Talk:Videos of Osama bin Laden Information & Talk:Videos of Osama bin Laden Links at HealthHaven.com

Journalism portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks you can do:

Requests: Myanmar News Agency, Lisa Sylvester (CNN reporter)
Verify: Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Cleanup: Media influence, Video game culture
NPOV: Content (media and publishing)

WikiProject Terrorism

Terrorism portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

[edit] Where is the entire Osama "Confession" video?

I can't seem to find it anywhere on the Internet. Only transcripts. Anyone know where the video is dated December 13, 2001? The link mentioned to youtube cuts off the first part of the video. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.71.221 (talk) 05:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Someone is removing pictures

Before I start to talk about my early conspiracy theories.. I remember that there were lots of still images from the different videos of Osama here in this article a long time ago. Were are they ??

The situation is the same regarding the main Osama article. I don't get it, there is Only one(1) very small picture of Mr. Bin Laden. Why oh why ? Like only a week ago or so there was not even one single picture of him in the main article. Are the feds involved ? If so, it's strongly against Wikipedias policy's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Njuuton (talk • contribs) 07:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remove September 16th 2001 "Video"

should this be removed from the page as its not actually a video of bin laden, just a statement read by an al-jazeera announcer?

is there another page that this and other non-video statements can be moved to? if not, can one be created? (BTW the statement has had its authneticity questioned)

Default.XBE (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confession tape - December 13, 2001 - Fake?

It's quite obvious when viewing the "confession tape" that the man is Osama bin Laden - the image shown on this page is at a point where there is poor lighting. This is a favorite tactic of 9/11 conspiracy theorists (Steve Jones is one). They will take a portion of the tape with harsh directional lightning, but not show other points in the video where it is quite obviously bin Laden. The conspiracy portion should be removed or placed in the 9/11 conspiracy theory page(s). As another user already pointed out, the idea that this is anyone other than bin Laden is a myth. GreatGatsby 21:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

No, GreatGatsby, it's obvious that the tape is a fake. America's top Bin Laden expert, Professor Bruce Lawrence, head of Duke University's Religious Studies program, says so himself. As far as the picture on this page is concerned, what difference does that make? There is no clear image as the video is terrible quality. If you have a clear image that is "obviously Bin Laden" from the video like you say then post it. Otherwise stop spreading your disinformation. Anyone that knows what bin Laden looks like knows that is not him in the video. It is beyond obvious.

On the contrary, although it appears to people looking at the confession tape for the first time and who have been TOLD that it's bin Laden, that it IS bin Laden, a careful examination of the images, which have been saved on several web sites, makes it QUITE obvious that this is not only NOT bin Laden, but IS someone who has deliberately been dressed up and made up to resemble him from a distance.

     (1)  bin Laden's nose is convex -- a "Roman" or  "Arabic" nose.          The imposter's is upturned -- a pug, almost"Negroid" nose.

     (2)  bin Laden's beard hairs are relatively straight.          The imposter's are kinky.

     (3)  bin Laden's beard has bald areas at the corners of his mouth.          The imposter's beard is full, all the way across.

     (4)  just under the lower lip, the imposter's beard is a different          color from bin Laden's.

     (5)  the imposter has a round face. Bin Laden's is long and lean.          The imposter wears the same style hat, but it fits differently

     (6)  Most telling, the imposter has a solid white patch in his      beard, on his chin. At that same place, the real Osama has a      whitish-looking patch which is streaked with gray.

All of this is true both regarding images of bin Laden before AND after the faked "confession" video. —Preceding Wowest comment added by Wowest Wowest 07:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Speculation does not belong on wikipedia. There is not enough compelling evidence that this is faked. Please, research the opposing side (almost all non-internet media) or common sense sites like:myth

There are reasons to speculate about the video, but they are minor and not very strong points. Realize that many times, articles become asymmetric in such controversies: there are two opposing groups. One is a fringe group, a minority, that has tons of passion towards what they feel is the truth. The other side is the one lazily writing about what they hear on the news. Realize that both opponents have conflicting views and that the group with passion will far outweigh those who don't care. Thus this page will have a POV, a bias of people who believe the video to be faked, because the opposition lacks the enthusiasm they have. The "claims" of a fake tape become fact because those writing about it contain such emotion, even when the oposing case is logically more sound. C. Nelson 07:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

One thing to add: If someone doesn't care weather this video was faked, or whether there are two Osamas, he is a FOOL. This almost the ONLY evidence that Osama had something to do with 911. How can this be indifferent? --83.6.237.80 15:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

83.6.237.80, If Osama bin Laden has something to do with the massacre on September 11, 2001 (I think so) and if the videos presented by the US government or distributed by al Jazeera are fake (I don't think so) are independant issues. I don't believe that name calling ("FOOL") does help clarify this discussion. Please be civil. Otto 21:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Otto, I hope in the fullness of time, you realize you have been fooled/duped or whatever civil term you prefer. Bin Laden appears to have died in December 2001 (as reported in the Egyptian press) - he was a very sick man on a dialysis machine, as verified by the last verifiable video (by anyone but a fool) in that month. He is still required as a bogeyman to justify the wars of occupation and the mainstream media, whose owners naturally have their investments tied up in the killing machine, will never tell you the truth. The profits from opium and offense (oops, defense) spending are simply too high to justify it. But if you prefer to believe all you read, you're a braver man than I, Gungadin, but no credit to yourself.

Speculation does not belong on Wikipedia, this is true; however, mentioning the obvious differences in appearance between the standard bin Laden and the one in the confession video would certainly be acceptable, in my opinion. The article does state that the tape is viewed by some to be fake, so I don't see a problem with also stating why they view it as fake. —LoganCale (talk | contribs) 00:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

So the question is... What do we do with this section of the article:

Michael Rivero, on his website whatreallyhappaend.com, claims that it is a doctored video, although no one has offered any physical proof of this. According to Rivero, the film is a dramatization. His argument is based on his comparison of the face of Osama bin Laden to the face of the man represented as him in the video. He claims that the nose of the real bin Laden is longer than the nose of the man in the video as it appears in some poorly rendered frames. Rivero also claims that the man in the video seems somewhat portly compared to previously seen images of bin Laden, [1] and that there are factual errors in the video: The first he says is that the FBI's description of Bin Laden included that he is left-handed[2], yet the video shows him writing with his right hand. Rivero also claims that in the video, Bin Laden is wearing a gold ring and a watch in violation of Islamic Law. Nonetheless, this claim is patently invalid as numerous other videos show Bin Laden wearing a golden colored ring [3].

I see three options: 1) leave it as is. (bad idea... it requires some touchups) 2) delete it for being speculation (nah) 3) present the evidence that it is not a fake tape in the same paragraph (pretty good) 4) give the speculative theory its own heading or stub, labeling it as an internet cultural phenomenon while presenting evidence to the contrary. (pretty good) 5) delete it for the controversy not being verifiable. (nah) C. Nelson 08:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Another possibility is to dramatically shorten it. We link to the websites. The reader can go there for a detailed description of the claims. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, the Rivero section is too long, and should be moved to the Rivero article itself. Rivero's arguments while interesting when first presented after the tape appeared are much less so in July 2006, in the wake of the other bin Laden video tapes mentioned in this article, as well as the suicide note videotape of one of the suspected hijackers Abdulaziz Alomari. Readers interested in reading Rivero can follow the link to the Michael Rivero Wikipedia article.--Historypre 19:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Rivero or his website is not kosher on this site. Please refrain from mentioning him again. He has been censored - and rightly so - for having the temerity to criticize Israel.

Apparently the source image is clearly digital, however the tape release to the press was obviously editted (to add in the translation.) However, most digital video sources have additional tagging info that could be invaluable to inderstanding the nature and/or real source of this tape. Upon request for this original digital source, the CIA has apparently responded along the lines of "we've released what we're going to release, and that's it." Why is the digital, unsubtitled version being so heavily guarded? And why not release it earlier? I personally would regard the tape with extreme suspicion.

Beyond that, who's to say Bin Laden did not decide to simply take credit for the bombing to impress some of his buddies, knowing that nobody else is taking responsibility for it -- or perhaps he knows who's responsible, and its more worth it to him to protect this source, than to expose it. This is strong circumstantial evidence and likely would draw a guilty verdict in a court of law, however its not incontrovertable proof.

