Posted by
Andrews on Tuesday, January 01, 2008 4:07:27 PM
I know it is asking a lot of conspiracy theorists, but would you please get your facts straight?
I hear it all the time, from the leftist Bush-bashers, from the 9/11 truthers, from the Ron Paul fringe of the Republican party, from the Buchananites and the LaRouchers, the same old lies:
"We funded Osama bin Ladin."
"We supported the Taliban against the Soviets."
"We created the Taliban."
"We funded al Qaida."
I would first refer anyone saying this to
911myths.com, specifically to
the page about CIA funding and bin Ladin.
I would then like to recap a few historical facts:
1. The CIA did fund some of the Mujaheddin, so did the Pakistani ISI. The al Qaida group of Mujaheddin that would later become our terroist foes of the same name were creatures of the ISI, and, from everything I have read, the funding was strictly segregated. The State Department and CIA funding did not go to the same groups that were supported by ISI. So we never funded al Qaida or bin Ladin.
2. The Taliban, as a formal group, did not even exist at the time we were funding the Mujaheddin. Most accounts attribute post-Soviet fighting between Mujaheddin groups as one of the reasons the Taliban came into existence. So, if they didn't even exist when we supported anti-Soviet activities, how could we fund them?
3. OK. So, seeing #2, some will argue "Yes, but we funded the people who would become the Taliban". And that is true. But so what? At the end of World War II we funded partisan groups who would later form into soviet groups, but that does not mean we had a pro-communist policy. We do not have perfect foreknowledge, so it is absurd to blame us for funding one group, some members of which would later form a group hostile to us. Unless the critic can tell me tomorrow's lottery numbers, I will not accept criticisms based on imperfect foreknowledge.
So, to summarize: We never funded bin Ladin, there was no Taliban in the 1980's, and the worst we did was fund some groups containing members who later joined the Taliban.
Of course, none of this will stop the Hate America Firsters, the hard core left, the Paul-bots, the truthers, and the rest form blaming the US for any and all acts of Islamic violence. In their minds we are clearly to blame, and nothing short of pulling entirely out of the middle east* will ever expiate our guilt for... well, whatever we supposedly did. (I'm sure it has something to do with Israel, as, along with the US, that is the source of all evil, or so I am told.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* I am sure a few of the "anti-Zionist" groups blaming every problem on us may not want a total pull out, they might allow us to keep a division or two in Israel to assist with rounding up all those darn Jews. After all, the Arabs can't round them up all on their own. But as soon as the ovens cool down, I'm sure we would have to withdraw those troops as well.
CORRECTION 01/01/2008I am sorry, my memory proved faulty when I wrote the first part of this post. I thought I could rely on it, but after re-reading some sources, I see I forgot one part of the story.
Under item #1, I should have said bin Ladin was funded partly by the ISI, but mostly through the Saudi Arabian intelligence agency (GID). It is still true the CIA had no role in funding bin Ladin or al Qaida, but the GID played a bigger role than the ISI, though I forgot to mention it in my original essay.
Again, sorry for my faulty memory. My point is still valid, but I did make a mistake in some details.
And, yes, I do appreciate the humor in getting facts wrong in an essay about checking your facts. But, to my credit, I did admit my mistake and try to correct it. Not only that, but rather than silently patch my essay and pretend I had been right all along, I did admit to my error. So, amusing it may be, but it doesn't make my point any less valid.