TealVeal

Then they should have stayed there till their job was done.

Farren

Koyaanisqatsi, it pains me to have to point this out because I generally concur with your line of reasoning, but the Guardian is in fact, a polar opposite of the National Enquirer. Their standard of reporting is peerless, IMHO.

News flash. Israeli Prime Minister meets Yasser Arafat at Camp David. Analysts suspect Prime Minister Barak planning attacks on Israeli citizens with [sic] Terroristic Palestinians.

Leonarde, this is not reasoning, this is clutching at straws. And by the way, "terroristic" is not a word last time I checked.

For the second time,

Understanding the conflict (from the Seattle Times):

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To foil Soviet expansionism in Afghanistan, the U.S. funded a motley band of Islamic fundamentalists in the '80s. From this movement grew the Taliban, who imposed order on much of the country � at the expense of human rights and, ultimately, the security of the West.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accused Saudi terrorist Osama bin Laden, himself recruited in the covert CIA-Pakistan effort, funded the Taliban_s takeover of Kabul and has helped finance their battles with the Northern Alliance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Would you like more sources? There are hundreds. For crying out loud Leonarde the CIA has acknowledged it. Are you saying they're lying?

BTW thanks for corroborating my theory stated on that thread that you don't actually read the arguments put to you properly.

I've never used argument by authority ("the CIA says so") in these fora, but rather asked what evidence is provided by the intelligence community. Tony Blair is facing another backbench rebellion because he cannot provide this pre-war irrefutable intelligence used to garner votes for the war.

The Guardian's citation of intelligence community members is significant because these people have the most to gain by vindicating the documents. After all, they stand to be the most embarrassed should their assumptions be shown to be ill informed.

And yes, it appears in the Guardian, a newspaper with vastly more journalistic Integrity than the Telegraph. I'd like to qualify this rather than simply state it as an IMO. Like bad science, bad journalism has some very easy to spot hallmarks. These can be judged indepently of your ideological standpoint.

1) All news sources have some kind of bias, but a good news source makes an earnest attempt to present both sides of the story. On a sliding scale this would make CNN a better source than Fox. While the former still appears largely biased in favour of the powers that be in Washington, it at least airs some of the opposing views. The latter (Fox) makes no attempt whatsoever.

Similarly, while showing a moderate anti-war bias, the Guardian is packed with substantial and lengthy articles about jubilant residents of Bagdhad when the US occupied the City.

I do a search of the Telegraph on "Iraq" and come up with one article criticising the war in four pages of results

Forces chief questioned war legality

In the first paragraph, however, we are told that he was subsequently satisfied that the war was in fact, legal.

A newspaper that does not even attempt to present all sides of the news deserves contempt, in my estimaton.

2) Citing your sources. The article vindicating the Al Qaeda-Iraq link provides a few paragraphs of the whole document. In linked articles, the Guardian claims possession of documents proving the Russians gave Iraq intelligence, the French gave Iraq intelligence, and an anti-war British politician took contributions from Saddam. No documentary evidence is provided.

Contrast this, to say the Guardians coverage of US spying on the security council , in which the entire supporting document is provided.

Leonarde, I suspect that you know little about either of these news sources, or new little prior to engaging in debate about the war, and doubt you have substantial motivation for backing one news report over another other than the fact that it defends your seemingly impregnable faith in the council of lunatics.

I, on the other hand, have carefully and conscienciously chosen my news sources for thier integrity and lack of bias long before this conflaguration, and concluded my views on this dirty war from the facts, rather than factoring my reasons from the conclusion, as so many in the pro war camp appear to have done (although I should add not all).

Your accusation of selective acceptance of the news is ill-informed and certainly incorrect.

leonarde

Partial post:Yes, I would VERY MUCH LIKE a CIA official statement claiming that Osama Bin Laden "worked for" the CIA. Since I recently read a biography of Osama Bin Laden and such a tidbit was nowhere to be found I find it hardly likely. His personal ideology/theology is:

1) anti-Western (the US is the epitome of the West)

2) anti-Israel (the US is the leading supporter of Israel---militarily and otherwise)

3) Muslim "fundamentalism" broadly speaking.

(none of the above would put him in the US camp)

Moreover your chronology is all screwed up, Farren: the sources you cite in your latest refer to the anti-Soviet, anti-Najibullah war in Afghanistan. The Sovs pulled out in '89, the Najibullah government fell in '92. Yet according to you:
Yeah "when" is so important that you completely forgot to tell us what the CIA was (allegedly) using Osama Bin Laden for 8 years ago. Heck the First Gulf War was 12 years ago. THAT was the occasion of Bin Laden's heightened hatred for the US. Yet you have him (on page one of this thread) as a CIA collaborator YEARS LATER. I can see how important "when" is to you!

Cheers!

leonarde

Partial post by Farren:I agree wholeheartedly: it makes no sense whatsoever; why did you write it??

IF two political leaders meet in full public view for the purpose of negotiating some peace treaties/ceasefires etc.
AND this is done under the auspices of a third nation (ie the US at Camp David) then you can be somewhat assured that this is not related to terroristic conniving.

