Post #18,864
11/19/01 6:25:29 PM
|
More
[link|http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:_kA7b4Jp2qg:www.urbanspectrum.net/features/cost.of.bin.laden.html+%22bin+laden%22+training+cia+covert|http://www.google.c...g+cia+covert]&hl=en
" A parade of CIA officials, Pentagon advisors
and congresspersons secretly trooped to
Afghanistan to encourage the Islamic rebels.
Driven by the thrill of battle, religious fanaticism,
and U.S. military largesse, hundreds of would-be
recruits flocked to Afghanistan from the Arab
Gulf states. Osama bin Laden was one of them.
He and hundreds of other militants received
instruction in CIA-run camps in communications
and weapons training, the use of satellite
technology to track enemy air movements, and
methods to coordinate small guerrilla networks."
|
Post #18,866
11/19/01 6:28:19 PM
|
He says it, but presents no evidence for it....
|
Post #18,869
11/19/01 7:04:44 PM
|
At this point, you're going to concede the other statements?
Did someone miss our CIA operatives? - (Brandioch) - 2001-11-19 21:26:24
Evidence, please. - (Another Scott) - 2001-11-19 21:33:38
IIRC... - (inthane-chan) - 2001-11-19 21:47:50
Evidence of a black op? - (Simon_Jester) - 2001-11-19 22:07:35
Your government at work. - (Brandioch) - 2001-11-19 22:13:06
I don't find the evidence to be very good. - (Another Scott) - 2001-11-19 23:09:46
Thank you thank you thank you... - (bepatient) - 2001-11-19 23:20:09
You're quite welcome. :-) -NT - (Another Scott) - 2001-11-19 23:22:48
More - (Brandioch) - 2001-11-19 23:25:29
He says it, but presents no evidence for it.... -NT - (Another Scott) - 2001-11-19
Note, my original position was that the CIA had engaged in activities in foreign countries to destabilize those governments AND that they funded opposition in those countries.
Now, we've gone through 5 replies.
You haven't challenged those other statements of mine.
So, you admit that the CIA did do that.
Which effectively counters marlowe's position that we should be left alone by the terrorists.
We seem to have started it.
|
Post #18,875
11/19/01 7:32:04 PM
|
Keep me out of it. :-)
Don't you KNOW that WE TRAINED OSAMA?
Evidence, please. "The Boondocks" doesn't count. :-) I was asking for evidence that we trained Osama. I haven't seen any reasonable evidence that we have. I don't have time to present research, cites, evidence of other issues. I'm not defending nor attacking the CIA's actions in other countries, etc. I've simply asked for evidence that bin Laden is a US or CIA creature. My feeling is, based on what I've seen and read, that the Frontline show [link|http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/|Hunting bin Laden] is the best I've seen in presenting real evidence - evidence that he wasn't trained, etc., by the CIA. But I'm always interested in other sources of reasonable credibility. I'm not getting into your argument with marlowe. Please don't use my inquiry as evidence. :-) Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #18,898
11/19/01 11:27:59 PM
|
Proof? what I see inferred from this mass of circumstantial
information, is:
Unless and until Someone from the CIA comes forward and says: "Yes! I remember young Osama in my class.. A quick study." you and others are going to consider the idea moot or 'propaganda' of some sort.
Fine. but {sheesh}
Ashton
|
Post #18,899
11/19/01 11:34:29 PM
|
Does it make sense that the CIA would have trained him?
I don't think so.
More [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=18896|here] in my reply to Simon (above).
I'm not asking for proof, just some evidence that makes sense.
:-)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #18,902
11/19/01 11:48:33 PM
|
My take, then.
OK. Perhaps he never sat in a class led by an actual CIA operative. What is apparent is: those who did, made notes and disseminated them and taught others. Ad infinitum.
It is not likely, vanishing unlikely in my view: that Osama failed to benefit 2nd, 3rd or other-hand from those activities. Does 1st-hand really matter?
Any more than - the actual trigger-puller who killed Allende - might not have been a CIA agent himself?
A.
|
Post #18,984
11/20/01 2:14:49 PM
|
*sigh*
No, the CIA does not run classrooms as you are familiar with.
"Train the trainer".
Equipment is arranged for.
People who know how to use that equipment are arranged for.
The equipment and people who know how to use it are arranged to be in the same location as the people who will use it but lack the knowledge of how to use it.
This is arranged by CIA operatives.
No, the CIA operative does NOT sit down and show them how to field stip an AK-47.
That is not the job of the operative.
Money, equipment, personnel.
Only the highest level locals will get to meet the CIA operative to discuss operations. And these discussions will be about strategies and resource allocations.
No wonder you people have such a fucked up view of what's going on in the world.
News flash! James Bond is a FICTIONAL CHARACTER.
|
Post #18,987
11/20/01 2:21:17 PM
|
Nice strawman there, Brandy. :-)
My question to you was to ask for evidence that "Don't you KNOW that WE TRAINED OSAMA?". You posted a link I didn't find persuasive.
