Osama bin Laden

[Infidel]

And a comment from the fringe: I prefer the way Obama handled Osama over the way Bush handled Hussein. Either way it does not pay to be a former CIA "asset."

UBL was not a CIA asset, former or otherwise.

I'm guessing the reluctance to admit he was stems from the idea that this would make the US partly culpable for its own troubles. But that is not the point of my comment, nor do I think admitting it lends credence to conspiracy theorists' claims about 9/11. I do however point it out to maintain a measure of sanity in the face of historical revisionism and the "Ministry of Truth."

You would be guessing wrong. That UBL was associated with/trained by/funded by etc the CIA is a commonly repeated meme in the same vein as he was educated in the West, or that Saddam was armed by the United States.

As a cadet in the mid 80's I followed news of the Afghan "Freedom Fighters" (as they were known in the West) with great interest. Though memory is bit fuzzy, and though I can't swear to being aware of one OBL or his relationship with the CIA at the time, I can swear that the Mujahideen had the support of US Special Forces as well as Western mercenaries in the form of training (at the very least).

I followed from its beginning with great interest myself.
There was no relationship between UBL and the CIA. The Afghan Freedom Fighters were, well, Afghans. Bin Laden was an Arab (the two groups though with similar goals were distinct). Bin Laden was not, shall we say, fond of Americans even then.
The Mujahideen proper, the Afghans, received the support of the US. The Arabs who came in to fight the Soviets maintained their own channels of support with Arab governments, not the US.

I'm assuming that Infidel meant that Osama/Usama himself was never specifically a CIA asset (as opposed to Saddam, who undeniably was). I don't know whether that is true or not, but it certainly is indisputably true that the CIA supported the Mujahideen in general.

I meant quite exactly what I said. The Afghans who fought the Soviets got support from the US. The Arabs who came got support from Arabs.
What do you mean by Saddam being a CIA asset?

It follows that since Bin Laden was a (or the?) leader of the Mujahideen that he also had the CIA's support.

No, UBL was not the leader of the Mujahideen, he was prominant among the (relatively small) Arab faction, but not even on the CIA's screen.

[Primula Baggins]

As I said in my response to your PM, Ghân, I am perfectly happy to expand the request to everyone posting here. Please, everyone, stop using sarcasm. On a messageboard (and I'm sure almost everyone here has seen this happen) it's a very short step from sarcasm to general incivility, flamewars, and all kinds of other problems we try very hard to keep from taking root on this board.

Now I have to get back to the work that pays the bills.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Holby wasn't engaging in personal insults. You may claim that you didn't realize that is what you were doing, but a good lawyer knows that ignorance is no excuse, whether she is in Boulder, CO, or Santa Cruz, CA.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

UBL was not a CIA asset, former or otherwise.

I'm guessing the reluctance to admit he was stems from the idea that this would make the US partly culpable for its own troubles. But that is not the point of my comment, nor do I think admitting it lends credence to conspiracy theorists' claims about 9/11. I do however point it out to maintain a measure of sanity in the face of historical revisionism and the "Ministry of Truth."

You would be guessing wrong. That UBL was associated with/trained by/funded by etc the CIA is a commonly repeated meme in the same vein as he was educated in the West, or that Saddam was armed by the United States.

As a cadet in the mid 80's I followed news of the Afghan "Freedom Fighters" (as they were known in the West) with great interest. Though memory is bit fuzzy, and though I can't swear to being aware of one OBL or his relationship with the CIA at the time, I can swear that the Mujahideen had the support of US Special Forces as well as Western mercenaries in the form of training (at the very least).

I followed from its beginning with great interest myself.
There was no relationship between UBL and the CIA. The Afghan Freedom Fighters were, well, Afghans. Bin Laden was an Arab (the two groups though with similar goals were distinct). Bin Laden was not, shall we say, fond of Americans even then.
The Mujahideen proper, the Afghans, received the support of the US. The Arabs who came in to fight the Soviets maintained their own channels of support with Arab governments, not the US.

I'm assuming that Infidel meant that Osama/Usama himself was never specifically a CIA asset (as opposed to Saddam, who undeniably was). I don't know whether that is true or not, but it certainly is indisputably true that the CIA supported the Mujahideen in general.

I meant quite exactly what I said. The Afghans who fought the Soviets got support from the US. The Arabs who came got support from Arabs.
What do you mean by Saddam being a CIA asset?

It follows that since Bin Laden was a (or the?) leader of the Mujahideen that he also had the CIA's support.

No, UBL was not the leader of the Mujahideen, he was prominant among the (relatively small) Arab faction, but not even on the CIA's screen.

Well... yes... and no... perhaps.

Usama bin Laden was not Mujaheddin, as you state. However, the back-room links between the USA and Saudi Arabia, especially links between the Bush family (remembering that G H W Bush was Director of the CIA) the House of Saud, and especially the bin Laden fam,ily is strong, and well documented.

