If they were freedom fighters then...could they be freedom fighters now?
IF the afghani situation needed repair why were the US at that time against the modernization of afghanistan by the russians?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujaheddin
2007-12-09 23:34:18 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Call it hypocrisy my friend. The US will always support anyone who obeys Washington's bidding. It doesn't matter whether these people are dictators or brutal murderers. Just look how the US is supporting Pakistan's Musharraf now, regardless of his brutal rule over his country.
The fact is that the Soviets were fighting exactly the same group of people that the US are fighting right this very moment in Afghanistan. The only difference is that the US called them freedom fighters back then, while now the US calls them terrorists. But the tactics employed by these fighters are nothing new. Their use of suicide bombers and civilians as human shields were the same tactics they employed against the Soviets. The irony is that the US considered such tactics by these fighters as just and legitimate back then, while now these same tactics are considered as terrorist actions.
To the Taliban mujahedeens, there is no distinction between the Soviets and the Americans. Both are viewed as invaders and occupiers of their country, and they will continue to fight to resist any foreign occupation, as what they did in the past.
2007-12-10 19:10:24 · answer #1 · answered by Botsakis G 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They were, freedom fighters against the Russians who were planning on taking over the country and turning it into part of the Soviet Union with a puppet Government.
Do not confuse the "mujaheddin" a loose coalition of Afghani warlords,(who originally came together because the Soviet occupation was causing problems to their drug running business) and the Taliban, religious students and teaches who got a taste for power and decided to take control after the Russians left.
The mujaheddin have been fighting the taliban and Alqueda before the US and its Allies got involved in the war on terror.
They, the mujaheddin, have no love for Muslin Fundamentalists as this would detract from the drug running business which most warlords and their clans are actively involved in.
2007-12-10 00:31:54 · answer #2 · answered by conranger1 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because he knew more about the situation than you do.
Russia was trying to run Afghanistan via a puppet government and make it part of their empire. The Mujaheddin were a loose coalition of Afghan who - for various reasons - opposed this.
After the Russians left Afghanistan the Taliban fought the Mujaheddin and conquered most of the country. The remainder of the Mujaheddin re-formed as the 'Northern Alliance' and overthrew the Taliban with US support in 2001/2002.
Maybe you should change your avatar from 'unbiased' to 'uninformed.'
2007-12-10 01:38:09 · answer #3 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, it is the Constitution at the National Archives in Washington, D. C. Post-Script: Great, Libs hate the Constitution, or think it is a relic, and give me thumbs down. Also, Leslie Goudy put a link down below about Reagan that is suppose to look like a Wikipedia link - don't be fooled, it's not - just liberal b.s. But that site has a quote from Obama, talking about his bed-side prayer: "A hope that we can live with one another in a way that reconciles the beliefs of each with the good of all."
2016-05-22 11:13:00 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Since you lack any knowledge on that time let me boil it down for you.
Soviets invade Afghanistan to get more country under their controll and as a jumping base to the middle east.
USA invades cause slimebag Taliban refuse to give up Osama after 9/11.
If you can't see the difference, any other adult discussion would be useless.
2007-12-10 00:13:34 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
If you agree with them or it is politically expediate (such as they are fighting someone you do not like), they are "freedom fighters; and any terrorist acts are understandable due to the desperate nature of thier cause and the evil of thier foe.
If you don't agree with them; they become terrorists and any cruel acts become proof of thier evil.
RR calling them "freedom fighters" has as much to do with Afganistan as calling them "freedom fries". It was all about the USSR and the US.
2007-12-09 23:45:26 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Communism. Period.
2007-12-09 23:46:05 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
"DIVIDE & RULE" policy.
2007-12-09 23:38:14 · answer #8 · answered by Din2600 2 · 1⤊ 4⤋