KoshVorlon (talk | contribs) Rm Garbage |
|||
Line 139: | Line 139: | ||
Should some of the brothers in the regions fail to carry out their duties in this respect, we should then assume the responsibility and apologize for what had happened. |
Should some of the brothers in the regions fail to carry out their duties in this respect, we should then assume the responsibility and apologize for what had happened. |
||
The need to confirm to all the Mujahidin brothers the importance of clarity, honesty, loyalty and promises and be cautious of the betrayal.''<ref>{{cite web|title=SOCOM-2012-0000019 Trans|url=http://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/letters-from-abbottabad-bin-ladin-sidelined}}</ref> |
The need to confirm to all the Mujahidin brothers the importance of clarity, honesty, loyalty and promises and be cautious of the betrayal.''<ref>{{cite web|title=SOCOM-2012-0000019 Trans|url=http://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/letters-from-abbottabad-bin-ladin-sidelined}}</ref> |
||
== Change killed in 2011 to died of natural causes in 2006 == |
|||
As we can clearly see, there is more evidence surrounding his natural death in 2006, than Obama's FUCKING LIES. |
|||
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/05/19/242057/osama-bin-laden-died-of-natural-causes/ |
|||
:PressTV is not a reliable source, it is the mouthpiece of an authoritarian regime. Reliable sources please. [[User:Dbrodbeck|Dbrodbeck]] ([[User talk:Dbrodbeck|talk]]) 13:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:15, 28 May 2012
![]() | Osama bin Laden was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
||||||||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Change references to "death" to "alleged" death
There is no evidence that OBL was actually killed and not just rendered somewhere else followed by propagation of rumors of his death. The US government refuses to provide the (alleged) photos of his (alleged) death. This is because they do not exist. Until there is confirmation that he is dead, I suggest the page be changed to refer to his "alleged death." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.111.35 (talk) 03:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles are based on published sources, not on unverifiable conspiracy theories. Or do you actually have evidence that these photos don't exist? Actually, don't bother to answer that - if you want absolute proof of everything, you shouldn't believe Wikipedia. Or newspapers. Or television. Or your own eyes - do you have proof that the sky is blue, or do you just believe what you see? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Andy do you have proof they do exist? 50.98.122.61 (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- No. I don't care, either. Wikipedia articles are based on what the sources state, not on some abstract 'truth' that any half-baked conspiracy theorist can 'prove'. Convince the outside world that OBL wasn't killed when the sources state that he was, and we'll change the article. Until then, we don't care... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Using the pathetic "conspiracy theory" pejoration will not make the fact that no conclusive evidence has come to light go away.
Governments are not reliable sources. It should be irrelevant that unreliable sources state that he was killed. Making the assertion that he was killed without any evidence leaves the burden of proof on you. 86.150.3.252 (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Could anyone with sufficient Wikipedia skills implement the 2002 Guardian source. Reputable Swiss scientist say confession tape is 95 % likely recorded by an impostor. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/30/alqaida.terrorism?INTCMP=SRCH --84.215.97.201 (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Why has anyone who survived the raid and the encounter not been allowed to speak openly and freely about what happened ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.246.144 (talk) 04:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- There should be a mention of the allegations from various sources in Pakistan and elsewhere that bin Laden died of kidney failure in Dec. 2001. Of course one must then explain where the supposed tapes of bin Laden come from that have been produced from time to time since then, with the most obvious provenance being the workshops of the propaganda warfare department.
- There should also be mention of the countless published works adducing evidence that bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11 because it was all an inside job.
- There will of course be no such mention allowed here because Wikipedia participates with flying colors in the cover-up of the 911 false flag operation by the military-industrial-media complex. No point even trying to post it! JPLeonard (talk) 04:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Nope. We base articles on reliable sources not crackpot conspiracy theories. Take your soapbox and tinfoil hat elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Look and observe everyone, the type of OS-believing loons who edit and maintain these wikipedia pages. The "crackpot conspiracy theory" is the US Government's explanation of events. You do not base articles on reliable sources. The US Government is not a reliable source. "Take your soapbox and tinfoil hat elsewhere." Oh, look at the poor sheeple. You're pathetic. 86.150.3.252 (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC) --Ronnie42 (talk) 12:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)Without proof from your source is invalid showing his death. It be like saying Hitler was shot but nobody could confirm his death because no body was found.
Attention people who don't believe Bin Laden is dead
You may have a fair point, as seeing is believing or something like that. A lack of hard evidence is unfortunate, maybe even suspicious. But no conjecture, no matter how sound the reasoning can be included on Wikipedia. We care about verifiability rather than the truth. In fact there is a pretty good article articulating this strange, seemingly backward value system here.
--Carbon Rodney 15:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
--Ronnie42 (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)His death was never proven, they have not bothered to show any proof, just like how Hitlers death was unknown, should not have an exact date because never was found, the government have never proven their findings to the public. They claim it was him but nobody could reconise the body, DNA can be easily mis-used.
