Skip to comments.Hamas, Hizbullah not on Russia's terror list
Posted on 07/28/2006 10:51:00 AM PDT by sergey1973
State publishes list of groups it regards as terrorist organization, fails to include Hamas or Hizbullah. Official says movements do not represent threat to Russia.
(Excerpt) Read more at ynetnews.com ...
If, Heaven forbid, Islamists will succeed in establishing the Worldwide Islamic Caliphate, it will be in large part thanks to the Russian and th EU leadership treachery although nobody from the major world powers, including the US govm't is innocent of playing cozy with Islamists.
Israel/Middle East/Global Jihad/Russia PING !
"Official says movements do not represent threat to Russia."
Russia is not our friend. Things that threaten your friends threaten you, Pootie.
Sergey, you and I know that even without the death of shamil baseyev, the rasPutin chekists in the Kremyl feared US moves in the near and abroad more than it fears radical Islam in it's underbelly. There are many reasons for that not the least being these people are creatures of their past, and for them, the USA has always been the main enemy to be ever vigilant of.
It seems to me that since these TERRORISTS organizations, Hamas and Hizbullah,arent't on Russia's list....then Russia is added to OUR list.
That's why I'm afraid Islamists have a chance if not winning (they could slit each other throats no less than Infidels) but continuing to wreck the worldwide havoc for decades to come.
I hope I'm wrong, but so far things don't look promising.
>>Official says movements do not represent threat to Russia
They are not a threat until they start beheading Russian officials in Red Square.
Of course they aren't. They are on Russia's allies list.
"Official says movements do not represent threat to Russia."
Radical Islamist LOVE stupidity like this.
"We're no threat to you until we get you to sell us all your weapons.."
You got this one.
Let's hope our president gets it too.
"Of course they aren't. They are on Russia's allies list."
And I have no doubt that these "allies" were among other things, involved in some way in the kidnapping and beheading 4 Russian diplomats in Iraq. Iran was making suggestions to Russia to negotiate with Mujahideen Shura Council that kidnapped 4 diplomats and it's possible that Iran is coordinating all operations of these Islamic Terror groups in the Middle East and beyond.
Not likely. He prefers looking in the eyes of dead and rotting fish and seeing the "soul" instead of old devil's receipt for it. Reagan [and later Cheney] are in this sense aberrations.
These "allies", I fear, will wreck lots and lots of havoc throughout Russia in the days to come, but Putin leadership will continue to insist that Hamas and Hezbollah are not terror groups until they really start to making full-scale Jihad against Russia.
Again, It's very disgusting and loathsome.
Then I guess Chechens are no threat to the US either and we must counsel Pootie to use only proportional force in dealing with them.
And that's why Jihadists have a good chance of staying operational for years to come.
How do they say it? "Milye branyatsya - tol'ko teshatsya"?
Sergey, you seem to have forgotten your support for the Chechens, when Russian soldiers were having their heads sawed off.
Gary, please. This is a complete nonsense.
I never supported Chechen Jihadists. Jihadists are Jihadists everywhere and they deserve nothing but a bullet in their head or explosive blown under them.
I said about excessive and unnecessary brutality of the folks like Kadyrov and the Russian Federal forces toward non-combatants, but I never ever supported Chechen Jihadi Separatists-Terrorists or their political aims. My qualms was the tactics toward non-combatants (like revenge kidnappings after Jihadi attacks), but I never objected to the goal of defeating Chechen or other N. Caucasus Jihadists. I'm glad when such thugs like Basayev and others are blown off the face of this earth. So please don't attribute to me something that I never supported.
This is actually OK. The beauty of the Cold War was that Russia could ALWAYS be counted on to do what's in their best interests.
This is just them reverting back to their old modus.
Those organizations DO NOT represent threats to Russia in the least. The Chechens do.
Amongst those voting Nay to condemn the terrorists and support Israel were:
Reps John Conyers (D-MI)
John Dingle (D-MI)
Jim McDermott (D-WA)
Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-MI)
Pete Stark (D-CA)
Neil Abercrombie (D-HI
Plus, my so called "support" for Chechen Jihadists which was simply criticism of certain Russian tactics toward noncombatants--not the objection to the end goal of destroying Chechen Jihadists--how can it compare with Putin's leadership giving implicit support to Hamas and Hezbollah, like Inviting Hamas rep to Kremlin ?
I'm not the US President, not the Secretary of State or any lower rank American official in charge of the US Foreign policy. I'm just an ordinary private American Citizen of Russian/Ukrainian background concerned about situation in Russia/fmr. USSR.
