Talk:Osama bin Laden/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Peter Bergen quote

I'm not sure why the following seems to get deleted in all of the edit wars:

However, Peter Bergen, a print and television journalist and adjunct professor who is a consultant for CNN and who is known for conducting the first television interview with Osama Bin Laden in 1997, refuted Cook's notion, stating on August 15, 2006, the following:

“ The story about bin Laden and the CIA -- that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden -- is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently.

The real story here is the CIA didn't really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him.

”

Mastoo 01:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That's because most editors have issues with source that is a paid analyst/reporter who doesn't have inside knowledge except for what he has been told by unnamed government sources. Making it worse, the other ref backing it up is a government site quoting the analyst in defense of themselves.

This sort of thing is unacceptable, a person who makes a claim because of what the government has told him and the government saying it's true because the person reported it! This is one of the top reasons that claim will not survive for long in the article.

Also, the claim itself that the CIA was completely clueless about OBL in the 1980's is ridiculous for many, many reasons. Just for one example: the CIA had OBL contracted (albeit through a 3rd party) to dig tunnels and caves (remember those haunting us later?) starting ~1986 as well as construct ammo dumps. To believe that the CIA handed all of that money over and trust that OBL (oh wait, they didn't know about him or his high-placed construction equipment/personnel links + his Saudi status?) to magically figure out how the ammo dump and tunnels should be best deployed in relation to the Pakistan border is a bit whacky. I mean, did they just say dig tunnels and maybe you'll pop out in Pakistan in a good location, I think not. Remember that there were many parties contributing money and weapons during this time. They couldn't just use some haphazardly placed tunnels and such and cross their fingers for a good result.

The CIA didn't hand over Billions of dollars in aid in that Cold-War conflict by just throwing it at people and hoping for the best. In the not likely scenario that they DID do it that way they would have to be viewed as the most incompetent intelligence organization on this planet.

OFF-SUBJECT, but I have to dump this somewhere :) God I hate USA Today, almost every important article now cites not ANONYMOUS SOURCES but instead calls them SOURCES NOT AUTHORIZED TO TALK ABOUT WHATEVER THEY ARE SAYING. Blech, what next, they'll re-name themselves "USA FOX Today"?

-- That Guy, From That Show! 04:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Bergen is not just a run-of-the-mill-armchair-quarterback; he actually interviewed Bin Laden for CNN in 1997 in Bin Laden's hideout in Afghanistan. Bergen apparently worked on the research for his book "Holy War, Inc.: Inside The Secret World of Osama Bin Laden " for four years, and was just finishing the book when 9/11 hit.

For anybody who's curious, I suggest people should read (not necessarily buy, you could borrow it in a library!) Bergen's 480-page book "The Osama Bin Laden I know", which was published earlier this year; I just checked, and it's available in paperback too (ISBN 0743278925) for $10. It's a collection of interviews and quotes of people who know, or knew, Bin Laden at various points in his life. Around pages 60-63 of the hard-cover edition book (ISBN 0743278917), Bergen reiterates what is said on the CNN page (provided in the reference) plus quotes another source that claims the CIA and al-Qaeda didn't have a relationship. That extra source is not a "government" source, but if I recall correctly a quote from Ayman al-Zawahiri, the number two ranking person at al-Qaeda.

Mastoo 05:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I should have been more clear, I meant the other source that was in the article to back up Bergen, it was a .gov site.

As far as Ayman's denyal, that's a given. I haven't read that particular book but I imagine that it mentions that the Mujadeen rejected 'direct' contact with non-muslims and preferred a middle-man to do the dirty work unless it was unavoidable. Of course, the CIA wanted the same to avoid inflaming the Cold-war publicly and so that could also deny that they funded or trained anyone who later became a problem. That is how they (or any other smart organization) work and now they can claim 'we didn't train or fund OBL & pals'.

But, this is disingenuous. If for instance, I have a neighbor 2 houses away and I use the neighbor in the middle to deliver car-bomb instruction manuals, money, and explosives...

-- That Guy, From That Show! 05:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

In any event, it would seem that Robin Cook's quote alone is ambiguous enough that it requires the Peter Bergen quote to put it in alignment to avoid violating Wikipedia: NPOV.

Mastoo 06:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I would agree, go for it. But I would respectfully suggest that a) it doesn't resemble the many previous incarnations that get removed because of the wording and b) that you avoid the source here that keeps getting re-inserted. And, of course, others as well as me will probably mercilessly edit your additions ;)

Also, I'm researching this issue but primarily for other articles related to Afghanistan history and such. So, I should soon be able to provide other sources that back Robin Cook's claims about CIA involvement (more detail as well) being much more than they claim and Peter Bergen believes (I give him the benefit of doubt, not assuming Bad Faith).

-- That Guy, From That Show! 06:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

First, see my note below; you and Cook are incorrect. Cook is notoriously sloppy in his statements about al-Qaeda (e.g. the "database" nonsense) and certainly offers no evidence for this particular myth. Second, I agree with you that the U.S. State Dept is not the best source of info for this topic, but if you look at the page you cited, what they have done is pulled accurate and sourced quotations from a variety of sources. I see no problem with citing any of these quotes themselves, and even linking to the State Dept site to do so (though the original citation would be preferable).--csloat 06:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Bergen is correct, and he is a well established expert on bin Laden. Another authoritative source to look at is Steve Coll's Ghost Wars. Neither analyst is a government shill by a long shot, and both bring a lot of expertise to precisely this question. You can find similar analysis from Jason Burke. I haven't yet read Lawrence Wright's new book on bin Laden and al Qaeda, but I listened to an interview with him on NPR and he said essentially the same thing. The connection between bin Laden and the CIA is far more indirect than any of this. The CIA funded the Afghans. The "Afghan Arabs" (foreign Arab forces fighting jihad in Afghanistan, of whom bin Laden was one) played a small role in the fight against the Soviets there. The CIA certainly knew they were there, and some CIA weapons and funds likely reached them through third parties, but the idea that the CIA trained bin Laden is nonsense. A closer link is that the Reagan Admin - not through the CIA - encouraged Arab governments (esp Saudi Arabia) to help US goals in Afghanistan, and in response these governments - again, particularly Saudi Arabia - propagandized the jihad message and funded trips for Islamists to Afghanistan to fight there (it was a cynical move on the part of these Arab govts, who were only too happy to be rid of the trouble-making Islamists). CIA also helped build training camps there for Afghan fighters that eventually came under control of bin Laden's men. Again, the link is indirect, and any suggestion that bin Laden was ever trained, funded, or controlled by the CIA is nonsense. The Bergen quote should not be removed from the article; it is accurately sourced and he is a well-known expert, not some US government propagandist (in fact, he is highly critical of the US approach to the war on bin Laden, and specifically refutes several myths that the Bush Administration used to get the war in Iraq started).--csloat 06:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You assert that he is completely correct. I'm not doubting Bergens expertise or sincerity, but there are there are issues with his beliefs.

