Talk:Osama bin Laden

Can people who wish to insert critical views, conspiracy theories, etc. please keep it to a minimum. There was a link and two sentences for the US claim that no link with OBL exists. And someone responded by putting an enormous jumble of quotes from various unknown "journalists" claiming a link exists. The article, to remain NPOV, should concisely present existing views. It is not necessary to spam the page to prove a point. A simple statement that some people disagree, perhaps with a single quote and single link, is sufficient.

Misc

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." [1] (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/interviews/newjohnson.html) 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)

the term terrorist is POV

In the words of Ronald Reagan, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It just depends on whose side you're on. For the pros and cons of using the term terrorist, see Wikipedia:Words to avoid. I think the term should be avoided. Kingturtle 21:09, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If people who fly civilian aircraft into office buildings can't be called terrorists, then I agree that the term should be abandoned. Shall we call them social workers, perhaps? Adam 02:24, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Do you have any proof of your claims? Lirath Q. Pynnor

Yes, one could call the 9/11 events as terrorist attacks, but that is POV. Reagan said "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" to defend his support of the Nicaraguan Contras, a group which were criticized for terrorist tactics. The quote outlines perfectly why the term terrorist is POV. If you support their actions, they are freedom fighters. If you do not support their actions, they are terrorists. Best not to use the term in wikipedia. Kingturtle 06:02, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Where should it be linked from then? --mav 06:20, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't like moratoria on words. Since a good way to present information in a neutral manner is to say that X says Y about Z, maybe we can agree to something in the vein of "Osama is called a terrorist by his opponents"? --snoyes 06:26, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I made an edit along those lines. What do you think? --mav

Good edit. I think we should be able to agree on that. I tried to come up with a better way of saying "parts of the islamic world", as "parts" gives it (IMHO) too much of a geographic bent. But couldn't come up with anything. --snoyes 07:00, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Bin Laden wasn't a "terrorist" back when the CIA was funding him via Pakistan, on the contrary, Reagan was constantly glorifying the Mujahideen (and Contras) as freedom fighters, even though they were involved in the same type of activity. I even remember Rambo III when Sly Stallone goes to Afghanistan and fights alongside the future members of Al Queda and the Taliban. All of a sudden he is accused of attacking the US, and the phrase freedom fighter is stripped from his description and he becomes a "terrorist". Is terrorist a NPOV term when people don't think he is a terrorist, and the US government didn't call him one when he was engaging in similar activities, although against their enemies, instead of the US ruling class? -- Lancemurdoch 06:24, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Lance raises a good point. If indeed the US supported Osama at one point, but later withdrew that support and/or labeled him an enemy, then our readers would probably like to know why the US changed its mind. Specifically, what changed? Was it US policy? Osama's behavior? Or what? --Uncle Ed 19:11, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

We have an article called September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack. It follows that whoever was responsible for that attack was a terrorist. Nearly everybody agrees that Osama was behind the attack, and the video found in Jalalabad confirms this. Ergo, Osama is a terrorist, and should be called one. However, I don't mind the deletion of the word from the opening paragraph, provided it is not replaced with the dishonest euphemism "militant." Adam 06:29, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me Lancemurdoch? The Contras flew civilian airliners into skyscrapers? I have seen some morally bankrupt paleo-Marxist crap at this site, but your posts on this subject take the cake. Adam 06:32, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This is nonsense. (a) Not that it matters, but the CIA never funded bin Laden. (b) OBL is a terrorist, period. His behavior clearly meets the standard of terrorism. (c) Furthermore, he is a terrorist by his own admission (see Graft's quote above). Restoring. -- V V 20:18, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

(a) Of course, as I said, the CIA funded Bin Laden via Pakistan, (b) The Pentagon is a military target if there ever was one. The US government started this whole chain of events when it sent its army to occupy Saudi Arabia, (c) I don't see him admitting to anything - someone asked him what he thought of being called a terrorist and he said I am no more of a terrorist than any of these other groups, some of which are much terroristic than me. The thousands killed supposedly by Bin Laden are a needle in a haystack of the millions killed by the US government, domestically and foreignly, throughout its existence. -- Lancemurdoch 20:37, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Not to get caught up in this silliness, but: The Pentagon is arguably a military target, but perhaps you forgot about the WTC. We're not occupying SA, they asked us to come (not that it matters, nor that it matters how the "chain of events" started, whether it started with the Gulf War or the Battle of Tours). Look at the quote, your interpretation of what he said is wrong on its face. And killing proverbial needles still makes you a terrorist. I am ignoring your callousness and anti-US POV, which is not relevant. -- V V 22:02, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"They"? Who are "they"? The dictator of Saudi Arabia? Oops, I mean king, only people like Saddam Hussein are dictators (although he wasn't called that while the US government was sending him weapons, only after his oil drilling dispute with Kuwait). There is no "they" in Saudi Arabia, there is only the US government's puppet dictator, there is only "he". Osama Bin Laden regards the puppet dictatorship of Saudi Arabia to not be representative of the will of the Saudi Arabian people, and I'd have to say he's right. Less than two years after 9/11 the US acquiesed to OBL's main demand of thirteen years: US troops out of Saudi Arabia. -- Lancemurdoch 03:07, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The word terrorist is not in itself POV, but is often used as such by either party in a conflict. However, the word terrorist means someone who commits acts of terrorism, alas acts that have no goal but to spread terror. Attacks on military targets have a stratigic and tactical aim, and are not terrorist acts, but random attacks on civilians to invoke terror are.

