Osama bin Laden: Made in USA

Im of the belief that our Government/CIA etc have made people like Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and groups like Al Qaeda among other Terrorist groups.

www.emperors-clothes.com...

Osama bin Laden: Made in USA
by Jared Israel
[Written 28 August 1998. Posted 13 September 2001]
=======================================

[The following is an excerpt from 'Credible Deception,' a study of the 'N.Y. Times' coverage of the U.S. missile attacks on Afghanistan and a pill factory in Sudan, in August, 1998. The entire text can be read at emperors-clothes.com... - Jared Israel]

Most of us never heard of Osama bin Laden before last August 21st but by saying he was "the preeminent organizer and financier of international terrorism in the world today," President Clinton conjured up images of rage and random mayhem that seemed to justify swift, strong action.

We were told the main target of the missile attack was not just bin Laden, but: "...terrorist facilities and infrastructure in Afghanistan. Our forces targeted one of the most active terrorist bases in the world...a training camp for literally thousands of terrorists from around the globe." (NY Times, 8/21/98, p. a12. )

This theme - that there is a terrorist organization which links the terrorist base in Afghanistan with a terrorist factory in Sudan - is repeated throughout the August 21st NY Times.

The Afghan "terrorist base" is of course Clinton's strong suit. A "terrorist base" is a place where terrorists prepare for war; a "terrorist base" is fair game. Factories, on the other hand, are a problem. Americans are squeamish about bombing factories and burning the skin off the workers' backs. The trick is: link the base to the factory.

Here's the argument: terrorists, financed by the rich Osama bin Laden, mastermind of the Embassy bombings, built a complex of terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. The U.S., arch-enemy of terror, rolled up its sleeves and destroyed these training camps and a bin Laden-owned factory in Sudan as well. The U.S. has thereby sent a message to terrorists around the globe. They can read our missiles. They will be hunted down and destroyed without mercy. The U.S. is on the job.

But wait. What if the training camps were falsely portrayed? What if they had been built by the U.S. government? What if bin Laden and his associates were in fact old CIA hands?

It would be a bit awkward, wouldn't it?

If this was true, and if the Times knew it was true on August 21st, wouldn't the Times' failure to print this information on page one constitute a profound betrayal of trust?

BUT THAT WAS THEN, THIS IS NOW...

The complex the U.S. attacked on August 20th is located near the Pakistani border:

''The camps, hidden in the steep mountains and mile-deep valleys of Paktia province, were the place where all seven ranking Afghan resistance leaders maintained underground headquarters and clandestine weapons stocks during their bitter and ultimately successful war against Soviet troops from Dec. 1979 to February 1989, according to American intelligence veterans…The Afghan resistance was backed by the intelligence services of the United States and Saudi Arabia...[and this camp represents] ‘the last word in NATO engineering techniques.’" (NY Times, 8/24/98, p.A1 & A7. )

And the "resistance fighters" whom the U.S. backed in the Afghan war during the 80s?

"Some of the same warriors who fought the Soviets with the CIA’s help are now fighting under Mr. bin Laden’s banner." (ibid., p.A1)

So. These people, whom the U.S. government calls the worst terrorists in the world, were set up in the business by the U.S. government. And the Times knew this on August 21st when it devoted many articles to covering the missile attacks. The Times management chose to withhold this critical information from the public.

[continued]

The August 24th article quoted above unwittingly betrays the method by which the U.S. government's sponsorship of bin Laden is justified. When the U.S. openly supported bin Laden and friends, they were give a label ("resistance fighters") so they were ok. Now they have been given a new label ("terrorists") and thus they are transformed. The U.S. government is absolved of guilt because the people it supported in the past weren't these terrorists it is bombing today, they were those resistance fighters. Amazing.

* '"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean— neither more nor less.'" (Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass, ch. 6.)

Once renamed, these people, or anything or anyone the U.S. government accuses of being linked to these people, can be bombed. No need for UN discussion, no need for proof, no need for nothing: the U.S. is covert investigator, unyielding judge, impartial jury and invincible executioner, all sanctified by the struggle against "terrorism."

Will bin Laden have his label changed back to "resistance fighter" when the U.S. government once more requires his services?