For instance, OBL was funded (at home as well as CIA) and as a result brought in construction crews to create the tunnels and ammo dump(s) that the CIA wanted. This was in 1986 so it's not surprising that claims that the CIA weren't ever aware of him until a decade later seems very, very odd.

His father backed the Afghan struggle and helped fund it, so when Bin Laden decided to join up, his family responded enthusiastically. He first traveled to Peshawar in 1980 and met the Mujaheddin leaders, returning frequently with Saudi donations for the cause until 1982, when he decided to settle in Peshawar. He brought in his company engineers and heavy construction equipment to help build roads and depots for the Mujaheddin. In 1986, he helped build the Khost tunnel complex, which the CIA was funding as a major arms storage depot, training facility and medical center for the Mujaheddin, deep under the mountains close to the Pakistan border. For the first time in Khost he set up his own training camp for Arab Afghans, who now increasingly saw this lanky, wealthy and charismatic Saudi as their leader.

Like I mentioned previously, I am researching this and related issues and will be providing more cites independent from each other soon. If I am correct, I will find separate sources that show OBL was working on project(s) for the CIA and receiving support from them. If don't find those sources, I'll eat humble pie. But, at this time, I find it incredibly hard to believe that the CIA a) wasn't aware at all of OBL previous to 1996 and that OBL/al-Qaeda didn't receive any money, benefits of training, and/or weapons that the CIA contributed. But, like I said, if I can't cite it I'll admit that I'm wrong.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 06:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The CIA, as I acknowledged above, funded the native Afghan resistance and in doing so built training camps (and weapons depots) that eventually fell in bin Laden's hands when the Taliban took Afghanistan in 1996. If they hired the Binladen construction company -- a well-known construction company in the region -- to help with the job, that would not constitute funding Osama bin Laden the terrorist. If Osama the son of Mohammed bin Laden was working for that company in 1986, it is entirely plausible that the CIA had no idea who he was or that he would be significant. The first terrorist act he is tied to is not until six years after that (and probably later). The quote you cite, from Rashid, does not say the CIA had any idea who he was or that he was working on the project. It says he helped build a complex that the CIA was funding for the Mujahedin -- that is, the native Afghan resistance, not the Afghan Arabs. On the very page before the quote you cite, the author acknowledges clearly that "Until he arrived in Afghanistan, bin Laden's life had hardly been marked by anything extraordinary." Certainly, there was nothing in 1986 that the CIA would have known to indicate who he would become, so Bergen's statement is entirely plausible.

Just for the sake of clarity, I don't think Bergen meant by "not having a clue" who he was that they didn't know his name or that he existed. The CIA was aware of him as a wealthy financier of Afghan Arabs around 1985. I am certain Bergen was aware of that fact, as it is reported in an unclassified profile of OBL released by the Agency in 1996. Stanley Bedington of the Agency's CTC told Coll, "When a man starts throwing around money like that, he comes to your notice." But Bergen is specifically replying to the claim that the CIA funded and trained bin Laden, not whether they knew such a person existed. If all you are saying is that the CIA probably knew that bin Laden existed, I doubt you would get an argument from Bergen. But if you are claiming that they funded or trained him or his men, you are not going to find evidence to support your point from anyone who knows what they're talking about.--csloat 08:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Guy appears to have no citations for anything he says. Mrdthree 22:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Guy appears to have no citations for anything he says. Mrdthree 22:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have cited many, many a time during my ~25,000 article edits without complaints that I'm pulling information out of my hind-end. I have cited in this article so the above is completely untrue. Please, let's work together and improve article content vs attacks as above which accomplish nothing to helping Wikipedia.

Just like anyone else, I've been wrong at times. But, I am completely willing to revise my view(s) when given citations to conflicting information that I cannot refute with my own citations.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 03:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you have references because its time to call you on it: 1) CIA hired Bin LAden to build caves and ammo dumps in 1986. 2) the cia wanted to avoid a publicly supporting the afghan rebels says who? what was dan rather doing in afghanistan with a camera crew showing american weapons? 3)"The CIA didn't hand over Billions of dollars in aid in that Cold-War conflict by just throwing it at people and hoping for the best"-says who what is your opinion about the Afghan war? Mrdthree 04:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

If all you are saying is that the CIA probably knew that bin Laden existed, I doubt you would get an argument from Bergen. But if you are claiming that they funded or trained him or his men, you are not going to find evidence to support your point from anyone who knows what they're talking about.--csloat 08:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that to the point that they were not aware of training or funding his men in specific. They knew who he was previously and Bergen actually mentions this as can be seen by part of his quote:

The real story here is the CIA didn't really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him. (emphasis mine)

This indicates that he was on their radar previously but then he was later was bumped up to the "seriously track this guy" list in 1996, 10 years later. This is in direct conflict with statements that they were not at all aware about him.

If the CIA didn't know anything about him previously, Bergen would have said ...they set up a unit to really start tracking him.

As I mentioned before, I am working on gathering more citations for articles but they do not include showing that the CIA was purposely training OBL & his later cohorts how to do crunches or whatnot, I do not believe that to be the case. The CIA would have been unable to predict that the Mujahideen who were moved to Pakistan and the USA for training would have then or future attachments to al-Qaeda. They knew that there would be a blowback at some point, as always happens, but not specifically who would be a part of it . i second this.

Regards, -- That Guy, From That Show! 14:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Cook quote

I think the Cook quotation should be removed. If someone wants a quote in there to make the claim that Bergen is responding to, that would be fine, but at the very least we should get rid of the confusing "database" silliness. However, I think we could find a better quote to make the case there.--csloat 08:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The Cook quotation should not be removed. I added a secondary back-up of his statements by a Doctor who was present and aiding those injured at Peshwar. I could easily add a few more.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 03:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Please take note:

Pakinstan's president blames west for bringing in extremism

16:31 Tuesday September 12th 2006

Pakistan's President General Pervez Musharraf today blamed the West for breeding terrorism in his country by bringing in thousands of Mujahedeen to fight the Soviets in neighbouring Afghanistan then leaving Pakistan alone a decade later to face the armed warriors.

Musharraf told the European Parliament's foreign affairs committee Pakistan is not the intolerant, extremist country often portrayed by the West, and terrorism and extremism are not inherent to Pakistani society.

``Whatever extremism or terrorism is in Pakistan is a direct fallout of the 26 year of warfare and militancy around us.

``It gets back to 1979 when the West, the United States and Pakistan waged a war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, Musharraf told MEPs.

