Posts by Simon Grigg
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: For the kids, if nothing else, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
I'd trust FDR's judgement
Or perhaps Israel's when they put Adolph Eichmann on trial, just 16 years after WW2, and not only demonstrated to the world that they had treated a monster fairly, but for all time showed that there was a moral gulf between them and us.
That said, I'm doubtful we could expect the same of that nation now.
-
Neil, stick with Steve Coll if you like, even though he seems to be talking about something rather different to you - direct contact. Burke also is talking about direct funding.
as far as I can tell no US funding, resources went to bin Laden.
It seems you are pretty much out on your own there.
There's a fair gathering of data and sources here. Start at the link and move down from there. There are many supporting links including Coll.
Here's Global Security (scroll down to the Reliable part).
EyeSpy on the weaponry - you need to go to the Superpower vs. superpower paragraph. More on that here and here, and here.
Those few links took me all of 5 minutes to find. You seem to be be able to find no evidence to support your claim that nothing from the millions of dollars flushed into the system by the CIA, and matched by the Saudi government - went to Bin Laden's grouping, but I'm still supposed to regard your position as credible.
Sorry.
-
Hard News: You know what ..., in reply to Neil Morrison,
Bin Laden did not get resources from the US.
I almost give up.
1. MAK was a vehicle for the ISI.
2. The ISI was funded by joint monies from Saudi Arabia and the USA. I doubt they marked each bill with a note explaining who it was from.
3. MAK also had a raft of independent supporting donors. That quote you lifted does not use the word exclusive - or have I missed it?
Once again - read Wright. I only quoted Wiki - as I though I made clear - because you were doing so.
Also:The program, reported the Independent, was part of a Washington-approved plan called "Operation Cyclone".
In Pakistan, recruits, money and equipment were distributed to the mujaheddin factions by an organisation known as Maktab al Khidamar (Office of Services — MAK).
MAK was a front for Pakistan's CIA, the Inter-Service Intelligence Directorate. The ISI was the first recipient of the vast bulk of CIA and Saudi Arabian covert assistance for the Afghan contras. Bin Laden was one of three people who ran MAK. In 1989, he took overall charge of MAK.
-
it’s not a straw man, I was responding to this statement regarding bin Laden up thread
It is a Straw man. Neil, it still comes down to the handy 'direct' which you use to muddy things - as others do.
CIA funding went via the ISI - it was matched by Saudi Arabia, and was rarely 'direct'.
Since you like Wiki:
MAK maintained a close liaison with Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency through which the CIA and the Al Mukhabarat Al A'amah funneled money to Afghan Mujaheddin. The MAK paid the airfare for new recruits to be flown into the Afghan region for training.
and
The Maktab al-Khidamat, also Maktab Khadamāt al-Mujāhidīn al-'Arab (Arabic: مكتب الخدمات or مكتب خدمات المجاهدين العرب, MAK), also known as the Afghan Services Bureau, is reliably believed to have been founded in 1984 by Abdullah Azzam and Osama bin Laden to raise funds and recruit foreign mujahidin for the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. MAK became the forerunner to al-Qaeda and was instrumental in creating the fundraising and recruitment network that benefited al-Qaeda during the 1990s
-
Hard News: You know what ..., in reply to Neil Morrison,
Though barely noticed by western security services while he supported Afghan mujahideen in their struggle against the Soviets from bases in Afghanistan in the 1980s, reports that Bin Laden received cash from the CIA are false
Thanks for the attempt to continually insert a straw man, Neil.
That pretty much agrees with what I was saying, if you'd read it. However it has zero to do with whether Bin Laden was 'created' by the CIA.
My car was created by a German car company. However the ongoing funding to keep it on the road comes from me. The two are distinct however you try to muddy it.
That MAK was partially funded by the funding mechanism put in place by Prince Turki bin Faisal Al Saud, the head of Al Mukhabarat Al A'amah, and the CIA - via ISI - is hardly controversial stuff, even Burke accepts it in that book.
The word that's continually tripping you up is 'direct'.
Wright, however, also documents a direct line of weaponry (not cash - once again the two are distinct) via former Soviet Republics. That's also in Ghost Wars.
