Talk:Alleged Pakistani support for Osama bin Laden

Contested deletion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please continue to debate this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of support system in Pakistan for Osama bin Laden, the discussion here started to object to the proposed speedy delete that did not happen. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

This page should not be speedy deleted because... --Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• DeleteThe article and the title is funny. Why can't this be merged in death of osama ? Sarmadhassan (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. The articles Death of Osama bin Laden and Osama bin Laden are big and it would not be good to add contents for the 'Allegations of support network in Pakistan for Osama bin Laden'. The location of Osama in centre of Pakistan has come as a surprise to many ans Pakistan was denying Osama's presence in Pakistan. There are many allegations in media about some organizations and network in Pakistan's supporting Osama. Thus the article is needed. (Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)).
• Delete This matter is purely a diplomatic/spy war vow. And no concrete evidence can ever surface within foreseeable future. Pakistan will always has its side of story to make a case of argument. Jalal0 (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete This subject is already partially covered in the main article, see here. This article is not only very bad written, it also has no concrete evidence. Neftchi (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Already covered in the main article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep, for the reasons explained by Mahesh Kumar Yadav.--Martianmister (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep there is a boatload of allegations out there and this storm will not stop soon by the looks of it. too much info for parent article.--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Already covered in main article repition of same old information Ichigo0987765 (talk) 13:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I WP:MOVEd Osama bin Laden's support network in Pakistan to Allegations of support system in Pakistan for Osama bin Laden in this change. While this makes me an involved party, I was and remain still neutral on any subsequent reasonable changes whatsoever. --Shirt58 (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. The emphasis on this page is quite different to the other articles Death of Osama bin Laden and Osama bin Laden. Beside it could get very big. I would suggest that we review it in say 3 months

8digits (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Delete This article is ridiculous. Why should Osama bin Laden only have a "support system" article for Pakistan? Are you telling me he didn't have support in any other countries? What about the Arab world? or North Africa? or the West? or what about his native Saudi Arabia? Pakistan alone does not stand for an article. If this article is to be kept, then change the title to something like Allegations of support system for Osama bin Laden around the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.81.207 (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a key difference between this article and "Allegations of support system in country X for Osama bin Laden." While those articles could be written, they would be about unsurprising allegations. The general public may well have expected that bin Laden would be constantly on the move in remote rural locations. The fact that bin Laden was found to be located in a large-ish city in an apparently permanent base leads to, well, allegations of support system in Pakistan for Osama bin Laden.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Note the word "allegations." Perfect for describing the speculative, nonsensical, conspiracy theor-ish stuff for which we don't create articles here on Wikipedia. The stuff mentioned in this article should be relegated as a mere footnote in some other main article, because as of now, that is all really what this information is worth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.81.207 (talk) 12:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is there because the allegations ( multiple) are particularly strong in WP:RS against Pakistan and Pakistan alone. can you show me a single reference saying that Saudi ( or any other country) was complicit in hiding him in Pakistan. also remember WP is about verifiability not truth. whether these allegations are true or not is immaterial. they are easily verifiable and notable.--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep – rubbish article full of WP:SYNTH around coat-racking statements by politicians facing elections but nevertheless an important topic. Should be re-built and re-written using proper sources. - Pointillist (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep I'm with Pointillist. The topic is notable, if only a literate person could look over it, it'd be fine. Lampman (talk) 01:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Typical, biased article created more as a pompous reaction to the recent politically-charged death of Osama bin Laden. This article and its content is basically "dead," and is unlikely to materialise into solid substance. It also doesn't comply with WP:NEUTRAL and is basically WP:POV. It's better if this info is merged somewhere else. Mar4d (talk) 09:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

so all the Pakistanis wish. any idiot can see that the case for Nuclear obliteration of Pakistan is being prepared by CIA/USA.--

Wikireader41 (talk) 03:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The statement above seems just as obliterated as this article. Mar4d (talk) 03:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Hey this is not an AFD debate, I already declined the speedy delete, so those that want to delete should use the AFD process. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Highly notable and certain to expand as time goes on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons already given by others + the fact it is, in essence, a conspiracy theory about a cabal of Pakistani individuals conspiring to support bin Laden either directly or through a conspiracy of silence over a 5 year period. Classic Conspiracy theory rubbish; "which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning". Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

There's an AfD discussion about this article here. - Pointillist (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Can be used to keep track of developments. However the article requires a complete overhaul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.42.183 (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What?

