9/11 Coincidences

[Mad Mike]

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. ..

Plenty of information but you cant produce any. :laugh:

[Mad Mike]

Bike Week's comin' soon!

You really are a sad, pathetic little child.

[TradeTheBeal!]

You really are a sad, pathetic little child.

Alec Baldwin?

[Baculus]

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?

We outlasted a Soviet Union that was more armed to the teeth then Saddam, and the Soviets also supported terrorism as well. In short, we have proven that we can outlast anyone, but yet, all of a sudden, Iraq and Saddam were a special case? That we had to act NOW or face dire consequences?

Keep in mind that nations such as Libya, which have been start sponsors of terror, have, in fact, been moved from the list of terror-supporting states and has cooperated with the United States with anti-terrorism efforts. It is better to continue sanctions, especially if you revamp the system, as opposed to a strategy, vis-a-vis invasion, which cannot be reversed. And which ultimately leads to the rather unstable situation that we currently have in the region.

So, you are stating the DOCUMENTATION that you have posted was worth over 4,000 American lives, over a half trillion in financial cost, increased Iranian influence in the country, regional instability, an increased Al-Qaeda presence, and bearing the responsibility for rebuilding an entire nation? Not including the affect it has had on the US military as well as the civilian public?

All that based on a few "documented" ties that may, or may not, have been accurate?

It is just such a sudden, odd departure from years of past policy, especially basing preemption based on just documentation - information and documentation can be created by incorrect, falsified, or poor intelligence. (Case in point, the "yellow cake" intelligence fiasco...)

Look at the post-war investigation - much of it has been found to be contrary to pre-war claims by the Bush and previous administrations. If you use intel, it better be real world intel, i.e., photographs of construction in Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Most Americans believe the war was simply based on faulty intelligence.

Yes, Saddam did have some ties to terrorism, but again, there are other agencies in other nations (including this one) that also have had ties to terrorism, and we have dealt with these nations in other manners other than an out and out invasion. (As an example, our support of anti-Iranian groups in SE Iran that have ties to Al-Qaeda...)

Preemption based on intelligence, in this case, was a flawed strategy that had terrible consequences.

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.

We have no information that ties Saddam to 9-11, and yet you continue to support this belief, in spite of evidence to the contrary. And, as it has been stated numerous times, our allies in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan had more ties to 9-11 then Saddam, and this is supported by solid intelligence and observation of events.

Wars simply cannot be started and based on a hunch.

Furthermore, we have no evidence of direct Iraq threats against the US, either via conventional or unconventional beliefs. And yet, we DO have evidence of direct threats to the US post-invasion, due to a vacuum created by the deposing of Saddam and the collapse of the Baathist government. What's an even larger threat is the fact that we have allowed Iran to gain control of a significant part of their former enemy in Iraq.

Especially considering that Bin Laden, who you stated is responsible for conducting 9-11, has yet to be captured, and Afghanistan still has threats from the Taliban operating in various parts of the country. Does it seem like a prudent strategy to have conducted a second front while we are still operating in a country in which we were attempting to locate those involved with 9-11?

While you believe we are safer, you just seem to be overlooking the current situation, the reality of what has transpired since the invasion, and threats that loom larger then Saddam possibly ever did.

The zeal to "get" Saddam has probably resulted in tunnel vision, from you and the current administration.

[Baculus]

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

Meawhile:

Fox news? How about Richard Miniter?

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

I couldn't quote your own quotes, so I will make do in responding in this format.

It isn't terribly difficult to see how the CIA would support Bin Laden. It is well known that the Bush family has ties to the Bin Laden family, and what was George H. Bush's position during the 70's? CIA director. So...it isn't a huge leap of faith that the Bin Laden family would use its ties to help procure assistance for the cause against the Soviets.

Now, that being said, Bin Laden didn't play as big of part of fighting the Russians as say, Ahmad Shah Massoud, who was assassinated on Sept. 10th, 2001, by the Taliban and under Bin Laden's directives.

