SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: tekboy who wrote (49962)10/7/2002 11:12:54 AM
From: zonder  Respond to of 281500
 
It quotes a US Senator accepting US support of Bin Laden at the time (see below). That is enough proof for me for now, and I really would like to move on to other topics, if CB et al agree are satiated for now :)

Sen. Orrin Hatch, a senior Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee making those decisions, told my colleague Robert Windrem that he would make the same call again today even knowing what bin Laden would do subsequently. “It was worth it,” he said.

“Those were very important, pivotal matters that played an important role in the downfall of the Soviet Union,” he said.



To: tekboy who wrote (49962)10/7/2002 11:17:53 AM
From: Ilaine  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Actually the article says that bin Laden ran Maktab al-Khidamar, and that ISI "nurtured" Maktab al-Khidamar, and that the CIA ran the war, in part, through ISI. It also states that bin Laden was a "reliable partner" of the CIA. You are invited to draw the inference thereby that the CIA trained and funded bin Laden.

It is true that bin Laden ran Maktab al-Khidamar.

For that matter, it's true that the CIA funded and trained groups which had members who were associated with bin Laden.

It's the jumps from there that are problematic.

Bin Laden was definitely the enemy of our enemy, so according to the old saying, that makes him our friend. But it is the claim that he was our creation that I am challenging.