Talk:Osama bin Laden

Archive 1: November 2001 Topics: Osama's return to Saudi Arabia, Name, NPOV, Freedom fighter?, Media coverage Archive 2: December 2001 Topics: Removal of picture, Name, CIA theory Archive 3: April 2002-October 2002 Topics: Name, Reorganisation, Is he a terrorist, CIA theory, Mujahideen, Saudi Arabian citizenship Archive 4: November 2002-January 2003 Topic: Removed comment about members of family, Origin of Al Qaeda, US sponsored Archive 5: February 2003-August 2003 fatwa, Picture, "explaining revert", Page protected and unprotected, Deficiencies of this article Archive 6: Long discussion on September 12, 2003, Part 1 Archive 7: Long discussion on September 12, 2003, Part 2 Archive 8: September 2003 Archive 9: November 2003-December 2003 Archive 10 (archived in advance) Archive 11: January 2004-January 2006 Archive 12: January 2006-August 2006 Archive 13: August 2006-September 2006 Archive 14: October 2006-January 2007

Incorrect Source Dates

The dates appear to be incorrect on sources 65 and 66 of the BBC report. The sources references list the year as 2006, but upon viewing the article, it was "last updated" in 2004. I'm not sure what the correct date of the release was, hopefully somebody does. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.11.71.191 (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism on Nov 28th

User Irck's edit on Nov 28th is clear vandalism. I'd revert but do not have an account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.138.172 (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Osama is a "pretty okay guy"

Am I the only one thinking this is not informative, nor useful, and in short should not be mentioned, let alone in the introduction? --Ireon 11:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

My Deepest Thoughts

Yo, dudes...come on...If yall can read, it clearly says discussion on the top link which you clicked. Thus meaning this is a discussion page. Why no discussion?? Come on yall....we need discussions...not some old crap bout Americans taking Osama's eyes out. People, work with me? Don't you feel the same too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.82.37.75 (talk) 05:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If you had read more closely, this page says:

This is not a forum for general discussion of Osama bin Laden. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to the suggestions on how to improve the content of this article.

~~ A Muslim ~~

i don't see how this article can be improved very much if we can't discuss the topic in the *"discussion"* page. Jaguar Verde (talk) 07:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sheikh Osama Bin Laden

Shaheed Osama Bin Laden. The best Shaheed to live in this world. All muslims are with you.

Does this not count as discussion of the topic, and therefore warrant deletion? Sorry for not being bold and doing it myself, but I'm not entirely sure as this is about the second time I've ever contributed! Thanks. 80.192.20.38 (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Place of Birth?

I can't find anywhere that substantiates and agrees with him being born in Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire, England. Could someone confirm this? Chrismjc 13:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In the article under 'early life', it says "Before he became an International Man of Mystery aKa Terrorist, he was born one of 70 chidren on a sand farm in somewhere in the Middle East." I'm pretty sure that someone is just being facetious, shouldn't it be changed? 60.234.171.44 08:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Osama Bin Laden was not born in England. I am quite sure.
-J  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.99.94.161 (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 

Rank?

By his rank it says Commander-in-chief. I've never personally heard that rank given to him. Perhaps it should be changed to something like Emir or something similar like that?--Xidon 13:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Emir would be appropriate if he were legitimized by a Khilafa. As such, his rank is whatever he or we want it to be. He has no traditional army. At best, he has a network of friends. ~~A Muslim~~

Redirects

Both "Osama" & "bin Laden" redirect here. That is not right. how do we get it corrected? --IceflamePhoenix 13:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Dead

Anyone else think he is dead by now?

Frost over the World - Benazir Bhutto - 02 Nov 07 -- At time 6:10 in this video, Benazir Bhutto casually mentions that Omar Sheik murdered Osama Bin Laden. [[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.15.87.226 (talk) 23:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I personally believe he has been dead for a long time and made some tapes before his death to be continually released at certain times in the future by his helpers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.161.130 (talk)

I think hes dead too if you have takewn a look at his past videos he looks nothing like the original. Also in one tape the was shown of him he was writing with his right hand even though he is left handed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.160.111 (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

THERE IS FRAUD IN THIS ARTICLE! In the reports of his death section,

Reports alleging Osama bin Laden's death have circulated since late 
2001. In the months following the 9/11 terrorist attack, many people 
believed that bin Laden was dead. This belief was perpetuated by
subsequent media  reports, though there has been stronger evidence 
to suggest that he is  still alive.[146] Bin Laden reportably still 
suffers from numerous health  problems.[3]

The first footnote makes no mention of any "stronger evidence" or any evidence whatsoever that bin Laden is alive. The second footnote makes no reference to any current diagnosis of illness. In fact, the clump of obviously faked audios and videos since his death provide very strong evidence that he is dead, which is what the experts NOT working for George W. Bush say. He died in 2001. http://www.madison.com/tct/archives/index.php?archAction=arch_read&a_from=search&a_file=%2Ftct%2F2006%2F02%2F14%2F0602140210.php&var_search=Search&keyword_field=&pub_code_field=tct&from_date_field=20060214&to_date_field=20060214&var_start_pos=0&var_articles_per_page=10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowest (talk • contribs) 12:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the point is that he cannot be proven dead or alive. Also that an citation that could prove he is currently alive or sick would also be the pointer that led to his death. So really how stupid are you trying to say he is?

If you insist on a conspiracy to perpetuate a living Osama BinLaden -- why don't you at least take the more entertaining line that he never existed and is a total CIA construction? The truth is sometimes people just don't really know. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 06:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the Bhutto video([[2]]) should be added under the death section.--69.133.112.182 (talk) 05:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

i second that -- Sadartha (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Religion

I am saying that I propose that we get rid of his "religious belief" and just call him a terrorist, people who i've spoken with say that its saying that bin Laden is a Sunni Muslim and Sunni Muslims are like him - when THEY'RE NOT.84.56.97.246 is right - mention something about the CIA!

AND BY THE WAY I also didn't see the religious beliefs of other well-know terrorists such as the IRA leaders beliefs heading in the infobox... LOTRrules 21:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Some would say he is taking the Lord's name in vain. 'Misuse of the Lord's name' -- Exodus 20:7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.24.104 (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Buddy, he's not a Christian, he's Muslim. Different rules, different commandments, but same religon. P.S. it's quite a coincidence that you made that comment on September 11. Aetheilas (talk) 01:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Its relevant, not because every Sunni supports him, but because it forms his personal foundation for acting -- just like it is relevant that Jim Jones was a Protestant. Extremely religious people do sometimes fall off the edge of accepted behavior. And it is also useful to know that 1-2% of fringe Sunnis might be willing to join him when action is near home. Of course it is also useful to recognize that if he had hit the American porn industry President Bush would have sadly shook his head and taken no meaningful action. Ultra conservative Christians want similar standards as Shia law (death to pedophiles, etc). 69.23.124.142 (talk) 06:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Religon Wars

The war with Jews and Christians should be put into one column and Shia war should have a seperate column. Islam is nothing like Christianity. Infact Islam was made after all Religons. and then built the structure of Islam. just because some prophets are Christian doesnt mean Christian and Islam is one. Infact Islam is also heavily related to Hinduism including Prophet Azam Shaheed Mohammed who is in Hindu Scriptures in our Vedas. Christianity doesnt have Prophet Muhammed in their scripts. and also Hindi Language has many words same as Arabic. there is a serious relation that needs to be investigated.

there are a number places in the Bible that are believed to be reffering to Mohammad.

You forgot to warp off into the old question of whether Jesus disappeared to India and brought his teaching back from Buddhism and Hindu. But really the historical background matters to scholars and NOT to modern society. Except as the fact that Moslems and Hindus still hold grudges from when Jihads invaded and slaughtered Hindus who wouldn't convert.69.23.124.142 (talk) 06:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Height

Someone please fix the height, the inches " prompt Wiki to italicise. Cheers. 84.56.97.246 11:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

CIA involvement

You guys dont even talk about the involvment of the CIA in training Osama bin laden against soviet union. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.105.167.235 (talk)

again please give details, stop hiding the information, otherwise the Wikipedia system would be pointless...!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by LOTRrules (talk • contribs)

He wasn't involve3d with CIA. CIA gave money to contacts that gave money to tribal chiefs who then purchased weapons. This was the CIA's involvement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.49.236 (talk) 07:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's dishonest and misleading to not include references to the CIA funding that supported mujahideen fighters, including bin Laden. See Chalmers Johnson, "American Militarism and Blowback: The Costs of Letting the Pentagon Dominate Foreign Policy", New Political Science, Volume 24, Number 1, 2002, pp 21-38. Barbo944 (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Your sources are confused. The CIA is a State Department tool, not DOD, and is sometimes called the left hand of diplomacy. Yes the CIA can ask for DOD resources and cooperation. But generally the DOD as a whole hates CIA plans as too indirect and complex plus making sure the enemy is prepared should the DOD itself be called to act.

Actually BinLaden was an outside "volunteer" who disagreed with the goals of funding the Mujahideen to restore democracy. He did successfully convince several tribal leaders to think his way near the end of the Soviet reign. Thus Osama got CIA funded weapons and training by "hand me down" avenues. Osama was being briefed in US military headquarters circles as a potential hazard as far back as 1988. Thus the founding of the Taliban, rule by priesthood and religious appointees, came via Osama's influence on Afghan rebel thinking.

Remember Osama doesn't like Iran for more reasons than their being Shite. Clerics there do not directly head the government, they just have such incredible popular support that even a dimwit government would take into account their opinions. It is also pretty clear that Saudi Arabia will probably fall to Islamic fundamentalists soon as the current Saudia family is an increasingly corrupt dictatorship by Islamic and even average American standards. Yet the US is in no position to support a change and the only alternative typical Saudi's see is another Taliban.

