Talk:Khaled bin Ouda bin Mohammed al-Harbi

Disputed

DISPUTED LABLE REMOVED

I removed the "disputed" lable after a week as full citations had been added and there was no further argument about it on this page. Indianapatriot

DISPUTE SHOULD BE ENDED

The dispute claimed that there were no citations to back up Khaled al-Harbi's role in the funding of al-Quaeda. A direct quote from al-Harbi now in the article should settle that matter. Al-Harbi's statement, on video and in the presence of Bin Laden, that the video was being made by the arrangement of the "brothers" whose support for al-Quaeda is growing is more than sufficient support for al-Harbi's role.

There are now citations to support the obvious fact that the video was made while bombs were being dropped by the US on Afghnistan. See the article. The bombing started on Oct 7 2001 and the tape was made in mid November 2001, according to the US Military. A link to the official translation by the US Military of the video is now concluded. So is a link to when the war started.

Finally, the transcript shows that al-Harbi knew in advance when the 9/11 attacks were going to occur. Al-Harbi states in the video that al-Harbi, and others, were watching the news and began to wonder why they had not heard anything about the attack. Then the news of the attack came on the TV and they were overjoyed.

The transcript is at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2001/d20011213ubl.pdf#search='bin%20laden%20video%20translation'

I plan to remove the "dispute" tag in a few days. I am giving anyone else a chance to respond before I do that. Indianapatriot

Planning or praising?

The current version says that in a tape, bin Laden "appears to admit planning the 9/11 attacks". A previous version says that bin Laden "appears to praise the 9/11 attacks". So which is more accurate?

These sources say he praised them or discussed them, but do not say he admitted te planning them: Reuters, MSNBC, Outside the Beltway, CNN, and Investors Business Daily. I couldn't find any sources that claimed the videotape showed bin Laden "planning" the attacks. On that basis, I'm changing that statement back. If you think "planning" is more accurate, provide a source, and let's talk.

(In an unrelated change, the current version says the Saudi amnesty plan was for those who committed terrorism on Saudi soil. That's incorrect; it's only for those who have not committed terrorism on Saudi soil. I'm reverting that bit as well.) Quadell (talk) 13:48, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

First the amnesty bit - according to CNN]: "The offer was made June 23 and applied specifically to suspects in attacks inside Saudi Arabia, an official said, not to those wanted for attacks in other countries." and the only others to surrender were in fact two men wanted for attacks inside Saudi Arabia, one of the on the "26 top terrorists list".

Do you have a contradicting source?

As for the tape - a few quotes from the translation available here: "we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all...We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day. We had finished our work that day and had the radio on... He did not know about the operation. Not everybody knew (...inaudible...). Muhammad ((Atta)) from the Egyptian family (meaning the Al Qa’ida Egyptian group), was in charge of the group...The brothers, who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and we asked each of them to go to America but they didn’t know anything about the operation, not even one letter. But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes."

I find these statements hard to catergorize as "praise". I think "appears to admit planning" is a quite adequate. Rmhermen 16:48, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

Regarding amnesty, uh, gee, you're right. I must have been smoking crack. About planning versus praising, that's just weird. In the text of the translation, he clearly said he knew about it beforehand, and he wanted as many killed as possible. (One could quibble that that's foreknowlege and glee, not planning, but I don't think that's a meaningful distinction here.) On the other hand, nearly every news source chose to characterize the remark as praising -- I have no idea why. Anyway, I'm reverting my changes to Rmhermen's last version. Quadell (talk) 17:12, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

Photo

What is the source on this photo? It isn't the Osama video as your new caption claims. Isn't it an Arab network video after his surrender? Why else the news microphones. I don't read Arabic so I can't tell what the microphone says. Rmhermen 22:02, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Ack! To my chagrin, it appears I was confused. The image in the article is from a news article, but I don't remember where. I thought it was a still from the al-Qaida video, but I was wrong; it's from when he accepted amnesty from the Saudi government. There are real stills from the video here and here, but they are of poor quality, and stills that also include bin Laden here and here. So which photo do you think we should use? Quadell (talk) 23:47, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

There is no reason we can't have two pictures - one clear one from his surrender and a blurry one showing him with bin Laden. Rmhermen 02:07, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

\= {dispute} tag ==

THE ARTICLE IS CORRECT. THE DISPUTE TAG SHOULD BE REMOVED. READ THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE VIDEO.

