http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312226,00.html

this an articale about a soldier who reinlisted for the army after be wounded in an IED attack that killed some of his fellow soldiers. this man is stronger then alot of people i have met. just thought maybe you guys would like to know about him.

Keep in mind that American soldiers are NOT fighting against another army.
They are fighting Iraqi civiliants basically.

You will make a fine brain-washed soldier once you graduate from high school.

you are right they arent fighting an army. but are wrong on civilians. they are fighting terrorists and insurgents. the terrorists and insurgents could care less about ANY human life, including their fellow muslims. which is why they try to dress and remain in public places so that when they are killed, cilivians will also be killed

Technically the Americans are the insurgents, while the people fighting them are the counter insurgents.

But who cares about truth.

no, technically the Americans would be the occupiers/invaders. the insurgents are those in iraq trying to use force against lawful govt

This is what every occupying country says about people who fight for their country against foreign invaders.
If you look at the WWII, then you'll find out that the Nazis used to call the Soviet partizans... terrorists and insurgents.

By the way, US used to call the Taliban people the freedomfighters when they fought the Soviet army... But today the same Taliban is called a terrorist organization by the same USA.

See how it works?

Although there is no denying our tacit support of OBL against the Soviets, politics, as they say, makes strange bedfellows.

But to say that we supported the Taliban is a misnomer. The Taliban didn't come to power until well AFTER the Soviets vacated Afghanistan. And al Qaeda also wasn't formed until after the Soviets turned tail there. The US and UK did offer clandestine support to the Northern Alliance and Shah Masood to fight the Soviets and then the Taliban as early as 1981.

So I don't believe we ever called the Taliban (or al Qaeda) freedomfighters as such.

If you make such statement than all it means is that you are not old enough, WindyCity.




Here's a quote from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library web site:
"President Reagan meeting with Afghan Freedom Fighters to discuss Soviet atrocities in Afghanistan."



Source - The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archive...hs/atwork.html




Proclamation 5034—Afghanistan Day, 1983

By the President of the United States of America, 21 March 1983

The tragedy of Afghanistan continues as the valiant and courageous Afghan freedom fighters [The Taliban] persevere in standing up against the brutal power of the Soviet invasion and occupation. The Afghan people are struggling to reclaim their freedom, which was taken from them when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December of 1979.

In this three-year period the Soviet Union has been unable to subjugate Afghanistan. The Soviet forces are pitted against an extraordinary people who, in their determination to preserve the character of their ancient land, have organized an effective and still spreading country-wide resistance. The resistance of the Afghan freedom fighters is an example to all the world of the invincibility of the ideals we in this country hold most dear, the ideals of freedom and independence.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/278.html




WindyCity, maybe you are not old enough, but you can do your own research and you will see that the US (the Ronald Reagan administration and the CIA) did support the Afghanistan's Mujahideen fighters, the TALIBAN that is.


Foreign involvement and aid to the Mujahideen

United States President Jimmy Carter had accepted the view that "Soviet aggression" could not be viewed as an isolated event of limited geographical importance but had to be contested as a potential threat to the Persian Gulf region. The uncertain scope of the final objective of Moscow in its sudden southward plunge made the American stake in an independent Pakistan all the more important.

After the Soviet deployment, Pakistan's military ruler General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq started accepting financial aid from the Western powers to aid the Mujahideen. In 1981, following the election of United States President Ronald Reagan, aid for the Mujahideen through Zia's Pakistan significantly increased, mostly due to the efforts of Texas Congressman Charlie Wilson and CIA officer Gust Avrakotos.

The United States, the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia became major financial contributors, the United States donating "$600 million in aid per year, with a matching amount coming from the Gulf states."

The People's Republic of China also sold Type 69 RPGs to Mujahideen in co-operation with the CIA, as did Egypt with assault rifles. Of particular significance was the donation of American-made FIM-92 Stinger anti-aircraft missile systems, which increased aircraft losses of the Soviet Air Force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan



Afghan Mujahideen with american Stinger missiles



In Afghanistan the basic 5-mile-range Stinger missile downed over 270 Soviet aircraft (a 79% combat success rate), and helped to stop air assault operations and force Soviet withdrawal.

http://www.videofact.com/cold_war/af...ganistan7.html

The FIM-92 Stinger is a man portable infra-red homing surface-to-air missile developed in the United States and used by all the U.S. armed services, with whom it entered service in 1981.

The CIA supplied nearly 500 Stingers (some sources claim 1500-2000) to the Mujahideen guerrillas fighting Soviet forces in Afghanistan during the Soviet war in Afghanistan in the 1980s, where they were used quite successfully.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger

Believe me, I am more than old enough to remember. I'm just a few ticks from the half century mark.

My point is that we did not fund the Taleban since they (as THE Taleban) didn't exist until the 90's. I stated very clearly that we indeed did offer support to various groups in Afghanistan, some elements of which went on to form the Taleban. But direct aid to the Taleban as the governing body of Afghanistan, no.

And your quote from Ronald Reagan's speech above has [The Taliban] inserted. Reagan did NOT use that term in his speech.

Taliban timeline:

From that great Historian Oprah

From what I would consider a slightly more reputable SOURCE

So I guess my point is we did support some who later came back to severely bite us in the hind quarters. But using the phrase "used to call the Taliban people the freedomfighters when they fought the Soviet army" confuses the actual timelines. And the Taliban was just one of several of the "mujahadeens" to emerge from the void the Soviets left behind. Support was given to numerous groups, others of which would have likely been a little more receptive to Western ways, and opposed the Taleban throughout the late 90's. Many consider the assassination of Northern Alliance leader Shah Masood two days prior to 9/11 a precursor to the mission that came two days later. He was felt to be too sympathetic to moderate (understand how stringent moderate can be to us kuffars, as compared to what moderate means to a sharia sheik) forms of Islam and the west.