[quote]vroom wrote:
It was indeed, but I’ll be more impressed if people that cheerlead are able to read the material and incorporate it into their world view…[/quote]
Yeah - it would be nice if all the ABBers would try as hard as JTF to prove their argument rather than refuse to on the grounds that they are above petty facts.
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
I see a connection here…[/quote]
Fantastic. That photo means about as much to me as a photo of FDR and Stalin sitting together circa 1944.
Oh, and my favorite part of your source, bolded for your convenience:
This record is no argument for or against waging war against the Iraqi regime, but current U.S. officials are not eager to reconstruct the mostly secret relationship between the two countries…
Further, you haven’t addressed any of the questions I raised.
And, you still live in our burgeoning fascist state.
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Bin Laden comes home to roost
His CIA ties are only the beginning of a woeful story
MSNBC
[/quote]
Bin Laden himself has denied any support or involvment with the CIA
The CIA-Bin Laden Myth
By Richard Miniter
Fox News | September 24, 2003
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 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 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 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.? 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 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. This animates protests at home and makes it harder to win allies abroad.
When former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani 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.?
[quote]
Bin Laden himself received training and weapons from the CIA, and that agency’s military and financial assistance helped the Afghan rebels build a set of encampments around the city of Khost.[/quote]
It appears as though you may be incorrect JTF. Seriously how long is this urban legeng gonna lie around stinking up the place.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9998
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 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.?
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
Bin Laden comes home to roost
His CIA ties are only the beginning of a woeful story
MSNBC
Bin Laden himself has denied any support or involvment with the CIA
The CIA-Bin Laden Myth
By Richard Miniter
Fox News | September 24, 2003
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 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 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 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.? 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 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. This animates protests at home and makes it harder to win allies abroad.
When former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani 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.?
Bin Laden himself received training and weapons from the CIA, and that agency’s military and financial assistance helped the Afghan rebels build a set of encampments around the city of Khost.
It appears as though you may be incorrect JTF. Seriously how long is this urban legeng gonna lie around stinking up the place.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9998
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 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.?[/quote]
To ask the obvious question…we’re taking Osama Bin Laden at his word now? Cool, didn’t get the memo.
Oh, and the CIA denied it, too? Great! A spy organization would certainly never lie about anything.
OK, problem solved.
Flamer, maybe you missed this from the MSNBC article?
I suspect what faux news is doing is playing with language and suggesting that Bin Laden never SAW any aid from the US, which implies he didn’t get aid from the US. This might be misleading, though true, especially if the quote a bit further below is also true.
However, the trail of money appears to have been a bit more circuitous, perhaps just for such reasons? I mean, who wants to be directly tied to such events anyway.
– From the MSNBC Article
What the CIA bio conveniently fails to specify (in its unclassified form, at least) is that the MAK was nurtured by Pakistan’s state security services, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, the CIA’s primary conduit for conducting the covert war against Moscow?s occupation.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
To ask the obvious question…we’re taking Osama Bin Laden at his word now? Cool, didn’t get the memo.
Oh, and the CIA denied it, too? Great! A spy organization would certainly never lie about anything.
OK, problem solved.
[/quote]
I think what YOUR missing is the fact that it would be very advantagous for UBL to be able to throw that fact, if it were true, back into the teeth of the US. Sort of like a “hey fuckturds, thanks for the weapoms and training, now were gonna kill as many of you infidels as we can with them”.
I think the obvious question for you would be…What motivation would he have to lie?
From the article-
[i]In the course of researching my book on Bill Clinton and bin Laden, I interviewed [b]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.?[/b][/i]
As the article stated, they are now retired from the CIA and don’t really have a reason to lie about this particular event.
Oh wait a minute, I forgot. The Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice attack machine would have them swept away in the middle of night under the auspices of the patriot act to a secret prison overseas for immediate torture.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
harris447 wrote:
To ask the obvious question…we’re taking Osama Bin Laden at his word now? Cool, didn’t get the memo.
Oh, and the CIA denied it, too? Great! A spy organization would certainly never lie about anything.
OK, problem solved.
I think what YOUR missing is the fact that it would be very advantagous for UBL to be able to throw that fact, if it were true, back into the teeth of the US. Sort of like a “hey fuckturds, thanks for the weapoms and training, now were gonna kill as many of you infidels as we can with them”.
I think the obvious question for you would be…What motivation would he have to lie?
From the article-
[i]In the course of researching my book on Bill Clinton and bin Laden, I interviewed [b]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.?[/b][/i]
As the article stated, they are now retired from the CIA and don’t really have a reason to lie about this particular event.
