Why Jihadists Loved America in the 1980s

Discussion in 'Terrorism' started by kazenatsu, Mar 8, 2020.

  1. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    15,455
    Likes Received:
    4,562
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why Jihadists Loved America in the 1980s

    It was the Cold War and the US was focused on the Soviet Union and did not see Jihadists as a threat.

    It was freezing cold with gusting winds in Indianapolis on New Year’s Day 1978. While much of the city was presumably waking to a hangover, the Islamic Teaching Center was busy hosting prominent preachers from the Middle East. Among them was Abdallah Azzam, a 36-year-old rising star of the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood. In Indianapolis, Azzam would meet a young Saudi student with a now-famous name: Osama bin Laden. It was a historic moment, one that marked the rise of an extensive jihadist network in the United States.

    That Azzam and bin Laden met in America is no coincidence. They came because, unlike other countries in the Middle East, the U.S. allowed them and other Islamists to preach, fundraise, and recruit followers without interference. My new biography of Azzam shows that in the 1980s, radical Islamists exploited U.S. territory to an extent not previously recognized. In fact, for more than a decade, America was among the most hospitable jihadist-recruitment grounds in the world.

    To understand why, one has to look at the Afghan War. A few years after their Indiana meeting, Azzam and bin Laden co-founded the Services Bureau, an organization in Peshawar, Pakistan, that sought to bring Muslim fighters to Afghanistan. As its leader, Azzam spearheaded a worldwide effort to fundraise and recruit, especially from the Gulf countries and the United States.

    Although based in Pakistan from 1981 onward, Azzam crossed the Atlantic at least once a year, and by the end of the decade had visited New York, Texas, California, Seattle, and several other states in between. The message was always the same: Muslims in America should fight in Afghanistan, or at least donate money to the jihad. He spoke not in underground cellars, but in large, open venues, such as the annual meeting of the Muslim Arab Youth Association, which usually brought together hundreds of people. He stayed in the apartments of young local supporters, impressing them with his charisma and humble lifestyle. U.S. authorities became aware of these activities in the late '80s, but did not consider Azzam a threat.
    The US was practically encouraging jihadists in the 80s so they would keep the Soviets out of Afghanistan.

    It's almost like something out of Orwell's Nineteen-Eighty-Four, alliances keep on shifting and the public at large keeps no recollection.
     
    Shook and Farnsworth like this.
  2. Farnsworth

    Farnsworth Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    563
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    43
    The Reagannuts were especially fond of Muslims, and no doubt influenced by the anti-semites that dominate the Texas Independent oilmen who donate big bucks to the GOP and loves them some Muslims, too. In any case, the Cold War was dead by 1974, not the 1980's; the Soviets were on western life support, relying on food imports and refined petroleum imports to survive as they reorganized their governments and social institutions, the 'soft landing' agenda to lessen the collapse that began in 1973. Reagan's Big Noises were a running joke; he had little to do with it outside of helping Gorbachev's hard core Commie Party enemies hold out a couple years longer due to his idiotic saber rattling. After all, this was the same cooperative pandering idiot who ran away after getting Marines blown up in Lebanon and bribed Iranian terrorists with weapons while pretending to be a Big Giant Hard Ass Patriot N Stuff. No way he generated any fear in any of our enemies, except in the minds of the clueless.
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2020
  3. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,912
    Likes Received:
    958
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is how things are in this country. And "Jihadists" means absolutely nothing.

    The IRA had absolutely no problem recruiting members and raising money in the US. As have many other groups over the decades. So long as they were not wanted criminals and did no crimes here, there was no reason to do or say anything. A great many radicals have used this for their benefit, not just Muslims.

    Hell, during most of the fighting in Ireland Boston was a key fundraising point in money and support for the IRA.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    The murals above supporting the IRA are not in Belfast, or anywhere else in Ireland. They are in Boston. Images like that were common in the 1970s and 1980s.

    So do not even try to claim this is anything other than what it is. In 1979 there was as of yet no Soviet Invasion. And OBL was just another rich Arab student traveling on his family's money.
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2020
  4. Shook

    Shook Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    1,470
    Likes Received:
    482
    Trophy Points:
    83
    A jihadist is a muslem who proclaims identity with and intent, by authority of the koran, to overthrow or destroy existing culture, laws and/or customs of a nonmuslem country or of a region's "infidels" (nonmuslems), or any people they deem too secular, including other muslems. A jihadist's goal is to convert or kill its target population.

    Comparing jihadists to the IRA, is very crudely -- but definitely -- comparing apples to oranges. They are in no way similar, and to suggest otherwise sounds like a muslem apologist.
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2020
  5. Shook

    Shook Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    1,470
    Likes Received:
    482
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Until the koran is thoroughly revised to renounce jihad, muslems should be kicked out of this country.
     
  6. ArmySoldier

    ArmySoldier Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2014
    Messages:
    31,589
    Likes Received:
    11,791
    Trophy Points:
    113
    huh?
     
  7. Shook

    Shook Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    1,470
    Likes Received:
    482
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2020
  8. ArmySoldier

    ArmySoldier Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2014
    Messages:
    31,589
    Likes Received:
    11,791
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The bible has a lot of violence and calls for violence. The difference between now and 100 years ago is that Christians aren't constantly killing people in the name of Jesus Christ. You have a few nuts, sure. The problem with islam now (mostly outside of the US) is that they still interpret the Koran literally. The UK actually has a lot of radicals that protest all the time but aren't committing violence. Muslims are not a big Issue in the US. Chicago murders are way more of a problem.
     
  9. ArmySoldier

    ArmySoldier Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2014
    Messages:
    31,589
    Likes Received:
    11,791
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's more about evolution. The extremists shift their allegiance to whoever give them help. The Taliban and Al Q sometimes fight together, and often fight each other.

    Territory is big for them in tribal areas. The US gave them guns and training under Reagan. Then the Soviets leave, they don't need us anymore. Extremists are like welfare recipients. They will side with whoever gives them free stuff.

    *Edit- excuse grammar. My tablet has auto correct
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2020
  10. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    15,455
    Likes Received:
    4,562
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They were always extremists, but back then they were mostly content to fight off the Soviets. The Soviets of course would have severely repressed religion, especially state-involved religion, which they did in other muslim territories. Part of this was due to Communist ideology trying to impose atheism, the other part being the theocratic nature of Islam in those areas inherently being not very compatible with atheism, Soviet ideology, shared values (important under Communism), western values, and 'Russificatiom', trying to create unity and prevent break-away territories. Basically these were two totalitarian systems that would have been at odds with each other, and compatibility would have been very difficult.

    Later, with the Soviet threat gone, they turned their attention towards trying to develop a theocratic state, which is a part of their religion. This included "reclaiming Israel back to the muslims", on an international scale. That of course is where the problems started. Although much of the population in Afghanistan also suffered under the theocratic system.
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2020

Share This Page