Encyclopedia > Talk:Osama bin Laden
Talk:Osama bin Laden
- That was Jimbo who deserves the kudos. No harm done in being cautious. :-) --KQ
Is there is reason why we have this as "Usama Bin Laden" rather than the far more common "Osama Bin Laden"? (Google registers more than 10 times the number of hits with the latter spelling.) I was going to just move it, but I thought maybe I should ask first. --Zundark
- The FBI has it "Usama." And yes, "Osama bin Laden" (or "Bin," capped) is far more common. I have not moved it b/c I didn't want to start another silly debate that distracts from writing articles. --KQ
- I created the initial entry, and I chose to use the FBI spelling because that's where I got the text for the original article. <>< tbc
- Since there are redirects from at least all four (O/U)sama (B/b)in Laden spellings, I think that's enough. --Pinkunicorn
- Fair enough. It's all an approximation anyway. :-)
- So, feel free to move it. --LMS
There IS an official standard for translation from the arab alphabet to the latin I believe, at least there is such a standard for cyrillic. That should resolve these issues once and for all, if anyone can find it.
- I think there are several such standards, or conventions. That's the problem.
Some muslims I knew claimed that Usama Bin Laden was trained and backed by the CIA in the 80s to fight against the Soviet. Now the US had created a monster out of control. The American public were sheild from this type of information because the media wouldn't publicize it, but it seems to be common knowledge outside the US. Is there any truth to this?
- The Mujahedin were basically a creation of American weapons, training, and intelligenence with a finance network set up across the Muslim world. Bin Laden fought as a Muj but according to the information we have, he wasn't personally backed by the CIA. Mind you, they may be telling a selective truth because even if he never met with the CIA, all the Muj were CIA backed to some extent. Actually, I've heard it said that the al Qaeda financial network is basically a revival of some parts of the old Mujahedin network set up by the CIA, and to a degree the active recruiting and operations operations too. --wji
- well, it's common knowledge inthe U.S. that we backed the Mujahadeen with training and weapons, so to think that it's an unknown conspiracy is going too far. It was not at all uncommon to see reports on the backing while it was going on. Wasn't it DAn Rather who actually made a field trip? --MichaelTinkler
- I heard a very similar statement from some Indians I used to work with. Historically, it is not *at all* uncommon for local fighters trained, armed, backed, and advanced by secret services or elite forces to end up in positions of power where they can cause a good deal of mischief well into the future. The CIA has (allegedly) done this many times in the past, and so it would not be a big surprise if it were true. One might even argue that it is in fact the CIA's mission and purpose to seek out and recruit human agents such as this, even though they actually rely more heavily on technical means of information collection (for good reason, IMHO). If a side effect of having an organization like the CIA working internationally during peacetime is heightened terrorism, might that question whether we should even _have_ active espionage agencies? -- BryceHarrington
Michael Moore (of Roger and Me fame) claims to have heard about bin Laden's CIA training on msnbc. that of course may not be worth much, just my .02 which I have not had time to research since I just got home about 10 minutes ago.
- link found at msnbc (http://msnbc.com/news/190144.asp?cp1=1) (let's just add him to Noriega now.... U.S. Government == "oops, did I do that?") --KQ
There could be a whole article called U.S. supports gone terribly wrong[?] or something....In the Iraq-Iran war Hussein was the good guy, backed by Washington....--AN (yes, this has not much to do with this, erase it later.....)
From what I saw on Frontline, it sounded like on his return to Saudi Arabia he was not lauded as a hero, but indifference. He did expect to be a hero because he had fought for Islam.
So where should he go under biographical listings? Laden, Osama bin? bin Laden, Osama? Osama bin Laden?
- bin Laden, Osama.
Whoa! This article is getting way too far from a neutral point of view. Putting words in "quotes" is a major red flag. Eliminating the "freedom fighter" text, without replacing it with a more neutral term, is messed up. Osama bin Laden is definitely not simply a terrorist; he is also a major political leader. And "freedom fighter" is the term that the US government used when they gave the likes of him money to fight against the Soviet Union. It's a term of art. If you prefer, you could use something like guerilla leader, etc. Which is what I'll add in. Just because the guy is essentially evil doesn't mean we should put in all this inflammatory anti-Taliban rhetoric. We don't need rhetoric. Just describe what they've done. Let the record speak for itself. --The Cunctator
Freedom fighter and guerilla leader are two different things. He politically fought for freedom in Saudi Arabia and militarily fought for freedom in Afganistan, so he's quite solid freedom fighter. --Taw
I still see no indication that he ever fought for freedom. Opposition to the Saud regime does not constitute fighting for freedom, unless one is trying to replace the regime with a rights-respecting government.