In intelligence and "secret" funding, there is always room left for "plausible denial", and so there will be no definitive proof of CIA links with Usama bin Laden. However, there is enough apparent evidence, including his CIA designation as "Tim Osman" to suppose that, yes, Usama bin Laden was, and remained, a CIA asset, even after the attacks on the US embassies and USS Cole.

It really is a dirty, dirty business, this game...

[Infidel]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/ger ... 61077.html

A Hamburg judge has filed a criminal complaint against Chancellor Angela Merkel for "endorsing a crime" after she stated she was "glad" that Osama bin Laden was killed by US forces.

[JewelSong]

Usama bin Laden.

Why do you spell it like that, when every source I have ever seen spell it "Osama?"

Are you trying to make some kind of point, or is that actually an alternative spelling...or, what?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

That's the spelling the FBI uses on their 10 most wanted list, which Ghân relies on in his claim that Osama/Usama wasn't responsible for 9/11 (because the description of his crimes includes the African embassy bombing and "other terrorist acts" but doesn't specifically mention 9/11.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten

Infidel, I was surprised to see you contest the facts that Saddam provided information to the CIA, and received arms from the U.S. I didn't think anyone contested those facts (I've even heard Donald Runsfeld talk about meeting with Saddam during his younger stint as Defense Secretary). I'll try to come up with some reputable links when I get a chance.

[elfshadow]

Many Arabic spellings are quite variable, because it is difficult to phoneticize Arabic into Latin characters. Take "Koran" vs. "Qu'ran". The latter looks like the more accurate spelling, but neither exactly portrays how the word is pronounced in Arabic.

[SirDennis]

And I say Bin Laden in order to avoid accidentally saying Obama.

@Infidel:

Bin Laden's history with the CIA remains under dispute so it is not entirely fair to call it a meme as that implies the idea's only merit rests on how often it has been repeated.

Certainly the claim has been around before the events of 9/11 made it an uncomfortable notion. Grantedhe was Arab, not Afghan, and he and his followers joined them in their fight against the Soviets after they came to be known as "Freedom Fighters" or Mujahideen. Before joining them outright he played more of a supporting role (mainly supplying weapons). Regardless, it is fair to say he was a leader with the Mujahideen. The Mujahideen were backed by the US financially (and with military training/advice), which at the time most likely means the CIA was involved as well. I've split my share of hairs so no worries on this point.

If we take his being a former CIA asset as fact (even though it is disputed) it is just that: a fact. It is not an attempt on my part to point a finger at the US or to suggest that somehow it lessens his guilt for 9/11. It is a fact just like "the only country to ever invade Canada was the US" is a fact.

What's the point of keeping it a secret, or worse make it an un-truth? It's ancient history and harmless -- that is until someone tries to deny it or to twist it in the service of some present purpose. That is when alarm bells sound for me.

[Infidel]

Infidel, I was surprised to see you contest the facts that Saddam provided information to the CIA,

Actually, I asked what you meant by Saddam being a CIA asset, but now I would also like to know what info he provided to the CIA.

and received arms from the U.S. I didn't think anyone contested those facts (I've even heard Donald Runsfeld talk about meeting with Saddam during his younger stint as Defense Secretary). I'll try to come up with some reputable links when I get a chance.

Iraqi weapons were:
AK-47's (Soviet, Czech, Chinese) or M-16's (American)?
M1 Abrams ((American) tanks or T-55's, 62's and 72's (Soviet and Czech)?
F-14's 15's 16's (American) or MiG-21's and 29's (USSR), Mirages and Super Entendards (French), F6's and 7's (Chinese)?
Scuds (Soviet) Exocets (French) Silkworms (Chinese) or (pick whatever American missles you want)?
Shall I ask about artillery pieces?

Iraq purchaced some helicopers (Hughes-300 and 500's and Bell-214's) from the US and more from the Soviets, French, Germans etc).

The 'fact' that the US armed Saddam/Iraq is vastly overstated. Over a 30 year period, starting in 1973, the Biggest Suppliers were the USSR (57%), France (13%) China (12%) and Czechoslovakia (7%). The US was 1%.
My data originates from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institue (from 8 years ago and they have revamped their site since so no direct link to the charts anymore) :
http://www.sipri.org
However you can glean some of it by using the trade register in the Arms Transfer database.

Rumsfeld was not Defense Secretary when he met with Hussein. The US did not have relations with Iraq (a Soviet client) at the time (and from 67 to 84 IIRC). He met as a Special Envoy at the very end of 1983 for several hours.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Thanks for the clarification.

I don't know what information Saddam reputedly gave the CIA, so I can't help you there.

[Infidel]

And I say Bin Laden in order to avoid accidentally saying Obama.

@Infidel:

Bin Laden's history with the CIA remains under dispute so it is not entirely fair to call it a meme as that implies the idea's only merit rests on how often it has been repeated.

That is its only merit, since there is no history.

