[Closed] 9/11 documentary

So, they did it but there’s no evidence.

How convenient

Good thing we’re sticking to ‘facts’

Here's a related fact regarding the 9/11 commission...

Kissinger himself was appointed chairman of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission) by George W. Bush. Congressional Democrats insisted that Kissinger disclose the names of clients. Kissinger and President Bush claimed that such disclosures were not necessary, but Kissinger ultimately stepped down, citing conflicts of interest.

[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kissinger_Associates ]
Kissinger Associates[/url]

You do realise Lethal Weapon 2 isn’t real?

Kissinger Associates does not disclose its list of corporate clients, and reportedly bars clients from acknowledging the relationship.[

From your link. So it doesn’t really point to anything really. Just you trying to create the whiff of impropriety from unrelated stuff, again.

It’s got more than a whiff of desperation about it now.

Here's a related fact regarding the 9/11 commission...

An old bloke doesn't take part in the 9/11 commission in any way?

Not exactly a front page scoop is it.

You do realise Lethal Weapon 2 isn’t real?

Yep, just like I realize that wikileaks never uncovered the 114 missing child abuse files...

you have to bear in mind that often, the intelligence services will sub-contract, with no tangible links. 

Source please.

No point asking jivebunny for a source.

His idea of a credible source is someone who writes something on a website, and can prove it’s true, because he also wrote the same thing in a book.

What more proof do you need ? It’s written in TWO places ! It MUST be true 🙄

Or alternatively

Source please.

The Punisher, a Netflix Original [s]Series[/s] Documentary.

The CIA contracted out the dirty work to Anvil.

That's what this thread needs, more sauce!

I think when the truther argument is essentially ‘there was a conspiracy but there’s no evidence because of private sector outsourcing’. It would be as much use to move the conversation to sauce as anything else

I’m brown with bacon, red with sausages

What floor was Kissinger's office on?

Source please.

Google can help there...

Look into at Brian Crozier's 'the 61' (6I) (linked to Le Cercle (Pinay Circle)) to get an insight into the world of dodgy dealings with no paper trail.

Something tells me you're the lazy type though, so here's a bit of background to whet your appetite..

Crozier's own book, '[url= https://www.amazon.co.uk/Free-Agent-1941-1991-Autobiography-International/dp/0060171170?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0 ]Free Agent[/url]' would be a good starting point, but there's plenty more out there to back it up.

Worth bearing in mind that I mentioned Crozier long ago in regard to his influence in the media via the CIA backed Forum World Features...

See this thread:

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/biased-broadcasting-company-nick-robinson

If you want a real insight into what goes on behind the scenes, look into [url= https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/aug/09/brian-crozier ]Brian Crozier[/url]:

The intelligence expert Brian Crozier, who has died aged 94 after a long illness, was the ultimate cold-war warrior: a political vigilante who unashamedly cultivated a close, mutually beneficial, relationship with MI6, MI5 and the CIA, successfully courted Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, and praised the dictators Pinochet and Franco.

In the 1960s, at MI6's suggestion, Crozier was approached by the Congress for Cultural Freedom, a CIA-funded agency that financed publications around the world, including Encounter magazine in Britain.
In 1966, with the help of CIA funds, he set up a British-based agency, Forum World Features, and later founded the Institute for the Study of Conflict. He also contributed to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's Information Research Department (IRD), a shady organisation whose unattributable reports distributed to susceptible journalists and MPs were designed to highlight the dangers of communist subversion. The IRD was disbanded by David Owen soon after he was appointed foreign secretary in 1977.

[b]That year, continuing in his role of what British intelligence agencies call "an alongsider", Crozier set up a new group, "The 61".[/b]

and his work at [url= https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Forum_World_Features ]Forum World Features[/url] and [url= https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Le_Cercle ]Le Cercle[/url]:

Forum World Features was a London based CIA propaganda operation which operated as a professional news service from 1965 to 1975. It was run by the anti-communist crusader, later European Chair of Le Cercle, Brian Crozier.

Forum World Features was part of a world wide CIA propaganda operation overseen by Kermit Roosevelt, the CIA agent who had engineered the overthrow of the democratic government of Iran in 1953.

The Australian born journalist Brian Crozier was appointed chairman of the company. He was a fervant anti-communist who had worked for the Economist and the BBC. Crozier was assisted by John Tusa - later to be the main presenter of BBC Newsnight, then go on to become head of the BBC's World Service. Tusa, who was reportedly unaware of the CIA connection, resigned after an argument over editorial policy.