By this definition, Bin Ladens attacks on US military warships are not acts of terrorism, and neither would the attack on Pentagon be, if it wasn't for the fact a civil airliner was used to carry it out. Flying a civil aircraft into a civil office building must under any definition be regarded as terrorism, and an organization that has these sorts of attacks on their main aganda, must be terrorist organizations, and the leaders of these organizations must be considered terrorists. Pretty simple really. Thomas qwerty 10:26, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Not so pretty, and not so simple. The fact that I kill other civilian with a knife is not univocal. If we are civilians this can be a murder. If We are soldiers this can be a military action (or whatever is it called).

- Do anybody see the people who flew into the WTC (the kidnappers) as civilians? Then it can be taken as terrorism.

- Do anybody see the people who flew into the WTC (the kidnappers) as forming part of an army or militia? Then is just a military action, a tactic, a strike against the enemy, call it whatever you want but is exactly the same thing that happens on wars.

Hasn't anybody given a look on Asymmetric warfare ?

And the fact of being the tool of the attack (or the objectvive of it) a civilian tool or a civilian target, has nothing to do on the clasiffication of it on the category of "terrorism", as a short sight on the history of wars shows us that it really does not matter the nature of the targets (or the tools employed) when it comes to carry off a strike.

We are escribing what happens, and civilian targets and tools happens to be very much frequent on wars even if our ego doesn't like it and gets burnt by statting laws on warfare (as a fact Laws of war seems to me like a very self oppossing expression).--Ramonono 00:18, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Terrorist or Freedom Fighter

In the West (especially in the United States) he is widely regarded as a terrorist, but in parts of the Islamic world he is respected as a freedom fighter.

The only mention of him as a freedom fighter is in the intro paragraph. If he really is "respected" as one, in the Islamic world, we should have at least a couple of sentences about this POV later in the article. The intro paragraph ought to summarize or "introduce" the more detailed contents to follow.

Please list people or groups in the Islamic world who consider bin Laden to be a freedom fighter and/or who respect him. --Uncle Ed 19:02, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

VerilyVerily, the word "terrorist" is highly POV. Let people decide for themselves. -- Viajero 20:30, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

See my explanation above. -- V V 21:57, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I changed "terrorist attacks" to "attacks on the USA", because his attacks on the Soviets in Afghanistan were also regarded as terrorist, particularly by the Societs. Martin 01:26, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

And these attacks were carried out by whom? Pixies? Social workers? Another good example of using "NPOV" as an excuse for complete moral bankruptcy. Adam 11:34, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Adam! PMA 11:41, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. The role of this website is not to provide people with moral guidance, but to give them access to raw information that will allow them to make their own ethical decisions. PizzaDriver

You can call it "terrorist attacks on the USA" if you like - doesn't bother me. I'm not sure I appreciate being called morally bankrupt, but as you wish. Martin 20:00, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This page ( http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/binladinvideo.html ) makes the claim that it was not Osama in the December 2001 videotape. PizzaDriver

In response to Martin: The resistance in Afghanistan conducted their operations against the armed forces of a foreign power who had invaded their country in order to impose a communist dictatorship. Al-Quaida conduct their operations against civilian airline passengers and office workers. That is the difference between a resistance fighter and a terrorist. I would have thought this distinction would not be too hard to grasp. Adam 12:19, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Erm, not taking a position on the "who's a terrorist?" and "who's a resistance fighter" thing, but the the Afghan mujahideen and the Pakistanis and Arabs who fought with them did not exclusively target military targets of the soviet union and I'm sure you know that. DanKeshet 17:41, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)

I'll thank you not to tell me what I know. I have no great enthusiasm for the Afghan mujahideen. But they didn't fly airliners into skyscrapers. Adam 14:18, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Not being a student of Afghani history, I do not feel qualified to judge who is a terrorist and who is not. However, I do know that the Afghan Jihad was labelled terrorism by the Soviet occupation, and I do know that some of their attacks were against non-military personnel. This limited knowledge leads me to believe that "terrorist attacks on the USA" is a more appropriate header than "terrorist attacks". Martin 22:26, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The word jihad itself is trapped in POV. In a Muslim POV, jihad is good, and crusade is bad. In a Western POV, jihad is bad, and crusade is good. In my POV, jihad and crusade are both bad. Kingturtle 22:52, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I do not agree, as both Jihad and crusade are fairly neutral words, but both has a negative conotation for certain uses. Jihad only means struggle, and crusade is more or less the same. The 'holy (physical) war against the non believers' is only part of the meaning of both these words, but is how 'terrorists' on both sides have hijacked the words. Thomas qwerty 10:16, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Think, if in the article Soviet invasion of Afghanistan someone decided to slap in a sentence to the effect that "Osama Bin Laden and other jihad fighters sponsored and armed by the US government carried out terrorist attacks on the Soviet Union", wouldn`t you find that to be POV? "Terrorist" is a pejorative, like it or not. Saying that it is "morally bankrupt" not to use the word "terrorist" is completely absurd. --Ce garcon 15:23, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The difficult thing here is that the usual argument of TERRORIST vs FREEDOM FUGHTER falls down as the latter makes no sense. I am not sugesting it or isn't is NPOV to call him a terrorist, but in order to be a "Freedom Fighter" he has to be fighting against a government who have a group of people under their control. He clearly attacked before the occupation of Afganistan/Iraq, Palestinians is an issue bu not his main driving force and the US troops in Saudi were not exerting any government over the people there. He may or may not like the Saudi Royals, but this is undobutedly because of their connection with the US (no the reverse relationship) Quite simply he hates western culture and that is what he began fighting against. I cannot see how this consitutes a "Freedom Fighter" whatever anyone may think of him.

