9/11 Coincidences

[Brad_Edwards_Fan]

Hey Mad Mike, is that the largest font Extremeskins offers?

Let's see here. Font size rundown:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Yep, that's the biggest font we have.

What will you do someday when you need to make a point even bigger than this one? Lobby for a size 8?

As long as you're trying to keep up with chom, maybe you can follow his lead in another way... by, you know, posting the link from which you just quoted over 1,200 words.

...but this one goes to 11...

[BigMike619]

short green old with huge tufts of gray hair growing out my ears.

i didn't know we'd met.

yoda = greatest jedi of all.

mods = jedi.

You know I got a little more respect for you then that.

[Mad Mike]

No it does not. . .what is DOES mean is non-involvement with Al Qaeda.

Heck, every country deals with terrorists, we funded terrorists on the CIA's payroll. . .heck we trained Bin laden for cripes sakes. To say because YOU have funded terrorists, when the terrorists had nothing to do with 9-11, it is only a distinction used for making an argument. . .but to say that because you have funded terrorists is a reason for invasion? When the terrorists are not even the ones who attacked us??? Come on now, you can't invade a country for that, we funded terrorists, and we still do. Every country in the ME funds terrorists according to Bush, and the biggest culprit is Saudi Arabia.

It is funny how Saudi Arabia can promote an anti-American agenda, but we can't promote an anti-Saudi agenda isn't it. . .don't you think the Bush family is a little too close to the Saud family over there? Do you think that has any influence on our politics?

We were sold a bill of goods connecting Iraq with Al Qaeda, Iraq had NOTHING and I repeat NOTHING to do with Al Qaeda. Did they have dealings with terrorists? sure every country in that neck of the woods, has, especially Saudi Arabia. . .you know the country where the hijackers were from?

Again with the complete Bull ****. We did NOT fund or train Bin Laden. You talk about me but you spew lies like this with ZERO evidence to back it up.

Bergen: Bin Laden, CIA links hogwash

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/08/15/bergen.answers/index.html

If it's true that bin Laden once worked for the CIA, what makes you so sure that he isn't still?

Anne Busigin, Toronto, Canada

BERGEN: This is one of those things where you cannot put it out of its misery.

The story about bin Laden and the CIA -- that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden -- is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently.

The real story here is the CIA didn't really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him.

Dispelling the CIA-Bin Laden Myth

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98115,00.html

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 (search) 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 (search) was never funded, trained or armed by the CIA.

Bin Laden himself has repeatedly denied that he received any American support. “Personally neither I nor my brothers saw any evidence of American help,” bin Laden told British journalist Robert Fisk (search) in 1993. In 1996, Mr. Fisk interviewed bin Laden again. The arch-terrorist was equally adamant: “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.”

Reality - try to embrace it.

[TradeTheBeal!]

Boxcutters>NORAD

...and no one gets fired!

[Baculus]

Mad Mike, I have posed this question to you before and never received a reply: Would you base the invasion of Iraq on the documents that you have demonstrated? To you, does it create enough of a tie and link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda to support a preemptive invasion of the nation?

Remember what's at stake: Thousands of lives and billions of dollars. Also, keep in mind that there's other nations which have stronger ties with terrorism - case in point, the Pakistani ISI's connections with Al-Qaeda, or the Wahhabists and Saudi Arabia.

And if this is absolute proof, how come the CIA and others have stated, post-war, that there were not strong ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda?

This has been my previous argument: If Iraq was going to provide Al-Qaeda with WMDs and other potent weapons, Saddam easily could have done so between the moment it became evidence the US was invading Iraq, to the actual moment of invasion.

[chomerics]

Again with the complete Bull ****. We did NOT fund or train Bin Laden. You talk about me but you spew lies like this with ZERO evidence to back it up.

