Talk:Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden

message: 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)
thread_title: Allegation

message: 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===
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)
thread_title: Proposed merger of [[Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden]] with [[Operation Cyclone]] 

message: 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)
thread_title: Survey

message: "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)
thread_title:  Delete CIA bomb manual 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Database 

message: 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)
replies: text: - 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)
thread_title:  Pakistani letter regarding US involvement with Mujahadeen 

message: Why were these deleted?
===see also=== 
*Afghan Arabs    
*Central Intelligence Agency   
*Mujahideen   
*Soviet war in Afghanistan 
===External links===  
*The struggle against terrorism cannot be won by military means Cook, Robin The Guardian, Friday July 8 2005,    
*The Checkered History of American Weapons Deals Der Spiegel Online International, August 6 2007   
*Did the U.S. "Create" Osama bin Laden? US Department  
--BoogaLouie (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Deleted see alsos and external links

message: *The struggle against terrorism cannot be won by military means Cook, Robin The Guardian, Friday July 8 2005,    
*The Checkered History of American Weapons Deals Der Spiegel Online International, August 6 2007   
*Did the U.S. "Create" Osama bin Laden? US Department  
--BoogaLouie (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: External links

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Some edits 

message: 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)
thread_title: Pushing a Personal Agenda

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Tim Osman alias Osama Bin Laden

message: 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)
thread_title: Reply

message: 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 AfghanistanPeter Jouvenal quoted in Bergen, Peter, Holy War Inc.  New York: Free Press, c2001., p.65;
*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)
thread_title:  Inconsistencies 

message: 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)
replies: text: I disagree with deleting the article, but not the notion that it's conspiracy lunacy. ----DanTD (talk) 04:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could be the worst article in Wikipedia 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This entire article needs to be rewritten 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What a bunch of hooey?! 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  US GOVT POV 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, it would be cheaper to try that, but the CIA does have that kind of money and poor Afghans wouldn't face nearly as much domestic resistance as a wealthy man who already has vast monetary & social capital well established there.  Jester6482 (talk) 09:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope 

message: FYI, there is a discussion about this article at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RT.com_in_CIA.E2.80.93al-Qaeda_controversy. It is also started a discussion here Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#RT.com_in_CIA.E2.80.93al-Qaeda_controversy. Erlbaeko (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:   Reliable Source discussion 

message: *http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/article/2009/05/20090505134735atlahtnevel0.5280725.html#axzz3fJZyj3hn - Location (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: For future reference

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-318760.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article is skewed towards the argument that these allegations are a myth. The long "Opposing view" section piles on the evidence, often irrelevant and partly unsourced.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources is that these allegations are a myth, conspiracy theory, and/or Russian propaganda. Hence your POV tag is inappropriate: We are not required to give equal weight to majority and WP:FRINGE viewpoints in order to satisfy WP:NPOV. See WP:FALSEBALANCE.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with you Jack Upland. Feel free to clean it up, especially those blockquotes violating WP:UNDUE.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

text: "Russian propaganda" aged pretty well. 2605:A601:A68A:2A00:7B47:2679:4DE8:CEF7 (talk) 07:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Inevitable WP:SNOWCLOSE. Nope. Nothing more has to be said  estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden →  – A court filing that was unearthed recently contains evidence that at least 2 of the 9/11 hijackers were CIA recruits and there was a deliberate coverup to hide this fact. Source: https://www.floridabulldog.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Canestraro-Declaration-dated-20-July-2021.pdf Jester6482 (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 11 September 2023