So how could my criticisms of some Russian tactics in
Chechnya be even compared to Kremlin support to the Islamic terror organizations ? So please, Gary, let's not go to a ludicrous comparison here.
Let's compare apples to apples--not apples to oranges.
I'd rather say, let's not compare flies to elephants (with me being a fly of course -:))).
We (read: Clinton) were idiots and in a way we kinda deserve this snubbing.
Honestly now... how could Russia consider them terrorists... when they do such a lucrative business with their sponsors?!
Not surprised!Russia has its dirty little hands in this with iran and syria.
==These "allies", I fear, will wreck lots and lots of havoc throughout Russia in the days to come, but Putin leadership will continue to insist that Hamas and Hezbollah are not terror groups until they really start to making full-scale Jihad against Russia.
I tend to think these "Muslim" terrorists aren't any more Muslim than Liberation Theologists are Catholic. Everytime I read accounts of those who know/knew certain terrorists that hail from the PLO, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, etc, I invariable learn that they were secular Muslims who did not pray, ate pork, drank alcohol, went to nudie bars, etc (same goes for the accounts of reformed, ex-terrorists). I tend to think that the modern terrort network is but a continuance of the terror network described in the following:
Terrorists in Muslim Disguise
Inside Story: World Report
Now that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) is beginning to defeat Israel, it is pulling out one of its most powerful terrorist weapons to finish the surrender process. That weapon is commonly known as "Islamic fundamentalism."
On Monday, July 18 , a powerful car bomb exploded in downtown Buenos Aires, Argentina. The target, a seven-story Jewish community center, was completely destroyed, leaving nearly 100 dead and another 100 wounded.1
Eight days later, another car bomb was detonatedthis time at the Israeli embassy in London, England. The embassy and other adjoining buildings suffered damage, and 14 people were injured.2
Authorities in Israel and elsewhere immediately blamed Muslim "extremists" for the terrorist attacks, and specifically named the group Hezballah (meaning "Party of G-d"). For the PLO, this was a convenient dodge allowing it to disclaim responsibility.
But more importantly, the PLO is now using these attacks as an excuse to accelerate the surrender of Israel. The logic is chillingly simple: according to news accounts of the second bombing, British authorities "presumed it to be an attempt to disrupt the peace process," and "Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin of Israel... said Islamic extremists were seeking to disrupt the Arab-Israeli reconciliation process."3 Thus peace on any terms must be made quickly with the PLO, lest the "extremists" succeed in stopping the "peace process." The PLO provides the carrot, while "Muslim fundamentalists" provide the stick.
A myth has been engineered in the last several years regarding "Islamic fundamentalism." According to this idea, the PLO and its main factions have become moderate, willing to recognize Israel and negotiate a compromise solution. However, radical Muslims, including Hezballah, Islamic Jihad, the Amal Militia, and Hamas, are said to oppose such compromises violently. Every time these extremists carry out another terrorist attack, Israel is pressured to make more concessions to the PLO.
In reality, this is a classic example of dialectical strategy at work. Writing in Commentary magazine, Jerusalem Post editor David Bar-Illan exposed the clever strategy: "[Israeli] government spokesmen prefer to pretend that the killers are not operatives of the 'moderate' Arafat, supporter of the peace talks, but 'enemies of the peace process,' such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and PLO radicals... The not unreasonable assumption behind this charade is that the public might resent continued talks with proxies of the 'mainstream' PLO in Washington while its gunmen are killing Israelis back home."4
Just as the PLO does not represent palestinian or Arab interests, the "Islamic fundamentalists" are not religious in nature. Rather, all these organizations have been created, supported, and directed by the Communists, operating on orders emanating from Moscow.
The terrorist group Hezballah, and its official sponsor, the government of Iran, provide a case in point.
