Mujahadeen

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Superlative, May 10, 2007.

  1. Superlative
    Offline

    Superlative Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,382
    Thanks Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +109
    Some reading, if you have the time and patience. Dont be lazy.

    Disclaimer - Not recommended for the extreme Right Wingers. Due to the fact that this article implicates the US in creating the very problem we now battle.
    Take it, or Leave it.

    The History

    "WE come now to the question of bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age," Afghan-American writer Tamim Ansary wrote in an article for Salon.com. "Trouble is, that’s been done…"

    "Make the Afghans suffer? They’re already suffering. Level their houses? Done. Turn their schools to piles of rubble? Done. Eradicate their hospitals? Done. Destroy their infrastructure? Cut them off from medicine and healthcare? Too late. Somebody already did all that."

    Unless Afghanistan’s Taliban regime turns over Osama bin Laden, the U.S. is prepared to rain death and destruction on a country that has already been devastated by more than 20 years of military occupation and civil war.

    Millions of Afghanis live in refugee camps. The country has more than 500,000 disabled orphans. Much of the already devastated countryside is currently experiencing a drought, leading to famine in some areas.

    The U.S. government’s massive military might will make things far worse. But past U.S. actions are in no small part responsible for the misery and poverty that already exists in Afghanistan. As the Economist magazine put it, "[U.S.] policies in Afghanistan a decade and more ago helped to create both Osama bin Laden and the fundamentalist Taliban regime that shelters him."

    The U.S. is only the latest power to cause mayhem in the country. Modern Afghanistan emerged during the 19th century as a buffer state squeezed between the Russian and British empires. From the beginning, it was a pawn in battles between these two world powers.

    The country’s mountainous terrain protected it from imperial occupation, but also resulted in little economic development. Afghanistan has always been one of the poorest countries in the world. By the 1970s, less than 10 percent of the population was literate, and life expectancy was only 35 years. The central state was weak, and outside of a few cities, Afghan society remained traditional, with power divided among rival ethnic clans.

    This began to change in the 1950s and 1960s. As a result of foreign aid from the former USSR and the U.S.--which were competing for influence during the Cold War--there was a shift of power toward the state.

    In 1973, the corrupt and repressive regime of King Zaher was overthrown by his cousin, Daud, who declared a republic. But expected reforms didn’t materialize, and the emerging urban middle class grew increasingly discontented.

    In April 1978, as Daud tried to move against opponents to his left, he was overthrown and killed by army officers sympathetic to the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan, which had close ties with the USSR.

    But the new government had little support in the countryside, and its attempt to institute reforms from above was disastrous. Resistance began to spread across Afghanistan.

    It was met with severe repression as the government itself broke into hostile factions. The opposition came to be dominated by a collection of radical Islamist groups--known as the "mujahadeen," or holy fighters--with reactionary political ideas, especially concerning women.

    In December 1979, hard-liners in the USSR--worried that a regime hostile to them might come to power in Afghanistan--decided to intervene. Russian troops advanced on the capital of Kabul, killed the president and replaced him with their own man.

    For the next decade, the USSR fought a brutal war for domination of the country. More than 1 million Afghanis died, and millions more fled their homes, becoming refugees in neighboring Pakistan and Iran. But by 1989, with casualties mounting and its troops in a state of near-rebellion, the USSR withdrew its forces.

    U.S. policymakers celebrated the Russian retreat from the country--and promptly cut off aid to the rebel forces that they had armed, trained and supported.

    Afghanistan collapsed into virtual anarchy. Almost a quarter of the population was in refugee camps, and most of the country was in ruins.

    Different factions of the mujahadeen struggled for power in the countryside, while the government of Muhammed Najibullah, the last USSR-installed president, remained in control in Kabul.

    Kabul finally fell in April 1992 to one faction of the mujahadeen. But the civil war continued.

    In 1994, a new organization, the Taliban, emerged. Its members had been trained in the religious schools set up by the Pakistani government--with U.S. support--along the border.