Musharraf, on his first visit to the EU headquarters, also said he was optimistic about the chances for finding a solution to decades-old dispute over the Kashmir region, saying Pakistan's relations with India ``have never been this good.

from http://www.unison.ie/breakingnews/index.php3?ca=27&si=98303

viewed at 2006-09-13

Larger image?

Is it possible to post a larger image of Osoma being photograhed at Oxford in 1971? It looks unclear in the article. A larger image would also emphasis the innocence of this individual in the 1970s, compared to his reputation as a terrorist, currently. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 20:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Google posts an image of Bin Laden from a Swedish newspaper that has a big face shot [1]. But the biggest image of ubl at oxford these days is 19.5k [2] Mrdthree 19:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Creationist category

An Anon who has been generally POV pushing pro-creationism stuff took off the cat creationists here. I was going to put it back but it occured to me that I don't have any good reason for believing it is true. Do we have a source for this cat? JoshuaZ 21:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hrm? Please be more specific, thanks -- That Guy, From That Show! 10:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to this edit. JoshuaZ 15:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not specifically pro-creationism, but since Bin Laden's belief system is more broad than that what is mentioned in this wiki, and since there is no proof regarding Bin Laden's scientific creationism, the category should be left out. It would be different if he were a scientist with a creationistic viewpoint. I am academically researching the creationist viewpoint and sometimes change wikis that show a "bias without basis". This does not mean that I am a creationist or not; I just like to keep the data in Wikis correct. And regarding the creation-evolution debate, one can say that one thing is sure: from both sides, statements are sometimes made without proof. 80.60.218.143, Sept. 3, 2006

Public statements of Osama bin Laden since 911

I think it is a great omission that almost no mention is made from the numerous and extensive comments of bin Laden on current affairs since September 11, 2001. Just a link with a double mentioning of doubt on a large number of publications from several sources where has been commented on by both US-presidential candidates is unsufficient. A summary of statements should to be found in this article. Otto 22:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of suggestive remark

I deleted "Bin Laden is wanted by the FBI, CIA, Interpol, Mossad and Scotland Yard regarding those events.". Those events refer to the events of 9/11. In the first place an encyclopedia is to mention what is an not what is not, which would cause otherwise a lenghty list of remarks of at most questionable relevance. Further CIA and Mossad are no law enforcing agencies. Mossad and Scotland Yard are Israelian and Scottisch agencies without jurisdiction about 9/11, which took place in the USA. Further a source about people "wanted" by CIA or Mossad is not supplied and I doubt it exists given the fact that those agencies don't work in public. Otto 09:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

---

A small point on the above. Scotland Yard is not a Scottish agency, it is the headquarters of London's (therefore England's) Metropolitan Police Service. Scottish and English law are seperate entities, a curiosity of the constitutional nature of the UK. Further, Scotland Yard can and does investigate murders committed by or on British subjects abroad. Therefore, they could be involved in this investigation, but in practise, because of their relationship with US authorities, this will likely be in a supporting role. Jurisdiction is a misleading term here. I am led to understand that, because of the nature of extradition agreements, a law enforcement agency can hold a person to be "wanted" even if they didn't have jurisdiction to do more than extradite them to another country. --Roger Mexico 00:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Talking about Bin Ladin in terms of whether he is wanted or not by law enforcement is rather useless. To say that he was allegedly invovled is ridiculous when he has admitted involvement in the 9/11 attacks. Forget about the law enforcement angle and just go with what Bin Ladin has publicly admitted doing. It is highly unlikely that he will ever come to trial anyway. --Kurtkoeh 14:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

We need to deal with published facts on Wikipedia. That's how it goes here. Rumors or media 'common knowledge' do not apply.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 07:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting article

I found www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/280806binladen.htm this article] to be very informative, and it also has links to other interesting articles. --Striver 00:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I found this other article, one from a reputable source (Wash. Post), even more informative. Especially this part: Exhaustive government and independent investigations have concluded otherwise, of course, and bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders have proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings. FBI officials say the wanted poster merely reflects the government's long-standing practice of relying on actual criminal charges in the notices. But, of course, it is true that everything in the Washington Post should be taken with a grain of salt ( they have such an extensive history of right-wing collusion). Levi P. 00:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the article does talk about the Post article. It claims that it tries to minimize the huge FBI statment that it has no hard evidence conecting OBL with 9/11. --Striver 10:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Article Intro

It is stylistically clumsy and unnecessarily confusing to say he is "not wanted" by the FBI, Mossad, et al. for the 9/11 attacks. First, several of these agencies are, by nature, secretive, and do not necessarily provide exhaustive lists to the public about whom their looking for. Second, as someone above pointed out, it is not the function of an encyclopedia to delineate what things are not. Third, I'm sure it would be news to the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. that they were not looking for bin Laden. Levi P. 04:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

He is not officially or publicly wanted by them. This is very important. If we have an article about say 'Jim Smith' and we say he is connected to murders yet no police agencies are looking for him about connections to those same murders, we need to mention that to keep NPOV. This is a hot issue, but we need to follow Wikipedia encyclopedic guidelines.

OBL has not been indicted for 9/11 related attacks and is not officially wanted for them or even for questioning about those events. Please see WP:BLP for the importance of this. I am NOT arguing his innocence, but we do have to follow the above guideline about Living persons.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 05:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

He is officially and publicly wanted by the FBI. The thing that's feeding conspiracy theories is that the Wanted poster doesn't mention 9/11. The poster was originally drawn up in 1999, and (this page at least) was last updated in November 2001. --Mr. Billion 05:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

We need to follow WP:BLP guidelines. To defend removal of a fact from this article because of a claim that the FBI hasn't gotten around to mentioning it over the last 5 years on their top 10 most wanted list isn't enough. Either their site lists him as wanted regarding 9/11 or not, it's that simple. If they don't list list OBL as someone they want to talk to (or even arrest) about 9/11, then it is important that it is mentioned. Again, WP:BLP. It isn't about his innocence or guilt, it's about whether he is officially wanted at all regarding 9/11 events.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 08:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, I have a web site, and I run it by myself. Well sometimes my Mom edits it too. Between the two of us, we often go weeks between updates. So I can understand that the FBI, which has like twenty times as many people, or more, I don't know, could have problems updating their site more than every half decade. Especially since they aren't selling anything. Or at least not many are buying what it is they are selling... User:Pedant 06:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with the article explaining, in the appropriate section, that while UBL is under indictment for numerous serious charges, he has not been indicted for the 9/11 attacks. I object to the "current" sentence because of its vagueness: Bin Laden is not wanted by the FBI, CIA, Interpol, Mossad, or Scotland Yard regarding those events.- Well, this is clearly inaccurate. I think we can both agree that these agencies ( or most of them) are looking for UBL, and it is in connection to 9/11. This is no secret and can be seen on any newscast any day. What you mean, I guess, is that he has not been indicted in the United States. I'm not sure that Mossad or CIA "officially or publicly" do anything. If we say that the Washington Post says "Jim Smith" is wanted for Murder, it is appropriate to point out, somewhere, that he has not been charged; it is not appropriate to present a list of agencies that supposedly don't suspect him ( especially when Jim Smith is actively and publicly being sought by those agencies). Levi P. 05:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Bin Laden is not wanted by the FBI, CIA, Interpol, Mossad, or Scotland Yard regarding those events.- Well, this is clearly inaccurate. I think we can both agree that these agencies ( or most of them) are looking for UBL, and it is in connection to 9/11.