Bergen: Bin Laden, CIA links hogwash

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/08/15/bergen.answers/index.html

Yet that is the US's "official statement" on Bin Laden, but it is entirely ludicrous to believe what they say in your sentence.

in the 1980's Bin laden was not anti-American, in fact he was on our side. There werre reports that we met with him directly, and he was the largest arms/people money launderer and supplier in the fight against the Russians. Would it not make perfect sense that we dealt with the #1 guy in the area?

Of course, after he turned against us, we will deny everything, but there are many people in the inside who say something different.

December 15, 1986-1989: ’Blind Sheikh’ Obtains First US Visas with Help from CIA

Edit event

In the case of bin laden, the weapons suppliers sing a different tune than the CIA. . .

here is when we acted in conjunction with the Blind Shiek, yet another nototious Al Qaeda leader and terrorist.

Radical Muslim leader Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman obtains his first US visa via the CIA. A State Department official will later discover this was the first of six US visas given to him between 1986 and 1990. All are approved by CIA agents acting as consular officers at US embassies in Sudan and Egypt. “The CIA officers claimed they didn’t know the sheikh was one of the most notorious political figures in the Middle East and a militant on the State Department’s list of undesirables.” But one top New York investigator will later say, “Left with the choice between pleading stupidity or else admitting deceit, the CIA went with stupidity.” [boston Globe, 2/3/1995; New Yorker, 3/17/1995]

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=0#complete_911_timeline_0986stingers

more info . . .

(1985 or After): Islamic Jihad Receives CIA Money for Afghan Effort

Edit event

Ayman al-Zawahiri (shorter) and Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in the 1980s.Ayman al-Zawahiri (shorter) and Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in the 1980s. [source: History Channel]Islamic Jihad, headed by future al-Qaeda deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahiri from around 1987, receives some of the money the CIA spends on helping radical Islamist fighters against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. It is unclear whether the money is paid to the group directly or through an intermediary, or how much money the group receives from the CIA. [Guardian, 1/17/1999]

Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK), also known as Al-Kifah, is Osama bin Laden’s main charity front in the 1980s. The US government will later call it the “precursor organization to al-Qaeda” (see Late 1984). In 2005, investigative journalist Joe Trento will write, “CIA money was actually funneled to MAK, since it was recruiting young men to come join the jihad in Afghanistan.” Trento will explain this information comes from “a former CIA officer who actually filed these reports” but who cannot be identified because he still works in Afghanistan. MAK was founded in 1984 (see Late 1984) and was disbanded around 1996 (see Shortly After November 19, 1995). However, Trento will not specify exactly when CIA aid to MAK began or how long it lasted. [Trento, 2005, pp. 342] Bin Laden appears to have other at least indirect contact with the CIA around this time (see 1986).

Entity Tags: Joseph Trento, Maktab al-Khidamat, Central Intelligence Agency

Reality - try to embrace it.

Now that I have shown you wrong again, why don't you grow a pair and try to answer some of the questions either I or Bak asked you. . .or continue to hide under a rock and ignore them, and think you are right because of what Fox news says. . .

[Mad Mike]

Yet that is the US's "official statement" on Bin Laden, but it is entirely ludicrous to believe what they say in your sentence.

in the 1980's Bin laden was not anti-American, in fact he was on our side. There werre reports that we met with him directly, and he was the largest arms/people money launderer and supplier in the fight against the Russians. Would it not make perfect sense that we dealt with the #1 guy in the area?

Of course, after he turned against us, we will deny everything, but there are many people in the inside who say something different.

December 15, 1986-1989: ’Blind Sheikh’ Obtains First US Visas with Help from CIA

Edit event

In the case of bin laden, the weapons suppliers sing a different tune than the CIA. . .

here is when we acted in conjunction with the Blind Shiek, yet another nototious Al Qaeda leader and terrorist.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=0#complete_911_timeline_0986stingers

more info . . .

Now that I have shown you wrong again, why don't you grow a pair and try to answer some of the questions either I or Bak asked you. . .or continue to hide under a rock and ignore them, and think you are right because of what Fox news says. . .