The mujahadeen were actually called freedom fighters by people in the US government when they were fighting the soviets... back when the best hashish sold in the US had a gold stamp on it that said Kabul, even the potheads thought that they were supporting freedom fighters.Pedant 18:07, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

news item

For those of you keeping this article up to date, here is a small news item (http://www.myafghan.com/news2.asp?id=434066622&search=3/6/2004) to consider including...and this one (http://www.myafghan.com/news2.asp?id=2047007213&search=3/7/2004).....Kingturtle 16:52, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Truthfully"

In a "minor spelling edit" (6:43)/31.03.04 the word "truthfully" was inserted into the following sentence:

" If this tape is authentic and its transcripts correctly translated, it shows at the very least that bin Laden claimed to some that he had advance knowledge of the attacks on the World Trade Center, including the precise nature of the attacks. "

Rendering the sentence thus:

" If this tape is authentic and its transcripts correctly translated, it shows at the very least that bin Laden truthfully claimed to some that he had advance knowledge of the attacks on the World Trade Center, including the precise nature of the attacks. "

--- Even if the tape is authentic and its transcripts correctly translated it does not follow that bin Laden indeed had prior knowledge, the tape could have been recorded after the incidence and Osama might have just been bragging to show off or impress his audience. Hence it is not reasonable to insert the word "truthfully" in a "minor spelling edit".

Regarding my "minor spelling edit," I did insert the addition of "truthfully," which was the one thing I did that I should have labeled as more than a "minor spelling edit." (It was getting late... :)) I do see the logic of the word's removal. Thanks for the comments/clarification.

return to afghanistan in 1996

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.

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 (http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/ArticleView.asp?P_Article=12678) 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 (http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0304/p01s03-wosc.html) 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 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A17716-2001Dec22&notFound=true) 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)

Satirical link/Osama bin Laden's special song

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)

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)

The link to the song should not be on this page. however, someone may consider creating a wikipedia article about the song. Kingturtle 09:19, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

News links

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)

Likely deceptive and unsourced photo art

I wanted to point out what seems to me to be dubiously supported claim in this story. At the end of the entry on OBL is a link labeled 'Photos of Osama bin Laden and Zbigniew Brzezinski during weapons inspection in terrorist training camp.' I've visited this site and examined its text contents carefully many times. Nowhere on that site does it actually say that the man that Zbigniew Brzezinski is meeting is OBL. In fact the text seems to go out of its to insinuate it but never state it outright. The bearded man in the picture really doesn't look like OBL at all.

There is no doubt that the US, starting with the Carter administration and later Reagan and Bush supported jihadists in Afghanistan. It is quite possible that Brzezinski as National Security adviser met bin Laden. But to me this link really seems concocted.

This comment was set as a blockquote and was not wrapping, breaking the page; I fixed it, as well as the word "art" in the title. (Comment is not mine.) - Korpios 18:30, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the photo is real either. I added a comment as such to the page that comes up when you click the photo. csloat 22:58, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Actually, this discussion is a bit misleading. It's possible that Korpios is talking about another copy of the same image (i think he is) but he's not talking about the one I added. He made his comment on June 21, whereas I added the image on the 24th, so whatever he's talking about appeared prior to this image being dropped in as a thumb. And he seems to be talking about an External link to another site. I've looked in the history, but I can't find the prior link. Can anyone point it out to me?

At any rate, I moved your comment to Image talk:Brzezinski-BinLaden.jpg. I share your concern about it's autheticity, and am working to nail it down, but I believe it's in keeping with the historical record. Certainly the CIA materially supported Bin Laden at this time, and Brzezinski was an outspoken supporter of the Mujahideen, of which Osama was a leader. Given Bin Laden's rank within the Mujahideen, and Brzezinski's rank within the U.S. intelligence community, it's perfectly plausible that they would have met, and even that Brzezinski would have inspected his weapon. After all, it was Brzezinski's CIA that gave it to him.

If this image is a fake, It's not a revisionist one. --Clarknova 05:16, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sudan

Re: the recent Sudan question, please read [2] (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1168770/posts):

Clinton himself confirmed this on Feb. 15, 2002, while speaking in Woodbury, N.Y. Asked about terrorism, Clinton said: "We tried to be quite aggressive with (terrorists). We got -- uh -- well, Mr. bin-Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, and then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again.

"They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

Clear enough, I think. Graft 14:30, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I doubt the veracity of this quote. I looked on the web and the only place it could be found is right wing news sites like freerepublic.com. Using lexis, I looked up portions of the quote for 2002 and turned up empty for all newspapers and wire service reports and news transcripts. When I looked up "Clinton," "Osama," and "Woodbury" for 2/15/02, this is what is reported in AP for that date at that location:

He [Clinton] was asked later if he had any regrets on how his administration handled terrorism. "It's interesting now, you know, that I would be asked that question, because at the time, a lot of people thought I was too obsessed with Osama bin Laden," Clinton said, adding he was criticized by some for ordering a bombing raid on a bin Laden training camp in Afghanistan. He added that there had been a "standing contract" between the CIA and groups in Afghanistan "authorizing them and paying them if they should be successful in arresting him or killing him. So I tried hard. I always thought this guy was a big problem. ... I do not believe based on what options were available to me I could have done much more than I did."

