n0spam4me,
Thanks for the link...
As for what I took from the article. At the top of the page I see the word 'Opinions'. That tells me that these are the thoughts of one individual. He may believe his opinon to be the truth, but that doesn't make it so.
As I read the article I found the following porton of the article very interesting.
Moran's story details some of bin Laden's direct involvement with the CIA in Cold War efforts to overthrow the Soviet-backed government in Afghanistan in the late 1970s and in the 1980s. Moran shows the links between the CIA, the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) and bin Laden's terrorist front organization in Afghanistan, known as Maktab al-Khidamar (MAK). Bin Laden went on to use some of the more extreme right-wing elements of the MAK to form his al-Qaida organization.
Moran states in his story, "It should be pointed out that the evidence of bin Laden's connection to these activities is mostly classified, thought it is hard to imagine the CIA rushing to take credit for a Frankenstein's monster like this."
It's time to demand that those files be opened and the truth revealed.
I'd like to address the last sentence first. "It's time to demand that those files be opened and the truth revealed." The whole basis of this article is based on the fact that the author, Scott Marshall, believes that there is some sinister connection beween Bin Laden and the US government. The truth is, he states in that one sentence his suspicions. They are not proven facts. He is still looking for the proof of his suspicions by having "those files be opened and the truth revealed" .
I'd also like to point out the use of the word "story" repeatedly in this article. Two of the definitions for the word story is 1. a narrative, either true or fictitious, in prose or verse, designed to interest, amuse, or instruct the hearer or reader; tale. 2. a fictitious tale, shorter and less elaborate than a novel. I have to wonder if the word story used numerous times in this article are a freudian slip of sorts. I certainly wouldn't refer to a article that I am citing as proof of facts as a story.
As for "details some of bin Laden's direct involvement with the CIA", I'd like to direct you to a website for Peter Bergen, a CNN terrorism analyst. Peter Bergen has traveled to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Indonesia to learn about Osama bin Laden and his followers.
http://www.peterbergen.com/bergen/articles/details.aspx?id=271
In case you decide not to go to the link, let me summarize what Mr Bergen has to say about the Bin Laden/CIA connection.
"The story about bin Laden and the CIA—that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden—is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently.
The real story here is the CIA didn't really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him."
Just based on what I have already given you in this response, I don't really feel I need to address this article any further. Nothing in the article is provable where Bin Ladens supected connections with the CIA are concerned.
What do you think of the three articles I gave you links to above?