Dude, you just posted a bunch of BS with no proof to back it up. cooperativeresearch.org? Its a left wing loon house of people like you trying to write their own history. The only thing you have proven is that you are a moron if you think that the crap you just posted has any basis in reality. Wheres the link? Huh? Are you honestly going to tell me that I should ASSUME that since we trained native afghans who later became the northern alliance, that we must have trained bin Laden? Even though bin Laden himself says it did not happen? You are a loon. Plain and simple.

So much for intellectual honesty eh Predicto?

[Mad Mike]

Mad Mike, I have posed this question to you before and never received a reply: Would you base the invasion of Iraq on the documents that you have demonstrated? To you, does it create enough of a tie and link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda to support a preemptive invasion of the nation?

Remember what's at stake: Thousands of lives and billions of dollars. Also, keep in mind that there's other nations which have stronger ties with terrorism - case in point, the Pakistani ISI's connections with Al-Qaeda, or the Wahhabists and Saudi Arabia.

And if this is absolute proof, how come the CIA and others have stated, post-war, that there were not strong ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda?

This has been my previous argument: If Iraq was going to provide Al-Qaeda with WMDs and other potent weapons, Saddam easily could have done so between the moment it became evidence the US was invading Iraq, to the actual moment of invasion.

Yes. Absolutely I would because the alternative would be to keep sanctions going forever (could not happen) under a failed oil for food program. We already had to deal with him in the first gulf war and he was continuing the war by using using terrorism against us (PROVEN WITH DOCUMENTATION). How many decades should we let that continue? Do you want to wait till Iraq is as successful as al Qaeda? What did the report state?

This and other attacks were not isolated incidents but part of a state-directed program of significant scale.

Even if you assume that they were not involved in any way with 9/11 (a belief that strikes me as naive considering all of the foreign terrorist they trained and the fact that they had the only know aircraft in the world DEDICATED to training terrorists.) Al Qaeda was not that deadly to America before 9/11. In fact before 9/11 the worst you could say about al Qaeda was that their attacks were not isolated incidents but part of a coordinated program of significant scale. Sound familiar?

I firmly believe that America and the world are safer with Saddam gone. I firmly believe that however difficult the task has been, it was the right thing to do.

[Mad Mike]

Oh, BTW... Heres another gem from cooperativeresearch.org.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=0#complete_911_timeline_0986stingers

April 5, 1986: Bombing of Disco in Berlin Is Blamed on Libya; Some Later Suspect US or Israeli Intelligence

The La Belle disco in West Berlin is bombed. A Turkish woman and two US soldiers are killed. Two hundred and thirty others are injured, including more than 50 US soldiers. The attack is widely blamed on the Libyan government, and the US responds by ordering air strikes on Libya. Three employees at the Libyan embassy in Berlin are later found guilty of attempted murder, and the wife of one of them is found guilty of murder. But in 1998, ZDF, the German television network, will show a documentary that claims that Libya was not behind the bombing. The program will claim that the main suspects worked for US and Israeli intelligence. [WORLD SOCIALIST WEB SITE, 8/27/1998; BBC, 11/13/2001]

Category Tags: Israel

Get that? According to Chom's source. WE bombed the disco in Berlin.

Source? The World Socialist website.

http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/aug1998/bomb1-a27.shtml

Yeah, that site is a bastion of truth and reality.

[Jumbo]

Wait until I reveal the data I've accumulated that prove Mad Mike and Chom are both really Blondie!!!!!!

[chomerics]

Even if you assume that they were not involved in any way with 9/11 (a belief that strikes me as naive considering all of the foreign terrorist they trained and the fact that they had the only know aircraft in the world DEDICATED to training terrorists.)

We are not assuming Mike, we are listening to the government TELL US that there was no connection.

Here, let me put this in small words so you can understand. . .

If there was ANY, and I repeat, ANY TINY SHRED or information that Iraq had ANYTHING to do with 9-11, then it would be placed front and center for the whole world to see, instead, we have the President, the Pentagon, and everyone else that knows the facts telling us there is no connection.

