Talk:Osama bin Laden/Archive 11

message: Random thought - What if Osama bin Laden was in a cave that collapsed in the recent earthquake, and died. Wouldn't that be ironinc? (And would we find out?) 
Since his speech in a video in 2004, Osama Bin Laden is now Darth Sidious and would be instrumental in the downfall of the United Nations and the rise of his Caliphate.
His hidden stronghold in the Afghanistan-Pakistan semi-autonomous border tribal area of Waziristan is heavily guarded and someday the United Nations will send a Special Forces Team to infilitrate  and destroy it once they discover terrorist plans and kill or capture him and other Jihad Base leaders.
John-1107 20-21 Jan 2005 
----
A discussion of how bin Laden is perceived by different parties would be appropriate for the main article, and a discussion of why some might call him a freedom fighter could go there.  But we should not characterize him as such because that is not a neutral characterization.
----
The sad part about this article is that 50% of it is about al-Qaeda or his links with al-Qaeda. Needs some polishing, and more notably, more detail on what he is like, or what he was like in his younger days, as is described in the BBC article. 
Another thing - should the part about what bin Laden said about the 9-11 attacks (about how he hoped only the top floors would collapse) be perhaps moved to a separate article?
----
We could note that Reagan characterized him (well, not him directly, but the Arab Afghans fighting the Soviets) as a freedom fighter in the 1980s.
----
Just because American TV says otherwise, doesn't mean it's biased.
For me situation is very clear, if you think otherwise, please describe 'freedom fighter or not' issue or leave freedom fighter alone.
Unfortunatelly I can't describe this issue, as I don't know about opponent's arguments. --Taw
----
I agree with Taw that it is not right to remove the term freedom fighter just because the freedom he fought for is not American freedom.  For fighting against a forign occupation qualified him as a freedom fighter, at least relative to his own country.  I can also see a problem here after George W. Bush called all the people who fights against bin Laden as freedom fighters too.  Don't forget heros and villains are relative terms.  Your heros are my villains if we happen to be enemy.  If wikipedia is supposed to represent the US point of view than I have no objection to removing the word "freedom fighter" from the article.  However, if you want to claim this wikipedia is neutral, you should put it back.  Perhaps a statement like "he is viewed as a freedom fighter amongst his own people" is fine with me.
----
Could somebody investigate which acts did he admit and which did he deny ? --Taw
----
On 9/12/01 Frontline interviewed Larry C. Johnson, deputy director of the U.S. State Department Office of Counterterrorism from 1989 to 1993, in which he explains "why our perception of Osama bin Laden and his organization may be wrong, what we know about bin Laden's involvement in the 1998 embassy bombings and the 2000 USS Cole attack, and the degree of warnings leading up to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the U.S."  This would be useful material to integrate into the article. <>< tbc
----
   
In the fourth paragraph of this article it states, "Many in the middle east consider him a freedom fighter for the Afghan cause, or admire him for his aid to the poor."  My question is not with the use of, "freedom fighter," rather with "Afghan cause."  While he was indeed fighting in Afghanistan to repel Soviet advance, I believe it was to defend Islam.  Afghanistan just happened to be the location.  Some distinction needs to be made between Arabs (bin Laden) and the tribes of Afghanistan (non-Arab).  All are Muslims, which is the common thread, not ethnicity or nationality.  If someone could advise on better wording it would be appreciated.  I know only what I have stated here and I'm not that sure of it.
--JCooper
---- 
I reverted the changes somebody made to indicate for a fact the Bin Laden is a terrorist. I figured that if Bin Laden had indeed admitted to that, it would be easy to find on cnn.com, but it wasn't. If somebody can point me to reliable sources that say he is a terrorist, I'll of course revert my changes.--User:Branko
The question is not whether he admits to being a terrorist.  The question is whether he is a terrorist.  And he is.
user:TimShell
----
I doubt Al-qaeda had anything to do with 9/11. As reported by Newsweek, the New York Times, TIME, and the BBC; every "hijacker" associated with Al-qaeda has turned up in the mid-East (where they work as airline pilots), and they are suing the US for slandering them (by claiming they hijacked these planes). The US government is obviously lying about things, I see no reason to take their word that Al-qaeda is bad. Lirath Q. Pynnor
I have read many stupid things at this encyclopaedia, but that is without doubt the stupidest. Adam 02:24, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misc 

