Jump to content

Talk:Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anti-Pakistan

[edit]

This article is definitely written in an anti-Pakistan environment and some of its editors ‎have tried in every way to connect this guy with ISI. The ‎fact is big part of the article has been built with the quotes from different "news sources" ‎which have tried to connect this guy to ISI and 9/11 terror ‎attacks in one way and another.‎

If you do a little googling on Net, you will clearly notice that all ‎news sources connecting Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh to ISI (and 9/11) are somehow ‎connected to India. In today's information-crazy time, journalism is another way of ‎propaganda.‎

I do not want to add any content to this article without any credible source and ‎research.‎

However, kidnap and murder of a journalist is not very hard in today's war-stricken ‎world. You don't need to have links with Osama bin Laden, 9/11 or some kind of military ‎intelligence to do this. All you need is dedication to extremism, resources (money, a bunch of ‎‎local devotees as man-power, etc.) and weapons.‎ Szhaider 04:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page is changed and looks better now. I hope that it will stay good and will not be reverted back. ---- Faisal 20:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the article to the older version with references.Bharatveer 14:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any referenece related to Pakistan by Indians (Newspapers or authors) are not accepted as neutral. They are just like Israil 's references about Phalistine article. --- Faisal 15:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think there are such restrictions in wikipedia. Moreover almost all the news article cited are either british or american.That being the case, I dont think you should remove the whole content of the article without discussing it on the talk page. I am goin to revert it to the earlier version. Bharatveer 15:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia cannot be a propaganda machine and its articles should not be compilations of ‎biased newspaper stories. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It should give information ‎without any bias or prejudice. If the information is doubtful, refrain from putting it on this site. Almost all British or American newspapers, that you have ‎referred to, refer back to Indian sources in one way or other. Discussion for discussion ‎has no meaning. Let's be honest and refrain from making Wikipedia political war ‎machine. If you refuse to do so, then you are vandalizing Wikipedia.‎
I don't think Bharatveer is trying to vandalize the article, just trying to include noteworthy information. I think the current version is too brief in omitting mention of ISI and 9/11 speculation. I would suggest to Bharatveer that he compose a couple of well chosen sentences to summarise these points, then add supporting references to the 'External links' section. As Szhaider points out, extensive quoting of media speculation is not encyclopedic - Crosbiesmith 22:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still do not think wikipedia restricts citing or quoting indian sources.The fact is that for a person like Omar sheikh, almost all his biography can be known only through Newspaper articles. The argument that CNN is unreliable since it quotes indian sources is not logical .

In 1994, Omar was arrested for kidnapping three foriegners and was arrested and sentenced for life in India.Later in 1999, he was released in exchange for the civilian passengers of Indian Airlines aircraft.In this case , All the newspapers will therefore quote Indian sources,But that does not make it unreliable.

I also see that the reference of the book "Bernard-Henri Levy's book “Who Killed Daniel Pearl?" is also blanked out.

I am going to revert it to the former version.Bharatveer 03:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC) We can discuss what ought to be deleted before going in for endless reversions. My objection is about the blanking of a major part of a referenced article .Bharatveer 08:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please decide first what we write on this page, which should not be POV. We can’t link anybody to any thing just by using some news reports (which may be untrue). Please make sure that what we write is correct. There are many people, who are not happy with what is written, and what they are saying is correct, and we follow it on wikipedia. So, please decide first and write after it. In external reference section, all the links are added, so if some one likes to read, he can refer to external links. So please don’t revert. We don’t follow this pattern of writing anywhere else in wikipedia. --Spasage 09:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a particular problem. The article said "This newspaper said that this person... " so there is always a probability the article is wrong. It wasn't saying "This person did this...". Also I disagree with the fact the links were blanked. They were from US and UK papers. Anyway, it is biased to prevent Indian sources because that cuts out a few sides of the argument I feel. Do we then remove all sources/commentary from a muslim source? Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article in the present shortened form excludes many events in his life like his kidnapping of four foreign tourists, his arrest in India and subsequent punishment, his release from the Indian jail etc ... Bharatveer 07:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the ISI seen as representative of Pakistan. There is enough evidence to suggest that it has acted in the past to harm the nation rather than benefit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.118.71 (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