The article is correct. Khaled Al-Harbi is a very important financial facilitator of Al Quaeda.

The official translation of the video tape is at: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2001/d20011213ubl.pdf

The U.S. Military translation begins with the explaination:

"In Mid-November, Usama Bin Laden spoke to a room of supporters, possibly in Qandahar, Afghanistan."

Obviously the video was made in mid-November 2001, as the 9/11 attack referred to in the video occured in September 2001. The US military translation of the video is dated December 13, 2001.

The bombing of Afghanistan started on October 2, 2001, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1556588.stm

Therefore, the United States was bombing Afghanistan when the tape was made in mid-November, 2001.

Bin Laden was meeting with someone very important to him and to Al Quaeda, as the meeting was very dangerous to Bin Laden.

Moreover, during the video, Khaled Al Harbi (Identified as "Shaykh" in the transcript) says to Bin Laden:

"We don't want to take much of your time, but this is the arrangment of the brothers. People now are supporting us more, even those ones who did not support us in the past, support us more now."

The brothers finance Bin Laden, so they can arrange a video tape production staring Bin Laden.

Khaled al-Harbi even admits during the video that he knew about 9/11 in advance. He says that he was listening to the news and began to wonder why he had not heard anything. Then the news of the 9/11 attach came and he was overjoyed.

It should be obvious to everyone that Khaled Al Harbi is a primary "Financial Facilitator" of OBL. Khaled Al Harbi even knew about 9/11 in advance! An "old war buddy" would not know when 9/11 was going to occur.

The 9/11 commission report, in the Chapter "A money Trail?" points out that "Financial Facilitators" raised the funds (millions) necessary for Al Queada to operate from min-eastern sources, primarily in Saudi Arabia.

The comments by Swan set forth below are baseless. The above citations show that the US bombs were falling on Afghanistan when the video was made. Swan has no evidence to the contrary.

Kahled al-Harbi did state on the video that the making of the video was arranged by those who funded Bin Laden. Khaled al-Harbi is obviously the agent of those funding Bin Laden. Khaled al-Harbi stated on the video and in the presence of Bin Laden that Khaled al-Harbi knew when 9/11 was to occur.

Swan may not know that Kahled al-Harbi is not just another war buddy of Bin Laden, but everyone who reads the entire transcript of the video will know just who Khaled al-Harbi is.

The original Saudi plan for their amnesty program is irrelevant. The fact is that Khaled Al Harbi received a complete pardon from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

                              Indianapatriot 01:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)              Indiana Patriot

The article reads:

"The fact that bin Laden would take the time to meet with Khaled al-Harbi while the bombing of Afghanistan by the United States had commenced, clearly establishes that Khaled al-Harbi was a major conduit for al Qaida's financing. Moreover, Khaled al-Harbi knew that the 9/11 attacks were going to occur."

Do we know when the tape was made?

[We do. It was mid-November 2001. The US Military official translation and transcript of the video begins with an explaination "In mid-November, Usama Bin Laden spoke to a room of supporters, possibly in Qandahar, Afghanistan. These comments were video taped with the knowledge of Bin Laden and all present." The US military translation was made on December 31 2001 and is so dated Indianapatriot]

After 9-11, obviously.[ Mid-November 2001, see the citation just above ] But do we know it is after US bombing commenced? [Yes Indianapatriot] When did US bombinb commence?

[The US bombing started on October 7,2001 see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1556588.stm . Therefore the bombing had started on October 7, 2001 and was going on in mid-November 2001 when the video was made Indianapatriot]

Who concluded that making time for Al-Harbi "clearly establishes" Al-Harbi was a major conduit for al Qaeda financing? Was it the Wall Street Journal? The Washington Times? The O'Reilly Factor? Cite the source. If there is no source the passage should be struck.

[ The source consists of the words of Khaled al-Harbi spoken in the video and in the presence of Osama Bin Laden. Khaled al-Harbi told Osama Bin Laden:

"We don't want to take much of your time, but this is the arrangement of the brothers. People now are supporting us more, even those ones who did not support us in the past, support us more now." Indianapatriot]

"No matter what the terms of the amnesty were, on 2004 November 12, Khaled al-Harbi was released, as on that day the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia announced that all who had surrendered under the "amnesty" had been released. Having helped finance the killing of nearly 3000 Americans, he got away with it."

