Dear Ronald Reagan Lovers,

Did any of you notice the part where the USA was backing Saddam Hussein in an eight year war with Iran, while secretly selling weapons to Iran at the same time?

Dear Any Administration Dreamers,

It's not any one party, or one President, it's the goddamn paradigm. You want it to change? (do you really want it to change..... (or are you just a buncha, whine, whine, whine, I could really give a fucks?)

Adopt truth, meaning, and disclosure, instead of half-truth, diversion, and secrecy...
If it is not shut down, it won't recover-

Yer basic revolution-type shit-

few simple ways to start???

Stop buying shit form China
Start doing without petro-based products, refusing to by plastics, would be a healthy start.
A good collective tax-revolt, for the sake of keeping yer dollars-
.....see where this is going???

they left out 9/11 attacks, and the lies tied up in that shit....

No, your basic revolution shit is kicking in the fucking door and dragging the criminals out of power.

Read a history book.

Think for yourself, question authority.

Upvote for the truth!

The CIA helped some of the mujahideen in Afghanistan, but not necessarily all of them. There's no evidence that the CIA had any relationship with Osama Bin Laden then.

Sponsor is misspelled in the title.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Needs to viewed in the context of the cold war. It's hard to do that now with 20/20 hindsight- but people were very scared of a "Red Dawn" type scenario, the CIA was supposed to be protecting us from the domino effect and a world communist government. Seriously, that was the Soviet plan.

This doesn't justify the atrocities, and I'd like to see the CIA shut down - but that's the context.

Reply to dag

Your Context lacks Wang.

It's stuff like this that made me stop contributing here. Seriously, I'm willing to listen to both sides of the argument as much as the next guy but when people are constantly pushing anti-Christian, anti-American, pro-Drug videos without any opposing views I can't help but be disgusted with it.

Have whatever opinions you like but let's take a neutral look at both sides of the issue instead of being primarily extreme liberal/libertarian propaganda.

*I give it 24 hours before someone wrongly accuses me of supporting Bush, the War in Iraq, or being a fundamentalist prude*

Tags for this video have been changed from 'terrorism, US, government' to 'terrorism, US, government, iran, iraq, vietnam, south america, arms dealer' - edited by raven

BrknPhoenix, way to keep your blindfold on. Anti-American... bla bla.
Look up these incidents and you'll see that they are mostly true.

One of the first non-Afghan volunteers to join the ranks of the mujahideen was Osama bin Laden, a civil engineer and businessman from a wealthy construction family in Saudi Arabia, with close ties to members of the Saudi royal family. Bin Laden recruited 4,000 volunteers from his own country and developed close relations with the most radical mujahideen leaders. He also worked closely with the CIA, raising money from private Saudi citizens. By 1984, he was running the Maktab al-Khidamar, an organization set up by the ISI to funnel "money, arms, and fighters from the outside world in the Afghan war."

Since September 11, CIA officials have been claiming they had no direct link to bin Laden. These denials lack credibility. Earlier this year, the trial of defendants accused of the 1998 U.S. embassy bombing in Kenya disclosed that the CIA shipped high-powered sniper rifles directly to bin Laden's operation in 1989. Even the Tennessee-based manufacturer of the rifles confirmed this. According to the Boston Globe,

I found a source.

October 16, 2001 - New York Times

U.S. Sent Guns to bin Laden in 1980s

WASHINGTON (AP) -- More than a decade ago, the U.S. government sent 25 high-powered
sniper rifles to a group of Muslim fighters in Afghanistan that included Osama bin Laden, according to
court testimony and the guns' maker.

The rifles, made by Barrett Firearms Manufacturing Inc. of Murfreesboro, Tenn., and paid for by the
government, were shipped during the collaboration between the United States and Muslims then
fighting to drive the Soviet Union from Afghanistan.

Experts doubt the weapons could still be used, but the transaction further accentuates how Americans
are fighting an enemy that U.S. officials once supported and liberally armed.

In a trial early this year of suspects in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa, Essam Al-Ridi,
identified as a former pilot for bin Laden, said he shipped the weapons in 1989 to Sheik Abdallah
Azzam, bin Laden's ideological mentor. The weapons had range-finding equipment and night-vision
scopes.

During the late 1980s, the United States supplied arms worth $500 million a year to anti-Soviet
fighters including Afghanistan's current Taliban rulers, bin Laden and others. The supplies included a
range of weapons from small arms to shoulder-fired Stinger anti-aircraft missiles.

Al-Ridi, an American citizen born in Egypt, testified that Azzam liked the rifles because they could be
``carried by individuals so it's made in such a way where you could have a heavy cannon but mobile
by an individual.''

While in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Al-Ridi said he saw bin Laden several times with Azzam.

Ronnie Barrett, president of Barrett Firearms, likened sale of the .50-caliber armor-piercing rifles to
the supply of the Stinger surface-to-air missiles given to anti-Soviet guerrillas in Afghanistan.

