Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_urchin who wrote (7991)	8/30/2004 9:00:16 AM
From: LPS5	Respond to of 20039

Since about 1996, to my knowledge, there isn't any. I'd go a back a few years from that, but, I can accept that. When did the Soviets 'officially' withdraw from Afghanistan? Wasn't it 1989 or so? In fact, it would be preposterous to suggest it. But that does not mean that the possibility cannot be considered. I wouldn't call it preposterous, and may I note...with the widest of grins...that my occupation demands that I continually consider that unlikely possibilities are hard and fast possibilities all the same. :-) Prior to that it is well known that bin Laden and his organization was a CIA asset in Afghanistan. It's true that the U.S. and the mujahedin worked together, but I'd say it would be equally correct to call the CIA an asset of the greater jihad that was launched against the invading Soviet forces. Did we not have the same goal, albeit for completely different reasons? It is also known that he collaborated with the US and the KLA in Kosovo. That's not at all how I understand it. If you can show me a credible article pointing conclusively to this I'll be glad to accept it, but my understanding was that any dealings with Bin Laden or the network which came to be called al Qaeda were incidental given the numerous, overlapping and sketchy networks of support and financing therein involved. For me, a particular appeal of the notion that Al Qaeda could still be a CIA proxy is based on the qui bono hypothesis that its actions have not been of benefit to any Islamic country. So, by your method of reasoning: (a) everything happens for a reason; (b) there are no mistakes or erroneous assumptions; and, (c) any benefits must be tangible or readily apparent. Is that correct? I have seen absolutely nothing here (or elsewhere) implying, conclusively - other than with laughably liberal doses of conspiratorial invention - that "al Qaeda is a U.S. proxy." LPS5