Talk:CIA–al-Qaeda controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Terrorism (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Alternative Views (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Allegation[edit]

What is the purpose of quoting BBC article that says: "Some analysts believe Bin Laden himself had security training from the CIA" when this analyst( Hazhir Teimourian) is already mentioned? We can go on and on with this. Whole allegation part is poorly done or overstated related to serious facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.237.102 (talk) 08:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Not really sure why this page is controversial (judging by the vast chasm of passionate opinion) since al Qaeda's and the United State's involvement in fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan is not seen as controversial. Can disagreeing factions on this issue at least agree that due to the rather classified nature of their relationship, the we will never be fully aware of what has, and what does, go on between the two parties? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.44.182.164 (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete this page[edit]

This page should be deleted and its relevant content merged to the OBL page where it was removed from in the first place. It is nonsense to claim this topic is "hotly disputed" and it is even more nonsense to cite a google search as evidence for that. It is not hotly disputed among any experts on terrorism, bin Laden, intelligence, or the CIA. While there is no doubt that US involvement in Afghanistan prior to the 1990s helped those who were fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, some of whom were Afghan Arabs, the claim that the US funded bin Laden or al Qaeda is nonsense and has been rejected by every official source and every actual scholar on the issue. Having a page like this promotes a fringe conspiracy theory and gives it credibility. This page needs to be deleted forthwith, or, if it stays, should be rewritten completely so that it is not about "allegations" and "denials" but simply about conveying accurately the information that is known. csloat 23:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Cannot agree. The page does not give much credence to the theory at all. And as the note you deleted says:
for example, searched on Google 8-16-2007 the phrase "cia trained bin laden" produces 1,090 hits, "cia created bin laden" produces 986
The idea is out there. Deleting the article won't make it go away.
The article was created because both the Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda articles had big sections on it and at least the ObL page had a big debate in the talk page. It also was relevent to the Afghan Arabs article.
My idea was not to promote the theory but to gather together all the allegation and denials from two different articles in one big article and sort them out for everyone to see.
It is certainly true that "experts on terrorism" are not debating this issue but if wikipedia was devoted only to issues of interest to experts it would be much smaller than it is. wikipedia should include issues of interest to people who don't know about that issue and want to find out. --BoogaLouie 16:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Commodore_Sloat"

I could see a case for merging it with the Operation Cyclone article. --BoogaLouie 15:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
BTW you want to see some POV take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency#Afghanistan, and at the Operation Cyclone history to see what that looked like before I cleaned it up. --BoogaLouie 15:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
That's probably a good merge except most people have no idea what that operation is. The thing about all this is that it's not just allegations and denials -- it is a complex narrative that suggests the CIA is implicated heavily in the rise of al Qaeda, but never actually met with them, trained them, or transferred any money to them. But the Reagan Administration rewarded Arab governments who pledged to do something about the Soviets in Afghanistan, and those who did, esp. Saudi Arabia, funded and supported what became a pan-Arab mujahideen. I didn't mean to suggest that only "experts" were worthy of comment here, but that the studied conclusions of those experts weighed much more heavily than the ravings of conspiracy theorists, left or right. I think if we keep the page as it is, it should be restructured as a chronological narrative rather than a he-said/she-said debate. Some of that debate will have to be kept, but that could be part of a brief introduction that indicates clearly that the experts (and journalists) who have studied the issue find the conspiracy theory unpersuasive. csloat 19:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll put brief explanations and "for main article see ..." links to it in the ObL , al-Qaeda, CIA, and Afghan Arabs articles and any other articles that need it.--BoogaLouie 16:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Nor did I. I mean wikipedia should not/cannot be a place where only issues that experts have deliberated upon and found merit are mentioned; and if people find nothing about some idea, then they will know that wikipedia in its wisdom has decided the idea is nonsense. People will not assume that at all, they will just keep looking. If people are talking about it we should too, and in the process of explaining it in a NPOV manner demonstrate that it is nonsense. --BoogaLouie 16:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
the structure now gives the denials the last word (and a quite convincing last word I think) which is is as it should be. --BoogaLouie 16:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
But the structure itself is problematic. As I said, we'd be much better off with a chronological narrative that mentions the allegations and the responses to them in passing rather than a he-said, she-said structure that gives a sense of equivalence to both sides. Do you disagree? Also, please don't rearrange my words. Thanks. csloat 01:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
OK go ahead and chronologicalize the structure. I think it is OK the way it is, but chronology won't hurt either. Then I think we should make it a section of Operation Cyclone. --BoogaLouie 15:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, this page should be deleted! Wikipedia is turning into a pile of crap really.