In contrast the document we have been discussing on this thread is about secret contact(s), NOT as far as we know by the head of state or government (as Barak was and by extension Arafat has aspirations of becoming) but by the representative of Iraqi intelligence on one side and a representative of al Qaeda on the other. Hardly comparable at all. So you are right, Farren: Post less; read more.

Cheers!

Farren

I must admit, after Googling, I can't find an official statement anywhere. However you might want to read this

Bin Laden comes home to roost

on NBC. I'm curious. Is the biography you've just read the same one mentioned, where they conveniently "forgot" to mention the CIA's funding of the mujahadin and MAK (the organisation Osama co-led) via the ISI? Here's Senator Orrin Hatch from that article

How about this from Congressman Jim McDermot on the US Govt Web Site

THE ENEMY WITHIN

Or this in a report to congress

[/QUOTE]Afghanistan: Current Issues

or this special report on the US govt website (my emphasis)

Maybe handling was a strong term, but the spirit of the argument, namely that the CIA trained and the US channelled funds to the very people that became the core of Al Qaida, stands, quite clearly.

Also, I'm very curious as to wether the Bio you read was the CIA's "official" expurgated version mentioned in the MSNBC article.

You're right, I miscalculated Now address all these other dangling threads that are unaffected by whether it was 10 or 20 years ago.

Farren

I was merely demonstrating the importance of qualifying how the alleged meeting affects contemporary debate about the war. i.e. How does it demonstrate that Iraq was involved in 9/11 or collaborated with Al Qaida in any anti-US activity? I apologise if it was not clear

It is precisely because I read so much that this word frightens me when it leaps out of a paragraph at me.

leonarde

Since SOME readers of this space ARE interested both in the chronology and in Bin Laden's background/the evolution of al Qaeda, I offer this timeline:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../etc/cron.html

Notice, there's no mention of Bin Laden's illustrious CIA connections. And al Qaeda both as an organization and as a purveyor of terror was in operation long before 5 years ago....

Cheers!

Farren

I can tell I'm hitting home runs when you start getting evasive

I conceded that my time estimate was wrong, indicated that it could be modified without the argument failing, and posted a whole ton of references (three from the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT web site).

In response, you harp on the error I conceded, fail to address any of the other issues raised, and post a single shitty link to a site that neglects to mention the link that those US GOVERNMENT sites do.

You lordships, I must protest that the witness is evading almost all of the questions.

Farren

Leonarde, just in case you don't see the problem here...

I post evidence that

a) the US government funded and the CIA trained geurillas in MAK and other mujahadeen militia.

b) Bin Laden was co-leader of MAK.

c) Bin Laden and a good number of these CIA trained lovelies went on to form Al Qaeda.

You post evidence that he did some other stuff too. And somehow think this invalidates my argument. So:


For the Prosecution:


Your honour, the prosecution would like to present the following evidence that the accused murdered Colonel Mustard in the Billiard Room at 11:15pm...

...

The prosecution rests

For the Defense:

Your honor, the defense would like to point out that the accused robbed a bank three days later...

The defense rests

I hope you aren't a lawyer

The SwampThing

Even though the US administration is trying to sweep it under the rug, it is common knowledge that the US used Osama Bin Laden for dark purposes, like terrorrist acts against the former Soviet Union. Infact, the very first time arab fundamentalist got their hands on shoulder fired missiles, it got them from the CIA!! After the Russians left Afghanistan, there were still dozens of Stingers, ready to use, in the hands of the mujjahideen. Those Stingers were later used to bring down El Al passenger jets, along with others.
The contacts that the CIA gained from Osama, were later used in Lebanon, and also to infiltrate Iranian fundamentalist factions.
Many mujjahideen received training from Green Berets, either in homeland America or in Afghan camps. They learned to use C-4, Semtex and other high-explosives to attack comunist targets. That same training came in handy, when they decided to change targets...

It�s well knowned that the CIA and other american Inteligence agencies, used dirty tricks to get the job done!
From the Mafia in Fidel Castro�s assassination plot, to drug dealers in Panam�, and terrorrists in the middle east. They did it all! And used it all!
Thus, they share a huge share of the blame for how things turned out.
And because most documents are held top-secret for at least 25 years, it will be a while before such documents make it to the public eye.

The simple fact is:
If the US, namelly the CIA, stopped meddling and interfering with the affairs of other nations, things like 9/11 would not have happened!!
Just do your math: How many countries had their governments toppled, screwed over or killed, how many were invaded, bombed and starved, and how many millions died, because the US meddled with them? Don�t you think that would create just a few enemies?

If the US really wants to stop terrorrism, then the first thing to do is to remove the very reason to why terrorrism exists!
All it takes is the US stop doing something they weren�t supposed to do do in the first place! And mind their own business.
It�s that simple.
The more countries they bomb to try to kill terrorrists, the more terrorists will be recruited to the ranks. It�s an endless cicle of violence...