    The Taliban advocated an ultra-sectarian version of Islam. Under its rule, Afghani women have been denied education, health care and the right to work, and must cover themselves completely in public. With the aid of Pakistan’s army, the Taliban swept across an exhausted country, taking power in 1996.

    The U.S. government made no criticism of the regime it now demonizes as the main source of international terrorism. A State Department spokesperson told reporters that there was "nothing objectionable" about the Taliban’s coming to power. That opinion wasn’t shared by Afghani women--or the Taliban’s political opponents, who were savagely repressed.

    In fact, the U.S. hoped the Taliban would provide stability. Its "most important function," one commentator wrote, "was to provide security for roads and, potentially, oil and gas pipelines that would link the states of Central Asia to the international market through Pakistan rather than through Iran."

    Today, U.S. politicians denounce the Taliban regime for its repression and brutality. But this is rank hypocrisy. Washington’s warlords are only looking for an excuse for war--a war that will further devastate the lives of ordinary people in Afghanistan.

    "Freedom fighters" armed and trained by the U.S.

    THE AFGHAN rebels that fought the USSR’s military occupation were backed to the hilt by the U.S. government. In fact, in a 1998 interview, Zbigniew Brezinski, who was national security adviser in the Carter administration, admitted that Washington had begun funding the mujahadeen six months before the Russian invasion in order to provoke "a Soviet military intervention."

    The U.S. deliberately chose to back Islamic fundamentalist organizations, rather than secular and nationalist groups, because Brezinski hoped not just to drive the Russians out of Afghanistan, but to cause unrest within the USSR itself.

    With the support of Pakistan’s military dictator, Gen. Zia ul-Haq, the U.S. began recruiting and training mujahadeen fighters from the 3 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan--as well as large numbers of mercenaries from other Islamic countries.

    The operation was supervised by the CIA, with Pakistani forces carrying out the work on the ground. "The trainers were mainly from Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence agency, who learnt their craft from American Green Beret commandos and Navy SEALS in various U.S. training establishments," according to the British military magazine Jane’s Defence Weekly.

    Washington leaders fell in love with their rebel army in Afghanistan. Ronald Reagan--the same man who denounced the African National Congress and the Palestine Liberation Organization for not renouncing violence--described the mujahadeen as "freedom fighters."

    Reagan met in Washington with rebel leaders like Abdul Haq, who openly admitted his responsibility for terrorist attacks, such as a 1984 bomb blast at Kabul’s airport that killed at least 28 people.

    Meanwhile, with CIA assistance, the mujahadeen greatly expanded opium production in areas under its control--turning Afghanistan into what one U.S. official later described as the new Colombia of the drug world.

    Between 1979 and 1989, "the CIA and Saudi intelligence together pumped in billions of dollars worth of arms and ammunition," according to the Economist. But when the USSR finally withdrew in 1989, the administration of George Bush Sr. turned its back on Afghanistan--leaving it, in the words of the Economist, "awash with weapons, warlords and extreme religious zealotry."

    Who trained Osama bin Laden?

    OSAMA BIN Laden, a civil engineer and businessman from a wealthy family in Saudi Arabia, was one of the first non-Afghan volunteers to join the mujahadeen. He recruited 4,000 volunteers from his own country and developed close relations with the most radical rebel leaders in Afghanistan.

    He also worked closely with the CIA raising money from private Saudi citizens. "In 1988, with U.S. knowledge," reports Jane’s Weekly, "Bin Laden created Al-Qaeda (The Base): a conglomerate of quasi independent Islamic terrorist cells spread across at least 26 countries... Washington turned a blind eye to Al-Quaeda, confident that it would not directly impinge on the U.S."

    After the USSR’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, bin Laden and other volunteers returned to their own countries. "In their home countries, they built a formidable constituency--popularly known as ‘Afghanis’--combining strong ideological convictions with the guerrilla skills they had acquired in Pakistan and Afghanistan under CIA supervision," writes author Dilip Hiro.

    Over the past 10 years, the "afghani" network has been linked to terrorist attacks not only on U.S. targets, but also in the Philippines, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, France, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, China, Egypt, Algeria, Morocco and elsewhere.........

