Brzezinski mentioned it during an interview with a French reporter. Look it up yourself if it is so intriguing.
Brzezinski mentioned it during an interview with a French reporter. Look it up yourself if it is so intriguing.
If you are going to utter purported statements of fact that go so strongly against the grain of established wisdom, then you should be able to back it up with some type of source. One good thing about these boards is that you are so easily able to hot-link sources and references into your discussion. If you simply make bald statements of opinion masquerading as fact, and refuse to back them up, you lose credibility.Originally Posted by GorTex6
ol' karl.com
You do the rest. I can't help you there.
There is nothing in your link regarding support to the Ayatollah. The focus of the piece you've provided is that US support for the Afghan mujahideen began prior to the Soviet intervention, in an effort to destabilize what we perceived as a Soviet client state. Not exactly an earth shattering revelation, of the nature of your original statement.
Of course, the source that you provided is heavily slanted in an obvious direction. For more detail, and a more neutral look at the unfolding of those events, I highly recommend the GWU National Security Archive, the premier free-to-the public source for FOIA releases:
Afghanistan: The Making of US Policy 1973-1990
...Weeks after the Herat uprising and while President Carter was absorbed by the Iran hostage crisis, Brzezinski pushed a decision through the Special Coordination Committee (SCC) of the National Security Council (NSC) to be, as he put it, "more sympathetic to those Afghans who were determined to preserve their country’s independence."
Although deliberately vague as to what this meant, the evidence indicates that Brzezinski called for moderate covert support for Afghan dissident groups which had set up headquarters in Pakistan. Some, such as forces under the command of Rabbani and Hekmatyar, had been operating out of Pakistan without much outside aid for years. According to a former Pakistani military official who was interviewed in 1988, the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad had asked Pakistani military officials in April 1979 to recommend a rebel organization that would make the best use of U.S. aid. The following month, the Pakistani source claimed, he personally introduced a CIA official to Hekmatyar who, while more radically Islamic and anti-American than most Afghans, headed what the Pakistani government considered the most militant and organized rebel group, the Hizb-i Islami (Hekmatyar).
Freedom of Information Act requests for records describing these meetings have been denied. But CIA and State Department documents seized by Iranian students during the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in November 1979, reveal that, starting in April 1979, eight months before the Soviet intervention and immediately following Brzezinski’s SCC decision, the United States had, in fact, begun quietly meeting rebel representatives. Although most of the cables and memoranda released to date show that U.S. officials politely turned down rebel requests for U.S. assistance, others reveal CIA support for anti-DRA demonstrations and close monitoring of Pakistani military aid for rebel parties based in Pakistan’s NWFP...
It was googled. Considering SWJ links the site in their library.....(note: the library of congress omits this interview in the French article)
Freedom of Information Act requests for records describing these meetings have been denied.
and most was burned before the embassy was seized....But CIA and State Department documents seized by Iranian students during the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in November 1979, reveal that, starting in April 1979, eight months before the Soviet intervention and immediately following Brzezinski’s SCC decision, the United States had, in fact, begun quietly meeting rebel representatives.
If I were to link it to the enigma surrounding Desert One, that would be pretty far fetched, or would it not?
Last edited by GorTex6; 06-10-2006 at 08:58 AM.
...all your winking smilies and clipped comments aside, you are still begging the question. This was your original statement that the other members and I would like to see a reference for:
We also covertly supported the Ayatollah and assisted in his rise to power, destablizing the Soviet puppet in Kabul and luring the bear to invade Afghanistan.
All Points of View Welcomed Here...
But must be posted with a logical argument / theme based on the poster's point of view and backed with research and a logical and substantive text of explanation.It was googled. Considering SWJ links the site in their library.....(note: the library of congress omits this interview in the French article
and most was burned before the embassy was seized....
If I were to link it to the enigma surrounding Desert One, that would be pretty far fetched, or would it not?
Frankly, I am getting a bit tired of chasing down your one-liner "drive by" posts. It is a waste of my time and the limited resources we have here at the SWC.
Points of view are one thing - agendas are another. I refuse to let this board become your personal bitch-of-the-moment soapbox. I am posting this here on the forum only because I've had this discussion with you via PM several times in the past.
I am not going to argue this point any further. Get with the program or move on.
Last edited by SWJED; 06-10-2006 at 05:20 PM.
Gladly if you would be so kind as to give some details (what kind of support wa given, etc.) I will certianly try to find out what I can.
FOIA- As though the government will admit it.....
Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam , Robert Dreyfuss (Brzezinki/Iran in particular- pp 241, 251-256)
In an effort to thwart the spread of communism, the U.S. has supported--even organized and funded--Islamic fundamentalist groups, a policy that has come back to haunt post-cold war geopolitics. Drawing on archival sources and interviews with policymakers and foreign-service officials, Dreyfuss traces this ultimately misguided approach from support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in the 1950s, the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran, the ultraorthodox Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia, and Hamas and Hezbollah to jihads in Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden. Fearful of the appeal of communism, the U.S. saw the rise of a religious Right as a counterbalance. Despite the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the declared U.S. war on terrorism in Iraq, Dreyfuss notes continued U.S. support for Iraq's Islamic Right. He cites parallels between the cultural forces that have promoted the religious Right in the U.S and the Middle East and notes that support from wealthy donors, the emergence of powerful figures, and politically convenient alliances have contributed to Middle Eastern hostilities toward the U.S. A well-researched and insightful book. Vanessa Bush
'Le Nouvel Observateur' (ie supported agents of the Ayatollah)
Last edited by GorTex6; 06-12-2006 at 12:33 AM.
Are you able to admit that you have no substantive source stating that the US provided support for Ayatollah Khomenei on his rise to power? (as you originally stated) You are going around in circles, implying content that doesn't exist in material that you link that is only peripherally related to the specific question to hand. You specify pages in a given book, yet you quote a book review. The 'Le Nouvel Observateur' interview you've referred to several times does not mention agents of the Ayatollah, as you state in your last post. Is it simply creative interpretation on your part?
You are still begging the question, and your personal credibility is at zero.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
- Hanlon's Razor
This is an inteview about US support Mujahadeen in Afghanistan is it your opinion that the Mujahadeen were agents of the Ayatollah?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks