Talk:Osama bin Laden/Archive 8

See Archive 7

Graft's description is better, says VV

Okay, Graft's description is much better and serves to draw out the issue, BUT: I think the coming together of the Afghans may be more soundly attributed to the Soviet invasion of the country, not the foreign aid. Whether the resistance would have succeeded or failed without the US is a big "what if" which may be unanswerable (do you think the Soviets would still have A'stan today?). Bin Laden's radicalization came first, and his appearance in Afghanistan is an effect of it, not a cause. His anti-US'ism stems from the former US base in Saudi Arabia, not the indirect support for the Muj. So, "ham-handed" is an understatement. I'm not "offended" by Kw's views; rather, he's the gazillionth self-assured person I've heard talk like this about random tidbits they think they've put together into some "big picture", and I generally don't bother to argue such people down, especially since this is an NPOV issue, not a "who's right" issue. And I think Kwantus's proposed revision is much better, although the Mujahedeen link discusses this in adequate detail and is perhaps the better place for it. Lastly, one unrelated point, it strikes me as wrong in any case to just say "US-backed/supported/whatever"; why would you mention the US but not, say, Pakistan, which also supported the rebellion? Never mind, of course I know the answer. -- VV 21:48, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

Kwantus says my theories are good theories

Actually, it's a pity you've no interest in "my" theories, since, if predictive value is a measure of a theory's quality (and it's usually accepted to be), then the theories I follow (they are far from exclusively mine) have value, since I have made accurate predictions with them. For instance, i had to look up the Rwanda mess to answer my legislative member's smarmy comment about what the UN had done for Rwanda when I was contesting his pro-invasion position this spring. I predicted I'd find that the US, for all its public lamentation and handwringing, had nothing to be be proud of re the Rwandan massacre. And I was right: while there's plenty of blame to go 'round, it turned out the UN did more than either the US or UK wanted, and the US was particularly slow and niggardly about its material support.

In other cases I've found that the best way to find out what the US is doing is to see what it is condemning in others; that is then what the US is itself doing. the US gets hyped up about WMD? well, who has of them? It accuses X of breaking the agreement? Then it was the US that broke it (X=North Korea being one relevant specification). As historical rules of thumb go, I've found that one to be unusually accurate; accusation-in-the-mirror is a US specialty. But anyhow...Kwantus 03:38, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

Is he a terrorist?

No he's not.

• He has never admited being "terrorist".
• Many people don't think he is.
• Everyone is innocent unless proven guilty.
• No evidence that he is one has been ever showed.
• No court ever found that he is a "terrorist".
• Word "terrorist" carries more emotion than meaning anyway, and should not be used.

That clearly shows that you can't just say that he's a "terrorist" for sure. Taw

Yeah! George Bush has never admitted being a terrorist either...and many people don't think he is...tho he sure scares the #^&# out of me. And I'm sure the 6-10 thousand Iraqis and however many Afghanis he killed aren't too fond of him...and the 10 million who marched against Whack Iraq would probably find terror aspects in his "preemptive war" policy.

And Nelson Mandela was officially a terrorist before officially being a hero... One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter (Anyone remember Raygun's Contras?) There's much to dispute in who is a terrorist. Kwantus 03:38, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Correction, bin Laden has labeled himself a terrorist, probably more than once. This from an interview with ABC's John Miller:

The terrorism we practice is of the commendable kind for it is directed at the tyrants and the aggressors and the enemies of Allah, the tyrants, the traitors who commit acts of treason against their own countries and their own faith and their own prophet and their own nation. [1] (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html)

So, he's self-labeled, which I think justifies keeping 'terrorist' in the article, although usually I agree it is of questionable merit. However, I think since both bin Laden and his enemies can agree that he's a terrorist, it's fine. Note that previously in the same interview, he points out the irony of being called a terrorist by terrorists. Graft 14:54, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

If not for that last bit, I'd question the translator. But I won't fight anything much on this page hard, 'cause OBL's mostly a bogeyman the Bush regime waves when things get sticky. I'll just tack on this from today's USA Today: "In many places Osama bin Laden gets more favorable ratings than President Bush."[2] (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-14-prawar-gns_x.htm) The rest of that article belongs with Office of Strategic Influence as argument that its efforts continue... Also in recent news, Osama/al Qaida has more connections to Britain[3] (http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,649744,00.html). than to Iraq[4] (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/).) Kwantus 23:33, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)