The ultimate irony is that even the CIA stole terrorism from Guy Falkes and the early Luddites and the American Revolution. That's right, terrorism can be traced to ultra-conservative Christians plus gunpowder and US founding fathers (who were looking for a local "Pirate King" in George Washington not democracy). Amusing parallel to Afghanistan in Virgina tobacco and Afghan poppies funding the wars. Remember George Washington was viewed as a disreputable drug lord in England for good reason -- tobacco growing slave owner. The mid-1700s English thought on tobacco has proven quite accurate. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

UBL writings

While he lived in Londinistan UBL wrote some sort of open letter against King Fahd. It mentions the arrest of Saudi "scholars" al-Ouda and al-Hawali. Anybody got this letter? Thx. LDH 04:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's in an open letter dated Dec 29, 1994 to bin Baz giving him a harm time for colaborating with al Saud. You can find the mention on page 8 in Messages to the World edited by Bruce Lawrence. --Leroy65X 19:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thx LDH 03:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

three stepbrothers and one stepsister

"step" means they share no bloodline and only siblings or parent because of marriage...since they do share a bloodline via the mother they are his half siblings. --ahalfsister :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.153.29.140 (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Two little slips

"Aymen Al Zawahiri" should say "Ayman al-Zawahiri".

Maktab al-Khidamat is referred to as Office of Order in one place but as Services Office in another. I would replace "Services Office" with "Maktab al-Khidamat".

LDH 09:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, "he believes are injustices against Muslims perpetrated the United States and sometimes by other non-Muslim states," in the section about his beliefs, should be "..PERPETRATED **BY** THE UNITED STATES..." - Jaguar Verde (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC) _{comment restored by Dchall1 (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)}

I think Osama has made it pretty clear that the US is his prime target only because of its strength. He has sponsored plenty of attacks in Europe. One of the reasons he disapproves of Iran is that it has what he considers "corrupt" dealings with North Korea. From a ruthless and impatient religious viewpoint Osama is just acting on what most every religion believes: believers won't receive their rewards until Judgment Day and Judgment Day may be waiting for the whole world to be living under absolute theocracy rule (best effort/maximum number of people saved as humanly possible). He probably believes in the injustices but he is currently using the idea of injustices (and simple poor versus rich envy) to build power for his basic goals.

I would guess that what Osama really means is that he wants to disrupt the US's power to interfere overseas -- not that he actually expects to take over the US first. His first actual goal is to solidify the whole Middle East under Taliban-like regimes (pan-Arabic with a religious not secular twist). Then, if the US and NATO are unable/unwilling to interfere, Osama would see any country with a Muslim foothold taken to full Taliban control. Then other smaller third world countries without significant Muslim presence would invaded and onward up the pyramid. He is likely realistic in not expecting to see world control within his lifetime, but he would like to leave such an organizational pan and legacy.69.23.124.142 (talk) 07:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The real fireworks will be when the Chinese and Islam come into direct contact -- conflict guaranteed. Maybe not that long off given Chinese appetite for petroleum and US economic weakness. Isn't there a pass from SW China almost right into Iran? And the Chinese will make no bones about coming to stay and being interested in exterminating those who are not ethnic Chinese. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 07:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for information

can anyone tell me lots about Osama bin Laden? Please tell all you know . I need to know for a project. Thank you for helping. =D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.128.93.128 (talk)

Awkard looking sentence

"While Azzam and his MAK organization acted as support for the Afghan fighters and provided relief to refugees and injured, Jack wanted a more military role in which the Arab fighters would not only be trained and equipped by the organization but also be commanded on the battlefield by Arabic."

Did the writer mean "Arabs" or "Arabic" as in the language? Brian Pearson 04:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Peter Bergen inconsistencies

The quality of the article could be greatly enhanced by cleaning up and linking references to Peter Bergen (who seems to be an important source for the article) and giving his credentials the first time he's used as a reference rather than late in the article. Ddigby 19:42, 6 March 2007

I find truly comical the insertion of the comments of Peter Bergen on ObL as "opposed" to those of Robin Cook. The latter was THE former Foreign Secretary of the UK in the years 1997-2001 with direct hard knowledge of the facts while the former is one of million journalists writing on terror and collecting interviews from various sources of questionable credibility (including ObL in '97 ;-) ). By the way this PB proudly states to have written his book on ObL taking "the 1982 book Edie [as a model]: American Girl by Jean Stein, which was edited with the help of George Plimpton. Edie is an oral history of Andy Warhol superstar Edie Sedgewick, the beautiful model and actress who lit up Warhol's Factory in New York during the mid-1960s only to die at the age of 28 after epic struggles with drugs and depression". For the sake of credibility, can someone please clean up any reference to Peter Bergen as an authoritative source on ObL? 150.217.154.22 11:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Missing controvesy

This article is sub-standard as there is no mention of the possibility that this person "Osama Bin Laden" actually might not exist at all or the possible fact that he is co-conspiritor with the Americans to implement their domination over globe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.248.159.240 (talk) 09:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

We might as well add the possibility that President Bush may or may not exist and that he's working solely for big oil. Without some sort of decent evidence and sources this is all just conjecture and there is no reason to add it.--24.84.51.247 22:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

lol. owned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.81.138 (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Quote from Robin Cook

While correctly cited (the quote is Cook's words verbatim) I can't find any other source to suggest that what he says about "Al-Qaida" referring to a "database" is true. It seems that the word in Arabic simply means "The Base." Perhaps Cook's inference is correct, but I don't see any such indication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.108.240 (talk)

Reference to the training camp and by extension those who have attended it as "the base" preceeded UBL's involvement. The suggestion that "the base" was derived from a reference to "database" may very well have come from whatever sources he suggests but it isn't a credible suggestion when the leadership which preceeded UBL established it's use independant of any database or such records. 220.233.94.28 13:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Cook's suggestion that al Qaeda means "the database," and is a reference to a CIA computer database places him squarely in the role of a delusional kook. IOW, his comments are non-authoritative and should be disregarded. Pooua 08:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see how the following statement, quoted by Bergen, differs from Cook's view:

"It was always galling to the Americans, and I can understand their point of view, that although they paid the piper they could not call the tune. The CIA supported the mujahideen by spending the taxpayers' money, billions of dollars of it over the years, on buying arms, ammunition, and equipment."

He is acknowledging that the CIA funded the mujahideen, as Cook argued. Vesku 11:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with CIA skullduggery is that you can't control when 3rd parties from outside "volunteer" and are accepted by some local leaders. Bin Laden was such an outsider. Thus he got CIA weapons and training by uncontrolled second-hand means. Not that he really needed it given how many books on Viet Cong methods were available. The US almost immediately recognized BinLaden as a potential problem due his talking theocracy versus democracy (military HQ briefings as early as 1987). But other than join the Soviets to keep Communism in place there wasn't much the US could do. One option of Democracy and new nations is always to abdicate your new won freedom for religious or other enforced ideals. If you want funny read how the CIA help early Cuban freedom fighters before Castro declared Communism as the goal.69.23.124.142 (talk) 07:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda of being a Muslim

Osama Bin Laden is a most wanted criminal who is proven guilty of targetting innocent civilians. Islam forbids killing of innocent civilians. Osama Bin Laden was one of the greatest ally of the United States because United States were paying him tons of money that time. During the cold war He never complained about taking sides of the American people against the soviets because he was getting financial help from the Americans. The day American stopped aiding him and his Taliban regime Osama Bin Laden turned his back against the American people and all of sudden he became a pious and a religous man. Muslims are not foolish people they clearly know that this is just a propaganda of Islam and Osama in reality does not care about Islam at all. Osama Bin Laden wants to get the attention of the Muslims who are only blind and cannot see the facts behind his Islamic propaganda. Terrorism means murdering innocent people and no decent Muslim will ever support that. Never Ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammadkidwai (talk • contribs) 04:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course within extremist ranks the issue of innocent civilian is interpreted differently. They look back to the original Jihads, which for military reasons, essentially said there wasn't any such thing as civilian until the territory was under your control or said civilians were directly cooperating with you and were actively converting to your interpretation of Islam. There is always a way to twist scripture/writing to your viewpoint and needs. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 08:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Muslim is one who claims to practice Islam. One can make a claim to practice anything and not actually do it and still fulfill the criterion to be "one who claims". Furthermore, to be a Muslim you must have Tawhid and say shahada. These are the only requirements to be a Muslim: to believe there in no god but Allah, and that Mohammed (saws) is His Prophet. Jazzak Allah Khairun ~A Muslim~ 74.230.23.36 20:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

there are many very stupid Muslim and a few very smart Muslims. Muslims are generally moral however assholes can claim to be Muslim and you can't stop them.--Velanthis (talk) 04:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The US didn't pay BinLaden. BinLaden was not a tribal Afghan. Osama came into Afghanistan on his own dollar for the specific purpose of convincing Afghans to establish an ultra-conservative Islamic Theocracy when the war was won. Of course Osama tried to keep that goal secret from the CIA as long as possible while they could have most easily assassinated him. Establishing good relations with receptive Mujaheedin leaders was his first step and ejecting the Soviets the second. The CIA can sponsor freedom fighters but they cannot control who joins the fight and calls themselves a freedom fighter. Kinda of similar to your problem with ideal Islamic membership.

Just because someone is Islamic does not make them moderate nor sane. Jim Jones was Christian but he went over the edge. You can reject Osama's participation in your particular mosque or faction of Islam, just as Christians rejected Jim Jones. But unfortunately Osama still draws on the Koran and still is attractive to a lot extremists within Islam albeit they maybe a small fraction. Perhaps more unfortunate is that even those Muslims who reject his brand of Islam in theory -- won't betray him to Christians or US forces that they hate more. Tell me that the average Muslim wouldn't sit quiet as they watched him cross a market. Many more Muslims root for his success from the sidelines than want to join in his methods. In that Muslims are no different than American and Christians in general -- which is why George Bush is still US President and Timothy McVeigh was able to bomb Oklahoma City.

