Hmm, Osama and the CIA

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » September 24, 2003, 1:42 am

Interesting article.

Did you know there were two separate "rebel" groups fighting the Soviets in Afganistan?

Crav · Post by **Crav** » September 24, 2003, 5:02 am

So what your saying is that our money went to train and fund the good Afgans, and the bad Afgans/Arabs were funded by Saudi Arabia? I don't know about you, but I really didn't see any evidence in that article to make me believe it any more than other people's version of those events. I doubt we will ever know the truth about these types of situation unless someone messes up and leaves evidence lying around. I mean the whole truth hasn't come out about all the CIA activities in South America and the small amount that has doesn't paint a very good picture.

Oh well people can believe whatever will make them feel better about themselves or their country, I prefer to know the truth, but unfortunately like I said I doubt we will ever find it.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » September 24, 2003, 5:52 am

Very interesting and worth further delving when I get some time.

My initial reaction though is to the quotes attributed to Bin Laden:
“Personally neither I nor my brothers saw any evidence of American help"
and
“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.”

Neither of these are flat denials of US funding. They're the kind of thing someone would say if they knew it was going on but felt it politic to turn a blind eye. Not saying that's the case but I always tend to look at what isn't said as much as is and this is my gut reaction.

The CIA guys deny it. Well they would, wouldn't they?

Again, I'm not saying they're lieing I just find it hard to believe that these two arab armies were completely separate and distinct at all times throughout the soviet occupation.

Good stuff though.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 24, 2003, 7:28 am

Well I was wondering if Fox News could ever be more shamelessly partisan. I guess that answers that.

Good ones and bad ones hahahah.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » September 24, 2003, 9:08 am

Well we all know the only good arab is a dead arab!

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » September 24, 2003, 10:19 am

I'm pretty sure that I saw pictures of Bin Laden with members of the CIA long ago on CNN. Maybe not now, not that the Gov. would keep them from publishing them or anything but...

Marb

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 24, 2003, 10:35 am

There were tons of different groups fighting the Russians in Afghanistan (and quite often fighting themself). That is the major problem in the country: Lots of really powerful warlords.

Oh and I am pretty sure I have seen pics and information of bin Laden and CIA together as well...

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » September 24, 2003, 10:48 am

Why would Bin Laden ever make a public statement saying he received American aid whether or not it was true? it would undermine his entire organizations central efforts. so that he told a British journalist that he didnt see anything is meaningless in my opinion. It could be true, but it could just as easily be a lie.

that being said, hey maybe the article is true. But i dont see how interviewing CIA bureau chiefs is conclusive about anything either. They simply arent going to tell you certain things. EVER.

Even if our government funded bin Laden partially in the 80s, it may have been a good decision at the time. I am sure most people in 1983 would not really have thought about some guy in a tent in Afghanistan being a bigger threat to the US than the Soviet Union moving closer to accessing a warm water seaport in the pacific.

that being said, this commentary may simply be a publicity piece for this guy's book

at any rate it is a very interesting question, and i there certainly won't be a paper trail from the CIA to him regardless of the validity of the accusations

anyway, i'm looking around, and there are a lot of links that are frankly from sources that i dont think are worth checking out. so it is hard seperating the signal from the noise =)

the BBC wrote:The Afghan jihad was backed with American dollars and had the blessing of the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

He received security training from the CIA itself, according to Middle Eastern analyst Hazhir Teimourian.

MSNBC's Osama FAQ wrote:The link with Pakistan is more current. One issue that distresses U.S. officials is intelligence that bin Laden, Kashmiri Muslim rebels in India and Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence [ISI], its quasi-autonomous military intelligence agency, are involved in “monkey business” together. The United States used the ISI in the 1980s to fund, train and arm the Afghan mujahedin, including bin Laden, in its fight against the Soviet Red Army.

no attribution of this 'fact' though.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » September 24, 2003, 11:25 am

What pisses me off is that we're supporting a gov't in Afghanistan that is trying to pass a constitution that is pretty much as repressive as the Taliban we ousted last year. WTF?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » September 24, 2003, 11:30 am

the US has never made a point to only support non-oppressive regimes. They support regimes of all kinds if it serves a tactical advantage to their interest du jour.

regardless, i havent heard anything like that about the Afghan constitution. Kabul (which is all the government really controls) i think is approaching normalcy (ie not whipping women who show their faces). It is the outlying towns that warlords control that are governing in the vein of the Taliban from what I understand.

of course these warlords are also supported by the US because by night they help us track al Queda.

--

An additional aside since the author of this topic's article is somebody who is making money by saying the Clinton administration is to blame for 9/11/01.

In 1999, the CIA trained 60 Pakistanis in an operation designed to assassinate bin Laden. The US government had negotiated economic benefits in exchange for Pakistan's assistance in this matter. However, the military coup that took place in Pakistan during 1999 scuttled this plan.