Among many other achievements in the shadows, Crozier via the global network of Le Cercle, with extensive support in MI6 and the CIA, was said to be instrumental in getting both Thatcher and Reagan elected...

The Langemann Papers (November 1979) quote a planning paper by Brian Crozier about a Cercle complex operation "to affect a change of government in the United Kingdom (accomplished)".

This may be a reference to the success of the "Shield" group which Crozier set up in 1976, probably with the express purpose of getting Margaret Thatcher elected, a year after she was invited to the Bilderberg meeting by Labour's Dennis Healey.

Are you sure that’s not the plot for ‘Spectre’?

I’m brown with bacon, red with sausages

I've read some messed up shit on this thread but that's going too far!

Google can help there...

Said to be...may be...probably.

The salient point is that Jive is quoting a book published in 1993, that has very reviews, let alone sales, to help justify his 9/11 conspiracy.

Said to be...may be...probably

Also this, there's nothing like hearsay dressed up as facts is there?

Literally [i]any[/i] fact you can imagine is better than a fact that you can verify.

Strange you should focus on the book alone... though of course, non-fiction books are subject to legal constraints and there have been plenty of cases where people have been prevented from publishing by the intelligence services.

Same goes for Craig Unger's work regarding Bush and Bandar... Craig is quite well known and has served as deputy editor of the New York Observer and was editor-in-chief of Boston Magazine. He has written about George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush for The New Yorker, Esquire Magazine and Vanity Fair.

No one has sued though... that tends to mean things are a fair representation of facts (and/or the parties involved would prefer the matters discussed aren't investigated further)

Beyond all that, you may have noticed the 'Brian Crozier' link is an obituary in the Guardian. You can find several similar articles throughout the mainstream press.

That's were it gets tricky though~ can you trust the press to give you the full picture; after all, Rupert Murdoch has been linked to Brian Crozier and Forum World Features...

that tends to mean things are a fair representation of facts (and/or the parties involved would prefer the matters discussed aren't investigated further)

Rubbish. It could equally means that the author is a swivel eyed loon who sold a book to 12 people.

You've a terrible habit of making stuff up to suit your internal narrative

The swivel eyed loon in question, with another swivel eyed loon...

[img] [/img]

Are you sure that’s not the plot for ‘Spectre’?

I'm crying tears of laughter, thank god I'm WFH today!

From a scientific point of view, the higher than Mach 1 terminal velocity of the planes at impact, would be perfectly reasonable in a FE scenario with directional air pressure*.

makes you think.

*combining a few threads here, thank me later mods

jivehoneyjive - Member

the CIA backed Forum World

[img] ?v=1459067159[/img]

😆 Good work Northwind, made me chuckle.

So anyway, back to Brian Crozier and 'the 61'... what kind of things would a covert private intelligence agency that's a sworn enemy of Russia be up to in the 80s?

what kind of things would a covert private intelligence agency that's a sworn enemy of Russia be up to in the 80s?

Whittling a life sized model of Tom Selleck's penis from a piece of Douglas Fir that had washed up on the beach. Obviously.

Why not tell us what they really did then, oh master of the facts. Not what you think they did, or what they miht have done, or were said to have done. Facts.

Now, I must get back to my own whittling. Roger Moore's bum from a fallen oak, in case you were wondering.

what kind of things would a covert private intelligence agency that's a sworn enemy of Russia be up to in the 80s?

yes, let's join together in a big game of make stuff up, the most outlandish suggestion that retains a touch of credibility wins!

Are you saying that my suggestion lacked credibility?

maybe if you quote yourself that will add credibility CapF?

Are you saying that my suggestion lacked credibility?

Didn't see your previous post when I was typing mine

But yours have more credibility than most on this thread!

ETA: anyone who can grow such a luxuriant moustache and chest hair must be fantastically well hung.

anyone who can grow such a luxuriant moustache and chest hair must be fantastically well hung.

Just to clarify, are you talking about me or Tom Selleck there?

Reading this is like reading the most boring, badly written Tom Clancy fan fiction ever.

JHJ, it's ok that you don't understand, no ones going to judge.
It's far worse to make stuff up while pretending you do.

9/11 isn't made up, nor is Osama Bin Laden.