Do you know why we can believe them in this case? because it goes AGAINST what they tried to sell us!!!! If I told you a the sky was bright purple for two years, then after everything was said and done, after all the facts were in, after everything was known, I came clean and said,

No, the sky is blue. I never said the sky was purple, you thought that but I never used those words" would you think the sky was purple or blue??? Apparantly you would think it was purple, you would continue to believe the lie even when the people who were lying to us say their lie wasn't true.

Here is another analogy for you. . .A kid steals from the cookie jar, and he has chocolate smeared all over his face. His mother asks if he ate any cookies, and he says no. A LOT of people around him back his case, they say it was the black man down the street who ate the cookies, it was the liberal media which perpetrated there were more cookies in there than there actually were, they will cloud the area as much as possible. . .but after the mother takes the child's crap to the testing lab, and it is found out that . . . well, yea he actually ate the cookies, you would be telling the mother that everything was a lie, and he never ate the cookies. . .no matter what was in front of you.

As for the sources I used, EACH and EVERY SINGLE page was referenced from a periodical or a newspaper. There is written record about a Bon Laden and the CIA. There are more than one person who said the CIA actively funneled money through the mujahadeen he was running with stinger missiles. There is a lot of dirt in that neck of the woods from good ole Ronnie and George's terms as president, when we funded these radicals to attack Russia. Why do you ignore this? Because, again, it shows you are wrong, and you haven't the guts or balls to admit when you are wrong. It is a sign of weakness, and a sign of a very insecure person. But that is ok, I won't let your insecurities cloud my judgment, I will let history be the test of what I have stated. . . and lets face it, my track record of prediction is just a smidgen better than your track record . . . especially seeing how the people you support don't even believe your crackpot theories.

I firmly believe that America and the world are safer with Saddam gone. I firmly believe that however difficult the task has been, it was the right thing to do.

And there is nothing that can change your mind on that, even when it was proven that all of your "links" and "facts" were nothing more than smoke screens. . .the people you support don't even think or believe the tripe you spew forth, and that should tell you something. . .

[Oldskool]

[Jumbo]

[WVUforREDSKINS]

.....................

[Ken]

I'm not going to pretend to read 40 pages of a thread but this book is a great read:

http://www.amazon.com/Commission-Uncensored-History-11-Investigation/dp/0446580759

It pretty much puts most conspiracy theories to rest just based on politics alone...I'm almost done with it and highly recommend it. Instead of conspiracy theories and aliens, think of incompetence and lack of communication.

I prefer this book...

http://www.amazon.com/11-Commission-Report-Omissions-Distortions/dp/1566565847/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209916144&sr=1-1

[Ken]

Again with the complete Bull ****. We did NOT fund or train Bin Laden. You talk about me but you spew lies like this with ZERO evidence to back it up.

Bergen: Bin Laden, CIA links hogwash

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/08/15/bergen.answers/index.html

Dispelling the CIA-Bin Laden Myth

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98115,00.html

Reality - try to embrace it.

Wow you are gullable....

The fact that Bin laden was and probably still is (well he is dead now), is not even a question.

[Ken]

Dude, you just posted a bunch of BS with no proof to back it up. cooperativeresearch.org? Its a left wing loon house of people like you trying to write their own history. The only thing you have proven is that you are a moron if you think that the crap you just posted has any basis in reality. Wheres the link? Huh? Are you honestly going to tell me that I should ASSUME that since we trained native afghans who later became the northern alliance, that we must have trained bin Laden? Even though bin Laden himself says it did not happen? You are a loon. Plain and simple.

So much for intellectual honesty eh Predicto?

But Foxnews is a bastion of truth? :doh:

[Ken]

From 2008, a report with actual documentation from Iraqi documents:

Hey, you got these "reports"?

This is classic disinfo that you seem to fall for hook, liine, and sinker.

Unreal.

[Mad Mike]

Wow you are gullable....