--csloat 08:06, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

update -- the quote below is from Steve Simon, coauthor of The Age of Sacred Terror and former NSC counterterrorism director under Clinton -- in the Washington Post (October 3 2001):

Three Clinton officials said they hoped -- one described it as "a fantasy" -- that Saudi King Fahd would accept bin Laden and order his swift beheading, as he had done for four conspirators after a June 1995 bombing in Riyadh. But Berger and Steven Simon, then director for counterterrorism on the National Security Council (NSC) staff, said the White House considered it valuable in itself to force bin Laden out of Sudan, thus tearing him away from his extensive network of businesses, investments and training camps.

"I really cared about one thing, and that was getting him out of Sudan," Simon said. "One can understand why the Saudis didn't want him -- he was a hot potato -- and, frankly, I would have been shocked at the time if the Saudis took him. My calculation was, 'It's going to take him a while to reconstitute, and that screws him up and buys time.'"

This looks a little closer to what Clinton supposedly said, though it was said by someone else months before. Even stranger, there is a speech by Clinton to the Washington Society of Association Executives reported in USA Today (11 November 2001 (http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20011112/3615321s.htm)) -- apparently a month after the speech -- and the article says the following:

Senior administration officials were intrigued when Sudan, eager to improve its dismal relations with the United States, secretly offered in early 1995 to turn over bin Laden to the Saudi government, which had exiled him 4 years earlier. But the Saudis declined.

"They were afraid it was too much of a hot potato, and I understand where they were," Clinton recalled at his speech to association executives. He said the United States was helpless to take up Sudan on the offer directly: "We couldn't indict him then because he hadn't killed anybody in America. He hadn't done anything to us." (Only in 1996 would bin Laden's links to the first World Trade Center bombing and the Somali battle become known.)

Curiouser and curiouser. Apparently the above is Clinton paraphrasing what he remembered Simon saying, and the free republic quote is a paraphrase of Clinton, stuck in a different date and year, and made to sound more sinister. But I could be wrong and Clinton may have said it as quoted. I'd like to see it reported in a legitimate source though. --csloat 08:31, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Here, try this one: [3] (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/13/100053.shtml). It's even got a low-quality audio clip. Graft 18:52, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would be sorta careful with Newsmax. It has been accused of being a right-leaning news source. Though, maybe this is unfounded. I don't know... WhisperToMe 22:00, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Almost all news sources have been accused of being right- or left-leaning. Find me a purely objective news source and I'll find you a newspaper edited by a robot. And yes, Newsmax is more right than most. --Golbez 00:24, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

Look, I know Newsmax is right-leaning, but how much clearer can it get? Did they pay an actor to impersonate Bill Clinton? I think it's clear Clinton said that, end of story. Graft 01:55, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To be clear: I don't mean to suggest that the fact that Clinton said that means it happened so. Just that he did, in fact, say that Sudan tendered an offer to hand over bin Laden. In 1996 it doesn't seem that unreasonable that Clinton wouldn't take him in. He (UBL) hadn't blown up Nairobi yet, and there was still something resembling due process and legal rights in the United States. Graft 02:00, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

User:Neutrality removed the phrase mentioning the Clinton speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Osama_bin_Laden&diff=0&oldid=5795329) - Should I add it back? (though the phrase was poorly phrased to begin with, so perhaps adding something new is better than simply reverting). WhisperToMe 03:12, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think the NewsMax tape makes it clear that Clinton said what he said, though I think the implication that Clinton thereby was somehow pro-bin Laden or didn't take al Qaeda seriously is all made up by NewsMax (as well as the other right-wing websites that quote this speech). If you read Clarke's book it becomes pretty clear that the Clinton administration had done everything feasible -- and in fact much more than the early Bush administration -- to get bin Laden, dead or alive. There was a lot of handwringing after 9-11 about how we weren't allowed to assassinate bin Laden, but Clarke makes it clear that their mission was to do precisely that, anti-assassination law or no. The other quotes I listed above, I think, provide important context for the sentences more often quoted in the right-wing sites. --csloat 03:54, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The fact that Clinton was interested in bin Laden at ALL in 1996 is meaningful, when he was a relative nobody, a terrorist in utero, just gestating in Sudan. Did they do -EVERYTHING- feasible, I don't think so. I think today nobody would blink at assassination (nobody blinked very much when Yassin was killed for being a terrorist - UBL would inspire much less sympathy), but even so it probably could have been done quietly, off the radar screen in 1996.

However, I think we should include at least mention of that Clinton quote for two reasons: first, it supports the idea that Sudan offered extradition of some sort, which at this point has been reduced in credibility on the page. Second, it shows the US government was aware of and had an interest in neutralizing bin Laden as early as 1996. Graft 12:45, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Family disowned Osama in 1994

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. [4] (http://www.ibb.gov/fugitives/binladen.html) 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)

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)

Osama or Usama? Qaeda or Qaida?

An anonymous user (24.211.74.64) has been changing the articles on al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden to refer to them as "al-Qaeda" and "Usama bin Laden" respectively. Let's discuss.

"Qaeda" gets 2 million hits on Google. "Qaida" only gets 1 million. It looks to me like "Qaeda" would be better. But is it worth changing all those links?
"Usama" gets 150 thousand hits on Google, while "Osama" gets 2 million. I think "Osama" is the more standard transliteration.

Just my 2 cents. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 14:51, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Changing the spelling in language links has broken them. If it is decided here to change internal links to a different spelling make sure that the language links are untouched or make simultaneous changes to those wikis. - Tεx τ urε 15:58, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I vote for Osama and al-Qaeda. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 16:06, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

- I mentioned this quibble on Talk: al-Qaeda, too. There is inconsistent captalization the "a" in the "al" of "al-Qaeda" on both these pages. I believe it should not be capitalized (unless it's the first word in a sentence); ("al" is just the article "the").

I think "Osama bin Laden" is a standard English spelling for this name even though the FBI and Fox News like to use "Usama" and the US military is fond of "UBL". Alberuni 16:50, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I vote for leaving it alone and simply not bothering with consistency. In the future, however, we should try to use Osama and al-Qaeda as much as possible. Graft 17:43, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I might be able to help you on this issue, both are correct: one correspond to the transcript rules of the french orientalist school (Ossama) the other one to the english transcript rule. Ossama is writen in arabic with, as first letter, alif with an amza on top, should it be Ussama or Oussama then it should be writen with alif and a "waou" on top. It so happen that I met Ossama on many occasion sin the early seventies. I was in buisiness with his closest brothers (Tarek and Issa) his date of birth is 10 of march as I perfectly remerber him telling me while looking at my passport :" we were both born on same day of the same month" and I was born on 10 th of march. regards.hotdna

USAma?

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)

The Great "Terrorism" Debate

There's a debate going on at Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks#The Great "Terrorism" Debate that may interest followers of this article. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 11:55, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

that link sure gets moved around a lot, almost as if it were being hidden... here's where it is now: [5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September_11%2C_2001_attacks/%22Terrorist%22_archive#The_Great_.22Terrorism.22_Debate)

Example of "serious" errors of translation on 13Dec tape

In the context, "calculated" and "calculated in advance" mean the same thing. The words "in advance" are unneccessary, but in no way does their inclusion in the translation constitute a "serious mistake"

Sudan redux

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)

Osama's sisters and estranged sister-in-law

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."[6] (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/09/02/binladen.wealth.ap/)

Carmen Binladin is hawking a sensationalized account of her marriage to a Bin Laden family member 20 years ago [7] (http://www.reviewsofbooks.com/inside_the_kingdom/). 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)

Kidney disease?

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)

Video tape

"...a videotape of Osama Bin Laden directly admitting he was behind the September 11 attacks was found."

While this statement is correct, the word "found" implies that Bin Laden hadn't intended to let the videotape out, whereas I was under the impression that he quite certainly had. Am I wrong? Any suggestions on rewording? Chewyman 19:55, 30 Oct 2004 (NZT)

Languages spoken

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)

of course he speaks English. theres footage of him speaking English.

Not necessarily true. You can learn a speech in a foreign language phonetically, without actually knowing or understanding what you're saying. Djbrianuk 02:12, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, he does know what he's saying. He has used English in interviews. He is probably not fluent in English but I'm pretty sure he speaks it. I believe he speaks Urdu as well, since there is an interview with him in Urdu and I don't think it was translated from Arabic. --csloat 04:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted Osama's "sadness about his mother the concubine"

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 [8] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1595000/1595205.stm)."--Alberuni 05:14, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden wins 2004 US Election

Osama's protegée, George W. Bush, won his reelection in 2004 (anon comment)

No comment. WhisperToMe 23:48, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oliver North and Osama

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 (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/north.htm)). 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)

Yes, the North - Osama thingie is an urban legend. WhisperToMe 02:50, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

CIA involvement.

Why do we have absolutely no mention of the CIA in this article? Didn't the CIA train and support bin Laden? MSNBC: Bin Laden comes Home to Roost (http://msnbc.com/news/190144.asp?cp1=1)

and numerous other mainstream sources for this. This article has so much missing information it looks like a redacted FBI file to me.Pedant 17:20, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

Like Graft said, it's true that the CIA supported mujahadeen groups in order to expel the Soviet Union from Afghanistan, but I don't think it developed a specific relationship with OBL. J. Parker Stone 11:22, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the article says that the MAK was funded by the United States, and I think that's about the level of connection and mention deserved of the whole CIA-bin-Laden link. If you'd like to argue otherwise... Graft 22:14, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are many places that state that OBL was CIA assisted or trained, but I have yet to find any concrete evidence that this is actually true. I think the reason that these statements continue is because the CIA is fairly easy to demonize. In contrast, the 9/11 Report states in Chapter 2 (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm) "[A]ssistance [from the CIA] was funneled through Pakistan: the Pakistani military intelligence service (Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, or ISID), helped train the rebels and distribute the arms. But Bin Ladin and his comrades had their own sources of support and training, and they received little or no assistance from the United States." This quote references Chapter 2 note 23 (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Notes.htm) that states in part "In his memoir, Ayman al Zawahiri contemptuously rejects the claim that the Arab mujahideen were financed (even 'one penny') or trained by the United States. CIA officials involved in aiding the Afghan resistance regard Bin Ladin and his 'Arab Afghans' as having been militarily insignificant in the war and recall having little to do with him."--Burzum 03:30, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Afghan Jihad

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)

I highly doubt it. The Saudis are afraid of OBL. It's reverting time. WhisperToMe 02:55, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Removed 'did he didn't he' detail from intro

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)

Bin Laden did not explicitly admit responsibility for the attacks until October 2004, just days before the US Presidential election, when he stated that he was behind the September 11 attacks in a videotaped speech that was played on Qatar's al Jazeera television channel.[9] (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/bin.laden.transcript/index.html) Prior to October 2004, some evidence already suggested that he was behind the attacks. In a videotape purportedly discovered in Afghanistan in 2001, a person resembling bin Laden appeared to discuss the attacks using language suggesting that he participated in planning the attacks.