If what I said was not true, we would have seen Osama seized by fellow Muslims and sentenced to death by their own courts before the US could even ask for extradition. But we all know that won't happen. Not even in Saudi Arabia where he is an acknowledged traitor to the ruling families. Agreed you despise his methods, but most Muslims think his goals are more important.

Of course lots of Muslims think they want to live under Taliban and strict Shia law. Christians generally don't want a religious government...because they have essentially had such government in the past and know the extreme BinLaden type and corrupt tend to percolate to the top even in religious governments. Better to fight a secular government than fight against your religion gone bad.

69.23.124.142 (talk) 08:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Illness

Lacks any reference to his the need for Kidney Dialysis. This topic comes up from time to time when you hear criticism of "why cannot we find a very out of place tall, 50 year old man, who needs a dialysis machine, in the desert". This topic is disussed Here in depth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gmillerd (talk • contribs) 11:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Images

An editor User:Yonatanh has removed the copyright tags from the main images used in this article and then marked them for speedy deletion as not having copyright info...doh. Image:AQ00105.jpg and Image:Osama_1.jpg. I am no longer active on this wiki if there was another editor who could follow up. Cheers.--Paul E. Ester 21:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Attempted Capture by the USA

The wording in this section is in my opinion eerily similar to the article it cites. Perhaps this could be reworded in uhm.. "Wiki's own words" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NeptuneMan (talk • contribs) 11:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Citation for:

According to the Washington Post, the US government concluded that Osama bin Laden was present during the Battle of Tora Bora, Afghanistan in late 2001, and according to civilian and military officials with first-hand knowledge, failure by the US to commit US ground troops to hunt him led to his escape and was the gravest failure by the US in the war against al Qaeda.

Washington Post, 16 April 2002. "http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62618-2002Apr16" last visited 2/19/08

Unclear pronoun reference

He attended his son's wedding in January 2001, but since September 11 of that year he is believed only to have had contact with his mother on one occasion.[11]

What does "he" mean here? Osama bin Laden? (The sentence follow immediately upon mention of Osama's father.) I am guessing that the passage in intended to indicate that after 2001 Osama has had little or no contact with the family members with whom he grew up. P0M 22:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62618-2002Apr16?language=printer

Quoted in current page, allow fails to mention this:

(Tommy) Franks (US continues to dissent from that analysis. Rear Adm. Craig Quigley, his chief spokesman, acknowledged the dominant view outside Tampa but said the general is unpersuaded.

"We have never seen anything that was convincing to us at all that Osama bin Laden was present at any stage of Tora Bora -- before, during or after," Quigley said. "I know you've got voices in the intelligence community that are taking a different view, but I just wanted you to know our view as well."

Without it, the article is biased. Both viewpoints must be included!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlee2027 (talk • contribs)

Love for Whitney Houston

Looking at the ref for this, it's not clear to me that the article is not satire. Can we get a better source for this? Maybe this, but I think it also seems a little too light-hearted.

Perhaps what I'm getting at is whether Kola Boof is even a reliable-enough source to use with attribution. I almost think that this paragraph should go into a "Osama bin Laden in popular culture" or something similar, because it seems deeply incredible and no source takes it seriously. See also Talk:Osama_bin_Laden/Archive_12#Kola_Boof_Affair_of_1996 Cool Hand Luke 03:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't it just be deleted instead? Apart from possibly Bobby Brown, who's bio could this be considered relevant to either way? 220.233.94.28 14:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I removed it a few days ago. We ought not include every crank's claim on a significant figure's biography. Cool Hand Luke 22:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

U.S. refused to hand over evidence to Taliban .... according to the Taliban

It is important to note that the Taliban was ready to have a trial for Bin Laden and if the USA's evidence showed Bin Laden was responsible, he would be handed over. This government never complied. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/world/main310852.shtml

What this article says is that Taliban claims the U.S. government did not show them Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. --Leroy65X 17:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The United States government could have had Bin Laden already. President Bush at times did not care about Bin Laden, but come the 2004 election he did. If Bin Laden committed the September 11th attacks, he should be taken seriously. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Heresmyworld (talk • contribs) 12:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Here is a source that verifies the US refused to prove binLaden responsible and gets rid of that pesky word "claim".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,573975,00.html

According to this link the Taliban offered to surrender bin Laden unconditionally before 9/11 but the Bush administration didn't take it up.

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html Wayne 01:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Um this isn't new news. It's well established that the Taliban said they wanted evidence before they would hand over Osama but the US basically said fuck you and invaded them. Some people argue that the Taliban were just delaying. Others say the US just wanted to invade someone. Whatever the case, I remember this from before the invasion so it's clearly nothing new. Also, I would venture it has much more to do with the US invasion of Afghanistan then Osama so you really should be getting it there first Nil Einne 13:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Two things to consider. First from the New York Times on September 21, 2001, "All week, reports from Kabul and Kandahar have indicated that the Taliban leaders were engaging in a cat-and-mouse game with the United States, with Mullah Omar saying Mr. bin Laden would never be handed over, then suggesting that he might be under certain conditions. The conditions changed from day to day. It appears clear that there are significant splits within the Taliban movement, although their exact nature is not easy to determine." http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/21/international/21CND-PAK.html?ex=1184385600&en=306de4c788819c15&ei=5070 Second, a link to a page detailing the Taliban's proposal to try Bin Laden in Afghanistan under Sharia law. http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/07/ret.us.taliban/. The contentions above that portray the Taliban's demands as reasonable and just seeking evidence before being willing to turn him over, are completely off-base. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.0.36 (talk)

Bunk citations

There are multiple citations to Bin Laden taking responsibility for Septmember 11, 2001, attacks, but the quotes which are cited are never specific. I do not agree that those citations imply addmission of involvement specifically to Sept11. The quotes are addmission of desires, or general involvement to attacks in general, but are not specific to Sept11.

To give an example... just because I wanted the Blue Jays to win the World Series of baseball, and I did whatever was in my capacity to help them win, does not mean I was directly involved.

We, as wikipedians, should not be adding between the lines.

The Osama_bin_Laden Wikipedia page needs a major edit to regain neutrality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cendres (talk • contribs) 14:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

I've attempted to clean up September 11, 2001 attacks section, removing the word "admitted" and inserting quotes from him and more specific statements. --Leroy65X 15:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We should post quotes of him denying involvement as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.17.247 (talk) 08:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I found an article with Bin Laden denying involvement in 9/11: http://911review.com/articles/usamah/khilafah.html ~A Muslim~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.230.23.36 (talk) 07:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Family

Osama attended his son's wedding in January 2001, but since September 11 of that year he is believed only to have had contact with his mother on one occasion.

I've removed this as it is badly written and misplaced. I'm not sure what it's supposed to say. Is his son's wedding supposed to be the last contact he had with his family (apart from his mother)? If so, this is what it should say. The citation doesn't even mention this as far as I can see!--Jack Upland 03:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone should include references of OBL denying involvement... I've seen several. Check Al-Jazeera i think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.49.236 (talk) 07:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The line Osama attended his son's wedding in January 2001, but since September 11 of that year he is believed only to have had contact with his mother on one occasion. is back in and it is still badly written and the reference still does not talk about the wedding, mother or son. I am removing the line. Jons63 21:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

September 11, 2001 section

This section details the various bin Laden tapes without once using the word aledged giving the impression they are all authentic. None of the tapes have been authenticated and some are obvious fakes. This should be mentioned for NPOV. Wayne 16:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Evidence? --Leroy65X 15:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted in the article that bin Laden initially denied involvement in the 9/11 attacks. http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.249.107.53 (talk) 09:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

It does.

Bin Laden initially denied involvement in the September 11, 2001 attacks while praising them effusely, ...

I've put more of bin Laden's statements in blockquotes to make them more obvious. --Leroy65X 15:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It's currently being disputed as an " erroneous report " however, my Rex Tomb addition is factually correct. #1 The FBI website does not mention 911 on bin Laden's MOST WANTED poster, and #2, Rex Tomb does work for the FBI, and even has been summarily interviewed by the washington post on the ommition. Also , he did not deny saying his infamous quote that started this whole controversy. "There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR2006082700687_pf.html -- --Bennyxbo 13:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is what the Washington Post says:

[the] infamous date -- Sept. 11, 2001 -- is nowhere to be found on the same FBI notice.

The curious omission underscores the Justice Department's decision, so far, to not seek formal criminal charges against bin Laden for approving al-Qaeda's most notorious and successful terrorist attack. The notice says bin Laden is "a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world" but does not provide details.

The absence has also provided fodder for conspiracy theorists who think the U.S. government or another power was behind the Sept. 11 hijackings. From this point of view, the lack of a Sept. 11 reference suggests that the connection to al-Qaeda is uncertain.

Exhaustive government and independent investigations have concluded otherwise, of course, and bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders have proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings. FBI officials say the wanted poster merely reflects the government's long-standing practice of relying on actual criminal charges in the notices.

"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."

David N. Kelley, the former U.S. attorney in New York who oversaw terrorism cases when bin Laden was indicted for the embassy bombings there in 1998, said he is not at all surprised by the lack of a reference to Sept. 11 on the official wanted poster. Kelley said the issue is a matter of legal restrictions and the need to be fair to any defendant.

"It might seem a little strange from the outside, but it makes sense from a legal point of view," said Kelley, now in private practice. "If I were in government, I'd be troubled if I were asked to put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed, no matter who it was."