This may sound preposterous. But consider that the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) has made just such a transformation - in fact the KLA people have not just gone from terrorists to freedom fighters, they have gone from terrorists/drug dealers all the way up to Nation Builders. And incidentally, it is widely reported that Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists have helped train and fought with the KLA. These KLA-helpers apparently include Osama bin Laden's associates. So perhaps bin Laden has been rehabilitated and re-transformed (!) already. [See footnote A]

IT'S THE MONEY, STUPID

But is emperors-clothes.com being fair? Was the U.S. government in actual partnership with bin Laden and other "resistance fighters" during the Afghan war? Or was it just giving these guys a little support against a common (Russian) foe?

Since the U.S. side of the relationship with bin Laden and friends was handled by CIA, much of what took place is unknown. But we do know about one very important thing: money.

How much money do you think the US and Saudi Arabia gave the "resistance fighters?" I asked several people this question.

One guessed "a few hundred thousand dollars."

Another thought this was way to low. She guessed "$10-15 million."

The highest guess: $20 million.

The correct answer is: More than 6 billion dollars. (ibid.)

That's in 1980s money. And that’s just what they admit publicly. Remember, the paymasters were the CIA and Saudi Arabian Intelligence, so the real figure could be twice as high, or higher. The sky's the limit...

MS. ALBRIGHT REFLECTS ON TERROR

Speaking in Kenya on Aug. 18, 1998, Madeline Albright said:

'"Mr. bin Laden’s activities are inimical to those of [sic!] civilized people in the world and in the U.S. And whatever the connection to this, [the Embassy bombings,] I have said previously that his funding of terrorism is something the world is quite aware of.'" (Times, 8/19, P.A4. Our italics; her mangled sentence.)

The Times reports that Bin Laden has 250 million dollars and has used SOME of it to build a terrorist network. (In other words, he still has the 250 million bucks, according to the Times.)

Meanwhile the Times reports that the U.S. SPENT more than 6 billion dollars to support terrorism - and that’s just in Afghanistan. In other words, the US no longer has the 6 billion bucks. And how many billions have been funneled to similar resistance fighters in other lands? Such as the Kosovo Liberation (?) Army, or KLA? Consider again Ms. Albright's statement:

"[These]activities are inimical to those of [sic!] civilized people in the world."

[continued]

Don’t Albright's words fly back and accuse her? Isn’t it the governments of the United States and Saudi Arabia who did something "inimical to civilized people" by "funding terrorism" on a vast scale in Afghanistan? Hasn't this funding resulted in a true catastrophe? Haven't our terrorists turned Afghanistan into a house of horrors?

Who is the greater terrorist? The person who pulls the trigger? Or the superpower that recruits him, pays him, trains him, arms him to the teeth and builds him the finest state-of-the-art training camp with room for "terrorists from all over the world?"

If a worldwide terrorist organization has been created by the people whom the U.S. and Saudi Arabia paid during the Afghan war, aren't the U.S. and Saudi paymasters responsible?

And isn't the U.S. government's claim that it has discovered the existence of a terrorist organization disingenuous? After all, wasn't the purpose of spending (over) $6 billion the creation of precisely such an organization? Wasn't that what they paid for?

The U.S. government says it had a good reason for bankrolling the Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists in Afghanistan: namely, to stop the Russians. Shouldn't we ask: to stop them from doing what? The government in Afghanistan was pro-Russian before the Russians sent in troops and it stayed pro-Russian after the Russians sent in troops. Why did the U.S. have to get involved? Were the Russians going to use Afghanistan as a base for invading China? India? Iran? Pakistan? Sure they were, and I'm Teddy Roosevelt. You can be Mae West, but only if you're good.

What relevance is the U.S. government claim that it had "good reasons" for lavishly bankrolling the Afghan terrorists? Good enough for what? For destroying the lives of most Afghans? And in any case, don't all terrorists claim they slaughter people for good (by their standards) reasons? Did you ever hear a terrorist boast that he burned people to death for a bad reason?

The U.S. did not intervene in Afghanistan because the Russian presence was changing the international balance of power. Rather, using the Russian presence as a pretext, the U.S. intervened because this was a chance to change the international balance of power. In the process, our government destroyed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Afghans and created an international force of Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists who wreck havoc from Bosnia to New York - and who continue to plague the Russian people, most recently in Dagestan.

WHO IS BIN LADEN, ACTUALLY?

According to the Times, bin Laden et al were CIA employees, given the best training, arms, facilities, and lots of cash for many years. That's what the Times reported on August 24, 1998.

