Talk:Osama bin Laden/Archive 12

message: Should we include the meetings between Bin Laden's Egyptian associates and the Pasderan, his associates and the Iranian ministry of Intelligence and Security, as well as his personal meeting with an Iranian intell officer in Afghanistan, July 96? If so, where?
AaronXavier 21:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bin Laden's Iranian Connection

message: Noted while reading about Masashi_Tashiro and appropriated for Osama page.
61.71.68.10 11:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Place in Time Poll 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Some Edits I made 

message: 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:  and a story mentioning the fact: . 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Osama visiting the West 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Last paragraph of the beginning section

message: Apart from the reason given to the public for Bin Laden's destructive activities against the Western world "an opportunity to promote Wahabbism" and so forth, does anyone know the real reason for Bin Laden's hatred towards Americans?
It's the united states... take your pick.
-G
::He just doing his job as a CIA agent
You can call him a mercinary.
5/1/06 6:44 PM EST
He hates the US because it's the world's primary superpower and it is non-muslim. Following in the tradition of Mohammed, Bin Laden regards Islam (i.e. Allah's word) as the only legitimate source of governance and submission to it is required. More specifically, Bin Laden is unhappy that infidel US troops are on "holy" Islamic land, the land of Mecca and Medina--Islam's two holiest sites. US troops are there at the request of the Saudi government. According to Bin Laden's own statements, this is the fact that most enrages him--namely that he cannot dictate US-Saudi relations.
Also this entry is a bunch of PC nonsense. On the one hand we're told that only a small extremist fringe of muslims supports him (which of course is demonstrable rubbish given polling data colected post 9/11), but on the other tremendous care is taken to make this extremist fringe's argument that he is a "militant" and that his violence is born of legitimate grievance. And it ain't. But only Westerners would bend over backwards to placate their enemy who wishes nothing but their conversion or death.
    *well put 69.141.213.168 19:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons for Bin Laden's Activities

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ideas? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Unsourced quote in September 11 section

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bosnian citizen? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Left handed people?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Appearance and manner - picture 

message: 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)
replies: text: I see it was entirely removed. That will also do the trick ;-) gidonb 16:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Many in the West consider him a terrorist" 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: bin Laden homosexual?

message: I added Tim Osman to the list of names and aliases HarveyB 3:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tim Osman

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Regards, -- That Guy, From That Show! 16:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism and reverts 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Grammar and Reference fixes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  strawman 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Osama Family and Childhood 

message: Some of the Appearance and Manner section seems to be overly similar to the linked FBI poster, with some lines directly stolen. John 17:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not good. If it is true then it should be rewritten. --- Faisal 19:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appearance and Manner: Plagiarism? 

message: I specifically inserted Osama's first major interview after 9/11 into this article 18 months ago, and it was left for over 12 months intact. In it, Osama denied any part in 9/11 - an important point. Now I find videos all experts agree are faked quoted as fact, but the interview quote is gone. This article is NPOV. Osama gave an overlooked interview shortly after 9/11, published in a Karachi-based Pakistani daily newspaper, Ummat, on September 28, 2001:
"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle........The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself ..... there are dozens of well-organized and well-equipped groups capable of causing such large-scale destruction. "
The involvement / guilt of OBL in 9/11 remains unproven speculation. The article has to reflect this doubt, otherwise it is clearly NPOV, and should be tagged as such. Timharwoodx 22:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agreed with everything you said before even reading it. --Striver 23:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: See this link for more on the video tapes. This reminds me of the Itanium page, when HP employees started logging on, and erasing all the negative comments about the chip. We can either grow up and write a sensible bio on OBL, or the NPOV tag has to stay for keeps. I think the interview quote SHOULD be in as a minimum. Timharwoodx 23:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am going to try to put that material back. --- Faisal 16:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  HIs personal facts are fair. His terrorist activities are written as conspiracy theorists. His past  terrorist activities are omitted. I will put NPOV on it. Mrdthree 18:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV - This article fails to be neutral, its just US government propaganda!

