any living author with access to the internet could be a wikipedia editor; by that standard we should exclude all living authors from consideration. But the claim that Ron removed is silly; the FBI made clear in the part of the conversation that was not included on the page that the FBI only lists people who have been formally indicted for a crime, which has not happened yet. It is in no way a statement by the FBI that they don't think he's guilty; just that they have not done a formal investigation leading to a grand jury.--csloat 16:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course I do not want to exclude all living authors. If my statements are so misunderstood, I recant. However, I stand by the statement that this is a blog. Any website that identifies itself as a blog deserves the name. It is standard practice to link to blogs if the blog preserves some other journalistic reporting, but not for original reporting.RonCram 17:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Misleading Statements

The fact has been pointed out and verified that Usama (Osama) bin Laden is not wanted by the FBI/CIA/Interpol as a suspect in the September 11, 2001 attacks. Yet this sentence still stands: "Bin Laden and al-Qaeda have allegedly carried out a number of terrorist and guerrilla attacks worldwide including the September 11, 2001, attacks..." One could of course argue that "allegedly" is not a definitive statement, and since this allegation has in fact been made by members of the Bush administration, there is nothing misleading about it. But the fact remains that to the average reader, this creates a strong perception of a link between bin Laden and the September 11, 2001 attacks. Personally, I am unaware of any credible law enforcement and/or investigative agency that officially alleges any connection between bin Laden and the said attacks. Since there is no credible evidence for the allegations, the sentence should be deleted.

In the latter part of the same sentence, the "...and caused the collapse of both World Trade Center towers" is also mentioned. First of all, the cause of the collapse of the twin towers is highly debatable, but I shall not go into details of that matter here. My concern is that there is no mention of WTC Building No. 7, which also collapsed that day even though it had not been struck by an airplane. Would anyone agree with me that if the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 are mentioned, should not the collapse of WTC 7 also be mentioned?

Two paragraphs later, the top 22 Most Wanted Terrorists list is mentioned, and this is said to have been released "in direct response to the attacks of 9/11." Again, while this is not factually incorrect, the impression it leaves with the average reader, even though it admits there is no hard evidence, is to reinforce the perception of the link between bin Laden and the 9/11 attacks. Why not dispense with all the ambiguity and just say that bin Laden is suspected of the 911 attacks by members of the Bush administration, but not any of the US or international law enforcement or criminal investigation agencies? -- 70.56.16.163 22:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)cybercommuter

If it were only that simple to have the FBI and CIA call off the search for bin Laden and end this declared war against whomever the Bush administration decides is the enemy, but it is not that simple. The news that the CIA has disbanded their "bin Laden unit" is not surprising given the internal conflict between the Bush administration and the CIA. The War on Terror declared by the Bush administration and the Republican-controlled US Congress after September 11, 2001 with the Authorization for Use of Military Force was a radical change in U.S. operating procedure (the resolution was passed by Congress and signed by Bush: read what it says -- it is very broad and gives the Bush administration unprecedented power anywhere outside of US legal jurisdiction). This congressional authorization effectively served as a trial with no appeal and turned the response to September 11th over to the United States Defense Department and Rumsfeld. The Defense Department has its own intelligence service called the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). The DIA in turn has its own dedicated elite army called Special Operations Command, in addition to the regular United States Army, United States Marines, etc. The DIA is completely separate from the CIA and has its own budget, which is even larger than the CIA's budget. Moreover, since it is part of the Defense Department, normal Civil Service protections do not apply. So, after the Bush administration took power, the DIA was completely purged of those deemed "Clinton holdovers". Unlike the CIA, it does exactly whatever Bush and Rumsfeld tell it to do.
The apparent lack of interest by the FBI and the CIA is, unfortunately, nothing but a smokescreen and deception on the part of the Bush administration. There are a lot of extra-legal special operations types in Eastern Afghanistan who "stray" into the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Provincially Administered Tribal Areas of western Pakistan: these men have no intention of bringing either bin Laden or al-Zawahiri to trial. The US DIA and Special Operations are even more dangerous than the CIA who abduct people off the streets in Europe -- see following article.--Historypre 06:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
As far as 'lack of interest', I don't believe that is the case, imo, it's self-interest. The FBI and CIA have to deal with administrations that come and go in (relatively) short periods of time. The CIA and FBI do not want to be the scapegoats blamed for triggering the post-9/11 events in the Middle East. They'll defend themselves quite easily against such accusations.
That is much more likely the situation vs the Bush Administration telling the CIA, FBI, and Interpol to not say that they think OBL was involved. Eventually, this would be exposed due to the large number of people who would have to know about this order. Add to that the constant internal problems with numerous employees noticing that those departments don't support the Administration's assertions about OBL's responsibility for 9/11. Those employees would have to either be fed lies or told about the order either of which would make a conspiracy of that type quickly collapse under its own weight.
The FBI and CIA are playing it smart. They don't have solid direct evidence that Bush claims is available so they keep silent. By doing this, they won't be hung out to dry when under a future Administration.
-- That Guy, From That Show! 15:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

