MovieChat Forums > Islam: What the West Needs to Know (2006) Discussion > no mention of US aid to mujahadin throug...

no mention of US aid to mujahadin through 80s, apparently


First I want to make clear that I have not seen this movie. I am only going by what I was told by promoters of the film handing out flyers yesterday.

This film was showing at the Directors Guild theater on 57th Street in Manhattan yesterday. I asked one of the organizers if the film mentions anything about the enormous aid that the Reagan (and Carter and Bush I) administration gave to Islamic fundementalists throughout the 1980s.

I was told by three people who said they have seen the film that aid to the mujahadin was not mentioned.

And if that is the case, then HOLY SH*T THATS INSANE.

I don't see how you could make a film about modern political Islamic fundementalist extremists without covering a little history. After all, the ENTIRE MOVEMENT didn't begin until the early 20th Century, and the 1980s were only 17 years ago.

Now could somebody who has seen the film confirm if what I was told is correct or not?

And if indeed its not mentioned in the film, then WHY?

reply

Democracy sucks, doesn't it?

You're talking about American politics. Reagan, Carter, and both Bush's want to be friends with Muslims and Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia for various reasons. They may or may not know much about Islam, but either way they want(ed) America to have allies and they want(ed) to keep America supplied with oil so our economy doesn't halt. That's politics for you...

This documentary talks about Islam and things people do not understand about it, not American history. Go make your own documentary if you feel so strongly.

Answer this for me: Why would our presidents give money to the mujahadin? What would that accomplish? That road might explain a lot to you if you research it. They did it for a reason, but I can only guess why. Sounds like a good idea for a documentary, btw.

reply

"Answer this for me: Why would our presidents give money to the mujahadin? What would that accomplish? That road might explain a lot to you if you research it. They did it for a reason, but I can only guess why. Sounds like a good idea for a documentary, btw. "

Wait - you don't know? You grew up in this country, you have a computer with an internet connection, and yet you proudly proclaim that you can only guess at the reason.

Lets look at that statement: "They did it for a reason, but I can only guess why."

You are being willfully ignorant by not knowing this already or doing a simple search on the internet to read about it but here's your answer:

The USA supported Islamic fundementalist fighters in Afghanistan throughout the 1980s in order to give the USSR "its own Vietnam".

It resulted in millions of dead Afghanis, and contributed to the destablization of the USSR, defeat of Gorbechevs reforms, the alarming threat of possible 'loose nukes' from the former Soviet arsenal, the empowerment and training of radical Islamic fighters who would go on to fight in Sudan, Bosnia, and other places, and the destruction of the World Trade Center and murder of 3000 people.

In the end, defenders of the policy claim that it helped to 'defeat communism'. And to accomplish that goal they aided people whose goals were even more against those of the United States than the USSR could ever hope to be.

A documentary that does not provide historical context on its subject - especially historical context from only 20 years ago - is not a documentary. It's propaganda.

Seriously, if you like being ignorant so much, if you like beliveing so blindly in your leaders and their good reasons for doing things, you really would be better off in a communist or theocratic country.

reply

They used one evil to fight another. Of course you fail to look at the alternative -- a Soviet presence in the middle east and the continued communist domination of Asia. Whatever mistakes the U.S. made back then, how in the HELL were they to know that they would eventually have to go back and kick the Taliban's ass for harboring terrorists who were behind the WTC? It may have been a mistake to aid Jihadists and Muslim extremists, but would have it been better to aid the USSR, and thereby increasing the power and influence of the cancer that is known as communism? Communism stands against EVERYTHING that you know to be freedom. Authentic Islam isn't much better, but I think that measures need to be taken, and given the lousy implications for EITHER side's victory, they made an intelligent choice at the time.

BTW, either shut up or go watch the damn movie and come back and have your say. I HATE it when people think they have a movie pegged, and they don't even bother to watch it. Hypocrite.

reply

The USSR did not really have its own Vietnam ... they spend less time money and lives in Afghanistan and were actually called in and tried to help. The US in trying to destroy the USSR was an aggressor. USSR never attacked us, and did the brunt, by far, of the world in WWII, losing 20 million lives compared to the 1/2 million of the West, US, Britain, Australia, etc.

I think you are a bit ignorant in that you do not seem to know anything some very important history.

We have played this card over and over in the world ... just setting people at war to kill off populations ... same with the British. Is that moral ... democratic ... ??? You tell me.

reply

Hopefully there aren't too many big words in this one for you:

www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9998

reply

I never stated that the US directly aided Bin Ladin.

If there were no Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, there would have been no 'Afghan Arab' army of foreigners to fight there, including Osama Bin Ladin.

Tell me where I am wrong in that statement, and do everyone reading this the favor of making the argument YOURSELF and not just by linking to some right-wing website.

reply

The Mujahandeen, and Al-Qaida aren't the same. That's the point.

reply

<<The Mujahandeen, and Al-Qaida aren't the same. That's the point. >>

Sigh.

Ok, even if you were right, wouldn't billions of dollars of American taxpayer money going to Islamic fundementalist guerillas for nearly a decade merit a mention in a movie called "Islam: What the West Needs To Know"?

Thing is, it is true. Al-Queda grew out of former mujahadeen, mostly Arab veterans of the Afghan war against the Soviet Union. They have younger recruits now, but originally they were composed of Afghan vets. Bin Ladin, Zawahiri, and the other leaders were all mujahadin.

There were certainly mujahadin who did not become al-Queda, but it is accurate to say that if there had been no mujahadin, there would be no al-Queda.

reply

But if there had been no Soviet puppet-dictatorship, there would've been no Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. The Mujahadeen formed on it's own to resist Soviet occupation. We simply helped them out, and so did other Arabs & Muslims. The differences is they viewed this strictly as a "defense of Islam," while we did to to help the Afghan people resist communism. As for Zawahiri, he was originally an Egyptian jihadist before joining Al-Qaida.

In other words, this problem was entirley of their own making.




reply

Actually the Mujahadeen was supported by the US first in order to PROVOKE a Soviet invasion, in order to give them 'their own Vietnam'.

But don't take my word for it. Here's the whole sickening confession from Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski (taken from http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html). Carter started it, and the Reagan amped it up througout the 80s. Try not to throw up as you read the following:

The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser

Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998
Posted at globalresearch.ca 15 October 2001


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

Translated from the French by Bill Blum

reply

I'm not going to throw up, because I know it's crap. The people of Afghanistan rebelled against communist rule, and Moscow wouldn't stand for that, so they invaded, just as they did in Lithuania, Ukraine, Chechnya, Soviet-created East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. Did we aid them? Sure. So did the British, and so did the Saudis, and that's nothing to be ashamed of. Al-Qaida owes it's existance entirley to Osama Bin Laden and his mentor Sheikh Abdulla Azzam.

http://www.911myths.com/html/bin_ladin_links_to_the_cia.html


reply

<<I'm not going to throw up, because I know it's crap.>>

Oh, you KNOW it's crap, so end of discussion?

It is a first hand source - a direct interview with the man who made the policy, published in an established and respected newspaper.

It is established fact that the United States began arming Afghan mujahadeen before the Soviets invaded in order to provoke a war.

You reveal a lot about your own grasp on history with this whopper:

<<The people of Afghanistan rebelled against communist rule, and Moscow wouldn't stand for that, so they invaded, just as they did in Lithuania, Ukraine, Chechnya, Soviet-created East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. >>

You really have no idea how the Soviet Union ended up in those countries, do you? Hint: there were Nazis in most of them.

And as far as the 9/11 myths link you provided, it's actually pretty informative and does not contradict anything I've stated. Just because bin Ladin was not a direct recipient of US aid, it doesn't mean he didn't benefit from the actions of the USA in their provocation of the war, support for various allied factions, and support for Islamist governments like the Saudis and the Zia regime in Pakistan.

reply

It is a first hand source - a direct interview with the man who made the policy, published in an established and respected newspaper.

Communsit sympathizers like Robert Scheer get their rhetoric published in "respected newspapers," but that doesn't mean everything they say is true.


It is established fact that the United States began arming Afghan mujahadeen before the Soviets invaded in order to provoke a war.

It's not an established fact, because the Soviets overthrew the Afghan Kingdom in 1973. The people of Afghanistan were growing increasingly dissatisfied with having a Soviet-Puppet dictatorship, and the Soviets tried to kick the *beep* out of them for being "counter-revolutionaries." The US backed them, because they wanted to help kick them out, and Muslim fanatics wanted to join in, because they knew the Soviet Bloc was "unislamic."



You really have no idea how the Soviet Union ended up in those countries, do you? Hint: there were Nazis in most of them.

The Nazis were gone by the time Moscow started attacking most of them. Lithuania, was conquered by Moscow along with the rest of the Baltic States as part of the 1939 Berlin-Moscow Non-Aggression Pact. Ukraine & Chechnya were conquered by the Czars, and KEPT by the USSR. No Nazis back then. The people who hated Soviet-occupation of Central & Eastern Europe weren't Nazis.


Just because bin Ladin was not a direct recipient of US aid, it doesn't mean he didn't benefit from the actions of the USA in their provocation of the war, support for various allied factions, and support for Islamist governments like the Saudis and the Zia regime in Pakistan.

Except for the fact that we didn't provoke the war in Afghanistan. Furthermore, Zia's regime was more of military rule like Musharraf, rather than Islamist like the Taliban or the Saudis, which BTW, we've had relationships with before the Cold War.







reply

Okay, I'm done. If you're going to refuse to acknowledge established documented facts simply because they don't fit around your point of view, there is no point in engaging in a debate with you.

Your willful self-delusion in the face of inconvenient facts would have made Stalin proud.

reply

I refuse to acknowledge them, because they're not documented facts. Nobody has to tell me that we supported the Mujahadeen. But if you insist that we caused the war there, and all other Arabs & Muslims to use it to start their own wars, then you've got some serious problems here.




Your willful self-delusion in the face of inconvenient facts would have made Stalin proud.

From a man who denies that the people of Afghanistan were pissed off about their country being taken over by a know Stalinist.

reply

<<From a man who denies that the people of Afghanistan were pissed off about their country being taken over by a know Stalinist. >>

Ooooh-kay... and where did I state that?

reply

The people of Afghanistan want and need socialism/democracy because the whole country if a corrupt mess that the US is taking advantage of. Whenever a country has a few rich strong men who are raping the country for their own benefit and are enabled to do that by arms deals with the West ... so the West gets cheaper resources ... like in Venezuela and much of South American - the people want and have to revolt to just justice. When there is such inequality, socialism is the side of democracy we Americans do not want to acknowledge.

reply

The Russians were asked in to Afghanistan by the government.

We, the US, were the ones to support torturers, murderers, and terrorists, the so-called Western Alliance.

They were the ones also that backed the Taiban ... who forbade music, dancing, women to go to school or be seen in public with the burka.

The US policy is to sew chaos and then operate in it with lots of money. It is in fact what is happening in our own country.

reply

I meant the modern movement that started in the 20th century w/the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and was immeasurably helped by billions of dollars in aid from the USA in the 1980s.

Of course 'political Islamic fundementalist extremists' existed before the 20th Century, but they certainly didn't run the Caliphate which ran much of the Arab world for the 500 years before the establishment of the Turkish Republic. For much of that time the Caliphate was wealthier and more scientifically advanced than Europe, and one notable difference is that it was a far better place for Jews to live than in Europe. There were Jews in top positions there, whereas modern Islamic fundementalism thrives on European-styled anti-semitism.

And I know this is an incredibly cheap shot, but how much you want to bet Anders Breivick had this movie and believed it?

reply

In the interest of clarity, Brzezinski now disputes the accuracy of the LE NOUVELLE OBSERVATEUR interview I sited earlier - www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGjAsQJh7OM

I don't have any doubt that aiding the mujahadin in the 80s was the biggest US foreign policy debacle of the 20th century.

reply

[deleted]

I think mentioning the Mujahadin and Western interventions as well as other history is worth mentioning, and has its own importance. This is documented fairly well in "The Untold History Of The United States" by Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick.

However, in this story which goes far beyond recent history, but does include recent history, I think to attempt to deal with all of that fairly would just make the documentary worse, less clear, and not really enlighten anyone.

You find out, yes, the American government is self-interested, and cruel, there is an global American Corporatist Empire, but there have always been empires throughout the history of the world, if not American, Russian, Chinese, Islamic, Mongol, Japanese, etc ... this is merely the background threads of history. Over the long term of history the Islamic empire has crumbled and already been corrupted and proved a failure. It was relegated to the backwaters of the world which became prominent because of oil.

There is an over-arching story here, and it is not the West's, despite all the bad and ugly things the West has done. Maybe that is arguable or difficult to see.

reply