In short, we disagree about the evidence. Simple as that. It's not a "you people" thing, in my view.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #18,992
11/20/01 2:36:39 PM
|
How literally do you want to take it?
Did William Casey give lectures to terrorists? Nope. Did the CIA fund training that eventually aided OBL? Yep. Depends, as always, on how you define the terms.
A few relevant links----
He received security training from the CIA itself, according to Middle Eastern analyst Hazhir Teimourian.
[link|http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_155000/155236.stm|[link|http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_155000/155236.stm|http://news.bbc.co....0/155236.stm]]
\tWhy did bin Laden declare a fatwah, or religious decree, against the United States?
\tU.S. intelligence officials believe bin Laden began to turn against the United States in the mid-1980s a time when he still took aid and training from the CIA, which was then helping bin Laden and other Islamic groups fight the Soviet Army in Afghanistan. The CIA funneled its aid through the Pakistani secret service, the ISI, to various cells in Afghanistan, one of them known as the MAK.
[snip]
Sources: Congressional Research Service, \ufffdFrontline\ufffd
[link|http://www.msnbc.com/news/627355.asp|[link|http://www.msnbc.com/news/627355.asp|http://www.msnbc.com/news/627355.asp]]
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."
[link|http://www.antiwar.com/rep/chuss10.html|[link|http://www.antiwar.com/rep/chuss10.html|http://www.antiwar....chuss10.html]]
The 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan galvanized bin Laden. He supported the Afghan resistance, which became a jihad, or holy war. Ironically, the U.S. became a major supporter of the Afghan resistance, or mujahideen, working with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to set up Islamic schools in Pakistan for Afghan refugees. These schools later evolved into virtual training centers for Islamic radicals. Some analysts have said that bin Laden even received CIA training.
[link|http://www.teachervision.com/lesson-plans/lesson-6831.html|[link|http://www.teachervision.com/lesson-plans/lesson-6831.html|http://www.teacherv...on-6831.html]]
And finally, an excellent biography
[link|http://www.public-i.org/excerpts_01_091301.htm|[link|http://www.public-i.org/excerpts_01_091301.htm|http://www.public-i...1_091301.htm]]
________________________
How to mangle the truth;
Have it reported by any major U.S. media outlet.
|
Post #19,007
11/20/01 3:49:00 PM
|
Thanks. Some of this already discussed.
The Bearden (not Beardman) link (your antiwar.com cite) was discussed [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=18857|above]. I didn't find it persuasive as it was a partial quote from a source I couldn't read myself (in context). I've seen many repeats of the statement "He received security training from the CIA itself, according to Middle Eastern analyst Hazhir Teimourian," but not the original interview or story even with extensive Googling. I'd like to see Teimourian's evidence. I'm not saying he's wrong - I'm saying I'd like to see some evidence. I can't find the Congressional Research Service report which is claimed to support the allegation that the CIA provided "aid and training" to him. The teachervision link just reports what others have said. The public-i.org link is interesting for its detail. But he doesn't provide citations to indicate where he's getting his information, so I don't know how much to trust his take on things. (Again, I'm not saying he's wrong.) But it certainly provides a lot of detail which could be checked. An [link|http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/interviews/ba2000-08-09.htm|interview with Ahmed Rashid] is in the Atlantic Monthly. An alternative view on bin Laden, CIA support, etc. is provided by links like these: [link|http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ladin.htm|Federation of American Scientists Intelligence Resource Program] [link|http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96may/blowback.htm|Blowback] story in Atlantic Monthly. Notice it doesn't mention bin Laden, but contains many of the details that others associate with CIA support of bin Laden. [link|http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/09/kaplan2.htm|This] story in the Atlantic Monthly neatly sums up my understanding of the US involvement: These incomplete and somewhat self-serving accounts [of the Taliban's rise] encapsulated much complicated history. By early 1994 Afghanistan was in disarray. The mujahideen who warred against the Soviets had been a motley collection of seven Pakistan-based resistance groups, divided by region, clan, politics, and religious ideology. Worse, the resistance commanders inside Afghanistan had only the loosest of links to the seven groups. For them, party affiliation was merely a matter of access to weaponry -- the groups were awash in guns and money, provided by the CIA through Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence. Thus when the Soviet-backed Afghan regime collapsed in Kabul, the capital, in 1992, Afghanistan became a writhing nest of petty warlords who fought and negotiated with one another for small chunks of territory. Girls and young boys were raped and traded between commanders. The situation was especially bad in Kandahar. The road leading to it from Quetta was shared by at least twenty factions, each of which put a chain across the road and demanded tolls.
[...]
The Taliban takeover of Afghanistan also relied on crucial help from Pakistan. By 1994 Pakistan was tiring of its Afghan mujahideen puppet, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s its Inter-Services Intelligence had channeled more arms and money from the CIA to Hekmatyar's radical-fundamentalist faction than to any of the more moderate mujahideen groups. Hekmatyar was young, charismatic, highly educated, and power-hungry. Yet his attraction for the ISI lay in the fact that he had little grassroots support inside Afghanistan itself and was thus beholden to the Pakistanis. The continuing anarchy in Afghanistan after the departure of the Soviets showed the fundamental flaw in the ISI's policy. Hekmatyar could never consolidate power to the extent Pakistan required in order to safeguard its land routes to the new oil states of Central Asia -- routes that would create a bulwark of Muslim states that could confront India.