I think there is a certain irony in this debate: You believe Saddam was involved in 9-11, though you have no evidence to support your position. And yet, you scoff at the evidence of others when you believe such claims are unfounded.

I guess everyone has some inconsistencies in their beliefs and positions, right?

[Baculus]

(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.)

The CIA denies involvement with a lot of operations - that is part of its functionality. For example, do you believe the CIA is going to admit to being involved in the cocaine trade via South America, or the heroin trade in the Golden Triangle? (Even though there is evidence to support this claim...)

[19Skins72]

To the conspiracy theorists in this thread;

So Bush & Co. convinced the Department of Defense to essentially punch itself in the nuts with a aircraft holding 64 innocent victims and a tank full of fuel?

I suppose the 100+ victims working at the Pentagon were the few honest DoD employees that wouldn't go along with this nefarious scheme, and thus were expendable?

Are you actually retarded enough to believe this crap?

If you answer "yes" we should air drop your ###es over enemy combatant positions in Afghanistan sans parachutes :mad:

[Mad Mike]

The CIA denies involvement with a lot of operations - that is part of its functionality. For example, do you believe the CIA is going to admit to being involved in the cocaine trade via South America, or the heroin trade in the Golden Triangle? (Even though there is evidence to support this claim...)

So the lack of evidence and your belief that the CIA trained bin Laden makes it fact right?

Incidentally, I found Michael Moran's email and wrote him this letter. let's see how he responds.

In your story "Bin Laden comes home to roost" on MSNBC you said "

"Yet the CIA, concerned about the factionalism of Afghanistan made famous by Rudyard Kipling, found that Arab zealots who flocked to aid the Afghans were easier to “read” than the rivalry-ridden natives. While the Arab volunteers might well prove troublesome later, the agency reasoned, they at least were one-dimensionally anti-Soviet for now. So bin Laden, along with a small group of Islamic militants from Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and Palestinian refugee camps all over the Middle East, became the “reliable” partners of the CIA in its war against Moscow."

However 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. He further states that :

"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."

According to Rober Fisk bin Laden himself said in an interview:

“Personally neither I nor my brothers saw any evidence of American help,” and later “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.”

My understanding is that our funding and support went to native Afghans who themselves were distrustful of Arab fighters.

So my question with all due respect is simple. As someone who honestly wants to know the truth I ask. Is there any actual, direct evidence, that the CIA funded or trained bin Laden?

Respectfully

[Mad Mike]

I couldn't quote your own quotes, so I will make do in responding in this format.

It isn't terribly difficult to see how the CIA would support Bin Laden. It is well known that the Bush family has ties to the Bin Laden family, and what was George H. Bush's position during the 70's? CIA director. So...it isn't a huge leap of faith that the Bin Laden family would use its ties to help procure assistance for the cause against the Soviets.

Now, that being said, Bin Laden didn't play as big of part of fighting the Russians as say, Ahmad Shah Massoud, who was assassinated on Sept. 10th, 2001, by the Taliban and under Bin Laden's directives.

I think there is a certain irony in this debate: You believe Saddam was involved in 9-11, though you have no evidence to support your position. And yet, you scoff at the evidence of others when you believe such claims are unfounded.

I guess everyone has some inconsistencies in their beliefs and positions, right?

I see, I'm supposed to make a leap of faith that the CIA trained bin Laden but the FACT that Iraq trained arab terrorists and ran a training camp that included a commercial aircraft for hijacking training along with the FACT that they supported dozens of terrorist organizations with the goal of targeting americans and the FACT that they were in contact with al Qaeda should not lead me to believe that they might have helped with 9/11 in some way. Riiiiiight. Now THAT is irony.

Lets try this.... It is a known FACT that Iraq had direct contact with al Qaeda. Do you have any facts that show the US did?

Get back to me when you do.

[Ken]

I see, I'm supposed to make a leap of faith that the CIA trained bin Laden but the FACT that Iraq trained arab terrorists and ran a training camp that included a commercial aircraft for hijacking training along with the FACT that they supported dozens of terrorist organizations with the goal of targeting americans and the FACT that they were in contact with al Qaeda should not lead me to believe that they might have helped with 9/11 in some way. Riiiiiight. Now THAT is irony.

