• You may find search is unavailable for a little while. Trying to fix a problem.

CIA trained and funded 1993 wtc bombers

Revolutionary91

Banned
R
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
838
From the terror timeline, citing mainstream sources
The Boston Herald reports that an internal CIA report has concluded that the agency is “partially culpable” for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing (see February 26, 1993) because it helped train and support some of the bombers. One source with knowledge of the report says, “It was determined that a significant amount of blowback appeared to have occurred.” A US intelligence source claims the CIA gave at least $1 billion to forces in Afghanistan connected to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. More than a half-dozen of the WTC bombers belonged to this faction, and some of the CIA money paid for their training. The source says, “By giving these people the funding that we did, a situation was created in which it could be safely argued that we bombed the World Trade Center.” Those connected to the bombing who went to Afghanistan include Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman, Clement Rodney Hampton-el, Siddig Siddig Ali, Ahmed Ajaj, and Mahmud Abouhalima. [Boston Herald, 1/24/1994] Additionally, Ramzi Yousef trained in Afghanistan near the end of the Afghan war, and there are claims he was recruited by the CIA (see Late 1980s). “Intelligence sources say the CIA used the al-Kifah Refugee Center in Brooklyn—founded to support the Afghani rebels fighting Soviet occupation—to funnel aid to Hekmatyar, setting the stage for terrorists here to acquire the money, guns and training needed to later attack the Trade Center. CIA support also made it easier for alleged terrorist leaders to enter the country.” [Boston Herald, 1/24/1994]
Click to expand...
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/...c_cases=firstwtcbombing#a012498partlyculpable


Amazing how they happen to have CIA links just like the ISI links to Atta. This was an inside job.
 
Last edited:
I cannot see your post, and that is fine, but I hope this is completely different from your "FBI" funds the 1993 WTC bombers.

TAM:)
 
The United States made a strategic decision to support Islamic radical Mujahadeen against the Soviet Union. At the time, the USSR was the Evil Empire and had the power to nuke the world 20 times over. Helping the Muslims defeat the Soviet invasion, and thereby possibly preventing a further Soviet incursion into the Middle East, may have been a good decision. The enemy of our enemy was out friend, and at the time, the Soviets were our enemy and the Muslims were our friends.

The USSR also made allies of convenience. It is unfortunate that our former allies our now are enemy..but what should we have done? Let the USSR over-run Afghanistan?
 
So, basically, according to one article, an unnamed intelligence source claims that the CIA funded and trained a certain mujahedeen faction in Afghanistan to fight the soviets. A number of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers apparently originated from that same faction.
 
Well, if you try to click the link to the Herald article it gives you a Ghostbusters circle, and says it links to a headline entitled "Sources Claim CIA Aid Fueled Trade Center Blast."

That sounds like something that's never been verified by the "mainstream media" beyond "sources." Where's the follow-up that shows the evidence?

Oh I forgot, the only time the mainstream media has reliability is when they report things without evidence. That's the way "telling the truth" is done by you guys.
 
Par said:
So, basically, according to one article, an unnamed intelligence source claims that the CIA funded and trained a certain mujahedeen faction in Afghanistan to fight the soviets. A number of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers apparently originated from that same faction.
Click to expand...

sounds like a conspiracy to me...lol

TAM:)
 
I have access to that article, and Revolutionary91 is misrepresenting it (surprise). The statement regarding the CIA is:

Boston Herald said:
The CIA is "partly culpable" for the World Trade Center bombing because it helped train and support several of the men accused in the deadly blast, intelligence sources said.
Click to expand...


Nowhere in that article does it claim that the internal report found the CIA to be responsible. There is mention of an internal report, but only that it was examining the CIA's role, no discussion of any conclusions. All claims in that article are by the "unnamed sources", no corroborating documentation.

Rev, do you have anything to support this other than hearsay?


ETA: Also, Rev's link puts statements in the article wildly out of order and context. Again, no surprise. Rev, I strongly suggest you learn how to find primary sources, and verify the information you are given.
 
So, what’s the got to do with conspiracy theories? Shouldn’t it be in the politics section?
 
Rev91, here you can read up on the Afghan War:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan#Pakistani_involvement_and_aid

By the way, during the Second World War USA was in an alliance of convenience with the Soviet Union against their common enemy Nazi Germany. USA provided the Soviet Union with enormous amounts of supplies. The Soviet army drove to Berlin in American trucks. But as soon as Germany was defeated that alliance of convenience almost instantly turned in to the Cold War. This is no different. History is filled with former allies turning on each other.
 