I've seen "alleged support" from Libya, North Korea, Cuba and other countries to Al-qaeda lately without any sources while something as obvious as the US financing Bin Ladin is now going from fact to "allged fact"... Kill this page or kill Wikipedia.

I added information on this topic of the CIA working closely with Binladen, using an article on FAIR. FAIR is considered to be on the political Left, but quite far from "conspiracy theory". As a matter of fact, known to reject "CT" outright. Author cites (I'd have to count) approximately five major mainstream news sources on this matter alone, including Jane's Intelligence Review, a publication of Jane's Group a.k.a. "Jane's" Wikipedia describes as the DE FACTO source for matters of military and defense, as well as transportation, etc.

I'd argue that Jane's alone is a qualified source, even excluding the London Telegraph, The Economist, and FAIR itself. That anyone could dismiss this outright as "nonsense" is astonishing, despite the fact that it is obviously disputed. Could it be that this 2001 article on the "Afghan Freedom fighters" referencing viewpoints from the 80s and 90s was buried so deep in Google that Wikipedia contributors were unaware of it?

Beyond that, as someone suggested, it more likely that a reader would have to already KNOW the name Operation Cyclone to locate this topic, if the contents were transfered to that OC article or trashed, vs. left standalone with Binladen in the title.

My main concern, as a newbie, is when to use <> angle-bracketed references as opposed to more informal URLs linked to outside articles. I'm sure there's a rule or suggestion on that, if I look a bit harder. One other question, while the source I cited in "Allegations" did not have a strictly NPOV, and was presenting information from a POV (mostly on media coverage and govt manipulation of news), and his *statements* I cited were not neutral (of course), I think the manner in which I cited him maintained an NPOV. If not, I'll look at suggestions for improvement in phrasing NPOV.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Historianwbee (talkcontribs) 13:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden with Operation Cyclone[edit]

I propose we make Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden a section of Operation Cyclone. Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden is a narrow topic and assistance to ObL would have been part of Operation Cyclone.

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

  • Support for reasons stated above. --BoogaLouie 17:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support The only context in which this page is discussed is covered by the article for the CIA operation. The question of arms and training for Muj in Afghanistan is it's topic and the question of one recipient is too narrow to deserve it's own branch. Attriti0n (talk) 04:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose It would blur the lines between what is admitted (U.S. support to Afghan mujahadeen) and what is an allegation (U.S. support to non-Afghan mujahadeen). Also, the size of this article would swamp the other article. And also, this article has a broader scope than Cyclone - surely there have been allegations of CIA assistance to OBL post-1989? Corleonebrother (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Operation Cyclone is a factual event of history back by documents and admission of the US Government. This article however is simply a collection of hearsay allegations, with no real substance indicating it should be part of factual recorded history. There are no eyewitness accounts, no first hand testimony and no official documentation to support it beyond conspiracy theory status. Charles FL (talk) 12:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose moving or crunching this info. I don't think FAIR is considered "fringe conspiracy theory" though it would be accused of a Left wing slant by those of an alternate viewpoint. I do not think Jane's is considered to have any slant other than pro-military, and is not considered the realm of non-credible conspiracy theory. The London Telegraph and The Economist, I'm pretty sure are considered conservative or centrist, also not "fringe" sources.

Delete CIA bomb manual[edit]

"According to Russian sources, the perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 allegedly used a manual allegedly written by the CIA for the Mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan on how to make explosives."