    September 28, 2001

    http://www.socialistworker.org/2001/378/378_07_Afghanistan.shtml

    http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/3-15-2005-67118.asp

    http://www.constitution.org/ocbpt/ocbpt_11.htm

    http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/pak.htm

    http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/anatomy.htm - 'Washington Post', July 19, 1992
     
  2. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,580
    Thanks Received:
    5,905
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +9,000
    I call BS. Osama Bin Laden received zero money or training from the US. The US trained and supplied the same people they turned to for the Invasion of Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance.

    I find it rich that Carter would be blamed for starting a shooting war in Afghanistan when he was the weakest President this Country has probably ever had. Highly unlikely he would authorize what you claim here.

    As for US policy toward the Taliban, I suggest you check whom your accusing of loving them... that would be your buddy the Democrats and Clinton.
     
  3. Superlative
    Offline

    Superlative Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,382
    Thanks Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +109
    SIXTEEN years have passed since the CIA began providing weapons and funds -- eventually totaling more than $3 billion -- to a fratricidal alliance of seven Afghan resistance groups, none of whose leaders are by nature democratic, and all of which are fundamentalist in religion to some extent, autocratic in politics, and venomously anti-American.

    Washington's financial commitment to the jihad was exceeded only by Saudi Arabia's. At the time the jihad was getting under way there was no significant Islamist opposition movement in Saudi Arabia, and it apparently never occurred to the Saudi rulers, who feared the Soviets as much as Washington did, that the volunteers it sent might be converted by the jihad's ideology.

    Therein lies the greatest paradox of the bombing in Riyadh: it and the explosions in Peshawar and Islamabad could well prove to be part of the negative fallout -- or "blowback," in intelligence parlance -- of the U.S.- and Saudi-orchestrated Afghan jihad.....

    .........Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan had all served U.S. interests during the jihad Afghanistan; none appears able to cope with its aftermath.

    Mubarak's anger was palpable when he told me, months before the bombings, that he laid the blame for Islamist terrorism squarely on Pakistan, for, in his words, failing to "clean up" Peshawar and its environs.

    Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's bewilderment after the bombings was evident, as she once again faulted the United States and the CIA, which she accused of continuing to finance Pakistan's radical Muslim clerics and fundamentalist groups.

    As for the rulers of Saudi Arabia, whose princes and foundations, ironically, remain the leading benefactors of many of the militant Islamic groups in a shortsighted attempt to placate the kingdom's expanding fundamentalist constituency, they seemed shaken out of their placidity.

    And government officials in all three capitals began to wonder, as they redoubled their efforts against terrorism, whether the Islamists could still be contained.....

    .....The fighting continued, now in the form of a fratricidal civil war in which Hekmatyar unleashed a deadly offensive against other factions of the mujahideen, using a formidable arsenal of arms -- all of them supplied by the United States and Saudi Arabia.

    (Ironically, Hekmatyar and the present leaders of the Afghan government, who among them have stockpiled some 500 "missing" Stinger anti-aircraft missiles supplied by the CIA, are now being challenged by a new and extremely fundamentalist Afghan student militia known as the Taliban, which grew out of the chaos left by the CIA's war. With the strong backing of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, it has managed to wrest control of nearly half of the country -- and several Stingers -- from the leaders of the jihad.)

    About a thousand Saudis had fought in the jihad. Largely funded and supported by their government, they came from good and wealthy families. I asked the diplomat what, in his view, made the Saudis different from other Islamists who came to the jihad.

    "Their government sent them," he responded. "It was the patriotic thing to do. But when these guys got there, they met others and began to network; they found a whole new world out there. And despite their wealth, they were underemployed, frustrated, an accident waiting to happen -- and it did. Also, unlike the others who went to Afghanistan as members of Islamic groups -- Gama'a, Al-Jihad, Hamas, and the like -- there were no organized Saudi groups. That's what makes these guys very different: they set up the networks when they came home."

    Other U.S. officials agree, and warn that despite the Saudi government's efforts to blame the usual regional suspects -- Iran, Iraq, and Sudan -- for the car bombing, the Islamist discontent in Saudi Arabia is real, and the movement is basically homegrown.

