Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Al Qaeida, The CIA, Mujahadeen etc

the Mujahadeen became the Taliban after they defeated Russia in Afghansitan....
Nope.
Some former members of the Muj may have gone on to be part of the Taliban, but others went on to become "warlords", some of whom now comprise "The Northern Alliance.
...And they were funded mainly by Ronald Reagan administration.
Nope.
Funding was pretty much 50/50 between the US and Saudi, and the funding started with Carter.
The Taliban and Al-Queada are totally seperate entities with seperate motivations. The Taliban are locals who do not want any intervention from any foreign power in their region. Al-Queada is just anti-american and has little to do with the Taliban. They are two different animals. :))\
And a third "nope".
There's some crossover between the two, in terms of training and personnel, and al-Qaeda isn't just "anti-American", it's a project that promotes anti-modernity, anti-westernism and anti-secularism.
What the Taliban, are, is a Pashtun-dominated expansionist tribal alliance who're not above a bit of "ethnic cleansing".
 
The fact that OBL was a CIA asset is very straight forward.
Only if you're working to a broad definition of what constitutes an "asset", given that the term is generally taken in the intelligence community to mean either "intelligence gatherer" or "field operative". The fact that someone may have carried out tasks set by the CIA doesn't mean they're an "asset", it could mean as little as the two parties having a shared target at a particular time.
The collosal links between Bushes and bin Ladens are very straight forward.
And yet none of those links (or even all those links taken together) constitutes enough of a "smoking gun" to bring a case against Bush, does it?
Bush Snr ran the CIA of course.
Bush 1 was director of the CIA, he didn't "run" it, he figureheaded it. He was the top point of contact between Langley and Washington, rather than an operationally brilliant supervisor of intelligence gathering.
 
Also as far as I am aware, the Taleban had it's origins in the Madrasses if Pakistan that run along the border with Afghanistan.
Yep, pretty much in the Pashtun-dominated areas that have never really acknowledged the reality or validity of the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.
 
And yet none of those links (or even all those links taken together) constitutes enough of a "smoking gun" to bring a case against Bush, does it?

Just briefly, the links I put upthread arent meant as a case against Bush, they do represent cases against Cheney for treason.

I wouldnt lay too much at the feet of Bush Jnr, any wise conspiracy would leave him out of the loop as much as possible. Bush Snr is another matter.
 
I think it's highly doubtful that Bin Laden was ever a CIA operative who reported back to Washington and so on, but I also think it's highly likely that the CIA were involved with him for a long time after Russia had left Afghanistan

I don't think it's innacurate to call him an 'asset' since they obviously got a lot of use out of him
 
Only if you're working to a broad definition of what constitutes an "asset", given that the term is generally taken in the intelligence community to mean either "intelligence gatherer" or "field operative". The fact that someone may have carried out tasks set by the CIA doesn't mean they're an "asset", it could mean as little as the two parties having a shared target at a particular time.

To be honest, if an intelligence service funds someone to do stuff (even if its through a conduit like ISI - another intelligence service) I dont see the problem with calling that person an "asset". Obviously at some point he ceased to be portrayed as an asset, although the CIA kept up contacts with him.

In my humble opinion there is a distinct possibility that OBL has a stooge / boogeyman role that goes beyond that of your average guerilla leader.
 
In a venn diagram of all this mess, the circles (CIA, OBL, Mujahadeen, Taliban, USG, Saudis etc etc) overlap in many ways. Some people think that the degree of overlap is so great that you may as well only draw one circle. Error! The world is never that simple and there are conflicts of interest at all levels.
 
In a venn diagram of all this mess, the circles (CIA, OBL, Mujahadeen, Taliban, USG, Saudis etc etc) overlap in many ways. Some people think that the degree of overlap is so great that you may as well only draw one circle. Error! The world is never that simple and there are conflicts of interest at all levels.


Not one circle no, but it is important to know if and to what extent governments and agencies are criminal and involved in tyranny, terror or sponsorship of either.

In those regards the CIA come out looking very bad, some would say very very bad.
 
Are you going to put some facts into the mix here?

Its a fact that intelligence agencies have "handlers" for their assets (how much control that "handler" might have is highly variable)

It is easy to establish OBL was an asset of the CIA because they gave him money to do stuff, and met with them as recently as a couple of weeks before September 11th 2001.
 
I've posted links to establish plenty of facts, including the ones in that post you are responding to. I will continue to post links to establish other facts.

For me the most important fact is that intelligence agencies are up to their necks in vile skullduggery of the kind they pupport to prevent.

What then matters is discerning the extent of that and trying to establish detail. It is the nature of the subject, and I am a novice in it, that it is hard to get a grip on some specific details from more than one source so conjecture is inevitable. But from an array of facts we can at least try to discern patterns.