Replacing it with more right-replacing one was EXACTLY what he was fighting for. Main right he was interested in: right to oil money for all peoples of Saudi Arabia.
And somebody who fights against foreign occupation usually is caled 'freedom fighter', and that was also the case in both cases.--Taw
Research suggests the term 'freedom fighter' is applied to Osama bin Laden only by those who are sympathetic to his aims. The term therefore violates the neutral point of view rule.
People who are not sympathetic to bin Laden will see his opposition to the Saudi regime as just so much grievance peddling. Distribution of wealth is not freedom fighting. Supporting a religious dictatorship in Afghanistan is not freedom fighting.
I think that if the US government saw fit to call him a freedom fighter than we shouldn't hesitate to use the term. The word terrorist is a more appropriate but doubtless equally loaded term.
Which research ?
Well, I'm sympathetic to fair distribution of resources and fighting against Soviet occupation.
But people who are against it are quite a minority I think.
Whether fair distribution of wealth is freedomn fighting or not depends on one's ideology.
Many people think they have right to land they live on, and its resources, and taking land from them is restricting their basic freedoms.
Osama bin Laden shares this point of view, therefore he's fighting for freedom, at least for his version of freedom.
Afganistan isn't very democratic by western standards, but many people (me and Osama included) think that
almost everything is better than communism. Nazis and religious fundamentals included. So he's fighting for freedom here again. --Taw
A discussion of how bin Laden is perceived by different parties would be appropriate for the main article, and a discussion of why some might call him a freedom fighter could go there. But we should not characterize him as such because that is not a neutral characterization.
Just because American TV says otherwise, doesn't mean it's biased.
For me situation is very clear, if you think otherwise, please describe 'freedom fighter or not' issue or leave freedom fighter alone.
Unfortunatelly I can't describe this issue, as I don't know about opponent's arguments. --Taw
The way to resolve this issue is to just make an entry for freedom fighter. --The Cunctator
I agree with Taw that it is not right to remove the term freedom fighter just because the freedom he fought for is not American freedom. For fighting against a forign occupation qualified him as a freedom fighter, at least relative to his own country. I can also see a problem here after George W. Bush called all the people who fights against bin Laden as freedom fighters too. Don't forget heros and villains are relative terms. Your heros are my villains if we happen to be enemy. If wikipedia is supposed to represent the US point of view than I have no objection to removing the word "freedom fighter" from the article. However, if you want to claim this wikipedia is neutral, you should put it back. Perhaps a statement like "he is viewed as a freedom fighter amongst his own people" is fine with me.
Could somebody investigate which acts did he admit and which did he deny ? --Taw
On 9/12/01 Frontline interviewed Larry C. Johnson, deputy director of the U.S. State Department Office of Counterterrorism from 1989 to 1993, in which he explains "why our perception of Osama bin Laden and his organization may be wrong, what we know about bin Laden's involvement in the 1998 embassy bombings and the 2000 USS Cole attack, and the degree of warnings leading up to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the U.S." [1] (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/interviews/newjohnson) This would be useful material to integrate into the article. <>< tbc
What Osama bin Laden is, and what some people call him, are two different issues. What he is, is a terrorist, and that is what this article will say. If you want to start another article What Osama bin Laden is called[?], go ahead. I will have a few things to add to that page - walking pile of pig shit, for example. But the fact that some people (me) call him a walking pile of pig shit has no place in the Osama bin Laden article, which describes what he is (a terrorist) not what some people call him (walking pile of pig shit, freedom-fighter, etc.). - Tim
No he's not.
- He has never admited being "terrorist".
- Many people don't think he is.
- Everyone is innocent unless proven guilty.
- No evidence that he is one has been ever showed.
- No court ever found that he is a "terrorist".
- Word "terrorist" carries more emotion than meaning anyway, and should not be used.