Bin Laden was placed on the Ten Most Wanted list in June 1999 after being indicted for murder, conspiracy and other charges in connection with the embassy bombings, and a $5 million reward was put on his head at that time. The listing was updated after Sept. 11, 2001, to include a higher reward of $25 million, but no mention of the attacks was added.

i.e., Nothing about "Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI", publicly stating "that there is no hard evidince linking bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks."

Frankly this is a waste of time and too unimportant to include in the article (If there was a government conspiracy theory, why doesn't it include an idictment of bin Laden?) but I've added it anyway.

--Leroy65X 15:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The Rex Tomb quote explains why bin Laden has not be indicted, how is that not important? I included a source to the " no hard evidence "quote. Can we comprimise? this is important information. --Bennyxbo 17:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I will call Rex Tomb on behalf of my local paper and have him verify his statement, then link to the mp3..will that suffice?--Bennyxbo 04:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Vesku 14:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC) : I concur that Rex Tomb's statement that the FBI has no hard evidence on bin Laden's involvement in the 9/11 attacks is important information. Therefore, I returned the quote of the statement. I also think that in this connection it is noteworthy that the promised white paper proving his guilt was never provided.

Crop the image

Could someone please crop the "Goverment exhibit" label off Image:AQ00100.jpg (or upload a new one for use in the article). It would fit better into the infobox:) -Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Another alleged death

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/01/18/gen.musharraf.binladen/index.html Please add to the list of death allegations. This is the first allegation that he died and most widely publicized. It is strange that it is not listed here, but two more recent and less widely publicized allegations are. --64.230.120.186 16:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Two more sources on these early claims:

• http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/01/18/gen.war.against.terror/
• http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,265412,00.html

The last source contains this informative quote:

"Missing, of course, could mean dead, and a small minority of officials in the Pentagon, CIA and FBI believe that bin Laden's public silence since the December [2001] tape suggests he has succumbed — if not to U.S. air strikes, then possibly to kidney failure."

--64.230.120.186 16:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC) I just saw this one: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,41576,00.html

{{editprotected}}

please add July 2006 CIA closes unit focused on hunting Osama bin Laden

to the alleged death timeline

source: new york times

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/washington/04intel.html?ex=1309665600&en=3779ed9b98bb9d22&ei=5088

and NPR

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5529208

68.238.165.213 01:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This page is semiprotected; any username more than a few days old can edit it. There is no need for administrator assistance to edit this page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

God i really hope that hes dead! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.13.165 (talk)

Name

Why is the name also written in the Devanagari script? Bin Laden is Arabian, not Indian. I am removing it. Bmaganti 21:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

An alias used for bin Laden in the US intelligence community is "HVT-1", or High Value Target One. [3] Maybe this should be added to the article. 86.56.48.141 22:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

thats just a code for him from the agency, thats not his own name or nickname.RebelzGang (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

yes, i agree, his name IS 'Usama', because in every Bin Laden video or As-Sahab video, his name is spelled (and pronounced) as 'Sheikh Usama Bin Laden', its only the western media that always spells him as 'Osama', and im sure Bin Laden and his own associates and Al Qaeda now his name's spelling more than the media does, since its HIS name, and not some alias or term or nickname given to him by the media. I believe this what the article should say when his name is first read Usama bin Muhammad bin 'Awad bin Laden. RebelzGang (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

article idea?

anyone qualified to write an article about the binladen construction company. Chergles 01:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The Golden Seal Campaign

For the sake of Wikipedia and controversial articles...

Gold Seal Campaign:

What do you think of this? The administrators of Wikipedia establish a Gold Seal campaign for certain articles. This “Gold Seal” will indicate for a given article it’s factuality and lack of vandalism. Basically it will show..

1-This page is properly cited.

2-This page has been verified.

This will be an important step for Wikipedia. It means students, high school included will be able to cite Wikipedia in their work. As of now many schools do not allow students to this.

As for editing an article, It will still be allowed yet a person can easily revert to the Gold Sealed, verified page on Wikipedia. This will be an amazing step for Wikipedia, though difficult, it will allow readers to know for sure what they are reading is true. It will surely improve Wikipedia’s image in the public sphere. Of course someone will have to organize this, but in then it will be sufficient use of labour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattawa (talk • contribs)

Inappropriate to Provide Links and Pages to Osama's Wives

This is a private matter, a man's wives, Wikipedia should have the class to respect. Arthur Mellin, PST 01:01, 19 May 2007

....what? Since when should wikipedia not mention who a person is married to? You can go to pretty much any biography anywhere whether on wikipedia or not, and it will tell you who they are married too, if they are in fact married. Should be remove his date of birth because it's private information? His kidney problems are private too. Wikipedia isn't going to censor any information, anything verified and citerfiable (i.e. obeying BLP) will be included on the encyclopedic article. Encyclopedia, i.e. include all the information. SGGH ^speak! 12:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Osama Bin Laden is only known as a terrorist to Amercia and its allies

This article is so biased. Osame Bin Laden is not a terrorist from what i have seen. America and its allies only attacked him because they believed that he caused 9/11 but they did it without proof. Look at America. more then 600,000 people have been killed in Iraq because of there lies and how they treat humans and muslims. They are the real terrorists. Osama Bin Laden only fights for what he thinks is right. He is a hero to many people. He does not treat people badly

what about the hundreds of Africans who were killed so he could bomb the American embassies in Africa and kill a handful of Americans? (Which happens to muslims in US custody), and he does not lie (Bush with his fake story about WMD's). He is definitely not a terrorist, and he has never said that muslims should kill american civilians and there allies, that is just a biased view.

So who issued the fatwa in his name saying that? Who issued the many videos of Bin Laden saying "american civilians and there allies" should be killed? --Leroy65X 17:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope this article will become more neutral so people can see Osama Bin Laaden in more then 1 way, not just as a 'terrorist' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahroze (talk • contribs)

--This was posted by editor Shahroze. Who is he? "Im from Pakistan. Im currently living in Canada were im doing my studying in KCVI [Kingston Collegiate and Vocational Institute in Kingston ONTARIO]. im interested in politics, military, and astronomy" (Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shahroze") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leroy65X (talk • contribs)

So you think just cuz im pakistani im taking his side —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahroze (talk • contribs)

I wouldn't say that. You didn't sign your name so I thought it would be good to let people know something about who was talking, i.e. posting. --Leroy65X 18:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

lies, u could have just posted my name —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahroze (talk • contribs)

So, you thunk Americans are evil and should die? Is that it? If it were true tha Bin Laden was responsible, for 9/11, would you support him still? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.69.87.183 (talk)

This is not a forum. This is a discussion page for improving the article. Take the kooky stuff elsewhere. Jtpaladin 01:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

This thread is something like three months old, I doubt you'll get any useful replies by replying denigratingly to a three month old comment by an anonymous editor. --ForbiddenWord 12:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

fuck you leroy, bush is one of the best presidents we've ever had, and osama bin laden is SATAN in the FLESH. Posted by: Michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.13.165 (talk)

Bin Laden isn't a terrorist because he is risking his own life of richs for the well being of his country. Bush is just stretching his arms too long to the middle east and taking all their oil. Bush cares about oil not Bin laden. He is just using Bin Laden as an excuse so he could defeat them and take their oil. If Bush never liked oil 911 wouldn't happen and we would know Bin Laden as a wealthy citizen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taoli1995 (talk • contribs)

If bin Laden can't be called a terrorist, who can? I'm suprised the word isn't used in the first paragraph of this article. Anybody object if I insert it? Griot 01:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's been removed before as being too POV. dcandeto 16:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest you all read Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama bin Laden (also read the reviews on that page at the bottom) and if you cannot afford the book (which is essential reading for anyone that updates this article) then read John Millers interview with Osama bin Laden in May 1998 which can be found HERE and then 'Greetings, America...' article. No, I do not believe he is a terrorist but I do not agree with his methods either. That book should most definately be read as it gives the 'terrorists' reasons for doing what they are doing as opposed to the other terrorists reasons that we hear on TV everyday. Robert C Prenic 16:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Lets put it this way. He admitted to the 9/11 attacks, which killed almost 3000 people, and you are actually trying to defend him? that really is stupid.--84.19.225.251 16:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You have missed the point completely, and have obviously not read either of what I suggested. Their is no definite proof he commited 9/11. But, I believe he was behind it in some form. Now, based on that you have to look at the reason why he did it. I am NOT justifying it but you have to look at the reasons and when you do then you begin to see a wholy different picture and it simply isn't because "they hate our freedom" lunacy spewing from Bush and Blairs mouths. No, this is far from the truth. These attacks were a retaliation as was said in his interview in 1998 which I suggested you read and he has given reasons behind everything that has happened in all of his speeches (hence I ask you to read the book). Again, I am not justifying this, but many and more attracities have been commited against the Middle Easten people by the West than the other way around.

I have just finished reading the 2005 book 'Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama bin Laden', with Bin Laden's statements newly translated by James Howarth and edited and produced by professor and scholar Bruce Lawrence. This book is praised by scholarly men to include/comment on ALL of the official and real statements of Osama bin Laden from December 19 1994 through to December 16 2004.

(See the section Videos of Osama bin Laden). This book doesn't mention the December 13 2001 allaged bin Laden tape. In fact, the speech it does mention after that is December 21 2001 'Nineteen Students' statement released to al-Jazeera. In it denying being involved in 9/11 but praising the hijackers.

Is this December 13 2001 video real or fake? If it is real, fine - it does show someone priasing the attack but not admitting to it directly. However, if it is real and wasn't an official statement, do we think Bin Laden would be foolish enough to loose the video tape where he admits ot the 9/11 attack (subsequently having it shown accross the globe), and then denying direct involvement in pretty much every statement since?