Lets try this.... It is a known FACT that Iraq had direct contact with al Qaeda. Do you have any facts that show the US did?

Get back to me when you do.

US Funds Terror Groups to Sow Chaos in Iran

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:pkgdAu38dkwJ:www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml%3Fxml%3D/news/2007/02/25/wiran25.xml+US+funds+terror+groups&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

[Baculus]

I see, I'm supposed to make a leap of faith that the CIA trained bin Laden but the FACT that Iraq trained arab terrorists and ran a training camp that included a commercial aircraft for hijacking training along with the FACT that they supported dozens of terrorist organizations with the goal of targeting americans and the FACT that they were in contact with al Qaeda should not lead me to believe that they might have helped with 9/11 in some way. Riiiiiight. Now THAT is irony.

Lets try this.... It is a known FACT that Iraq had direct contact with al Qaeda. Do you have any facts that show the US did?

Get back to me when you do.

The FACT? Some of these facts are as dubiously supported as some of the 9-11 theories. You won't admit it, but you are as much of a conspiracy buff as some of the folks that post on 9-11 threads.

After all, you have a belief in a theory that hasn't be supported by investigations, including administration investigations, post 9-11 and post-invasion. Even the 9-11 Commission, as well as the Pentagon, stated that there is no evidence of "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

Does this mean that Iraq were innocent of sponsoring terror? No, it does not, but that isn't the focus of the debate.

Much of the ties between Al-Qaeda ("The Base") and the CIA would have been through the ISI. And this wouldn't have taken place during the 80's, but during the 90's, when Afghanistan was in turmoil. After all, what was "The Base" at that time, but a collection of anti-Soviet fighters.

Keep in mind, too, Bin Laden wasn't even the most pivotal figure in Al-Qaeda - that was Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, founder of Al-Qaeda, who even traveled across the U.S. to raise funds to help fight the Soviets.

[Ken]

I see, I'm supposed to make a leap of faith that the CIA trained bin Laden but the FACT that Iraq trained arab terrorists and ran a training camp that included a commercial aircraft for hijacking training along with the FACT that they supported dozens of terrorist organizations with the goal of targeting americans and the FACT that they were in contact with al Qaeda should not lead me to believe that they might have helped with 9/11 in some way. Riiiiiight. Now THAT is irony.

Lets try this.... It is a known FACT that Iraq had direct contact with al Qaeda. Do you have any facts that show the US did?

Get back to me when you do.

Page two of this thread is links to another affiliation with Terrorists...

http://extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=218957&page=2&pp=15

[Baculus]

So the lack of evidence and your belief that the CIA trained bin Laden makes it fact right?

DEMONSTRATE WHERE I SAID THE CIA TRAINED BIN LADEN - you cannot, because I never said that. You are putting words in my mouth while avoiding the debate at hand in your attempt to create a red herring.

I think it is amusing that you quoted Robert Fisk, seeing how some folks see him as a "moonbat," since he questions some of the 9-11 investigation (such as the collapse of WTC 7).

Apparently, you also base your "fact" on a lack of evidence, eh?

I had mentioned that the U.S. is supporting an organization, Jundullah, in S.E. Iran that is purportedly connected to both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. I guess you have no comment, eh?

[Redskins Diehard]

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?

Are you making an argument against invading Iraq? Or for invading Saudi Arabia?

I would say AIPAC has more influence on our foreign policy than the Saudi royal family.

[philal0102]

wow... This thing is still alive and kickin?

[Mad Mike]

So I wrote Michael Moran, author of the MSNBC article "Bin Laden comes home to roost" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3340101/ and asked him about the CIA's involvement with bin Laden....

