Talk:Khalid Shaikh Mohammed
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
Contents |
[edit] PT article
This Pakistan Times article is running about Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. I can't verify the truth or falsity of anything it says, but I'd only like to request that we be humble in our estimates of our ability to know the truth, and diligent in our efforts to document our sources. I have serious doubts about the veracity of any and all of the information in this article, and would like to see every single bit sourced, considering the number of different versions of the story there are out there, and the number of people who have something to gain by promulgating false information. DanKeshet
This, from this story regarding a Sep. 11th raid last year, which may have felled KSM:
- The other man, an unidentified Yemeni who fell prey to a police sniper on the building's rooftop, was initially identified by a Karachi police investigator as Khalid Mohammad Sheikh. Latter reports said that Khalid Mohammad Sheikh was being held by the police for his direct role in the kidnapping and subsequent murder of the Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl and therefore rejected that the idea that the dead man was Khalid Mohammad Sheikh, one of the most wanted man on the FBI list.
...
- Most police officials said that they had reason to believe that Khalid Sheikh was still hiding in Karachi and he was "definitely" in touch with some renegade elements of Jaish-e-Mohammad, a banned jihadi organisation.
...
- Pakistani security officials privately conceded that Pakistani law-enforcement agencies had no independently authenticated pictures of either Ramzi bin al-Shibah or Khalid Mohammad Sheikh, hence they had no choice but to rely on the press photographs or the pictures provided by the Americans of the most wanted al-Qaeda pair.
So, it's all up for grabs at this point. Graft
Whether or not you agree with his thesis, this dude provides the most complete collection of links on Mohammed I've seen: [1] DanKeshet
[edit] Pictures
It would be better if we could get pictures of him that didn't have "LOCATED" splashed across them, which seems a bit out of place in an encyclopedia. Anyone know any sources? --Delirium 19:08, May 21, 2004 (UTC)
There is an older version of one of the pictures which didn't have the "Located" on them. WhisperToMe 07:28, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
- Where is said version? The "LOCATED" thing really sucks. Graft 21:38, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I reverted this Image:Khalidmohammed.jpg to the older version. There's another one that still has a located. Yes, I know it really sucks. If someone can find a pic of him like that without the located, that would be great. WhisperToMe 02:21, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Playboy lifestyle
Graft asked "Is this stuff about white tuxedos, girlfriends, helicopters and scuba diving really necessary?" Well, I don't know. I think there ought to be some info that he lead a wilder lifestyle than one would expect of a fundamentalist Muslim. As to all that detail, I'm not sure. (I hope to add a lot more terrorism-based info over the next few days, which may balance it out a bit.) – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 20:52, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
I think it's important to cite this as he led a lifestyle that would not be expected from a fundamentalist Muslim. One would hardly expect a womanizing man to be the leader of an Islamist terrorist plot along with another famous terrorist. WhisperToMe 22:02, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- However, I don't think it's necessary to go TOO much into detail. I wouldn't want to know what color bathrobe he wears, etc. Neither do his efforts to impress his girlfriend concern me. In an article about an important figure who has done some things of really earth-shaking importance, such frivolous details really dilute the import. Graft 16:22, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
-
- Considering how much emphasis the Islamists put on Islamic conduct (covering up women, banning music and alcohol etc.) it is rather interesting that some Islamic extremists have tended to live a frivoluos lifestyle (eg. some of the 9/11 terrorsits). Hypocrasy or doublestandard is always an interesting factor when you are dealing with te religious right, especially if you're are trying to set up a psychological profile of these people. --BirgerLangkjer 13:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrality
The remarks about the CIA torturing him as part of his interrogation are conspiratorial and are slightly ancedotal, furthermore, the subjective remarks about his excessive and indolent lifestyle are not verified. They seem to paint a negative picture of the person
I am removing the "Neutrality" tag solely because this suggestion was unsigned. If you wish to question the neutrality of the article, you must sign your comment. Xoloz 07:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Some CIA agents have acknowledged they tortured him. I'm suprised the american public aren't demanded he be put on trial in New York and be excenuted for mass-murder, instead of being detained incommunicado and indefinently in some securect CIA or Pakistanni gulag. Bush did promise to bring the perpetrators of 9/11 "to justice" after all, way back in 2001 (it seems so long ago). He hasn't even used those kangaroo courts he invented yet, presumably for this very purpose. Kingal86 17:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well, most countries not only do not use torture, they do not allow evidence from torture to be used in their courts. The military commission differ from real courts of law in that the Bush administration wants them to be allowed to use evidence from torture and abusive interrogation. There is a very strong likelihood that Guantanamo detainees would have to be released if the Bush administration tried to try them in a real court. That is why the FBI interrogators refused to participate in their interrogations. -- Geo Swan 20:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Neutrality: 1: is the Pakistani-Kuwaiti mastermind of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks on the World Trade Center towers in New York. 2:He began to support terrorist actions against the U.S. starting with a small role supporting the World Trade Center bombing of 1993.. I personally don't like this kind of jurist impossibilities. Onyx
Neutrality: The filename for the mugshot of KSM is "Party animal.jpg". Isn't this a bit biased? --- Rocco
I'm glad to see that this issue has been raised already, but quite disappointed that it hasn't been addressed since. The accusations regarding KSM's lifestyle in the Philippines (& elsewhere) are quite severe in the context of his religious practice. I can't say that I think KSM wouldn't do such a thing based on most "fundamentalist" religious figures, as these people tend to live quite differently than they preach across ALL religions -- but the point is, this needs to be cited. There needs to be some sort of official account to which this article refers to make such assertions about KSM. Regrettably, I am not an expert that would be able to search for an appropriate work, so I hope someone around here is. Experia 23:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there is any verifiable proof that "KSM" ever worked for the CIA, that part should be left out. (MJF)
[edit] Court
Can we have some info on why he hasn't been taken to court etc like other suspects?