Nor for that matter is Brian Crozier and 'the 61'

Here's a pic to brigthen things up a bit and make it a bit less boring for you. (I don't have any squeaky toys or shiny things to hand)

[img] [/img]

Pulling together totally unconnected snippets of historical output, and trying to crowbar them into a single meaningful “storyline”
And failing miserably to come up with anything that even makes sense to anyone but a child.

Our jivebunny is basically exactly the same as the one from the 80’s

[img] ?itok=rSpaOFIt[/img]

But a little bit sadder.

CaptainFlashheart - Member

anyone who can grow such a luxuriant moustache and chest hair must be fantastically well hung.

Just to clarify, are you talking about me or Tom Selleck there?

you, obviously.

feel free to quote this in future debates

after all, Rupert Murdoch has been linked to Brian Crozier

OMG! A newspaper owner has been linked to a journalist!

9/11 isn't made up, nor is Osama Bin Laden.

Nor for that matter is Brian Crozier and 'the 61'

Well with that standard of proof I'm convinced.
Just not sure what of as the resident paranoid bullshitter hasn't the balls to say.
I had a mentally deranged fantasist in the pub yesterday. They were made to leave for the benefit of the other customers. 💡

Pulling together totally unconnected snippets of historical output

Patience my dear friend, soon enough you'll see they are entirely connected, both to one another and 9/11.

So anyway, back to Brian Crozier and 'the 61'... what kind of things would a covert private intelligence agency that's a sworn enemy of Russia be up to in the 80s?

1st up... what were all the other intelligence agencies up to back then?

John Rambo can help there...

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Though Operation Cyclone was a covert operation, some folk at Rambo III must've been pretty in the loop. [url= http://rambo.wikia.com/wiki/Stinger_missiles ]They even mention supply of Stinger missiles.[/url]

A hero like Rambo is no doubt handy for cementing public support.

There again, what with the CIA, MI6, Mossad, ISI, Saudi intelligence and others involved, there must've been a fair few folk in the know, even if they didn't want the general population in on it.

No doubt such a co-ordinated effort would've required extensive planning... we'll come back to that

To put the pic of Mujahideen Afghan leaders visitng Reagan in context, it's worth bearing in mind that 1983 was when Donald Rumsfeld was made Reagan's Special Envoy to the Middle East.

[img] [/img]

Aside from his dealings helping arm Saddam, he must've cemented a pretty solid relationship with Saudi Arabia back then, because [url= http://avalon.law.yale.edu/sept11/dod_brief16.asp ]this is what he had to say less than a month after the 9/11 attacks[/url]:

Rumsfeld: No. We're not going to be making requests of the Saudi Arabian government. We have a longstanding relationship with them. I've met with the leadership in that country any number of times. I served as Middle East envoy for President Reagan and spent time there. We are respectful of the circumstances of the countries in the region. We understand that.

That of course takes us back to Bandar's Riggs bank funds reaching the hijackers and his contact with Abu Zubaydah, not forgetting other members of the Saudi elite being implicated in funding and aiding Al-Qaeda.

[img] ?w=723[/img]

(On a side note, it's worth noting that Rumsfeld's Princeton roommate and lifelong friend, [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Carlucci ]Frank Carlucci[/url] was deputy director of the CIA when Operation Cyclone began)

So Rumsfeld did it?

Though Operation Cyclone was a covert operation, some folk at Rambo III must've been pretty in the loop. They even mention supply of Stinger missiles.

What do you mean when you say “pretty in the loop”

Ronald Reagan talked publicly about Operation Cyclone and Stinger Missiles going to Afghanistan in 1980 when he was a Presidential Candidate.

It was totally public knowledge in the early 80’s.

Why would filmmakers in 1998 need to be “in the loop” to know about it ?

Are you trying to make it all sound “dodgy and conspiratorial” on purpose ?

Or do you maybe just not know as much about this stuff as you think you do. 🙄

Strange you should focus on the book alone...

So anyway, back to Brian Crozier and 'the 61'... what kind of things would a covert private intelligence agency that's a sworn enemy of Russia be up to in the 80s?

9/11 isn't made up, nor is Osama Bin Laden.

Nor for that matter is Brian Crozier and 'the 61'

And the invention of the Rubiks Cube. Makes you think...

Patience my dear friend, soon enough you'll see they are entirely connected, both to one another and 9/11.

Sweet baby jesus, you have plans to actually do the big reveal? Do give an idea of timescale, it means I'll know how much longer I can enjoy mocking your other works of fiction.