Because of media distortion, the Ayatollah Khomeini was seen in the west as a fanatic religious leader. But the Iraqi family of the Grand Ayatollah Muhsen Hakim-Tabataba'i, which in the 1960s and 1970s exercised leadership over the Shi'ite movement of Islam, opposed Khomeini so thoroughly that they worked closely with the Shah of Iran. Saddam Hussein, the Soviet-backed dictator of Iraq, murdered the family at his first opportunity, thereby eliminating Shi'ite opposition to Khomeini.5
Khomeini's revolutionary movement was known as "Islamic Marxism," a movement begun from within the Russian Bolshevik Party in 1916.6 During the 1970s, the Soviet Union mobilized its resources to organize a revolution in Iran, with Khomeini as its official leader. Khomeini's brother was serving time in prison as a member of the Tudeh Partythe Communist Party of Iran; Khomeini's intimate advisor, Sadegh Ghothzadeh, was an affiliate of the French and Italian Communist Parties. Soon the Soviets were broadcasting pro-Khomeini propaganda into Iran, while they began publishing a well-funded revolutionary magazine entitled Navid, meaning "Good News." KGB agents working among the 4,000 Soviet personnel in Iran coordinated the protests and riots, and the Tudeh Party, acting on Soviet orders, openly backed the "Islamic" revolution and created a broad coalition of the Left to support Khomeini.7
Moscow also mobilized the PLO to back Khomeini. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, led by self-proclaimed Marxist Leninist George Habash, supplied training and weapons to the Feda'iyin-e Khalq, the Iranian Islamic-Marxist terrorist group that began the revolution to overthrow the Shah. Meanwhile, Yasser Arafat's Fatah organization trained and armed the Mujahedin-e Khalq, another main pillar of Khomeini's revolution, and it trained future members of the Revolutionary Guards of Iran, including the Minister of the Guards later appointed by Khomeini.8
Once Khomeini seized power in Iran, Arafat brought a large delegation of PLO officials into the country, where "he was formally given the Israeli consulate building and, raising the Palestinian flag over it, opened the first PLO office, also appointing a PLO 'ambassador' to Iran."9 The Soviet Union and Communist China have since continued to arm Iran with weapons.
Khomeini immediately created Hezballah as an international terrorist wing of the PLO-trained Revolutionary Guards. Inside Iran, Hezbellah worked closely with Iranian Communist organizations in consolidating the regime's power. The terrorist training camps in Iran have been supervised by Mostafa Chamran Savehi, a follower of Trotskyite Communism who, as a student in Berkeley, California during the 1960s, founded such Islamic-Marxist groups as Red Shi'ism and the Muslim Students' Association of America. The instructors at the Iranian terrorist camps have been Communist experts from North Korea and Syria, as well as Iranians trained by the PLO and the Communist government of Iraq.10
The organizer of Hezballah in Pakistan and Lebanon, Abbas Zamani, was also trained by the PLO and has been identified as a probable agent of the KGB.11 In Lebanon, Hezballah's terrorist mastermind has been Immad Mugniyeh. For years Mugniyeh was a leading member of Yasser Arafat's Force 17, an arm of Fatah. When the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 forced the PLO to leave, Arafat had Mugniyeh and other members of Force 17 switch over to Hezballah, allowing these terrorists to remain in Lebanon. Mugniyeh quickly became the effective head of Hezballah, and has coordinated Hezballah-PLO terrorism to this day. On Arafat's orders, the PLO transfers weapons, money, and terrorist units to Hezballah, while Hezballah has provided intelligence and other logistical support to the PLOincluding helping PLO units infiltrate into Lebanon.12
In short, the "Islamic fundamentalists" are not religious at all, but are Communist fronts adopting a Muslim mask.
The "schism" between the PLO and "Islamic fundamentalists" has been staged as a clever ploy to force Israel into surrender. Now that Israel is indeed yielding to its implacable Communist enemies, it is only natural that terrorist attacks on Israeli and Jewish targets are being accelerated worldwide. By blaming the attacks on "extremists" who allegedly oppose the "peace process," the PLO can disavow the terror acts in which it participates, and can maintain an image of moderation for the West. In the face of this intensified pressure, Israel is likely to make concessions even faster than before. Watch for Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin to begin placing the remainder of the strategic West Bank, and even Jerusalem itself, on the bargaining table.
On the other hand, the financing and political pressure for the PLO takeover is coming almost entirely from the United States, and President Clinton is now accelerating the process. If Congress chose to stop the President, Israel could take back the West Bank and Gaza, and could soon destroy the PLO and its allies.