I think there could be potential in having the full transcript wikified as a collective analysis of the tape? Linking to other names mentioned would be a start to build up the picture. What do you think?

It should be noted that authenticity of these tapes is not certain. --Taw

I've phrased it a bit better. Feel free to tweak. If anyone knows of any alternative translations then please put reference up at the bottom. Anyone actually speak Arabic that can interperate the tapes?

The US news media, ostensibly independent and free of government control and censorship, has nevertheless largely complied with the request of its government in this matter

Independence of US media is doubtful. See google:Chomsky or any some non-Americans for details. --Taw

Doesn't "ostensibly" say that? --Dmerrill

Yes it does; that was why the word "ostensibly" was used.

Should we but the whole transcipt up? Its not copyright?

Even when Afghanistan had a functioning government, it never had anything like copyright law, and was not a signatory of any international IP convention, either UCC or Berne. The English translations of the tape were done by the US Government, who is not eligible for copyright. Copy at your heart's content. --LDC

I restored some deleted text about the US government's position on the release of bin Laden tapes, because it has been an important issue and has actually been the source of some embarassment to the US government that they, on the one hand, told people not to air any bin Laden tapes, and on the other, they themselves broadcast a tape of bin Laden when it served their own purposes. I also think that the compliance of the US news media in this matter is worth noting.

"Many people, including the U.S. press, continue to be skeptical of the government's rationale for not releasing other tapes, but few have questioned this tape's authenticity." Is just plain not NPOV or true. The tapes reffered to are not the US's to release. The US has not banned the broadcasting of the tapes as far as I'm aware. It seems to me to be a public debate not censorship. Certainly it plays out that way over in the UK where I could watch the whole of the properganda tapes if i wished on Al-Jeezera.

I can't see how Arab groups are critical as the full tapes are usually broadcast in the Arab world.

My 2peneth...

I've tried to edit this for clarity at least. I don't know what do with this sentence:

It also comes at a time when the situation in the Middle East is verging on war, a situation in which the

United States has, at times, obtusely shown unwavering support for Israel, and the reaction among Arab counties has been less than chilly.

I haven't the faintest idea what this means, so I can't put it in English. "Obtusely...unwavering"? "Less than chilly"? If its author would care to clarify, it might well belong here. --LDC

It also comes at a time when the situation in the Middle East is verging on war, a situation in which the..

Well its not NPOV, its also commentry rather than encylopedic fact/analysis. If it belongs anywhere its in /Talk. Whatever people views are we should be striving a an NPOV article which represnts what views are know about the tapes without offering opinion biased one way or the other. -- Alex

What do the double brackets in 'Muhammad ((Atta))' mean? Is the word 'Atta' on the tape, or has it been supplied by an editor? --Matthew Woodcraft

Words in italics were added by the original translators. -- Eean

So what do the double brackets mean? They seem to be there on the original transcript without an explanation. The article on Mohammed Atta says that the videos identify him, and I worry that this may not be true. --Matthew Woodcraft

Well they are not italliscised in the original source document. But not knowing Arabic myself I can't be sure. There is an interactive copy of the tape on the BBC website, someone could confirm it from that. There is of course the other thing of how many Egyptian Muhammad's where on the hi-jacked flights. -- Alex

I don't think the transcripts of the video should be here. The article should say something about it, about it's importance (or unimportance), and should refer to an external resource for the tape, or it's transcript, like with the articles on constitutions. Unless there are objections, I'll make this change (the links are already there, so it seems). Jheijmans 00:50 Jul 23, 2002 (PDT)

I originally added the transcript because a) External links may not last for ever and a copy here is effectivly version controlled and b) I thought it would be useful a wikify the transcript so references made in the tapes could point to additional articles for more background. However as people have already noted the exact interpratation of italics and brackets could cause confusion, for example does UBL actually identify Mohamad Atta or just Mohamad (a very common middle eastern name) in the video - therefor would wiki-linking be implying something that may not be true? Now I'm unsure but at least the history still has the transcript so we can recover it if we want. -- Alex

True, external links may go, but putting original texts here has the problem that they can be edited, thereby losing the effect that was needed. Moreover, an encyclopedia should be about things rather than the things themselves (at least, in most cases).