Though Operation Cyclone was a covert operation, some folk at Rambo III must've been pretty in the loop.

I check this thread every day to see whether it's getting any stupider. It is.

[img] [/img]
Makes you think

Sweet baby jesus, you have plans to actually do the big reveal?

Blimey, and there was I thinking you'd be praising me for my meticulous research, speaking of which...

Ronald Reagan talked publicly about Operation Cyclone and Stinger Missiles going to Afghanistan in 1980 when he was a Presidential Candidate.

Source please...

Seems a bit odd that a presidential candidate would blab about the early stages of a joint international CIA Operation in which they went through an intermediary (the ****stani ISI) and sourced and supplied AK47s to distance themselves from involvement.

Especially since supply of stingers to the Mujahideen wasn't approved until March 1986.

Factor in the time taken for development and pre-production of Rambo III, which would've been complete before filming began in mid 1987, and it's reasonable to deduce that someone on the production team of Rambo 3 was in the loop (bearing in mind this was long before the luxury of modern communication) or at the very least a damn good researcher.

Source please...

Seems a bit odd that a presidential candidate

Do your own research 🙄

You might want to start with “The Reagan Doctrine”
And his very public praise, and support of Anti Communist freedom fighters, in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

It was open Foriegn Policy of the Reagan Administration to offer support to Anti Communist fighters across the world.

How you don’t know this is baffling.

The Reagan Doctrine wasn't announced until 1985, which doesn't help your case...

Ronald Reagan talked publicly about Operation Cyclone and Stinger Missiles going to Afghanistan in 1980 when he was a Presidential Candidate.

However, considering how closely the Reagan Doctrine mirrors the sentiments of Brian Crozier, the 61 and the Pinay Circle (Le Cercle) it's worth noting that Brian Crozier 1st met Reagan on July 8th 1980 after an introduction by OSS and CIA agent [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aline_Griffith,_Dowager_Countess_of_Romanones ]Aline Griffith, Dowager Countess of Romanones[/url].

Crozier states he was in regular covert unofficial contact with Reagan throughout his presidency mainly via Edward V Hickey and Nancy Reagan.

For more, see Brian Crozier's book, [url= https://www.amazon.co.uk/Free-Agent-1941-1991-Autobiography-International/dp/0060171170?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0 ]Free Agent[/url]

especially Chapter 14:

'Reagan meets 'The 61''

I remember it as well, the US handing over stingers was all over the telly on the news, Panorama programmes like that ...fer Christ's sake I remember a boring car journey to an air cadet camp in the early eighties (83-4) when we discussed it, and I'm pretty sure none of us were part of a CIA operation.

Who were they handing Stingers over to in 83-84?

It certainly wasn't the Mujahideen at that stage...

The Reagan Doctrine wasn't announced until 1985, which doesn't help your case

I also said “you might want to [b]Start with[/b] the Reagan Doctrine.

Just because you don’t want to do any further research that will disprove your “theory” that the makers of Rambo 3 were inside the “conspiracy”
Don’t blame me.

There was no conspiracy here. It was public knowledge.
Reagan was very open about it.

Just because you haven’t researched it well enough, that doesn’t make it a conspiracy.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/jis-online.org/2017/10/27/the-soviet-vietnam/amp/

The covert assistance program was not as covert as originally envisioned: by 1980, presidential candidate Ronald Reagan had publicized the U.S. role in arming the Mujahideen, in addition to initiating a discussion of whether to provide Stinger missiles to the insurgents.

.

Well I'll be... last time I use Rambo to try and lighten the mood.

It's a reasonable misunderstanding though, since:

[b]Until the mid-1980s, the CIA avoided transferring American-made weapons to the Afghans, preferring instead to use Warsaw Pact weapons to match what was captured by the Mujahideen on the battlefield from Soviet troops.[/b] In addition, weapons were procured from Egypt, China, Poland, and on the international black market. The global operation to acquire weapons was so extensive that “by late 1986 there were so many agencies spending and distributing so many hundreds of millions dollars for so many countries that no agency could keep track of it all.”

(On a side note, can't help but wonder how many of those weapons went on to contribute to the efforts of Al-Qaeda, in much the same way that many of the stingers ended up in the hands of the Taliban)

Couple that with the fact that as I've already stated, [url= http://www.nytimes.com/1988/04/18/world/arming-afghan-guerrillas-a-huge-effort-led-by-us.html?pagewanted=all ]authorisation for provision of Stinger missiles to the Mujahideen wasn't provided until March 1986[/url]:

For several months, conservative groups had harshly criticized John N. McMahon, who was Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, on the ground that he was blocking efforts to send Stingers to the guerrillas. In early March 1986, Mr. Reagan approved delivery of such missiles.