1 Parks, M., Los Angeles Times, "Rabin links Hezbollah to Argentine blast," SF Chronicle, 7-20-94, p. A10. 2 "Israeli embassy in London bombed," SF Chronicle, 7-27-94, pp. A1, A13. 3 Ibid. 4 Bar-Illan, D., "Israel's New Pollyannas," Commentary, Sept. 1993, p. 30. 5 Taheri, A., Holy Terror, Adler & Adler, Bethesda, MD, 1987, p. 163. 6 Ibid., p. 217. 7 Rees, J., "How Jimmy Carter betrayed the Shah," The Review of the News, 2-21-79, pp. 31-48. 8 Alexander, Y. and Sinai, J., Terrorism: The PLO Connection, Crane Russak, New York, 1989, pp. 72-73. 9 Ibid., p. 73. 10 Taheri, Op cit., pp. 77-79, 88-105. 11 Ibid., p. 177; Laffin, J., Holy War: Islam Fights, Grafton Books, London, 1988, p. 79. 12 Livingstone, N.C. and Halevy, D., Inside the PLO, William Morrow & Co., New York, 1990, pp. 267-275
Frankly, I think it's clearly overhead to suggest that Islamists are the newest incarnation of Communists. Communists are against any religion while Islamists always start "In the name of Allah...".
Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Qai'da, etc. are certainly religiously motivated and they take inspiration from 1400 Jihad waged by Islam on the non-Muslim world.
Certainly, at one point or the other Communists and Islamists had common interests. A number of the Western Leftists who hate the Western Civilization are supportive of Islamists. Nevertheless, Islamists are Islamists and they have a clearly distinct ideology from the Communist one.
You seem to forget I was the one who kept telling those supporting the Chechens' cause they were allied with al-Qaeda, and I received nothing but mocking from you and others.
"Frankly, I think it's clearly overhead to suggest that Islamists are the newest incarnation of Communists."
The Communists use Islamofascism to forward their marxist agenda. Neither ideology can win as long as their is individual liberty and freedom. It scares the bejeezus out of them.
That's why we have to defeat Americas left at every turn.
Gary, please. I never claimed that Chechen insurgents were anything but Jihadists. I pointed out that Russia employed ex-Islamic thugs like Kadyrovs (father and son) and other things against them, but I don't recall posting anything that supported Chechen Islamist cause. If you have any of my past posts in mind, you are welcome to dig it up and re-post it.
I did criticized Russian govm't approach to Chechen conflict for needlessly brutalizing locals and I stand by those comments, but I have 0 sympathy to any Jihadists, including Chechen ones.
If you have any post in mind where I "mocked" you, feel free to dig it up and I can go over it. If I were wrong, I would admit it.
Good find, GGG.
Well--if you read more on Islam, it's universalist ideology has overlaps with Communism. Permanent revolution till the world is under Communist rule and the Permanent Jihad until the World is under Islamic rule clearly come to mind.
Communism is obviously much younger ideology, but every totalitarian ideologies have common ingredients and that's why they quite often partner with each other to defeat their common enemies.
Thanks. I try.
On Islam and its Jihadist ideology, I would recomment the following books.
"Islamic Imperialism: A History", by Efraim Karsh
"Politically Incorrect guide to Islam [and the Crusades]", by Robert Spencer
"Islam Unveiled", by Robert Spencer
"The Legacy of Jihad", By Andrew Bostom.
Basically, Islam since its inception was an imperialist religion bent on the world domination. Muhammad in his farewell address proclaimed: "I was ordered to fight all men till they say there is no God but Allah".
Similar statements were issued by Saladin, Khomeini, etc.
Islamic Jihad long predates communism although communists and Islamists found common causes fighting against Western Civilization.
However, whenever Islamists come to power in a particular country, Communists are often among the first to be hanged, like after the Islamic revolution in Iran.
==I did criticized Russian govm't approach to Chechen conflict for needlessly brutalizing locals and I stand by those comments, but I have 0 sympathy to any Jihadists, including Chechen ones.
Let's not forget the apartment bombings Putin et al perpetrated against their own people and then blamed on the Chechens. Personally, I don't trust anything that goes on in Russia or Chechnya. I think the following from KGB defector Anatoly Golitsyn is worth considering re: Chechnya. There are no doubt genuine terrorists in Chechnya. Problem is, the Putin cabal (and their cohorts) have to be listed among them. Notice that Golitsyn predicts that the events in Chechnya would presage a leadership change in Russia--GGG
MEMO TO CIA FROM KGB DEFECTOR, ANATOLY GOLITSYN, 1 FEBRUARY 1995 (Taken from his book, Perestroika Deception, Edward Harle Limited, 1998, ISBN 1-899798-03-X, pp 224-225).
THE EVENTS IN CHECHNYA EXPLAINED IN TERMS OF RUSSIAN STRATEGY
The events in Chechnya, like the events of August 1991 and October 1993, have been deliberately staged largely for Western consumption by the Kremlin strategists in the pursuit of their objectives. One indication of this is the timing of the events. Chechnya declared its independence from Russian in 1991. Yet for three years the Russians did not react, other than ineffectually. Why did they do so only at the end of 1994?