Anyway, you can still link all the interesting pages by telling about the video. For example, you can tell UBL was talking about a Mohammed, and it was suspected to be Mohammed Y by the interpretations of organisation X, while... Jeronimo

In all of this, there is mention of "several" videotapes of Osama bin Laden having been released but no number given. Anyone have a clue as to how many Osama video's there are to date? Hulleye 15:14, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think the 2001-12-13 video deserves more mention. Possibly even an article of its own; it has wide-ranging ramifications ("Internet phenomenon" is one way to put it). The tape is unique in several aspects, notably in the circumstances of shooting (if it is genuine, it is the only well-known testimony of OBL as a private citizen, so to speak) and from a technical standpoint (different equipment, different lighting, different quality). Rivero's comparison does not really fly IMHO, because there is no half-profile shot of OBL under indoors lighting smirking away that I know of (the "public image" of OBL is that of a stern, serious man, not someone frolicking with his buddies). Stand in front of a mirror, grin, and watch the shape of your nose change. At any rate, the issue is interesting and deserves detailed discussion. Barring the inevitable spammers and vandals, WP is probably the best place in the world to do that. Dysmorodrepanis 15:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Two Plus Two Must Be Five - Its quite obvious that the level of irrational thought has reached Orwellian levels, when people think that December 13th, 2001 OBL confession tape is real. The "Osama" in that tape doesn't look anything like him. 30+ plus pounds, a nose job, and some pigment enhancement and maybe I could buy it. I repeat, the Osama in that tape is heavier, doesn't have the same facial structure, and is darker. This article makes absolutely no mention of the fact that the video doesn't look him one little bit. Instead it shows us a huge photo of OBL using his right hand. So what? If we are going to start talking about the points Loose Change makes regarding the video, then lets start with the most important one: it doesn't look like him. Now, if anyone thinks that it is just one frame taken out of context, bad lighting, etc- then just go to this YouTube Link Or this Report 70.12.24.122 08:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, that picture with the caption "taken from the December 13th, 2001 video"- where in the video is that image? That picture does look like every image I have seen of Bin Laden. But I don't think that is from the video. I have still yet to find a complete version of that video, but every segment that I have found, includng this segment shows it blurry and indoors. This page has a lot of serious problems. 70.12.149.1 23:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have just finished reading the 2005 book 'Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama bin Laden', with Bin Laden's statements newly translated by James Howarth and edited and produced by professor and scholar Bruce Lawrence. This book is praised by scholarly men to include/comment on ALL of the official and real statements of Osama bin Laden from December 19, 1994 through to December 16, 2004.

This book doesn't mention the December 13, 2001 allaged bin Laden tape. In fact, the speech it does mention after that is December 21, 2001 'Nineteen Students' statement released to al-Jazeera. In it denying being involved in 9/11 but praising the hijackers.

Is this December 13, 2001 video real or fake? If it is real, fine - it does show someone priasing the attack but not admitting to it directly. However, if it is real and wasn't an official statement, do we think Bin Laden would be foolish enough to loose the video tape where he admits ot the 9/11 attack (subsequently having it shown accross the globe), and then denying direct involvement in pretty much every statement since? Robert C Prenic 17:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy of Official Translation of December 13, 2001 Video

Commented out:

The TV magazine came to the conclusion that with the "new correct translation" there was no evidence left in the tape which would suggest that bin Laden had been aware of the attacks before they had been carried out.[4] (in German)

It is a POV statement -- the alternate translation, assuming it is correct, does not address the core issue of the knowledge of the operational details in the lines attributed to bin Laden when watching the tape or reading the translation:

"But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes...then he said: Those who were trained to fly didn’t know the others. One group of people did not know the other group."