The most interesting question for me in the context of this thread is the extent to which OBL was used by the CIA at different times and in different ways across his career. That he was is a fact. Threads like this tease out the detail, which is good. But skepticism is fine, as long as it doesnt turn into obfuscation and goal post shifting.
 
Well do it again or link to the previous posts with those facts please. This thread is surely set up for just that? I'm not just going to take what you say as fact, given that i've already made one of your facts dissapear today.
 
To repeat, for me the most important fact is that intelligence agencies are up to their necks in vile skullduggery of the kind they pupport to prevent.

Anyone can establish this very easily themselves.

The fact that OBL was a CIA asset is established.

Now we just have to discern the extent of that.
 
I don't think anybody is questioning that there are strong links between the ISI and The Taliban. It is already well documented.
 
I don't think anybody is questioning that there are strong links between the ISI and The Taliban. It is already well documented.

As are the links with CIA

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/interviews/tomsen.html

"In terms of ISI's power, it … was enormously expanded during the jihad, when you had [a] huge flow of resources via the CIA, which was ISI's counterpart into Pakistan.

There was a category in the CIA budget at that time which dealt with infrastructure of ISI, and ISI received hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars for its own infrastructure."
 
A congressional investigation in 2003 on the 911 attack had a large section of its report redacted (this was what I referred to earlier before I looked it up properly). There was a congressional meeting where some of the people on the investigation team argued for an amendment to release these pages to the public. Here are a few interesting quotes from the transcript of this meeting which give some indication of what was in those pages.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/s102803.html

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) The President has prevented the release to the American
public of 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence
Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks
of September 2001.
(2) The contents of the redacted pages discuss sources of
foreign support for some of the September 11th hijackers
while they were in the United States.

… (5) The Senate respects the need to keep information
regarding intelligence sources and methods classified, but
the Senate also recognizes that such purposes can be
accomplished through careful selective redaction of specific
words and passages, rather than effacing the section's
contents entirely..


Senators Graham and Shelby, the former chair and cochair of the Intelligence Committee who directed the report are quoted saying the following: "I think they are classified for the wrong reason," the former vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee told NBC's "Meet the Press." "I went back and read every one of those pages thoroughly. My judgment is 95 percent of that information should be declassified and become uncensored so the American people would know." Asked why the section was blacked out, Shelby said: "I think it might be embarrassing to international relations."

… There is also an issue not of micro but of macro importance: This
report makes a very compelling case, based on the information submitted
by the agencies themselves, that there was a foreign government which
was complicitous in the actions leading up to September 11, at least as
it relates to some of the terrorists who were present in one part of
the United States.

… My own hypothesis--and I will describe it as that--is that in fact
similar assistance was being provided to all or at least most of the
terrorists. The difference is that we happened, because of a set of
circumstances which are contained in these 28 censored pages, to have
an unusual window on a few of the terrorists. We did not have a similar
window on others. Therefore, it will take more effort to determine if
they were, in fact, receiving that assistance. That effort has, in my
judgment, been grossly insufficiently pursued.

… Those are very fundamental questions, and if the public had access to
these 28 pages, they would be demanding answers.

And there is the additional issue of whether we are going to inadvertently grant a significant financial benefit to a country that has been to say less than our ally in the war on terror would be a gross understatement.
 
As others have said, think its messy.

Read in that book on Blackwater, Kissinger has taken an strong interest in central Asian pipelines, and meetings with Unocal predate the Taliban taking power...

Charlie Wilson's war covers the US funding of the Mujahideen pretty well but has it as short sighted fuck up not hanging around for the tidying up.
Taliban grew out of a general annoyance with war lord corruption and the march to Kandahar. but war lord corruption would have same difficulties for pipelines, so there would have been motivation.

Al Qaeda is a different animal and while there is some intersection, it has as much to do with Bosnia.
If WTC attacks hadn't of happened, I'm not sure the Taliban would have remained in power by 2003 - they were less than a year into their opium eradication policy and climate change was starting to cause droughts...
 
Its not quite as straight forward as that.
Initially, the effort to support the Muj was organised outside of official CIA channels, via the neo-fascist World Anti-Communist League (ref: Bob Woodward: 'Veil') ie pretty much the same people who were supporting the Contras despite a congressional ban on such activities.
 
Initially, the effort to support the Muj was organised outside of official CIA channels, via the neo-fascist World Anti-Communist League (ref: Bob Woodward: 'Veil') ie pretty much the same people who were supporting the Contras despite a congressional ban on such activities.

IIRC, John McCain had quite strong links with the World Anti-Communist League.
 
Initially, the effort to support the Muj was organised outside of official CIA channels, via the neo-fascist World Anti-Communist League (ref: Bob Woodward: 'Veil') ie pretty much the same people who were supporting the Contras despite a congressional ban on such activities.

Werent the contras funded by CIA drug running as well though?
 
Back
Top Bottom