Independence for Chechnya is a wholly artificial concept. Although my own sympathies are for the Chechens, their territory has no direct access to the outside world The Chechens lost half their numbers in exile under Stalin. By 1994 50% of the population of Chechnya were ethnic Russians. Russians control the pipeline to Noverossiisk, giving them powerful leverage in the area. Given these circumstances the idea of a serious Chechen independence struggle is a non-starter.
Equally artificial is the Russian choice of method for dealing with Chechen aspirations. The Yeltsin Government inherited over 70 years worth of Soviet experience of dealing politically and militarily with nationalist opposition in the Republics. Yet it chose to wield an enormous military sledgehammer to crack a small nut in Chechnya, when the only rational way to handle the situation would have been the path of negotiation leading to a peaceful settlement as in the case of Tatarstan.
In earlier Memoranda I suggested that the confrontation between Yeltsin and his then Vice-President Rutskoi and the parliamentary Speaker Khasbulatova confrontation which culminated in the televised bombardment of the White House in Moscow [a new kind of Reichstag Fire: see page 163] was contrived by the strategists with Rutskoi and Khasbulatov playing the role of provocateurs. The release and amnesty granted to Rutskoi and Khasbulatov after a ludicrously truncated period of imprisonment was consistent with their having played such a provocative role.
Frequent press mentions during December 1994, in the Chechnyan context, of Khasbulatov, himself a Chechen, provided a possible pointer to provocation there: he could well have played a role behind the scenes as an advisor to the Chechen Fighters. Another pointer to the likelihood of provocation ins Dzhokhar Dudayevs own background. Like Shevardnadze in Georgia and Aliyev in Azerbaijan, Dudayev is a former Communist. He is also a former Soviet Air Force General.
The conduct of the Chechnyan operation raises a number of questions. For instance: why, given the vast military and secret police experience at their disposal, did the Russians choose to dispatch in to Chechnya in the first place, inexperienced young Soviet army draftees who put up a poor performance in front of Western television cameras? Why were the Russian special forces who, for example, captured General Pal Maleter during the Hungarian upheaval of 1956, too inept to capture any of the Chechen leaders? How did the Chechen Fighters come to be so well armed? Why did the army and Ministry of the Interior troops not take immediate action to surround the city of Grozny and cut off the one route which remained available for the movement of Chechen Fighters and supplies in and out of the city centre?
Why, with their huge preponderance of firepower, did it take the Russians so long to capture the Presidential Palace, the symbolic centre of Chechen resistance? Why, before the Palace fell, were its Chechen defenders, according to their own accounts, allowed to leave, taking their Russian prisoners with them, so that they were free to continue the struggle elsewhere? Why was the bombardment of buildings in the centre of Grozny conducted with what Chancellor Kohl described as senseless madness? And why, as the Chechen fighters took to the hills, was a local guerrilla leader willing to receive a Western journalist in his own home in a mountain village without disguise, providing his full name and a history of his family? [The New York Times, 20 January 1995].
I am skeptical about much of the Western press and television coverage of Chechnya. In the first place, coverage was restricted by various factors. For example, Western access to Russian troops engaged in the operation was severely limited according to John Dancey, the NBC News correspondent in Moscow, speaking on the Donahue-Pozner Program on 12 January 1995. The bombardment itself was a powerful disincentive to intrusive journalism, and reporters obviously cannot be blamed for their inability to provide a coherent account of the fighting which took place in the centre of Grozny.
The important general point is the Western press and TV representatives reported the events as Westerners observing what they took to be a real conflict in a free society. It is not their fault that they were not briefed concerning the possibilities of provocation along Communist lines. Hence they were not looking for evidence of mock confrontations, faked casualties of planted information. The prominent Western reporters themselves, though courageous, appeared young and lacking in experience as war correspondents.
Nevertheless, some revealing items surfaced in the coverage. For example, the New York Times reported on 15 January that some of the least serious of the Chechen fighters would parade before the cameras at the Minutka traffic circle. That report prompted questions as to how many serious Chechen fighters were actually involved in action against Russian troops. Another report insisted that the last Western reporters had left the area of the Presidential Palace, where the murderous fighting was concentrated and that Chechen fighters were no longer able to move easily to the south of the city in order to brief journalists about what was happening. It seems therefore that there were no Western eyewitnesses of the final battle for the Palace, and that much of the evidence on the fighting was derived from Chechen fighters, whose reliability the reporters were no position to assess.