Yeah, everybody knows that, so we don't need to fact check or verify it, especially since you say it is clearly inaccurate and since you think we can agree. Yeah that's plenty of verification, yup, I guess that solves that. Thanks for clearing that up. User:Pedant 06:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What I'm seeing now is 'well, television says it so it's true'. This is not how Wikipedia works. If OBL is wanted by the FBI or CIA for 9/11 events, cite their web sites where they say that , it's that easy.

Everyone knows it's true and I heard it on TV is not enough. Cite and also read WP:BLP please. PLEASE.

Thanks in advance, -- That Guy, From That Show! 08:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, what a way to misrepresent what is clearly printed directly above you. Since we are arguing over a sentence which contains 5 distinct assertions, none of which are sourced, you will forgive me if I ignore your explanation of how WP sourcing works. Cite it, put it in the appropriate section, and be done with it. Levi P. 18:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, no need to get cranky ;) see below because I like your new version of that sentence.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 03:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I support the present, more precise, wording from Levi P. and hope this will end an unproductive edit-war. Otto 19:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The requirements to state a negative are as stringent as stating the affirmative. If you wish to support the statement "they do not want Bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks", it is not sufficient to note that they haven't said anything. After all, as observed by Levi, intelligence agencies are typically not in the business of providing lists of their goals and targets. Absence of Bin Laden on such a list supports it weakly; absence of any such list is no support at all. The current wording from Levi P. is a good compromise. --Mmx1 21:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a good compromise to me as well.--Sloane 22:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with Levi P's version, it is a good compromise and well worded. -- That Guy, From That Show! 03:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The intro says he was "allegedly connected" to 9/11 and not indicted. Surely this is dancing around the issue; the intro neglects to mention that he released a video claiming responsibility for the attacks. I'm not sure why the not indicted part is significant enough to be in the intro at all. It seems like the body of the article is the best place for that kind of detail.--ragesoss 22:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That Guy, why did you remove from the intro: and is not listed as "wanted" by the FBI for 9/11 crimes(http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm)? --NYCJosh 19:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Hrm? -- That Guy, From That Show! 11:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The redundancy about indictments pains the senses. It must be fixed. Move it to the front of the 9-11 paragraph Mrdthree 05:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed -- That Guy, From That Show! 11:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Anti-semitic?

Maybe just reading too fast and skipped relevant sections, but I fail to see why he is in category anti-semitic? He is certainly semitic and probably also anti-semitic, but it seems that it is not too well sourced in the article. --Magabund 19:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Good call, that should be done. The articles really does need a lot of work regarding a included categories and cites to support their inclusion.

Regards, -- That Guy, From That Show! 03:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

An article in Slate, here, argues that since bin Laden has said that it is the "duty" of "every muslim" to kill Americans, and that Americans and Israelis are not to be "distinguished" between, he therefore believes it is his and others "duty" to kill jews. Levi P. 06:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh, I don't dispute that bin Laden can be considered "anti-semitic" (at least in the sense of "anti-Jewish"), but that is hardly the evidence that makes the case.csloat 07:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That was exactly what I was talking about. This Slate article is just an opinion. If you follow the thinking in arab world, then you see that they view Israel as a modern day version of Crusader state. And being against Israel (as an US-Crusader proxy in his view) in this case particularily can hardly be construed as "anti-semitic". --Magabund 10:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to be contrary, but I think most reasonable people would think that calling for the wholesale murder of Jews, based solely upon their being Jewish, would qualify one to be called anti-Semitic. But perhaps I'm missing something. Levi P. 18:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you please cite where does OBL call for wholesale murder of Jews. I read through the fatwa[[3]], but maybe there are other sources, which are more specific on this point. --Magabund 12:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Just dropping by, not replying to anyone in particular, just editors in general:

For those who may not be familiar with the differences between Anti-semitism and Anti-Zionism, I would suggest that you look up information regarding that.

I believe that he would be better described as anti-Zionist due to readily available good cites (fatwa, etc...) regarding the goal of eliminating the Jewish state. This could be viewed generally as anti-semitic, but it is important to note that if the the Jewish state was instead controlled by Pagans, Mormons, or even Keebler Elves, the goal of eliminating the state would not be any different.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 18:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It is an interesting point. Despite all that has been written on the subject, I suppose I tend to see the two as inextricably intertwined. Although the idea of a fatwa against Keebler Elves is too much for me to take at this moment (is nothing sacred?). Levi P. 19:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I added Category:Anti-Zionists to the article as well as commenting next to that and Category:Anti-Semitic people mentioning that we need to cite in the article better in relation to those claims.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 16:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Straw-polls

Military and militant activity section (introduction)

It is completely without cites and OBL is only mentioned as involved due to having a half-brother have some unspecificed part of a Mosque seizure. I don't see that it really adds anything worthwhile in relation to this OBL article and the article itself is too long as it is. Also, the Soviet 'invasion' is covered immediately following this paragraph.

This is what I propose to be deleted:

1979 was a pivotal year for Islamic fundamentalism, with three huge events in the Muslim world. Osama bin Laden was connected, at least indirectly, to the latter two of them. First, on January 16, 1979 the Iranian Revolution began with the forced exile of the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, which then brought about the world's first modern Muslim theocracy under the rule of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Second, a half-brother of Osama was implicated in the November 20, 1979 Grand Mosque Seizure at Mecca, in western Saudi Arabia, the holiest site in Islam. The hostage-taking, two week siege, and bloody ending shocked the Muslim world, as hundreds were killed in the ensuing battles and executions. The event was explained as a fundamentalist dissident revolt against the Saudi regime. The Iran hostage crisis had begun only weeks earlier, on November 4, 1979 when a mob of students stormed and seized the U.S. embassy. Immediately following the Mecca event, Iran blamed the U.S., and angry Islamic mobs then burned two more U.S. embassies to the ground, in Islamabad, Pakistan, and at Tripoli, Libya. And then in the third major event of the year, on December 25, 1979 the Soviet Union, attempting to suppress an Islamic rebellion, deployed the 40th Army into Afghanistan, in support of advisers it already had in place there.

