The CIA-Bin Laden Myth

----- The American government did NOT put Bin Laden in power in Afghanistan.

Article:
"The CIA-Bin Laden Myth"
Link:
www.frontpagemag.com...

Excerpt:

"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......"


The author of this article is Richard Miniter. He is the author of "Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror."



Well gentlemen and ladies of ATS.....
Is this more lies and 'garbage' that is amounting to disinformation or is there some validity to this?
This article and its subject matter reminds me of the "US gave chemical weapons" to Iraq lie.

Or the "Dan Quayle can't spell potato(e)" lie.

Or the "President Bush (41) awed at grocery scanner" lie.

Is this article a product of the internet "conspiracy" age that seems to be the rage around the world these days or again, does it merit some truth?

Please, comments or thoughts or links, etc. are welcome.
We all came here for the same thing, I hope anyhow....in seeking what is factual and is truth....is this further disinformation or does it speak of truth?


regards
seekerof







[Edited on 25-9-2003 by Seekerof]

OBL.. 'in power'.. in Afganistan?

Hardly never was.. or will ever be.

Thank you Uni/Fulcrum for responding.

I posted this topic for a reason....the reason being thus:
Why is this myth of CIA support for Bin Laden so persistent? It has been quoted and supposedly proven, somewhat, here at ATS on numerous threads.

It seems that 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 the US.
I have been pondering this of late and upon finding this article, decided to post it, with some thoughts and see if this was factual or disinformation.....and to probably be blasted to kingdom come but oh well, I can get on the kevlar if necessary.


regards
seekerof

Seekerof

I will come back to this issue later.

But I want to make sure you are not entering into "egg on face" territory.

The CIA was most assuredly involved in the germination of Bin Laden's capabilities.

Much the same as the Bush family continues to be friendly with the Bin Laden family, and the Bin Laden family has publicly "denounced" OBL.

It is an interesting subject, but to take a position on the US's innocence in the matter of OBL (and Saddam Hussein), based on the article submitted, is not at all in keeping with the mission you can see at the top of the page.

Well Seekerof,

I have on my computer a CNN documentary that very clearly says that US funded and supported OBL and his fighters..

I belive that this has been 'aired' in US couple of times.. (was not sensured..) but it could also be just reporter wrongly thinking that the Mujahediin and Al-Qaida are the same..

But there is this major 'thing' that leads me to belive that OBL and US were direcly cooperating as OBLs groups name is Al-Qaida (The Base, Base) and it is well known that Afgani fighters did 'hit and run' attacks to Afganistan from their Base(s) in Pakistan.. so it could well be that Al-Qaida (the Base) started as US sponsored safe-heaven and training center for mujahediin.

(as Al-Qaida infact was at first just a resting 'place' for islamic mujahediin..)

But surely the US / CIA never thinked that it would be possible for Afganis and their Arab brethen to use the skills learned and weapons given against US..

But things would prove otherwise.. as US troops came to Saudi holy land.. to 'defend' it against Iraq..

This made OBL mad who first conspired to kill the ruling class of SA and to force the US exit, this plan was just busted.. (at the part when OBL and 'friends' were transporting weapons to Saudi Arabia..) and OBL was exiled..

After that he turned his attention against US..

The unlikely happened..

And now 'we' are living 'it' and its outcomes..

Personally....
I don't see how this can be a "egg-in-the-face" situation. Even if so, it may prove worth it.
Bush's connection with the Bin Laden family has or has no bearing on "if" the CIA, which represents the US, funded Bin Laden.
As to the article and its site implications of "not keeping with the mission of deny ignorance" I would beg to differ.....many arguments and discussions held on other topics relating to 9/11 to Bin Laden, etc., have come from sources that were questionable, if not obviously biased.

I merely presented the article to find out if this topic, which I have presented, does indeed bear merit or is it further disinformation. IMHO, due to the fact that many uphold to the belief or non-belief that the US, via the CIA, funded or didn't fund Bin Laden. I do not see where this is in conflict with the motto of 'deny ignorance.' If I am wrong....I stand corrected.

I respect your opinion MA, as you well know, but I do beg to differ on your assessment of this topic.
Thank you for responding.


regards
seekerof

Nothing wrong with presenting the article or the topic and raising the questions.

I just wouldn't want to be saying that the CIA did not involve itself in creating the monster, in light of the insurmountable evidence.

Uni/Fulcrum....

It is commonly believed that the Muhja were flat-out funded by the CIA, and then abandoned, whereupon they morphed into the Taliban, one of the worst sects in human history.

Personally, I would think "the historical evidence, and the testimony of those who were there would indicate differently" but then again, I may be wrong. Further more, I feel that's just not fully accurate.

"The Taliban movement, first of all, was primarily an ethnic (Pashtun) movement. We didn't limit our support to Pashtuns. Secondly there is no linneage from the groups we did support (e.g. "The Party of God") and the Taliban. The Taliban movement only came into being years after the U.S. left the scene. It was actually a fairly noble movement in the beginning, opposing the lawlessness of warlordism (IOW it was a reaction to the civil war) but over time its fascistic character emerged."