WTC No. 7

Could anyone please tell my why the phrase "...the collapse of both World Trade Center towers" still remains uncorrected? The term "both" infers two of something. The fact is that WTC No. 1, WTC No. 2, and WTC No. 7 all collapsed that day. That is a total of three concrete and steel structures which collapsed after the attack allegedly (but not proved to have been) masterminded by Osama bin Laden.70.56.17.119 18:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC) -- cybercommuter

I have added that information.
-- That Guy, From That Show! 18:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

WHY ARE WE CALLING THE WORLD'S #1 TERRORIST A "MILITANT"????

This is almost as biased as the hippies article. Everytime, I try to correct the mistake in this article, I get harrassed by the likes of some either very politcally correct moonbats or socialist/communist/pro-Osama people, and the sad thing -- THEY'RE ADMINS. Wikipedia must hand these things out like Viagra at a senior citizen home. JOKE JOKE JOKE. I'm going to get nasty, patronizing messages from people like That Guy, From That Show! telling me to go in the sand box.

Well, I bet you the sandbox has more intelligible things than this article.

I would love to discuss this issue with anyone, because everyone who refers to calling the World's #1 Terrorist as a terrorist as "vandalism" refuses to answer my questions.

Take a look at your criteria for terrorism, and then try to tell me that bin Laden doesn't embody the criteria.

BTW - check this out http://www.hannity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=78609 -- I started the poll to see if I was off-base or if Wikipedia was farther left than Ward Churchill

Gee, a poll on Sean Hannity's site. Nothing more impartial than that [groan]. --Baltech22 18:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
You're an idiot. It's simply a Sean Hannity message board. The message board is actually very well mixed. I'd say about 60-40 (conservative vs. lib). But honestly, this issue has nothing to do with political affiliations. It's just common sense. You call a dog a dog. This issue is just not that complicated. Of all the important things that we can write about, we are arguing over the stupidest little thing. I have yet to read a legitimate reason for calling this animal anything other than what he is: a cowardly Islamic fascist terrorist.

The editors of Wikipedia have determined that the word terrorist has no denotative meaning and has no place in an encyclopedia except as a slur or attribution within a quote [18]. Mrdthree 06:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well then, why does the word terrorist appear about 30 times in this "encyclopedic" article. So this word is banned solely from the opening line, but everywhere else is fair game? The words to avoid list only counts in the intro? You guys should really get your act together and stop pushing whatever ridiculous agenda you have. BTW - are you Muslim, or of Arab descent? Or are you just a very liberal/Socialist white middle school teacher who messes up this this "encyclopedia" for fun? Just curious.
Why not take it a step farther? Let's call him a freedom fighter. I'm sure That Guy, and all of his Arab and liberal friends would really get their rocks off to this one.
Perhaps if you guys were as mad about terrorists flying planes into our buildings as you are about calling the terrorists "terrorists", then the greatest country in the history of the planet would actually be able to take the necessary steps to eliminate these cowardly Islamic fascists.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you believed Israel's act of self-defense was "disproportionate". Ha. Move to France, you appeasing morons.

Why not take it a step farther? Let's call him a freedom fighter. I'm sure That Guy, and all of his Arab and liberal friends would really get their rocks off to this one.

Actually, Ronald Reagan already did that on many occasions.

Also, making Ad hominem attacks is a bit silly and useless.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 15:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well then, why does the word terrorist appear about 30 times in this "encyclopedic" article.

It only appears in the text of the article 3 times, 2 of them are incorrectly used. That can be fixed. The other mentions are links.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 16:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Those mentions have been corrected. -- That Guy, From That Show! 08:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

RE: RE: RE: RE: Militant vs Terrorist (ack)

A few people seem to equate avoiding terms like 'Terrorist' as an indication that those who use 'Militant' are somehow biased and/or support Osama bin Laden somehow. This is not the case.