May I also suggest you watch the CNN interview with CIA official Michael Scheuer: Part 1, Part 2 which goes on to state that the American people are not told the 'enemies' reason for the attacks. Robert C Prenic 11:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

How is Osama risking his own life of riches for his country? His country being the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Saudis have a good standard of living, if one excuses the strict Wahabbi Muslim government, who enforce exactly the kind of law that Osama condones. Osama opposes the royal family and their stance on America but not the strict laws that force women to cover themselves, enforce prohibition, censors the media and bans non family male female mingling. 157.190.228.23 (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Illness

There is heavy speculation as to UBL's health. I've seen people theorise that he has Marfan's syndrome, while I have just learnt from an edit to Addison's disease that someone has suggested he suffers from that. Should we mention those things once a reliable source can be found? JFW | T@lk 14:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall recieve: http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2001/11/09/marfan/index.html. I've added it to the article. bahamut0013♠♣ 15:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hanging

He really is dead now... shouldn't we add that? The whole hanging thing... there's videos on YouTube of it, I don't think this is another fake lol. Template:Signatures/Gangsterls17:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite any reliable sources for that assertion? dcandeto 17:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Nvm... gotta stop confusing Osama with Saddam. Been frying my brain all morning, my apologies. This April 27 BBC article says he's at large. Template:Signatures/Gangsterls17:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden died July 16, 2007 of kedney failure as reported By tribal elders in the no mans land of Pakistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.158.79.114 (talk)

If he's dead, then there will be a lot who have an interest in covering it up. A possibly living OBL causes more fear and terror than a dead "martyr". So we will probably never know it for sure. If he manages to live undiscovered, he will also manage to die undiscovered. 84.115.129.76 09:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Has no one heard the new transcript from 9/7/07? His voice has been verified by the gov and he references current events, it looked just like him with a dyed beard.... this should prove he is alive. Until proof exists of his death (i.e. passage of natural lifespan or corpse presented) it is only speculation. ~ A Muslim ~ 74.230.23.36 20:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Distinctions

Saddam Hussein: arabic guy of who is thin and gaunt and pale with jet black hair and trimmed mustache and well groomed for his court appointments on world television. he was hung at the end of December of 2006. Osama is anyone's guess for what he might look like today and where he might be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berniethomas68 (talk • contribs)

The Al-Attas' served as a step family in Jeddah

Could anyone tell me what this means and how it is suitable as a subheading? Arkyopterix 13:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

photos?

why aren't there any? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.183.254 (talk)

response: Why on earth would you want any? He's a disgusting excuse for a human being and should be dropped off a very high cliff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.91.76 (talk)

Wow that's really neutral and un-biased... NOT. Photos are obviously necessary to know what he looked like for the purpose of identifcation. What a dumb answer you gave..... ~~ A Muslim ~~ 74.230.23.36 20:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The exhibit photo is currently shown TWO times in the article (top and middle) but the "golden robe" photo from the pre-2004 US election speech is not shown, even though that shows UBL in a majestic, sheik-like manner, speaking not from a cave, as yankees like to joke, but from an established mansion. Omitting that is NPOV! 82.131.210.162 07:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You guys are silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.6.233 (talk) 23:25, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Where should we put this?

[[Image:Osamabinkorvkiosk.jpg|thumbnail|right|Some people like to crack [[joke]]s about Osama bin Laden, as shown by this doctored [[photograph]] from [[Sweden]]]]

This was an image uploaded onto the Swedish Wikipedia. I wonder where in this article this would be appropriate... WhisperToMe 17:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: The link doesn't work, and I cannot verify the copyright status, so I will speedy this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhisperToMe (talk • contribs)

Not Wanted for September 11th attacks?

Please take a look at the following links.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

His wanted poster mentions *NOTHING* about the September 11th attack on the US. He is not wanted by the FBI for the attacks that took place on September the 11th. Look through the other top 10 most wanted terrorists wanted posters. Many of them are wanted for conspiracy charges. Osama is not even wanted for conspiracy. If the FBI felt he had orchestrated the attacks that happened that morning his flier would look something like this "CONSPIRACY TO KILL U.S. NATIONALS, TO MURDER, TO DESTROY BUILDINGS AND PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES, AND TO DESTROY THE NATIONAL DEFENSE UTILITIES OF THE UNITED STATES" The fact that this information is missing speaks volumes about the FBI's position regarding what really happened that morning.

Lividity 23:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This has been covered before.
"There is no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers"
- FBI Director Robert Mueller- Sept 2002
"In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."
- FBI Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb- June 2006

—Preceding unsigned comment added by WLRoss (talk • contribs)

Please read earlier Talk page posts before putting on tin foil hats.

Reposted from above:

... [the] infamous date -- Sept. 11, 2001 -- is nowhere to be found on the same FBI notice.

The curious omission underscores the Justice Department's decision, so far, to not seek formal criminal charges against bin Laden for approving al-Qaeda's most notorious and successful terrorist attack. The notice says bin Laden is "a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world" but does not provide details.

The absence has also provided fodder for conspiracy theorists who think the U.S. government or another power was behind the Sept. 11 hijackings. From this point of view, the lack of a Sept. 11 reference suggests that the connection to al-Qaeda is uncertain.

Exhaustive government and independent investigations have concluded otherwise, of course, and bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders have proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings. FBI officials say the wanted poster merely reflects the government's long-standing practice of relying on actual criminal charges in the notices.

"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. ... There is a logic to it."

David N. Kelley, the former U.S. attorney in New York who oversaw terrorism cases when bin Laden was indicted for the embassy bombings there in 1998, said he is not at all surprised by the lack of a reference to Sept. 11 on the official wanted poster. Kelley said the issue is a matter of legal restrictions and the need to be fair to any defendant.

"It might seem a little strange from the outside, but it makes sense from a legal point of view," said Kelley, now in private practice. "If I were in government, I'd be troubled if I were asked to put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed, no matter who it was."

Bin Laden was placed on the Ten Most Wanted list in June 1999 after being indicted for murder, conspiracy and other charges in connection with the embassy bombings, and a $5 million reward was put on his head at that time. The listing was updated after Sept. 11, 2001, to include a higher reward of $25 million, but no mention of the attacks was added.

i.e., Nothing about "Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI", publicly stating "that there is no hard evidince linking bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks."

Frankly this is a waste of time and too unimportant to include in the article (If there was a government conspiracy theory, why doesn't it include an idictment of bin Laden?) but I've added it anyway.

--Leroy65X 21:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Osama Bin Laden Died July 17 2007 of kidney failure as report By tribal elder in the noman land of pakinstan

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.158.79.114 (talk)

Goals

I don't know if this has been addressed before but is there any mention as to what bin Laden actually wants? I thought it was odd that neither this article or the al-qaeda article state any goals for their endeavors. Anyone want to address this? Jtpaladin 20:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bin laden 12 27a.jpg

Just so you know, this image has been tagged as lacking a fair use rationale for this article, and will be removed if one is not provided. --Haemo 04:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Saudi?

As bin Laden has been stripped of his Saudi citizenship, the Guardian style guide says we should not call him a "Saudi". I agree with this usage and have amended the article to call him "Saudi-born", which I think is fairer. --John 22:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

-- He was not Saudi born. He is of Yemeni birth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.94.221.24 (talk)

The article says he was born in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Do you have a source that says otherwise?--John 05:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Grammar

"For a while Osama worked at the Services Office working with Abdullah Azzam on Jihad Magazine, a magazine that gave information about the war with the soviets and interviewed mujahideen. As time passed, Aymen Al Zawahiri encouraged Osama to split away from Abdullah Azzam. Osama formed his own army of mujahideen and fought the Soviets. One of his most significant battles was the battle of Jaji, which was not a major fight, but it earned him a reputation as a fighter.

Formation of al-Qaeda"

a while should be awhile. Mr.grantevans 12:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --ForbiddenWord 13:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Number of children

In the beginning info, it states that he has fathered 55 children. A few sections down it says 11 to 24. And besides the fact that there are two different values, why is the number of children included in the intro? Thylacine222 01:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

In the beginning, it says that his FATHER fathered 55 children, not Osama himself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.70.100 (talk) 09:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation of name

Could someone upload and audio file pronouncing his name? The article states that it has been transliterated many different ways and I am curious as to whether "Osama" or "Usama" is closer to how he pronounces his it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feedmecereal (talk • contribs) 05:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

May be hard to find... he's not very self-centered and I have never heard him reference himself. You might have more luck finding him talking to another Osama (for what it's worth I always heard name in Arabic pronounce Usama, like Umar and Uthman). ~~ A Muslim ~~ 74.230.23.36 20:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The emir is alive

He will speak to the fedajeen worldwide via videotaped message on the 6th anniversary.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/06/binladen.video/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.210.162 (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This article's "mythology" is embarrassing

How is this article supposed to be encyclopedic if there are so many "may's," "purportedly's," and "perhaps's." How can you not know if he graduated from college? How is height so open to debate? How is he "said to be one of X number of siblings." —Preceding unsigned comment added by SirGrotius (talk • contribs) 15:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

we don't do original research here at wikipedia. So, even if possible, we wouldn't go visit Bin Laden and measure how tall he is, because that would be original research. We rely on published sources, and if they contradict each other, that will be reflected in this article!--345Kai 19:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox pic

Is there any other pic of bin Laden apart from the one tagged as "government exhibit"? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Half Alawite?

I've seen some articles claim that Osama's mother, and maybe also one of his wives, is an Alawite, for example:

"COOPER: Bin Laden's mother is Shia, isn't Bin Laden's mother Shia?