Moreover, citing Spiegel to assert the conclusion reached by Moniter, as opposed to the translators themselves is questionable, suggest citing the Moniter's transcript directly to assert the conclusion of the translators. Otherwise, this is an unsupported claim and the lines from the alternate translation quoted in the article above should simply stand on their own. ... If anyone has looked at the side-by-side pictures of bin Laden and the fat, "confession" bin Laden, you can clearly see that they are two different people. The noses have different shapes and the hair-growth patterns of the beard around the mouth and nose are different. The "confession" bin Laden is obviously right-handed, unlike the real bin Laden. They say contradictory things. The real bin Laden is on record that he had no prior knowledge of 9-11 and disapproves of it. According to experts on the Arabic language, the "confession" bin Laden doesn't actually confess. An entire sentence was added to the English translation to imply prior knowledge. ..

When I recently stumbled across this article, and other related ones, I noticed with great surprise that the very specific and widely known criticism of the Pentagon translation was not even mentioned.

On the source: Monitor is a first rate tv magazine in Germany's most important tv station, ARD. It is public tv, comparable maybe to PBS in the US. The views and analyses there are neither extreme nor have there ever been reports of misrepresentation of sources, fake news, and the like, like we occasionally hear from private tv stations. Klaus Bednarz is a widely known tv presenter and author of many books, mostly about Eastern Europe, where he was correspondent for a long time. Professor Rotter is THE authority on Arabism in Germany, among others he advises government agencies. The report on the mistranslation became well known and was widely discussed in Germany. Not so, apparently in the US, apart from the usual 9/11 skeptics sites and online forums like Democratic Underground. Craig Morris is an American journalist and translator with Telepolis, a well-known and very professional online magazine in Germany, and a book author (to be found at Amazon). He sent a summary of the tv report in English to ZNews' Michael Albert and a few others, and it can still be found at various places on the web.

References in the article:

1. Guardian article mentioning dispute about authenticity

2. The transcript of the mentioned Monitor report - in German

3. Summary of the report by Craig Morris (notable author) in English - at Indymedia (to be found in other places, too)

4. Der Spiegel article on the Monitor report - unfortunately only in German and not free

(I have also changed some of the wording in the first paragraph (it is just one tape that was found in Afghanistan, and it has never been shown or proven to be authentic) and in the part about Michael Rivero I deleted the unnecessary comment that Rivero's account is disputed).

Rkrichbaum 19:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edit summary

"Prison planet opinions are representative for the entire 9/11 movement" - I don't think so. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, in any case, dont remove the critique section. --Striver 21:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not a critique, it's an uninformed opinion by a man who's only notable as a minor conspiracy theorist. His thoughts about the tape are no more valid or interesting than those of some guy in a coffee shop. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Prison Planet is an unreliable source of info, what it thinks about the tape is irrelevant. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources

Partisan political and religious (or anti-religious) sources should be treated with caution, although political bias is not in itself a reason not to use a source. Widely acknowledged extremist political, religious, anti-religious and other websites — for example, those belonging to Stormfront, Hamas, the Aryan Nations website or the Socialist Workers Party — should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources, that is, in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution, and should not be relied upon as a sole source.--Jersey Devil 00:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The first video?

Where on earth is the October 7, 2001 video of him broadcasted by al-Jazeera? why doesn't this article makes any mention of it?

Better yet, where are all the videos before 2001? ----DanTD (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding this mess

I'm not sure if merging these pages at this stage was a good idea, noting the following inconsistencies:

1. The original "Osama tapes" article discussed purported ObL statements from interviews, audio and video tapes in the context of "stated motives for terrorist attacks". It did not contain a timeline or even comprehensive list of the sources.

2. Someone added a short timeline which was deleted from 9/11 conspiracy theories. This timeline did not discuss grievances and motives, it was intended to shed some light on the authenticity issues.

3. The "Videos" article obviously was not about interviews and audio tapes, and included just one more comprehensive discussion, of the 2001 video with the flat nosed Osama.