In your story "Bin Laden comes home to roost" on MSNBC you said "

"Yet the CIA, concerned about the factionalism of Afghanistan made famous by Rudyard Kipling, found that Arab zealots who flocked to aid the Afghans were easier to “read” than the rivalry-ridden natives. While the Arab volunteers might well prove troublesome later, the agency reasoned, they at least were one-dimensionally anti-Soviet for now. So bin Laden, along with a small group of Islamic militants from Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and Palestinian refugee camps all over the Middle East, became the “reliable” partners of the CIA in its war against Moscow."

However 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. He further states that :

"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."

According to Rober Fisk bin Laden himself said in an interview:

“Personally neither I nor my brothers saw any evidence of American help,” and later “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.”

My understanding is that our funding and support went to native Afghans who themselves were distrustful of Arab fighters.

So my question with all due respect is simple. As someone who honestly wants to know the truth I ask. Is there any actual, direct evidence, that the CIA funded or trained bin Laden?

Respectfully

He was kind enough to reply...

In fact, American money never went directly to anyone in Afghanistan. The best source on this, I think, is Steve Coll's book,"Ghost Wars."

The arrangement with Saudi Arabia which funded much of the insurgency required all funds to be funneled through a sub-department of the Pakistani ISI. Pakistanis, by and large, were the ones in the country training the rebels, and it's through this conduit that I understand the precursor to Al Qaeda got its training.

Worth noting, too, is that the headline you cite merely refers to the fact that the massive transfer of arms to impoverished Afghanistan, through corrupt and venal Pakistani sources, had caused a good deal of trouble. Pakistan's role in post-Soviet Afghanistan is reprehensible, and Bin Laden's hosts were directly dependent on our Pakistani allies for their keep.

I hope that helps. I never said Bin Laden received American money. I wrote that he was the beneficiary of an American policy which hitched its wagons to zealots who's long-term interests were demonstrable anti-American.

MM

So there it is. A source many have used to claim that the CIA funded and trained bin Laden has backed away from your claim.

The closest we have seen now is that Pakistan MAY have funded bin Laden or his allies with money from the CIA and not by our choice. However we also know that Bin Laden got his clout because he had his own money to buy arms and equip his small group of arab insurgents. That's why he was sen as a hero to them.

In actuality the worst part of this is how Pakistan funded and propped up the Taliban under PM Buhtto. If we had taken a more direct approach and helped Afghanistan get back on it's feet after the soviets left, there might have been no Taliban and no safe haven for bin Laden. Now some Americans would have us do the same thing and leave Iraq to fall into the wrong hands so we can do it all again.

And by the way I wrote him back...

Thank you for your reply.

This was my understanding as well. I think however, that Pakistan would have been funding and training them anyway and bin Laden had his own money to buy weapons, and that's what gave him clout in the first place. Nothing we did helped him along in any substantial way and he would have followed the same course that led to 9/11 no matter what we did.

Again thanks for taking the time to reply.

Mike

[speardog1]

This thread is like a train wreck. You don't wanna look, but ya have to.

[chomerics]

Are you making an argument against invading Iraq? Or for invading Saudi Arabia?

put it this way, if we went after Saudi Arabia, we would have actually had documented evidence, of people who support terrorism.

I would say AIPAC has more influence on our foreign policy than the Saudi royal family.

I would strongly disagree. . .

That is not to say AIPAC doesn't have influence, they do, just not to the extent the Saud's have on the Bush's. heck, the Saud's bailed out almost every one of Dubya's failed business ventures. . .

[Chief skin]

Government could not have done it for the basic fact that this administration has screwed up everything they have attempted. Unfortunately the 911 attacks were a success (that is something this administration is not)

[headexplode]

Guys, guys, we don't have to fight. We know who caused 9/11. It was homosexuals and feminists, of course.

[chomerics]

In fact, American money never went directly to anyone in Afghanistan. The best source on this, I think, is Steve Coll's book,"Ghost Wars."

The arrangement with Saudi Arabia which funded much of the insurgency required all funds to be funneled through a sub-department of the Pakistani ISI. Pakistanis, by and large, were the ones in the country training the rebels, and it's through this conduit that I understand the precursor to Al Qaeda got its training.