REMOVE -- That Guy, From That Show! 19:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the above paragraph, my mention of wanting to do so didn't stir up an comments or opposition.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 06:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Oxford Picture

Is the picture allegedly of bin Laden, or of bin Laden allegedly at Oxford. Either way, do we really want to include it in this robustly sourced article if we are unsure of the specifics? Levi P. 21:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it should be included due to it not having been established as being OBL.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 15:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The alleged does not belong. TH BBC article does not say alleged [4]. WHo has contested the photo other than wikipedians? Keep photo remove alleged. I cant understand the objection is it because it makes him sympathetic or makes him look rowdy? Mrdthree 15:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Some spanish lady says she has a picture of OBL and also asserts that he wasn't interested in politics or religion.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 06:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, even if the picture is of OBL as some unnamed person says, does it really add anything of even slight importance to the article? No, it is not notable in my opinion. The article needs to be shortened and a possible picture of OBL from some unnamed source doesn't help the article in any meaningful way.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 06:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Your claims of a forged photograph are without a source. THe BBC does not say alleged. THey are newsworthy.Mrdthree 08:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources say that bin Laden either rarely or never left the Middle East [5]. Read Peter Bergen's book on OBL as well. These pictures of OBL in Oxford showed up less than one month after 9/11 when their were lots of rumors and urban legends circulating about OBL, and NOTHING--not a thing--has turned up since October 2001 proving that OBL went to Oxford. I'm taking the picture out. PBP 17:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good source. Although neither of those authors argue Bin Laden never left the Middle East. Mrdthree 15:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

CNN quote

September 17, 2001: Islamic militant leader Osama bin Laden, the man the United States considers the prime suspect in last week's terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, denied any role Sunday in the actions believed to have killed thousands. In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said:

“ The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it.

"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.

"I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations,[6]

”

--Striver 11:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You may also wish to note subsequent videos. Andjam 16:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Living?

Why is he categorized under living, if it's been heavily rumored that he is dead? Ohyeahmormons 02:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Why do you suppose Elvis is categorized as dead, although it's been heavily rumored that he's alive? --Mr. Billion 00:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The blessesd sheik is dead, may Allah give him the promised virgins and camels. He did not release any audio or video in a long time, even though his aide Doctor Zawahiri is regularly shown on Al-Jazeera and CNN TV in 2006. His death is why the USA disbanded the special UBL-hunter unit, but it will not be publicly disclosed until they acquire and desacrate the corpse. Al-Kaida also does not want to announce the emir's death in order to keep good morales among the jihadists. UBL is like Lenin was to the USSR. 195.70.32.136 12:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Because Elvis was verified by doctors as dead? Ohyeahmormons 20:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added the tag back. It's seriously POV to assume he's alive. You can't prove it. No one can. That's why possibly living people is fitting--it hints he can be alive, it hints he can be dead. Ohyeahmormons 19:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

i don't see how it's pov to assume he's alive. the burden of proof lies on the "he's dead" crowd. rumors are only that. rumors. if you recall, zarqawi was rumored to be dead/captured at least 4 times before they actually killed him. rumors are not documented fact. they are speculation. Parsecboy 14:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Alternative spellings

should be listed, in the top paragraph.

Osama bin Laden

Usama bin Laden

Usama Binladen

Hopiakuta 15:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”

Link - I think this is important to add in the Article. I did add it, but someone removed it, please discuss as to why it should not be added —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.70.98 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 9 September 2006

The link and the meme don't belong because the link is to a guy ranting about his conspiracy theory that the 9/11 attacks were the work of the U.S. government. He takes an out-of-context quote from Rex Tomb, and builds a case that the world's media are being controlled by some shadowy source within the U.S. government. He might be interested to find out what else Rex Tomb has to say about why 9/11 isn't mentioned on OBL's Wanted poster. Well, why isn't it?

“ The reason? Fugitives on the list must be formally charged with a crime, and bin Laden is still only a suspect in the recent attacks in New York City and Washington.

"There's going to be a considerable amount of time before anyone associated with the attacks is actually charged," said Rex Tomb, who is head of the FBI's chief fugitive publicity unit and helps decide which fugitives appear on the list.

”

“ The absence has also provided fodder for conspiracy theorists who think the U.S. government or another power was behind the Sept. 11 hijackings. From this point of view, the lack of a Sept. 11 reference suggests that the connection to al-Qaeda is uncertain.

Exhaustive government and independent investigations have concluded otherwise, of course, and bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders have proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings. FBI officials say the wanted poster merely reflects the government's long-standing practice of relying on actual criminal charges in the notices.

"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."

David N. Kelley, the former U.S. attorney in New York who oversaw terrorism cases when bin Laden was indicted for the embassy bombings there in 1998, said he is not at all surprised by the lack of a reference to Sept. 11 on the official wanted poster. Kelley said the issue is a matter of legal restrictions and the need to be fair to any defendant.

"It might seem a little strange from the outside, but it makes sense from a legal point of view," said Kelley, now in private practice. "If I were in government, I'd be troubled if I were asked to put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed, no matter who it was."

”

The 9/11 case against bin Laden hasn't gone to court yet, so the FBI doesn't list it. The "muckraker" blog is making a ridiculous argument: The U.S. shadow government, which cunningly deceived and continues to deceive the world by painting bin Laden as responsible for the 9/11 attacks, has somehow consistently forgotten to add 9/11 to bin Laden's FBI poster--even after "truth seekers" and "muckrakers" have pointed out the absence.

Regardless, as a thoroughly biased piece, this blog link does not belong in this article. It might fit in 9/11 conspiracy theories, though. --Mr. Billion 17:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

There was a recent broadcast of video of the planning of 911 by bin Laden and his goat loving buddies. It is increasingly hard to blatently lie and claim bin Laden and Muslims had nothing to do with it. They had everything to do with it and virtually all terrorist acts today.Cestusdei 21:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not quite accurate either. The video shows bin laden with two of the hijackers, but there wasn't much planning going on. Also, al-Qaeda doesn't have "everything to do" with "virtually all terrorist acts today." There are a number of terrorist groups in the world, and most of them aren't directly connected to al-Qaeda. The Tamil Tiger rebels in Sri Lanka have no connection to al-Qaeda. Terrorism is a form of violence, like assassination or carpetbombing, that is not unique to any single group.

Back to the main topic, though: Al-Qaeda accepts responsibility for 9/11, and even if it didn't there's still abundant evidence of its responsibility. --Mr. Billion 00:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Criminal charges and attempted extradition

Under this very prominant section title the only reference to an attempted extradition isn't the one included in every single OBL biography ever written - where Sudan offerred to extradite OBL to Saudi Arabia - but the single sourced, unverifiable, non-credible and refuted allegation that Sudan offered to extradite OBL to the US. The source cited is a WaPo article by Mansoor Ijaz where this claim is made.