Overall though, on this small point I concede, though I'm still baffled why Reagan would blow the cover when they'd gone to such trouble:

For five years, American officials provided the guerrillas with weapons designed and manufactured by the Soviet Union or other East Bloc countries so they could deny that the United States was supplying such assistance.

Regardless, [url= http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/11/magazine/lost-at-tora-bora.html ]CIA funding of endeavours involving Osama Bin Laden is troubling[/url]...

[img] [/img]

Well I'll be... last time I use Rambo to try and lighten the mood.

Edinburgh ?

Bin Laden drove a bulldozer, who does that implicate? John Charles Bamford or Bob the Builder?

Because if someone remotely political had owned a bulldozer factory you would have tried to create a link there.

Regardless, CIA funding of endeavours involving Osama Bin Laden is troubling...

Why ?

Seriously, why is it troubling.

35 years ago, during the Cold War, assistance was given by the CIA to people fighting against America’s Cold War enemy.
That seems entirely logical wouldn’t you say.

The fact that a, just out of university, bin laden happened to be there at the time, also fighting against America’s enemy, is an irrelevance.

Is the fact that Political loyalties change over time totally lost in you ?

Overall though, on this small point I concede,

It’s always a “small point” when you are caught out talking shite though isn’t it.
Or just ignored and move on to the next one.

Regardless, CIA funding of endeavours involving Osama Bin Laden is troubling...

Why ?

Seriously, why is it troubling.

Well, in much the same way that [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission#NORAD_testimony ]NORAD failing to tell the truth to the 9/11 Commission is troubling[/url]...

John Farmer, Jr., senior counsel to the Commission stated that the Commission [b]"discovered that...what government and military officials had told Congress, the Commission, the media, and the public about who knew what when — was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue."[/b] Farmer continues: [b]"At some level of the government, at some point in time … there was a decision not to tell the truth about what happened...The (NORAD) tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public."[/b][23]

Thomas Kean, the head of the 9/11 Commission, concurred: [b]"We to this day don’t know why NORAD told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth."[/b]

Well, in much the same way that NORAD failing to tell the truth to the 9/11 Commission is troubling...

Nope. Totally different.

Not even close to being the same. Pathetic deflection.

Answer the question please.

Why is the situation in the 1980’s, involving a young Bin laden (which YOU described as troubling) such an issue ?

This is a thread on 9/11, hence CIA funding of endeavours involving Osama Bin Laden is troubling, as is NORAD failing to tell the truth to the 9/11 commission.

Hope that clears things up for you 😉

Norad not telling the truth to the commission is not really that troubling,"The false testimony served a purpose: to obscure mistakes on the part of the F.A.A. and the military, and to overstate the readiness of the military to intercept and, if necessary, shoot down UAL 93." All perfectly understandable particularly if you bother to follow the facts rather than whisk up a conspiracy. The facts are out there for all https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2006/08/norad200608 .

Sure, there's no fun if the cover up only hides incompetence. You need a conspiracy!

anyway, back to 1961 and something completely unrelated that happened in south east asia

Sure, there's no fun if the cover up only hides incompetence. You need a conspiracy!

Can you explain where I've mentioned a conspiracy here?

This is a thread on 9/11, hence CIA funding of endeavours involving Osama Bin Laden is troubling, as is NORAD failing to tell the truth to the 9/11 commission.

Can you explain where I've mentioned a conspiracy here?

how do you know that was aimed at you?

This is a thread on 9/11, hence CIA funding of endeavours involving Osama Bin Laden is troubling,

It's really not. As explained by others above. You just [i]want[/i] it to be troubling. Can you see the difference here?

as is NORAD failing to tell the truth to the 9/11 commission

Adequately explained by others, they also gave you a link to vanity fair, which is inconvenient.

Serious question. You're in a minority of one here. Why do you think that no one subscribes to your position or gives any weight to your evidence?

This is a thread on 9/11, hence CIA funding of endeavours involving Osama Bin Laden is troubling

Ok. Let’s try again 🙄

What is it that you find troubling about the CIA providing support and funding for the Afghan fighters who were fighting against the Soviet occupation 35 years ago.

