Talk:Osama bin Laden/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 8 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

OBL and CIA

From what I've read - mostly Steve Coll's Ghost Wars and Fisk and a few other things - OBL did not get trained by the CIA. There were two streams of funding/weapons/training coming into Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation - the US running money/weapons and training through Pakistan's ISI, and the "Afghan Arabs," funded by Saudis like Bin Laden and lots of other sources from the Arab world - but while the Americans new about these guys, they did not interact with them directly - but possibly/probably at arm's length through the Pakistanis. It's a common misconception that OBL was "trained by the CIA." PFoster 21:18, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Can we find any decent sources either way and correct the phrasing? And, if they were working kind of side-by-side, fighting the same battle, might there still be some informal sharing of tactics and methods? At the least, we were "allies" at that point in history. But anyway, OBL is very wealthy, and could hire trainers for his fighters. The US/CIA does not have a lock on paramilitary methods and training. human 21:30, 4 January 2008 (EST)

It's all very clearly laid out in Coll - which is a brick and I don't have time to go fishing through it right now for references - maybe later in the weekend, unless someone else out there (like that Dreadnaught guy, who seems up on his Asian history) feels like giving it a go. From what I recall, though, even saying they were "working kind of side-by-side, fighting the same battle" is overstating the case. The US knew that getting caught mucking around there would lead to Big Trouble, and let the Pakistanis do a huge chunk of the dirty work, and spent a huge amount of time just turning on a tap that ran money and weapons through the ISI to the mujahaddin. PFoster 21:45, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Cool - feel free to correct it from memory, of course (heck, half of what we write on this wiki is from memory), and just put the books in a reference section. And yeah, the userwhousedtobeDreadnought added the bit at the end about dialysis, he might be able to help out a lot. human 21:59, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Usama wasn't trained in some top-secret CIA facility, but he recieved a large sum of money (We're talking billions, here) from the US government and the CIA via Operation Cyclone. He was only a middleman at this time, but he still had our blessing and support. Unfortunately, if you want solid evidence of this instead of Coll's book (If only I could tell you where his New America Foundation gets it's funding), I'm afraid you'd need top secret security clearance. Without revealing too much, I actually had this clearance, and I'd sooner believe the Iraqi minister of information than Steve Coll.UncleHo (talk) 07:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Contradictory claims

We really need a cite on those dollar amounts. This article from Jane's Intelligence claims there was no direct interaction between OBL and the CIA, but that there was overlap between OBL and CIA-backed mujahideen. Another article in Jane's claims US knowledge of al-Qaeda. This FAIR article cites some circumstantial evidence and another Jane's report claiming OBL did work in tandem with the CIA to raise funds, though no dollar amount is given. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

title

From what I can tell, the "bin" is not capitalized. Any one object to me renaming this "Osama bin Laden"? human 22:06, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Terrorist

Really? --Jihadist Forever 13:50, 21 November 2008 (EST)

Really! NightFlare If just one [counter-example] is correct, then logically the theory of evolution must be false. If there is merely a 5% chance that each example is correct, then the odds of at least one of the following counterexamples being correct is nearly 100%.<ref>At 14 examples and a probability that each is correct being 5%, then the odds of at least one being correct is greater than 1-(.95)^14</ref>[1] 14:03, 21 November 2008 (EST)

Terrorist is POV category

Terrorist category is POV category. Why he is included within terrorist category? One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Will you put Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg who wanted to kill Hitler in terrorist category? The resistance movement in Nazi Germany also used violent methods. And many people lost their lives due to this resistance. Does this mean they were terrorists? No, they are known as freedom fighters. In case of Laden, both terrorist and freedom fighter category are POV, thus it is better to leave this article without those categories. The rationale given behind the attack by the attackers are to save lives of Palestinian people. They were attacking those people who were responsible for killing of innocent Palestinians, either directly or indirectly through electing the government or by paying tax to the government. The category is meaningless category. Jihadist Forever 10:17, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Yeah. Good luck with that argument.DeadHead 10:20, 26 November 2008 (EST)

One man's terrorist may well be another man's freedom fighter... but that doesn't change the fact that a "freedom fighter" may use terror to get their way so is indeed (from an objective viewpoint) still a terrorist. ArmondikoV^postate 10:25, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Terrorists are those who attack people who aren't directly involved what their government is doing. No such claim could be made for Hitler, therefore he was a valid target. Moreover, I don't see how Al-Qaeda's actions can be construed as being in the best interests of the Palestinian people. Bomb the wall around the West Bank, bomb Israeli military bases, destroy their motor pools full of armoured bulldozers if you want to bring respite to the Palestinian people. Don't destroy some innocent, ignorant people half a world away. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)^{Approach the Presence} 10:26, 26 November 2008 (EST)