[edit]

I've locked the page till all disputes have been sorted out. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add to this debate in a substantive fashion. Please read this and consider the substitute text proposed at the end.
The entire section on Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh and his alleged connection to 9/11 needs to be substantially altered, if not excised. It is completely incorrect, a house of cards built upon a single case of media-reported mistaken identity, a mistake compounded over the years by mindless repetition without independent corroboration, including here. In addition to this patently clear case of mistaken identity, a significant statement in this section, which appears to lend some creedence to Mr. Sheikh's alleged connection to the 9/11 plot, is materially misleading.
Let's begin with the very first and only significant reference linking Mr. Sheikh to 9/11: An Oct. 6, 2001, CNN piece, entitled, "Suspected hijack bankroller freed by India in '99," a report sourced to a single, "senior-level U.S. government source."
The CNN story states that Mr. Sheikh (although it calls him "Sheik Syed") used "the alias Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad," to send "more than $100,000 from Pakistan to Mohammed Atta, the suspected hijacking ringleader who piloted one of the jetliners into the World Trade Center." (These allegations are repeated, though without any attribution, in a separate Wikipedia entry on "Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad," which should also be substantially altered or excised. Further, the second Wikipedia article claims these allegations were confirmed by the FBI, which appears without a citation or a source, and is false).
The CNN report also claimed that "Atta sent thousands of dollars -- believed to be excess funds from the operation -- back to Syed in the United Arab Emirates in the days before September 11." From the beginning, it appears CNN, and/or the single, anonymous US government official that it cited as a source, confused what it claimed was one of Mr. Sheikh's alleged aliases, " Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad," with the name of a completely different person – that of Al Qaeda financier and organizer Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi (or "al-Hisawi," as his name has been frequently transliterated in the press, including The New York Times, the Chicago Tribune and elsewhere; it is, however, spelled "al-Hawsawi" in the 9/11 Commission's Final Report, by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and by Wikipedia itself in a separate entry ).
The source of the confusion is clear given the similarity between Mr. Sheikh's alleged alias and the name of the real Al Qaeda financier. Possibly adding to the confusion is that the latter was a close associate of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, as would also allegedly emerge in the case of Mr. Sheikh. And all three men were indeed hiding in Pakistan.
But Mr. Shiekh, a Pakistani terrorist convicted in Daniel Pearl's murder, is, in fact, a very different person from the 9/11 financier. And every material detail CNN cited in this initial report about his alleged connection to the 9/11 plot would match the facts that would later emerge in full about Mr. Hawsawi.
(Many poorly sourced, confused, fragmentary or flat-out incorrect stories such as this emerged from news organizations in the early days after 9/11, and many news organizations never fully corrected them, contributing substantially to misinformation and/or conspiracy theories that remain alive and well today).
Here is a breakdown of the CNN and report about Mr. Shiekh vs the facts about Mr. Hawsawi: · CNN also said in its original report that lead hijacker Mohammed Atta "sent thousands of dollars -- believed to be excess funds from the operation -- back to Syed in the United Arab Emirates in the days before September 11." In fact, the recipient of alleged excess funds in the United Arab Emirates was Mr. Hawsawi, the real "Mustafa Ahmed," and not Mr. Sheikh under the similar alias. This has been reported repeatedly, including by respectable news organizations and the 9/11 Commission itself, which said in its final report, "In the days just before 9/11, the hijackers returned leftover funds to al Qaeda ... They sent the excess funds by wire transfer to Hawsawi in the UAE, about $26,000 altogether." (See page 270, Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Official Government Edition).
