Baldimo
 
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 12:50 pm
Two years after the Sept. 11 attacks, no memorial service, cable-news talkfest or university seminar seemed to have been complete without someone emerging from the woodwork to wonder darkly why the CIA ever financed Usama bin Laden "in the first place."

Everyone from Washington Post reporters to Michael Moore (search) seems to buy some version of this.

It is time to lay to rest the nagging doubt held by many Americans that our government was somehow responsible for fostering bin Laden. It's not true and it leaves the false impression that we brought the Sept. 11 attacks down on ourselves. While it is impossible to prove a negative, all available evidence suggests that bin Laden (search) was never funded, trained or armed by the CIA.

Bin Laden himself has repeatedly denied that he received any American support. "Personally neither I nor my brothers saw any evidence of American help," bin Laden told British journalist Robert Fisk (search) in 1993. In 1996, Mr. Fisk interviewed bin Laden again. The arch-terrorist was equally adamant: "We were never, at any time, friends of the Americans. We knew that the Americans supported the Jews in Palestine and that they are our enemies."

In the course of researching my book on Bill Clinton and bin Laden, I interviewed Bill Peikney, who was CIA station chief in Islamabad from 1984 to 1986, and Milt Bearden, who was CIA station chief from 1986 to 1989. These two men oversaw the disbursement for all American funds to the anti-Soviet resistance. Both flatly denied that any CIA funds ever went to bin Laden. They felt so strongly about this point that they agreed to go on the record, an unusual move by normally reticent intelligence officers. Mr. Peikney added in an e-mail to me: "I don't even recall UBL [bin Laden] coming across my screen when I was there."

There are many reasons to believe them. They knew where the money went. Both men have retired from the CIA; they have no motive to mouth an agency line. And no compelling evidence has emerged that the CIA ever paid bin Laden: no cancelled checks, no invoices, no government reports.

Those who contend that bin Laden received U.S. funds usually make the following argument: America financed the Afghan rebels, bin Laden was among the rebels, therefore, in one way or another, America gave money to bin Laden.

This ignores a key fact: There were two entirely separate rebellions against the Soviets, united only by a common communist enemy. One was financed by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states and was composed of Islamic extremists who migrated from across the Muslim world. They called themselves "Arab Afghans (search)." Bin Laden was among them. When the Saudis agreed to match U.S. contributions dollar-for-dollar, the sheikhs insisted that their funds go exclusively to the "Arab Afghans," possibly including bin Laden. Meanwhile, U.S. funds went exclusively to the other rebellion, which was composed of native Afghans. Mr. Bearden told me: "I challenge anyone to give any proof that we gave one dollar to any Arab Afghans, let alone bin Laden."

Even if the CIA wanted to pay "Arab Afghans" -- which agency officials insist they did not -- bin Laden would be a far from obvious choice. Bin Laden himself rarely left the safety of Pakistan's northwestern cities and commanded few troops of his own. At the time, bin Laden was the Arab Afghan's quartermaster, providing food and other supplies.

If a CIA officer tried to give money to bin Laden, he probably would not have lived through the experience. The arch-terrorist was known for his violent anti-Americanism. Dana Rohrabacher, now a Republican congressman from California, told me about a trip he took with the mujahideen (search) in 1987. On that trek, his guide told him not to speak English for the next few hours because they were passing by bin Laden's camp. "If he hears an American, he will kill you."

Why is this myth of CIA support for bin Laden so persistent? Some find the myth persuasive because they do not know that America and Saudi Arabia funded two different sets of anti-Soviet fighters. Others on the anti-American left and right, in both Europe and America, find it oddly comforting. It gives solace to those who want to think the worst of us. The CIA-funding myth allows them to return to a familiar pattern, to blame America first. Whatever the cause, this myth weakens America's case for the war on terror by setting up a moral equivalency between America and Al Qaeda (search). This animates protests at home and makes it harder to win allies abroad.

When former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (search) learned that a Saudi prince had blamed U.S. policies for the Sept. 11 atrocity, he famously turned down the prince's $10 million donation. His words at the time could be applied to the myth of CIA support for bin Laden: "There is no moral equivalent for this attack," he said. "Not only are these statements wrong, they're part of the problem."

Mr. Miniter is the author of "Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror" (Regnery, Sept. 2003) and a senior fellow at the Centre for the New Europe in Brussels.


The myth of CIA and bin Laden
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lets continue this one here since the other thread was locked.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 854 • Replies: 14
No top replies

 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 12:57 pm
Why was the other thread locked?

The CIA didn't just walk up to Bin Laden and hand him cash. Did you even read the link I provided second?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html

Quote:
Pakistan's Intelligence Apparatus
Pakistan's ISI was used as a "go-between". The CIA covert support to the "jihad" operated indirectly through the Pakistani ISI, --i.e. the CIA did not channel its support directly to the Mujahideen. In other words, for these covert operations to be "successful", Washington was careful not to reveal the ultimate objective of the "jihad", which consisted in destroying the Soviet Union.

In the words of CIA's Milton Beardman "We didn't train Arabs". Yet according to Abdel Monam Saidali, of the Al-aram Center for Strategic Studies in Cairo, bin Laden and the "Afghan Arabs" had been imparted "with very sophisticated types of training that was allowed to them by the CIA" 6

CIA's Beardman confirmed, in this regard, that Osama bin Laden was not aware of the role he was playing on behalf of Washington. In the words of bin Laden (quoted by Beardman): "neither I, nor my brothers saw evidence of American help". 7

Motivated by nationalism and religious fervor, the Islamic warriors were unaware that they were fighting the Soviet Army on behalf of Uncle Sam. While there were contacts at the upper levels of the intelligence hierarchy, Islamic rebel leaders in theatre had no contacts with Washington or the CIA.

With CIA backing and the funneling of massive amounts of US military aid, the Pakistani ISI had developed into a "parallel structure wielding enormous power over all aspects of government". 8 The ISI had a staff composed of military and intelligence officers, bureaucrats, undercover agents and informers, estimated at 150,000. 9

Meanwhile, CIA operations had also reinforced the Pakistani military regime led by General Zia Ul Haq:

'Relations between the CIA and the ISI [Pakistan's military intelligence] had grown increasingly warm following [General] Zia's ouster of Bhutto and the advent of the military regime,'... During most of the Afghan war, Pakistan was more aggressively anti-Soviet than even the United States. Soon after the Soviet military invaded Afghanistan in 1980, Zia [ul Haq] sent his ISI chief to destabilize the Soviet Central Asian states. The CIA only agreed to this plan in October 1984.... `the CIA was more cautious than the Pakistanis.' Both Pakistan and the United States took the line of deception on Afghanistan with a public posture of negotiating a settlement while privately agreeing that military escalation was the best course.10


Your link is essentially correct that Bin Laden didn't leave Pakistan very much; but that has a lot to do with the fact that we were paying the Pakistanis to train him.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 12:58 pm
So it goes from the CIA training him to the Pakistanis training him. Which was it, he was either a dog for the US or he was a dog for them. He couln't have been both.
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 01:07 pm
Baldimo wrote:
So it goes from the CIA training him to the Pakistanis training him. Which was it, he was either a dog for the US or he was a dog for them. He couln't have been both.


Did you actually read what Cycloptichorn said? He said that "we were paying the Pakistanis to train him." Unless he isn't an American, I pretty much assume he's saying the US indirectly trained Osama by funding those that trained him.

Maybe this all is a state of confusion, but we must agree that the cause of all of this is US Troops in Saudi Arabia (which was the initial reason as to why Osama set up Al Qaeda), which was a result of the Gulf War (Saddam invading Kuwait) and undeniably Saddam was trained by the CIA.

Either way you slice it, it all boils down to blowback and the CIA is one of the major causes of this terrorist nightmare.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 01:15 pm
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
So it goes from the CIA training him to the Pakistanis training him. Which was it, he was either a dog for the US or he was a dog for them. He couln't have been both.


Did you actually read what Cycloptichorn said? He said that "we were paying the Pakistanis to train him." Unless he isn't an American, I pretty much assume he's saying the US indirectly trained Osama by funding those that trained him.

Maybe this all is a state of confusion, but we must agree that the cause of all of this is US Troops in Saudi Arabia (which was the initial reason as to why Osama set up Al Qaeda), which was a result of the Gulf War (Saddam invading Kuwait) and undeniably Saddam was trained by the CIA.

Either way you slice it, it all boils down to blowback and the CIA is one of the major causes of this terrorist nightmare.


You're getting your order of events all wrong.

bin Laden set up Al Queda before the first Gulf war. He set it up in 1988 and the Gulf War wasn't until the early 90's. We didn't have troops in Saudi Arabia until the first Gulf War, so he didn't create Al Queda because of troop presence in the ME.