message: For those of you keeping this article up to date, here is a small news item to consider including...and this one.....Kingturtle 16:52, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  news item 

message: i have replaced this sentence:
:In May 1996 he was expelled from Sudan. He then headed for Afghanistan, where he had a close relationship with some of the leaders of the Taliban government which had taken control in 1996.
by
:In May 1996 he was expelled from Sudan. He then headed for Afghanistan. Having arrived in Jalalabad, he spent a few months in the border region near Pakistan, hosted by local leaders. After the Taliban took control in 1996/1997 bin Laden forged a close relationship with some of the leaders of their government, notably Mohammed Omar. He supported the Taliban rule with large sums of money over the following years. Bin Laden moved to Kandahar in 1997.
the taliban took control after he came to afghanistan (they took kabul in september 1996 and established their regime even later - see Taliban, History of Afghanistan since 1992).
this Prospect Magazine article by Jason Burke states: Bin Laden returned to Afghanistan in May 1996, invited not, as is commonly presumed, by the Taleban but by a group of their opponents. He was, however, able to ingratiate himself with the newly formed Islamic militia and during the next five years extended his influence over them.
this could perhaps be made more specific:
this CS Monitor article names MAULVI Younus Khalis: A patriarchal leader of the Jalalabad area and senior member of the Eastern Shura, the self-proclaimed government in the region. In the 1980s, he was a key ally to the US - and was even invited to the Reagan White House - during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Khalis later cultivated ties with Osama bin Laden, hosting the Al Qaeda leader when he returned to Afghanistan from Sudan in May 1996.
the Taliban article says: In 1996, the Saudi terrorist Osama bin Laden moved to Afghanistan upon the invitation of the Northern Alliance leader Abdur Rabb ur Rasool Sayyaf. When the Taliban came to power, he was able to forge an alliance between the Taliban and his Al-Qaeda organization.
- which is probably right, but i'm a bit suspicious about that article as a whole.
this Washington Post article says:
When he first arrived in Jalalabad, bin Laden was taken in by associates from the 1980s war during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. He came at the invitation of an important local commander named Mahmood -- who was killed only a few months later -- but also enjoyed the protection of Yunus Khalis, an aging Afghan regional leader who gave bin Laden several mud-walled housing complexes in his home village of Farm Hada, about six miles from Jalalabad. .... Bin Laden soon befriended the Taliban leader, Mohammad Omar, after the militia extended its control to Kabul and Jalalabad in late 1996, a few months after bin Laden's arrival. Bin Laden moved to Kandahar, the birthplace of the Taliban, in 1997....  bin Laden became an important benefactor to the Taliban; by some U.S. accounts, he gave $100 million to the Taliban over five years. and Contrary to earlier images of the group's members as guests of the country's Taliban rulers, recent evidence points to a more complicated relationship of power.
regards, High on a tree 02:44, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  return to afghanistan in 1996 

message: I noticed an anon removing the link, so I put it back. Now that a registered user is telling me I shouldn't be doing that, I decided to put this up. Should that satirical link be on this article? WhisperToMe 07:03, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually performed the most recent removal; I don't believe the link adds anything worthwhile to the article, and I believe the external content referenced is of quite dubious quality.  I'd be more than happy to hear others' thoughts. - Korpios 07:05, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satirical link/Osama bin Laden's special song 

message: Wikipedia is not a web directory, news repository or a link repository. Feel free to add to this article the content of the links I removed. But please, lets keep the number of external links to a minimum. We want people to find as much information as the need from within Wikipedia without going elsewhere. Kingturtle 09:19, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  News links 

message: I knew that he was disowned long before 9/11, around the time of the Khobar bombing, I believe and I found this US government link to verify.
Also, I very much doubt that he maintains "extensive contacts," if any, with his mother due to the problem of traced satphone calls revealing his position to the US military. I heard a rumor that Osama last called his mother when his son Muhammad married Muhammad Atef's daughter in January 2001.Alberuni 19:37, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember hearing that he called her while she was in the hospital for some operation. Post 9/11 I'm not sure. Graft 19:42, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: So can anyone explain to me why we still are calling him "the son of Laden"? If he is disowned by the family I don't think we have the right to put him back in it. 220.233.48.200 19:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family disowned Osama in 1994 

message: An anonymous user asserted that Usama's name was spelled Osama by the U.S. to remove the "USA" from his name. Is there a source for this, or is this just speculation?  – Quadell (talk) (help) 15:43, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
:I agree, it sounds like bull. --Golbez 16:29, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
:it's bull.  it's a difference in transliteration practice, as another user mentioned above.  Like Qaddafi/Khadafi/Khadafy.....--csloat 07:12, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Would explain why the Congress visit the Media Stations so offen... 220.233.48.200 19:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: '''USA'''ma?