· CNN also said Mr. Sheikh, under his alleged alias, sent "more than $100,000 from Pakistan to Mohammed Atta ..." No such wire transfer was ever listed among the many financial transactions detailed by the 9/11 Commission in its Final Report, nor were any such transactions ever documented by the FBI, which carried out a comprehensive investigation of all financial activities related to the attacks. However, once again, Mr. Hawsawi, the real "Mustafa Ahmed," and not Mr. Sheikh, was a major mover of money in the plot, as the 9/11 Commission also documented. FBI Director Robert Mueller said in classified testimony to Congress (which was later declassified) that Mr. Hawsawi shared an account with Mr. Mohammed, the 9/11 mastermind, at a bank in the United Arab Emirates that received about $102,000 in funding during the 12 weeks prior to the attacks, a figure in line with the "more than $100,000" originally cited by CNN. (see, "Alleged Al Qaeda financiers held; 1 suspect seized in Pakistan raid, 2nd in Germany," by Cam Simpson and Noreen Ahmed-Ullah, The Chicago Tribune, 5 March 2003, page A 11.)
While that should finally put to rest this case of mistaken identity, based on a one-source TV report aired 25 days after 9/11, another reference in this section of the Wikipedia article is materially misleading. It says the 9/11 Commission's "Final Report states that the source of the funds 'remains unknown.'"
This two-word excerpt makes it sound as if the 9/11 Commission left open the possibility that Mr. Sheikh sent "more than $100,000 from Pakistan to Mohammed Atta," when, in fact, no such allegation is made anywhere in the 9/11 Commission report, because it never happened.
Not only that, but the full quotation from the 9/11 Commission Final Report -- not just the two words cited -- has nothing to do with this case. Instead, it is about on the overall $400,000 to $500,000 in estimated costs for the attack. The full quote also makes it clear that a great deal is known about how money was moved. "The origin of the funds remains unknown, although we have a general idea of how al Qaeda financed itself during the period leading up to 9/11." The full quote can be found on page 187.
The rest of this section of the article then attempts, in an equally misleading way, to link 9/11 funding to the Pakistani government.
In fact, not only has the house of cards already collapsed by this point in the piece, but the 9/11 Commission also stated, on page 190, "we have seen no evidence that any foreign government — or foreign government official — supplied any funding" for 9/11.
It's time to put this ridiculous exercise to rest once and for all. This article borders on propoganda, and readers of Wikipedia should demand a far higher standard.
My suggestion for replacement text follows:
"Following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, there was one unconfirmed cable news report, based on a single, unnamed government source, alleging that Mr. Shiekh sent $100,000 to one of the hijackers. The news report also alleged leftover funds were sent back to Mr. Shiekh in the United Arab Emirates before Sept. 11 (see "Suspected hijack bankroller freed by India in '99," CNN, Oct. 6, 2001).
"In fact, the cable news network and/or its source apparrently confused one of Mr. Sheikh's alleged aliases, "Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad," with the name of the Al Qaeda financier who was actually alleged to be behind similar transactions -- Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi. No other credible evidence to support such claims about Mr. Sheikh and 9/11 ever emerged. But subsequent reports about the invesigation into the attacks, including the Final Report of the 9/11 Commission, do make clear that details cited in the original television broadcast fit the case of Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi. (For one prominent example involving the return of leftover funds, see page 270, Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States , Official Government Edition)."
I am new to Wikipedia, so I apologize if I'm not doing this correctly ... but I hope someone picks up the ball I've tossed onto the field and fixes this once and for all, for the sake of the historical record.