This is editorializing, unless a source can be cited...

[ The source is the transcript of the video, specifically cited and quoted above. Indianapatriot]

Does anyone know that OBL didn't schedule time for Al-Harbi just because he was an old war-buddy?

[ The brothers who support Al-Quaeda arranged the making of the video, see the above statement by Khaled Al-Harbi to Bin Laden that "this is the arrangement of the brothers". In the video Khaled Al-Harbi stated in the presence of Osama Bin Laden that Khaled Al-Harbi knew of the 9/11 attacks in advance. When Al-Harbi goes to Afghanistan after 9/11 by the arrangment of the brothers who support Bin Laden and al-Harbi admits in the video that al-Harbi knew about 9/11 in advance, al-Harbi is a lot more than an 'old war buddy' Indianapatriot]

There should be links to translations of the tape. -- Geo Swan 16:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC) [The link is http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2001/d20011213ubl.pdf#search='bin%20laden%20video%20translation' It was easy to find Indianapatriot]

NPOV [NOT]

This article states opinions, without citing a credible, authoritative, verifiable, external source. If they are the opinions of a wikipedia contributor -- well that would be a violation of the WP:NPOV policy. If someone can find external sources that voice those opinions, those sources should be specifically cited. -- Geo Swan 14:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[RESPONSE] The credible, authoritative, verifiable, external sources are the 9/11 ommission report and the long fund-raising video featuring Khaled Al-Harbi and Osama Bin Laden. INDIANAPATROIT Indianapatriot 18:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then cite them. Given that the translation is a .pdf, you could quote a key passages, or have your citation tell the reader which page number of the .pdf they should go to to see the passages that back up the assertion. -- Geo Swan 02:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Is or is not a son-in-law of Al-Zawahiri?

"Some reports" assert this? Citation please.

[RESPONSE] such was probably not true as I could find no source for the information as to the marriage. There were reports in various media at the time without any sources given. His relationship, or non relationship to Al-Zawahiri is not very material and I did not delete what someone else had written as I had no real information on the marriage question. INDIANAPATRIOT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indianapatriot (talk • contribs)

Obvious fund raising tool?

If a credible, authoritative, verifiable, external source can't be cited, making this assertion, it should be struck. With no source it is not a neutral statement. It is editorializing.

[RESPONSE] The person raising that question did not bother to read the U.S. Military translation of the video starring Khaled Al-Harbi and Bin-Laden. If you have ever done any fund-raising, or been the target of any fund-raising, you can tell that the video was made to show to contributors.

Not to mention Khalid al-Harbi's opening statement on the transcript:

"We don't want to take much of your time, but this is the arrangement of the brothers. People now are supporting us more, even those ones who did not support us in the past, support us more now."

The 9/11 Commission Report, at the chapter titled "A money trail?", states that Al Quaeda was financed by "financial facilitators" , who raised money in mid-eastern nations, primarily Saudi Arabia. INDIANAPATRIOT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indianapatriot (talk • contribs) 18:41, 2006 June 21

Did the 9/11 Commission Report specifically name Al-Harbi as one of those financial facilitators? Did some credible commentator say, "Al-Harbi must have been one of the 911 Commission's 'financial facilitators'!" -- if so, fine, quote it. But if you added it because it is obvious to you -- then it is a violation of the no original research policy. It shouldn't matter whether any of us privately agree with your conclusions. I shouldn't matter whether all the contributors to this article privately agree with your conclusions. Conclusions like that have to be backed up with credible, authoritative sources. You have drawn conclusions, and defended them by claiming they are "obvious". If you can find credible, authoritative sources that draw those conclusions, by all means cite them, quote them. But if the only source is your own private judgement, then those conclusions have to be stricken from the article. -- Geo Swan 04:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I am going to repeat my request that you follow the convention and indent your replies, and use the conventionally accepted signature and time-stamp feature. -- Geo Swan 04:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Knew the attacks were going to occur?

Specific quotation is required here.

[RESPONSE] The transcript, which the person raising the questions did not read, contains the following statements by Bin Ladin (UBL) and by Khaled al-Harbi(Shaykh).

"UBL: After a little while, they announced that another plane had hit the World Trade Center. The brothers who heard the news were overjoyed by it.

