Talk:Osama bin Laden/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Kwantus v VerilyVerily continues

In response to Kwantus' demand for evidence as in Archive 6

As I said, I'm not interested in your theories, which (not that it matters) I find increasingly idiotic. This is about neutrality and nothing else, a point which you have completely ignored. Read Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute under "How can one disagree about NPOV?" It could not be clearer: "Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bald statement of that fact is neutral.... It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts." You'll note it refers to the standard that "a significant number of other interested parties really does disagree with us". The US gov't / CIA deny this connection (as do I), therefore this standard is easily met. I'm pulling the phrase again. -- VV 21:54, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

If you don't care about the facts of history, quite questioning them.Kwantus 23:26, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Graft clarifies what he really meant

See Archive 6

As usual we can do better by being careful in statements about what we're alleging. In what manner did the CIA sponsor bin Laden? Direct funds paid to BL? Funds paid to the ISI which were then paid to BL? Funds paid to the ISI which were used as part of a general recruitment campaign to Mulsim radicals that resulted in fighters flocking to bin Laden's side? Who makes these allegations and what is their supporting evidence? Graft 18:11, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Agreed -- this needs more-explicit citation. If I weren't so deep in knot polynomials I'd do it right now.Kwantus 20:22, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Err... that was to say, I think merely tacking "US-sponsored" is too inaccurate in a delicate situation to possibly be neutral. While I am less offended than VeryVerily by your "theories", and I think anyone who takes a CIA denial at face value shouldn't be taken too seriously, I -do- think it's hard to defend "US-sponsored" as such. Bin Laden probably never directly received funds from CIA (or other US) hands (although we'll never know for sure). He might not even have received ISI funds; I'm more willing to believe that, but I haven't found anyone with a firm citation so far. The most plausible scenario is that bin Laden was conducting operations with his own money, but others were being funded and armed by the CIA via the ISI. The growth of his -organization- and his ability to recruit could thus be attributed directly to the CIA. Without the CIA sponsorship of the conflict, Arab "Afghans" would never have come together, bin Laden would not have been radicalized, and likely al-Qaida would not exist. However, this is a far cry from "US-sponsored", which is a rather ham-handed way of describing such a nuanced chain of relationship. So, I agree with Very on the edit, although I disagree with her/him on the issue. Graft 22:14, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

What about "part of the 1980s US-backed Afghan rebellion against the Soviets"? I won't insist on "US-incited" even though Brzezinsky gloated that it was so. Kwantus 23:26, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)