Why the article expanded form is NOT acceptable

[edit]

Note that anyone can prove India a terrorist state using Pakistani Newspapers and anyone can prove Pakistan a terrorist state using Indian Newspapers. Like it or not but it is a fact (because of on going Kashmir dispute). The article use Indis sources and used to say something like that ISI give money to Sheikh, who give money to Atta. Atta perfom 9/11 and hence CONCLUSION: ISI (PAKISTAN) had conducted [9/11]. It is simply not acceptable espacially when India sources are used to make such a big claim. I hope that wikipedia is not used for this kind of propoganda against Pakistan otherwise, I use my all legal powers to fight against it. --- Faisal 13:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot quite follow the logic in your argument. You must understand that he was in prison in India for his crimes and therefore all the news reports will essentially cite indian sources for reporting the news.I can see only One or two Indian Newspaper being quoted in the article , rest all others are western sources.Bharatveer 14:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name in Arabic: request for edit

[edit]

I know that this article has been protected due to some disputes. However, I would like to request the admins for a minor edit.

Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh's name in Arabic has been misspelled. Real spellings of his name in Arabic are احمد عمر سعید شیخ. His second last name is سعید not سید.

Reasons

  1. سید is a family name but Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh's family name is شیخ. A person cannot have two family names at the same time. سید and شیخ are two entirely different families.
  2. سید and سعید are too often confused with each other because of almost same spellings and pronunciations.

Szhaider 21:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit dispute

[edit]

I am restoring to the longer version, and will edit for NPOV. Much of what was removed is objective, not propaganda. Kaisershatner 14:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

[edit]

There are small flaws in this section: "Forest School Snaresbrook" should really be linked to the school and use its correct name Forest School, Walthamstow. It is not called "the Forest School", but "Forest School". If you agree I'll make these minor alterations. 86.147.5.23 17:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to post this without being signed in. Sorry. Mhmaudling 17:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Osama bin Laden

[edit]

BHUTTO'S STATEMENTS REGARDING OMAR SHEIKH MURDERING OSAMA BIN LADEN ARE CRUCIAL AND MUST BE INVESTIGATED AND GIVEN LIGHT. IT WOULD BE AN ABSOLUTE TRAVESTY FOR AMERICA, AND FOR THE WORLD, IF THIS INFORMATION WAS NOT DISTRIBUTED AND INVESTIGATED. I PERSONALLY AM OUTRAGED THAT WIKIPEDIA IS PUTTING A HOLD ON THIS INFORMATION. ITS A SHAME THAT OUR INDEPENDENT SOURCES OF INFORMATION ARE BEING CENSORED AND AMERICANS ARE BEING DENIED THIS KNOWLEDGE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.17.132 (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In an interview with David Frost for his (Nov 2nd) Al Jazeera TV show "Over the World", before her assassination, Benazir Bhutto stated that Osama Bin Laden had been murdered by Omar Sheikh. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIO8B6fpFSQ (5 mins in) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.211.130 (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unconfirmed statement. If Osama is shown to be dead, then the material would be of interest. At this point, it's just Bhutto's word, and there's no confirmation. There's a legitimate BLP issue here. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since when do we need 100% proof of death to report about it? Jimmy Hoffa's body was never found, however, wikipedia does include items in which people are quoted about his presumed death (and rightly so). That's the first point. Secondly, it is "noteworthy" and right to include in an encyclopedia that someone of Bhutto's stature (former Prime Minister) believes Bin Laden was murdered. (To those who would criticize my statement for being too pro-Establishment, I would clarify that I am not asserting that it is a "necessary" condition but only saying it is a "sufficient" condition for such a well known, large stature figure, make such a statement, for it to be noteworthy) She is not only very famous and a historical figure, but she is also someone who was knowleadable and had access to information, about such matters. Does this make her infallible? No, and wikipedia should NOT report it as a "fact" that Osama Bin Laden was murdered, much less murdered by Omar Sheikh. Had that been the question, the answer would be "not confirmed". But Wikipedia to be relevant and useful as a source, the wikipedia entry should certainly, at minimum, include, at least a brief mention (and link to the video clip is possible) that Bhutto made the statement on Sir David Frost's show. --Harel (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is supposedly a reference to Osama bin Laden's funeral in a Egyptian newspaper at end of 2001. The link below has an image of the funeral notice and a translation. The article information is as follows: al-Wafd, Wednesday, December 26, 2001 Vol 15 No 4633

http://www.welfarestate.com/binladen/funeral/

Finding a confirmation to the death of Osama bin Laden would be the first step to build a case for his assasination, otherwise everything said about it is hearsay.