The same Mansoor Ijaz was interviewed by the 9/11 commission about these same late 1990s contacts between the Sudanese and the US. That commission made specific mention of this US extradition offer and stated they found no credible evidence to support suggestions that it occurred. PDF (See last para page 3).

“ These contacts with Sudan, which went on for years, have become a source of controversy. Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.

Sudan did offer to expel Bin Ladin to Saudi Arabia and asked the Saudis to pardon him. U.S. officials became aware of these secret discussions, certainly by March 1996. The evidence suggests that the Saudi government wanted Bin Ladin expelled from Sudan, but would not agree to pardon him. The Saudis did not want Bin Ladin back in their country at all.

”

Since the Saudi extradition offer is included in every researched bio of aQ and OBL and the US extradition offer isn't and the most in-depth investigation and review of all sources specifically looked at this claim and even interviewed this guy here and concluded "we have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim" then I think this needs to be removed.

As mentioned here the claim that the US was offered OBL's extradition exists solely as an anti-Clinton talking point and really only works when you confuse one country with another. It is neither credible nor does it add any understanding on the topic, especially when it replaces actual and well documented events. The text between the edit box I'm typing in and the "save page" button I'm about to press warns me that "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". This don't cut it. So you should. 220.233.94.28 11:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You must have been looking at the page today after User:That Guy, From That Show! reverted the article to its state the last time he edited it on September 8. Later in the day on September 8, I had fixed the problems you point out. Those repairs got lost in the revert. I don't know why he did that. --Mr. Billion 18:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. People are reverting vandalism but reverting to the last version and not checking for intervening edits. I glanced at the diff, it seemed ok and without major changes so I reverted.

I guess that I didn't look closely enough.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 16:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Just in case I wasn't clear, by 'intervening edits' I mean situations like what happened today here then an ip 'fixes' vandalism, the vandal strikes again, and then someone reverts the vandal to a still vandalized copy of the article. I fixed that problem, but those missing sections stayed that way for 30 edits :/

-- That Guy, From That Show! 16:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Catwalk

Can we find a less photogenic image of Mr. Laden for the article header, please? We do not need chicks think this guy is cooler than Brad Pitt. Also, that image was made at least 15 years ago, aging bin Laden already had patchy grey hair and beard in his late 2004 "golden robe" video message. You won't recognize him from this fashion model photo in the street (provided he is still alive which is unlikely). 195.70.32.136 12:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is the Cole bombing given such short shrift

Currently, the USS Cole bombing is only mentioned as a See also. Is this intentional? It seems to me to be a core part of the discussion of al Qaeda attacks against American interests leading up to 9/11. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It is said?

It's common knowledge that OBL was behind 9/11. I don't think there is any serious controversy about that whatsoever. Then why put in the encyclopedia that "it is said" OBL was behind 9/11? Of course it's true that "it is said" so. But it's also true that it is so. Nobody suggests we edit WP and put in the respective articles "It is said that 3000 people died at 9/11"; or "It is said that George Bush is the president of the US"; or "It is said that Australia is a continent".

Also, a short mention of OBL's current status belongs in the lead. If an editor has an issue about the info or wording I chose then by all means improve on it, but do not remove the entire item. Also have you read the reference? There is plenty of information there an editor might wish to include in the article. Dianelos 07:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

If there are credible sources for direct evidence of OBL's being behind it, then that should be OK. I would guess the article says "It is said" because many people think that the vast majority of sources on this subject emanate from the highly biased source that is the Bush administration. I would guess people are looking for truly independent sourcing. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a huge amount of evidence that OBL was behind 9/11, including several by OBL himself, for example the May 23, 2006 audio message where he says "I begin by talking about the honorable brother Zacarias Moussaoui. The truth is that he has no connection whatsoever with the events of September 11th, and I am certain of what I say, because I was responsible for entrusting the 19 brothers — Allah have mercy upon them — with those raids, and I did not assign brother Zacarias to be with them on that mission." Now there may be some measure of doubt about each individual piece of evidence, but the total is overwhelming. There is a lot of information about this issue in this Wikipedia article. Dianelos 18:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Are there transcriptions of this audio message supplied by a source independent of the U.S. government (and I say this as a U.S. citizen)? No matter what we think of Bush politically, this administration is heavily invested in presenting a particular message. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Dianelos said: Also, a short mention of OBL's current status belongs in the lead.

It is already mentioned in the lead. Repeating it does nothing useful.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 16:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Where? There is nothing else in the lead (i.e. the beginning of the article) about the current status of OSB. Anyway I also include a reference. Dianelos 18:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, is on the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list.

I do believe that means his current status is fugitive.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 13:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

caliphate robes

There is no such thing as "caliphate" robes in Islam. Those robes in the picture are traditional Arab dress that most well-to-do Arabs wear. The reference should be removed.

Agreed. I have removed it from the picture. Do not know if it is anywhere else too. --- ابراهيم 20:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Worn UBL photo on top is seriously needed

It is a serious demand to replace the current header photo of UBL with a more realistic, recent and elderly (and more ugly) photo of him. It is a disgrace to the 9/11 victims that Wikipedia idealizes UBL and poses him as a kind of male fashion model. He should be shown as ugly outside as evil he is inside. 195.70.32.136 11:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is a dispassionate reference work. The current picture is a widely distributed common image of this figure. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You will notice that just the header of just about every known personality is a photo-shoot: George_W._Bush, Carl_Rove, Tony_blair.... Why would OBL get different treatment? Yandman 15:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Why should Adolf Hitler get a different treatment then? If you check his wikipedia article, the top photo is small and quite poor in quality and pose. So I requested a photo betterment for the fuhrer in the name of neutrality and dispassionate attitude. Hitler was known as a highly photogenic, engaging and well-posed talking head and there are many surviving full-color professional photos of him. Why are those not displayed? In order not to offend the victims. That is what should happen to UBL. Replace his photo with a recent image that shows him as is now, aged and worn from many years of cave hideout and paranoia.

What is really upsetting about the current UBL top photo, is how he smiles in his infinite wisdom like a Jolly Buddha. He is victorious and we are the losers. 195.70.32.136 08:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

195.70.32.136 has been warned on his talk page. Yandman 08:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I will request mediation on this issue. 195.70.32.136 13:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't see what the issue is. I don't see how it matters what technique was used to produce a photo. The current photo is, I think, obviously within reason. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Muslims support for Osama

The article says following

Even though since 1998 the U.S. has offered a US $25 million reward for information leading to Bin Laden's capture, he is still at large. He still enjoys a measure of popularity in some Arab countries. According to a poll conducted in 2005, 51 percent of Pakistanis, 60 percent of Jordanians, and 35 percent of Indonesians support him...

If you want to mention that in the introduction then you should also mention other facts to make it look neutral. for example: 1) How many western think that 9/11 was an "inner-job". 2) How many think that Bush is responsible for 9/11 etc. If you do not do that then it is not good to defame Muslims with the one-sided stat given by you. --- ابراهيم 22:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The facts regarding conspiracy theories of 9-11 in the middle east can be found here.