BERGEN: She's believed to be an Alawite from Syria, which I think is one of the sects in Shia. So, it's something that the Al Qaeda leadership did not want. They also didn't want all of these beheadings of civilians. Zarqawi did seem to stop that. But Bin Laden, privately, at the moment, I'm sure he's publicly going to say that Zarqawi's death is a wonderful martyrdom, but privately he may be hoping that somebody, whoever takes Al Qaeda in Iraq over is a little more -- follows the central direction from the Al Qaeda leadership in Waziristan."[4]

"interestingly, I never understood how Wahhabi Saudis who marry Alawite women or even take them as concubines justify their actions in light of Ibn Taymiyya’s fatwa. This is particularly important in Osama Bin Laden’s case, whose mother and first wife (Umm Sa’ad, who happens to be his maternal cousin) are both Syrian Alawite women from a village to the east of Latikiya. In Ibn Taymiyya’s understanding, Bin Laden’s very presence is a sin—hmmm, interesting, maybe that’s why Abu Jandal mentions virtually all the big shots in the world of jihad by name and extols their virtues (Abdullah Azzam, Zarqawi, Zawahiri, …etc) but not Bin Laden."[5]

"This city of 320,000 is a stronghold of the Alawite sect, an offshoot of Islam that controls Syria's government and security forces. Historically, there has been tension between the conservative Sunni arm of Islam and the Alawites. Though there has been widespread speculation that bin Laden's mother was an Alawite--which could have complicated his early life in Sunni-controlled Saudi Arabia--the Ghanems insist the family is Sunni."[6]

"For the first time, in Osama, we hear a lot about bin Laden's mother, who, according to some informants, was a concubine and had roots in the Syrian Alawite sect, whose mystical beliefs are considered heretical by many Muslims -- including the puritanical Saudis."[7]

And so on and so on, there are a lot more sources if you simply Google Osama Bin laden, mother, and Alawite.

If this is true, it is quite significant, and would maybe explain why Al Qaeda hasn't attacked any Alawite targets yet. Funkynusayri 19:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

no, i dont think that just because his mother might be Alawi, if this is actually true, thats the reason theyre not attacking Alawis or that Al Qaeda doesnt like this fact of his mother's, because in the ideology its not about what one individual's parents are or were or what the individual was, but what HE IS. Al Qaeda doesnt just attack people according to their faith or just attack someone if their non-sunni and non-muslim, they attack people mainly as a punishment or as revenge, and alawis have done nothing so far to incite any attacks, and also Alawi populations arent really present in the regions where al qaeda are operating. Many reports on Al Qaeda, etc are usually just based on assumptions and not on facts or how things really are, especially on topics like "Al Qaeda-Shia relations" and that theyve ever worked with the shias or the iranians, these are all just assumptions are all false. theyre arent and never has been any friendly relations between Al Qaeda and the iranians or shia militias, they are enemied of each other, and Al Qaeda consider them one of their main enemies. its just like how when they made claims of "Saddam-Al Qaeda relations", all just false and baseless assumptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RebelzGang (talk • contribs) 13:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Osama is in Chitral: US experts

http://www.dawn.com/2007/09/09/top9.htm

Osama is in Chitral: US experts

By Our Correspondent

WASHINGTON, Sept 8: Osama bin Laden is in Chitral, US experts have claimed while commenting on Al Qaeda leader’s latest video in which he has taunted America for losing the war against him. Several US television channels and newspapers quoted US counter-terrorism experts as saying that bin Laden is hiding in Chitral because it is remote and its rugged terrain makes it impossible for Pakistani forces to look for him there. There’s enough evidence “to persuade intelligence analysts that it’s his most likely location,” an expert told CBS.

Daniel Benjamin of the Brookings Institute says that the Al Qaeda chief also has sympathisers in that area. “They have a code of hospitality for guests, and they’ve probably also gotten a fair amount of money from bin Laden,” said Mr Benjamin who tried to track bin Laden down during the Clinton administration.

He believes bin Laden is surrounded by bodyguards armed with surface-to-air missiles and good intelligence.

“I think it’s quite likely he has a very good early warning system (and) that there are perimeters set up so people know who’s coming and going in the area that he’s living,” Mr Benjamin said.

Michael Scheuer, a former CIA analyst and author of three books on Al Qaeda and terrorism, disagrees with this theory. “I think they’re blowing a little bit of smoke. They have to say something now that he is back in the public eye,” he told CBS.

“If you look at the territory, it is impossible to find any single person up there, and we don’t have enough people to do it, and we respect Pakistan’s sovereignty. I guess they’re not going to go into Pakistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.34.86 (talk) 04:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, can someone please add something like this to the 'Whereabout' section

US intelligence has confirmed that Osama bin Laden may be hiding in Chitral.

He is, therefore, a hillbilly. Some say that by ordering people to kill people in the name of God, he is committing human sacrifice. Boooooyyy am I tired. 204.52.215.107 07:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't edit the page. --Touchedbyeveryone 06:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Please add this to the Education section

Hi, I believe it should be added to the education section of the article that Bin Laden is reported to have taken some (English) language course in Oxford in 1971. See here. Thanks in advance, 86.56.48.12 20:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

september 2007 video

Shouldn't some stuff be put in about his latest video. Namelly it came out, he looked very diffrent, was 26 (or whatever) mins. long, he ranted about typical "libiral" issues, the CIA says the voice is his, and the video stop around 2 minutes the voice changes and then he talks for a very long time.68.50.168.239 04:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

We have an article on bin Laden's video here: Videos of Osama bin Laden. Robert C Prenic 12:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes

This sentence is replacing a vandalizing troll's hatespeech about Bin Laden. ~~ A Muslim ~~ 74.230.23.36 20:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

04 videos and beyond

This article should mention that the videos in 04 and 07 are in heavy doubt of being real. In both cases he looks different, and in the 04 video a Swiss analysis claimed it was fake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.17.153 (talk) 06:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Bored of the fake stuff. Even if it was faked by the West, it does not benefit them. It it was faked it was faked by Pro-Al -Quida folk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert C Prenic (talk • contribs) 06:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Who it benefits is a separate debate. What I am saying is there is substantial evidence against these videos. Software used for voice recognition in Swiss Bank for security tested the alleged 04 tape and concluded that there is a 95% probability that the voice isn't Bin Laden and the tape is fake. Article here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,851112,00.html , http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/swissinfo.html?siteSect=881&sid=1627978 , http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2526309.stm

That is very strong evidence against the voice being authentic. And as anyone can see in the videos, he looks very, very different. The only evidence supporting the authenticity of these tapes comes from the US government, the very people who are suspected of faking Bin Laden videos. If it is not even mentioned that these tapes are disputed--along with all conclusions in this article that are based on these tapes--than I must dispute the neutrality of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.17.153 (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Lose of Popularity in Pakistan

This section seems superfluous. If relevant it needs to be referenced. Secondly, it needs to undergo extensive grammatical editing (i.e. general grammar and formating into paragraphs). Lastly, even if relevant, it does not seem to be primarily about Osama bin Laden; perhaps this information - if at all accurate - deserves to be placed on a separate page.

As a more general comment, given that this page is not currently available for editing I am worried that it was locked down in this form (i.e. that the 'final' version of the page considered acceptable included this section). This needs serious editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.159.46 (talk) 06:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted the section as there's no reason to believe it's anything other than POV and spectulation. --BoogaLouie 20:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Article

The article is referring towards Pakistani community who are currently blamed upon hiding Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan which is absolutely absurd because the entire Pakistani community is tired of these extremist factions that are found in some parts of Pakistan and who are trying target innocent people of Pakistan. Operation Red Mosque is known as a historic event in Pakistan because Red Mosque was going to be used as a terrorist training base for Al Qaeda in the capital of Pakistan if was not destroyed by the Pakistan forces. Pakistani community openly supported this operation against Osama Bin Laden and his allies. Even the recent tape used by Bin Laden clearly shows his anger towards President Musharaf and the Pakistani community at the same time.

This article is refering towards people interested in finding out about bin Laden. If you see any errors of fact let us know. Otherwise this is not a opinion forum. --BoogaLouie 21:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Sheik defies rumors

The "alleged death" section should be removed from the article, since we know he was alive in mid-2007 (his new video being shown on TV worldwide), so I see no sense in keeping old, proven wrong rumors in the article any longer. 82.131.210.162 12:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Dyed beard

Does anyone have a source for the claim that beard dying is "a popular practice among Arab leaders"? I personally found it surprising that bin Laden had dyed his beard; I assumed that Islam -- particularly his brand of it -- might frown upon the practice, based on the rationale that it is for God to decide whether or when to turn our hair white, and not for us to undo it. Perhaps my assumption is way off base, but either way the statement warrants citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.198.109 (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It is my knowledge that it is permissable for aging mujahideen to dye there hair back to its original color in order to be more virile appearing to their enemies. Otherwise, natural color hair dying is forbidden. I apologize for not having the hadith source to reference it, but now you have a start. ~A Muslim~ 74.230.23.36 20:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Date of Birth in Picture/Bio Box

it seems weird to me that it shows his birthdate above his picture, then his age in parentheses. The birthdate should be in the info box below the picture, and there should be a caption of the photo or something saying what age the picture is taken at. Dan 03:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

CIA and bin Laden

I'm going to create a separate article called Alleged CIA funding of Bin Laden since the issue comes up so much in other articles like al-Qaeda and Afghan Arabs --BoogaLouie 19:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

made changes and links to Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden --BoogaLouie 22:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that page should be deleted; it seems to be a POV Fork whose only purpose is to give credence to a conspiracy theory that has been addressed. If we are going to keep the page - and there is a reasonable argument not to delete it - it should not be in the form of "Allegations" and "Denials" but rather a coherent account of CIA activity in afghanistan in the 80s and of the rise of al Qaeda. There is no reason to treat the demonstrably false allegation of CIA funding of OBL as a matter of equal dispute. csloat 03:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Cannot agree. The page does not give much credence to the theory at all. And as the note you deleted says:

for example, searched on Google 8-16-2007 the phrase "cia trained bin laden" produces 1,090 hits, "cia created bin laden" produces 986

The idea is out there. Deleting the article won't make it go away.