Does bin Laden exist? this article doesnt tackle an issue of whether bin Laden in fact a real person - if the man in the CIA videos and audiotapes is just some arabic man - while real "bin Laden" is in fact an agency such as CIA or Mossad --Tigry 05:34, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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)

Family wedding

Could Ruy Lopez (or anyone else) provide a reference for his edit to the intro: "Privately, he has attended weddings with family members and kept in contact with his mother." I've looked around for one myself but can't find anything. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 06:43, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Another source

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)

9/11 to september 11

I just changed several occurrences of 9/11 to september 11. Dates are supposed to be in a format like, for instance, [[11 september]] [[2001]], which comes out as 11 september 2001 (what you see here depends on your preferences), so that everyone will get the date represented in the form they state in their preferences. However, this will make all occurrences appear as a link, which probably isn't supposed to be the case. Still, writing it as 9/11 is confusing for people who don't use this form (ie just about anyone outside the USA?). Most people will use 11 September 2001 or 11-9-2001, although this little endian order isn't logical. The big-endian 2001-09-11 makes more sense (though it's still better than the USA's middle-endian order (9/11/2001)). So September 11 is a compromise, though a fairly good one; it will be understandable to anyone and follows the more logical big-endian order, which is the one used in the USA, where the event took place.

I believe I have followed the rules correctly. Are there any more specific rules on this? If not, it would make sense to write them down. By the way, the main article on the subject also follows this convention, apart from one occurrence, which I will correct right after this.

DirkvdM 10:07, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

"Iam Bastered" <-- Vandalism?

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)

Intro

Graft , you reverted most of my changes (disputed words in bold):

1) You want: Osama bin Laden' is the head of al-Qaeda, a militant Islamist organization that has been involved in terrorist attacks against civilians and military targets around the world.

He isn't the head of al-Qaeda, which isn't an organization. He's the figurehead of a movement: Al-Qaeda isn't something you join, as in become a member. And to say "militant Islamist" is to repeat yourself. The word Islamism in English is used by scholars and journalists who specialize in the mideast to mean "fundamentalist Islam." And you can't say it has been involved in terrorist attacks against civilian and military targets, unless you're prepared to find an authoritative definition of terrorism that would include attacks against military targets, and why use the word? It's meaningless. We all know what bin Laden does. Let the facts speak for themselves.

2) You want: :Bin Laden is widely proclaimed to be the "most wanted man in the world." " This isn't good English. Proclaimed? What was wrong with what I wrote instead?

3) Some believe he is hiding ... Who doesn't believe this? And who are some? Not good to use words like this in intros. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:04, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

"orchestrating" attacks

I don't think it's correct to say that ObL "orchestrated" the 9/11 attacks. He might have known about them, approved them, even been involved in planning them, but I don't think what is known about AQ supports the suggestion that he arranged them. I don't insist on toning it down to "inspired" but I think that we should be more accurate.Grace Note 05:21, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The truth is that no one knows what the precise relationship is between bin Laden and 9/11. I'm not referring to conspiracy theories here, but simply that we don't know whether it was his idea, whether he paid for it, whether he, as it were, blessed it, inspired it, orchestrated it ... Widely believed to have been a key figure in ..." or something like that would be safest. Or restate it in factual terms: is wanted by the United States for his role in the September 11 etc. attacks. Or alleged role, if you want to be very NPOV. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:25, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

You're right: believed to have inspired is good. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:28, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Prime suspect?

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)

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)

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)

Slim's edits

I'd like to go back to my version, if you please, with GN's "inspired" edit in place and some others. SV's version includes several edits that are highly disputable.

"figurehead" instead of "head". Wherefore? What organizational information are we privy to that allows us to decide this?
Why remove "terrorist"? It is the purpose for which al Qaeda was created. It defines the split from the MAK and the philosophy of Abdullah Azzam. It's an accurate, non-hyperbolic description of what al-Qaeda is and does. There's no need to be squeamish about its political import in this instance.
Additionally detailed information about his family does not belong in the intro.
I'll agree that some of the edits around the Saudi incident are better structured, and should remain in place. Actually I don't care about much beyond the above.

Graft 13:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No. I can't agree. There is no organisational information because it is not actually believed there is an organisation. It is now correctly described as a "movement", which is very different. You are talking about Al Qaeda as though it was Smersh. It's thought to be more like a group of fellow travellers. In the '70s there were contacts between revolutionary groups throughout Europe, but no one believed they had an evil mastermind behind them. Well, I suppose that's because we had the Russkies to hate then. "Figurehead" is exactly what he is.

I disagree entirely about "terrorist". Not only is it a loaded and POV word, but, as SlimVirgin pointed out to you, most definitions do not permit it to be applied to attacks on military targets. It adds nothing to use the word, except to throw a layer of POV over the intro.