There are no "Russian sources" of this claim. A Russian magazine mentions the claim being made by John K. Cooley. As far I can tell, Cooley, and only Cooley is the one making this claim. In the reference to his book, he cited "various media sources" from around Jan-Mar 1994, New York Times, LA Times, CBS reports, etc. He cannot even mention a specific one? I have to look through them myself? Ok fair enough, so I went through various articles from papers he listed and not a single one of them mentions a CIA manual. The sources mention many various types of bomb making manuals, while some listed he had military manuals in his possession. OK fair enough, i did a little more digging. This story first appears to originate in the legal defense for one of the wtc bombers, who was apparently trying to give the excuse that he was a Afghan War veteran and that is why he possessed the manauls, not because he was planning on blowing anything up, and he was unaware that the people he was hanging out with were planning on bombing the wtc.

Military manuals are not CIA manuals. Military manuals, while classified, are usually easily available online.

If you want to opine this demonstrates blowback from U.S. support for the Mujahadeen, thats fine, thats a perfectly valid opinion. What the author of this highly charged book is doing, however, is deliberately spinning historical information, to give the impresssion the CIA was working closely and training the very terrorist who would attack us later. I'm sorry, but that is not a historically sound claim.

Plus, this CIA manual sounds alot like a Soviet Inspired misinformation campaign that still finds its way around to this day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Army_Field_Manual_30-31B

Ditto. It wasn't a CIA manual and it wasn't used to produce the WTC bomb in 1993. These are the only claims made by the source that get him onto this page and they are both known to be BS as per every researched account of the WTC bombing. Deleted. Attriti0n (talk) 04:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

What this may refer to is military manuals (hadn't heard described as CIA) found at a safe house used by bombers, manuals believed to have been supplied by Ali Mohamed who was a US Army Sergeant at Ft. Bragg (?), and who had a history involving the Muslim Brotherhood, assassination (Sadat), and relations with Osama Bin Laden and Dr. Ayman Zawahiri. The US State Dept posted limited information on a case against him, nothing I could find on resolution. The only sources on post guilty plea and post-conviction come from a former Naval Intelligence officer (allegedly) named Briley on a right wing forum, and a four-part analysis on the general topic of US leaders knowledge about terrorists on an Israeli intelligence review called Debkafile (similar to Jane's). Probably credible, but to what standard I do not know.

A series of articles in NY Times and LA Times, articles copied and preserved on Free Republic (i know!), point to FBI involvement in supplying bomb materials and instructions. A hard to find video existed on YouTube from ABC news seeming to confirm involvement of the FBI, showing a Prosecutor defending their charges by stating essentially that the FBI's role in supplying resources for the bombing did not absolve the culprits of free will, underplaying the extensiveness of the role of FBI in promoting and orchestrating the bombing and arranging the supplies. Emad Salem's allegations are suggested on ABC News but never fleshed out in this story.

Is there a good place to expand upon this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historianwbee (talkcontribs) 14:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The Database[edit]

Robin Cook ... wrote in The Guardian on Friday, July 8, 2005,

... Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.[8]

He did indeed write this, although the fact that it is a clear misinterpretation of a a foreign word and its prevalence should mean it isn't worthy of being cited here.

Arabic speakers have undoubtedly used the word "base" as you would expect them to in Afghanistan for centuries. The fact remains though that in 1998 the only relevant "al Qaeda" was formed at a documented meeting and the membership list was comprised of those present, not drawn from any previous list.

Pentagons existed in the US prior to the US military laying the slab for that building too. However like this Arabic term, they weren't an integral part of the organisation that followed and the only relevance one can see is to those who cannot understand the prevalence of the word. Attriti0n (talk) 05:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You're little Al Qaeda denialist movement really needs to start doing some research in some academic databases. Al Qaida was being used to describe Bin Laden's organization as early as 1994. It took prevalance after the 96 Khobar Tower bombing. It in no way originated in 1998. Some say it was "the Base" as a list of all Bin Laden's contacts when he went back to Saudi Arabia. Some say its "the foundation" as an Islamic Foundation. Whatever it is, it surely was Bin Laden's name for his group after he left Afghanistan.Chudogg (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Al Qaeda = The Database is wrong[edit]

