Question about terrorism...?

Question

Why is it that Ronald Reagan and others in the American administration frequently called the Afghan Mujahideen freedom fighters during their war against the Soviet Union, yet twenty years later when a new generation of Afghan men are fighting against what they perceive to be a regime installed by foreign powers, their attacks are labelled terrorism by George W. Bush?

Also since all of the terrorists are Saudi Arabian, and none of them were Afghani, or Iraqi, who come we haven't invaded Saudi Arabia. I honestly would like to know, I am open to all opionions.

how come. sorry I forgot to spell check.

Answer 1

In no way should the Afghan Mujahideen be glorified as "freedom fighters." They were brutal terrorists, for the most part. Reagan was either overly optimistic about their virtue, or just trying to gain support for the war. I think it is a combination of both, with more emphasis on the latter. However, let's not oversimplify in comparing the Afghan men who were fighting then, and those who are fighting now. Their attacks definitely are terrorism. Keep in mind that the former regime, the one we displaced, the Taliban, was one of the most repressive and supportive of al-Quaeda. They DIRECTLY supported Osama bin Laden and many of those now fighting were trained by him. Also, many fighting there have come from other countries, notably Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, to fight against American and allied forces. But they don't limit their attacks to soldiers. These are not patriots, they are evil men.

But in defense of Reagan, let's look at some of the actions of the government which the Mujahideen were fighting against (and against the Soviet government, which I'll get to in a minute).


"The rebellion started in earnest only in 1978, after the Taraki government initiated a series of reforms aimed at "uprooting feudalism" in the Afghan society[10]. These reforms introduced some progressist changes, but they were enforced in a brutal and clumsy way[11].

The government responded with great force to unrest. An estimated 20,000 prisoners were trucked into Pul-i-Charki prison outside of Kabul and from there to a `firing range` for summary execution. Between April 1978 and the Soviet invasion of December 1979, an estimated 27,000 political prisoners were executed, including many village mullahs and headmen. Other members of the traditional elite, the religious establishment and intelligentsia fled the country. [12]"

This was by no means, government of the people, by the people. It was a brutal Marxist regime.

Furthermore, in defense of Reagan, keep in mind that we were engaged in a global struggle against the Soviet Union. A lot of people have criticized Reagan, Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II, for their unmistakable condemnations of this "evil empire" as Reagan liked to call it. Was it an evil empire? You betcha. Look at their repression of freedom of speech, religion, the right to bear arms, to assemble, private ownership of land, etc., and their brutality during the Second World War, which was perhaps even greater than anything the Nazis did. What about their support of evil dictatorships all around the world (Cuba, anyone?). The Soviet Union was trying to spread its influence, and they might have succeeded if not for the direct intervention of the US and Britain, and the courageous criticism of people like the Pope.
Of course, this is something that needs a lot more space to discuss. But some of the answers on here are just so incredibly oversimplistic. I worry that kids today are just trying to get facts too quickly, and ignoring what actually happened. A clever or pithy comeback seems to suffice where real investigation of the facts and history is necessary. No, I'm not arguing that Reagan and Bush are saints. Personally, I can't wait to see a new president. But we need to cut Bush some slack. He is not the devil incarnate, as Chavez would have you think. These people fighting US forces in Afghanistan ARE terrorists and if we lose the struggle against people like them, we are going to lose our freedom and everything we hold dear.
I've included some excerpts below from an article on Wikipedia about the Taliban, and those who are now fighting us there.

"Foreign powers, including the United States, were at first supportive of the Taliban in hopes it would serve as a force to restore order in Afghanistan after years of division into corrupt, lawless warlord fiefdoms. The U.S. government, for example, made no comment when the Taliban captured Herat in 1995 and expelled thousands of girls from schools.[60] These hopes faded as it began to engaged in warlord practices of rocketing unarmed civilians, targeting ethnic groups (primarily of Hazaras) and restricting the rights of women.[61] In late 1997, American Secretary of State Madeleine Albright began to distance the U.S. from the Taliban and the next year the American-based Unocal oil company withdrew from a major deal with the Taliban regime concerning an oil pipeline.

In early August of 1998 the Taliban's difficulties in relations with foreigner became much more serious. After attacking the city of Mazar Taliban forces killed several thousand civilians and 10 Iranian diplomats and intelligence officers in the Iranian consulate. Alleged radio intercepts indicate Mullah Omar personally approved the killings. [62] The Iranian government was incensed and a "full-blown regional crisis" ensued with Iran mobilizing 200,000 regular troops, [63] though war was averted.