I think the last 2 years have shown that bin Laden is not an easy person to capture/kill, and consider the massive resources committed to that end at the moment. yes you can argue that he was more visible prior to 9/11, but you cannot argue that nothing was done to try to get rid of him. Lets also not forget Bush was president for 20 months and had been briefed on the threat.

Remember also that George Tenet, the current CIA director started his job in 1997 during the Clinton administration. In summary, assertions of this sort proposed by the initial author are most likely simply outrageous statements that are certain to resonate with the target demographic of a product/service a particular person is trying to sell.

If you want to sell something to a conservative audience, a proven winning formula is to talk shit about Bill Clinton.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » September 24, 2003, 12:26 pm

Sudan offered to give Bin Laden to the Clinton Administration, but they failed to respond to the offer and the opportunity elapsed.

Prematurely pulling out of Somlia emboldened Bin Laden who in public statements said that America was too squeemish when responding to attacks. I'd find you the quote but my time is limited.

The author of this article isn't pulling stuff out of thin air when it comes to Clinton.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » September 24, 2003, 12:30 pm

Adex, unsubstaniated information from the "National Review" don't count as facts

they more resemble "thin air" IMHO

Marb

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » September 24, 2003, 12:44 pm

Oh I see,

It is ok to dismiss conservative news sources to support liberal positions.

Yet it is wrong to dismiss liberal news sources to support conservative positions.

A most interesting perspective you require of me.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » September 24, 2003, 12:48 pm

No Adex

I'm just kidding. I trying to read all sides myself (even the Nation Review) You seemed in a hurry this morning so I thought a nice "smart-ass" statement might lighten your day

Marb

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » September 24, 2003, 1:42 pm

Fox News wrote: 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."

Anyone else notice that kinda glaring spelling error in the intro paragraph?

Post by **Sylvus** » September 24, 2003, 2:45 pm

I believe there isn't an official spelling of his name, Usama and Osama are both acceptable. Depending on the news source, there's usually one spelling that they stick with.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » September 24, 2003, 7:41 pm

Not surprisingly, I bought this book the day it came out and devoured it. The Clinton administration simply never took Bin Laden or terrorism seriously. Sudan offered all kinds of assistance- from hordes of intelligence files full of information like who had been meeting with Bin Laden, what they had been doing, etc, to an offer to extradite UBL directly to the US. We never took them up on any of their offers. I'm not going to make a long and detailed post about it, but it was very interesting and backed up with tons of facts and research.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 24, 2003, 8:34 pm

Brotha wrote:Not surprisingly, I bought this book the day it came out and devoured it. The Clinton administration simply never took Bin Laden or terrorism seriously. Sudan offered all kinds of assistance- from hordes of intelligence files full of information like who had been meeting with Bin Laden, what they had been doing, etc, to an offer to extradite UBL directly to the US. We never took them up on any of their offers. I'm not going to make a long and detailed post about it, but it was very interesting and backed up with tons of facts and research.

hindsight is 20/20, isn't it?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 24, 2003, 9:05 pm

haha I love watching the neocons desperately blame clinton for everything evil in the world. it's so goddam hopelessly pathetic.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » September 24, 2003, 9:21 pm

Skogen wrote:
Brotha wrote:Not surprisingly, I bought this book the day it came out and devoured it. The Clinton administration simply never took Bin Laden or terrorism seriously. Sudan offered all kinds of assistance- from hordes of intelligence files full of information like who had been meeting with Bin Laden, what they had been doing, etc, to an offer to extradite UBL directly to the US. We never took them up on any of their offers. I'm not going to make a long and detailed post about it, but it was very interesting and backed up with tons of facts and research.
hindsight is 20/20, isn't it?

If hindsight was 20/20 Brotha would never use the word FACT in a post ever again after all the WMD FACTS he used to preach about.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » September 24, 2003, 10:14 pm

Forthe wrote:If hindsight was 20/20 Brotha would never use the word FACT in a post ever again after all the WMD FACTS he used to preach about.

There was one post like a year ago where I completely screwed up and was 100 percent wrong and I admitted it. Other than that there's nothing I've said regarding WMDs that has been proven false.

And you need to keep blasting Israel for repressing the Palestinians while at the same time bashing the US for freeing 22 million people from a dictator who treated dissidents much worse than Israel ever has, it's fun to watch

.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 24, 2003, 10:47 pm

Not surprisingly, I bought this book the day it came out and devoured it.

Nope no surprise at all

Kelgar · Post by **Kelgar** » September 25, 2003, 10:36 am

Brotha wrote:Not surprisingly, I bought this book the day it came out and devoured it. The Clinton administration simply never took Bin Laden or terrorism seriously. Sudan offered all kinds of assistance- from hordes of intelligence files full of information like who had been meeting with Bin Laden, what they had been doing, etc, to an offer to extradite UBL directly to the US. We never took them up on any of their offers. I'm not going to make a long and detailed post about it, but it was very interesting and backed up with tons of facts and research.

