Big Mac

You're an idiot you know that right? This whole Tim Osman BS is all over every conspiracy theorist website and has been dis-proven by people who actually work for a living trying to uncover the dirty laundry of the CIA. Exhibit A Please go find your brain and then the adults will treat you like you have some sense..

Why should it? If AQ came out and said it was funded by the CIA in the 80s it would be a major propaganda coup even if they took a political hit with radical Muslims. But if you don't buy that then take a look at it a more logical way, Bin Laden was worth millions, why would he need America's money? Also why would America need him when they had Afghan warlords who were doing more of the fighting? The same thing goes for Bosnia and Chechnya, why would America need to fund a small group of arabs when they can fund people who are already there if they funded them at all which is questionable? These rebels in Libya are not going to bring a new age of freedom and enlightenment to Libya if they win. They'll turn it into another Iran, because that's what groups like AQ and their allies do. If you can't see that then you are either too ignorant or too naive to understand how the world works.

Read the article and also read how the insurgents in Iraq conducted themselves and then come back and say they weren't terrorists.. Wrong again, you can't separate the two. It's been proven time and again that the CIA/AQ link is a myth, it's the only thing America and AQ agree on. I'm not saying America hasn't funded and trained it's share of terrorist groups but AQ was not one of them.

Christian Science Monitor is fairly unbiased paper despite the name.

I wouldn't watch it because I believe it's slanted just like most of the American networks..

Do you have any proof to back up your outlandish claims? All I see is you stringing two articles and the background of T.E. Lawrence together to form a VERY thin theory that actually sounds more idiotic than plausible.

What are you smoking? Thats from the CIA Station Chief at the time. Thats from Peter Bergen the CNN journalist who interviewed Bin Laden.

How blind I am? Have you read the article? Wrong, that's been dis-proven time and again. There's a big difference between the Afghan Mujaheddin and the Arab Mujaheddin. The difference is we supported the afghans and the Arabs supported themselves or were supported by counties like Saudi Arabia or the UAE. Also the Arabs did very little fighting unlike the Afghans. Wrong again. The CIA station chief there at the time (Milton Bearden) admitted to having met Bin Laden once and was so wary of him and his group he decided to steer clear of them and in the end they had not use for him because the had Afghan warlords by the dozen lined up ready to do the CIA's bidding.I like ya Darkhorse, but you need research a whole lot more before you make outlandish claims that have been debunked so many times it's not even funny.

I don't see you putting up anything debunking the story they ran or the story The Telegraph released about AQ and former Iraq War insurgents fighting for the rebels in Libya. The rebel commander himself is a friend of AQ and we're helping him when if we're going to help anyone it should be Gadaffi. It amazes me how blind to reality most of you are.. All of you who praised these rebels as freedom fighters fighting for freedom and democracy need to seriously wake up and smell the coffee.

Well I believe that's proven to be the least of the problems. You obviously either ignored or didn't see the article stating that there are men who killed US troops in Iraq as well as known AQ members fighting with the rebels. In light of that I'm even more against the West protecting these bastards. Darkhorse you're wrong dude, no sense in making yourself look dumb as well (no offense.)

Everyone thought I and others like me were wrong and these rebels were the shining hope for a free and democratic Libya... Time to take the horse blinders off kids and see the world for what it is..

He looks too stupid to know what to do with democracy..

My mistake, but to many people they don't see how whats going on Libya is worth risking the lives of their loved ones. Yes he was.

To protect American interests, not insert ourselves in a civil war which doesn't affect America in the slightest. Try reading the account of a man who actually fought in these wars, AJ Ventor. He describe the majority of the militias as undisciplined rabble and the only ones worth a damn in a fight were the foreign mercenaries. So you jump from trying to justify the west involvement by saying it's to protect civilians to unsecured oil deposits. Pick one dude, they can't both be right. True but without EO going in your mission would have been a lot harder considering the RUF were never the same after EO kicked the crap out of them. Which was mostly handled by mercenaries paid by men like Charles Taylor. Men like Charles Taylor didnt have to do much for recruitment because being of the same tribe means you already got a pool of recruits.

Well it's true they aren't and here at home we have people suffering from unemployment, shitty healthcare, and a economy in recession and we're spending money helping people in Libya? How does that benefit that guy on main street?

Obama is an idiot, just like Bush, he's putting American lives on the line in a war that does not concern the US, just like Bush did in Iraq. I have no problem intervening when there is a genuine case of genocide, but not to go on another nation building adventure. I'm sorry I've seen enough of my friends who i grew up with either come back maimed or not at all due to our nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan. BTW if you're going to debate me fine, but don't take my words out of context and twist them just because you don't agree with me.