The article was created because both the Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda articles had big sections on it and at least the ObL page had a big debate in the talk page. It also was relevent to the Afghan Arabs article.

I could see a case for merging it with the Operation Cyclone article. --BoogaLouie 15:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW you want to see POV take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency#Afghanistan, and at the Operation Cyclone history to see what that looked like before I cleaned it up. --BoogaLouie 15:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden with Operation Cyclone

I suggest we make Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden a section of Operation Cyclone. Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden is a narrow topic and assistance to ObL would have been part of Operation Cyclone.

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Picture

Put this picture on the page

Image:2004-10-29 Bin Laden still.jpg

Search for Osama bin Laden usable images

I doubt the above image is usable. Please remember photos must be public domain or have a free license.

Since the main image has gone down because of license issues, I have been looking for a replacement photo all over the internet. The only public domain photo I have found is not very good for a front image, although it could be used for another section. Here it is dodmedia ID:020114-N-8242C-005. I also found a very large and high quality image at the Daily O'Collegian website, Oklahoma State's university. I tried to find the accompanying article to see if the photo credit was public domain or at least usable however I could not find the article. Maybe someone else would have better luck. Here is the photo in question: 1.%20OSAMA%20BIN%20LADEN.jpg

And also sorry for all the edits on this discussion post. I'm new to Wikipedia editing. Utoks (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have updated the page to include the DoD image as the main image. In doing so-- I uploaded it to wikimedia commons. Please take a look and see that it all looks in order.

Also I'm considering cropping out the extra information in the poster and just leave the headshot of the subject. Any thoughts?Utoks (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure?

Are you sure that's actually a picture of bin Laden? The nose looks a bit wide at the nostrils. Wowest (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Fodder

…has provided what some call "fodder for conspiracy theorists who think the U.S. government or another power was behind the Sept. 11 hijackings." ????

well, I'll say that this article is fodder. Keep it locked until you freefall into oblivion... 213.147.97.163 (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory posted by Wowest

In the September 11, 2001 attacks section I summarized a long bit of text about inaccurate translation of a bin Laden video and left the link to it:

Some have disputed this translation however.

Wowest has reverted it.

I've reverted it back. Why? The article is already very long. There is already a 9/11 conspiracy theory article and subsequent events (i.e. bin Laden's videos about he personally directed the 19 hijackers) have both made the theory that the video was mistranslated to make bin laden look guilty, both less plausible and less noteworthy. --BoogaLouie 17:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Alleged libel against conspiratorialist Wowest posted by Boogielouie

The previous paragraph is illogical, and the heading is libelous. Whistle-blowing by a foreign television station is not a "conspiracy theory." Numerous people have disputed all Osama videos and audiotapes newer than one month after 9/11 for the following reasons: (1) The individuals on the videos do not look enough like Osama to even be reasonable look-alikes, (2) The individuals on the videos/audios do not sound like Osama (this has been verified both by translators who have translated real bin Laden tapes as well as by computer analysis of the voice on the tapes, compared to known tapes of the real bin Laden) (3) the individuals on the videos/audios do not use Osama's highly identifiable rhetoric (4) the individuals on the audios/videos do not address Osama's known interests (5) the individuals on the videos/audios increasingly sound like Democrats, (6) the translation is manipulative (several people have said this, (7) the speaker tends to say things that will help George Walker Bush, (8) the tapes come out at times when Bush needs a boost in his ratings and (9)the preponderance of evidence is that bin Laden died shortly after the bombing of Tora Bora of a lung infection caused by his inability to obtain sterile water for his kidney dialysis machine. Wowest 21:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, there is plenty of room for these theories on the conspiracy theory page. These are theories of US government conspiracy to falsify messages. they belong on a conspiracy theory page. --BoogaLouie 18:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Wowest, please don't accuse other users of libel when they post things your disagree with. You're pushing the boundaries of WP:LEGAL. Dchall1 19:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

BoogaLouie, why is it for you to decide what counts as a conspiracy? Accusations that the US government falsified messages are quite obviously not grounds for considering something a conspiracy. If you disagree, you have a very short memory. That is the essence what happened with the weapons of mass destruction lie in Iraq. You have presented ZERO evidence to refute the the problems with the videos. I previously posted the links to a neutral voice analysis done by a Swedish banking firm that handles voice security software. You are simply being biased if you cannot see that there is legitimate dispute. As it is now, saying that the tapes in question are authentic is more of a fit to the term conspiracy. 75.119.17.153 (talk) 04:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)ex

The release of videos of an imposter proporting to be bin Laden and taking credit for something bin Laden did not do, that are confirmed as authentic by intelligence officials of many countries and that are shown on media networks and described as authentic by those media networks .... is by definition a conspiracy. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

We aren't talking about that in the article, though. We're only talking about the bogus translation, as reported by several whistle-blowers, some of whom were involved in the German television expose. A whistle-blower is not necessarily a conspiracy theorist. An error by one translator -- even fraud by one translator -- is not a conspiracy. The Bush regime ascribes anything it's accused of doing wrong as the result of "incompetence." They could be telling the truth.

Every audio or video statement "from bin Laden" after October of 2001 has been challenged by someone for one reason or another. Someone appears to be putting out fake communications. If so, who would have the motive, the means and the opportunity to do so? Sorry, but I don't have a theory available to explain that right now. Wowest (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"Whistleblower"? That's a nice euphamism. I would say that although AFAIK the proponents of the fake video theory have not spelled out what the conspiracy consists of, they are still alleging one, since it would take a conspiracy to make what are actually fake videos of bin Laden universally considered genuine. I would also add that it is very likely true that "Every audio or video statement `from bin Laden` after October of 2001 has been challenged by someone for one reason or another," but that does not make those challenges credible or notable. They are considered not worth talking about outside of the conspiracy community. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You're still mixing apples and oranges, Booga. The reference is not to the obviously faked video, but to the obvious faked translation. One person could have done that. As the Bush Administration has pointed out on numerous occasions, it is totally incompetent, which explains quite clearly why nobody else caught on to the faked translation. You wouldn't question your president, would you??? Wowest (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Its only "obvious" to the conspiracy comunity, so its not notable for the article.--BoogaLouie (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's quite obvious to people who are fluent in both English and Arabic, no matter what "community" they inhabit. (If you look at the screen, Booga, you will see that your word "comunity" is underlined in red. That indicates that it is misspelled, if you care.) These are not the first translators to point out that the Arab word for "last" in the phrase "last Thursday" does not appear in the Arabic. They are not the first to point out that the next sentence is the beginning of a passage not present in the Arabic at all. If some other editor wants to help me out with this, the same thing was stated by a cable network news person shortly after the "fatty bin Laden" tape came out. Currently, I can't locate the original article, and would appreciate your assistance. Wowest (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

missing picture

this article needs moar pix. there is only one picture of our leader, four fifth of the way down the article content (though considering the massive amounts of footnotes, demonstrating our leader's notability, it is two thirds down the page in my mozilla firefox instance). in particular, there used to be a (pretty hot, actually...) picture of him at the top of the page, but now it's just a red link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.119.166 (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• There should be some in the public domain by the American government, but apparently not. The current picture is actually a copyright violation, as it is merely a picture of a poster which wasn't created by the guy who took the photo. Funkynusayri (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If you look above 5 sections I discuss some of the images I've found to replace the current copyrighted image. I've also updated the page with the public domain photo from the DoD. Please take a look and make sure I did it right; since I'm new to Wikipedia editing. Utoks (talk) 12:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Video views of the landscape

I don't understand why the wide views of the landscape in some of the videos haven't been sufficient to pinpoint specific times and places where bin Laden was present. Surely even a private effort using topographic data could determine the location from the profile of the surrounding mountains. Mike Serfas (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sudan inconsistancies

has anyone else noticed this?

"On 5 March 1994, the King retaliated by personally revoking his citizenship and sending an embassary to Sudan to demand bin Laden's passport so that he no longer travel. His family was persuaded to cut off his monthly stipend equivalent of about $7 million a year.[92]"

"Consequently, in May 1996, under increasing pressure from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United States, Sudan asked bin Laden to leave. Bin Laden was forced to make a distress sale of his assets in Sudan that left with almost nothing.[94]

"Bin Laden supported the Taliban regime with financial and paramilitary assistance and, in 1997, he moved to Kandahar, the Taliban stronghold.[96]"

did that book {94} say what or how much "almost nothing" was? or any source that says were he got enough money to finance the camps, support the Taliban and finance the 9/11 operation? one source i have noted an interview with an afgan mujahedeen general he states that Ayman al Zawahiri offered to let Bin Laden be Emir of his group because of bin ladens money... so Bin Laden had a lot of money. all account point to him as a money guy.