Worth noting, too, is that the headline you cite merely refers to the fact that the massive transfer of arms to impoverished Afghanistan, through corrupt and venal Pakistani sources, had caused a good deal of trouble. Pakistan's role in post-Soviet Afghanistan is reprehensible, and Bin Laden's hosts were directly dependent on our Pakistani allies for their keep.

I hope that helps. I never said Bin Laden received American money. I wrote that he was the beneficiary of an American policy which hitched its wagons to zealots who's long-term interests were demonstrable anti-American.

MM

Where in there does it say that Bin Laden was not the beneficiary of American support? Where in there does it say he received no help from the CIA?

Of COURSE they used third party proxies to funnel money to the terrorists, did you think there was a check with Osama's name on it to the tune of millions???

We funded the people who were fighting the Soviets, we did this through Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. . .again, read the book Ghost Wars, it chronicles the entire operation! It talks about how we got the arms in the hands of Bin Laden, how they were trained and where the money came from. We were not the only ones spending money on this, and we were not the only ones training him.

We did everything through Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, we funded the terrorists with both money and weapons.

Here, from the US State Department. . .

"While the charges that the CIA was responsible for the rise of the Afghan Arabs might make good copy, they don't make good history. The truth is more complicated, tinged with varying shades of gray. The United States wanted to be able to deny that the CIA was funding the Afghan war, so its support was funneled through Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI). ISI in turn made the decisions about which Afghan factions to arm and train, tending to favor the most Islamist and pro-Pakistan. The Afghan Arabs generally fought alongside those factions, which is how the charge arose that they were creatures of the CIA.

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-318760.html

Let me highlight the pertinent part for you. . .

The arrangement with Saudi Arabia which funded much of the insurgency required all funds to be funneled through a sub-department of the Pakistani ISI. Pakistanis, by and large, were the ones in the country training the rebels, and it's through this conduit that I understand the precursor to Al Qaeda got its training.

So, to say we did not fund Bin Laden is a complete farce, and yet AGAIN for the umpteenth MILLIONTH time, you are wrong with egg on your face.

Your own link talks about how the money went to Bin Laden, how the Pakistanis trained him, and how he was the beneficiary of the ISI. We in turn were funding the ISI to train them.

We did in fact fund Osama Bin Laden!!! I used your own e-mail response as well as something from the US Government to prove that to you.

Your only defense? We didn't write a check to him directly, or transfer money to him directly, well of course not. Why the hell would we ever do something like that? We use third party proxies to do our dirty work, and we did indeed fund Bin Laden and the mujahadeen this way.

Read Ghost Wars, become enlightened, because all you are doing now is showing how piss poor your argument it, and proving yet again, for the 9 billionth time that you are not only wrong, but so ignorant and pig headed you can't even see why you are wrong.

So. . .with this information, will you admit that we funded Osama Bin Laden through third proxy parties in the fight against the soviets yes or no?

Will you admit Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 yes or no?

the clock is ticking, answer the questions. . .

[Mad Mike]

So I wrote Michael Moran, author of the MSNBC article "Bin Laden comes home to roost" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3340101/ and asked him about the CIA's involvement with bin Laden....

Update: In reply to my last comment...

Thank you for your reply.

This was my understanding as well. I think however, that Pakistan would have been funding and training them anyway and bin Laden had his own money to buy weapons, and that's what gave him clout in the first place. Nothing we did helped him along in any substantial way and he would have followed the same course that led to 9/11 no matter what we did.

Again thanks for taking the time to reply.

Mike

He wrote...

Well, we created a space for him to thrive in (Afghanistan) by abandoning it after the Soviets left. But that's another story.

All the best,

MM

Sound familiar?

In actuality the worst part of this is how Pakistan funded and propped up the Taliban under PM Buhtto. If we had taken a more direct approach and helped Afghanistan get back on it's feet after the soviets left, there might have been no Taliban and no safe haven for bin Laden. Now some Americans would have us do the same thing and leave Iraq to fall into the wrong hands so we can do it all again. - Mad Mike

[Mad Mike]

Where in there does it say that Bin Laden was not the beneficiary of American support? Where in there does it say he received no help from the CIA?