Yeah, and flying the bin Ladens out of the country on 9/12 is supposed to qualify as taking terrorism seriously?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » September 25, 2003, 11:06 am

in 2 years there will be a book blaming the ongoing problems in Iraq on Bill Clinton.

Cause Bill Clinton didnt kill Osama, and the Iraq war was *obviously* a war against terrorism, and therefore all Clinton's fault.

brotha did that book mention anything about the 60 Pakestani assassins trained by the CIA in 1999 to kill bin Laden?

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » September 25, 2003, 1:29 pm

Yep Voro, it does.

A summary of the book that was on drudge:

President Bill Clinton had the opportunity to stop, catch, or kill bin Laden more than twelve times during his presidency, a new book set for release this week claims.

And on at least two occasions through Drones and Global Positioning Systems the Clinton Administration knew exactly where bin Laden was -- and refused to take him out well after knowing he was as a national security threat.

MORE

Former WALL STREET JOURNAL editorial writer Richard Miniter and REGNERY Publishing are set for lift-off on LOSING BIN LADEN [ranked #52,682 on Amazon's hit parade Sunday evening].

A Novak column on the book is set for Monday, and the WASHINGTON TIMES will serialize later in the week, according to sources, but only the DRUDGE REPORT can present an exclusive first look:

LOSING alleges and details:

* Osama bin Laden’s rise to power and the September 11 attacks were due to the inactions and failures of former President Bill Clinton and key members of his administration who followed a law enforcement approach to fighting global terrorism as opposed to engaging a war on terrorism on national security grounds.

* How each failure by Clinton to retaliate made bin Laden look invincible in the Arab world, allowing bin Laden to attract new recruits and money.

* The 1993 World Trade Center attack --- documents how Clinton refused to believe it was a terrorist attack and viewed the bombing as an FBI investigation therefore blocking the CIA from entering the investigation on matters of national security.

* Drawn from secret Sudanese intelligence files, the full story of bin Laden's role in shooting down America's Black Hawk helicopters in Mogadishu, Somalia. This is the story that "Black Hawk Down" missed.

* President Clinton and a Democratic Senator Dennis DeConcini prevented the CIA from hiring Arabic translators-while bin Laden and Arabic-speaking terrorists killed Americans across the Near East.

* The story of Saudi Arabia's attempt to assassinate bin Laden in 1994.

* One of the FBI's most-trusted informants, Ali Mohammed, an Egyptian soldier, was given a military security clearance but was actually a double agent working for bin Laden.

* How the Administration engaged a policy to get Bin Laden removed from the Sudan back to Pakistan and Afghanistan only to get him closer to training camps and his recruits making him even more dangerous and embolden future terrorist acts.

* How Assistant Secretary of State for East Africa Affairs Susan Rice blocked opportunities to work with the Sudanese government looking to turn over bin Laden to the United States.

* Documents numerous Sudanese attempts to work with the United States to capture bin Laden only to be rejected by the US State Department.

* How the Monica Lewinsky and fundraising scandals, as well as a consuming desire to be re-elected, prevented Clinton from waging a war on terror and bin Laden and prevent 9/11.

* For more than two years Miniter interviewed soldiers, diplomats and intelligence operatives in Middle East, Africa, and Europe but found his best sources were, to his surprise, top level Clinton administration officials including former National Security Advisor Tony Lake, former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Clinton’s counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke, and former Director of Central Intelligence James Woolsey.

From the summary it sounds like he is trying to appeal to those people who just want an excuse to bash Clinton, but this book was hardly out there on fringe. Clinton failed miserably on the war on terror- there's no getting around that.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 25, 2003, 1:59 pm

Clinton was fighting a war on terror? Revisionism much?

Do you honestly believe that the people that post on this forum are as fucking stupid as you are and buy this kind of horse shit? You and Adex need your own forum.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » September 25, 2003, 2:35 pm

kyoukan wrote:Clinton was fighting a war on terror? Revisionism much?

As so many of you like to say about gulf war 2, you can't call something a war if there's only one side fighting it. I guess you're right, it wasn't really a war back then...

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » September 25, 2003, 2:37 pm

Clinton couldn't fight a war to keep his cock in his own pants.

Every president has underestimated the level of terrorist threat, and we have paid for it. Is the current system going to fix it? I do not think so. Is there a better way to handle it? Not without major geopolitical impact ( dropping Israel, Major Embargos, border closures etc) Of course then we will have some dumb fuckers who grow up here blowing up things back at the top of the news.

The only real solutions are too drastic, everything else is just tossing a bandaid on a sucking chest wound.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » September 25, 2003, 2:42 pm

So you're saying we should dust off and nuke the site from orbit? It's the only way to be sure...

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » September 25, 2003, 2:44 pm

masteen wrote:So you're saying we should dust off and nuke the site from orbit? It's the only way to be sure...

Nope you said that, I said " The only real solutions are too drastic, everything else is just tossing a bandaid on a sucking chest wound."