Oh wait a minute, I forgot. The Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice attack machine would have them swept away in the middle of night under the auspices of the patriot act to a secret prison overseas for immediate torture.
[/quote]
Well, what YOU’RE (you are, let’s spell properly, huh?) missing is the fact that while Osama might want to “throw that fact in our face”…what do you think his followers would have to say about it? You know, the people who truly do believe all the “blow yourself up and get the virgins” bullshit?
Do you tink they’d be happy with their leader cozying up the Great Satan? It is in no way in his interests to say that he accepted money from the U.S.
Whatever you might say about the man, he’s not dumb.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
You’re half right. WMD’s were the sole reason given BEFORE the war. Since this fiasco started and no weapons were found, there’s been a shitload of reasons. None of which good enough to lose one 19-year-old American over.
[/quote]
Damnit harris, I wish you wouldn’t lie, it certainly doesn’t help the debate.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
harris447 wrote:
You’re half right. WMD’s were the sole reason given BEFORE the war. Since this fiasco started and no weapons were found, there’s been a shitload of reasons. None of which good enough to lose one 19-year-old American over.
Damnit harris, I wish you wouldn’t lie, it certainly doesn’t help the debate.
http://www.kxtv.com/news-special/war/bush-un-address.htm
[/quote]
Well, seeing how three of the five things Bushie mentioned were utter lies (WMDs, POWs, and Saddamm suporting Islamic terrorists), I’m not going to lose any sleep.
So…we went to war because of the Oil-for-Food scandal?
Or–and this is just so cynical,I can’t believe I’m saying it, but–maybe the administration KNEW there were no WMDs, so they just threw in some bullshit about how the United States won’t stand for genocide. Which, as wehave shown time and again, we will.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
harris447 wrote:
You’re half right. WMD’s were the sole reason given BEFORE the war. Since this fiasco started and no weapons were found, there’s been a shitload of reasons. None of which good enough to lose one 19-year-old American over.
Damnit harris, I wish you wouldn’t lie, it certainly doesn’t help the debate.
http://www.kxtv.com/news-special/war/bush-un-address.htm
[/quote]
And, here’s the thing you forgot to mention. (I won’t go so far as to call you a liar, but…)
After this speech was given, Saddam let the UN inspectors back in.
Whereupon, they found…let’s all say it together, kids:
NOTHING
Yes, the public was very upset about the fact that Iraq was mistreating it’s own citizens. I remember daily demonstrations demanding war. The public was also very upset that Iraq wasn’t a democracy dammit. I remember demonstrations demanding war there too.
In fact, I see demonstrations daily, demanding war, over North Korea. Yes, everyone is clamoring for war… and the damned pussy administration just is too chicken to go for it.
Dammit, everyone is clamoring for war in Iran too. Howabout Saudi Arabia, I’ve heard repeated demands and demonstrations concerning going to war there.
There must be a few other places that treat people poorly or have a non-democratic government that we really freaking need to attack immediately.
Yes, yes, of course, Cuba, the godforsaken communist haven! The population is incredibly incensed that a just and holy cleansing hasn’t taken place there yet. What the hell is the administration thinking, with all this public desire for war, sitting around on it’s hands.
What a crock.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Flamer, maybe you missed this from the MSNBC article?
I suspect what faux news is doing is playing with language and suggesting that Bin Laden never SAW any aid from the US, which implies he didn’t get aid from the US. This might be misleading, though true, especially if the quote a bit further below is also true.
However, the trail of money appears to have been a bit more circuitous, perhaps just for such reasons? I mean, who wants to be directly tied to such events anyway.
– From the MSNBC Article
What the CIA bio conveniently fails to specify (in its unclassified form, at least) is that the MAK was nurtured by Pakistan’s state security services, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, the CIA’s primary conduit for conducting the covert war against Moscow?s occupation. [/quote]
Vroom- I agree that anyone talking politics can have a tendency to play on words. However, I thought this section of the article was pretty interesting.
[i]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.? 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.[/i]
It would appear that The US funded the Afgan natives and that UBL was involved with the arab “insurgents” that were operating there at the time. This would make sense considering the HUGE anti-American sentiment of UBL at the time.
Okay, so who did Pakistan funnel the money to on behalf of the CIA, so that the CIA could keep it’s hands clean?
That question, if true, still gets around all the concerns raised by the article you are discussing.