Reading the talk archives for this and similar articles is a good way to find out why 'Militant' is often more accurate and non-biased.

Also, the guideline for Wikipedia writing style explains the problem(s) with the word 'Terrorist' specifically in detail. For those new to Wikipedia or not familiar with this guideline I suggest that you read WORDS TO AVOID.

Regards, -- That Guy, From That Show! 01:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I wholeheartedly disagree with you, but if Wikipedia wants to push its BS politically correct nonsense, then I'm not going to fight it.
Well if your silly little "Words to avoid" list is really upheld, then why does the word "terrorist" appear 50 times in this "encyclopedic" article. And what is "biased" about calling Osama a terrorist. Why is "militant" more accurate than "terrorist"? That Guy, you make me laugh. 69.249.70.202 05:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC) hooah
It would be a bit amusing if you were correct. Actually, the term is used in the body of the article 47 times less than that. One is describing a 'terrorist' analyst and the other 2 should be removed as per WORDS TO AVOID.
-- That Guy, From That Show! 16:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Oxford picture

I recommend that we get rid of the picture of Osama at Oxford, or at least say it is "allegedly" him. There is little evidence suggesting Osama ever left the Middle East, and the only articles with "pictures" or stories of him doing so were written in the months after 9/11 (including the BBC article cited as the pic's source). Like those articles that said the hijackers were still alive, we should consider these to be parts of the rumors and confusion circulating after the attacks. PBP 02:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There isn't any reliable evidence that OBL was one of the Mujahideen people who visited or were brought for training by the CIA to the continental United States.
-- That Guy, From That Show! 04:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps all information from the BBC should be qualified by 'alleged'? BTW Oxford is in England not the US and the article that sources the photo says he was taking language classes, not military classes and that he was 14.Mrdthree 11:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Oops, I was intending that reply for something else and had several tabs open at 4:00 in the morning, heh. I'm striking it out.
-- That Guy, From That Show! 16:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Real and reliable and informed data

Why is it to that not any one indepedent and intellilgent source all amid the global world cannot seem to boil down and to determine electronically if what ever out going actual audio recordings of Osama Bin Laden's voice are actually even really his own voice.

These would seem to be pretty important and vital questions. Why is it that he has not released any brand new spanking new video recordings of himself with time stamps on the videos. Why is it for that after all of this time. Why cannot any of our many countless and untold of dozens of global spy satellites math matically and precisely narrow down his location and his where abouts in a 5 or a 10 mile square perimeter for wherever it is that he maybe, assuming of course that he is even alive.

Why is it to that he cannot be tracked down and to be isolated by his out going cell phone signals if there are in fact any at all that are even in fact by him being made. Why if any of his code words and clever phrases and language and metaphors do not show red flags on the landscape.

Even if his actual physical body is never recovered and no dental records are ever verified to in fact demonstrate that it is truly him. Can not one any intelligent and a informed source make a very sound and a clear determination of that he is dead. The news that is on the Internet seems almost plays like a movie trailer teaser of which is half baked and unclear.

I really like reading much of all of this on Wikipedia because the people in the discussuion area seem to try and report only the best and the most straight forward intelligence www.geocities.com/berniethomas68 02:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

From Bogeyman
The most common of childhood fears associated with the bogeyman is that of someone (usually a monster) hiding in one's room (such as behind the door or under the bed). The bogeyman is said to lurk like this and then attack the sleeper.
It's very useful to many parties to have him viewed as such and there isn't much we can do about it. We can only include what we know with the resources we have.
-- That Guy, From That Show! 04:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Alleged (revisited)

"...an alleged primary founder of the al-Qaeda Islamist organization..."

What's with all this "alleged" nonsense? Who disputes that he founded al-Qaeda? Where's the evidence?

This article, as well as that of al-Qaeda, make this connection unambiguous. How unprofessional and weasel-like to make it merely "alleged" here. I would have removed it without a second thought were the topic not so contentious. Will anyone dispute my argument? --BDD 07:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't ask people to prove a negative, it is considered insulting.
-- That Guy, From That Show! 08:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"9/11"

I tried previously to define the term "9/11" before it is first used in the article, but the change has been lost subsequently. We should define the term, and not assume prior knowledge, however obvious it may seem. (Remember that other countries generally use different date formats.) To define the term while avoiding adding extra words, I will simply wikify 9/11 where it first occurs. Yes I know this is a second link to the same page, but please don't undo it without responding to this comment. Arbitrary username 18:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Infamous not same as famous