Al Qaeda means The Base. Qaedat Al Maloumat means Datebase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.2.11 (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The Robin Cook quote should remain anyway. If you can find a reliable source that states clearly that it means 'the base' and not 'the database', then we should include this as a reference to back up a sentence like: "X has pointed out that this is a mistranslation; Al Qaeda in fact means 'the base'" - which would go directly underneath the quote. Corleonebrother (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I think this is probably a reliable source:CNN: Transcript of Bin Laden's October interview
BIN LADEN: ... The name "al Qaeda" was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al Qaeda [meaning "the base" in English]. And the name stayed.
-I'll see if I can insert this into the article.--Lopakhin (talk) 11:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC) - actually there is no need as the 'database' claim is no longer in the article.--Lopakhin (talk) 11:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Pakistani letter regarding US involvement with Mujahadeen[edit]

I noted with interest the following letter from the New York Times from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/19/opinion/lweb22pakistan.html?ref=opinion

Re “Militants Escape Control of Pakistan, Officials Say” (front page, Jan. 15)

Suicide bombing is a phenomenon imported from Iraq and Afghanistan, alien to Pakistan. The strategy to support the Afghans against Soviet military intervention was evolved by several intelligence agencies, including the C.I.A. and Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI.

After the Soviet withdrawal, the Western powers walked away from the region, leaving behind 40,000 militants imported from several countries to wage the anti-Soviet jihad. Pakistan was left to face the blowback of extremism, drugs and guns.

The post-9/11 intervention in Afghanistan led to a further inflow of extremists and terrorists from Afghanistan. As Pakistan’s national security objectives have changed, so have the policies and personnel of ISI. Since 9/11, the Pakistani Army, including the ISI, have been in a front-line role in the fight against terrorism, capturing more than 700 Qaeda operatives, including most of its top leaders.

The ISI has played a pivotal role in aborting several terrorists’ plots against Western countries. It works closely with the agencies of allied countries.

Like the United States and NATO forces in Afghanistan, Pakistan also faces challenges in fighting the terrorists in a difficult terrain. Tactics often evolve through trial and error. Anti-insurgent capacity has to be built up. Yet, given our role and sacrifices, Pakistan’s commitment to combat terrorism cannot be questioned.

Munir Akram


Ambassador and Permanent Representative
Pakistan Mission to the U.N.


New York, Jan. 17, 2008

emphasis mine--scanlyze

I suggest that the quote, "The strategy to support the Afghans against Soviet military intervention was evolved by several intelligence agencies, including the C.I.A. and Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI. After the Soviet withdrawal, the Western powers walked away from the region, leaving behind 40,000 militants imported from several countries to wage the anti-Soviet jihad. Pakistan was left to face the blowback of extremism, drugs and guns," is authoritative and relevant to the subject and could/should be considered for inclusion in the article.

Scanlyze (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

- We know that the US backed the (Afghan) Mujahadeen. What is mostly at issue in this article is whether the US directly supported non-Afghan militants, in particular Osama bin Laden. I don't think that letter particularly provides support for that claim - the closest it comes is referring to the '40,000 militants imported', but it doesn't necessarily say that it was the US/CIA who did the importing.--Lopakhin (talk) 11:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleted see alsos and external links[edit]

Why were these deleted?

see also[edit]

External links[edit]

--BoogaLouie (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Redundant! SA is for articles that are not yet mentioned in the text. EL is for articles that are not yet cited. --Adoniscik(t, c) 21:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Some edits[edit]

Made some minor edits in Allegations section. Not much change in content but "collaborated" and "divulged" are no more. Thought there might be a hint of synthesis in "collaborated", as though Bandar bin Sultan had heard of Bhutto's comment and wanted to support it. And "divulged" sounded a bit like Bandar bin Sultan was sharing some confindential information, rather than doing a PR job trying to humanize and make a bit more sympathetic to Yankee audiences his countryman and mass murderer ObL. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality is the key factor in a decision like this (not PR job, which is POV) and on this basis both edits seem fair. 16:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Pushing a Personal Agenda[edit]

It is clear by the editing of this page, BoogaLouie is pushing his personal agenda. Anyone trying to edit this page to give it a more NPOV will quickly find themselves in a editing war with BoogaLouie. I spent a few hours cleaning up the article, adding more exact quotes, rechecking quotes that were listed and adding photo links into the page only to have them all reverted within hours by BoogaLouie. Since when is the official position of the US Government on the CIA considered the "Opposing View"? All of the articles listed as "allegations" have zero credibility and cite no sources to back up said allegations and are nothing more than rants by the authors. I have found better evidence on UFO websites than the 'allegations' listed here. The whole page is concocted to give the illusion of credibility to the Allegations even as far as posting the official logo of the CIA on the Allegations side of the article (as if the CIA endorses the idea). I'm done trying to edit this article and have decided to just add a new article that applies more to the truth rather than fight with someone who has a personal agenda against the United States. Charles FL (talk) 08:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


the official position of the US Government is considered the "Opposing View" _OF THE ALLEGATIONS_. This seems obvious.