And with all due respect to Burke - which I've read - Wright still offers the definitive book on the journey to 9/11.
-
Hard News: You know what ..., in reply to Neil Morrison,
First up, the myth he was funded by the CIA:
I love the depth of evidence that supports that detail in that article, Neil - none. I'm more comfortable with the researched and printed evidence elsewhere.
Also - don't you worry that you've stated one thing as a myth and then followed it with a quoted paragraph which contradicts your claim. I guess not.
His funds came mainly from Saudi Arabia, he wasn't one to play second fiddle to infidels.
I'm always impressed with the way you have access to information that no-one else has.
MAK was funded mostly by the ISI (which used US funds matched dollar for dollar by the Saudi govt) and by private donors. The weaponry used by them was almost completely funded by the CIA.
And he didn't 'become important'. He was never that important in Afghanistan - there were only ever a couple of thousand Arabs. The real argument re: the CIA was that he wasn't important enough for them to be aware in any major sense who he was.
-
Hard News: You know what ..., in reply to Kyle Matthews,
Bali?
I think if any place in Indonesia is a target it's Bali. The real question is whether JI is competent enough to pull it off. The last two attacks were successful more by luck (although not that of the victims) than planning.
The radical edge of Indonesian militancy is notoriously inept, and its leadership is pretty dimwitted. It succeeds more by plodding away than by the success of any grand design.
In 2002 the driver of the van had never driven a car before and bunny-hopped the vehicle down Jalan Legian, stalling several times.
They are, however, aided by the fact that cops are often little better and security in Bali is at best a haphazard façade. There a quite a number of often very crowded restaurants in places like Seminyak that would be a very easy target.
I'm just not sure they're bright enough to work it out.
-
Hard News: You know what ..., in reply to Neil Morrison,
that was resourced independently of the USA and other non-Muslim countries
Not at all true, Neil. His network was funded by the ISI who in turn were jointly funded by an equal split between the US and Saudi Arabia. It may not have been a direct line but it was a line of cash, and it went on for some years.
Bin Laden's grouping also worked closely with Hekmatyar, the CIA golden boy for years.
Once again, I suggest, if you've not yet done so, to read those two books I mentioned upthread, but especially Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower which goes into this in some detail.
However, if you are not inclined, this is a handy summary:
the CIA and the Saudi government took care to supply money to the anti-Soviet resistance in Afghanistan indirectly through the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (ISI), a procedure that Pakistan insisted upon. Some of this CIA money went to a project in which bin Laden was deeply involved.
There is lots more in those two, must-read if you are interested in this topic, books.
The American right, and the likes of Fox in particular, has spent a fair amount of time trying to debunk the story, partially by loudly and repeatedly touting the half truth that 'we didn't give him money', but that's all it is - a half truth.
Also i'ts wrong to say that the US was unaware of bin Laden during the 90s.
Happily, no-one has said that.
-
Hard News: For the kids, if nothing else, in reply to Russell Brown,
It will be in single figures by now.
I'm not sure about that though. Rising Islamic fundamentalism is a huge problem in the country - attacks on churches, conservative takeover of local government, and the Islamification of the tertiary institutes are the cause of much concern.
If you read the Indonesian press, as I do daily, the dominant theme is the threat to the nation from a shift to a far more conservative brand of the religion, especially in the rural areas.
Partially it's caused by the fact that the education system is so grossly underfunded that the Islamic schools have filled the void, funded in huge part by Saudi Arabia and other gulf states.
-
Hard News: For the kids, if nothing else, in reply to Damian Christie,
Or am I misreading something...
Not at all, and I don't think the Arab Spring makes much difference there. However other polling has been done in Indonesia, which slightly modifies that picture:
A year or two ago there was a poll - Pew too I think - and when asked if attacks on civilian targets are ever acceptable to defend Islam about 90% of those who had an opinion said no, never. Of the balance about half said under certain circumstances, and 5% said yes. That still gives a figure of about 20m who said yes or perhaps, but you can take comfort that those other 30m liked the man but not his methods.
It caused a rukus in Indonesia at the time.
Edit - Russell: snap.