Evidence of a black op?

Post #18,849 by Simon_Jester 11/19/01 5:07:35 PM Reply	Evidence of a black op? Note: both the US and bin Ladin claim that the US never trained bin Ladin. That said, the argument goes something like this: The US was attempting to train the afgans for their fight against the Russians. The afgans were not the most disciplined individuals in the world and training them proved difficult. The US turned to some Arab Muslims that came to the area to help the afgans (it was hoped they would be easier to train). However, evidence is all classified. There is no proof (that I know of) anywhere.
Post #18,896 by Another Scott 11/19/01 11:21:35 PM Reply	Evidence and logic. Hi, I'm not attacking your post - it's just a convenient place to make this point. :-) You're right that it's not unexpected that there isn't much evidence whether bin Laden was a CIA operative or not. But let's consider some logic. What would make more sense for a multi-millionaire with a family in the construction business to do to further his chosen cause? To personally spend weeks or more in the dirt on his belly learning about war-fighting techniques, or use his money and construction expertise to recruit others and build infrastructure? Recall that he has a large entourage around him. He has to keep his where-abouts secret. Does it make sense for such a valuable person (due to his money and business contacts, etc.) to be trained by the CIA to fight the Russians in Afghanistan? Would the Taliban rather have him propping up their regime with money or have him running around in bands of young men with Kalashnikovs? It doesn't make sense that the CIA would have trained bin Laden. These allegations about bin Laden and the CIA were common months and years before 9/11. They go back to the embassy bombings or earlier. There's a diversity of opinion in the House and Senate about the CIA. Recall the battles over Iran-Contra. If there was credible evidence (or even credible allegations) that bin Laden was a creature of the CIA, don't you think that someone in the Congress would have had hearings about it? I don't recall any such hearings. And surely if there were such hearings, then critics of the CIA would use such hearings as evidence. Why hasn't a gadfly reporter/journalist like Christopher Hitchens or Seymour Hersch or even web sites like [link\|http://www.spiescafe.com/spiescafe.htm\|Spies Cafe] done an investigation if they thought there was anything behind it? It doesn't make sense. But I guess that doesn't make it impossible.... Cheers, Scott.
Post #18,905 by dmarker2 11/20/01 12:24:02 AM Reply	Re: Evidence and logic - smoking gun evidence !!! Some months back I quoted the Amazon link to a book written by a British SAS operative who worked in Afghanistan training mujadhedeen. He claimed that the CIA later came in and began training some Afghans & Arabs, in urban terror tactics. I believe he goes into quite a bit of detail. But I bet no one will bother to read his book (grin). I half suspect that some of us just don't want to delve that deep cos we won't like what we find (V B Grin). Cheers Doug PS I for one believe that CIA went into a deep relationship with Mr Osama bin of Laden, he is very very well known to them - they had an arrangement with him that he would train Mujahedeen for use in Bosnia & CIA arranged for special ops forces to work with these groups by providing coordinating radio comms operators & coordinating their attacks against Serbs - but I supose you will want the link to the CIA file as proof (Another Grin). (Mr Boxley may be able to re-quote the title the book by the SAS guy, for me as I can't recall it just at the moment)
Post #18,985 by Ashton 11/20/01 2:18:31 PM Reply	'Frank & Ernest' (US comic strip) reprise. Again! Frank n'E. are scruffy lookin street people, old enough to be wise - but not enile. One of 'em is in a 'greasy spoon' Cafe (er: the name says it all). Usual pot-bellied cook in dirty T-shirt. He sees a sign, over the big soup pot, DO NOT STIR THE SOUP Asks, "er why not?" "Because you would not like what you would see, Sir.."
Post #18,930 by Simon_Jester 11/20/01 9:20:30 AM Reply	Heh..and the definition of "is" is... I'm not attacking your post - it's just a convenient place to make this point. no problem...and same back at ya. ;-) What would make more sense for a multi-millionaire with a family in the construction business to do to further his chosen cause? To personally spend weeks or more in the dirt on his belly learning about war-fighting techniques, or use his money and construction expertise to recruit others and build infrastructure? Recall that he has a large entourage around him. He has to keep his where-abouts secret. Does it make sense for such a valuable person (due to his money and business contacts, etc.) to be trained by the CIA to fight the Russians in Afghanistan? Would the Taliban rather have him propping up their regime with money or have him running around in bands of young men with Kalashnikovs? It doesn't make sense that the CIA would have trained bin Laden. Okay, let's try another scenerio... The CIA is attempting to help the Afghanistans fight the Communists. Congress may be balking at the amounts, and the CIA is getting the run around (told to do something, short on cash). Along comes an important Saudia who offers to spend $10 million (or more) to buy needed equipment. Saudia Arabia is an ally of ours (hell, we sell them some of our best equipment) and this is a respected individual of that country. Would the CIA arrange the sale? Would training to use the equipment be included in the sale? Of course, it may all depend on what the definition of "training" is. :-)

Welcome to IWETHEY!