message: Argh, can we settle this damn Sudan question once and for all? We've got fricking audio of Clinton saying that they offered to extradite him and the U.S. refused on grounds of lack of evidence. Can we change the poorly-worded claim/counterclaim passage to say this? Does someone know what Clarke actually said, and on what basis he denied the claim that Sudan had offered extradition? Graft 01:12, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sudan redux 

message: Speculation that Osama is receiving support from his family is very weak. This is one cited source in the article: "However, in a recent interview with the AP, bin Laden's estranged sister-in-law said she does not believe that family members have cut him off entirely.
Carmen Binladin, who has changed the spelling of her name and lives in Switzerland, said bin Laden is not the only religious brother in the family, and she expects his sisters support him, too. "They are very close to Osama," she said."
Carmen Binladin is hawking a sensationalized account of her marriage to a Bin Laden family member 20 years ago . She has had no contact with the family for at least a decade. Her speculation that Osama is rciving support from his sisters "because they were very close" is not substantial enough evidence to include in an encyclopedia.--Alberuni 16:35, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Osama's sisters and estranged sister-in-law 

message: The reports of bin Laden's kidney disease seem to originate with the US military and it is highly likely that the reports are standard disinformation campaign tactics intended to damage bin Laden's image as a "strong man" and reduce bin Laden's popularity in areas where he is considered a heroic figure. He lived for many years in areas of Aghanistan without electricity so there were few chances of him receiving regular dialysis even before 9/11. I have seen no family members or witness statements claiming that bin Laden received kidney treatment. Can anyone find a definitive source for this speculation? --Alberuni 16:53, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kidney disease? 

message: He is stated in the article as being a native Arabic speaker, and possibly also speaking Pushtu. I would assume that as a well-travelled member of a wealthy family, and noting reports of his Westernised playboy youth, he would be likely to have learnt at least one Western language as well, probably English. Can anyone find more information on this? -- The Anome 18:23, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
The FBI says he knows Arabic and Pashtu.. perhaps I can elaborate on that. WhisperToMe 23:23, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages spoken 

message: I deleted this blurb because it is irrelevant and likely BS anyway. If it is reinserted then perhaps English should be added to the list of languages Osama speaks. "A woman who claims to have attended a 1971 Oxford English language course with a 14-year-old Osama allegedly recalls him saying "with some sadness" that his mother was a concubine."--Alberuni 05:14, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted Osama's "sadness about his mother the concubine" 

message: Osama's protegée, George W. Bush, won his reelection in 2004 (anon comment)
* No comment. WhisperToMe 23:48, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Osama bin Laden wins 2004 US Election 

message: I lack the details and writing skill needed to include this but it might be interesting from a historical perspective to include information about the relationship between Oliver North and Osama. This is what I remember from the hearings:
1) When North was being questioned by Al Gore (a representative at the time(I think?)) he asked North why he saw it fit to spend so much money to install a security system in his house. North replied that a dangerous terrorist named Osama Bin Laden wanted him dead and that the enormous amount of money used on security was well worth it.
2) The name Osama was so new to Gore that he could not even pronounce it and during the interview or hearing there was soft laughter as Gore attempting to pronounce the name to continue the line of questioning.
It would also be a good idea to point out that Osama Bin Laden has received training from the CIA.
:The Oliver North-Osama thing is an urban legend. North actually warned about a different terrorist, Abu Nidal. (source). I hadn't heard about the Gore pronunciation thing -- do you have a source? Also, the article does mention that bin Laden's early anti-Soviet organization, the Maktab al-Khadamat, received support from the CIA, but I don't know of any evidence that bin Laden personally received CIA training. It's not outside the realm of possibilities, but it seems to me that bin Laden could have just as easily trained our CIA on anti-Soviet guerilla techniques, rather than the other way around.  – Quadell (talk) (help) 20:09, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
::I'm not sure how much training the U.S. provided - I've only ever read about equipment and funds. I suspect most of the training ran like MAK - with hardened veterans who had developed their own techniques (which, to be honest, were sometimes completely novel and couldn't have been taught in the first place) instructed new arrivals. I seriously doubt Osama was running around with an RPG at all. Graft 21:05, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the North - Osama thingie is an urban legend. WhisperToMe 02:50, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oliver North and Osama 