Shaykh: I listened to the news and I was sitting. We didn't..we were not thinking about anything and all of a sudden, Allah willing, we were talking about how come we didn't have anything, and all of a sudden the news came and everyone was overjoyed and we stayed until four o'clock, listening to the news every time a little bit different, everyone was very joyous and saying 'Allah is great, 'Allah is great,' *****[rest of celebration omitted]"

Khaled Al-Harbi had to know when the attacks were going to occur to wonder "how come" he had not heard any news of the attacks. INDIANAPATRIOT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indianapatriot (talk • contribs) 19:01, 2006 June 21

This does not prove that al Harbi, and his companions,

• knew that terrorists were going to attack the World Trade Center, and important Washington landmarks, using hijacked planes, on September 11th, 2001.
• knew that terrorists were going to attack the World Trade Center, and important Washington landmarks, using hijacked planes.
• knew that terrorists were going to attack the World Trade Center, and important Washington landmarks.
• knew that terrorists were going to attack the USA using hijacked planes.

What it suggests is that they expected that some kind of hostile activity, maybe more embassy bombings, maybe another suicide attack on another USN vessel, or an overseas Marine barracks.

The references supplied are not sufficient to back up the assertion that al-Harbi had preknowledge of the attacks. In Indiana Patriots opinion it is obvious al-Harbi knew. In my opinion spreading knowledge beyond those who have a "need to know" would have been a foolhardy and unlikely breach of operational security.

If no furhter substantion is offered I plan to delete the claim that al-Harbi had specific foreknowledge of the 911 attacks.

Cheers~ -- Geo Swan 20:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly established?

The article currently reads:

"The fact that bin Laden would take the time to meet with Khaled al-Harbi while the bombing of Afghanistan by the United States had commenced, clearly establishes that Khaled al-Harbi was very important to Al-Quaeda."

So -- clearly established to whom? If this was merely "clearly established" to the wikipedia contributor it should be removed or rewritten. If a credible, authoritative, verifiable, external source stated that it was "clearly established" then this source should be cited.

[REPONSE] The entire transcript of the video, which explains the difficulty and danger Bin-Ladin and Khaled Al-Harbi went through to meet at that time is a credible authoritative external source etc etc. INDIANAPATRIOT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indianapatriot (talk • contribs) 19:03, 2006 June 21

This is an INTERPRETATION. If a verifiable, authoritative source has also reached this conclusion, cite it. Otherwise it is original research, and editorializing, and must go. -- Geo Swan 21:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Author assumes...

The author assumes that the support Al Harbi was talking about was financial support. But has not cited any external sources to back up that interpretation.

[RESPONSE]See the 9/11 Commission report quoted above. It is not moral support as Bin Ladin immediatly asks about moral support from the Mosques. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indianapatriot (talk • contribs) 19:09, 2006 June 21

The difficulty that Bin Laden and Al-Harbi went to get together and make the video while the US was moving forward in Afghan. would only be done if there was a lot of financial support at stake. Indianapatriot 18:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

As above, without citing or quoting an authoritative, verifiable source, this looks like editorializing and original research. -- Geo Swan 21:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"Got away with it"?

The article currently reads:

"Having helped finance the killing of nearly 3000 Americans, he got away with it."

This sounds like editorializing to me. Proof that he was a financier has not been established by this article. And "he got away with it" is sounds like an unencyclopedic personal interpretation. -- Geo Swan 17:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[RESPONSE] Anyone who reads the entire transcript, sponsored by the U.S. Military and prepared by several eminent scholors, will have no doubt that the above is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indianapatriot (talk • contribs) 19:13, 2006 June 21

As the article demonstrates, with citation at the end to statements of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Khaled al-Harbi got a full pardon from the Kingdom. Living in a mansion in Saudia Arabia after helping Bin-Ladin kill nearly 3000 Americans and celebrating with Bin Laden in a video tape is "Getting away with it".

Al-Harbi admitting he knew of the 9/11 attack and getting a full pardon by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is "getting away with it."
 Indianapatriot 18:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: The convention is that followup comments should be indented one indent from the comments they are a followup to. This is done by prefixing them with a colon. Interspersing your comments in the middle of someone else's comments is confusing, and is generally frowned upon. Comments should be signed by appending four tildes ~~~~. -- Geo Swan 17:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[Response] It is best to respond to each of your incorrect claims individually. INDIANAPATRIOT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indianapatriot (talk • contribs) 19:13, 2006 June 21

FINAL RESPONSE

The above comments by Swan consists of demanding a quote for everything. Prior to Swan, another Saudi supporter demanded quotes. When a quote is furnished, more quotes are demanded, in the hope that the result will be so long it is impossible to read.