Of COURSE they used third party proxies to funnel money to the terrorists, did you think there was a check with Osama's name on it to the tune of millions???

We funded the people who were fighting the Soviets, we did this through Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. . .again, read the book Ghost Wars, it chronicles the entire operation! It talks about how we got the arms in the hands of Bin Laden, how they were trained and where the money came from. We were not the only ones spending money on this, and we were not the only ones training him.

We did everything through Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, we funded the terrorists with both money and weapons.

Here, from the US State Department. . .

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-318760.html

Let me highlight the pertinent part for you. . .

So, to say we did not fund Bin Laden is a complete farce, and yet AGAIN for the umpteenth MILLIONTH time, you are wrong with egg on your face.

Your own link talks about how the money went to Bin Laden, how the Pakistanis trained him, and how he was the beneficiary of the ISI. We in turn were funding the ISI to train them.

We did in fact fund Osama Bin Laden!!! I used your own e-mail response as well as something from the US Government to prove that to you.

Your only defense? We didn't write a check to him directly, or transfer money to him directly, well of course not. Why the hell would we ever do something like that? We use third party proxies to do our dirty work, and we did indeed fund Bin Laden and the mujahadeen this way.

Read Ghost Wars, become enlightened, because all you are doing now is showing how piss poor your argument it, and proving yet again, for the 9 billionth time that you are not only wrong, but so ignorant and pig headed you can't even see why you are wrong.

So. . .with this information, will you admit that we funded Osama Bin Laden through third proxy parties in the fight against the soviets yes or no?

Will you admit Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 yes or no?

the clock is ticking, answer the questions. . .

So if that constitutes a link between the CIA "training" bin Laden (your words) what is this?..

Egyptian Islamic Jihad was founded and led by Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, now Al Qaeda’s co-leader. The group is most infamous for the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. Zawahiri is known to have worked in the Al Qaeda organization since its inception, while he was still leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad in fact. Al Qaeda was started around 1989 and Zawahiri is said to have been a senior member from its earliest days. He was present in Afghanistan with Bin Laden at the time and later he was in Sudan with Bin Laden until being expelled in 1996 and eventually returning to Afghanistan. In 1998, Zawahiri formally merged Egyptian Islamic Jihad with Al Qaeda and has served as co-leader of Al Qaeda ever since. Iraq’s relationship with Egyptian Islamic Jihad was so close that captured documents indicate that Iraq was able to request that the group hold off on operations against the regime in Egypt in 1993.

http://thomasjoscelyn.blogspot.com/2006/09/show-us-documents.html

Another reason may be related to the Commission's choice of expert witnesses. One of the Commission's key witnesses was Michael Scheuer, who was the first head of the CIA's bin Laden unit from 1996 to 1999. I have written about Scheuer for the Weekly Standard on three occasions. (See here, here, and here.) Scheuer has said on multiple occasions that he was the one tasked with reviewing the CIA's files for evidence of a relationship between the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda. He claimed that he couldn't find any evidence in 2004, when testifying before the 9-11 Commission. But as I have pointed out several times, he found plenty of evidence of a relationship in 2002 when he published his first book, Through Our Enemies' Eyes.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/949ycflv.asp

Scheuer's 2002 book, Through Our Enemies' Eyes offered startling conclusions regarding Saddam Hussein's willingness to assist al Qaeda's effort to obtain nuclear weapons. "In pursuing tactical nuclear weapons, bin Laden has focused on the FSU [Former Soviet Union] states and has sought and received help from Iraq," wrote Scheuer. In fact, bin Laden's "first moves in this direction were made in cooperation with NIF [sudan's National Islamic Front] leaders, Iraq's intelligence service, and Iraqi CBRN [chemical-biological-radiological-nuclear] scientists and technicians."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/956xwmyw.asp?pg=2

Bush administration critic Richard Clarke worried in an email to Sandy Berger on February 11 that bin Laden would find out about a proposed U-2 fly over and "armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/341eptvh.asp

Regarding Iraq, bin Laden, as noted was in contact with Baghdad's intelligence service since at least 1994. He reportedly cooperated with it in the area of chemical-biological-radiological-nuclear (CBRN) weapons and may have trained some fighters in Iraq at camps run by Saddam's anti-Iran force, the Mujahedin e-Khalq (MEK). The first group of bin Laden's fighters is reported to have been sent to the MEK camps in June 1998; MEK cadre also were then providing technical and military training for Taliban forces and running the Taliban's anti-Iran propaganda.