But, but...Ward Churchill said the chickens had come home to roost! He said they were "little Eichmanns! Are you saying Ward might have...gasp...made that shit up? Oh noes! DeadHead 10:30, 26 November 2008 (EST)

The chickens maybe came home to roost for the Pentagon, but not for the innocent people on the planes and in NYC. So Ward was right in a way. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)^{Approach the Presence} 10:32, 26 November 2008 (EST)

The "POV" problem come sin trying to use "terrorist" for two purposes, on purely descriptive (how they act and operate) the other judgemental. On the descriptive basis the French Resistance were terrorists, and so is Bin Laden. The POV comes in with whether you judge their actions good or bad. I'd say the French resistance were good whereas Bin Laden and his mob are c*nts: their paranoid delusions about connections between deaths of Palestinians and commuters on a Tube train (or "slags" in a nightclub, or people who defame the prophet, or peole who don't want toconvert, or.....) do not stop them being c*nts. --Toffeeman 10:33, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Now, wait a minute, were the French Resistance primarily attacking civilians? I mean, they were fighting off an invasion, and you don't take a busload of schoolkids along on an invasion for a field trip like the one I seem to remember got caught up in the 9/11 attack... Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)^{Approach the Presence} 04:31, 29 November 2008 (EST)

Lots of groups could be considered terrorist, and I suspect most of you would agree with at least some of them. Terrorism is simply a tactic that is used by the weak in an attempt to defeat the strong. I have a rather dispassionate view of this, because of my background, but I would say Usama and his al-qāʿidah movement are definitely terrorists, and a particularly notable ones at that.UncleHo (talk) 07:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Greenpeace

...enagage your sarcasm detector, dude. The idea was to make fun of people who think environmentalism is bad somehow--kind of a reductio ad bin Laudium. I thought this place was about the snark...DeadHead 10:54, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Well, mainspace you need to indicate sarcasm somehow... maybe a "Fun:Obama bin Laden" article or something? Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)^{Approach the Presence} 10:59, 26 November 2008 (EST)

I'm really not happy with that in mainspace. The fact is, WWF, Greenpeace etc. don't really bomb people. The ALF does, pro-life campaigners do. Just labelling groups as "anti-american therefore terrorist" goes well beyond snarky humour and into mistleading slander. ArmondikoV^postate 11:01, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Well, how 'bout this--kill the whole section. I'm sure he has views on lots of things, including the environment. So what--not relevant to the article. It was put there with someone who is grinding a "OBL wasn't that bad a cat" axe to begin with, so I say kill it all. DeadHead 11:18, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Agree with Deadhead. I have doubts about how sincere Bin Laden's pro-Kyoto comment is, & it was only inserted by the "Jihadist" troll. weaseLOId~ 11:35, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Terrorist allegation

The terrorist allegation against OBL is unfair. Even the wikipedia article does not mention him as a terrorist. If you put him in terrorist category, then why not put IDF or US military in terrorist category? If OBL terrorizes people, US military also terrorizes people. The category does not make any sense. Soldier of Islam 06:45, 18 December 2008 (EST)

We don't pull too many punches around here. If you incite people to hijack planes and crash them into buildings killing millions of people you are a fucking terrorist. - User $\scriptstyle 4\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-1)^{n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 06:49, 18 December 2008 (EST)

The implictaion that the word "terrorist" is a partial term is correct: in many ways it is. However we do not have NPOV and we are very partial to the idea that Osama bin Laden is a cunt. --Toffeeman 06:56, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Bin Laden and the attacks on the World Trade Center

Is it proven that he is responsible for the WTC attacks?

- He initially denied it (Sep 16 2001), and made several statements during Sep 01 to this effect.

- The first confession video ('the Jalalabad tape') surfaced in Nov 01, but there's plenty of reasons to doubt it's authenticity, and the translation presented is not considered accurate.

- The second confession video ('the October Surprise tape') surfaced Oct 04, and is considered less reliable than 'Jalalabad', and there's doubt as to whether it's even Bin Laden in it, or a lookeylikey.

No reliable source has even confirmed the dude is definitely alive in almost eight years, which ties in with the assertions that he may have died of kidney failure long since.

A cold dispassionate analysis of the evidence for his involvement in the WTC attacks seems to suggest that he may not be, and probably died a few years ago.

Steve Kay (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Death, and conspiracy theories

Hello everybody !