Last edited:
Hokulele said:
I have access to that article, and Revolutionary91 is misrepresenting it (surprise). The statement regarding the CIA is:




Nowhere in that article does it claim that the internal report found the CIA to be responsible. There is mention of an internal report, but only that it was examining the CIA's role, no discussion of any conclusions. All claims in that article are by the "unnamed sources", no corroborating documentation.

Rev, do you have anything to support this other than hearsay?


ETA: Also, Rev's link puts statements in the article wildly out of order and context. Again, no surprise. Rev, I strongly suggest you learn how to find primary sources, and verify the information you are given.
Click to expand...

To be fair, it wasn't Rev91 who wrote the quoted part - it was from the cooperativeresearch web site, where I have found similar mistakes in the past. Whoever compiles the "time line" does a poor job, IMO.
 
Last edited:
AZCat said:
To be clear, it wasn't Rev91 who wrote the quoted part - it was from the cooperativeresearch web site, where I have found similar mistakes in the past. Whoever compiles the "time line" does a poor job, IMO.
Click to expand...


Good point. It does emphasize the fact that Rev91 should not be using such sites for quotes unless he can either independently verify their accuracy, or unless he can trace them back to the primary sources. Without that double-checking, his evidence will always be suspect.
 
AZCat said:
To be clear, it wasn't Rev91 who wrote the quoted part - it was from the cooperativeresearch web site, where I have found similar mistakes in the past. Whoever compiles the "time line" does a poor job, IMO.
Click to expand...
He was the one who brought it here and presented it as coming from the mainstream media however.

So life lesson Rev. When you say something comes from a mainstream source, be sure you're linking directly to the mainstream media piece.
 
Hokulele said:
Good point. It does emphasize the fact that Rev91 should not be using such sites for quotes unless he can either independently verify their accuracy, or unless he can trace them back to the primary sources. Without that double-checking, his evidence will always be suspect.
Click to expand...

Know your sources - an important lesson for anyone (truther and skeptics alike) to learn.

Drudgewire said:
He was the one who brought it here and presented it as coming from the mainstream media however.
Click to expand...

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Rev91 needs to learn to read sources critically, even if they seem on the surface to be legitimate.
 
Right. So how does this show that the bombing was an inside job, I wonder?
 
heh, if it was a conspiracy everytime the CIA trained a revolutionary group only to have them turn around and stab the US in the back..... Just take a short look at the history of Central America. Throughout the 1950-70's the US was helping rebels depose one AHTPLD* only to have the guy they replaced him with turn out to be an even bigger AHTLD.









*American Hating Tin Pot Little Dictator
 
Revolutionary91 said:
Yeah, an encyclopedia edited by trolls is more reliable than a major newspaper lol
Click to expand...

Yeah, the same major newspaper that reported in 1969 that Apollo 11 astronauts walked on the moon. I don't blame you for not going back to the Moon Hoax thread, you were humiliated there.
 
they really are pre 9/11 truther who trained them

Revolutionary91 said:
From the terror timeline, citing mainstream sources
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/...c_cases=firstwtcbombing#a012498partlyculpable


Amazing how they happen to have CIA links just like the ISI links to Atta. This was an inside job.
Click to expand...
You are spam, this is already a thread. Darn, are you a kid or something. Wake up spam man.

I think truthers help the idiots for the first bombing. The bomb was not big enough. They rented a van, and one of the smart truthers went back to get a refund on the rent. Smart terrorist had to have help from a fact less truther, you know someone like you who starts threads already in progress.
 
Last edited:
Revolutionary91 said:
I didn't start the other thread. This deserves its own since it brings in the wider issue of blowback and CIA training of Mujahadeen.
Click to expand...
He smart man, you have TAM on ignore, or are you a liar? Man on the moon, and you mess it up. F for history, F for science, F for not seeing LC video are only for those who are not able to find facts.
 
Despite whether or not there is any veracity to this information (Which it seems there isn't. What is this for you now Rev, strike 142?), its posting is just another classic example of how Truthers cherry-pick what they want from sources they otherwise decry as biased, uninformed, or in some other way compromised.

Because main stream media is nothing more than an arm of the NWO whose sole purpose is to spread their lies and propaganda, right?

Well, unless of course they report something that Truthers can torture into supporting their claims, in which case everything they say is the absolute truth.
 
parky76 said:
The USSR also made allies of convenience. It is unfortunate that our former allies our now are enemy..but what should we have done? Let the USSR over-run Afghanistan?
Click to expand...

With hindsight being 20/20, we probably should have allowed it. The Soviet Union still would have still collapsed. And, after all, some of the former soviet states are now our allies against islamic terrorists...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom