More facts on U.S. funding radical Islamic extremism?

[Rational Radical]

So today in class, my (republican) history teacher asked us if we were elected president,what would we do to help poverty? Without openly calling for a socialist revolution lol I simply said I would join the green party and speak about a greater distribution of wealth and direct democracy,which he joked that I was destined to fail my history class because of that. He asked me how I was going to do this and I said by taxing the wealthy more and cutting military and defense spending. By the look of his facial expression I already expected his comment that followed which was " An ambassador was killed in Libya why would you want to do that?" I felt an impulse to say "we funded those same extremists to overthrow gadahfi" and he then laughed it off , it also made me bring up the fact that we fund ed would-be al-qaeda religious fundamentalists to fight off the soviet union in Afghanistan, he also laughed this off and said "we funded the freedom fighting mujahideen , they have no connection to al qaeda" I obviously knew that was a lie ,I've seen a video of Hillary Clinton openly admitting to it, but I just sat in my seat quietly enraged. I would like your opinions of this situation and some facts about U.S. involvement which involves Al-qaeda.

[Rational Radical]

Forgive my typing ,when I'm on my phone this website acts weird and causes a lot of typos

[#FF0000]

He's right though -- the Mujahideen had nothing to do with al-qaeda.

They were, like the Libyan rebels, a hodge-podge of local factions.

The strongest and most well-organized of which happened to be the Taliban, which has/had nothing to do with Al Qaeda but was still, you know, the Taliban.

You're basically right, you just named the wrong group.

[Rational Radical]

I'm pretty sure that Al Qaeda was formed as a result of the Afghan Soviet war, if not then what are the roots of Al-Qaeda?

[#FF0000]

I'm pretty sure that Al Qaeda was formed as a result of the Afghan Soviet war, if not then what are the roots of Al-Qaeda?

Welp, my bad. You are actually right.

[l'Enfermé]

Hodge-podge of local factions? The people that overthrew Gaddafi's government were NATO members, Arab puppet states of the US, foreign jihadists and mercenaries and locals that were funded, trained, coordinated and commanded by NATO. Afghanistan wasn't much different and all major anti-DRA forces were Islamists(Hezbi Islami, Jamiat-e Islam, Harakat-e-Islami, Ittehad-i-Islami, etc, etc) and functioned as little more than American, Pakistani and Saudi proxies. Regarding the Taliban, you're completely wrong. The Mujahideen in Afghanistan was all the Jihadist forces fighting the DRA during the Afghan War of 1979-1989(you in the west call it the Soviet War in Afghanistan but I use the Russian-language name). The Taliban had nothing to do with the Mujahideen, the Taliban wasn't founded until, I believe, 1994, long after the Muj. killed all the Afghan "communists" and the Soviet war finished. The Taliban appeared in the mid-90s(from Pakistan!), to overthrow the Islamic State of Afghanistan, and fought the Northern Alliance of Massoud(Lion of Panjsheer was it?)

[Rational Radical]

Hodge-podge of local factions? The people that overthrew Gaddafi's government were NATO members, Arab puppet states of the US, foreign jihadists and mercenaries and locals that were funded, trained, coordinated and commanded by NATO. Afghanistan wasn't much different and all major anti-DRA forces were Islamists(Hezbi Islami, Jamiat-e Islam, Harakat-e-Islami, Ittehad-i-Islami, etc, etc) and functioned as little more than American, Pakistani and Saudi proxies. Regarding the Taliban, you're completely wrong. The Mujahideen in Afghanistan was all the Jihadist forces fighting the DRA during the Afghan War of 1979-1989(you in the west call it the Soviet War in Afghanistan but I use the Russian-language name). The Taliban had nothing to do with the Mujahideen, the Taliban wasn't founded until, I believe, 1994, long after the Muj. killed all the Afghan "communists" and the Soviet war finished. The Taliban appeared in the mid-90s(from Pakistan!), to overthrow the Islamic State of Afghanistan, and fought the Northern Alliance of Massoud(Lion of Panjsheer was it?)
Thanks it pretty much goes back to my point of the U.S. using religious fundamentalists as pawns in the geopolitical chessgame of the cold war as a means of defeating its enemy. This same teacher spews this nonsense about communism being an all powerful government and socialism being keynesianism/social democracy ,you know the usual bull shit. When he asked how communism is both an economic and political system I said while directly looking at his eyes like I was peering into the depths of his soul(lol) that marxist-leninist have state controlled economies,he then says yes pure Marxist countries have an all powerful government that manages the economy, looks at me and grins like I know you know what you're talking about but I'm going to twist your words simply because I have a republican bias and students are too lazy to look up informatioon. I was once again enraged secretly,any advice to control my feelings of having a debate and/or punching him in the face lol

[#FF0000]

Hodge-podge of local factions?

Damn son this is what I get for being a lazy poster.

either way, good post, dogg.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The Taliban (and I would assume al-Qaeda, although I don't really know much about the ideology of al-Qaeda, honestly) believed in a specific strain of Islamism that was in strong opposition to many of the Afghan resistance. The mujahadeen generally were Islamists. But most were not believers in the hardline doctrine of Islam, to be delivered with Pol Pot-levels of insanity once the Taliban were in power.

But yeah, most of the opposition to the USSR was from Islamists. Hardly suprising. Afghanistan has always been one of the most fervently religious of Muslim countries, a fact noted by the British during their occupation of the country. They speculated that the potent mixture of Islam and intense xenophobia on the part of the Afghans would give them major problems, and boy did it!

[Positivist]

Edit: Sorry I didn't read that you had corrected your post so I apologize if I come off as a deush. The other part of my response is still relevant though.

