Talk:Osama bin Laden/Archive 10
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
|Archive 5||←||Archive 8||Archive 9||Archive 10||Archive 11||Archive 12||→||Archive 15|
Adam Carr's comment on Lir's comment
I doubt Al-qaeda had anything to do with 9/11. As reported by Newsweek, the New York Times, TIME, and the BBC; every "hijacker" associated with Al-qaeda has turned up in the mid-East (where they work as airline pilots), and they are suing the US for slandering them (by claiming they hijacked these planes). The US government is obviously lying about things, I see no reason to take their word that Al-qaeda is bad. Lirath Q. Pynnor
I have read many stupid things at this encyclopaedia, but that is without doubt the stupidest. Adam 02:24, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
the term terrorist is POV
In the words of Ronald Reagan, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It just depends on whose side you're on. For the pros and cons of using the term terrorist, see Wikipedia:Words to avoid. I think the term should be avoided. Kingturtle 21:09, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
If people who fly civilian aircraft into office buildings can't be called terrorists, then I agree that the term should be abandoned. Shall we call them social workers, perhaps? Adam 02:24, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Do you have any proof of your claims? Lirath Q. Pynnor
I doubt I could say anything that could penetrate your invincible stupidity. Adam
Lir gets off on being provocative. I doubt if he ever really believes anything he says. RickK 05:16, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, one could call the 9/11 events as terrorist attacks, but that is POV. Reagan said "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" to defend his support of the Nicaraguan Contras, a group which were criticized for terrorist tactics. The quote outlines perfectly why the term terrorist is POV. If you support their actions, they are freedom fighters. If you do not support their actions, they are terrorists. Best not to use the term in wikipedia. Kingturtle 06:02, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Where should it be linked from then? --mav 06:20, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Good suggestion. I made an edit along those lines. What do you think? --mav
- Good edit. I think we should be able to agree on that. I tried to come up with a better way of saying "parts of the islamic world", as "parts" gives it (IMHO) too much of a geographic bent. But couldn't come up with anything. --snoyes 07:00, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Bin Laden wasn't a "terrorist" back when the CIA was funding him via Pakistan, on the contrary, Reagan was constantly glorifying the Mujahideen (and Contras) as freedom fighters, even though they were involved in the same type of activity. I even remember Rambo III when Sly Stallone goes to Afghanistan and fights alongside the future members of Al Queda and the Taliban. All of a sudden he is accused of attacking the US, and the phrase freedom fighter is stripped from his description and he becomes a "terrorist". Is terrorist a NPOV term when people don't think he is a terrorist, and the US government didn't call him one when he was engaging in similar activities, although against their enemies, instead of the US ruling class? -- Lancemurdoch 06:24, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Lance raises a good point. If indeed the US supported Osama at one point, but later withdrew that support and/or labeled him an enemy, then our readers would probably like to know why the US changed its mind. Specifically, what changed? Was it US policy? Osama's behavior? Or what? --Uncle Ed 19:11, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
We have an article called September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack. It follows that whoever was responsible for that attack was a terrorist. Nearly everybody agrees that Osama was behind the attack, and the video found in Jalalabad confirms this. Ergo, Osama is a terrorist, and should be called one. However, I don't mind the deletion of the word from the opening paragraph, provided it is not replaced with the dishonest euphemism "militant." Adam 06:29, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Excuse me Lancemurdoch? The Contras flew civilian airliners into skyscrapers? I have seen some morally bankrupt paleo-Marxist crap at this site, but your posts on this subject take the cake. Adam 06:32, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
This is nonsense. (a) Not that it matters, but the CIA never funded bin Laden. (b) OBL is a terrorist, period. His behavior clearly meets the standard of terrorism. (c) Furthermore, he is a terrorist by his own admission (see Graft's quote above). Restoring. -- VV 20:18, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- (a) Of course, as I said, the CIA funded Bin Laden via Pakistan, (b) The Pentagon is a military target if there ever was one. The US government started this whole chain of events when it sent its army to occupy Saudi Arabia, (c) I don't see him admitting to anything - someone asked him what he thought of being called a terrorist and he said I am no more of a terrorist than any of these other groups, some of which are much terroristic than me. The thousands killed supposedly by Bin Laden are a needle in a haystack of the millions killed by the US government, domestically and foreignly, throughout its existence. -- Lancemurdoch 20:37, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Not to get caught up in this silliness, but: The Pentagon is arguably a military target, but perhaps you forgot about the WTC. We're not occupying SA, they asked us to come (not that it matters, nor that it matters how the "chain of events" started, whether it started with the Gulf War or the Battle of Tours). Look at the quote, your interpretation of what he said is wrong on its face. And killing proverbial needles still makes you a terrorist. I am ignoring your callousness and anti-US POV, which is not relevant. -- VV 22:02, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- "They"? Who are "they"? The dictator of Saudi Arabia? Oops, I mean king, only people like Saddam Hussein are dictators (although he wasn't called that while the US government was sending him weapons, only after his oil drilling dispute with Kuwait). There is no "they" in Saudi Arabia, there is only the US government's puppet dictator, there is only "he". Osama Bin Laden regards the puppet dictatorship of Saudi Arabia to not be representative of the will of the Saudi Arabian people, and I'd have to say he's right. Less than two years after 9/11 the US acquiesed to OBL's main demand of thirteen years: US troops out of Saudi Arabia. -- Lancemurdoch 03:07, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Terrorist or Freedom Fighter
- In the West (especially in the United States) he is widely regarded as a terrorist, but in parts of the Islamic world he is respected as a freedom fighter.
The only mention of him as a freedom fighter is in the intro paragraph. If he really is "respected" as one, in the Islamic world, we should have at least a couple of sentences about this POV later in the article. The intro paragraph ought to summarize or "introduce" the more detailed contents to follow.
Please list people or groups in the Islamic world who consider bin Laden to be a freedom fighter and/or who respect him. --Uncle Ed 19:02, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- VerilyVerily, the word "terrorist" is highly POV. Let people decide for themselves. -- Viajero 20:30, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I changed "terrorist attacks" to "attacks on the USA", because his attacks on the Soviets in Afghanistan were also regarded as terrorist, particularly by the Societs. Martin 01:26, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
And these attacks were carried out by whom? Pixies? Social workers? Another good example of using "NPOV" as an excuse for complete moral bankruptcy. Adam 11:34, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with Adam! PMA 11:41, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
You can call it "terrorist attacks on the USA" if you like - doesn't bother me. I'm not sure I appreciate being called morally bankrupt, but as you wish. Martin 20:00, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 makes the claim that it was not Osama in the December 2001 videotape.
10/27/2004 grammar changes: The Taliban counter-offer to try bin Laden in an Islamic court or extradite him to a third-party country, and not directly to the United States, was deemed unacceptable by the U.S. government. -removed, redundant and over explanatory.
Osama bin Laden's current location is unknown, and nor is it known whether he is still alive. to Osama bin Laden's current location is unknown; nor is it known if he is still alive.
less wordy and correctly punctuated
I'm not sure how to correct this sentence- but it is very clumsy: Although Osama has been disowned by his family, an estranged family member, Carmen bin Laden, suggests that he may continue to receive financial support from family members. -perhaps: A fellow estranged family member, Carmen bin Laden, suggests that Osama may be receiving secret financial support from family members.