Several articles on Wikipedia state that President Harry Truman had legitimate concerns about creating a "Gestapo" out of the CIA, but elsewhere I'd heard that Truman actually stated that he regretted signing a bill that created an "American Gestapo".

If this is not a bogus quote, then criticism of the actions of an "American Gestapo" (or a very large, useful, and patriotic institution which contains "Gestapo" elements within it), does not necessarily constitute "a personal agenda against the United States" itself, unless the United States and the CIA are to be considered inseparable. I smell dueling agenda's. Mine is not hate, but I do uphold the right to critique my govt, sensibly, and question official assertions. It's not as though the entire American govt chopped down a cherry tree and told the truth about it. /counter-rant Historianwbee (talk) 14:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Tim Osman alias Osama Bin Laden[edit]

This Wikipedia page does not state anywhere about the allegations that Osama bin Laden is known as Tim Osman. But, ironically, when I typed Tim Osman in the search box, I was directed to this page, yet no mention of Tim Osman inside the page.--84.23.140.26 (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is theree are no WP:RS about Tim Osman being bin Laden, just sites like this: http://www.orlingrabbe.com/binladin_timosman.htm --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
The anon IP makes a good point. We should not have a Tim Osman redirect pointing readers to this article if there's no mention of it in the article. Rather than deleting the redirect, and given the prevalence of these allegations and that obviously people are searching for this term, I think it would be an improvement to Wikipedia and a better service to our readers if we did include mention of "Tim Osman" despite there being no RS to support it. It's not like all these other allegations have really credible sources backing them up either, anyway. -- œ 23:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
It's still better than redirecting Tim Osman to Osama Bin Laden himself. In fact a lot of them are WP:FRINGE and WP:PN. ----DanTD (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Edits by Historianwbee[edit]

Edits by Historianwbee have a number of problems.

From wikipedia:
Press TV is state-funded [6] and is a division of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB).
The annual budget of Press TV is 250 billion Rials (more than 25 million US dollars).[7]
Press TV broadcasts news reports and analyses which are close to the official position of the Iranian government, and its programmes are monitored and regulated by the Islamic Republic.[8][9] Although there have been attempts to establish private, independent media outlets in Iran, notably by former Iranian Presidential candidate Mehdi Karroubi, the 1979 Constitution of the Islamic Republic mandates that "all broadcasting must exclusively be government-operated."[10]
At the very least its reporting should be identified as being from the Islamic Republic government.
  • The subject of the article is allegations of a CIA connection with bin Laden, not the enthusiasm of US government officials like Brzezinski for the muj and US hopes to make Aghanistan the Soviet's Vietnam. The YouTube clip is irrelevent as well as WP:OR
  • The TIME magazine article used as a source does have statements that there were "`numerous CIA accounts in B.C.C.I.,` ... being used to pay agents and `apparently to support covert activities`" ... but nothing about bin Laden, al Qaeda, or even Afghanistan. So it's also irrelevent to this article --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Am rewriting the section, deleting much and leaving mainly stuff from Gibb article in FAIR. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

1. I did not add the PressTV link. That was already there. I'm not sure that it's nature as an Iranian source automatically discredits it as dishonest, as compared to highly credible sources such as the New York Times, TIME, or other US publications, but I'm not hammering that point. Does PressTV have a documented pattern of dishonesty, or is it merely the assumption of negative bias? I am merely suggesting that we consider that question, and dropping that matter unless someone wants to discuss it. (I re-read your post on Wikipedia's take on PressTV, and concede that at very least the source should have been described as "the Iranian Govt".)

2. I believe that while TIME magazine described "`numerous CIA accounts in B.C.C.I.,` ... being used to pay agents and `apparently to support covert activities`", and the article is focused on Iran-Contra, TIME in that sense corroborates other less prominent sources which go into more detail on the nature of CIA's covert operations in that region regarding Al-Qaeda.