Your analysis of why the bases were removed is very interesting but, sadly, entirely your own opinion, and is inferior to SlimVirgin's clear statement of the facts.

You still haven't answered exactly who doesn't believe he is hiding where we state he is hiding. I've not seen a serious analysis that says otherwise. If you have one, please provide it.

The family thing you can bicker over if you like. It's a good idea to be clear though, I think, and nothing is lost by more information, since it is all true and undisputed. Grace Note 14:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Argh. I had this all written out and my browser crashed. Again:

My "analysis" of why the bases were removed is not original research. You can find criticism of troop placement in many places, e.g. the Cato Institute or CFR. Saying this is MUCH less contentious than implying that 9/11 was responsible for the removal (as the previous juxtaposition does).

As to the figurehead issue - what allows you to decide that there is no organization? If we could avoid your use of the passive voice this would become a bit clearer - "it is not actually believed" by whom? Do you also disbelieve in the existence of Islamic Jihad, the GIA and other Islamist militant organizations? What was bin Laden doing in Sudan and Afghanistan if not running an Islamist militant organization? What was he doing orchestrating attacks against US institutions? Did none of those things happen? There is a difference between overstating the breadth of the al-Qaeda "network", as the Pentagon does for propaganda reasons, and there being no organization. Saying he is the "head" is far less POV than saying he is a mere "figurehead" of a fictitious organization.

I don't care about the issue of where he's hiding. It's not speculation I'm interested in engaging in or fighting over. Do what you like there. The family issue, I emphasize only for article structure reasons. We could very well pile any information we want into the intro; it just doesn't make the article better, even if it is "true and undisputed".

Finally, the "terrorist" issue. I'll point out that there's no consensus on the subject (see the fruitless discussion here: Wikipedia:Use of the word terrorism (policy development)). However, I've argued in the past (e.g. on that page) that there's no harm in using it in a utilitarian sense, i.e. to describe methodological, tactical choices. I'm not one to throw the term around lightly, as I hope people are aware, and I'm aware of the cloud surrounding it. But I'm also opposed to eradicating its use entirely, when it serves a useful purpose, and CAN be used to good effect in some instances (like this one). I really don't want to have a protracted battle over this, because I know it pushes ideological buttons, and frankly I'm tired of it. But that's my perspective, and I think it's a reasonable one.

Also, I have no idea what Smersh is. Graft 15:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Graft, experts differ about the extent to which al-Qaeda can be said to be an "organization." Our own Al-Qaeda calls it a network, making clear that it was named by the Americans. What bin Laden did was set up and finance training camps for Jihadists; he developed an international network of like-minded contacts; and he declared war on America in (from memory) 1998, though no one noticed. When I used the word "figurehead," I meant more of a spiritual leader: not an unimportant figure, but a supremely important one, just not the "head" in the way that Ahmed Jibril is the chairman of the PFLP-GC. If you feel "figurehead" demotes him, perhaps we could find something else. I wouldn't mind "head" if we stick to movement or network. Rohan Gunaratna in Inside al-Qaeda calls it a "cultural and social network," consisting of around six million radical Muslims around the world, with around 120,000 willing to take up arms. It is entirely decentralized and functions at the cellular level with no formal structure, no heirarchy, and no fixed abode. What binds it, says Gunaratna, are familial relations. He writes that it is organizationally similar to the Muslim Brotherhood and should, he argues, be regarded as an offshoot of that. He writes that bin Laden is regarded as the elder brother "and no one disputes his leadership of this wider 'Islamic family'." It is what the CIA calls a "terrorist group,": my only concern was that if we call it a group or organization, we conjure up in the Western mind a fixed group with an office somewhere and a president issuing orders.

As for the family information, I didn't put it in the intro and don't mind if it's deleted. I was only qualifying what was there to make clear that he's had contact with his family since they apparently disowned him in 1994. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:57, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

He first declared war on America in 1996, not 1998. The name al Qaeda was not created by the Americans; it was found in some of their documents, but apparently it did not exactly refer to the organization per se (although it has certainly been adopted by al Qaeda members now, including OBL). Gunaratna is probably quite correct about their organizational structure, though Bergen likens it more to a corporate network than anything else.--csloat 00:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I wasn't arguing that the Americans had invented the term, but that they used it to name the network i.e. the U.S. government named it, not bin Laden. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:32, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

It's wrong to suggest al-Qaeda is structured like the Muslim Brotherhood, or that it should be regarded as an offshoot of it. Why? It's an ideological grandchild, and the Ikwhan are radically different in their philosophy and organization. For one, they operate above ground and are committed to more respectable methodologies. For another, the connections between branches are much more explicit (belying the "network" analogy to begin with).

Gunaratna is not a reliable source. He doesn't name his sources or make clear the methodology he uses to determine his claims. Why should we consider him authoritative? Especially when he's been wrong so often in the past. I could just as easily toss around numbers and quote mysterious sources. He belongs in the camp of people who pimps himself out to enlarge the terrorist threat, to make it more nebulous, widespread and shadowy. About as reliable as the people who say Abu Sayyaf are "al-Qaeda affiliates". A load of horseshit, frankly.

On the other hand, what we know of the history of bin Laden's operations in Afghanistan and Sudan suggest a different picture than the loose, cell-based network described. What you're describing is essentially a non-existent entity; we know, however, that specific resources were committed to specific activities, notably creating training camps in Sudan and Afghanistan, and orchestrating attacks - at least the embassy bombings and the USS Cole, if not also Sept. 11th.

