Talk:Osama bin Laden

Archive 1: November 2001 Topics: Osama's return to Saudi Arabia, Name, NPOV, Freedom fighter?, Media coverage
Archive 2: December 2001 Topics: Removal of picture, Name, CIA theory
Archive 3: April 2002-October 2002 Topics: Name, Reorganisation, Is he a terrorist, CIA theory, Mujahideen, Saudi Arabian citizenship
Archive 4: November 2002-January 2003 Topic: Removed comment about members of family, Origin of Al Qaeda, US sponsored
Archive 5: February 2003-August 2003 fatwa, Picture, "explaining revert", Page protected and unprotected, Deficiencies of this article
Archive 6: Long discussion on September 12, 2003, Part 1
Archive 7: Long discussion on September 12, 2003, Part 2
Archive 8: September 2003
Archive 9: November 2003-December 2003
Archive 10 (archived in advance)
Archive 11: January 2004-January 2006

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.

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)

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.

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)

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. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 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]. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 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)

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. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 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. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 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. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 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)

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.

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

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)

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)

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)