I propose to rename the article, maybe "Statements from Osama bin Laden", start with "motives for attacks/jihad" - as far as references can be provided, proceed with a timeline (of all testimony combined) and include doubts and comments as to the authenticity of the documents within the timeline. For better overview, all documents should be listed with references at the end of the article. Rkrichbaum 01:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I rearranged the parts, renamed two subsections. Removed two quotes from an unsourced audio tape that are to be found at "Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks", and are here not necessary since they don't contain anything of particular interest that isn't mentioned here already, as far as I can see. Also edited the intro to be more concise. Rkrichbaum 11:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where this article should go about

I think there is need for a comprehensive article about the public statements from Osama bin Laden. A link to conspiracy theories and "fake Osama" theories can do no harm, but the content of the messages is now inundated by all kind of noise. The conspiracy theorist should write an article on their own and not spoil the work of people who prefer to take the messages from Osama bin Laden serious. Otto 22:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bergen Video

Why is the original interview by Peter Bergen not listed? Especially as one can get it online from the US. govt, from the evidence exhibitions in the Moussaoui trial. --Storkk 14:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where are the link to the recent videos???

why all these news tell us of some video floating around the internet but none sites the source!!!

[edit] Timeline and contradictions

This paragraph doesn't add anything. Many quotes of people who tell they don't know if bin Laden is alive are not informative and make no sense since the 2004 tape is from later date. Further there is a lot of repetition from the list of tapes. I propose to delete the whole paragraph. Otto 07:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

1: A major contradiction in the videos! In Bin Laden's previous videos, it shows him with white in his beard (2004). But the recent September 11, 2007 video (he hasn't had any videos for 3 years!!) show no white in his beard. This cannot be a real tape of bin laden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghpink (talk • contribs) 01:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Removed hidden text

1: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/ is a user-contributed website and does not fall under WP: Reliable sources. According to http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/aboutsite.jsp:

"Anyone who registers on the website and becomes a member of a timeline project can submit content. Membership is free. Once a user becomes a member, s/he can edit existing event summaries by clicking the edit link that is next to that event (the user must be logged in to see the edit link). In addition to editing existing events, users can also add new ones to the database. Registered users who add content are called “contributors.” "

3 www.justresponse.net provides as its source a dead link to Unmat. This violates WP: Verifiability. Furthermore, justreponse.net does not indicate who supposedly translated the responses into English, nor who did the interview. The Unmat website also does not provide the article.

The following REMOVED for the reasons mentioned above: On September 28, 2001, the Karachi-based The Daily Ummat published an interview with bin Laden ^[5][6] and quotes him as saying the following:

“

... I am not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other human beings as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. ... Whoever committed the act of September 11 are not the friends of the American people. I have already said that we are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, common American people have been killed. ... The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the US system but are dissenting against it. Or those who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology can survive. They may be anyone, from Russia to Israel and from India to Serbia. ... Then there are intelligence agencies in the US, which require billions of dollars worth of funds from Congress and the government every year. This was not a big problem until the existence of the ex-Soviet Union but after that the budget of these agencies has been in danger. They needed an enemy. So, they first started propaganda against Osama and the Talibans and then this incident happened. ...

”

The 2002 letter (bin Laden's "will"), however, explicitly seeks to justify attacks on civilians: "whoever has killed our civilians, then we have the right to kill theirs". The list of grievances in this letter includes "immorality" in the US. It begins with the statement: "Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple: (1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us." The letter goes on to points never raised in anything that has actually been verified as coming from Osama bin Laden.

[edit] Embarrassment

Almost all of the article is devoted to conspiracy theories about December 9, 2001, but bin Laden has since admitted involvement in 9/11. This article is an embarrasssment to wikipedia. --Leroy65X 19:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with the above and propose that we delete a lot from the article and by doing that clean it up. Otto 22:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have just finished reading the 2005 book 'Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama bin Laden', with Bin Laden's statements newly translated by James Howarth and edited and produced by professor and scholar Bruce Lawrence. This book is praised by scholarly men to include/comment on ALL of the official and real statements of Osama bin Laden from December 19, 1994 through to December 16, 2004.

This book doesn't mention the December 13, 2001 allaged bin Laden tape. In fact, the speech it does mention after that is December 21, 2001 'Nineteen Students' statement released to al-Jazeera. In it denying being involved in 9/11 but praising the hijackers.