In particular, numerous official sources state that Pakistan was used to finance these operations involving the Mujahideen. Saudi Arabia, mentioned as s conduit in the TIME article, is elsewhere described as a conduit to the Mujahideen, AND it's well-known that Osama Bin Laden is a Saudi, AND it's alleged, but investigations were blocked, such as a citizens' lawsuit blocked on "diplomatic immunity" by attorney James A. Baker III, that were aimed at probing the Saudi govt for documents and paper trails.

Another link describes BCCI financing other "criminals", mentioning Saddam Hussein by name, and others. Osama bin Laden would fit in this category, at least according to official, and now largely discredited, allegations about links between Hussein and bin Laden. Some critics have stated that the links that do exist between Hussein and Obama run through the CIA, the Bush family, and other members of govt.

In the broad scope, I believe the information in TIME is also relevant simply by the fact that this BCCI cconnection served as a SLUSH FUND for covert operations. The purpose of a SLUSH FUND is for largely untraceable money flows.

How wrong is it, when describing a large, international, criminal and terrorist-oriented COVERT financial and arms operation, to point to well-established sources as SUPPORTING information to buffer less well-known sources and authors that describe more detailed information? That is the key problem with this type of information, that well-established mainstream sources tend publish an incomplete "skeleton" of the available information (if anything), while other less-known investigators, including some with legitimate credentials and methods, Lexis-Nexis and proper footnotes, fill in the blanks left behind by the MSM.

I ask this in consideration that the title of the section is "Allegations" rather than "documented proofs", and arguing that the TIME article supports the Allegations, albeit indirectly. The very nature of covert operations is the sparsity of clearly documented proof. The most that is usually available to the public, if anything at all, is a collection of verifiable loose threads.

The question that always lingers is whether a collection of verifiable loose threads represents a well-founded conspiracy theory or a baseless conspiracy theory (meaning the dictionary sense of "conspiracy theory", a theory or idea about a conspiracy.)

I thought that the Wikipedia article itself, consisting of Allegations contrasted with denials by numerous public officials and other experts, calling the Allegations "nonsense", DID represent a balanced viewpoint.

I've read through some of the Wikipedia "manners" suggestions, so I will NOT engage in "Edit Wars", but it would have been much nicer for Mr. BoogaLouie to have engaged in a vigorous debate here in TALK, before rushing off to re-edit the document and remove what I believe is relevant material.

Besides the TIME link, I edited the description of Sibel Edmunds to more closely match her bio page. This entry stated simply that she was "fired for leaking sensitive material" painting her allegations in a very negative light, while her bio page says that although "anonymous sources" accused her of leaking sensitive information, an official FBI investigation came to the opposite conclusion.

I'm not supposed to jump to conclusions as to the motives of any Wikipedia contributor, so I won't accuse (and I don't know who previously added that wrong info on Edmunds), but that discrepancy on Sibel Edmunds alone seems to represent an attempt to discredit the various allegations using character assassination of the persons and officials who have published the allegations, perhaps focusing on persons such as Edmunds who might otherwise be seen as a person of high caliber and credibility, instead of a "kook". (I hope this "TALK" was not too lengthy or defensive for WP standards. Your ball, Mr. Booga, with respect.)

Historianwbee (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Historianwbee's reply[edit]

  • "I did not add the PressTV link."
    OK, whoever did, it's a problem.
  • " I'm not sure that it's nature as an Iranian source automatically discredits it as dishonest"
    An Iranian government source. Bear in mind that wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It has a lot of rules (e.g. WP:RS WP:OR). If you want to put Press TV stuff on your blog that's another matter.
  • "TIME in that sense corroborates other less prominent sources ...."
    again, this might be something for your blog, but the article is Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden, not CIA financing of covert activities
  • "numerous official sources state that Pakistan was used to finance these operations involving the Mujahideen".
    Well, yes! That's the point of the allegation critics, that Pakistan, not the CIA, called the shots in muj funding and distribution, in return for taking the considerable heat of Soviet retaliation.
  • "I ask this in consideration that the title of the section is `Allegations` rather than `documented proofs` ..... "
    Yes, but again this is an encyclopedia, not a blog, so speculation not allowed. The word "allegation" is used because people disagree with the claim. Not so any theory can be included.
  • "Further, to my shock and mild horror, the Gibbs article which you generously (not sarcasm) chose to leave standing, included it's own cite of Jane's Intelligence Review, which I posted with a Wikilink and which you removed. I understand if I put too much info regarding Jane's in this article, recognizing a redundancy in me describing what the article on Jane's stated about them."
    My mistake, I appologize. Janes is definitely not flakey and I have added text on that claim. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Out of time. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