    One of its most charismatic and powerful champions is Osama bin Laden, the billionaire scion of a leading Saudi family. Fervent and devout, he was described to me by one U.S. intelligence official as "a religious fanatic with enormous wealth -- a man with a vision, who knows precisely how he wants to convert that vision into reality."

    Bin Laden worked closely with Saudi intelligence and with Prince Salman, the governor of Riyadh, in funding the jihad, and eventually came to Peshawar as a mujahid himself.

    There he befriended Gulbaddin Hekmatyar and Sheikh Omar, and fought with the forces of Abdurrab Rasul Sayyaf. He now divides his time between Khartoum and London, where he owns opulent estates, and he places his formidable wealth at the disposal of militant Islamic groups around the world.

    Muhammad Jamal Khalifa, Bin Laden's brother-in-law and a Saudi financier, was a prime conduit for funding militant Islamic groups in the Philippines, Filipino officials assert; and, according to U.S. investigators, there is evidence that during the mid-1990s, when Khalifa was the head of the Islamic Relief Agency -- a quasi-government Saudi charity -- in the Philippines, he had contact with Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, alleged to be the mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing in New York.

    Three years ago, at U.S. urging, the Saudi government stripped Bin Laden of his citizenship because of his "irresponsible behavior ... and his refusal to obey instructions issued to him."

    When I asked a U.S. counterterrorism expert what this meant, he replied, "Osama was warned by Saudi intelligence: Do nothing against us and we'll leave you alone." Bin Laden ignored the warnings, and the Saudis began running intelligence operations against him and his entourage in Khartoum; at the time of the Bush Administration -- presumably with U.S. knowledge

    -- they had secretly dispatched hit teams with a contract on his life. When the U.S. military headquarters in Saudi Arabia was blown apart, the expert said, "Osama bin Laden was the first guy who came up on the radar screen in Riyadh."

    in the 80's.......The Americans were there to punish the Soviet Union, and when they were sure that the Soviet Union had suffered and was about to collapse, they stopped everything -- all the aid, all the equipment -- just like that." He snapped his fingers, and his voice began to rise. "They didn't care that there was still a Communist government in power in Afghanistan.

    They simply turned their backs and walked away. And the Saudis, oh, the Saudis, and the Egyptians -- they did precisely the same. It took three more years for the mujahideen to oust the Najibullah regime. Thousands of lives were lost; crops and livelihoods were destroyed. But not one life mattered to the Saudis, the Egyptians, or the United States."


    Mary Anne Weaver is a writer on South Asia and the Middle East for The New Yorker.

    May, 1996

    http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/1990s/atlanticmonthly0596.html
     
  4. Superlative
    Offline

    Superlative Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,382
    Thanks Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +109

    Is the US department of State a reputable enough source?

    Milt Bearden served as the CIA station chief in Pakistan from 1986 to 1989, where he was in charge of running the covert action program for Afghanistan. In his memoirs titled "The Main Enemy: The Inside Story of the CIA's Final Showdown with the KGB," Bearden says the United States, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China, Egypt, and the UK were "major players" in the effort to aid the Afghans. Bearden writes:

    "[President Jimmy] Carter's national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, had in 1980 secured an agreement from the Saudi king to match American contributions to the Afghan effort dollar for dollar, and [Reagan administration CIA director] Bill Casey kept that agreement going over the years." (The Main Enemy, p. 219)

    From 1983 to 1987, Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf was in charge of the Afghan Bureau of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), which ran Pakistan's covert program to aid the Afghan mujahidin. In his book The Bear Trap: Afghanistan's Untold Story, Brigadier Yousaf confirms the matching U.S.-Saudi arrangement, stating:

    "For every dollar supplied by the US, another was added by the Saudi Arabian government. The combined funds, running into several hundred million dollars a year, were transferred by the CIA to special accounts in Pakistan under the control of the ISI." (The Bear Trap, p. 81)

    here, you can go and check it for yourself - http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-318760.html
     
  5. Superlative
    Offline

    Superlative Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,382
    Thanks Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +109
    I point the finger at Clinton just as much as I do at Reagan, Bush Senior and Junior.