Is this December 13, 2001 video real or fake? If it is real, fine - it does show someone priasing the attack but not admitting to it directly. However, if it is real and wasn't an official statement, do we think Bin Laden would be foolish enough to loose the video tape where he admits ot the 9/11 attack (subsequently having it shown accross the globe), and then denying direct involvement in pretty much every statement since? Robert C Prenic 17:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Robert C Prenic 15:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

It would be very helpful to get some images up here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.207.48 (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

O.K. -- I added some. Wowest (talk) 10:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

WHERE ARE THE PICTURES ??

It used to be lots of them before, at least on the main "Bin Laden" article.

Please don't tell me it's censorship from the United States.. of America.

Njuuton

[edit] 911 websites not RS

I reverted some changes using 911ct websites as source. The ct sites are only reliable sources for conspiracy theory pages. --PTR 19:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no account of the events of 9/11 that is not a conspiracy theory. Considering how much was deleted, this looks a lot like POV censorship.Wowest 19:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The sources you used do not meet reliable sources guideline. --Aude (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I've fixed that now. Wowest (talk)

[edit] Reverted undiscussed deletion/censorship

I just partly reverted some censorship by PTR which was not discussed here. Kevin Barrett is an expert in this field, and the source is a public newspaper. The same material was previously deleted because there was no reliable source. Wowest (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. A day later.

Now MONGO comes in with: (diff) (hist) . . Videos of Osama bin Laden‎; 10:24 . . (-1,391) . . MONGO (Talk | contribs) (rv, he is NOT an expert on the subject)

O.K. MONGO. Kevin Barrett has a PhD in a related topic. He speaks Arabic. He has translated old, unquestioned tapes of Osama bin Laden and recognizes that the speaker in the new tapes is NOT Osama bin Laden. How does that make him NOT an expert? Do you have RS cites for that claim? Wowest (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The source you used was a guest column from a person with an agenda. Kevin Barrett is a conspiracy theorist regarding 9/11.--PTR (talk) 13:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The "source" is a newspaper. The writer is a PhD who has translated undisputed Osama recordings, and who, based upon his expertise, has concluded that all tapes after a certain date are fraudulent. Dr. Barrett undeniably expressed that opinion, and named another non-governmental expert who agrees with him.

You seem to imply that there is something wrong with anyone you label as a conspiracy theorist. I respectfully suggest that you consider the possibility that you might, from time to time, make errors other than occasional program bugs. Just a suggestion. It isn't an easy thing for most people to consider. Wowest (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok....We exclude a source that is an expert in the subject because he believes in conspiracy theories. Who is now going to go through the article and delete all the sources that believe in the official theory? Does that sound rediculous? Same thing. Wayne (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I also point out that Barratt's views on the authenticy of the tapes IS NOT a conspiracy theory as other experts who are not conspiracy theorists agree with him. If you care to read Kevin Barratt's page you will notice that although he believes in CT's he didn't include his views in the class he taught which was unbiased on the subject. This arguably makes him a more reliable source than many academics who push their views supporting the official theory. Wayne (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Were he an expert on voice recognition it might be RS. He is not an expert in that area and is giving his opinion only. Having that in the lead is not properly weighting the article. His translation is also based, of course, on his beliefs as are the other translations. However, he is not an expert on this particular subject. If the other source he names who agrees with him is an expert then use his opinion and newspaper article or quote from that source and put it in the article where it doesn't overweight the article towards disbelief but instead maintains a balance. --PTR (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

So why not cite the 9/11 truther's opinion as an OPINION? — Rickyrab | Talk 07:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with PTR and removed twice Wowest pushing of his theory at the introductory paragraph recently. See paragraph authenticity below. Otto (talk) 08:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why has all mention of fat black guy Osama been censored?