``Barrett rifles were picked up by U.S. government trucks, shipped to U.S. government bases and
shipped to those Afghan freedom fighters,'' Barrett said.

The sale was publicized by the Violence Policy Center, gun-control advocates who want for more
restrictions on the sale of high-powered weapons such as the specialized Barrett exports.

``These .50-caliber sniper rifles are ideal tools for terror and assassination,'' VPC analyst Tom Diaz said.

Firearms expert Charles Cutshaw of Jane's Information Group said he was more worried about the
Stingers than long-range sniper rifles.

``It seems to me that there are easier ways for a terrorist to get at a high-value target than this,''
Cutshaw said. ``If they wanted to bring down an aircraft, the best way would be to bring it down with
a Stinger.'' Guerrillas using Stingers were credited with shooting down more than 270 Soviet aircraft.

Cutshaw said the sniper rifles are ``sort of overkill'' for shooting people; more appropriate targets
would be vehicles or fuel tanks. But the Irish Republican Army used the weapon to kill 10 British
soldiers and policemen patrolling the Northern Ireland border in the 1990s.

The rifles could be used only with U.S.-made ammunition, but such ammunition can be obtained in
neighboring Pakistan, Cutshaw said.

The Barrett rifles sold for $5,000 to $6,000 each, and both Barrett and Cutshaw had doubts they
would still work due to dust and a lack of spare parts.

But the rifles could be functional if they have been kept in storage since the purchase, Barrett said.
The Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan months after the rifles were sold.

``If it's not used, it could work,'' Barrett said. ``Age will not bother the gun, just usage.''

---

So Bin laden may have received weapons from the CIA in 1989. But his first attack on US targets was in 1992. He was hardly notorious in 1989.

Hi BrknPhoenix,

I also see a lot of shit from a lot of other countries on the sift, not just the US. China, Myanmar, North Korea, Russia, France, etc. Yes, the US has not been the cleanest country (and with country I mean government and other institutions such as the CIA, NOT its people) and is, due to its size and position, under heavier scrutiny then most. But calling everyone on the sift anti-American is a bait and switch. Be happy there is this scrutiny. Its what creates freedom in the end. And it shows that the US is still a thinking country with a measure of freedom.

There is one thing you can do to liven up this discussion. You even suggest it yourself. Find counter arguments and tell your side. I for one would be very interested.

I agree with Dag in that people need to realize what else was going on during that time (Cold War, etc.) to put the context in better perspective. Again, a lot of it could have been handled better, but that is 20/20 hindsight speaking.

While it is an amazing video and it gives people a brief history lesson who never knew of the events until just now, I encourage those who become easily opinionated by such short montages to read up on the history and times surrounding those events. I'm not trying to say that everything shown will be righted or justified by learning more, but it will at least give you a better idea of what was going on. Otherwise you are letting a 4 minute, 30 second video attempt to paint you a picture of 60+ years of US and world history and politics by showing the most gruesome of events, which some were not the best choices nor the brightest moments in our society (as a human race).

In short, viewed and taken the wrong way would make it no different than viewing a propaganda film. Actually, that's what this video can be classified as, propaganda. The only reason I am calling it that is because it only shows a biased, one sided summarization of multiple events from only one perspective without any further history and/or cause/effect of why those events transpired. This makes its sole purpose is to sway the public opinion of mass see one view only, the film creators view. A video of true historical education would give a complete unbiased (as much as can be done) view of the events, the history surrounding it, and both sides perspectives with no judgment made by the film creator themselves. Also careful wording would need to be used so as to not sway a viewers opinion by using heavily weighted (emotional) words against one side or for another in its favor. But of course doing it that way would probably make for a longer, uninteresting video to the majority with not as much of an impact of the creators intent.

I don't see how looking at these event in the context of the cold war justifies or rationalizes all these actions. All these preemptive regime changes of democracies ffs can never be justified. Especially the toppling of Arbenz in Guatemala for the United Fruit Company.
In twenty years these same people will justify Iraq, Guantanamo and other human rights abuses in the context of The War on Terror... Of course many people already do this

*waronterror

Videos are limited to being in a maximum of 5 channels - ignoring all requests by MarineGunrock.

*nochannel

This video has been removed from all channels (Lies, Military, Politics, Worldaffairs, Wtf) due to invalid channel assignment - nochannel invoked by raven. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

*lies *military *politics *worldaffairs *waronterror

Adding video to channels (Lies, Military, Politics, Waronterror, Worldaffairs) - requested by raven.

Seriously... JFK told the American public in a speech that he would be dismantling the CIA and the Federal Reserve.... 4 months later.. well.. you all know what happened to JFK.

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by notarobot.

*notdead

This dead video has been deemed functional; it must have been accidentally declared dead - declared notdead by mauz15.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by ctrlaltbleach.

jimnms has fixed this video's dead embed code - no Power Points awarded because jimnms's points are already fully charged.