I can't think of any sources to quote off the top of my head, but I believe his trial will be held after military intelligence has investigated all of his info ,so as not to compromise their operations and spook terrorists at-large. Roland Deschain 07:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ZbinLaden?
From the article: "He has also been known as the alias Michael Zbinladen the connection to the bin laden family is rooted in Iran." I removed this sentence as it is jumbled. Is there truth in this? Rmhermen 23:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Just a note that the 9/11 Commission annotations included a lot of "Taken from the interrogatino of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed" notes, indicating that he was captured at that time, and it was freely admitted that he was being interrogated. Some parts of the commission use him as more than 90% of their references. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 17:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] text from intro
Mostly duplicated but storing here while I try to rework it: "The 9/11 Commission Report states that "By his own account, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel." The report also calls him a "terrorist entrepreneur" who — though he had engaged in planning terrorist attacks since his first such plot in 1994 — did not join al-Qaeda until late 1998 or early 1999. He also reportedly helped finance his nephew Ramzi Yousef's 1993 World Trade Center bombing and conspired with him to create the foiled Operation Bojinka plot.
Recent word has surfaced that he was one of the head conspirators in a 2002 West Coast Plot to attack the U.S. Bank Tower, the tallest building in Los Angeles, this time taking recruits from al-Qaeda's Southeast Asian wing, Jemaah Islamiyah, to avoid suspicion." Kaisershatner 21:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Personally killed Daniel Pearl?
I know that KSM was behind the kidnapping and murder of Daniel Pearl, but I keep hearing (and reading) from various sources that KSM himself wielded the knife and beheaded him. This wouldn't be unprecedented, as al-Zarqawi certainly took gruesome relish in slowly sawing off the heads of hostages, but it seems odd that the mastermind of 9/11 would trouble himself with such a "minor" task. Does anyone know if he personally participated in the kidnap/murder plot?
P.S.- Before anyone jumps on me, I'm not some loony conspiracy-nut; I'm just wondering if there's any info on his level of participation. Roland Deschain 07:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Capture pic
I've readded the "Party animal" picture; after all it is one of the most famous pictures of him. Though I do agree that the image should be renamed... --Bletch 22:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- I've never quite understood why people want the picture removed because of the file title. Calling him a "party animal" in the article may be POV, but that has nothing to do with the name of the image file. There's no reason, for example, that we couldn't have an image for the goatse article because the image is titled "hello.jpg" instead of "neutralimageofmanstretchinganus.jpg." The title is irrelevant. Roland Deschain 05:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- IMHO it is very unprofessional (and just downright silly) that the picture is titled "Party_animal.jpg". It makes Wikipedia look bad; imagine some news article saying "Those amateurs at Wikipedia dubbed KSM a party animal!" Also, imagine if George W. Bush had a picture with the filename "DumbyaLookingDumb.jpg", or White people with "Crackers.jpg". The case of Goatse.cx is a slightly different case, because the picture in question achieved notoriety as "the Hello.jpg picture from www.goatse.cx", so it does have a legit reason to use that name. None of this can be construed as an excuse to not have the picture; I came to the Khalid Shaikh Mohammed article and was very surprised when I didn't see the picture. --Bletch
[edit] We Have Your Sons
According to a report which I found on the internet here : http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/09/1047144871928.html , the Americans are holding this man's sons. Is this true ? Does anyone know anything about this ? Robert2957 14:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- I have no doubt the article is true, but you have to read it carefully. According to the article, the CIA is holding Mohammed's sons (aged 7 and 9) for questioning, but is "handling them with kid gloves" (i.e. treating them well). There's nothing wrong with holding them for questioning. They are probably also telling Mohammed that if he does not cooperate, his sons will be hurt or killed. That's a questionable interrogation technique. I don't know if that's legal or not. But there's no indication that the CIA actually will hurt the children, or even that they will hold them indefinitely. If they end up holding the children indefinitely, then I'll be concerned. But I suspect they're just making empty threats to try to induce Mohammed to talk. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- There's nothing wrong with holding kids for questioning for, what, three years now, solely because their father happens to be a terrorist? I dunno about you, but that seems EXTREMELY wrong, to me. The sins of the father are not visited to the seventh generation in any modern legal system that I know of. Keeping people locked up in a cell is hurting them, especially if they are kids. Graft 16:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Time in USA
I have seen many references to him being educated in the US. Does anyone know when or where? Agrimace 23:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC) agrimace
- He was educated at least at Chowan University. Roland Deschain 05:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