• "By wide margins, Muslims living in Muslim countries say they do not believe this to be the case. The least skeptical Muslim nation is Jordan; even there, a majority (53%) says they do not believe Arabs carried out the attacks. The most skeptical nation is Indonesia, where 65% say they do not believe it and just 16% say they do, with the remaining 20% expressing no opinion. In Turkey, nearly as many (59%) say they do not believe that groups of Arabs carried out the Sept. 11 attacks, while 16% say they did. In 2002, a much bigger share of the Turkish public - 46% - said they believed that Arabs were responsible for Sept. 11, according to a Gallup survey. Roughly four-in-ten Pakistanis (41%) say they do not believe groups of Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks, compared with 5% who think they did; 44% of Pakistanis declined to respond."

Throw some reference tags around this to insert it as a footnote in the article when you get what you are looking for: "The Great Divide: How Westerners and Muslims View Each Other: Europe's Muslims More Moderate". Pew Global Attitudes Project. 2006. Retrieved 2006-09-12. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help). Mrdthree 02:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The Muslims defame themselves by supporting Osama and terrorism. If they really honestly don't believe in terrorism then they can help us fight the war and put Osama's head on a pole in Times Square.Cestusdei 22:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

First, to suggest all Muslims support Osama and terrorism is reprehensible, so I hope you're not doing that. Second, there are a good number of Americans who believe in "MIHOP" (I'm not suggesting I'm one of them, mind you). However, I would suggest that this isn't the article to discuss the hypothesis that the Bush administration was behind 9/11. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and in fact the Japanese did NOT bomb Pearl Harbor. It was those damn Albanians. It's all a conspiracy. Unfortunately todays poll shows that 50% of Muslims support and like Osama. So that's only about 600,000,000 of them. I feel so much better now.Cestusdei 02:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This is an article about bin Laden - not about 9/11, so what many people believe about 9/11 is not relevant and does not belong here (there are other articles in the encyclopedia that deal with that). On the contrary the fact that bin Laden is still relatively popular in the Arab world is quite relevant I think. Incidentally I did insert the reference for the poll numbers (the Pew report). Maybe it would also be relevant to put in the article that on the whole bin Laden's popularity is decreasing.

I don't understand the expression "one-sided stat" - is there any reason to doubt this poll's truthfulness? As for "defaming Muslims" I am not sure why I am doing this. I think it's a fact that a significant fraction of Muslims consider bin Laden a freedom fighter, somebody who has done his best and has put his life in the line to defend Muslim honor. This encyclopedia must project all major POVs (see relevant page here), so I think it's important that editors try to make clear to the reader that in relation to the Arab-Israeli conflict and the terrorism phenomenon there exists not only the Western POV but also another major POV, indeed the Arab one. I personally believe that unless the various sides reach a better understanding of each other - and I think Wikipedia might help a little in this sense - there is little chance of a peaceful and lasting resolution of the whole mess in the Middle East.

Finally the lead should include the basic information about the article's subject matter. So an item about bin Laden's current status is certainly needed. I don't see any previous mention of bin Laden's current fugitive status, so I think this too should stay here.

I really think the 4 lines I have included (and that were twice deleted) are factual, relevant, and improve the article because they give the reader basic information about the article's subject matter in the lead, so I feel they should stay. Dianelos 07:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur. It is in no way defamatory to state that certain Muslim populations support OBL. Indeed, it is important that we do not restrain ourselves to a pro-American viewpoint. Yandman 07:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

See I have also read polls somewhere that 51 percent people in NY believe that Govt. know as 9/11 in advance. The point I am trying to make is that either you should mention all sides views or nothing (to keep the article neutral). So one option is that we can start a new section with name "Polls". In that section we can mention side A, B, C... views. Otherwise we should keep all of them out from the article. --- ابراهيم 13:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Dianelos said: I don't see any previous mention of bin Laden's current fugitive status, so I think this too should stay here.

It says that he's a fugitive in the second paragraph ;)

Also, there is a linked article dedicated to how Muslims and others perceive OBL, polls and such, see Worldwide perception of Osama bin Laden. I can't see how duplicating that content would be useful.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 13:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see, it says in the second paragraph that he is in FBI's 10 most wanted fugitives list. But I submit that if you are not an American reader you will not automatically deduct from this that he is still at large - I know I didn't. Neither is there in the lead the rather significant information that he has not been caught even though there is a large bounty on his head for some 8 years now.

Also, I think the fact that he is still popular in the Arab world deserves a direct mention in the article, and not just as an item in a long "see also" list of pointers. It is certainly a more relevant matter than many of the details that are mentioned about his personal life etc.

I think it is a waste to repeat twice in the lead the lawyerish information that he has been indicted for the bombings of the US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and then add that he has not been indicted for his role in the 9/11 attacks. I mean why is that so very significant information to put in the lead? On the other hand the reader should find in the lead the information that the US invaded Afghanistan over this country's refusal to hand OBL over. (Also, I don't see anywhere in the article information about the number of people killed in the embassy bombings and Cole - OBL is famous or infamous for some serious acts that are attributed to him; so a few numbers certainly belong in this article.)

So I still think that substituting the third paragraph about the indictments with the item about OBL's current fugitive status and relative popularity would make the lead more informative for the vast majority of readers. Dianelos 15:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Any Muslim who supports Osama or terrorism or states that 911 was a US conspiracy IS a terrorist and should be treated accordingly. It is not POV it is terrorism. I hope the FBI carefully checks out every person who posts pro-terrorist statements. A cell awaits them at gitmo.Cestusdei 20:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

NOTE:The user above has been blocked so replying isn't necessary (and shouldn't be replied to anyway)' -- That Guy, From That Show! 03:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

the point of having the indictment paragraph is to inform an international audience that there is an open archive of sworn testimony, other evidence and court process information that can be publicly reviewed. Also it puts the weight of U.S. Justice System behind the claims of the criminality of Osama Bin Laden. A properly crafted sentence about the extradiction of Bin Laden being one of hte causes of the Afghan War probably should be included in the intro. Mrdthree 07:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Bin Laden writings

Does anyone here knows of any internet source for Bin Laden's writings? I want to read about Osama Bin Laden views on the world and their cause trough his own words.

Alleged

It seems we have a problem with mis-using this term in the article. "Alleged" is a term which should only be used to qualify statements of a legal nature (or a controversial statement not backed up by a robust source). OBL's direction of the attacks is properly described as "alleged". However, his "support" of the attacks is a matter of public record, and thus should not be qualified as alleged. He has, numerous times since '01, praised/supported the attacks. Prior to the attacks he issued a public statement calling for just such attacks. If an editor wants to qualify this statement, the appropriate way to do so is to to say, "According to Wa Po he supported and is alleged to have directed..." It is simply incorrect to characterize his support as "alleged" when it is a matter of public record. Levi P. 18:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The primary definition of support in this context is To provide for or maintain, by supplying with money or necessities.

