|Re: William Blum The Anti-Empire Report #149 By William Blum|
- Monday, March 13 2017, 19:35:43 (UTC)|
from 22.214.171.124 - 126.96.36.199 - Windows NT - Safari
Website title: Document Has Moved
Regarding Jihadi literature, you're right Rashad, and here's the proof from the establishment paper, Washington Post:
As The Washington Post reported in 2002, the United States had spent millions of dollars beginning in the 1980s to produce and disseminate anti-Soviet textbooks for Afghan schoolchildren. The books encouraged a jihadist outlook, which was useful propaganda at the time for a Washington driven by the imperatives of the Cold War.
"The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum," The Post reported. "Even the Taliban used the American-produced books, though the radical movement scratched out human faces in keeping with its strict fundamentalist code."
Printed both in Pashto and Dari, Afghanistan's two major languages, books such as "The Alphabet for Jihad Literacy" were produced under the auspices of the U.S. Agency for International Development by the University of Nebraska at Omaha and smuggled into Afghanistan through networks built by the CIA and Pakistan's military intelligence agency, the ISI.
You can read the rest here:
-- But, I don't necessarily disagree with Blum when he contrasts 20th century Latin American guerrillas with 21st century Jihadists regarding the use of force. Uruguay's Tupamaros whose comrades were imprisoned and tortured didn't massacre civilians, they went after whom they deemed as responsible: Dan Mitrione, who was teaching various South American governments' state and security forces methods of repression, with his expertise being in torture. He'd round up homeless people with the promise of payment and food, and would use them as guinea pigs in his exhibitions of torture, eventually ending with his victims dying from slow, excruciating pain. Mitrione was put on trial by the Tupamaros and executed. Blum is correct in writing that the Salvadorians who suffered sheer terror (like being skinned alive, or the rape of parent by child in view of the entire village, among other horrors) never committed to the scale of terror compared to that of Da'esh, even though all they had to do was cross the border to hit a number of U.S. cities, or kidnap, rape, torture, and murder American citizens. The only case of American victims I'm aware of is the rape and murder of the four Catholic missionaries... and that was done by the governments' death squads. Neither did the Vietnamese partake in acts like killing journalists or aide workers. Blum is simply making a distinction between the leftist Reds and the rightist Blacks. Even the Iranian Maoists during the early '70s only targeted military contractors and the Shah's security forces, unlike the Khomeini faction who in the late '70s bombed movie theatres full of families, burned down Armenian and Assyrian-owned delis, destroyed record shops, bookstores, cafes, and unleashed a full-frontal attack on women who'd get doused with acid for simply not wearing a chador; or the execution of homosexuals and atheists for being "enemies of god" -- one of their potential targets being the gay Assyrian playwright and painter, Bani, who was luckily out of the country at the time. The Iranian Reds in lieu of destroying entire cinemas (and the people inside of them) instead took over some theatres and showed political films banned under the Shah, like "The Battle of Algiers" or "Z"... until the Blacks set their armed wild dogs loose on them. I think Blum is just pointing out that these guys are regressive, whereas the leftists were/are progressive.
The full topic:|
Accept-encoding: gzip, deflate
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/56.0.2924.87 Safari/537.36