There is also a World Tribune article dated October 6th, 2002 that asserts that the Isreali Intelligence believes Osama bin Laden had died in 2001. The World Tribune site has diffictulties pulling the file from their archives, but there is a copy on the web. http://www.welfarestate.com/binladen/funeral/israel-intel.txt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.66.199 (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it would only be "hearsay" were Wikipedia to assert that it is a "Fact" That Bin Laden was so murdered.

But it is not hearsay to report a newsworthy and encyclopedia-wise NOTEworthy event, mentioned in an entry, that the Former Prime Minister of Pakistan asserted that this happened. It is relevant, it is useful information for people to know that this assertion was made. Furthermore, you can find lots of other Wikipedia entries where one hollywood star X is mentioned (rightly so) as "has acused Y of involvement in the death of Z". That's because it was deemed noteworthy that X has publicly accused Y of involvement in the death of Z. It is far more noteworthy when the former Prime Minister makes such a statement. I do not think anyone is calling for the wikipedia entry to state it as fact; we are merely stating that it is noteworthy and that the entry should state that "In November 2007 on Sir David Frost's show, former Pakistani Prime Minister B. Bhutto stated that Osama Bin Laden was murdered by Omar Sheikh in apparent reference to Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh" or something similar.--Harel (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit, I do not agree that this videolink should be included. This, because I find, in this talk alone, 2 causes of death of Osama Bin Laden. 1 of kidney failure/natural aging and 1 of murder, told so by Benazir Bhutto. That is enough doubt not to put it in the Wikipages. I would say. It makes Osama Bin Laden being dead since december 2001 more plausible, that's for sure... --Timo van Esch (talk) 04:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Sheik murdered Osama Bin Laden

[edit]

I was watching a clip of Benazir Bhutto on Frost Over the World and she states that "...he also had dealings with Omar Sheik, the man who murdered Osama Bin Laden" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIO8B6fpFSQ - 6m 10secs). Is it possible to find additional sources to confirm that this is atleast what some people beleive. I don't want to add it to the article without multiple sources stating that some people believe that Sheik murdered Bin Laden. Ethoen (9:20 UTC 28/12/2007)

  • I think it was a brain fart and nothing more. She mentioned one man who was convicted of decapitating two British subjects and then started talking about Omar Sheikh who killed Daniel Pearl in the same manner. Bringing up Osama bin Laden does not exactly fit the context of what she was discussing. It was probably a slip of the tongue. Nothing more. This interview from the day after her talk with Frost is proof that she still considered OBL to be alive hence not murdered by Omar. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0711/03/cnr.06.html Bozu ([[User

talk:Bozu|talk]]) 21:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  • The above and below comments are total BS. Place links to the Al Jazeera comments on Bhutto's, Sheik Omar's and Bin Laden's entries. It is a shame that David Frost did not pick up on the comment at the time (but he is old). The woman has been murdered in circumstances that need to be investigated. "Brain fart" or not the comment was clear, and available on Al Jazeera! Force main stream media into investigating this comment. Nothing is going to make this world an unsafer place, and there is every chance it could improve matters!

Benazir merely mis-spoke

[edit]

We appear to have two possibilities. One is the exciting cloak-and-dagger story in which a former jihadi, arrested in February 2002 for a famous outrage, was (while the rest of the world thought he was just languishing in jail) somehow later used to kill the figurehead of the global jihad, at an unknown time and place, but that this was unknown to the public until a famous Pakistani politician inadvertently spoke the truth during a TV interview.

The other possibility is that she mis-spoke, as human beings often do, and that her interviewer, being familiar with this fact, did not bother to ask, "Hang on - did I hear that correctly? You say this man murdered Osama? Stop the presses!"