A day before the capture of Mazar, affiliates of Taliban guest Osama bin Laden bombed two U.S. embassies in Africa killing 224 and wounding 4500 mostly African victims. The United States responded by launching cruise missiles attacks on suspected terrorists camps in Afghanistan killing over 20 though failing to kill bin Laden or even many al-Qaeda. Mullah Omar condemned the missile attack and American President Bill Clinton.[64] Saudi Arabia expelled the Taliban envoy in Saudi Arabia in protest over the Taliban's refusal to turnover bin Laden and allegedly after Mullah Omar insulted the Saudi royal family. [65] In mid-October the UN Security Council voted unanimously to ban commercial aircraft flights to and from Afghanistan and freeze its bank accounts world wide.[66]



In 1996, Osama bin Laden moved to Afghanistan from Sudan. When the Taliban came to power, bin Laden was able to forge an alliance between the Taliban and his Al-Qaeda organization. It is understood that al-Qaeda-trained fighters known as the 055 Brigade were integrated with the Taliban army between 1997 and 2001. The Taliban and bin Laden had very close connections, which were formalized by a marriage of one of bin Laden's sons to Omar's daughter. During Osama bin Laden's stay in Afghanistan, he had helped finance the Taliban.[79] Al-Qaeda is thought to have played at least a major part in the suicide bombing assassination of the Taliban's most effective military opponent, the legendary mujahideen commander and Northern Alliance leader Ahmad Shah Massoud shortly before 9/11 2001.

After the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, Osama bin Laden and several al Qaeda members were indicted in U.S. criminal court.[80] The Taliban protected Osama bin Laden from extradition requests by the U.S., variously claiming that bin Laden had "gone missing" in Afghanistan,[81] or that Washington "cannot provide any evidence or any proof" that bin Laden is involved in terrorist activities and that "without any evidence, bin Laden is a man without sin... he is a free man."[82]Evidence against bin Laden included courtroom testimony and satellite phone records but no physical 'proof' at the time linked bin Laden to allegations made by US intelligence and government channels.[83][84] Bin Laden in turn, praised the Taliban as the "only Islamic government" in existence, and lauded Mullah Omar for his destruction of idols like the Buddhas of Bamiyan. [85]

The Taliban continued to harbor bin Laden after the September 11, 2001 attacks, protesting his innocence.[86]

As of 2007, the insurgency, in the form of a Taliban guerrilla war, continues. However, the Pashtun tribal group, with over 40 million members, has a long history of resistance to occupation forces in the region so the Taliban themselves may comprise only a part of the insurgency. Most of the post-invasion Taliban fighters are new recruits, drawn again from that region's madrassas. The more traditional village schools are the primary source of the new fighters.

Before the summer 2006 offensive began, indications existed that NATO peacekeepers in Afghanistan had lost influence and power to other groups, including potentially the Taliban. The most notable sign was the rioting in May after a street accident in the city of Kabul. The continued support from tribal and other groups in Pakistan, the drug trade and the small number of NATO forces, combined with the long history of resistance and isolation, led to the observation that Taliban forces and leaders are surviving and will have some influence over the future of Afghanistan. A new introduction is suicide attacks and terrorist methods not used in 2001."

(Note that these suicide attacks target civilians as well as soldiers. I'd call that terrorism.)

Final thought: Let's learn from history and avoid oversimplification. War is an evil thing and should be avoided as long as possible. But sometimes it does become necessary. And let's not hesitate in our condemnation of terrorists, wherever they may be.

Answer 2

Israel has been described by many around the world as a 'terrorist state'. One of the reasons for this is that they are the only nation in the world who openly say they use torture on prisoners. Their record on human rights is appalling and it's true that, from it's very inception, Israeli terrorists have been lionised by the Zionist state. It is clearly hypocritical to call the Palestinians terrorists and claim that Israelis are merely defending their country. It's not their country. The Zionist state of Israel has to be smashed if Jew and Arab have any chance whatsoever of living together in peace. One or two people on here need to read up a bit in history.

Answer 3

Because they were hoping the American people would not pay attention to that fact and they needed a 'boogey man" in order to make their Imperialistic agenda stick. This is a war for oil conquest plain and simple. Why do you think Bush forgot about Bin Laden? isn't he best friends with the family? HMMMM?

Answer 4

Did you forget about September 11th 2001 by any chance they attack us on American soil before we ever even talked about going to war. Also the Taliban wasn't strongly set up in Afghanistan at that time.

Answer 5

Reagan et al, used the mujahideen against the Russians. Now they no longer find them convenient.

Answer 6

Words are weapons in the mouths of their users. Don't accept other people's characterizations without question, or you will be no better than the millions of suckers who blindly accepted Reagan's simplistic characterizations or who blindly accept Bush's.

Answer 7

Politics and a course in such will enlighten you. You'd be amazed at how badly the politics, as they apply to the Middle East, pop back and forth.

_()_

Answer 8

We supplied Osama with weapons as our ally back then....

He has turned on us since........

He is a terrorist...plain & simple....and I fully support George Bush and the war

Answer 9

Politicians shift definitions as ideological reasons to go to war change.

Answer 10

We didn't like the USSR. Their enemies were our friends. Now we don't like Afghanistan.

It's very simple. Rational? Maybe not, but simple.

Answer 11

Because they were fighting the Soviets back then. The enemy of my enemy...