message: I'm leery about the assertion that Bin Laden was "hand-picked" by a Saudi agent and given "advice and support" by the Saudi Royal Family, contributed by User:132.15.225.80.  Source?  The 9/11 Commission Report says otherwise on this matter, but it sounds like the contributor was getting his information from somewhere. Mr. Billion 07:05, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afghan Jihad 

message: I removed the following bit from  the introduction because it is all covered in excruciating detail further down (that section needs a good trimming now too) and because it's too much detail for an intro. --LeeHunter 03:26, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh. Okay, if you have something other than weak speculation to back up that claim. I mean, why doesn't the "Clive Owen" article cover the fact that he's just a fictitious person, and the real "Clive Owen" is in fact a movie studio? Graft 07:09, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed 'did he didn't he' detail from intro 

message: National Geographic had a very good article a few months back on the Pashtun, among whom there's a powerful tradition of granting sanctuary to anyone who requests it, even one's worst enemy. This, added to what's often a strong anti-American sentiment among those people, means that this region of Afghanistan is pretty safe for Bin Laden.  Can anybody find a link to that article online?  I'll see if I can later, and maybe add some things into this article.  I think the other article should be at least mentioned in this one. Mr. Billion 18:20, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Another source

message: There is a line in the article stating  "bin Laden (means Iam Bastered)"  I am almost positive that this is vandalism, looks like someone was trying to covertly say "I am a bastard" or something of the like, however it has been in the article for quite some time so I was uncertain about editing it, maybe someone who knows more about this than me could take a look
--Gmsimmon 03:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Only Osama himself would add that, quickly run after his IP and claim your $27,000,000. Anyway the fact the Article says he was a "freedom fighter" must mean he edited it, as I see no one else besides him and his gang which would be willing to defend him. 220.233.48.200 19:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Iam Bastered" <-- Vandalism? 

message: What does this mean, that he is the "prime suspect" for the attacks? Prime suspect for what exactly? He clearly didn't take part in them; otherwise, we'd be writing his obituary. Can we clear this up a bit?Grace Note 05:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We also say that Al Capone is the "prime suspect" in the Valentine's Day Massacre, even though Al Capone didn't pull any triggers and might not have even been involved in organizing the hit. Nevertheless, it was the organization that he created and oversaw that was responsible, making it appropriate to label him the "prime suspect". Why any different for bin Laden? Graft 13:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't actually answer the question. Prime suspect for what? What organisation? Al Qaeda is not Smersh, and there is no sense in which bin Laden "oversees" it. If you mean to say, he is in some way involved, then yes. If you mean to say, he is the person most strongly suspected of being in some way involved, yes. But that isn't what's written.Grace Note 14:07, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Prime suspect?

message: Am I the only one who finds it odd that there is no mention of how Osama developed his jihadist beliefs during his time at uni? Mention of Abdullah Azzam and Sayyed Qutb, two individuals that were very important in his life, are not mentioned at all. It's even more odd since MAK is mentioned, but Azzam isn't despite co-running it and discontent between Azzam and Bin Laden being the reason Osama split off to start al-Qaeda.
:If you've got details on his life at uni, feel free to add them in. However, beyond allegation and general ideological alignment, I'm not sure there's anything in particular demonstrating Osama was influenced by Sayyed Qutb. Makes sense, sure, seems 95% likely, but it's not something anyone can say for sure. As for the Azzam stuff, yeah, t'd be nice to put in a one- or two-line bit about him. Graft 04:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Osama's Development, for lack of a better word 

message: While I concur that bin Laden is a killer, and do not dispute that he is "the most evil man since Hitler", and even agree that he might even be called such frequently in Western discourse, as in: ("Bin Laden is a killer", or "Bin Laden is the most evil man since Hitler"), it is untrue that titles such as "killer" and "most evil man since Hitler" are widely used on their own to refer to bin Laden in place of his name in such a manner so that everyone knows whom the speaker is referring to without other cues.  Thus, they are not Western aliases or nickname for bin Laden.  Please, let's resist the temptation to editorialize and name-call in writing and editing articles, even for a man we might quite legitimately despise. LeoO3 07:39, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  bin Laden nicknames in West 