As you know, conspiracy theories about the death of Osama bin Laden have begun to flourish, and while the corresponding Wikipedia article may be on the way of deletion, it may be a good idea to have an article about all conspiracy theories surrounding or related to bin Laden (mainly his death, but also his very existence).

What do you think ? Is it too soon ?

--Antee286 (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I see the "death" section of the article consists of a mighty one line. You could expand that easily with the conspiracies, and split it off later if it ends up huge. A "see also" to the section from Conspiracy theory might be useful too. 86.157.97.15 (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. --Antee286 (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

My flatmate thinks OBL may still be alive. Has anyone else come across this theory? ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Bin Laden was under house arrest by the secular government of a strategic ally which could not (a) publicly try him, (b) execute him, or (c) turn him over to the US. All they could do is neutralize him by keeping him in a box. Obama definitely killed him to win a temporary blip in personal approval polls, while jeopardizing relations with an important and loyal US ally going back at least as far as the wp:Francis Gary Powers incident. Now the chances are the cooperative, secular regime will be overthrown, in favor of the Islamic Brotherhood, only this time the brotherhood will have access to operational nukes. Great job, Mr. President. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 22:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

"There are plenty of bullshit conspiracy theories surrounding his death, as one would expect, none of which have been substantiated whatsoever." I have a slight problem with this. Initially, I do not think it was batshit crazy to question the Obama administration's claims about the raid. Doubting that he actually killed OBL is no more a conspiracy theory than thinking Bush was lying WMD's in Iraq. The burden of proof was not on me to prove that Obama was lying. The burden of proof was on Obama to substantiate his claims and he provided zero evidence. It wasn't until late 2013 that Snowden released documents confirming a DNA that I was totally satisfied. IMO, it was only at that point that continued skepticism would constitute a "conspiracy theory" as the government had no way knowing those documents would be stolen. But even this is odd because in 2011, Associated Press filed a FOIA to get the DNA results and the Pentagon said they had no such documents in their possession.^{— Unsigned, by: TravLeBlanc / talk / contribs}

Top picture right now on KYM

"Ah, he’s gotten in again. Someone pass the rolled-up newspaper." Osaka Sun (talk) 04:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

CIA assistance

The 9/11 Commission Report specifically denies this. It uses the phrase, "little or no"; $3.2 to $20 billion dollars is hardly "little or no". nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 03:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Footnote 23 to Ch.2, p. 56. bnobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 04:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed this?

That Osama got younger as time passed by?--71.222.47.95 (talk) 07:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Most likely explanation is he shaved his beard and when it grew back it was darker than before. 88.144.1.200 (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Real person

As my new favourite website for debunking conspiracy nutcases, I'd like to request you debunk one I've just found - there are actually dumbarses out there who believe Osama is an imaginary character invented by the CIA for whatever reason, most likely to use as a scapegoat for 9/11 or some other tinfoil-hat shite. I'd love to use this Wiki to show them how fucking stupid they are. 88.144.36.115 (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a silly little burden of proof problem. We have plenty of video of bin laden giving speeches about why he does what he does(that are typically way less hateful than people give him credit for, but he killed thousands, so fuck him). Your friends are thus under the obligation to show those are somehow fabricated or stop treating Iron Man 3 like a documentary. Ikanreed (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

What these people say is that the Osama bin Laden you see in those videos is an actor, which would basically leave the videos as being scripted and filmed by the CIA. 88.144.1.134 (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Wonderful! I've not actually heard that one. Do you have links?--Weirdstuff (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Right here. It's all through the comments. It's a sad day for humanity. 88.144.1.200 (talk) 16:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that site would want to thoroughly debunk a facebook thread, but somebody might be interested.--Weirdstuff (talk) 12:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

In the larger scheme of things, bin Laden was a controversial grandstander with his 15 minutes of fame. He had the absurd notion that Sunnis & Shites could live in peace and harmony, which bin Ladens competitors, Daesh have exposed as a lie. They, moreso ever than bin Laden & al-Qaeda, have successfully recruited jihadis universally. nobs^{It all depends what ISIS is.} 21:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Body washed up at sea?

Is this true?--サトセレ (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Who says it is? Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

These were the sources I was cited.

I was also given a Global research.ca link, but that's on my webshite list anyways.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvLNmS_6de0

http://halfwaytoconcord.com/body-of-osama-bin-laden/

http://empirenews.net/body-of-osama-bin-laden-found-by-deep-sea-fisherman/

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/osamas-body-was-washed-wrapped-in-a-white-sheet-before-being-buried-at-sea/306754-2.html

There are many many more websites. (I googled to see how popular the theory is)--サトセレ (talk) 11:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)