message: *http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/5/prweb391617.htm
*http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=11633
*http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,619188,00.html
*http://english.pravda.ru/main/2001/12/14/23594.html
*http://www.welfarestate.com/binladen/surprise/
*http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html
*http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape2.html
*http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/binladinvideo.html
.......... and so on
I think the OBL video tapes fail the WIKi test. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.
The videos are heavily disputed, and certainly NOT 'reliable, published sources.' Major news organisation, NYT, Pravda, Guardian, among others, have ALL published articles questioning the authenticity of the videos. Given the videos do not conform to the WIKI inclusion guidelines, I think all reference to them should be stripped from the OBL bio. Timharwoodx
:I view that they should be breaken out to some other article, and this article devoting a section for linking to that article. Further, this article does not even mention that a arabic newspaper anounced his burial, his family atteding. And what about the 2001 dubai hospital visit when he chated with the FBI? --Striver 09:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I think the videos should have their own page, with a big NPOV slapped on it. There are just too many questions about them to be part of a serious biographical article, as anything other than an aside. The 2001 visit by the CIA was published in Le Figaro, an internationally respected newspaper, based upon a tip stated to be from French intelligence. We're putting stuff like the videos in, which clearly fail the reputable source and verifiability test, and excluding information like the CIA visits, which DOES pass the WIKI verifiability guidelines i.e. published source with long term track record of editorial reliability. No evidence that could be used in a court of law has ever been produced to show OBL carried out 9/11. The article fails to reflect the facts of the situation, hence is NPOV. Timharwoodx 11:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I also agree with both of you. Those tapes are extremely doubtful. --- Faisal 16:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Are the OBL video tapes 'externally verifiable, reliable' information?

message: I thought I was going to get shot down in flames when I said:
*Osama denied carrying out 9/11
*Osama appears to have died in Dec 01
*The US government has been unable to produce credible evidence of his involvement in 9/11
*Osama's constant need for hospital treatment makes it impossible for him to be on the run
*The videos are fakes - bad ones at that
I mean thats all clearly referenced and everything, the points pass the verifiability test, but I can see Loose Change 2 seems to be turning the tide of opinion in this matter.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848
Anyone who has not seen Loose change 2, have a look. Final cut should be out soon. Timharwoodx 14:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Crackpot consipiracy theories have no place in this article. I'm sure there's a "9/11 conspiracy" page that you can add to. Dav2008 03:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please justify your characterization that these are "Crackpot consipiracy theories" User:Pedant 05:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Does anyone believe the official 9/11 story any longer?

message: I find this sentence: 
:Bin Laden and al-Qaeda have allegedly carried out a number of terrorist attacks worldwide and it is often believed that they were involved with the September 11, 2001 attacks on The World Trade Center in New York City, The Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia and the failed hijacking of United Airlines flight 93, which killed at least 2,986 people.
somewhat misleading because it implies that at least 2,986 people died in the flight 93 hijacking. How about which combined killed at least 2,986 people ? WhiteCat 07:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now for that the US has taken down this bad guy in the Diyola province of Iraq, whose very name alone is very difficult to spell let alone pronounce when do we intend to boil and to narrow down and to tighten the noose on Osama's neck and his precise location and his whereabouts. I was under some impression of that perhaps Osama had been killed by a large scale earth quake in Kaarachi that was reported on Wikipedia some time ago. I only come to think on this only because. He is always releasing an audio tape. Whereby more discernible clues might be able to be drawn from a video tape. If he is such an emboldended terrorist. It seems he goes to great lengths to hide hiself. He is surely not hiding in the central molten core of the earth. Why has not someone provided any data and information and support to help the authorities narrow down his present day where abouts. With all of the collective might and military force of all of the United States and the rest of the global coalition. Taking into account all of the people who have been incarcerated. I would have to think there must be some useful data somewhere that could help to nail this guy. If Osama is the head of the snake, and we kill that snake. I do not think Osama's body will regenerate itself. 
Summerblynk@Yahoo.com Cuyahoga County, Cleveland, Ohio, 10:15 AM, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
very scary stuff to think about summerblynk... Do you feel the osama/cia connection is adequetly discussed in the article? WikiTony 03:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead section

message: Why is there no mention of Osama bin Laden being a big football fan? He's a Arsenal London fan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.176.0.50 (talk • contribs) 
:do you have any proof of this? do you have a source to cite? if so, feel free to add the information... - Adolphus79 17:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed this following anonymous edit because it seemed rather flippant, and out of context:  "It is rumoured he supports Arsenal F.C." 84.12.149.41 Revision as of 11:44, 3 July 2006 | But, if this sports tidbit is in fact true, it would be an interesting addition to the secular bin Laden, if it could be fleshed out with proper context details, dates, sources, etc.Steven Russell 05:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Football fan

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

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

message: f.y.i.
*Jerusalem post Jly 4, 2006 — Xiutwel (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CIA closes down Osama-search unit 