Remember the tubby black Osama? The blatantly, obviously fake Osama? The Dec 13 2001 video's section of the article used to mention this odd incongruity but doesn't any more. Sukiari 00:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

He wasn't fat. He was kneeling down. Plus, the so-called "fake Osama" was actually a crappy photshop job by some stupid 9/11 Denialist website. ----DanTD (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

That's WP:OR so not grounds for exclusion. Heres a mainstream news article from a RS dated September 11, 2009[7]:
Has Osama Bin Laden been dead for seven years - and are the U.S. and Britain covering it up to continue war on terror? Incredibly, this is the breathtaking theory that is gaining credence among political commentators, respected academics and even terror experts.
This article should be incorporated in the page and mention is probably even relevant in the lead. Wayne (talk) 07:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please! That article has people commenting on the phony kidney dialysis stories, which were already disproven years ago. Two blurry images of OBL, one of which is right next to the other, and this writer wants the world to think it's fake? How stupid do they think we are? And how stupid has the Daily Mail gotten if they're going to publish dreck like this? ----DanTD (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Way to express your neutrality. If you had bothered to read the article you would notice it makes no claims of it's own regarding fakery and even states such claims could be another conspiracy theory. But the main thrust of the article is pointing out that growing support for such claims and the lack of evidence refuting them is enough to make them worthy of examination. A NPOV position that is a credit to a conservative newspaper. On the other hand what sources do you have supporting your claim of phony kidney dialysis? According to the CIA Osama was on one before 911 when they personally visited him in a Dubai hospital. It was reported in 2000 (BTW that is again before 911 so I can see no motive to make a false claim) that Osama had bought a portable kidney dialysis machine. TIME magazine reported on another CIA report that concluded that Osama could not survive without one. In 2002, a White House spokeperson reported that a CIA report he was given said that Osama was still alive but needed dialysis every three days. An ABC article in 2007 stated He probably has his own Kidney Dialysis Machine. And most recently, in February 2009 an attempt at geographic profiling was made to help identify general regions where investigators should search for Osama. One of the parameters was that the area must have electricity to power his kidney dialysis machine. Would academics include this in the parameters if it had been disproven years ago? In fact several mainstream newspapers mention the machine in 2009 articles about Osama and despite a search I can't find a RS disputing it. If you are going to claim a RS is publishing dreck then you need to prove your case. Wayne (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You can't pretend to be neutral on something that's absolute. First, Al-Qaida sympathizers have said that he wasn't on kidney dialysis, and think that the CIA made that up about him to make him look weak. Second, the idea that the CIA visited him in a hospital in Dubai is pure conspiracy freak mythology. In fact in November 2001, Osama himself said that his kidneys were fine, and that he never met anybody from the CIA. Third, even if he were dead, it wouldn't automatically kill Al-Qaida as an organization, because it was already a large stateless global terrorist network back in the 1990's. If there are any reporters sticking to that kidney dialysis story now, it's because they haven't got the message that it was a rumor, just like you haven't. ----DanTD (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Authenticity of the audio tapes

Reverted the edit of Wowest who is pressing his own POV addition that of all video(?) tapes the authenticity is seriously questioned, which is obviously nonsense. The only mentioned Swiss source (IDIAP) is indecisive. Most of the tapes are not questioned at all. In the contrary in a number of cases it is seen as likely that it is bin Ladens voice. Otto (talk) 08:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

All the tapes are questioned by some one some where. The problem is that audio is extremely easy to fake. In fact the technology is advanced enough that there is no way to determine authenticity from audio alone. The question we should be asking is why do al Qaeda not use video and pictures taken after 2001? Can they not afford a camera? Has bin Laden developed a phobia about having his picture taken? Wayne (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with File:Bin laden 12 27a.jpg

The image File:Bin laden 12 27a.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Question: In Bin Ladens previous videos, it shows him with white in his beard (2004). But the recent 2007 videos show no whit in his beard. This cannot be a real tape of bin laden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghpink (talk • contribs) 01:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pre 9/11 Osama press conferences

There has been many 100% authentic Bin Laden press conferences, video tapes, and audio tapes recorded and aired before the world trade center collapse in 2001. I think we should address the issue that none of them are present here, or almost anywhere on the web. These tapes would be much more informative, if correctly translated, than any of these supposed and very sketchy at best tapes available now. They would be a very beneficial to this site and a study of Bin Laden, but they are missing. Please help bring these tapes, info, links to watch, translations, and discussions to this very lacking database of Osama Bin Laden's "voice" to the people. There was a time before war that he very much wanted to be heard, but now were is it all? Onetruelove88 (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Contents