Alert icon
We're changing our privacy policy. This stuff matters.  Learn more  Dismiss

CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR - make that Charlie Wilson's Whopper

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
18,137
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Ratings have been disabled for this video.

Uploaded by on Dec 20, 2007

Brief description below. For complete story go to:
http://alternet.org/story/71286

In this short by documentary filmmaker, Melissa Roddy, she counters mis-information presented in the movie CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR. The film includes interviews with first-hand participants in events surrounding the 1980s war against the Soviet Union, including Senator Gordon Humphrey (R-NH, Ret.); former Special Envoy to Afghanistan, Edmund McWilliams; Prof. Tom Johnson of the U.S. Naval Post Graduate School and CIA Chief of Station to Pakistan Milt Bearden.

The movie, CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR, states only that Ahmad Shah Massoud was the recipient of U.S. assistance during the 1980s.

In fact, Congressman Charlie Wilson and the CIA recklessly supported a ferociously anti-American fundamentalist - Gulbaddin Hekmatyar - during the 1980s and early 90s. Ahmad Shah Massoud received a mere trickle of U.S. support during this period, and he was well known to be the most deserving. But then -- unlike Gulbaddin Hekmatyar -- Ahmad Shah Massoud was never involved with Osama bin Laden. Hence the basis for the movie's distortion.

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

License:

Standard YouTube License

Link to this comment:

Share to:

Uploader Comments (1arianndarien)

  • This was interesting, however revisionist. Most know that Massoud was The Man in Afghanistan, and he would have been the right guy to work with. Remember as you watch this video. The movie does not suggest that Massoud was supported in any great degree and the book addresses this situation in detail. Remember, Humphrey at the time was accusing the CIA of not doing enough in the way of support for the Freedom Fighters, and also made accusations that the weapons the CIA did provide were limited.

  • The book was poorly sourced. It seems Crile spoke with Wilson, Avrokotos and Bearden only. 2 people have told me they were misrepresented in it. Wilson worked for Pakistan, which was and still is the problem for Afghanistan. If the Durrand Line is renegotiated, they fear Pashtuns will choose independence or reunite with Afgh. This goes double in Balochistan, where Paks fear losing the oil and gas. My film is told only by 1st hand participants, so people will know its info is reliable.

Top Comments

  • this is the best documentry, cuz masood was independent us ignores him cuz he was not listening to their all advise. on the other hand pakisss wanted to rule afghanistan and they needed someone just like hekmatyar to obey thier orders.

  • "I live in LA."

    Hurray for you! What do you want? A cookie?

    I have lived in LA for 15 years. In all that time, I've never seen a single "movie star" in a "neighborhood coffee shop."

see all

All Comments (141)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • The Caspian story is a red herring. Like the Taliban & OBL, the oil story is in Pakistan. To learn more, watch my series, "Conflict of Interest - Patterns in Chaos," Parts 1-3.

  • To "oddballs," sorry I'm answering your question so tardily. You're on the right track re the motivations of Wilson & co., but looking in the wrong direction. The Cao

  • The movie never claimed that the CIA supported only or even mostly Massoud. They alluded to the fact that they were the more militarily proficient groups and should be a focal point for training. What do the makers of this movie think the intention was- "We must keep Hekmatyar out of the conversation! As we all know Gulbaddin Hekmatyar is a well-known name in every American household so we should downplay his role and his connections to OBL so we don't expose the blowback from these covert ops!"

  • These people have their own axe to grind.

    I just finished George Criles book this morning... my third reading.

    Gust and Mike should give their account.

    To bad Charlie's no longer with us....

    As the Zen master said: "we'll see"

    J.C.

  • @1arianndarien I only got to see this movie recently and I was wondering what you thought the real reason was for the USA and Britain supporting the Afghans. At the time Britain gave them old WW2 Lea Enfield rifles and lied to Britain on TV saying that the Afghans made them in sheds. I look at the fact that Wilson represented Texas and hence Texas oil interests in the Caspian and hence Afghanistan.

    Hence we are there now and changed a government to one we can deal with in a Capitalist way.

  • lol i search up how to make a burger king whopper and i got this

  • The ultimate credit should go to Ronald Reagan who wasn't afraid to let the Soviets know what America's intentions in Afghanistan were. Without the blanket permission from Reagan to act in Afghanistan, there would be no Charlie Wilson or Gust Avrakotos.

  • Khurasan Zameen (stained with tribal name of Afghanistan by its enemies) will always produce sons like Massoud - defending it to the last breath - against the arrogance and kniving schemes of both internal and external enemies.

  • "The point is, this project is not about trying to get close to Tom Hanks."

    I understand & even appreciate your stated goals for the film. It just doesn't come off that way.

View all Comments »
Loading...

0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more