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

message: I was amazed to read here that someone has doubted the accuracy of the translation of bin Laden's confession.  Who is the Arabic scholar who has said this?  The article does not provide any source.  It appears some kind of strange POV is being pushed here.  RonCram 14:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There were a couple of different claims on this - one claim was that the video was of someone other than bin laden, a completely staged video created at Langley or wherever.  The second claim was that the video was real but it was a sting operation; that bin Laden was duped into saying things that made him sound guilty by a spy at the party.  (See Calgary Herald, December 16, 2001 p. A3).  The third claim is that the translation was flawed in subtle ways that made OBL's claims more ominous.  I don't think claims #1 or 3 are credible, but I don't know Arabic so I can't speak for #3.  #2 may be true but it hardly lets bin Laden off the hook.  I did a bit of research on this at the time and have a few articles on my computer that probably arent on the web before.  CNN 12/14/01 quotes a Pakistani video expert saying "The tape is an American fabrication. There is no truth in this evidence. They made this up to justify their attacks on Afghanistan."  BBC the same date publishes claims that OBL was probably talking about terrorist attacks from 98 or 2000 rather than 2001.  BBC quotes another video editor saying "The more the person's head is facing away from the camera, the easier it is to con it. A lot of the picture of [Bin Laden] is side on and that does open the possibility that someone else's voice could be put on top." There are other similar published statements.  I can't find anything offhand documenting #3 that is published (I'm just looking through my files; there is no reason to research this systematically right now), but I do have an email that was circulated on Islamic listservs that claims "we are Arabic translators and the words of OBL in the US Gov tape and what is being written are not accurate. The use of "We asked" "We expected" and "We calculated" are in fact not the words used as he actually says "They asked" "They said" "They calculated".....these are the words of a spectator not a MASTERMIND!!"  Hardly a credible source, though; I couldn't tell you the names of the alleged translators (though the claim does not sound unreasonable).  In any case the whole debate is academic; bin Laden has since made plenty of statements leaving no doubt that he considers himself the inspiration for the 9/11 attacks and that he played some significant role in them more directly.--csloat 16:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not an entirely academic debate for some, since some also consider all post-September 11, 2001 videos and other communications where bin Laden appears to implicate himself in the 9/11 attacks to be inauthentic as well. However, it appears that none of the English language print or broadcast media has questioned the translation of the December 13, 2001 video (hence the fact tag in the article). The mention of the December 13, 2001 video in the September 11 section of this article is merely to provide balance to the initial al Jazeera denial and the subsequent denial in the Ummat bin Laden interview (whose authenticity itself has been doubted since the questions were submitted in advance to a Taliban representative and written answers were returned through a Taliban representative -- no face-to-face meeting took place between Ummat and bin Laden). A web-based resource that attempts to rebut the "it is not bin Laden" claims raised by some can be found at 911myths.com.--Historypre 17:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those who believe every post-911 video was faked are simply not credible.  As for people questioning the translation, your 911myths link led me to this page, where the German press questions the translation: link.  Not that any of this tells us much, since OBL has since pretty much taken credit for the attacks.  Those who will believe everything is faked will not be convinced by actual evidence anyway, so I think it is still accurate to say the entire debate is academic at this point.--csloat 22:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who doubts the accuracy of translation of bin Laden's confession tape? 

message: I have deleted the entry about a blogger talking to the FBI about bin Laden.  Wikipedia policy does not allow for original research.  The blogger could well be a wikipedia editor.  For this reason, bloggers are not considered credible news sources for citation. RonCram 14:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with removing this but for different reasons.  First, the sources cited here are not technically blogs; they are news outlets of a sort.  See American Free Press.  Not necessarily reliable news sources, but not blogs.  Second, the reason for blogs not being considered credible has nothing to do with whether or not the author could be a wikipedia editor.  Any living author with access to the internet could be a wikipedia editor; by that standard we should exclude all living authors from consideration.  But the claim that Ron removed is silly; the FBI made clear in the part of the conversation that was not included on the page that the FBI only lists people who have been formally indicted for a crime, which has not happened yet.  It is in no way a statement by the FBI that they don't think he's guilty; just that they have not done a formal investigation leading to a grand jury.--csloat 16:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course I do not want to exclude all living authors.  If my statements are so misunderstood, I recant.  However, I stand by the statement that this is a blog.  Any website that identifies itself as a blog deserves the name. It is standard practice to link to blogs if the blog preserves some other journalistic reporting, but not for original reporting.RonCram 17:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blogs are not credible news sources 

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

message: I think it might be good to mention in the first paragraph some of the reasons that Bin laden is infamous. I think it may quench some of the admiration for him. Also Islamic fundamentalism is not, by definition, militant, teh Islamic fundamentalism page says the preferred term is Islamist and Bin Laden has a track record of uncontested Islamic militancy (e.g. Soviet Afghanistan War). As for announcing all changes before making them I think be bold is the mantra and this text changes frequently (I should also hope some irony is visible-- the text was not reverted it was rewritten). Mrdthree 14:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that if his role in terrorist attacks is qualified by 'alleged' it must be mentioned that he  called for terrorist attacks in his 1998 fatwa when he called for Muslims to kill civilians in the United States and allied countries . Otherwise the article bows to deeply to conspiracy and Bin Laden as victim. Something like this phrase is fine:  Prior to his implication in the September 11, 2001, attacks he was most well known for his 1998 edict that Muslims should murder civilians and military personnel in the United States and allied countries until they are no longer able to threaten any Muslim . Mrdthree 14:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infamous not same as famous