You brought it up.
You said you found it troubling.

So what specifically do you find troubling about it ?

Let's go back to the source...

[url= http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/11/magazine/lost-at-tora-bora.html ]CIA funding of endeavours involving Osama Bin Laden is troubling
[/url]
[img] [/img]

One striking coincidence which gives a degree of concern is Frank Carlucci being deputy director of the CIA at the Genesis of Operation Cyclone.

That's the same Frank Carlucci who was Chairman of the Carlyle Group from 1992-2003.

The very same Carlyle Group who had extensive business ties with the Bin Laden Group (whose bulldozers Osama Bin Laden used to build the Tora Bora stronghold with CIA funding)

Bear in mind that the Carlyle Group's presence in Saudi Arabia came about as a result of a member of the Royal Family who has been implicated in funding and supporting Al-Qaeda.

One striking coincidence which gives a degree of concern is Frank Carlucci being deputy director of the CIA at the Genesis of Operation Cyclone.

Why is that a concern ?

That's the same Frank Carlucci who was Chairman of the Carlyle Group from 1992-2003.

More than a decade later, he worked for a private equity firm. So what ?

The very same Carlyle Group who had extensive business ties with the Bin Laden Group

The bin laden family held a relatively tiny investment ($2m) in a fund at Carlyle Group.
Their investment made up roughly 1.5% of a single fund at Carlyle Group.

A drop in the Carlyle Group ocean.
Hardly as “extensive” as you would like to make out.

So.

You’ve still not let us know what was so troubling about the CIA funding the Afghan fighters in the 80’s.

It was publicly known foriegn policy.
It was vote winner for Reagan in fact.

Serious question. You're in a minority of one here. Why do you think that no one subscribes to your position or gives any weight to your evidence?

[quote=jonnyboi ]Serious question. You're in a minority of one here. Why do you think that no one subscribes to your position or gives any weight to your evidence?

is that the tag line to the new rambo film?

If so, I'll happily take the lead 😉

Always outnumbered, never outgunned etc...

Anyhoo back to facts...

It was vote winner for Reagan in fact.

Debatable whether that had a big influence on the result (Brian Crozier and his cronies are as likely to have played a role in the election results, much like Robert Mercer in the case of Trump) but regardless, if it was indeed a vote winner, it was one which spawned a terrorist network, supported by the Saudi Ambassador.

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Which resulted in an attack that could've been prevented.

A New Yorker article in 2006 described Soufan as coming closer than anyone to preventing the September 11 attacks, even implying that he would have succeeded had the CIA been willing to share information with him.

So. Without changing the subject yet again.

What is that has you so concerned about the CIA/USA funding Afgham fighters against the Soviet Occupation in the 80’s

You’ve still not answered yet.

You brought it up.

it was one which spawned a terrorist network

So what if it did ?

Are You seriously suggesting that was the plan all along?

The CIA saw some 20 year old uni grad on a digger in 1981 and said, you know what .... I’ve got an idea.

Ffs.

You're talking guff...

my concern was:

CIA funding of endeavours involving Osama Bin Laden is troubling

And it's answered above.

CIA funding of endeavours involving Osama Bin Laden is troubling

Osama bin laden was nobody at the time.
This was the 80’s
He was 20.

So what is your concern really.

Now its not just a soundbite that makes it sound like the CIA where knowingly funding bin laden (the terrorist)

You do realise that Governments change alliances all the time?

You do know that Germany and Russia had a pact in 1939 but went to war in 1941?

You do know the Japanese had an alliance with UK, France and the US in WW1 but 20 years went to war against teh same countries?

You do not know that Churchill despised and mistrusted Stalin but still sided with him against the Nazi's? Then 4 years later he wanted to invade the USSR?

Very troubling.

#makesyouthink

You do realise that Governments change alliances all the time?

Everyone else knows this. And accepts it.

JHJ however doesn’t seem to get it.

Or simply chooses to pretend not to, as it suits his argument.

Osama bin laden was nobody at the time.
This was the 80’s
He was 20.

Well, you're not far off... when Operation Cyclone started in 1979, he was 22; by the time he'd built the tunnels of Tora Bora, he would've been about 30.

For a similar case study, [url= http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/14/opinion/a-tyrant-40-years-in-the-making.html ]let's look at Saddam Hussein... he would've been around 25 when the CIA 1st started using him as an Asset[/url].