- Everything here is fake and you know it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.70.164.76 (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
According to Fred Burton, via emails obtained by Wikileaks, Osama was not buried at Sea. Can we please update this page to include that information? http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1102718_-alpha-body-bound-for-dover-de-on-cia-plane-.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.189.198 (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- We base article content on published reliable sources - and the link you give tells us nothing whatsoever about the supposed content of this email anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
This article is great demonstration of the reliability of wikipedia for verifiable information. Bin Laden's death has not been verified in any way. The media sources publishing allegations of his death are not able to verify it. Nobody can verify it. This is a joke. It is a clear demonstration of how a piece of information can go down in history as "truth" without anyone having a clue of its veracity. But for some reason wikipedia can not add the simple word "Allegation" to something that is, in fact, just allegation. What an intellectual disgrace. 72.224.189.211 (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- You might read WP:TRUTH Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I know about WP:TRUTH. I guess the same goes for WP's policy on Proof, then. What a relief to know we needn't be bothered by trivial things like evidence anymore. 72.224.189.211 (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- We are, however, bothered by things called reliable sources, if you cannot find one, then this discussion is of no use. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Obviously you are not bothered by citing reliable sources if you've decided to simply paste claims that are self-published by the department of defense.72.224.189.211 (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- We are, however, bothered by things called reliable sources, if you cannot find one, then this discussion is of no use. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I know about WP:TRUTH. I guess the same goes for WP's policy on Proof, then. What a relief to know we needn't be bothered by trivial things like evidence anymore. 72.224.189.211 (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
--Ronnie42 (talk) 03:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)There is no evidence to back up the governments claims, that should mean offically change the status of Bin Laden death as claimed death since is no public proof given out, unless someone can provide prove then don't see how anyone can say anything different.
OBL has been dead since 2002
Why is there no mention of any of the information relating to the theories that Osama has been dead since the early 2000's and suffered from Marfan's syndrome? It seems a bit unfair the conformists are getting a free ride. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.228.123 (talk) 08:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
--Ronnie42 (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC) soon as you find proof that shows that Bin Laden is dead. Governments aren't reliable or known for telling the truth.
- There are many sources of course. The burden is on you to show he died earlier. Oh and please learn how to properly sign your posts. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
How I highlight my text has nothing to do with the facts stated. Never stated he died, many other don't trust the government, no proof was given from the government to back up their claim. It's no different to wiki asking for a source. --Ronnie42 (talk) 01:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I just though there would at least be a section mentioning the numerous conspiracies regarding this point made about his supposed death in the early 2000's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.250.136 (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I support that. I think a section about any conspiracies to do with his death (that I know of being actually 2001, not 2002) is relevant and would help the article and everyone who reads it. Any others who thinks this is a good idea? -- 60.234.214.63 (talk) 04:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- As Dbrodbeck stated above, Wikipedia requires reliable sources. At that point, we can asses the due weight. It is likely though that this would fall under a tiny minority or in WP:FRINGE territory and not merit inclusion, but feel free to provide reliable sources to make the case for inclusion so we can make that determination. Morphh (talk) 12:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
"Prosecutable case"
The article reads: "The UK Government reached a similar conclusion regarding al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden's culpability for the September 11 attacks, although the government report notes that the evidence presented is not necessarily sufficient for a prosecutable case."
I read this as that the evidence presented to the UK Government was not necessarily sufficient for a prosecutable case. The source document reads:
"This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Usama Bin Laden in a court of law. Intelligence often cannot be used evidentially, due both to the strict rules of admissibility and to the need to protect the safety of sources. But on the basis of all the information available HMG is confident of its conclusions as expressed in this document."
I.e., that that *document* doesn't purport to give a prosecutable case, not that there wasn't a prosecutable case (even if some parts might have had to have been classified). Bparsia (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Osamu Tezuka linking to Osama bin Laden
Osamu Tezuka, the creator of the Japanese cartoon Astroboy, currently links to Osama bin Laden's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhorks (talk • contribs) 07:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
LOL. -- 60.234.214.63 (talk) 07:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Beliefs and ideology: idea that innocent civilians, including women and children, are legitimate targets of jihad
The declassified letter show him worried about unnecessary civilian death. Also the definition of civilian is perhaps different. I *think* is ok to kill USA/Occident people as their are the enemy. Also in the fact he kill way less civilian than the USA did during this "war". Also the term "innocent" is clearly a point of view. (I'm not try to defending OBL, just want to make thing more precises.) --Gagarine (talk) 12:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
So her the section of the letter about that We ask every emir in the regions to be extremely keen and focused on controlling the military work and not to expand the barricade, due to the several attacks carried out by the Mujahidin whereby several Muslims had fallen; we could have reached the target without injuring the Muslims with some effort and deliberation. Also the need to cancel other attacks due to the possible and unnecessary civilian casualties – for example, the attacks targeting several infidel Imams during their visits to public locations where most of the Muslims are located, as they should be targeted away from the Muslims. Making these mistakes is a great issue; needless to say, the greatness of the Muslim blood violation in addition to the damage impacting the Jihad. As a result, the alienation of most of the nation from the Mujahidin. Page 10 For the brothers in all the regions to apologize and be held responsible for what happened. They would be questioned about SOCOM-2012-0000019-HT the mistake causing the flaw that occurred and about the measures to be taken to avoid repeating the same mistakes. With respect to the human error outside the human will, as it is repeated in wars, the need to apologize for these errors and be held responsible, as the aspects of the flaw would be explained. Perhaps some of those killed and who were killed mistakenly were amongst the immoral; there is no need to reveal their immorality while the people are wounded and the foes are keen in demonstrating our indifference about them. Should some of the brothers in the regions fail to carry out their duties in this respect, we should then assume the responsibility and apologize for what had happened. The need to confirm to all the Mujahidin brothers the importance of clarity, honesty, loyalty and promises and be cautious of the betrayal.[1]