It was a democratically elected Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto, along with her Interior Minister, the retired general Naseerullah Babar, who conceived of the Taliban as a solution to Pakistan's problem. Through the ISI the Bhutto government began to provide the Taliban with money, fuel, subsidized wheat, vehicles, weapons, and volunteers from Pakistan's madrassas. It also linked Afghanistan to Pakistan's telephone grid.
But the Taliban won't play the role of puppet. And Afghanistan's religious extremism is accelerating Pakistan's, through the network of madrassas. Furthermore, the future of the Taliban themselves is uncertain. They have restored security in Afghanistan by disarming much of the countryside, but they have built no institutions to sustain their rule -- and 70 percent of working-age Afghans are jobless. Just as the Taliban rose and spread like Islam itself, they could also descend into disorderly power struggles, much like the medieval Muslim rulers who followed the prophet Mohammed. Yes, the CIA gave money to the ISI. Nobody disputes that. Yes, we supported the mujehedeen. Nobody disputes that either. What I and many others dispute is the connection between CIA support of the mujehedeen implying explict or implicit support of bin Laden. I've not seen what I consider to be good evidence for that claim. There's a difference between, say, saying, "Timothy McVeigh received training in the Army" and saying "The Army was behind Timothy McVeigh's bombing in OKC." I hope we all agree that there's a big difference.... Many of the claims (out on the web, etc.) of CIA support of bin Laden strike me as being similar distortions. (I'm not accusing anyone here of distorting anything.) But, as always, I'm interested in seeing contrary evidence if there is any. What would I consider good evidence? Reports from Bearden (the man who ran the CIA operation) that bin Laden was indeed supported by the CIA. Reports from members of groups which got CIA money that they knew bin Laden and that he also got CIA support. Congressional reports. Investigative reports by reputable groups or people along with citations so that readers could see the original sources. Things like that. Note that these things exist for things like Ollie North's Iran/Contra operation, the CIA's attempts against Castro, the US's actions against Allende, etc.... I think I'm done in this sub-thread. Thanks, all. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #19,003
11/20/01 3:30:06 PM
|
You use terms you don't understand.
Look back at my post that started this thread.
It was in response to your post about, and I summarize, the US bombing anyone that attacks the US in any way.
I pointed out that the US was the instigator in that we had fucked with their countries first. From the CIA working to overthrow existing regimes to our funding death squads.
I also pointed out that Osama was trained by us.
You didn't like that single line.
So I provided links.
You didn't like the links.
You have a fucked up idea of what such training entails.
No, the CIA did not sit Osama down at a desk, in a class room and give him an AK-47 to field strip.
No, the CIA did not sit Osama down and lecture him from a book on military tactics.
Yes, the CIA did provide funding, equipment and trainers for him.
But your fucked up view of what "training" is doesn't even matter.
The original point was that WE fucked with them FIRST.
Your position was that if THEY fucked with US, we'd bomb them.
Listen up. WE STARTED IT.
So, if OUR policy is "fuck with us and we'll fuck you up",
THEN WHY CAN'T THEY HAVE THE SAME POLICY?
If you say they can, then you have no position because we've already fucked with them.
If you say they can't, then you're advocating a pure military might policy.
Just like any other fascist does.
sux2bu
|
Post #19,004
11/20/01 3:35:21 PM
|
Rather than edit that.
I'll just make an addition here.
Skip the part about your post starting it. I know that was marlowe.
|
Post #19,005
11/20/01 3:41:33 PM
|
Nit?
Who...exactly did we start it with...and who...exactly...are we fighting.
Of course...the Taliban are bearing the brunt of the attacks at the moment...but didn't all the links basically say we gave them money and training?
So exactly what did we start with them?
Of course...you can't say we destabilized the nation of terrorists...because...um...they have no nation?
Minor point, I know.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #19,014
11/20/01 5:06:17 PM
|
One step at a time.
Okay, Bill.
#1. Were the Taliban in control of Afghanistan all the time?
#2. If not, when did they take control?
#3. Whom did they take control from?
#4. What part of "destabilizing existing regimes" don't you understand?
|
Post #19,071
11/20/01 10:32:50 PM
|
Straight to the point.
Listen up. WE STARTED IT.
So, if OUR policy is "fuck with us and we'll fuck you up",
THEN WHY CAN'T THEY HAVE THE SAME POLICY?
If you say they can, then you have no position because we've already fucked with them.
If you say they can't, then you're advocating a pure military might policy.
|
Post #18,978
11/20/01 1:55:34 PM
|
I didn't put you in it.
You volunteered yourself.
|
Post #18,888
11/19/01 9:16:48 PM
|
Please Edit ASAP!
Please turn the above into a link with much shorter text.
The length of the line is making this whole thread unreadable.
Thank you,
Ben
|