Other laboratory and production facilities available to bin Laden are reported in the Khowst and Jalalabad areas, and in the Khartoum suburb of Kubar. The latter facility is said to be a "new chemical and bacteriological factory" cooperatively built by Sudan, bin Laden, and Iraq, and may be one of several in Sudan. In January 1999, Al-Watan Al-Arabi reported that by late 1998, "Iraq, Sudan, and bin Laden were cooperating and coordinating in the field of chemical weapons." The reports say that several chemical factories were built in Sudan. They were financed by bin Laden and supervised by Iraqi experts. Michael Scheuer- head of the CIA's bin Laden unit from 1996 to 1999.

The role of Saddam and al Qaeda in the creation of Ansar al Islam.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/860ydczr.asp?pg=2

Two intercepts in 2002--one in May, the other in October--illuminated the Iraqi regime's role in Ansar al Islam. The first revealed that an Iraqi Intelligence officer praised the work of the terrorist group and passed $100,000 to its leaders. The second, described in a report from the National Security Agency, reported that the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda reached an agreement whereby the regime would provide safehaven in northern Iraq to al Qaeda terrorists fleeing Afghanistan. Also, the regime agreed to fund and to arm the incoming jihadists.

And to answer your question. I DONT KNOW and NEITHER DO YOU. However the FACT that they had connections, and the FACT that Iraq ran training camps for foreign terrorists which included a commercial aircraft used to train hijackers is pretty damn suggestive.

[Baculus]

You know how Mad Mike debates? "Argument by ommission." If there are any uncomfortable details, he ignores them or he'll throw out statements and never return back to them.

Debating with Mike is like debating with a block quote machine. Sure, he may occasionally respond to one or two comments, but generally, he does not like to debate the finer details. Except for, you know, chugging out blocks of quotes. (As advice, Mike, use bullets: nobody wants to wade though all that to find your specific point.)

For example, if I point out that the US may very well be supporting Jundullah, an Al-Qaeda linked but anti-Iranian group, he has nothing to say. "Ooops. Uncomfortable detail. Must ignore! Must get back to 'Saddam was behind 9-11' focus! It was all Saddam! WMDs!"

[LoveDaSkins172645]

Dude doesn't this show you just how ridiculous the American people are as a whole and simply how vicious this goverment is. Anyone with 1/2 a brain will know the truth I will state just a few for the lost people here on ES.

1) Look at the footage of the towers collapsing. Watch it in slow motion and tell me there aren't explosions on every floor going down JUST LIKE HOW THEY DEMOLISH a building.

2) I will come back with the name but one of the supposed hyjackers that supposedly died in the plane crash is living quite well in the middle east and he is a Professor there at a major university.

3) The plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon, the "engine: they supposedly found at the site, didn't and doesn't match the plane they SWEAR hit the Pentagon.

4) United 93 was shot down by F-16's

I know I will be blasted, cursed and all that but America as a whole is gullable and the goverment has been lying or should I say Bush, Chaney and Rice have bent us all over with no grease.

Investigate for yourself and see for yourself. Not just what the goverment wants you to know. All this military might we have and we can't even find an old 1/2 dead turban wearing man that goes from cave to cave in a donkey! Yeah okay you all believe that if you want. In 1965 my father flew the SR-71 from 80,000 feet it took a picture of a golf ball and could tell you who made it. That was 42 years ago! Think how much advancement has been made and we can't find Bin Laden......

Man this country and the fools that believe the goverment without question simply amazes me.......