message: "Bin Laden is the "most wanted" man in the world with a reward for information leading to his capture of US$50 million."
What is this supposed to mean ? 
The person with the highest reward ?
The person most countries are searching for ? 
The person countries with the highest population are searching for ? 
I think this should be changed to either "The person with the highest reward" (if this is the case) or the ""most wanted" man of the alliance of the USA and GB.
:You think only the Americans and Brits want him? --Golbez 21:08, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
::Does it matter what we think? What countries have explicitly said of the man that he is the one they want the most to capture?
He is hunted after by the governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the Phillipines among others, who see him as one of their greatest threats. So I think it's fair game.
:If there was a $1,000,000,000 reward on him he would be the most wanted man. Almost every human on earth would want him, so they can become a billionar. America did the biggest mistake by only offering $27,000,000 as that isn't enough to get almost the whole planet looking for him like crazy. 220.233.48.200 19:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  most wanted ? 

message: I removed "Osama is holed up with Dick Cheney in an "undisclosed location"" from line 66, unless it's either one of them who posted it (own up boys), it's unsubstantiated. Alf 20:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dick Cheney 

message: I have created a stub article for Kola Boof and tried to wikilink to it from this article on OBL.  Unfortuneately there seems to be some error that prevents the link from occurring.  Perhaps it has to do with the lower case b in Boof that inexplicably appears at the head of the Kola Boof stub.  I do not know how to fix this problem.  Would someone please help?
* Now it should be OK. -- Cate 18:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kola Boof 

message: I've seen video footage of Osama writing with his right hand.
on his most wanted poster  it says he is --Shimonnyman 09:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it was his alleged body double/decoy. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 05:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are we sure he's left handed? 

message: As reported in most Muslim newspapers and television programs on the subject, Osama bin Laden is attempting to restore the Caliphate to Earth, with himself in the position of supreme leadership handed down from the time of the Prophet Muhammad's first successor in the 7th century.  Literally million of Muslims around the world are talking about how Caliph bin Laden will rule the billion-strong Umma according to the principles of Sharia, the Islamic law.  George Bush has recently stated that keeping the Muslim people from reuniting is one of the key reasons he is waging war.  Is this information relevant enough to include in this article?  --Zephram Stark 03:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it would be if it were true, but it sounds like a lot of interpretation and embroidery and very little fact. Can you provide sources for any of this information? When has Bin Laden ever said that he wants to be the new Caliph? Where did Bush say that he wants to keep the Muslim people from reuniting? How do you know that millions of Muslims are talking about how Caliph Bin Laden will rule the world (this doesn't sound like something that could be sourced)? --Lee Hunter 04:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course the information should be sourced.  As I said, talk about return the Caliph is all over Muslim newspapers and television.  A Google search for both Caliph and bin Laden reveals 83,900 matches.  I'm just trying to see if there is a openness to include how the other half of the world perceives this man.  If there is an interest, if anyone wants to know what this war is really about, it can be summed up in one word: Caliphate.  The Brits and Americans are scared to death of 1.2 billion Muslims uniting under one man's control, and rightly so, but are their actions impeding or promoting the return of "the Mahdi," the "Rightly-guided One," "Saladin reborn," "he who was foretold to come at the end of days?"  Osama bin Laden says that U.S. invasions, occupations, and internal restriction of rights are a blessings from Allah, showing the world what the United States of America is really all about .  --Zephram Stark 23:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Return of the Caliph 

message: In August 2005, Bin Laden was spotted riding down Great Orme in a toboggan, in the Welsh seaside resort of Llandudno. Police were called but by the time they arrived on the scene he had disappeared without a trace. The enquiry into his appearance in Llandudno has been closed after it was discovered that a storm destroyed the CCTV cameras at the site. Al-Jazeera have had no contacts regarding his possible Welsh whereabouts.
:That wasn't bin Laden!  It was Santa Clause getting in shape for his big toy giveaway in a couple of months.  He bleaches his beard and puts on a few pounds in December.  --Zephram Stark 16:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bin Laden spotted in Llandudno 