While Iranian government sources may not be reliable as sources for factual statements (in my view, we can generally use them with attribution), an allegation originating from a government source is generally important, i.e. notable, enough to be included in an article about, well, allegations. So the problem may be rather the presentation of the information, not its inclusion per se.  Cs32en  19:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Article has been changed to read:
According to Iranian government-funded and controlled Press TV television network, FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, who has been fired from the agency for disclosing sensitive information, has claimed the United States was on intimate terms with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, using them to further certain goals in Central Asia.[1] --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistencies[edit]

There's two parts in the opposing views section that directly contradict what's said elsewhere:

  • that Americans could not train mujahideen because Pakistani officials would not allow more than a handful of them to operate in Pakistan and none in Afghanistan[2];
  • No Americans ever trained or had direct contact with the mujahideen, and no American official ever went inside Afghanistan.

Is this referring to the foreign mujahideen? If not, they're atrocious lies. It should also be mentioned that nobody really knows where CIA money goes, it's highly classified. Nobody here can say for sure that out of the billions of dollars spent, none of it went to the foreign mujahideen. --Calibas (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Could be the worst article in Wikipedia[edit]

I agree with the first post by Historianwbee. This article is useless. Delete it. Virtually every sentence needs a reference to back up the assertions in it. It reads like pure conspiracy lunacy. DaveCrane (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with deleting the article, but not the notion that it's conspiracy lunacy. ----DanTD (talk) 04:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Focus of this article[edit]

I've just removed a few paragraphs that don't discuss the relationship between the CIA and bin Laden. The fact that the CIA funded the Afghan resistance, for example, is uncontroversial, and beyond the scope of this article. There are a few other more borderline cases that I'll consider unless anyone has any strong objections. --Copper button 21:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The CIA's funding of the Afghan resistance ≠ a releationship with Osama Bin Laden. ----DanTD (talk) 04:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

This entire article needs to be rewritten[edit]

It was apparently written by a non-native English speaker. The first few paragraphs are poorly written and contain few references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.207.206 (talk) 03:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

What a bunch of hooey?![edit]

Why does Tim Osman redirect to a page with no mention of him within it? I will second the above posts which posit that this article is completely useless: no actual citations, no reputable sources - replete with undeniable bias. You may as well redirect any search for "Tim Osman" to "There were no results matching the query." Entire article is CIA, CorpGov, Hasbara propaganda. At least, put restrictions on the page to it can not be edited by any ordinary asshole!!!... or likewise government official. MisplacedFate1313 (talk)

Because the allegations of "Tim Osman" being Osama Bin Laden is part of the myth of CIA involement with Al-Qaida. And no this is NOT "CIA, corporate government, Hasbara"(whatever the hell that is) propaganda. ----DanTD (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

US GOVT POV[edit]

In the section 'Scholarly and accepted view' every single source is either ISI, CIA or lackeys of one of the previous admins. SOmebody might as well post Osama's wanted poster and call it a day if this is the kind of balance wikipedia wants to offer Kpgc10 (talk) 03:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no credibility on anything Al-Qaeda, which anyone who has looked further than Western Mainstream media and Western Politic, knows are fictitious group. Personally I wouldn't bother fighting the prevailing biased POV on this site. Robin Cook knew the score and paid for it Vexorg (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Scope[edit]

This is a pretty weird article. But anyway, shouldn't it rather be about CIA assistance to al-Qaeda, rather than to just OBL himself? FunkMonk (talk) 05:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=102232&sectionid=3510203
  2. ^ Peter Jouvenal quoted in Bergen, Peter, Holy War Inc. New York: Free Press, c2001., p.65