May I at least ask, if people insist on adding a section about this to Omar Sheikh's page, that it acknowledge that

(i) people make verbal mistakes, sometimes quite complicated ones

(ii) Omar Sheikh is supposed to have been in jail for the past five years

(iii) Osama bin Laden is still releasing tapes

(iv) there is zero evidence for this theory apart from one statement in a TV interview, a statement which was never followed up over the next month despite its sensational implications if taken literally, and despite the ready availability of both interviewer and interviewee

I think this is idiotic, but perhaps that is POV.

This new "theory" has now made its way onto Osama's page, so it may be better discussed there rather than here. Mporter (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A reply to the argument that Benazir Bhutto mispoke

[edit]

Benazir was a highly intelligent, highly educated and ex-prime minister. She is not George Bush. She does not mispeak. This is the biggest thing since watergate. The proof that this is a cover up is shown by the following facts:

i) the experienced reporter David Frost who was interviewing Benazir when she "slipped out" the fact that Bin Laden was murdered did not follow up on it. In fact he looked palpably irritated and wondering quite how to paper over the issue. He is in on the game, clearly. If he was not in on the game then he would have pinned her down on this sensational bit of news.

ii) Benazir was murdered in a wet job (this is a technical term) about a month after she mentioned that Omar Sheikh (note the triangle of first letters in history) was involved in Bin Laden's assasination.

iii) Nobody in the world's media picked up on a story that Bin Laden was murdered.

So blanket world media silence on the possibility of Bin Laden being dead. I kinda have a source inside who confirms this. Acutally it was years ago and not Omar Sheikh, but letters in names can sometimes be telling three times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.238.190 (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I also am fond of conspiracy theories, there is abolutely no proof for your claims, and it is clearly ignorant to claim that educated people are unable to commit errors. I'm not saying your theory is wrong, in fact it could very well be true, but in the end, it is just another one of those "crazy" conspiracy theories out there. Xavius, the Satyr Lord (talk) 07:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the paragraph in the introduction discussing Bhutto's interview. I did this because, as per Wikipedia:Verifiability, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. The claim that Omar Sheikh, while he was imprisoned murdered Osama Bin Laden some 4 or more years before the USA claimed to have killed him is an exceptional claim. Such a claim needs a better source than one sentence in an interview, especially given that Bhutto had referred to Osama Bin Laden in other interviews as if he was still alive and hiding. Shanebratt (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a remaining question if one reasons that Bhutto misspoke. 1) Why did (a friendly country - her words) specifically name Osama bin Laden's son (Hamza bin Laden) as the head of one of the groups intent on assassinating her? Why not OBL himself, given that Hamza was 16 years old in 2007? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidawedo (talk • contribs) 05:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KSM "recently" confessed to beheading Mr. Pearl ?

[edit]

The article said KSM "recently" confessed to beheading Mr. Pearl. I tried to correct this. That KSM had confessed to personally beheading Mr. Pearl has been public since at least mid-2007, when the transcript of his CSR Tribunal was published. He testified he killed Mr. Pearl there. 2007 is hardly recent.

I vaguely remember that news of KSM's confession had leaked at least a year earlier. KSM was captured in 2003, that is probably when he was tortured and that is probably when he first confessed this act.

The article has to be neutral, and not take a stand as to which Mr. Sheikh killed Mr. Pearl. Geo Swan (talk) 05:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the Original Research tag?

[edit]

Another contributio added a bunch of tags to this article way back in May 2011 -- including an {{original research}}. However, they didn't leave a corresponding explanation as to why they placed these tags, here on the talk page. How can we know whether their concerns have been addressed?

I suggest if the tag isn't explained in a reasonable period of time it should be removed. Geo Swan (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To add to article

[edit]

To add to this article: he is also called "Ahmad Saeed Omar Sheikh." 173.88.246.138 (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 release

[edit]

Is his 2021 release (and the claim, made by his lawyers, that he "should not have spent one day in prison") mentioned in the article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 11:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ahmed_Omar_Saeed_Sheikh&oldid=1252289980"