Did the US/CIA fund Bin Laden or did the US/CIA help create the condition that lead to his ascension in Afghanistan?


regards
seekerof








[Edited on 25-9-2003 by Seekerof]

Isn't that a conservative activists website???

Originally posted by TheBandit795
Isn't that a conservative activists website???

Bandit

You don't say!

Even "World Tribune" and the Washington Times can't manage any of this material as news.

An interesting counterpoint to the article:

"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."

www.globalresearch.ca...

Perhaps this would make a good research or debate forum subject?

[Edited on 25-9-2003 by Sanders]

Thanks for posting Sanders.

I do stand corrected on what I previously said or mentioned:
"Personally, I would think the historical evidence, and the testimony of those who were there would indicate differently but then again, I may be wrong. Further more, I feel that's just not fully accurate."

The Muhaj was funded by the CIA but I have yet to see where Bin LAden was funded by the CIA. Being that Bin Laden was worth hundreds of millions, his efforts were also funded by the Saudi government. I stand corrected in one respect.

I did find this article:
"How the CIA created Osama bin Laden"
Link:
www.greenleft.org.au...

Its quite informative. Though I do that this article is failing to to distinguish between democratic Mujahedin like Masood and the Islamic fundamentalists like Bin Laden. Also, there is no mentioning of the anti-Sandinista fighters being Islamic fundamentalists or not?

Will see what else I can find.


regards
seekerof


[Edited on 25-9-2003 by Seekerof]

tim osman was the pseudonym given to bin laden by the CIA for his tours of US military facilities. do a search on tim osman.

RAMBO 3 nuff said, Cia propaganda film if they werent supporting the mujahadeen against the soviets why make the film? it was to show us the brave afgan soldiers fighting the evil commies....oh the irony, in real life the evolved mujhadeen strikes back....

Seekerof, I see, you already work for Murdoch.

www.foxnews.com...

The only thing in this story worth taking note of is Bin Laden's denials of US help, this is hardly surprising I doubt it would boost his following if everyone knew Uncle Sam helped set up the al-qaeda network.


This essay destroys the latest piece of bull$hit

www.globalresearch.ca...

Well...it's like this guys. Everyone seems to need a reasong to blame the usa for something trivial. If they can get anything off and make it look like it is true, then they will go with it.

Originally posted by Peace
Seekerof, I see, you already work for Murdoch.

www.foxnews.com...

The only thing in this story worth taking note of is Bin Laden's denials of US help, this is hardly surprising I doubt it would boost his following if everyone knew Uncle Sam helped set up the al-qaeda network.


This essay destroys the latest piece of bull$hit

www.globalresearch.ca...

How ya doing today Peace.....you still working for Prof. Chossudovsky?

The information you provided does "what exactly"?
Come again......
Lets try and provide some real factual, uncontestable evidence other than one man's writings.
Thats the reason for the post.....hence the topic!
You throw a 'slice of bread' on the table and expect it to miraculously feed an entire family? This guy who wrote this really named Jesus....can he perform such miracles?

This topic may be bull$hit to you, since its obvious that it doesn't require much to satisify your thirst for truth, but I and others are seeking to sort this out and figure if there is truth to the 'myth' of the CIA/Bin Laden connection.....as in being directly funded, etc.
Seems I stated this before in this topic.....

regards
seekerof

Seeker: Washington's most favoured mujaheddin faction was one of theworst, led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. American distaste for terrorism somehow didn't apply to this �freedom fighter�. He was notorious in the 1970s for throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil.

After the mujaheddin took Kabul in 1992, his forces rained US-supplied missiles and rockets on that city � killing at least 2000 civilians � until the new government agreed to give him the post of prime minister. Osama bin Laden was a close associate of him and his faction. Look it up.

And as to the your assertion that the financial history between the Bushes and the Bin Ladens is not relevant to the situation, um, let me remind you that George Bush SR. was CIA DIRECTOR from November 1975 to January 1977 under the Ford Adminstration. So I would say not only is it relevant , it's ESPECIALLY relevant when discussing OBL's funding from the U.S.



jakomo

About CIA and Mujahediin:

CIA says: Mujahediin, dont do car bombs as those arent 'cool' and will make you look like terrorists..

Mujahediin: Ok. (and goes to blow up Russian officers club with camel bomb..)

CIA: we thought that we agreed not to do 'car bombs'..

Mujahediin: It was a camel bomb..

and this is true story.. was on one Afganistan documentary.. former CIA officer was telling this.. and they did show the footage of the 'camel' attack..

Seekerof, where are your facts? You have none.

Here is my evidence straight from the horses mouth. I think Mr Brzezinski is qualified to know what he is talking about.

"According to this 1998 interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, the CIA's intervention in Afghanistan preceded the 1979 Soviet invasion. This decision of the Carter Administration in 1979 to intervene and destabilise Afghanistan is the root cause of Afghanistan's destruction as a nation."

"A: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?"

www.globalresearch.ca...