Two Western reporters were killed during these events. Though these deaths were reported as accidental, the fact is that the Russians would have no compunction about eliminating Western journalists if they thought they might be liable to expose their provocation. It was no coincidence that 40 Russian rockets were targeted at, and hit, Minutka Circlewhich up to that moment had been favoured for meetings between journalists and fighters. Almost certainly, Russian officers who told journalists that they had arrived in Grozny without maps were briefed to tell this tall story. A Russian General who was shown on television going through photographs taken by reporters, said the pictures they had taken were useful because they helped him to assess what was going on in Grozny. In all likelihood, he was checking to make sure that the photographs taken by the reporters conveyed the images the Russian wanted conveyed for international public consumption.
The spectacular and continuous bombardment of buildings in the centre of Grozny, many of them probably empty, struck me as deliberately designed to monopolise television cameras, replicating in many ways the Reichstag Fire bombardment of the White House in Moscow in October 1993.
Inevitably, the detonation of so much high explosive was accompanied by casualties. But the actual number of casualties was probably limited by the departure of many inhabitants of the centre of Grozny before the bombardment started in earnest. As early as 7 January 1995, the Red Cross reported that 350,000 people had fled from the fighting, a figure equivalent to over 80% of the population of Grozny. It would be interesting to know to what extent the authorities encouraged or arranged the evacuation of central Grozny before the bombardment began.
Verification of casualty number is the most difficult problem. According to Dudayev, cited in The New York Times of 12 January, 18,000 Chechens had already died, a figure which the reporter said seems exaggerated. Casualty figures for the Russian army quoted in The New York Times of 17 January varied from 400 to 800 killed. Again there is no knowing whether these figures were exaggerated or minimized. The Russian authorities are reported to have delayed the admission of European observers interested in verifying numbers. Even if they were eventually to arrive on the scene, such observers would be unlikely to be able to check the numbers allegedly buried in mass graves. Total casualties will probably never be known with any certainty. From the Kremlin strategists point of view, casualties are inevitable during this kind of operation and a necessary price to pay of the attainment of defined strategic objectives.
I have no sympathy toward Putin regime, but the fact is that Chechen insurgents are ideological brothers of Al-Qaida, Hamas and others is certain. Basayev, before meeting Allah, was continuously referring to Allah and Jihad in his interviews. So ideologically they are brothers in the common struggle against infidels. Infidels are often stupid and use Jihadists in struggle with other Infidels, but in the end the Infidels are weakening themselves by doing so.
Well--I wouldn't wonder into conspiracy theory. The leader of Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Khomeini called USSR and USA as great "Satanic Superpowers". The Soviet Embassy was besieged alongside American one in the 1979 Iranian Islamic Revolution .
Jihadist and Communist interests once in a while overlap, but fundamentally it's two quite different (albeit both totalitarian) ideologies.
==Jihadist and Communist interests once in a while overlap, but fundamentally it's two quite different (albeit both totalitarian) ideologies.
It was the Soviet Union and the Communist PLO that put Khomeini in power. If you recall, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan with Iran's blessing. Here is a quote from "The Roots of Islamic Terror" posted above (I think it is debatable as to whether or not the Soviets were caught off guard by the Iranian Revolution, but everything else is spot on IMO):
Thought you guys might be interested in this thread--GGG
One last (and very important) point. Russia and Red China are using Iran for the exact same purposes as before the so-called "collapse" of Communism.
"Having found Islam on their own as adults, many fundamentalists are ignorant of their own history and traditions"
As far as Jihad is concerned, fundamentalists know their traditions perfectly well. Koran, Sunnah and other Islamic holy books are full of verses like "Slay infidels wherever you find them" and other proclamations of permanent war against Infidels until the world is under Islamic rule.
You won't find analogous proclamations in the Bible. Bible commands ancient Israelis to take the land of Canaan and drive its pagan inhabitants out, but Canaan is a limited geographic territory. There is no proclamations in the Old Testament (or Torah) to wage permanent war on infidels around the world in perpetuity.
Christians are commanded to seek converts around the world by peaceful means. Certainly Christian powers throughout centuries did converted their populations to Christianity at swordpoint and waged ruthless wars on each other. However, there was no justifications for that behavior in the Bible. Koran, in contrast, is full of justifications for murdering, enslaving or discriminating against Infidels.'
So in this case, the Islamic fundamentalists are right on target. They maybe ignorant of other traditions, but as far as Jihad is concerned, they are faithful followers of Muhammad.