Certainly the claim has been around before the events of 9/11 made it an uncomfortable notion. Grantedhe was Arab, not Afghan, and he and his followers joined them in their fight against the Soviets after they came to be known as "Freedom Fighters" or Mujahideen. Before joining them outright he played more of a supporting role (mainly supplying weapons). Regardless, it is fair to say he was a leader with the Mujahideen. The Mujahideen were backed by the US financially (and with military training/advice), which at the time most likely means the CIA was involved as well. I've split my share of hairs so no worries on this point.

No, it is fair to say he was a leader among the foreign fighters, that is the Arabs fighting in Afghanistan. As I pointed out above, those Arabs received support and funding from their own. Not from the US. The US support was directed to the actual Mujahideen who were Afghans, with their own leaders such as Ahmad Shah Masoud.

If we take his being a former CIA asset as fact (even though it is disputed) it is just that: a fact. It is not an attempt on my part to point a finger at the US or to suggest that somehow it lessens his guilt for 9/11. It is a fact just like "the only country to ever invade Canada was the US" is a fact.
What's the point of keeping it a secret, or worse make it an un-truth? It's ancient history and harmless -- that is until someone tries to deny it or to twist it in the service of some present purpose. That is when alarm bells sound for me.

Whats the point in trying to make it a fact when it is at most a supposition and the actual facts are UBL said no, not true. Al Zawahiri says no, not true. The CIA says no, not true, the State Department says no, not true.
The foreign fighters there (including UBL) were generally hostile to westerners and Americans (being infidels and all).

-----

Of course a former FBI agent who retired in 79 and claims that the government covers up 10,000 children abducted for satanic rituals every year as well as the deaths of prominat individuals such as Sonny Bono are actually satanic murders, and his buddy a former child genius who says he helped assassinate Allende, claimed to recieve foreknowledge of various terrorist attacks while in prison on drug charges, and other paranoid stuff, saying otherwise may be convincing for some.

[Holbytla]

"Justice was done," Obama said. "And I think that anyone who would question that the perpetrator of mass murder on American soil -- didn't deserve what he got needs to have their head examined."

So is Obama suddenly an extension of past administrations and typical American bs, (whether the prez wants to go along or not), or is his statement accurate?

[vison]

"Justice was done," Obama said. "And I think that anyone who would question that the perpetrator of mass murder on American soil -- didn't deserve what he got needs to have their head examined."

So is Obama suddenly an extension of past administrations and typical American bs, (whether the prez wants to go along or not), or is his statement accurate?

On the one hand, yes. On other hand, no.

Go not to the Elves for advice . . . . .

I guess it was "justice" of the rough and ready kind. I think it was never really on the cards to take him alive and I'm fine with that, it would have created such turmoil, such a circus. This was clean and quick. Not everyone is satisfied, and I am not "satisfied" completely, I view the raid as "illegal" but am glad it succeeded, just the same.

One thing I rather "like" about it is, that Mr. Obama apparently listened to the guys who really know about this stuff, and he did not (so I hear) impose his own ideas and agenda on the operation. He seems to be a good delegator, and is able to trust the men and women he has chosen to give him advice. I don't think he wants to be surrounded by Yes Men. (I have read over and over again that Mr. Rumsfeld, in particular, would not tolerate anyone pointing out that he might be blowing smoke out of you-know-where.)

I watched a few minutes of him being interviewed on 60 Minutes this evening. He struck me as being sure of himself and not second-guessing anything. Which is as it should be.

My heart quails when I think of the risks he took. The men who did the deed might have put their own individual lives on the line, but the President put a great deal more on the line. Plus those lives.

I am not his biggest fan, he is actually somewhat of a disappointment to me, but in this case, he was bold and sure and it paid off.

[anthriel]

The men who did the deed might have put their own individual lives on the line, but the President put a great deal more on the line. Plus those lives.

I don't think political disappointment can compare to actually putting one's life on the line. No one risked more than those Navy Seals.

[axordil]

I respectfully disagree, Anthy. Much more than political disappointment is at stake here. When an operation of this sort is approved by POTUS, and subsequently botched, it can have ripple effects that cost many more lives than those directly involved. The ultimate responsibility for that lies not with the people on the ground, but the person making the call.

[vison]

The men who did the deed might have put their own individual lives on the line, but the President put a great deal more on the line. Plus those lives.

I don't think political disappointment can compare to actually putting one's life on the line. No one risked more than those Navy Seals.

I agree with axordil. I didn't mean his political career, although that was part of it. But Mr. Obama, in one sense, put the whole US on the line. Imagine if it had failed. Imagine if they had been captured.

[anthriel]

I get what you guys are saying, and I understand.

But I sure don't want the risk that those SEALS took to be anything but first in the line, as risks go. I am humbled by what they put on the line for the POTUS, for the USA, for all of us.

At least Mrs. Obama would have her man with her at dinner, if it had failed. The families of those SEALS would have been empty forever.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I agree.

[Primula Baggins]

So does the president, from all I've seen. I don't think he put those lives on the line lightly; I think he knew where the worst risk lay.