I think it might be good to mention in the first paragraph some of the reasons that Bin laden is infamous. I think it may quench some of the admiration for him. Also Islamic fundamentalism is not, by definition, militant, teh Islamic fundamentalism page says the preferred term is Islamist and Bin Laden has a track record of uncontested Islamic militancy (e.g. Soviet Afghanistan War). As for announcing all changes before making them I think be bold is the mantra and this text changes frequently (I should also hope some irony is visible-- the text was not reverted it was rewritten). Mrdthree 14:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that if his role in terrorist attacks is qualified by 'alleged' it must be mentioned that he called for terrorist attacks in his 1998 fatwa when he called for Muslims to kill civilians in the United States and allied countries [19]. Otherwise the article bows to deeply to conspiracy and Bin Laden as victim. Something like this phrase is fine: Prior to his implication in the September 11, 2001, attacks he was most well known for his 1998 edict that Muslims should murder civilians and military personnel in the United States and allied countries until they are no longer able to threaten any Muslim [20]. Mrdthree 14:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Intro Shortening needed

The intro is far too long. The last paragraph in the intro seems unnecessary-- move it into the body. Same with the second to last paragraph. Intro traditionally summarizes the body of an article, not make arguments or present details that should be left for the body. Mrdthree 19:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Second to last moved (remarked for future move) done, good call -- That Guy, From That Show! 08:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
UPDATE: I trimmed it a bit more since the information is repeated in detail in the article.
-- That Guy, From That Show! 09:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Its like you revealed the naked skinny body of a fluffy cat. Very bold.Mrdthree 14:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Kola Boof Affair of 1996

Someone very wisely deleted this section completely. The existence of a Kola Boof article is more than sufficient, and most of the text in this article read like a press release from Kola Boof herself: in other words, her own elaborate delusions reported with her own pseudo-sources. I had added the first sentence of this paragraph:

In her 2006 autobiography (as excerpted in Harper's Magazine, September 2006, pp. 22-24), Boof describes bin Laden as obsessed with Whitney Houston, smoking lots of marijuana, and forcing her to dance naked to Van Halen. Peter Bergen, a biographer of Bin Laden, has called Boof "delusional". He says that Osama Bin Laden was never in Morocco in 1996 - in fact, he says that Bin Laden has never been to Morocco at all. (http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/16/152128/228#comment-84099)

I would just like to state here that, if Boof's name should ever be reinserted into this article, the proper content would simply be this, preceded by a bland sentence along the lines of: The writer Kola Boof has alleged that she conducted a sexual affair with Osama bin Laden in 1996. I'd also like to say here how amused I am at how my sentence was so often deleted; it simply stated vividly the character of Boof's allegations, whereas the vast amount of junk people kept in there (until this salutary deletion) was far more dubious fantasy, masquerading as sourced and plausible information. Wareh 18:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I did that dirty deed here [21], hope you enjoy the edit summary as much as I did writing it ;)
We don't need delusional crap like that in Wikipedia articles. It just makes us look silly.
Regards, -- That Guy, From That Show! 06:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I am putting the info above in the kola boof article.-csloat 20:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed denial

Removed the following:

"However, bin Laden repeatedly denied responsibility for the attacks, and in an interview for the Karachi-based Pakistani daily newspaper Ummat, published on September 28, 2001, he stated: {{cquote|I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle. […] The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself […] there are dozens of well-organized and well-equipped groups capable of causing such large-scale destruction."

EDIT DUE TO FOLLOWING:

  • 1) Where are the "repeated denials"?
  • 2) Where is the ORIGINAL source for this supposed quote (a search at the Pakistan Unmat website reveals nothing. The old "source" claimed that this came from BBC Monitoring services, however, the source hosting this article was not acceptable per Wikipedia: Reliable Sources.
  • 3) Who did this supposed translation to English?

Mastoo 01:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • nod*, good catch. I removed it and suggest it should be left to the linked article to sort that out until we can fix those serious issues you brought up. Maybe instead of fixing that we all could work out a new summary that's completely cited and agreeable to most here.
-- That Guy, From That Show! 04:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

THE BIG QUESTION ???

The Question after Bin Laden is that Has Taliban make its Strong Roots in Afghanistan,Pakistan and Pakistan-Administered Kashmir to Control Central Asia, Indian-Occupied Kashmir and India

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Osama_bin_Laden/Archive_12&oldid=1137063274"