On the brink of war, both supporters and critics of United States policy on Iraq agree on the origins, at least, of the haunted relations that have brought us to this pass: America's dealings with Saddam Hussein, justifiable or not, began some two decades ago with its shadowy, expedient support of his regime in the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980's.

Both sides are mistaken. Washington's policy traces an even longer, more shrouded and fateful history. [b]Forty years ago, the Central Intelligence Agency, under President John F. Kennedy, conducted its own regime change in Baghdad, carried out in collaboration with Saddam Hussein.[/b]

As its instrument the C.I.A. had chosen the authoritarian and anti-Communist Baath Party, in 1963 still a relatively small political faction influential in the Iraqi Army. According to the former Baathist leader Hani Fkaiki, [b]among party members colluding with the C.I.A. in 1962 and 1963 was Saddam Hussein, then a 25-year-old who had fled to Cairo after taking part in a failed assassination of Kassem in 1958.[/b]

(On a side note it's worth remembering [url= https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Corruption_convicted_billionaire_Nadhmi_Auchi_legal_threat_to_Wikileaks,_5_Nov_2008 ]Nadhmi Auchi's role in the Ba'ath Party[/url]... You'll find I've mentioned Auchi in other threads)

State Department records from the US Baghdad Embassy made at the time, and obtained by Wikileaks, confirm the Observer's 2003 story. [b]Saddam Hussein was tried in absentina. And not only did Nadhmi Auchi stand trial, but he was convicted and sentenced to three years imprisonment in 1960 for his part in the conspiracy--the supply of machine guns, as a Ba'ath party member, to other members who carried out the attack. [/b]

You don't seem capable of accepting what gobuchul has just said, that in international affairs allies and enemies change. What on Earth has all this CIA support of Bin Laden got to do with 9/11? Are you suggesting the CIA were planning with Bin Laden way back then to turn a blind eye to a future, unspecified terrorist attack in America?

You don't seem capable of accepting what gobuchul has just said, that in international affairs allies and enemies change. What on Earth has all this CIA support of Bin Laden got to do with 9/11? Are you suggesting the CIA were planning with Bin Laden way back then to turn a blind eye to a future, unspecified terrorist attack in America?

He’ll not tell you what he’s suggesting, as overt statements get refuted fairly easily.

As above, alliances come and go. All this is old news and none of it, not one single shred of evidence points to a conspiracy relating to the events of 9/11.

Incompetence? Possibly
Missed opportunities? Almost certainly

But that’s it.

What is your problem with the Bora Bora tunnels ? The CIA fighting the soviets built them for the mujahedeen fighting the soviets . AQ did not exist had not even been thought of at that time . Years later Bin Laden who knew about the tunnels used them when fighting the Americans . What do you find surprising or suspicious in those facts ?

Over the last month, Al Waleed Bin Talal and Bandar Bin Sultan have both reportedly been detained as part of the Saudi Purge; there have also been suggestions of further investigation into the Al-Yamamah deal

Still no word on Turki Bin Faisal though...

[url= https://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-peak/feathered-cocaine_b_4392859.html ]Feathered Cocaine[/url]

With some of the richest and most powerful men in the world visiting these falconry camps, the camps also attract some of the world’s most undesirable — like weapons smuggler and the inspiration for the movie, Lord of War, Viktor Bout, who was frequently a guest at royal falconry camps. [b]But the most infamous guest was Osama bin Laden, who, for many years, made annual visits to the royal falconry camps in both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates during a time when he was already wanted around the world for mass murder. Former Saudi Ambassador, Prince Turki bin Faisal hunted with bin Laden often, and bin Laden was a VIP guest at the falconry camp organized by the former foreign minister from the U.A.E. bin Laden was so involved in falconry during the ‘90s and 2000s, that during the time he lived in Kandahar, Afghanistan, he stole most of the falcons from the surrounding tribes for his own personal use, giving the best birds as gifts to royal sheiks in the Emirates, and princes in Saudi Arabia.[/b]

Not forgetting of course that it was Turki bin Faisal's sister (Bandar Bin Sultan's wife) who was involved in money finding it's way from the Riggs account set up by the UK paymaster general to the hijackers support network.

Well, you're not far off... when Operation Cyclone started in 1979, he was 22; by the time he'd built the tunnels of Tora Bora, he would've been about 30.

And as a nobody, but a good civil engineer, he did a good job I presume.
As America wanted, to enable the fight against the soviet occupation.

That’s It. Simple.