Good point. The book (Looming Tower) does not say how much "almost nothing" was. What it does say is that once in Afghanistan

... the Pakistani intelligence service had persuaded the Taliban to return the al-Qaeda camps in Khost and elsewhere to bin Laden's control in order to train militants to fight in Kashmir. With ISI subsidizing the cost, the training camps had become an important source of revenue. Moreover, bin Laden was still able to call upon a few of his donors from the days of the Soviet jihad. So at least there was a modest income, enough for bin Laden to be able to purchase some expensive vehicles for Mullah Omar and his top commanders, which made him more welcome." (p.250) --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Tim Osmond

The article Tim osmond redirects here, but there is no mention about this alias in the article. -Lapinmies 10:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like User:Jmlk17 deleted the redirect on the basis it was an attack page, who was it attacking? -Lapinmies 23:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Spinoff article Criticism of bin Laden

I propose we create a Criticism of bin Laden article and put the Criticisms from "Wahabee" Salafee Scholars section and other criticism in it. Any objections? --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC) i would agree that part is messy, unrelated to a professional biography, in general it seems to be a very 'opinionated' article... i guess that is the unavoidable zeitgeist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.246.73 (talk) 09:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone please remove this blatant POV

"He is a member of the prestigious and wealthy bin Laden family." Waaaaaa? Some people might say prestigious, but others would say that will be the day. Naked POV at its very worst. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.76.3 (talk) 08:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

POV means not coming from sources. It doesn't mean saying things you don't like or being colourful articles. --kingboyk (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggested book to improve content of this page

I strongly urge some registered user to tighten up this Osama bin Laden page with some serious reference work. As a reference librarian I highly recommend the book Osama bin Laden; the Man Who Declared War on America, by Yossef Bodansky who held the amazing title of Director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare from 1988-2001, during which time he warned particularly of the danger of bin Laden. Written a number of years ago (2001), it nonetheless covers important material not in this article, including more sensible information about bin Laden's childhood, education, and the structure of Al Qaeda and its processes. The current Wikipedia article on him is fairly incoherent and more angry than informative. Nothing here would help a scholar or layman understand the man particularly. We are simply to dismiss him as a crazy guy who hates whatever "we" stand for. Osama bin Laden is far more complex than that and draws upon a world view far more intriguing than being "opposite guy." This article as currently written adds nothing significant to our understanding that would help us deal with him or this world view. --M. Mayer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.170.7 (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ossama bin laden is hiding in hawai

I have read somewhere that Ossama bin laden lives in hawai with his boyfriends(being gay)and girls friends(being bisexual) And that he's a cia agent whose mission was to let usa colonize exploit and control the world. Is that true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanzukik (talk • contribs) 18:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No proof of any organization called Al-Qaeda existing before 2001

I'm going to sound like I'm just regurgitating opinion, but according to "the power of nightmares" there's no proof Osama ever referred to his "organization" as Al-Qaeda before 9-11. The creator doesn't seem to back this up, but it would be good to have PROOF that Osama did refer to Al-Qaeda BY NAME BEFORE 9-11. It also alleges that Al-Qaeda was never the organization it was made out to be, and that the idea of the organization was originally perpetrated by American lawyers so they could prosecute him in his absence in 1998. According to the documentary, Osama's efforts were losing momentum, and he did not mastermind the attacks, only fund them.

It's not a conspiracy doco, but one that takes a very serious look at the rise of neo-conservatives and fundamentalists in both eastern and western nations. This seems to imply a sense of bias, but upon viewing it's obvious that it contains no bias towards either CONSERVATIVE or LIBERAL parties/organizations, but is examining parties that use fear to unify their respective nations.

124.186.180.120 (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)NoUsernameJack

Military Person Infobox

What's the point of this? Several of the fields are irrelevant and empty. Bin Laden has never been an officer or enlisted in any army, so he is not really a 'military' person, a member of a paramilitary at best. I think this field should be removed Deus Ex (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Bhotto claimed Bin Laden was murdered by Omar Sheikh?

lol. That was obvious slip of tongue. She meant Daniel Pearl was murdered by Omar Sheikh. Someone needs to edit that part in the article 70.246.224.71 (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If it is so obvious why don't you link to source stating it was a misstatement on her part? Or at least since you are such an expert you could spell her last name corrently.

I have been following this story quite closely and have seen no official comments on whether or not she misspoke.

Let me outline some reasons this should stay in an article which already has a section on other reports of Bin Laden's death:

1. Bhutto is a well known figure active in Pakistani politics, a country that Bin Laden is rumored to be in. Therefore it is not unresonable to assume that she could be knowledgeable on Bin Laden's whereabouts.
2. The statement made by her was during a scheduled interview.
3. The interviewer, David Frost, is a well known journalist, did not make any effort to have her clairify her statment.
4. Video of this interview exists, is sourced in the article, and no challenges have been made regarding the video's authenticity.

One possible explanation is that she made a misstatement and that she meant to say Daniel Pearl. If you want to make that claim in this subsection find a source which offers this hypothesis (so we won't assume that it is original research). I do not think you however have any reason to remove this section from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.134.147 (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you can't figure out using common sense that it was a slip of tongue, then you are clearly retarded and need more help than I can offer. Omar Sheikh was arrested in early 2002 for the murder of Daniel Pearl and is in jail. How can a British man, in prison since Feb 2002, murder Bin Laden who released several videos after 2002? It was so obviously a slip of tongue and that's why Frost didn't even question her. None of the world media reported the incident. Only retarded people such as yourself (who could be a troll for all we know) would put obvious slip of the tongue in Wikipedia 70.136.141.122 (talk) 06:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Calling me retarted is unnecessary. First off I never put the info in the article, I only came here to defend its inclusion. To answer how Omar Sheikh could have killed Osama, Osama might have been dead for a long time. There are questions being raised about the authinticity of some of the recent Osama Bin Laden tapes being released. Perahps fake videos are being made by some of Osama's followers to further their cause, or perhaps they are made by the US government to further its war on terror? Or maybe he is alive. No one knows. Again it is original research for you to say it was a slip of the tongue. Maybe if David Frost said it was a misstatement we could exclude Bhutto's comment, but he hasn't said anything. I am not a troll (please see my response below). I also would like to point out that you are editing the article annonymously so you could be a troll yourself for all I know. 24.98.22.226 (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed. If this was a serious accusation the world media would have run with it like crazy. Instead Wikipedia has to resort to referencing Youtube. Original research, good riddance. --kingboyk (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. You have no evidence to support your claim; your conjecture has already been dealt with by the people above, and then you removed the video without addressing it. You are supposed to find a citation, not to original research. And I would imagine it to be particularly true when your logic is so poor. Suffice to say you are operating under premises which are also not agreed upon; in other words, your faith in the media is naive, and that faith certainly does not qualify as a reason to dismiss Bhutto. And on the latter note, the fact that it was on youtube is irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.17.153 (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I am following back up. I was the person who put up the numbered list, but I am not the person who added the information to the article. I came here because I saw the video on youtube and wanted to see what wikipedia had to say about this issue. Just because something is not reported in the world media does not mean it is untrue. The only statements in the article were that Bhutto had made the statement that Bin Laden was dead. There was already a section in the article discussing reports of his death so this was relevant given Bhutto's stature. Perhaps she misspoke but I can't find any evidence of this on the internet and I have looked far and wide for weeks. It is definately noteworthy. And the mere fact that Kingboyk (an administrator!!) would hastily delete something without discussion is quite ridiculous. His only commnent was original research but the only original research I see here is the assumption she misspoke. I am going to invite him back to this discussion to see if he can make additional justifications to his deletion. Youtube was appropriate in this instance because we were referencing a video interview. Youtube is used in other articles; should I delete those references? Please point me to any wikipedia policy on the use of youtube references (positive or negative). Do you think the video is fake? I assure you I am not a troll. I routinely edit wikipedia articles with my account but this is out of my area of expertise and I do not feel comfortbale editing this particular topic unless it is annonymous. But if I signed in would you fell more comfortable letting the Bhutto interview stay in this article? 24.98.22.226 (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Listen anonymous IPs: I am an administator and I have a fairly good grasp of what belongs here and what doesn't. If you want to debate with me get yourself a user account and we can start talking (oh you have one). The onus is on the people who want it kept to prove that it is properly sourced, verifiable, and nor original research. There's no onus on me to disprove it.

If Bhutto knew that bin Laden was dead and who killed him, and she revealed this in an interview, it would be headline news. It wasn't. When you see an interview on TV, cobble together a lengthy paragraph about it and your theories on Wikipedia, and then reference Youtube, that's original research. Cite the claims from a variety of reliable world media sources (as should be extremely easy for such a noteworthy claim) and that's different.

I'm not particulary interested in this topic so please don't message me about this again. I don't really like talking to an army of anons either, especially as there's allegedly some trolling going on. --kingboyk (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I logged in (not that it matters). Are you serious? "The onus is on the people who want it kept to prove that it is properly sourced, verifiable, and nor [sic] original research. There's no onus on me to disprove it." Are you actually doubting Bhutto said that? I don't see how you can possibly claim that using Bhutto as a source is "original research". There were no individual theories put forward on this, that I saw, besides _your_ own; it was used as a source based on the *literal* meaning of the words Bhutto gave to Sir David Frost (who was with the BBC--are they not "reliable").

We know without a doubt what Bhutto said, and meant. This involves no original research, or indepent theories. What she said is highly relevant to the article. Therefore, unless there is a rule that the majority of major American media has a consensus on an issue for it to be a fact, that leaves no objections to using this source. And if that is what you want, perhaps you should just use CNN.com instead of wikipedia?

I'll also point out that this is not the first time someone of stature has said Osama is dead, or that he is probably dead, and you can find that on all the major media that you like. --

Article not too long

There's a too long tag on this article but it seems pretty short and branched now to me so I'm taking the tag off, if someone still disagrees, put it back on. Erxnmedia (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

This article is loaded with proseline and needs to be re-worked. Tayquan^holla_{My work} —Preceding comment was added at 22:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sheikh?

Was he a Sheikh? Can this be verified? What entitled someone to be given this title? Officially? I alsi read that he wanted to become a Mufti? 81.156.13.254 (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)