It's apparent there's a lot more disagreement here than I first imagined. Can we go through this carefully and describe our terms, and try to settle on some reasonable sources? Graft 00:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What I have particular difficulty with is "[Terrorism] is the purpose for which al Qaeda was created". This shows a real lack of understanding of what Al Qaeda is. It's not Smersh, not an international terror group that formed to thwart America worldwide. It arose organically among people of more or less like mind. Bin Laden is thought to be important -- a leader in the Islamic sense rather than the Western one, yes -- but not a criminal mastermind in the James Bond sense. He lends a spiritual imprimatur and funding to operations that are largely locally oriented. It makes a great deal more sense to think of AQ as an association than a corporation -- as SlimVirgin says, much more cellular than you are suggesting. That bin Laden funded training camps does not mean that he runs the operations of those trained. We know that in the '70s different leftist groups trained together but had no operational connection.

I don't quite understand your discussion of "terrorism". I think you're saying that it can be used as a functional description of acts without its being considered a judgement. This has been discussed elsewhere and I have to say it's not a convincing argument because we simply do not use "terrorist" as purely a description in the common parlance. Calling someone a "terrorist" always implies a judgement: it's rather worn out that our freedom fighters are their terrorists; that we do our terrorising with B52s and they do theirs with carbombs and explosives attached to their persons, but it is still true that that is how we distinguish terrorists. The problem ultimately is that even defining terrorism as a description involves a judgement: whether it is defined by means, or intent, or whatever measure. Your desire to use it to describe tactics or methods formalises a judgement: that in an asymmetric conflict, the violence used by the less powerful party is terrorist while that used by the more powerful is not.Grace Note 01:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Plainly you don't know much of al-Qaeda's history, if you would assert that it "arose organically". It did not. It arose out of specific efforts by a specific group of people to transform the Makhtab-al-Khidamat organization into one oriented towards international conflicts. If the testimony of Jamal al-Fadl is to be believed, it actually was conceived and put together in a specific set of meetings. Even if al-Fadl's testimony is not reliable, it's CERTAINLY true that bin Laden made a concerted effort to develop such an organization, and that by the early 90s was doing exactly that in Sudan.

You are confusing propaganda with reality. Jemaah Islamia is not al-Qaeda, nor is Hamas, and neither was Tawhid wal Jihad (and arguably still isn't - arguably what was "al-Qaeda" is now dead). The fact that the U.S. government likes to jam all these things under that label of an "al-Qaeda network" (and trot out "experts" like Gunaratna to confirm this view) doesn't make it so. On the other hand, there IS a basis for reconstructing the actual activities and purposes of the organization that bin Laden headed throughout the 90s, which is what I mean (and we should all mean) by al-Qaeda. Graft 01:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Graft, I don't think anyone knows much about al-Qaeda's history. Who would you regard as a reliable source? The books I've got here are Gunaratna, Peter Bergen, and John Cooley's Holy Wars, all with a slightly different emphasis regarding the extent to which al-Qaeda is centralized. I think you've misunderstood what I mean by movement or network. I'm not saying it doesn't exist: it clearly does, and, as you say, someone maintains the training camps, someone is paying for it etc. But it's more nebulous than a traditional terrorist group such as the IRA, with much more local autonomy, and the word "network" or "movement" reflects that. What specific objections do you have to those words? I also agree with everything Grace Note said about the word "terrorism." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:18, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Osama's Development, for lack of a better word

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)

Taliban evil

Although I deleted the word "evil" preceding "Taliban" in the article text because it is POV, I want to go on record that I believe that Taliban regime was evil. Saying so as a flat declarative, however, is inappropriate in an encyclopedia article and a violation of NPOV. LeoO3 07:22, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

bin Laden nicknames in West

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)

Dated content

I've removed the following two paragraphs because it now seems relatively unimportant and outdated:

In December 2001 there was disagreement whether the tape should be released or not. Some in the Bush Administration believed the tape would provide decisive evidence for bin Laden's involvement in the September 11th attacks; others feared there would be allegations that the tape was fabricated, taking into account the poor quality of the tape. The tape was finally released on December 13. The next day, the Pakistani political party JUI claimed that the tape was doctored, the photographic quality of the video being so low that a fake bin Laden would be indistinguishable. Others claimed that the video could have been doctored using digital technology and computers.

In January 2002 CNN reported that the U.S. spread leaflets of doctored photographs of Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, portraying him shaved and in western clothing, aiming to lead the Al-Qaida fighters to believe that bin Laden had deserted them.[5] (http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/01/04/ret.bin.laden.leaflets/) Some argued that if the U.S. was willing to fabricate photographs to achieve their goals then they would probably also be willing to fabricate videos. United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, when asked "...whether the leaflet could be used by some to say the United States is willing to doctor or make up things -- as has been alleged about the videotape found in Afghanistan by the United States..." (quoting the above cited article), he is reported to have replied that he had not thought about the possibility.

I've also removed this paragraph because it now seems pretty much irrelevant and it doesn't say what 'mistakes' were found:

In January 2002 a German expert in Middle Eastern studies, Gernot Rotter, as well as two other independent translators of Arabic, reported on German television (ARD) and in the newspapers Netzeitung and Der Spiegel that several serious mistakes could be found in the official American translation of the tape.

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Osama_bin_Laden"