He's right though -- the Mujahideen had nothing to do with al-qaeda.

They were, like the Libyan rebels, a hodge-podge of local factions.

The strongest and most well-organized of which happened to be the Taliban, which has/had nothing to do with Al Qaeda but was still, you know, the Taliban.

You're basically right, you just named the wrong group.

Uhh the Taliban have something to do with al qaeda considering that they cooperated frequently even prior to the us invasion and continue to, to this day. Plus Osaka bin laden received direct US funding.

To the OP; don't back down with these kind of people. If they laugh you off, counter laugh them off and don't be shy to express your knowledge such as that Hilary Clinton admitted the mujihadeen had/have ties to al qaeda. And also you don't have to pick a mainstream party (even a minority one like the green party) to align yoirsoef to in that kinda hypothetical, just explain your position, and perhaps even contrast the tyrannical economic system imposed by the corporate model with a vision of a democratically administered one.

[Rafiq]

Your problem, though, was initially stating that "youd join the green party". In other words, you delcared you would assume the role of the bourgeois state and carry out their interests in a more efficient way. No, " heavily taxing the rich" and "cutting military and defense spending" cannot be sustained by the capitalist mode of production. You should have instead, when asked what should be done regarding property, declared that the systemic mechanisms which enable the existence of poverty must be done away with. However, you shouldn't have argued with him in the first place. Sometimes, when an individual has their head so far up their ass, it's best to leave them be and allow them to taste their own shit.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Your problem, though, was initially stating that "youd join the green party". In other words, you delcared you would assume the role of the bourgeois state and carry out their interests in a more efficient way. No, " heavily taxing the rich" and "cutting military and defense spending" cannot be sustained by the capitalist mode of production. You should have instead, when asked what should be done regarding property, declared that the systemic mechanisms which enable the existence of poverty must be done away with. However, you shouldn't have argued with him in the first place. Sometimes, when an individual has their head so far up their ass, it's best to leave them be and allow them to taste their own shit.
I think it's cool that the OP was willing to take on this reactionary shit of a teacher. But you have to know your facts, comrade. Rafiq is right. Don't give a half-baked critique-- say you are for socialism -- and if he says that means you support Obama, you can tell the stupid shithead that his politics share a lot with Obama's and nothing with yours. I used to fight with a college professor of mine all the time -- especially because he taught all the classes on the Russian Revolution and Stalinism, etc. The best I could do was fight to a draw, it was his class after all. The US, through the CIA gave tons of money to the folks who later founded Al-Queda. Back then, they were "Freedom Fighters" -- yeah, killing people for teaching women to read -- they were reactionary cutthroats fighting against the Soviet backed PDPA government. Showing another example where the US supported bloody reaction over a relatively progressive government. Stick to your guns comrade. But get your arguments straight before you go in -- he has a lot of advantages begin the teacher -- reactionary fuck head though he may be.

[Dean]

So today in class, my (republican) history teacher asked us if we were elected president,what would we do to help poverty? Without openly calling for a socialist revolution lol I simply said I would join the green party and speak about a greater distribution of wealth and direct democracy,which he joked that I was destined to fail my history class because of that. He asked me how I was going to do this and I said by taxing the wealthy more and cutting military and defense spending. By the look of his facial expression I already expected his comment that followed which was " An ambassador was killed in Libya why would you want to do that?" I felt an impulse to say "we funded those same extremists to overthrow gadahfi" and he then laughed it off , it also made me bring up the fact that we fund ed would-be al-qaeda religious fundamentalists to fight off the soviet union in Afghanistan, he also laughed this off and said "we funded the freedom fighting mujahideen , they have no connection to al qaeda" I obviously knew that was a lie ,I've seen a video of Hillary Clinton openly admitting to it, but I just sat in my seat quietly enraged. I would like your opinions of this situation and some facts about U.S. involvement which involves Al-qaeda.

It's kind've funny that you would say this, being a "Chomskyan" per your title. I recommend that you download some of his spoken word and listen to it, it will give you more than enough ammunition for any discussion on US foreign or domestic policy.

Mujahideen is an ambiguous term, and it covers everything from loosely Islamic groups which are essentially mercenaries to extremist groups which are actively attacking any regime not following its brand of islam. Your teacher has no reason to think that the US only funded "moderate" mujahideen, indeed, him invoking the term is a bit odd to me because the last time I can reall the US acknowledging that it funds mujahideen was in the 1980s.

The point shouldn't be to argue how the US funded islamic extremists. HE already admits to that, apparently. The US has a better-funded military than the followign ten largest militaries combined. Why should more funding help stop this kind of attack from happenign again?

I would ask simply, how does it benefit the American peopel to drop 68,000-1,000,000 on a missile when those same funds could build factories and factors of production here in the US, creating sustainable jobs, rather than destroying civil society overseas? He should be sputtering at this point, if he is really as ignorant as you make him sound in your OP.

[Commiekirby]

Besides the countless times the US funded radical "Islamist" groups, there is the more modern development with the US proclaiming to help fund a nuclear weapons project inside Saudi Arabia. Sure, they themselves aren't terrorists but they sure do have a track record of supporting and turning the other cheek to fundamentalists if they can profit.

[Sasha]

Besides the countless times the US funded radical "Islamist" groups, there is the more modern development with the US proclaiming to help fund a nuclear weapons project inside Saudi Arabia. Sure, they themselves aren't terrorists but they sure do have a track record of supporting and turning the other cheek to fundamentalists if they can profit.

Wut? Got a source for that? I don't doubt the US frequently dodges their non-proliferation treaties but I doubt they "proclaimed" to do so...