Make your own decision!! Read the entire U.S. Military transcript cited in the article at the URL set forth in the article and above. The transcript, made by terrorists overjoyed at killing nearly 3000 Americans, blabs it all out.

Indianapatriot 18:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You haven't provided ANY credible sources who reach the conclusion that al-Harbi played any role in the attacks on 9-11.

Please bear in mind WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Requesting sources, so the article is credible does not make me a terrorist supporter, or even a "Saudi supporter", whatever that is. America is safer, my country, Canada is safer, the whole developed world is safer, if conclusions and interpretations about how to allocate counter-terrorism resources are based on sober, professional analysis, that is not influenced by emotions. I'd like wikipedia readers to be able to count on articles that are based on credible sources in reaching their own conclusion. This absolutely does not make me a "terrorist supporter". — Geo Swan 21:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith

Indianapatriot, please Assume Good Faith. I've been civil to you. Is there any reason why the rest of us shouldn't count on civility from you? -- Geo Swan 02:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

npov

This artilce contains a lot of editorializing. One or more contributors to this artilce has inserted personal opinions, interpretations and conclusions as if they were indisputable facts. -- Geo Swan 18:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV without merit.

The npov is without merit. There are citations to evidence in the article that support everything in the article. The comments by "Geo Swan" do not identify what he is talking about. He previously made specific claims which were shot down by inserting citations from the US military translation of the video tape starring al-Harbi and Bin Laden. Now he vaguely refers to alleged personal opinions etc.

You should know that Swan has been posting lists on Wikipedia and other internet sites of terrorists held in Gitmo. He claims he has listed the names of terrorists held in Gitmo whose names have been withheld by the U.S. Government so Al Queada will not know they have been captured. Click on his username to see it all.

Indianapatriot

npov merit

Indianapatriot, I want you to consider two suggestions.

1. Let's assume, for the moment, that the sources you cited proved, definitively, and without any doubt, that al Harbi was an al Qaeda financier, or a liaison to al Qaeda financiers. We have to consider whether your contributions expressed those "truths" in a convincing manner.
2. Are those sources you cite really definitive?

Wikipedia has a non-negotiable policy, the neutral point of view policy. There are ways to write about controversial topics in ways that conform to the neutral point of view policy. Your writing isn't conforming to that policy.

If you think a conclusion is obvious, you can't merely assert it as a fact. You have to find an authoritative, verifiable source that asserts that view. Then you cite it. You can quote, or paraphrase, a passage that states the conclusion you reached. But you can't just put your personal conclusions in the article as if they were proven, without proper citation. If the sources you cite really do back up your conclusions then you have failed to cite them in a way that makes that clear.

I have asked you to be civil. You keep referring to me as "Swan". That is rude. Stop it. Geo, Geo Swan, User:Geo Swan, Mr Swan are all acceptable. "Swan" is not.

This edit includes the clearly biased opinion: "Khaled al-Harbi will never be punished for his involvment in the 9/11 attacks. To this time, the "brothers" who "support" bin Ladin appear safe in Saudi Arabia." Involvement in 911 has not been proven. It is your speculation. You have not quoted a single source that reached that conclusion.

This edit is a violation of WP:NPOV.

I do not agree that you addressed the concerns I raised earlier.

You give the unfortunate appearance of concluding that everyone who disagrees with your opinion about the war on terror supports the terrorists. Is this appearance correct? Is this your actual conclusion? If so that is insulting and unfair. IMO we are safer if the decisions we make on how to use our limited counter-terrorism resources are based on the real facts, not emotional suppositions. If Al-Harbi is not an al Qaeda financier, if he had no role in 9-11 other than praising bin Laden afterwards, then he is not a real threat. We are safer if we only worry about the real threats.

Yes, I created an article to keep track of all the Guantanamo detainees I found who were not listed on the official list. Check the references and you will find that they are individuals who have been described elsewhere, or in four cases, in other documents issued by the OARDEC itself, as Guantanamo detainees, who were not on the May 15 2006 full official list. You call it a "claim". But each of those individuals can be verified by checking the references. I make no apology for creating that article.

