Would 9/11 have happened if Reagan and Bush didn't give money,arms,training to Bin Laden and his Boys?

Question

Reagan and George H.W Bush gave money, arms, training to Osama Bin Laden and his group in the 1980's.

At the same time they gave money, and arms to Saddam Hussein

Around this time they gave Money, Arms to Iran.

Ever get the feeling these Neo-Con nutcases are working for the enemy?

If these two idiots were never in the white house in the 1980's would we not have to deal with these monsters?

Is there any other enemy's the Neo-Cons have helped that we should know about?

Answer 1

Yup..Its true... Bush And Bin LADen were Good friends in the 80s... They were some how a business part in Oil ... Cause the middle East is very rich in OIL.... and BIN LAden was Actually very very rich...

But Now Time has Change...

Answer 2

If that happened then we would had 9/10 then 9/12

The whole thing started with the Carter ****** up everything in Iran and the middle east.


9/11 happened because of support for Israel and the fact that there were still troops in Saudi Arabia. The 9/11 attacks were planned during the Clinton administration. The 1st world trade center attack happened during the Clinton administration as did the Kenya embassy bombing and the attack on the navy ship.

At the time they were fighting a much bigger enemy, the Soviet Union that could have nuked the whole USA which seemed like a slightly bigger problem than Iraq.

You don't need a whole lot of training to fly an airplane into a building.



It would have happened no matter what

Answer 3

9/11 Happened because of the engagement in Somolia. High command would not send in the armored vehicles to support the infantry. All of this was done under President Clinton. Bin Laden was watching this situation closely and concluded that America was weak willed and would withdraw after a violent confrontation. Thus 9/11.

Answer 4

Sadly 9/11 wouldn't have happen if it weren't for that. But tit happen, can't change the past, so we must look towards the future and learn from these mistakes. I'm pretty sure we done it before and are probably doing it still and will do it some more. its sadly about American interest, we want governments that will give us what we want and when they don't we help the rebels and such. Watch Syriana, its fiction but not really all that much of a stretch. This isn't about liberal or conservative its about government, no president has been prefect. Money was given, fighting occurred, and they blamed us for that destruction.

Answer 5

Osama Bin Laden was given lots of money by Bill Clinton , and Bill also had a chance to deal with him many times and did nothing . But think about it all this way. If Al Gore was in the white house , we would all be speaking Arabic right now .

Answer 6

Considering that 9/11 happened with box-cutters and airplanes, I don't see how weapons could have mattered one way or the other.

I agree that we shouldn't have armed them back then, but of course hindsight is always better.

By the way, most of the so-called "neo-cons" were mostly Democrats back in the days of Reagan. They only became Republicans in the last decade or two.

Answer 7

Just a little extra information to add to this discussion-

"Mr. Bin Laden used to live in Sudan ... And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again. They released him. At the time, '96, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America." -Bill Clinton, 2002

The money, arms, and training given to Bin Laden in 1980's were to help the Afghani's defend themselves against the Soviet Union's attempted take-over of Afghanistan. Bin Laden was not the leader of a major terrorist organization back then.

In short, I think you are seeing consipracy where it does not exist.

Answer 8

Last time I checked...Iraq didn't have a single piece of US hardware and we sold arms to IRAN you dumbass. Your facts are seriously wrong......he provided money and training to a group of guerrillas in Afghanistan...not directly to Bin Laden. In fact Oliver North brought up Bin Laden in his testimony saying that OBL was a threat and that all funding then stopped. Of course in the same testimony Al Gore couldn't comprehend the capabilities of 1 man......Yup..I am glad I didn't vote for that Jackass. Terrorism is a virus that spreads regardless of actions.....you think that terrorism is a new concept just happening....it has been happening since the 60's my friend....we just finally got hit.

Answer 9

The U.S. gave funds and training to Afghans, not Arabs. The Saudi's provided matching funds to the arab fighters in Afghanistan. Give me proof of one, just one meeting, ever between and Bin Laden and a representative of the U.S. government! You can't because it never happened. In fact, most funds provided by the U.S. were distributed via CIA agents on the ground directly to Afghan warlords or tribal leaders, or via Pakistan, which provided training. Certainly, Pakistan probably diverted those funds to arabs, but there is no connection between the U.S. and Bin Laden, who's role in Afghanistan, by some accounts, has been vastly overstated!

The U.S. provided funding and support to Iraq, because it was a secular government which could act as a buffer to an increasingly hostile and radical Islamic government in Iran. U.S. officials realized the negative effect that radical muslims would have on the region, although not to the extent they should have, in hind sight.

When President Reagan was shown photographic prooof that American prisoners of Iran were being beaten, tortured, and in the case of the CIA station chief in Iran, murdered, he ordered that the remaining hostages be freed, whatever the means. The amount of weapons and funds given to Iran to win the freedom of American hostages pales in comparison to the weapons and technology provided to Iran via Russia, France, Germany, China, North Korea, and Pakistan.

While railing on these "two idiots", you fail to sight the incompetent response to Iran hostage situation by Democrat Jimmy Carter, or the wool that was pulled over the eyes of Bill Clinton by both Iran and North Korea, whom both acquired nuclear weapons while Billy was getting blow jobs from a fat, homely, white house intern.

Answer 10

First, we never supported bin laden. I just love it how liberals like you make these claims but have no proof to back it up. Second, we HAD to support Saddam in the 80's because Iran was trying to take them over and we couldn't let that happen. Sometimes you have to help your enemies but that doesn't make them your ally. Try to get that through your thick skull and wake up to reality.