That's still not a pretext to insert yourself in the affairs of another country. There is no genocide and just because one side is outgunned just means it's their shitty luck, so in the end it's still none of our business. I go on what I see and what I've read and the only trained people in those civil wars were Mercenaries from former eastern bloc nations and from South Africa. Riiight. I'm sorry if I'm more cynical and in the end realistic, but the only person who is goingto come out of this the king of the hill is either Gadiaffi or someone from the rebel faction who is either just as ruthless or more so. Yea Castro gave the same song and dance when he overthrew Batista and last time I check Cuba is still a dictatorship.. Also you can slap whatever label you want on them, in a civil war there are two sides, The government and the rebels.

By whom? South African mercenaries or the British military? I'll cast my lot in with South African mercenaries, because without their intervention (BTW They were hired by the government of Sierra Leone.) The UN and Brits could have never made the head way they did. Also foreign intervention in Somalia didn't end the conflict there, hell it didn't even put a dent in it and with all the anti-western sentiment in the world what makes you think when and if Gadiffi is deposed that Libya won't end up like another Somalia, Iraq, or Afghanistan and that's the best case scenario. The worst case is that you get a strong man who fancies himself as a islamic crusader with a serious hatred for Americans and the West in general and who has the means to project that hatred at anyone who supports us and therefor drags us into a regional conflict instead of a civil conflict. Gadiffi at least is an opportunist who will do what's best for him. We'd be doing more good minding our own business than sticking our noses where they don't belong. Trained? I hardly call spray and pray training. The only training they got was from watching Rambo. There is no appropriate measure of force because it's a civil war and a few dead civilians does not count as genocide. Genocide is when you systematically go out with the intention of killing a group of people who are not like you, not fighting rebels. What happened to the Jews in WW2 was a genocide. Bombing protesters or firing into a crowd of protesters is not genocide. What happened in Darfur was a genocide because they went out with the intent to make the make of Darfur extinct. All the more reason for us to mind our own, because in the end you could end up putting in power a tyrant who makes the previous one look like a saint. In those countries there were clear cases of genocide, not like in Libya.

Didn't I just say that?

No actually it shows how in touch with reality I am. If Sarkozy or anyone else cared about stopping genocides they would have gone into Darfur, Chechnya, Cambodia, Rwanda, Liberia, Serria Leone, etc. when true genocides were taking place. A few strafing runs on civilians doesn't count as genocide my friend it just counts as as tyrant trying to keep control.Sarkozy cares only about his political image and he's using the suffering of the Libyan people to get reelected. He doesn't care about them anymore than he cares about all the other civilians from the other countries in the middle east who were slaughtered by government forces just for speaking out. Obama only cares about showing he's a team player so he gets America into a war that is no one's business except the Libyans. It's their civil war let them fight it out. If NATO wasn't already committed in Afghanistan and if America wasn't hurting socially, economically, and financially I might be of a different mind, but we are so unless Gadaffi starts trying to take over Africa itself Libya should be left to it's own devices.

Maybe it's because it's not about the lives and welfare of millions of people but the political agenda of a few men who are using the suffering of millions as a premises to further their political agenda. Don't be so naive...

Seems I'm not the only person here who doesn't have horse blinders on. Kudos ST Dux.

Well I don't see how it's any different. Obama said he's in on the whole Libya ordeal to protect civilians (nevermind the fact we're in deep in one war and just pulling out of another and we have serious unemployment problem and the fact they're not even Americans...) I didn't see him bombing Iran, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, or Syria, but he and everyone else sure were quick to bomb Libya when honestly there are worst tyrants in Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. Either it's about oil or he's trying to show the UN America can be a team player neither of which is acceptable when we have serious problems at home and when this war is not an American problem so there for we shouldn't put our servicemen at risk..

I asked about Clinton or Sarcozey, not Bush. Also you're correct there was no UN charter for Operation Allied Force, but unlike Operation Odyssey Dawn(gay name BTW) it was because there was a genocide going on and the only countries who came out against were the usual suspects which happen to include Russia and China. You're quick to condemn NATO and more specifically the US, but when it comes to facing the facts that Russia has been twice as brutal and indiscriminate when it bombs or invades a country you don't want to hear it.Also to everyone who is in support of this operation in Lybia maybe we should invade Syria. Troops there just opened fire on protesters...

Why Clinton or Sarcozey (or however you spell his name.)? they were acting on the UN's behalf. What I don't understand is why everyone thinks it's so important to go into libya when this kinda thing has happened before and no one lifted a finger (i.e. chechnya, Cambodia, Rwanda, Darfur, the list goes on.) It's not about protecting civilians it's about nation building.