Seriously, it’s still very possible he received aid, or training, or whatever, at the financing of the USA, without it coming DIRECTLY from the CIA.
Anyway, find an article that isn’t both playing word games and coming from faux news and I’ll be more likely to believe it.
I don’t think we, the public, are ever supposed to really know the truth… which is too bad.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
And, here’s the thing you forgot to mention. (I won’t go so far as to call you a liar, but…)
After this speech was given, Saddam let the UN inspectors back in.
Whereupon, they found…let’s all say it together, kids:
NOTHING[/quote]
Harris- I have a question for you. What was the time frame between the speech and the inspectors returning? How long do you think it would take to move weapons and evidence into Syria? Especially if Saddam or one of his son’s were cracking the whip? I would bet not long.
So they kick all of the inspectors out, precious unsupervised time goes by, the US gets loud, and poor old misunderstood Saddam graciously lets them all back in. All because he saw the error in his way’s.
Sure.
Saddam agents on Syria border helped move banned materials
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Saddam Hussein periodically removed guards on the Syrian border and replaced them with his own intelligence agents who supervised the movement of banned materials between the two countries, U.S. investigators have discovered.
The recent discovery by the Bush administration’s Iraq Survey Group (ISG) is fueling speculation, but is not proof, that the Iraqi dictator moved prohibited weapons of mass destruction (WMD) into Syria before the March 2003 invasion by a U.S.-led coalition.
Two defense sources told The Washington Times that the ISG has interviewed Iraqis who told of Saddam's system of dispatching his trusted Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) to the border, where they would send border inspectors away.
The shift was followed by the movement of trucks in and out of Syria suspected of carrying materials banned by U.N. sanctions. Once the shipments were made, the agents would leave and the regular border guards would resume their posts.
"If you leave it to border guards, then the border guards could stop the trucks and extract their 10 percent, just like the mob would do," said a Pentagon official who asked not to be named. "Saddam's family was controlling the black market, and it was a good opportunity for them to make money."
Sources said Saddam and his family grew rich from this black market and personally dispatched his dreaded intelligence service to the border to make sure the shipments got through.
The ISG is a 1,400-member team organized by the Pentagon and CIA to hunt for Saddam's suspected stockpiles of WMD, such as chemical and biological agents. So far, the search has failed to find such stockpiles, which were the main reason for President Bush ordering the invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam.
But there is evidence of unusually heavy truck traffic into Syria in the days before the attack, and with it, speculation that some of the trucks contained the banned weapons.
"Of course, it's always suspicious," the Pentagon official said.
The source said the ISG has confirmed the practice of IIS agents going to the border. Investigators also have heard from Iraqi sources that this maneuver was done days before the war at a time of brisk cross-border movements.
That particular part of the disclosures has not been positively confirmed, the officials said, although it dovetails with Saddam's system of switching guards at a time when contraband was shipped.
The United States spotted the heavy truck traffic via satellite imagery before the war. But spy cameras cannot look through truck canopies, and the ISG has not been able to determine whether any weapons were sent to Syria for hiding.
In an interview in October, retired Lt. Gen. James R. Clapper Jr., who heads the U.S. agency that processes and analyzes satellite imagery, said he thinks that Saddam's underlings hid banned weapons of mass destruction before the war.
"I think personally that those below the senior leadership saw what was coming, and I think they went to some extraordinary lengths to dispose of the evidence," said Gen. Clapper, who heads the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency. "I'll call it an 'educated hunch.' "
He added, “I think probably in the few months running up prior to the onset of combat that I think there was probably an intensive effort to disperse into private homes, move documentation and materials out of the country. I think there are any number of things that they would have done.”
Of activity on the Syrian border, Gen. Clapper said, "There is no question that there was a lot of traffic, increase in traffic up to the immediate onset of combat and certainly during Iraqi Freedom. ... The obvious conclusion one draws is the sudden upturn, uptick in traffic which may have been people leaving the scene, fleeing Iraq and unquestionably, I'm sure, material as well."
He also said, "Based on what we saw prior to the onset of hostilities, we certainly felt there were indications of WMD activity. ... Actually knowing what is going on inside a building is quite a different thing than, say, this facility may well be a place where there may be WMD."
The Iraq Survey Group, which periodically briefs senior officials and Congress, is due to deliver its next report in September. In addition to interviewing hundreds of Iraqis, the ISG has collected and cataloged millions of pages of documents, not all of which have been fully examined.
Although Syria and Iraq competed for influence in the region, they shared the same Ba'athist socialist ideology and maintained close ties at certain government levels. The United States accused Syria during the war of harboring some of Saddam's inner circle.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Anyway, find an article that isn’t both playing word games and coming from faux news and I’ll be more likely to believe it.[/quote]
How about this?
[b][i]Bin Laden has never had any relation with America or American officials. Claims of relation with CIA or other American departments are all unfounded. Since the late seventies he had strong anti-American feeling. He committed himself and family and advised all friends to avoid buying American goods unless it was necessary.
He was saying very early in the eighties that the next battle is going to be with America. … No aid or training or other support have ever been given to bin Laden from Americans. Bin Laden would bring money from individuals donating straight to him. The weapons he had were either captured from the Soviets or bought from other factions.
Again there were no official relations with officials in Pakistani government. However, he had paramount respect by many Pakistanis including people in the army, intelligence and religious establishment. They were so penetrating that they would always leak any plan against him by the Pakistani-Saudi-American alliance. [/b][/i]
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
vroom wrote:
Anyway, find an article that isn’t both playing word games and coming from faux news and I’ll be more likely to believe it.
How about this?
[b][i]Bin Laden has never had any relation with America or American officials. Claims of relation with CIA or other American departments are all unfounded. Since the late seventies he had strong anti-American feeling. He committed himself and family and advised all friends to avoid buying American goods unless it was necessary.
He was saying very early in the eighties that the next battle is going to be with America. … No aid or training or other support have ever been given to bin Laden from Americans. Bin Laden would bring money from individuals donating straight to him. The weapons he had were either captured from the Soviets or bought from other factions.
Again there were no official relations with officials in Pakistani government. However, he had paramount respect by many Pakistanis including people in the army, intelligence and religious establishment. They were so penetrating that they would always leak any plan against him by the Pakistani-Saudi-American alliance. [/b][/i][/quote]
So, this statement:
Is false? We are talking about covert ops, correct? I am truly only asking this to discern how some of you think, but you are denying that the US has any covert ops and that no funding went into war against Russian occupation? Are you truly looking for receipts that read “From CIA to OBL with love”?
On what bigflamer wrote:
There’s not one shred of evidence in this article, either. How many times does the word “speculation” occur?
I think this would be the most important paragraph:
The ISG is a 1,400-member team organized by the Pentagon and CIA to hunt for Saddam’s suspected stockpiles of WMD, such as chemical and biological agents. So far, the search has failed to find such stockpiles, which were the main reason for President Bush ordering the invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
Well, what YOU’RE (you are, let’s spell properly, huh?)[/quote]
YOU’RE right, I missed an apotraphe and an E.
YOU’RE so smart
However, YOU’RE argument becomes slightly dumbed down and presenrs itself as petty when you post stuff like this.
YOU’RE probably guilty of misspells and ommisions as well.
[quote]missing is the fact that while Osama might want to “throw that fact in our face”…what do you think his followers would have to say about it? You know, the people who truly do believe all the “blow yourself up and get the virgins” bullshit?
Do you tink they’d be happy with their leader cozying up the Great Satan? It is in no way in his interests to say that he accepted money from the U.S.[/quote]
Okay, I’m gonna (harris I realize that this is slang for “going to”)go out on a limb here. But if UBL can sell someone on blowing themselves up, I would wager that the idea of it being advantageous for them to engage the US in guerilla warfare tactics would be entirely possible for them to swallow.
Maybe?..Ya think possibly?
Anyways, this doesn’t apear to be the case at all.
[b]Since the late seventies he had strong anti-American feeling. He committed himself and family and advised all friends to avoid buying American goods unless it was necessary. He was saying very early in the eighties that the next battle is going to be with America. … No aid or training or other support have ever been given to bin Laden from Americans. Bin Laden would bring money from individuals donating straight to him. The weapons he had were either captured from the Soviets or bought from other factions." [/b]
I highly doubt that he is dumb either. More likely he is quite intelligent.
It’s a lot more convincing.
What I’d want to read to be more sure is to get a timeline with respect to various investigations.
Obviously, some support this conclusion and some don’t. Seriously, when it doesn’t come from Faux, it is much more worthy of discussion.
I’m going to guess that reports based on insider leaks or confidential CIA documents would get closer to the real heart of the matter.
If those were available, and the one quote from above implies that it is out there, then we’d have a chance to get a good picture.
The US/CIA put some money and support into Afghanistan through some means, so who it went to and how it got there is an open question it seems.
Does all that sound fair?
On what bigflamer wrote:
You didn’t make a point here.