The fact that Bin laden was and probably still is (well he is dead now), is not even a question.

Not a shred of evidence either way but because you assume it so it's not a question. You know what that's called don't you? Insanity.

[Ken]

Not a shred of evidence either way but because you assume it so it's not a question. You know what that's called don't you? Insanity.

Bin Laden Comes Home to Roost

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3340101/

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/people/shows/binladen/profile.html

"The United States, via the CIA, poured $3 billion into the Afghan resistance during the 1980s, providing weapons and other resources for bin Laden and thousands of others who would become his most loyal, fierce supporters. "

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,174803,00.html

"The foundations of Bin Laden's network were laid during the Afghan war, during which the wealthy Saudi heir had been the prime organizer of volunteers for the 'jihad' against the Soviet invasion. That made him a key player in an effort backed by the CIA and the intelligence agencies of Egypt and Saudi Arabia to funnel aid, equipment, training and volunteers to the Afghan mujahedeen."

[Mad Mike]

Bin Laden Comes Home to Roost

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3340101/

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/people/shows/binladen/profile.html

"The United States, via the CIA, poured $3 billion into the Afghan resistance during the 1980s, providing weapons and other resources for bin Laden and thousands of others who would become his most loyal, fierce supporters. "

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,174803,00.html

"The foundations of Bin Laden's network were laid during the Afghan war, during which the wealthy Saudi heir had been the prime organizer of volunteers for the 'jihad' against the Soviet invasion. That made him a key player in an effort backed by the CIA and the intelligence agencies of Egypt and Saudi Arabia to funnel aid, equipment, training and volunteers to the Afghan mujahedeen."

Do you see any evidence in those stories? No. You have just shown reporters propagating a myth.

Meawhile:

CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen says the notion that Osama bin Laden once worked for the CIA is "simply a folk myth" and that there's no shred of evidence to support such theories.

The story about bin Laden and the CIA -- that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden -- is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently.

The real story here is the CIA didn't really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him.

Fox news? How about Richard Miniter?

http://www.richardminiter.com/bio/index.html

Richard Miniter is the author of two New York Times bestselling books, Losing bin Laden and Shadow War, and is an internationally recognized expert on terrorism.

Bin Laden himself has repeatedly denied that he received any American support. “Personally neither I nor my brothers saw any evidence of American help,” bin Laden told British journalist Robert Fisk (search) in 1993. In 1996, Mr. Fisk interviewed bin Laden again. The arch-terrorist was equally adamant: “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.”

Those who contend that bin Laden received U.S. funds usually make the following argument: America financed the Afghan rebels, bin Laden was among the rebels, therefore, in one way or another, America gave money to bin Laden.

This ignores a key fact: There were two entirely separate rebellions against the Soviets, united only by a common communist enemy. One was financed by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states and was composed of Islamic extremists who migrated from across the Muslim world. They called themselves “Arab Afghans (search).” Bin Laden was among them. When the Saudis agreed to match U.S. contributions dollar-for-dollar, the sheikhs insisted that their funds go exclusively to the “Arab Afghans,” possibly including bin Laden. Meanwhile, U.S. funds went exclusively to the other rebellion, which was composed of native Afghans. Mr. Bearden told me: “I challenge anyone to give any proof that we gave one dollar to any Arab Afghans, let alone bin Laden.”

If a CIA officer tried to give money to bin Laden, he probably would not have lived through the experience. The arch-terrorist was known for his violent anti-Americanism. Dana Rohrabacher, now a Republican congressman from California, told me about a trip he took with the mujahideen (search) in 1987. On that trek, his guide told him not to speak English for the next few hours because they were passing by bin Laden’s camp. “If he hears an American, he will kill you.”

Why is this myth of CIA support for bin Laden so persistent? 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 us. The CIA-funding myth allows them to return to a familiar pattern, to blame America first. Whatever the cause, this myth weakens America’s case for the war on terror by setting up a moral equivalency between America and Al Qaeda (search). This animates protests at home and makes it harder to win allies abroad.