    There is enough news coverage of this from the 80's and 90's to be able to deduce that someone should have done something.

    But they didnt.

    Now we are paying for it.
     
  6. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,580
    Thanks Received:
    5,905
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +9,000
    You have now changed your claim. The original claim is that Carter authorized funding BEFORE a Soviet invasion, in the hopes of provoking one, NOW your claiming after the invasion the US funded them.... which is it?

    From your first post.....

    THE AFGHAN rebels that fought the USSR’s military occupation were backed to the hilt by the U.S. government. In fact, in a 1998 interview, Zbigniew Brezinski, who was national security adviser in the Carter administration, admitted that Washington had begun funding the mujahadeen six months before the Russian invasion in order to provoke "a Soviet military intervention."

    ......
     
  7. Superlative
    Offline

    Superlative Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,382
    Thanks Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +109
    I never claimed anything, I posted articles, You disputed them, and then I clarified with official government links.
     
  8. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,580
    Thanks Received:
    5,905
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +9,000
    Ahh I see you let others do your lying for you and then when caught at it claim it isn't your fault.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. Superlative
    Offline

    Superlative Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,382
    Thanks Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +109
    I never lied about anything, you are arguing semantics.

    If the national security advisor to Carter administration is quoted as saying
    " that Washington had begun funding the mujahadeen six months before the Russian invasion in order to provoke "a Soviet military intervention."

    And then, according to government website:
    http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archiv...24-318760.html

    "Carter's national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, had in 1980 secured an agreement from the Saudi king to match American contributions to the Afghan effort dollar for dollar, and [Reagan administration CIA director] Bill Casey kept that agreement going over the years."

    How is that a lie? If anything it backs up the original statement.

    Do you deny the information?

    Are you denying the fact that the USA funded and trained many of the people we are fighting in Iraq today?


    I love how you have responded in this thread, but curiously have not addressed the fact that the American government in cooperation with the Saudi Arabian government, funded and trained the Mujahadeen, which later turned into Al Qaida, and the extremely fundamentalist Afghan student militia known as the Taliban.

    This is right wing denial at its best, to point out silly minute flaws in the facts, to down play mistakes made by the American Government.

    Its amazing that you think the US could fund and train extremist fundamentalists for so long and then, as you so boldly stated "Osama Bin Laden received zero money or training from the US."

    I highly doubt the US would agree to match the Saudi's dollar for dollar and not know what was going on?

    Are you honeslty saying the CIA trained the Northern Alliance, and had no contact with OBL? Nevermind, you did state that.

    It wasnt like he was some nameless faceless crazy guy running around with a sword, They knew who he was, and was referred to by a "U.S. intelligence official as "a religious fanatic with enormous wealth -- a man with a vision, who knows precisely how he wants to convert that vision into reality."

    You dont find it the least bit curious that OBL according to News reports gathered during that time, (not now, not cooked up, but stories published in the 80's and 90's knew who OBL was) stated that he was involved, That he recruited and raised funds for the Northern Alliance.

    But you say the CIA that was training and funding the very same Mujahadeen recruits had no contact with someone this powerful?

    I find it amusing how you stand strong that the American government is all knowing and all powerful, except when it comes to mistakes.

    'The US couldnt have indirectly funded and trained OBL, heavens no, that would mean 9/11 was indirectly the fault of Carter, Reagan and Bush Senior. And dont forget Clinton he did nothing about it, with all the information gathered from the previous 3 administrations.'

    I dont blame any one Republican or Democrat, I blame the US government for the past 27 years of mismanagement in the face of Terrorism.

    10 years of funding, plus 10 years of denial and inaction, = 9/11. Followed by an invasion, death, and more Denial.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,580
    Thanks Received:
    5,905
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +9,000
    Once again for the truly slow... The CIA did not fund Osama Bin Laden. They funded and supplied the same people they turned to for the invasion of Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance groups.
     

Share This Page