That clearly shows that you can't just say that he's a "terrorist" for sure. Taw
This article could use some reorganization. The stuff about the world trade centers should be before the nairobi bombings I think, as its more topical right now. The fact that he's not considered a terrorist by a lot fo people needs to be extensively addressed. The article is kind of clumsy to read as well. --Alan D
In the fourth paragraph of this article it states, "Many in the middle east consider him a freedom fighter for the Afghan cause, or admire him for his aid to the poor." My question is not with the use of, "freedom fighter," rather with "Afghan cause." While he was indeed fighting in Afghanistan to repel Soviet advance, I believe it was to defend Islam. Afghanistan just happened to be the location. Some distinction needs to be made between Arabs (bin Laden) and the tribes of Afghanistan (non-Arab). All are Muslims, which is the common thread, not ethnicity or nationality. If someone could advise on better wording it would be appreciated. I know only what I have stated here and I'm not that sure of it.
I reverted the changes somebody made to indicate for a fact the Bin Laden is a terrorist. I figured that if Bin Laden had indeed admitted to that, it would be easy to find on cnn.com, but it wasn't. If somebody can point me to reliable sources that say he is a terrorist, I'll of course revert my changes.--User:Branko
The question is not whether he admits to being a terrorist. The question is whether he is a terrorist. And he is. user:TimShell
Changed Saudi-Arabian to Saudi-Arabia born; according to the Guardian Style Guide (http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/page/0,5817,184840,00) he has been stripped of his Saudi citizenship, thus should not be referred to as Saudi Arabian -- AdamW
I removed the part about the origin of Al-Queda in the first paragraph for several reasons. First not all American supported Afghan guerillas became part of al-Queda - most are part of those lovely private warlord's armies and many members of al-Queda have no connection to the Afghan war or American support. Also Carter was not the only American president who supported them and $40 billion was probably much less than was spent there; and al-Queda was not formed until long after the Afghan war was over. I am not convinced my new wording is the best though. --rmhermen
Zippy thinks "US sponsored" is a key element with regards to bin Laden's participation in the mujahedeen. Why? That the mujehedeen was US sponsored is a key element to be mentioned on the mujehedeen page. What does that have to do with bin Laden in particular? If the US government ever had any close connection to bin Laden in particular, that should be explained in the article. But if the relationship was tenuous, trying to highlight it smacks of an agenda.
Hmm, to remove it, especially under anonymity, smacks of an agenda too. see:Wikipedia:Accountability-Stevert
I think that "US sponsored" is key to understanding bin Laden because, if we're going to talk about his negative connection to the US on this page, we ought to mention the other aspects of the relationship as well. Putting the "sponsored by the US" info only on the Mujahedeen page would be like removing the bit about "supported terrorism in the US" and relegating it to the Al Qaeda page. --zippy
- Despite these moves, members of the family might continue to support bin Laden financially (a sister-in-law is on record as saying this is likely. See external links below).
I removed this for 2 reasons, though it's getting better. 1) It's speculation. The fact that his sister-in-law speculated is not speculation, but the idea that he "might still be getting money" is speculation. 2) tense. It's not clear from his sister-in-law whether he got money before or after he was disowned (and beside, she doesn't know anyway, she's only speculating that it's possible). Plus, avoid statements that will age quickly. Better, "...the family might have continued..." DanKeshet 17:11 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)
- Also in 1998, he issued a fatwa, or religious/legal edict, declaring it the religious duty of all Muslims "to kill the Americans and their allies - civilians and military ... in any country in which it is possible."
bin Laden is not a religious leader (right?) and cannot issue a fatwa. What this sentence is referring to is a statement released by an organization bin Laden is associated with. DanKeshet 16:51 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)
In an ABC News interview, the reporter asks "Mr. bin Laden, you have issued a fatwah calling on Muslims to kill Americans where they can, when they can. Is that directed at all Americans, just the American military, just the Americans in Saudi Arabia?"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview
bin Laden discusses the fatwa without challenging the assertion that it is his. So unless there's evidence otherwise, he believes it is his fatwa and he believes that he issued it.
Zippy 23:41 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)
[8] Picture of Bin Ladin and two brothers on a visit to Oxford in 1971. Story on BBC. I seem to remember reading in the newspaper that one of the 1970s pictures published supposedly of Osama bin Laden were found out to actually be of his brother. I think this was the one in question.
- You think the FBI might already know that? This is the same photo that they use for their 10 most wanted. --mav
- The FBI uses a photo of a 14-year-old on its most wanted list? That would explain why they haven't caught the bastard yet ;-). --Eloquence 16:42 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)
I removed some useless junk - I don't hold with editing talk pages, but this was pure mindless graffiti. If in doubt, check the page history - you will see what I mean. Tannin 09:58 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)
All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License
|
Search Encyclopedia
|
Featured Article
|