We didn't train Saddam either. We didn't even help him get in to power; he did that all on his own. We did have a low level of support for Saddam in the 60's, but that faded long before he was in power. If we did train and support Saddam when he went into power, then how come Regan sent Rumsfield to Iraq in the 80's to start diplomatic relations? If we were helping him then there wouldn't have been any reason to do so.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 01:20 pm
Al-Qaeda timeline
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 01:32 pm
Wikipedia article

Extremely good!

One excerpt:

Quote:
Overview
Although "al-Qaeda" is the name of the organization used in popular culture, the organization does not use the name to formally refer to itself. The name "al-Qaeda" was coined by the American Federal Government based on the name of a computer file of bin Laden's that listed the names of contacts he had made in Afghanistan, which talks about the organization as the al-Qaeda-al-Jihad ("the base of the jihad").


Practically every other word in the article is a link. Quite comprehensive.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 01:39 pm
1989
Osama bin Laden founds an international group known as al-Qaeda, which in Arabic means "the base." It is formed primarily of mujahedeen, meaning holy warriors, and others fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 02:39 pm
How many threads are going to be locked today?

Sheesh!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 03:21 pm
Hussein Played a Major Part in the Terror Attacks of 9-11 (lie)

Saddam was a Major Threat to the U.S.A. (lie)

Iraq had an Active, Robust WMD Program (lie)

Republicans had Nothing to do With the Oil-for-Food Scandal, Which is Reason Enough to Remove Hussein (lie)

And the lies continue, thanx to Baldimo's post and his innate inability to not check the facts.

Revionist history continues unabated here on Able2know, thanx to Baldimo.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 03:22 pm
And does McGentrix really think that Rush Limbaugh came from Canada?
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 03:55 pm
b OBL's war was not triggered by the Palestine/Israeli conflict or the US support of Israel. The initial trigger was his fight with the Saudi Government , the support of that government by the US and stationing of American troops on the holy sand of Saudi Arabia.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 04:50 pm
au1929 wrote:
b OBL's war was not triggered by the Palestine/Israeli conflict or the US support of Israel. The initial trigger was his fight with the Saudi Government , the support of that government by the US and stationing of American troops on the holy sand of Saudi Arabia.


While that is true, it wasn't the founding reason for the creation of Al Queda.

Dookiestix wrote:
Hussein Played a Major Part in the Terror Attacks of 9-11 (lie)


This was never stated expect by left wing nuts like yourself and parts of the liberal media.

What was stated was that Saddam had ties to terrorism. (Fact)

Quote:
Saddam was a Major Threat to the U.S.A. (lie)


Saddam openly fired on US and British war planes in the enforced no fly zone. (Fact)

Quote:
Iraq had an Active, Robust WMD Program (lie)


Your first stated fact. We suspected but we didn't know. Lack of full cooperation made this difficult to know.

Quote:
Republicans had Nothing to do With the Oil-for-Food Scandal, Which is Reason Enough to Remove Hussein (lie)


Don't know what type of crap your on about here but I'm interested to know your facts on the issue.

Quote:
And the lies continue, thanx to Baldimo's post and his innate inability to not check the facts.


I think there are quite a bit of facts running around right now. Do you have any real information to add, or are you just going to be troublemaker?

Quote:
Revionist history continues unabated here on Able2know, thanx to Baldimo.


Please explain what is revisionist about the posts made. Could it be because they don't conform to your truth that it is revisionist?
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 05:12 pm
History of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda
http://www.culteducation.com/binladen.html
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 05:41 pm
Instead of arguing why not read the original by Bin Laden as it was written?
_____________________________________________________________

Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders
World Islamic Front Statement

23 February 1998

Shaykh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Ladin
Ayman al-Zawahiri, amir of the Jihad Group in Egypt
Abu-Yasir Rifa'i Ahmad Taha, Egyptian Islamic Group
Shaykh Mir Hamzah, secretary of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan
Fazlur Rahman, amir of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh


Praise be to Allah, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said: I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped, Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders.
[...............................................]
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

Maybe it reads better in the 1998 original Arabic, I wouldn't know, but we can't be in doubt about what Bin Laden said - the FAS is very reliable with translations.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » CIA bin Laden myth
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/15/2021 at 10:09:03