[chomerics]

Fox news? How about Richard Miniter?

http://www.richardminiter.com/bio/index.html

Minter is in the same persona of Fox News, and he is a right wing hack who writes write wing propaganda for the zealots to suck up like yourself. . .

Also, you are pimping out books made by Regenery Publishing, and Minter is one or their poster children for ignorant, shoddy reporting which will post only one side of the information. He is one of their top hacks in their lineup which has posted conservative lies all the way back to WWII..

They published books that were pro-Hitler

They published books that were made by Robert Welsh (founder of the John Borch Society)

Each and every one of their books are loose on facts and high on propaganda. They care about the message not the facts. . .this much is true in a vast majority of their books. Heck the published "Unfit for Command" which we all know was full of outright lies meant to smear a Vietnam vet and put a person in the white house who was a silver spoon elitiest. The oly problem is that people are too ignorant to understand this, yourself included.

You look for one thing that backs your belief then clutch and grab onto it like it is a baby hanging off the side ofa 50 story building. You are not the only one who does this, but you do it to such an extreme that is is laughable for the rest of us.

For a more unbiased book, you should read

Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001

You see that isn't published by a hack with one agenda, which ignores reality. .. instead it is a book on the inside of the CIA from the initial hostage crisis to 9-11, it is the best FACTUAL account of what happened.

One more thing about Miter, in his book. . .you should take someoen who writes. . .

Shadow War: The Untold Story of How Bush is Winning the War of Terror

with a grain of salt, especially when one of his main focus' in another book is how Halliburton didn't make anything off the Iraqi war. In other words, consider the source, and look for other information, you may be surprised at what you find if you open up your mind. . .but then again, as I mentioned before you lack the intellectual honesty to debate because you have an inherent psychological problem of admitting you are wrong. That much is blatantly clear for everyone here. . .

[chomerics]

Do you see any evidence in those stories? No. You have just shown reporters propagating a myth.

They only myth is the one that exists in your gray matter. . .there is plenty of information out there and we could go tit for tat on everything you stated. We can come up with concise and detailed reports from outlets like time, newsweek, the Post, and you will come up with something from the weekly standard, newsmax or Regency publishing. there are two sides to every story, and in the age of the internet you can find what ever side you want to argue. Where you are severely deficient is in understanding which outlets are credible, and which are right wing hack websites which only promote one side, are loose on facts and high on innuendos.

you need to understand that people want you to believe the things you are stating, but the rest of the world realized they were lying through their teeth to promote their party. They realized this oh, say around the 2005 year and by now, there is a handful of hacks who still are clinging to the propaganda. You are one of them.

Thanks, BTW, for showing everyone here how lunatic and ignorant people can be. You give the rest of us who live in a reality based on facts and not spin a reason to keep posting. It is to expose and ridicule hacks, like yourself, who are asw intellectually dishonest as you could possibly be.

I wrote that you are just as bad as the "loose change" people because you both believe crackpot theories with no basis in reality. . .I was wrong though. . .you are worse, at least they go away after 5 or so pages of getting ridiculed by the entire board, you come back for more time and time again. I do give them more credit than you, at least they disappear. ..

[TradeTheBeal!]

Bike Week's comin' soon!

[Mad Mike]

Milt Bearden was the CIA's station chief in Pakistan's capital Islamabad in 1986-89; as such he oversaw the agency's efforts to back the mujaheddin. He later said, "The CIA did not recruit Arabs. ... There were hundreds of thousands of Afghans all too willing to fight." And the CIA denied any direct contact with bin Laden.

(Steve Coll, Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan and Bin Laden from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001 (Penguin, 2005 edn), pp.87, 147, 155-6, 208; Peter L Bergen, Holy War, Inc: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden [Weidenfield & Nicholson, London, 2001], pp.70-71; Tenet statement to the Joint Inquiry on 9/11, Oct. 17, 2002.)