message: I am a bit unsure why some important pieces are missing from this article.  Specifically:
*Date that OBL went to Afghanistan to fight against the Russians.
*More details about Al-Qaeda, that I thought he started in 1992 in protest to the tanks being in Saudi Arabia, and that it was not initially a terrorist organisation.
*The 1994 truck bombing of the world trade center, which OBL was blamed for by the US, and all of the things associated with that - his pleas of innocence, the fact that the Pakistan man charged with the attack insisted that bin laden had nothing to do with it, the seizing of bin laden's assets, the fatwa put out by the Saudi royal family in association with it, and in collaboration with the US government, and all of the rest.
*The 1995 declaration of jihad against the united states, which is regarded as when he became a terrorist (al qaeda was formed before then, although it may have been known by other names prior)
*The 1995 bombing of the USS Cole, the first act of terrorism
*The 1997 and 1998 embassy bombings (Kenya and somewhere else, can't remember the other place), the first time that al qaeda did terrorism on non-US citizens (although Kenya was later said to be done by local Kenyans).
There's a whole range of other things, but I just don't get why its all missing.  I would have thought that he was a bit more important than the article length suggests.
Also, it touches on him hating Iraq, but doesn't say why.  The reason of course is because he is a Sunni Muslim while Iraq are Shi'ite muslims (kind of like catholics and protestants).  And it doesn't talk about how in 2003 the two groups joined forces, and how Al Qaeda is now in Iraq fighting alongside Shi'ite muslims.
I suppose that there is another article on Al Qaeda, but I was just a bit appalled at all of the missing information.  Can someone fill them in please? Zordrac 00:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing bits 

message: RonCram is spamming all the pages where it is tangentially relevant a RealMedia file of an ABC report that looks to be from the late 1990s that makes the now-discredited speculation that Saddam would have worked with al Qaeda.  It hardly seems relevant on some of the pages (e.g. this one) and it is misleadingly presented as current even though the specific meetings mentioned in the video have since been refuted; even one of the people in the video, Vince Cannistraro, no longer believes such a relationship existed.  I won't remove the video - he will likely accuse me of censorship - but I think it should be noted that it is from the 1990s and that the claims made in it have been discredited.--csloat 09:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ABC link 

message: -- and I named him as such.
I rather like the saying "Lets not be so open-minded that our brains fall out".  He killed nearly 3,000 of our people.  If he is not a terrorist than no one is.  I doubt that even he would object.
-- mccommas
:Even if everyone agrees with you, which they don't, the word "terrorist" is pejorative. Regardless of how much we want to assign a pejorative term to a person, a group, or our enemy, doing so is not encyclopedic. For example, even if everyone agrees that Karl Rove is evil, we can't make an article entitled "the evil Karl Rove." Doing so is not encyclopedic. --Peter McConaughey 22:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   I disagree..  Terrorist→ One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.  Terrorism → The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. Evil is debatable. Terrorist is not.  He fits the definition of terrorist therefore he is a terrorist. Calling a spade a spade is encyclopedic.  You don't need everyone to agree in order for something to be NPOV.   Jwissick(t)(c) 22:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remember we're trying to make Wikipedia a reliable resource of information. That means our articles cannot be argumentative. They cannot use pejorative terms to describe people. When the article calls someone a "terrorist," it makes the whole page look tabloid. Some very accurate and precisely cited information in this article is debased when you add pejorative and hotly-disputed descriptive terms like "terrorist." Also, please remember that the bigger we make Osama bin Laden, the more powerful he will become in the eyes of the 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide, most of whom believe the prophecies of the return of the Caliph. --Peter McConaughey 23:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Personally, I consider Adolf Hitler to be a "terrorist" (because of the terror that he created in regard to the Reichstag Fire), but I wouldn't presume to speak for all members of Wikipedia by including such a pejorative term in an article. --Peter McConaughey 17:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Mccomas, refer to Wikipedia:No personal attacks.  He didn't call you any names, so there's no reason to start attacking him.  --Mr. Billion 04:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know? Maybe Mcccommas is G. W. Bush. :D 220.233.48.200 19:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Perhaps next you could read the above discussion and realize that the Wikipedia is for the world, not just for Americans. The REAL Dyslexic Q-Thief 16:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Osama bin Laden is a terrorist