We don't have facts about that so it is alleged.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 19:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I see your point (I hadn't read it that way). I think we should change it so as to avoid any ambiguity. If that is what is meant by the sentence, then how about, "...is alleged to have funded and directed." It seems we should just say what we mean, especially since the context allows for a "mis-reading" of the text. Thoughts ? Levi P. 19:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

*nod*, excellent edit -- That Guy, From That Show! 06:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Dead

According to several news sources, Osama died of Typhoid. 70.177.71.206 14:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC) Hopquick 15:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism concerns

If editing has been disabled, why does the article still show signs of vandalism? Or is "shit head" considered normal wikipedia vocabulary? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.193.63.155 (talk • contribs) 11:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Never mind -- very weird: I swear I saw "aka shithead" in the middle of the presentation of his full name; then noted it here, and then it was gone instantly afterward. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.193.63.155 (talk • contribs) 11:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Routine vandalism. I've been watching the person who's been adding it and will take care of things if it happens again. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The vandalism was there if you look in the history of the article. Vandalism is only turned off for unregistered users. Registered vandals can still make edits, but they get banned more easily than IPs because IPs can change, and thus IP bans might hit people who don't vandalize. It's normal for vandalism to disappear very quickly, typically in less than 5 minutes. Featured articles and such will often have the vandalism removed the same minute it was made.-NorsemanII 13:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Question / Close or Far ?

How exactly close might one intelligent and informed person who can reasonably and rationally approximate as correctly as possible in words, and be able to say that our United States President George Bush be to this very day in effect capturing and catching Osama Bin Laden given what is the sheer mass volume and the huge numbers of people and computers and internal and external resources who are working exhaustively around the clock in the past 5 years now to acheiving this objective.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Berniethomas68 21:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Bit wordy there, guy. Answer: Not very close. --Mr. Billion 07:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It may prove wordy, and yes I agree and I own up to that, but that was the only way I know how to ask at that moment. Since I cannot naturally come to expect for that our president George Bush who while golfing will smack a line drive golf ball so hard and so fast and send it flying across the ocean and smack Osama or Usama right dab above the bridge of his nose
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Berniethomas68 14:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Death Allegations

These allegations are very certainly important in this article - as such, they have their own section and are mentioned in the intro. The media is reporting the death as alleged - until there is a greater degree of certainty than one leaked report, there are not grounds for inserting a date of death. After all, these media reports are all based on one leak. Anthony.moore 14:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Something is needed to help substantiate and to focus more

How about photographs. How about the people on the ground. How about millons of computers scientifically working all of the time and boiling down a prospective possible 5 mile likely region that he would be in. What is his present chain of command. What does he do in the morning and the day and the night. Does he have an airplane. Does he have an automobile. How does he access his money. Is he hiding in a cave. Is he with his family. How many guards are protecting him. How does he get around. How is he able to effectively communicate at all if he is infact alive. Has he disguised himself. Does he have a effective and fool proof network of people to provide for his medical needs. Has he released any audio tapes. Has he released any video tapes. Does he take care of himself alone. Or does he have 5 to 10 care takers to look over his health. Is he living underground. Does he have to pass through military check points. How effectively damaged is the infrastructure of his money since The United States froze terrorist assets in these past five years. How about predator drones gathering aerial data. How about military strategists plotting careful maps on his where abouts and narrowing and whittling down the data. How about our soliders on the ground who are tirelessly protecting our freedom and interviewing people over in his neck of the woods. Why has not one peice of reliable and useful data ever come forth concerning his where abouts. It only took about 10 months I think it was to isolate Saddam Hussein. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Berniethomas68 16:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You may want to take a look at WP:TPG. A quote from the guideline: "Keep on topic: Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article.". ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^Talk 16:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

i have a good reason for why we don't know most of those things. most of that information is classified. therefore, no one without a clearance (and need to know) doesn't know it. and those that do know can't talk about it. the reason they found hussein faster was because he was hiding in houses that could be searched easily, and the network of people hiding him tracked. it's not so easy in the mountains of afghanistan and pakistan. Parsecboy 17:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Bin Laden Alive?

Why won't anyone entertain the possibility that he is dead? Why haven't we seen him in a video recently? Surely if he was alive he would be filmed mocking the West's attempts to find him.

I second that. He was on kidney dialysis in 2001. Google "Osama Bin Laden dead". Dhammapal 11:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I third that and think people need to consider it. Of course, some people here are so stubborn that they'll believe whatever they want to believe without thinking it over first. Ohyeahmormons 19:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The kidney dialysis claim is a complete fabrication. Somewhere in the article it should mention that the claims that he has kidney problems are not supported by any evidence, and in fact there is evidence against such a claim. See here Osama debunks a myth. -- 70.20.171.79 10:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

According to French newspaper L’Est Republicain, Osama Bin Laden is dead. According to the paper, he died of severe typhoid in Pakistan on 23 August 2006. His location prevented any medical attention.[7]

Rumoured death from typhoid

Australian news is also reporting* ;) rumoured death [8] stating information gathered by the Saudis indicates that the head of Al Qaeda was a victim while he was in Pakistan on August 23, 2006, of a very serious case of typhoid, which led to a partial paralysis of his internal organs.--Golden Wattle ^talk 10:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It better not be true that UBL died of typhoid from contaminated water. That would make jihadists proclaim he died of well poisoning. You know who poisons wells according to old, widespread beliefs... There would be pogroms throughout the islamic/arab world. UBL better be captured or killed in gunfight or by laser-guided bombs. Even a conformation of that would bring terrorist reprisal, but much less than this bad water story. 195.70.32.136 08:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Bin Laden

I think "Bin Laden" should redirect here, and there should be a link to a disambiguation page on top of this article Black Omnimon 18:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Possibly. By the way, be sure to add new comments at the bottom of the page. That way we can tell which topics are the most recent. --Mr. Billion 21:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably, I doubt many who enter "bin Laden," are looking for anything else—Infact, I'd guess very few people are.--ᎠᏢ462090 07:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• I support the Bin Laden redirect proposal. — Xiutwel (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Done. There's no need to take a vote on something like this - if you think that doing something would improve Wikipedia, then do it - we have a policy and a guideline which allow us to. Cynical 10:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

preoccupied

Do you believe this article??? [9] "Bin laden peroccupied with Whitney Houston!" & "Bin laden had a copy of playboy magazine in his briefcase" anyone got a better source please inform, otherwise I think it's more bogus than a reality. --Theguys 04:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth. --ElKevbo 18:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)