Well they let the 3 Turkey guy goes cause they were Muslim and I think the Marine they have is Muslim but he is in US armed forces so does that make it ok to kill him ?

Yes. I think "Muslims who don't follow Allah" (and he doesn't, since he's fighting for the US in Muslim lands) are the worst kind of person, far worse than Christians.

The outrage in the Muslim world only occurs when western countries are killing Muslims. If they're killing each other or if they're killing racial minority groups or if they're killing westerners... thats fine by them.

ok just wanted clarification on that. I was watching a program about Saudi Aribia the other night on msnbc or one of the other news organizations. They were talking about Osama and how when Sadam invaded kuwait he had asked the saudi royal family to let him take care of it not the americans. Shortly after that he was attacking us. What would have happened if the saudi's had said yes?

Osama was asking the Saudi Royal Family to allow him to kick Saddam out of Kuwait? Sorry kind of hard to decipher your writing there.

ya he did not want US Troops on saudi soil. he said he would take his gang of people from afgan (that the cia financed) and take care of Saddam

Cerri.. punctuation, please! :P

ya he did not want US Troops on saudi soil. he said he would take his gang of people from afgan (that the cia financed) and take care of Saddam


Just a really quick correction of a common misconception:

The CIA funded native Afghan fighters but had nothing to do with foreign fighters coming in to fight the Soviets, ie Osama was never CIA trained nor was his "gang".

Hrm I always thought from what the media had said that we funded Osama in the begining and provided training to him to keep the russians at bay.

from what the media had said

It spins both ways.

The media did try to say that, however they were wrong.

The only group the CIA supported were native Afghans...that's not spinning anything, it's fact.

"The only group the CIA supported were native Afghans...that's not spinning anything, it's fact."

hmmm...not sure that's fact Cristo:

"Yet the CIA, concerned about the factionalism of Afghanistan made famous by Rudyard Kipling, found that Arab zealots who flocked to aid the Afghans were easier to “read” than the rivalry-ridden natives. While the Arab volunteers might well prove troublesome later, the agency reasoned, they at least were one-dimensionally anti-Soviet for now. So bin Laden, along with a small group of Islamic militants from Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and Palestinian refugee camps all over the Middle East, became the “reliable” partners of the CIA in its war against Moscow."

http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp?cp1=1

As his unclassified CIA biography states, bin Laden left Saudi Arabia to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan after Moscow’s invasion in 1979. By 1984, he was running a front organization known as Maktab al-Khidamar - the MAK - which funneled money, arms and fighters from the outside world into the Afghan war.
What the CIA bio conveniently fails to specify (in its unclassified form, at least) is that the MAK was nurtured by Pakistan’s state security services, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, the CIA’s primary conduit for conducting the covert war against Moscow’s occupation.

Soo..where are they getting this information?

I distinctly remember seeing an ex CIA man being interviewed about this very subject and saying the CIA sponsored only the native Afghans. This article you linked even states that the CIA documents(unclassified) show absolutely no funding from the CIA to his faction.


It should be pointed out that the evidence of bin Laden’s connection to these activities is mostly classified

So...where is he getting his info again?

I don't see jack shit for sources in that article except from some ambiguous secondhand statements from Orrin Hatch. In fact every time he brings up actual CIA files on the subject he acknowledges they don't say anything at all about the CIA funding his group, but claims classified evidence exists to prove otherwise.

How would he know?

He most certainly doesn't have access to those files, and he doesn't mention a source for his information on the files anywhere in the article.

It looks to me like this reporter went in under the assumption that there were ties and stuck with that conclusion even when the facts of his investigation proved the contrary