message: See this New Yorker article: . It contradicts some material in the article -- says it is based on mistaken identity. Osama was an Islamist from his youth -- after contact with Muslim Brotherhood teacher from Syria. Good reading. Zora 10:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just read an excerpt from a most definitive book on Osama bin Laden that is coming out next month. The excerpt is in the new issue of Vanity Fair. It features pages of quotes from the most intimate people associated with al-Qaeda and bin Laden and clears up many of the POV and self-contradictory issues of this article. --Peter McConaughey 02:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Yorker article contradicts some facts in this article 

message: Acts define.  When a person commits certain acts, they may rightly be defined by those acts.  If I marry and then sleep around on my wife, I can rightly be defined in articles about me discussing that particular issue as a 'philanderer' or an 'adulterer'.  Might hurt my feelings, but it's accurate.  If I steal another person's ideas and writings and try to pass them off as my own and I get caught, I can be described in news stories about my theft as a 'plagiarist'.  And if I start and direct and guide an organization that blows people up to make political points, I can be rightfully called whatever words are used in the public venacular to describe people that run organizations that blow people up to make political points.  I think right now the word 'terrorist' is included among such words.  Since Osama Bin Laden has for some years now been involved in planning and sending out operatives to engage in acts of terrorism, such as blowing up targets both civilan and military, to call people on the carpet for defining him as a terrorist is nonsensical. His actions have defined him.  To attempt to claim that such actions fit your definition of 'freedom fighter' says more about your allegiences that it does about Bin Laden's actions. 
To dissemble and claim 'Well hey, he doesn't fit MY definition of a freedom fighter, but he might fit someone else's, so let's leave the option open' is to use the 'third man' argument: I don't hold this position, you don't either, but somebody else out there might, so let's not reach a conclusion'.  The fact that you can probably find people out there today that wouldn't want to call Hitler a genocidal dictator doesn't detract from the fact that by his actions he did indeed define himself as a genocidal dictator.  To say "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is to confuse Americans looking at the smoldering rubble of the Twin Towers and confusing their view of it with that of an extremist Wahhabi Muslim in Saudi Arabia.  "Well because a Wahhabi Muslim in Saudia Arabia wouldn't look at 9-11 as a terrorist act, you can't call the guy that pulled it off a terrorist."  And people who say things like this expect to be taken seriously here?  Manofaiki 09:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the word 'Terrorist' to Describe Bin Laden not POV 

message: although it is unclear whether these decisions were already planned before the September 11 terror attacks. as per the US withdrawal from Saudi Arabia.  While the US promised to remove the troops following the Gulf War in 1991, no effort or promises had been made since then that I'm aware of.  Either source something implying it was previously planned, or else reword from the weasely term being used now. -done- Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 22:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Request rewording/removal

message: "Although he has been publicly disowned by his family, an estranged family member, Carmen Binladin, speculates (without providing evidence) that unnamed family members may be providing financial support to bin Laden. The corporate website of The Saudi Binladin Group's (a family-owned company), www.saudi-binladin-group.com, expired on September 11, 2001, the same day as the attacks in the United States."
I removed "The corporate website of The Saudi Binladin Group's (a family-owned company), www.saudi-binladin-group.com, expired on September 11, 2001, the same day as the attacks in the United States.". Firstly this does not fit cohesively into the paragraph. It may serve as trivia or an example of coincidence, but this has no place in an encyclopedia. Those who register domains know that it is very unlikely to have a domain 'expire' on the day of the planned attacks - to do this would require registering a domain at least one year previous, and only exactly to the day. This is unlikely. To clarify: You cannot 'expire' a domain on demand, it will only expire when the contract of your registration ends, usually one or two years. 
210.10.167.170 12:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice of minor edit 

message: This article represents only a very specific point of view concerning osama bin laden. His relevance to the non-American world view is not discussed at all.Masterdebater 07:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a very good reason for you to expand it, not put an NPOV tag on it. If someone keeps you from adding balancing information, then you should add the tag, but ignorance is not an NPOV issue when you can easily enlighten us. --Peter McConaughey 07:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: I was very suprised to press Ctrl F and find that the word "Israel" is absent from this article.
I quickly added bin Laden's three main grievances, though I will have to go back and cite sources.
I believe that, as he is a major world actor, bin Laden's motivations are very important.
If anyone can help me add to the subject of bin Laden's grievances against the west, that would be wonderful.
Criticism and neutral comments are also appreciated.
--Zaorish 22:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs more info on bin Laden's philosophy/theology and grievances against the West