"It's hard to imagine that the military or police did not have any ideas what was going on inside of that,"[1] and in the blogosphere. Removing space that made contribution have horizontal scroll-bar in browser window.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

What does that even mean? Should the "military or police" have known what was going on inside the blogosphere? Never mind the word "blogosphere" in itself implies "this article is based primarily on unreliable sources". Never mind the entire article is WP:SYNTH. The writing is just so bad it warrants a special forces operation to take it out, without taking any prisoners. Lampman (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a classic conspiracy theory

Bring out the tin foil hats for anyone who is buying this classic conspiracy theory (that a cabal of Pakistani government conspirators supported bin Laden over the past 5 years). This one is extremely far fetched, given the 50 million dollar reward that has been on the table all these years. It defies belief that a group of Pakistani officials would all be so altruistic as to pass up 50 million dollars they could have gotten simply by making a phone call to U.S. authorities. I have added some of the Pakistani's governments rebuttal to this far fetched conspiracy theory. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. you clearly have not been keeping up with the events. 50 million dollar reward is nothing compared to the billions of dollars Americans were forced to dole out to Pakistanis for help with logistics. How long after America completes its mission in Afghanistan b4 Americans cut off US aid and Pakistan goes bankrupt??? Pakistanis had all the incentive ever to keep bin Laden from getting caught and preventing Americans and NATO from pulling out from Afghanistan. None of Americans believes bin Laden was not supported and that is what counts and makes this notable. plenty of WP:RS talk about it. whether it is true or not is immaterial.--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure its notable just like the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories was notable, but your argument that every single one of a whole bunch of Pakistani individuals were willing to pass up 50 million dollars, in their own individual pocket, for the sake of their country having access to U.S. aid is just another theory that doesn't pass the straight face test. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

no I never said that. perhaps a handful of top ISI people were the only ones who sheltered bin Laden. Zardari probably does not even know where his own underwear is kept. I am 100% sure nobody in the neighborhood knew. the other conspiracy theory that is notable is that Pakistan is an ally on war on terror . It is not. It is the epicenter of terrorism. FYI for those who just woke up to terrorism in the world. every single terror plot in recent years has connections to Pakistan.--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not for nothing that one of the news magazines a couple of years ago called Pakistan "the most dangerous country in the world". Our own President says Pakistan had to know. And logic tells you that Pakistan had to know. The idea that they can be bought is an extremely naive statement. Zealots cannot be bought. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Spot on. That magazine was The Economist. fortunately the tough questions are being asked in Washington now.[1] If I may add allegations of ISI support for terrorism are nothing new. Its just that with bin Laden they have come to the front page of every WP:RS that is out there. Hopefully this will lead to a unified and cogent world response to this problem. I wonder if they will find pictures of bin Laden having a beer at Kayani's birthday party in the "My Pictures" folder in bin Ladens PC and if/when they will release them ??--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Its great to have opinions; but it's delusional to think one's opinions are fact. Its better to just think about important undisputed facts and let them drive opinions. For example, I have the opinion that 2 undisputed facts indicate that these wars are largely controlled by some(and I am not talking about Obama) who do not want us(the West) to win the wars but rather want the wars to lead us(the peoples of the West) into political and economic slavery. Those 2 facts are:

• On Sep.10, 2001, oil was $22. a barrel [2] and
• In 2001 Afghanistan produced 1/35, that's right, one thirty-fifth, as much opium as it did in 2009.[3] Annual Production went from 185 metric tons(2001) to 6,900 metric tons(2009)page 5 since we went into Afghanistan and every single western intelligence agency is on record as saying both the Taliban and al-Queda get most of their war financing from Afghan opium trafficking and as far back as 2002 a Republican panel identified bin Laden as a "narco-terrorist".....and anyone who does not think that we could keep that opium out of our enemies' hands, is truly naive; we could buy it up,plow it up, burn it up, or blow it up; but, now here comes an opinion, or maybe a fact; you can't engineer an ongoing war unless both sides have a good steady source of funds.

So,if you guys can share your opinions about why you think Pakistan is the most dangerous country in the world, I can share my opinion that Pakistan is just 1 in a series of pawns on a chessboard, and I have no idea at all who is moving the pieces but its not,in my opinion, any friends of the American or British or Canadian or Australian peoples. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Please continue this discussion somewhere more appropriate. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and isn't a soapbox for advocating points of view. - Pointillist (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the timely reminder above. Wikireader41 and Mr. Baseball Bugs are certainly those who need to read that message. Having checked some of the nonsense and deluded rubbish their past comments are filled with (all stacked on the history of different talk pages), I say it's about time they realise Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. Go discuss your conspiracy theories somewhere else guys. Mar4d (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You wish Mar4d. calling something published on the frontpage of New York Times , BBC etc. a conspiracy theory. wonder who is delusional ands psychotic here. The Economist says "high-risk duplicity has long been the hallmark of Pakistani foreign policy."[4];)--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you still didn't comprehend what Pointillist just put above in a single, eloquent sentence. *shakes head helplessly.* As a fellow Wikipedian, I can only give you advice. It's your own reputation and credibility here that is put on stake if you keep treating Wikipedia as a soapbox. Mar4d (talk) 07:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

well the AfD failed miserably. I was just trying to point out the obvious that this is not a conspiracy theory. Mar4d worry about your own reputation. why the heck would anybody call this a conspiracy theory ???? no need to shell out unsolicited advice when it is clear that you haven't a clue about this matter.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)