In other articles during the same period, the Times reported that bin Laden is a deadly enemy of the U.S. The Times skips over this amazing change lightly in a couple of articles, commenting that the relationship changed, without asking too many questions. In other words, once again, the government line is accepted as self evident.

Should we believe that the transformation from employee to enemy has really taken place? Is bin Laden an enemy in fact, or is he, like so much else that comes out of the White House, an enemy in fiction?

Remember that during the 80s our leaders swore bin Laden and friends were good guys: "resistance fighters." Wasn't that a lie? If the government was lying about them then, why couldn't it be lying about them now?

[continued]

Let's do a little imagining. Let's imagine that bin Laden et al are still CIA employees. Could it be that the missile attack was not intended to destroy bin Laden or his supporters? Could it be the attack was intended to build respect for bin Laden among Muslims who oppose the U.S. government? To lend him credibility as a serious opponent of U.S. domination? Is his new job to siphon Arab anger into regressive Fundamentalist movements and thereby destabilize secular Muslim societies which might resist U.S. control? After all, Islamic Fundamentalists have proven themselves the most effective enemies of independent-minded governments. This is precisely why the U.S. created an Islamic Fundamentalist proxy army in Afghanistan in the first place. And there is evidence the CIA is doing the same thing today in Algeria - covertly supporting a jihad (Islamic holy war) aimed at disrupting a secular Muslim society not under U.S. control.

And/or is bin Laden's new assignment perhaps to be a bogey-man of convenience whom the U.S. government can link to any government it wishes to bomb?

Does this sound crazy? Maybe it does at that, but is it any crazier than the admitted fact that the U.S. gave these vicious terrorists more than $6 billion in the first place? Could it be that the lunatics are indeed in control of the asylum?

Six BILLION dollars in 1980s money. How much is that in today's money? Ten billion? Just think. Instead of turning Afghanistan into a living hell they could have cured cancer.

reply to post by -Blackout-


Osama Bin Laden is dead, and he has been since late 2001/early 2002.
He is just propped up by government because without him there is no boogeyman to scare people into giving up their freedoms and going along with whatever the government wants.
There is a thread on the front page right now about the BBC's report that al-qaeda never existed. I posted on there that they (international group complicit in 9/11) were now ready to tell everyone it was a lie because they don't care anymore. They know we are so stupid and apathetic that they can kill millions and destroy countries for whatever their agenda is and we will do nothing.
IMO the only thing that makes sense is that we are gearing up for WWIII, which will be fought over resources(mainly oil). We are destabilizing Russia by pushing Afghani heroin into their cities and providing a way to cut off their oil supply in the future. As well as providing another base to stage attacks from in the middle east.

Originally posted by time91
reply to post by -Blackout-

 

Osama Bin Laden is dead, and he has been since late 2001/early 2002.
He is just propped up by government because without him there is no boogeyman to scare people into giving up their freedoms and going along with whatever the government wants.
There is a thread on the front page right now about the BBC's report that al-qaeda never existed. I posted on there that they (international group complicit in 9/11) were now ready to tell everyone it was a lie because they don't care anymore. They know we are so stupid and apathetic that they can kill millions and destroy countries for whatever their agenda is and we will do nothing.
IMO the only thing that makes sense is that we are gearing up for WWIII, which will be fought over resources(mainly oil). We are destabilizing Russia by pushing Afghani heroin into their cities and providing a way to cut off their oil supply in the future. As well as providing another base to stage attacks from in the middle east.

Thats a very interesting take on the subject. Ive never thought about Bin Laden being dead already.....its a very interesting perspective to say the least.

It doesn't seem to be widely known, but it is verifiable fact that the CIA was involved in Afghanistan with Muslim extremists. They were encouraged at the time because they were fighting Russians during the cold war. (late 70s/early 80s)

For instance, I have been reading Noam Chomsky lately ("Hegemony or Survival", and currently reading "Failed States") and he talks about al Qaeda and the CIA in regards to Afghanistan. He also sources his work extremely well, if you want to verify his claims in those books.

He doesn't claim that the CIA is still involved with Muslim extremists, though, and I am not aware of any proof that they still are (none that they aren't, either) but I would not be surprised at all, given the disgusting track record the CIA has.

Even before reading those books, I knew the CIA had been involved with events in Afghanistan in those days (though not as many of the details then) and I had assumed it was common knowledge, until the last few months, as I have come across several people who had absolutely no idea about any of this.