kingblaze84;5974649 said:
I know you prefer your sources over mine but here's another source that shows some links between the CIA and Osama Bin Laden back in the eighties...
alright, let's break THIS source down.
kingblaze84;5974649 said:
According to Ahmed Rashid, a correspondent for the Far Eastern Economic Review, in 1986 CIA chief William Casey committed CIA support to a long-standing ISI proposal to recruit from around the world to join the Afghan jihad. At least 100,000 Islamic militants flocked to Pakistan between 1982 and 1992 (some 60,000 attended fundamentalist schools in Pakistan without necessarily taking part in the fighting).
well, let's start with this: you ever read Rashid's stuff? because i have and his contention is not "the US funded Bin Laden." which is, you know, sort of the topic. but this comes back to favoring my sources over yours.
kingblaze84;5974649 said:
John Cooley, a former journalist with the US ABC television network and author of Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism, has revealed that Muslims recruited in the US for the mujaheddin were sent to Camp Peary ... The program, reported the Independent, was part of a Washington-approved plan called "Operation Cyclone".
all this comes right back under the whole "the whole "future members of al-Qaeda" thing is either not being disputed (hence the part about you NOT READING MY POSTS) or involves you not being specific about these "future members of al-Qaeda"" thing again. might need to check out those past posts.
also, Hekmatyar is heavily the ISI's boy in that conflict. check out what i said about THEM again as well.
kingblaze84;5974649 said:
Osama's military and business adventures in Afghanistan had the blessing of the bin Laden dynasty and the reactionary Saudi Arabian regime. His close working relationship with MAK also meant that the CIA was fully aware of his activities.
the CIA being AWARE of his activities would not be surprising at all considering the fact that we were involved in Afghanistan. did someone claim otherwise? but it is NOT the same thing as funding Bin Laden. or supplying him. and the CIA's direct connections would more likely be guys they preferred.
kingblaze84;5974649 said:
Milt Bearden, the CIA's station chief in Pakistan from 1986 to 1989, admitted to the January 24, 2000, New Yorker that while he never personally met bin Laden, "Did I know that he was out there? Yes, I did ... [Guys like] bin Laden were bringing $20-$25 million a month from other Saudis and Gulf Arabs to underwrite the war. And that is a lot of money. It's an extra $200-$300 million a year. And this is what bin Laden did."
so here the source you're citing against me LITERALLY agrees with me: Bearden states they knew of him (again, no surprise) and that Bin Laden was funding himself. WHICH IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING THE ENTIRE THREAD.
seriously, between this and the last post, are you going to keep posting sources that agree with me and then claiming they don't?
kingblaze84;5974649 said:
These camps, now dubbed "terrorist universities" by Washington, were built in collaboration with the ISI and the CIA. The Afghan contra fighters, including the tens of thousands of mercenaries recruited and paid for by bin Laden, were armed by the CIA. Pakistan, the US and Britain provided military trainers.
so now we get to the single part of this that actually starts to agree with you a little. however, the problem is that when you get down to how this works, it always comes back to "the ISI insisted on the CIA not having boots on the ground." so while they might have taken US money and spent it as they saw fit (again, on dudes like Hekmatyar who have their OWN set of problems), it makes no sense for them to run with this policy but say "eh, fuck it, go train the dudes if you want." that "collaboration" is going to be "the ISI did what they wanted with CIA money."
and we're STILL talking about guys who needed the money. Bin Laden doesn't at this point in history.
kingblaze84;5974653 said:
I've provided more then enough sources and there are much more online.
...and i've commented on them at length and you've had nothing to say about all of that. so there we go.