The May 15th list was only of detainees who were in military custody. The two Taliban commanders, who were among the first detainees to be released, may have been held in CIA, not military custody. -- Geo Swan 14:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Indianapatriot

I can tell from your recent edits that you read my comments, and did your best to meet me half way. So, let me thank you for that. Having said that, I have some more comments. -- Geo Swan 14:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

not proper citations

Indianapatriot, in this edit you added:

Unidentified U.S. officials have allegedly claimed that, although al-Harbi is close to bin Laden, he is not a senior member of al-Qaeda or an operational planner. 'Such statements were on Fox Cable News, the day al-Harbi returned to Saudi Arabia.

You added:

Such statements were on Fox Cable News, the day al-Harbi returned to Saudi Arabia.

This is not a proper citation. -- Geo Swan 01:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This too is not a proper citation. No one can take this and look up your source to form their own opinion as to whether your are correctly paraphrasing it. -- Geo Swan 02:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

In this edit you write: "...Statement regarding extradition by Prince Naif Ibn Abdul Aziz to the Council of Ministers, July 2003..." Well, if Prince Naif Ibn Abdul Aziz said it, you can tell us how you know he said it. Did you read it in a newspaper? Then cite that newspaper. Did you read it on a Saudi government site? Then cite that site. Did you read it in a blog? Some people will criticize you for citing any blog. But I don't agree. Some blogs only have crazy irresponsible ranting. Others do real research. If you read it on that second kind of blog go ahead and cite it. If you read it on the first kind, then don't waste anyone's time repeating it. If you read it on a paper newspaper, or book, that is not online, cite the actual date of the newspaper, the page number and the headline, to show you are serious, and to let those who are really, really serious about reading your source go to the library, and get out the microfiche reader, to look it up for themselves. Similarly, If you read it in a book give the ISBN and page number. -- Geo Swan 02:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV means we can't state our opinions as fact

In this edit you state, as a fact, right in a heading, that al-Harbi is a financial facilitator. This may seem obvious, to you. But WP:NPOV proscribes you stating it as a fact. If you can find a verifiable, authoritative source that states that opinion, by all means cite that source, quote that source. But, as it stands, this edit shows bias.

Similarly, stating that al-Harbi is a financial facilitator, is an opinion, an interpretation. The policy allows us to quote authoritative sources that state opinions, or to paraphrase those opinions, with a link referencing them, for other editors to check. But we are not allowed to insert our opinions. I am not allowed to insert my opinions either. I try my best to avoid doing so. And when someone points out that I have lapsed, and allowed one to slip in I stand ready to fix my lapse ASAP.

That al-Harbi was a financier really does remain speculation, IMO.

You say you heard Fox say al-Harbi was a financier back when the tape surfaced in December 2001? Well, when al-Harbi surrendered they didn't say he was a financier. Take a look. Fox has several articles on their site about al-Harbi, but none of them state he was a financier. So:

1. Is it possible you heard fox commentators speculate that OBL's companion was a financier?
2. Is it possible that fox commentators did state he was a financier in 2001, but no longer stood by that conclusion in 2004?

If Fox doesn't call him a financier, when they had a chance, in 2004, then it hardly seems right to look to them as a source in 2006, no matter what they might have said in 2001. Agreed? -- Geo Swan 01:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

In this edit I think you are stating opinion as fact again.

"As the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will not extradite anyone involved in the 9/11 atatacks to the U.S., and as the Kingdon of Saudi Arabia pardoned Khaled al-Harbi, Khaled al-Harbi and the "brothers" who support al-Queada may never be brought to justice."

The second part of this paragraph is pure editorializing. It is entirely inappropriate for a wikipedia article. -- Geo Swan 02:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This article continues to state personal opinions as if they were facts...

This article continues to state personal opinions as if they were facts. I have already listed them. So I am re-adding the {npov} tag. -- Geo Swan 21:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

delete original research as per talk page

I deleted some original research and editorializing as explained above.

I also requested some citations.

Cheers! — Geo Swan 21:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Al harbi and bin laden.jpg

Image:Al harbi and bin laden.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Khaled bin Ouda bin Mohammed al-Harbi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061231020207/http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/16/ret.tape.identity/ to http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/16/ret.tape.identity/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)