Osama Bin Laden funded by the CIA?
By MrNiceGuy
@MrNiceGuy (4141)
United States
December 29, 2006 12:41pm CST
I just read in a book that he WAS NOT. INteresting. I've never heard the opposite, that bin Laden wasn't funded by the US during the 80's to defend Afghanistan. It turns out, thats just a rumor and it isn't true!
That changes some of the online arguments here doesn't it? I have more on it in my book, but I can't just copy it all in here from the book so ask questions or give comments.
7 people like this
7 responses
@srhelmer (7029)
• Beaver Dam, Wisconsin
29 Dec 06
We never funded him. But, we did support the efforts there in other ways. Much like we originally supported Saddam when he came to power.
Now that the Cold War is over, it's easy to see where we made mistakes and who the real enemies are.
1 person likes this
@MrNiceGuy (4141)
• United States
29 Dec 06
Yeah, but the US didn't even give any money to him or his friends, the Arab supporters that came to Afghanistan to fight. We actually gave the money to Pakistani secret services and they in turn used it to support the Afghanistan people in resisting.
Its a deceptive line that even I had accepted as probably true.
3 people like this
@paperchaser (503)
• Canada
7 Feb 07
Well, technically, America is the enemy, to them really. Along with the fact that the US supported the taliban and afghan militia with weapons and armor, to fight off communism and they were considered 'allie' in those times, there is the argument that Osama Bin Laden would not innitiate an attack on the US if the US did not interfere with the Taliban and Alqueda operations in Afghanistan in the first place. The Us triggered the 9/11 attacks and even before, the oaklahoma bombings becuase of the numerous campaigns to the middle east much time before all this mess happened but after the cold war. This resulted in the middle east retaliating and therefore attacking the US. I am not saying they are the right ones, but America is nowhere close to perfect either. Without the US instigating the more or less, violent, group of extremists, there would be less chance of any of the drama to have happened such as 9/11.
@MrNiceGuy (4141)
• United States
7 Feb 07
Oklahoma City bombing was a domestic terrorism, it wasn't Muslims or AlQueda.
So the US "meddling" in other countries is justification for slaughtering innocent people? There is more to it than just reaction, although I understand that argument. The timeline just doesn't match up and there is more too it than that.
@Idlewild (6090)
• United States
21 Jan 07
The U.S. govt gave lots of money to the mujahadin [sp?] in Afghanistan. Some of these groups are now fighting us. I don't know if the U.S. ever knowingly gave money to bin Laden, but he wasn't so anti-U.S. back then, so even if the U.S. knew his name it might not have raised any red flags.
Lots of other countries gave money to Afghanistan then, too. And it wasn't to 'defend' Afghanistan per se; the country had been invaded by the Soviets, who installed their own puppet government. The U.S. and other countries gave money to various factions of mujahadin who had previously been at war with each other but grouped together to fight the common Soviet enemy. These groups were seeking to overthrow the Soviets or cause them enough problems to get them to leave. So it wouldn't surprise me at all if bin Laden got U.S. govt money during that time.
The U.S. gave military aid to Saddam Hussein, even though we knew he was a tyrant, at the time when he was fighting a 7-year was with Iran, because the U.S. didn't want Iran to win.
1 person likes this
@Idlewild (6090)
• United States
21 Jan 07
The U.S. may not have given it directly to guys like bin Laden (I don't know), but that doesn't mean he didn't get American weapons. Like in Iraq now, the anti-Soviet tribes in Afghan. were asking Muslims from all over the world to come to the country and help defeat the Soviets.
And the Pakistanis may well have given money to bin Laden, just as some parts of the Pakistan govt are accused of aiding bin Laden now.
@MrNiceGuy (4141)
• United States
21 Jan 07
Very good post. One thing I would point out is that the US didn't give the funding to the mujihideen, but rather the Pakistani secret services which in turn dispersed it to different Afghani (not outsider like Osama) mujihideen.
2 people like this
@simplechic (200)
• United States
1 Jan 07
Osama Bin Laden wasn't funded by the US as his family is WEALTHY...but he WAS trained by the CIA. I posted recently about his family's affiliation with the Bush family & the US and I stated that during the war with Russia there was a conflict of interests with Bush, I'd like to make a correction. It was with Reagan. When Clinton was named president,he learned of what was going on and didn't want any part of the war. Bin Laden saw that as treason...hence the first attack to the WTC in the 90's. I see you like to read. I suggest you look this up. I'm not trying to start a controversy with you. It's just that I also read a lot and my favorite books are non fiction. You'd be surprised at how many now-enemies the US has trained...only to turn it's back and start a war with them. This is not my opinion,it is a fact. I'm going to do some research so that I could send you the names of the books or at least a site so that you could inform yourself well. Take care and have a very Happy New Year!!!!
@MrNiceGuy (4141)
• United States
2 Jan 07
bin Laden has nothing to do with the CIA. He has said on multiple occasions that he had no contact with the CIA. The CIA said the same thing.
He bombed the US because he hates us, its not because of something we did to him.
3 people like this
@simplechic (200)
• United States
2 Jan 07
The CIA denied LOTS of things including Area 51...until it was discovered. Did you actually SEE a video of Bin Laden denying this???
Everyday people lie to God...what makes you think that they won't lie to you??? Laurynn Hill's 'Forgive Them Father'
@MrNiceGuy (4141)
• United States
2 Jan 07
Yeah, he denied it in an interview in the mid 80's and again in the late 90's.
I mean think about it. Why believe he was? Is there any evidence that its true? There is evidence to the contrary, thats for sure. So why believe that everything is a lie and the unsupported must be true? Is that how you usually make decisions?
3 people like this
@albert2412 (1782)
• United States
21 Jan 07
I believe that the Cia really did fund Osama in Afghanistan durings the 1980's when the Afghan people were fighting the Soviets. If Osama is a member of the CIA it would explain why we have never found him. It is hard to find someone you are not really looking for.
@MrNiceGuy (4141)
• United States
21 Jan 07
What evidence makes you believe that? Is said evidence strong enough to choose conspiracy instead of presented facts?
Do you know about Osama and his beliefs? Its pretty hard to believe he would cooperate with the US.
@4ftfingers (1310)
•
7 Feb 07
oh thats ok then, if your book says so then it must be true!
is that the same book of yours that said kbr wern't making any profit from iraq - even though it specifically states on their website that they are.
@MrNiceGuy (4141)
• United States
7 Feb 07
You know what, you're right. If the facts say something happened one way, but it is easier to believe (and more convenient) to ignore that and create an alternate version with no credibility, why not?
@MrNiceGuy (4141)
• United States
7 Feb 07
give me a link...
I was referring to the topic of this thread, and that Osama and the CIA both deny it, as well as the circumstances being well known and the history well documented, that do not support the hypothesis.
@4ftfingers (1310)
•
7 Feb 07
oh sorry, what was i thinking speaking bad against your book!? ofcourse it would know much more about halliburton than their own website.
@Datingtheplayer (661)
• United States
21 Jan 07
I dont think the CIA funded him... i think it was more a long the lines of supporting some of the things that he was involved with.
