9 Responses

  1. Lots of holes in this “explanation.” Especially concerning the US dependence on early forms of those Islamic groups to fight the Soviets, as well as our present day insistence that so-called Syrian “moderate” rebels are not part of the same Al-Queda that attacked the US in 2001.

  2. What kind of an explanation involving Bin Laden fails to mention that he was funded by the C.I.A. to resist Soviet aggression in Afghanistan?

    • There is no conclusive proof that the CIA had direct ties to Bin Laden in Afghanistan while fighting the Soviets (although it is debatable).

      Bin Laden was, however, clearly allied with other rebel groups within Afghanistan receiving vast weapons resources and training by the CIA and other Western intelligence agencies.

      What is also clear hat Bin Laden had not only extensive Saudi funding at that juncture, but (A) returned to Saudi Arabia a national hero, and (B) received an audience with the Saudi king after the Soviets had been defeated.

  3. West and Saudi Arabia have been using bigoted Sunni extremists to contain threats to its interests for over 50 yrs. The first threat was Arab Nationalism( Abdel Nasser, etc) then it was the Iranian Revolution, and then the Soviets in Afghanistan.

  4. I stopped watching when the advent of Al Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan was “explained” without any mention of US sponsorship. Very weak, surprised at seeing it here.

    • The rise of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh doesn’t “have to be made out” to be our fault. No invasion of Iraq, no ISIS.

  5. You can only do so much in 6 minutes. For me this was an excellent précis and I learned a lot. Of course it left stuff out, the end of the Ottoman empire, Sykes-Picot, and several book-loads more.

Comments are closed.