Talk:Osama bin Laden/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Osama Bin Laden has returned o SAUDIA ARABEIA HIS IS A LOVING MAN AND NICE TO CHAOS HE IS VISTING YOUGOSSLIVIA AND OCEANS IN 3 YEARS WHAT WILL HE DO NEXT

Name

So where should he go under biographical listings? Laden, Osama bin? bin Laden, Osama? Osama bin Laden, john gates?

bin Laden, Osama.

NPOV

HE WILL BE GOING TO ALBANIA NZL AUSTRALIA PORTUGAL RUSSIA USAMAYBE SERBIA AMMAN AN MORE --User:The Cunctator

I agree whole-heartedly. As long as he is percieved by a significant portion of the world population as a "freedom fighter" then you cannot say simply that he is a terrorist and nothing more. You can't make his image in history entirely evil without recognizing that there are people who believe the exact opposite. Joe 01:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Media coverage

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. --User: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 ? --User: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] This would be useful material to integrate into the article. <>< User: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

Thank you for outlinging the issue so well. I would just point out that only one entity (including individuals, organizations, and nations) have been found to be "terrorist" by a recognized international governing world court. And that entity is the United States in the ICJ case Nicaragua v. United States. So we should refrain from calling anyone terrorist without qualifying that statement as a widely held opinion. And if we are to call anyone a terrorist it might as well be the Government of the United States. Joe 01:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

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