Topic: Charlie Hebdo massacres. One year on.

[So… Howard Philips]

Checks username - yep, you certainly can!

The idea that islamist ideology cares even at all about Palestinians doesn't really bear out at all though, does it? Let alone linking the rise of islamist terrorism in the past couple of decades to a particular period of the PLOs existence in the mid 90s. Any evidence to support this?

I suppose there are many causes for Islamic fundamentalism but I'd suggest that two of the drivers were the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and, also in 1979, the siege of the Great Mosque in Mecca.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Mosque_seizure

The siege at the Great Mosque came around through a mix of politics and a belief that the House of Saud's ways were anti Islamic. How much of the financial support the Saudis gave to the Afghan mujaheddin was as a result of placating their own religious wild men is worth considering.

[Yorkykopite]

Because the reasons are more complex than simply "they're just evil"

No one is saying that of course. That's just a figment of your imagination.

[Red-Soldier]

I suppose there are many causes for Islamic fundamentalism but I'd suggest that two of the drivers were the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and, also in 1979, the siege of the Great Mosque in Mecca.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Mosque_seizure

The siege at the Great Mosque came around through a mix of politics and a belief that the House of Saud's ways were anti Islamic. How much of the financial support the Saudis gave to the Afghan mujaheddin was as a result of placating their own religious wild men is worth considering.

Yep.  And we helped arm and train the Mujahideen (Taliban) to fight them.  Good Taliban when fighting the Soviets, bad Taliban a few years later 

[DerKaiser]

Yep.  And we helped arm and train the Mujahideen (Taliban) to fight them.  Good Taliban when fighting the Soviets, bad Taliban a few years later 

Not true. It is correct that some of those who called themselves mujahid would later fight under the Taliban; however, It is a gross simplification to say these groups were the same. The Mujahideen was comprised of many groups with differing ethnic, religious and political backgrounds. The Taliban started as a native Pashtun movement helped along by Pakistani support alone. The two most significant factions of the mujahid, those of Massoud and Hekmatayr (the man who received the lion's share of American support), were in fact bitter enemies of the Taliban. Massoud died at the hands of a Taliban suicide bomber.

That is what frustrates me with widely spread theories like this. They frame Islamic fundamentalism as being part of a 'blowback' that is entirely the West's fault.

[Sangria]

Not true. It is correct that some of those who called themselves mujahid would later fight under the Taliban; however, It is a gross simplification to say these groups were the same. The Mujahideen was comprised of many groups with differing ethnic, religious and political backgrounds. The Taliban started as a native Pashtun movement helped along by Pakistani support alone. The two most significant factions of the mujahid, those of Massoud and Hekmatayr (the man who received the lion's share of American support), were in fact bitter enemies of the Taliban. Massoud died at the hands of a Taliban suicide bomber.

That is what frustrates me with widely spread theories like this. They frame Islamic fundamentalism as being part of a 'blowback' that is entirely the West's fault.

Ghost Wars, wasn't it?

[Red-Soldier]

Not true. It is correct that some of those who called themselves mujahid would later fight under the Taliban; however, It is a gross simplification to say these groups were the same. The Mujahideen was comprised of many groups with differing ethnic, religious and political backgrounds. The Taliban started as a native Pashtun movement helped along by Pakistani support alone. The two most significant factions of the mujahid, those of Massoud and Hekmatayr (the man who received the lion's share of American support), were in fact bitter enemies of the Taliban. Massoud died at the hands of a Taliban suicide bomber.

That is what frustrates me with widely spread theories like this. They frame Islamic fundamentalism as being part of a 'blowback' that is entirely the West's fault.

Not sure where I stated it's "entirely the West's fault???"  Perhaps a single sentence was an oversimplification.

I was just highlighting that it's a very complex issue with many facets.

The mujahideen were at first poorly equipped, and they remained decentralized throughout the war. Holding most of the countryside, they used mainly animal transport against Soviet motor transport. The quality of their arms and combat organization gradually improved, however, as a result of experience and the large quantity of arms and other war matériel shipped to the rebels, via Pakistan, by the United States and other countries. The Haqqani network, coordinated by a prominent commander of the mujahideen, became a key instrument of this foreign assistance. The mujahideen also received aid from sympathetic Muslims throughout the world, and an indeterminate number of Muslim volunteers—popularly termed “Afghan-Arabs,” regardless of their ethnicity—traveled from all parts of the world to join their war effort. These foreign volunteers coordinated among themselves and with Muslims in their homelands through a network of their own, known as al-Qaeda (Arabic: al-Qāʿidah, “the Base”). In 1986 the mujahideen’s acquisition from the United States and Great Britain of substantial numbers of shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles enabled the mujahideen to challenge Soviet control of the air—a significant factor in the Soviets’ withdrawal early in 1989.

Despite their common cause throughout the war, the mujahideen remained fragmented politically. After the war ended, a short-lived transitional government was established, sponsored by several factions of the mujahideen. Pres. Burhanuddin Rabbani, leader of the Islamic Society (Jamʿiyyat-e Eslāmī), one of the major factions, refused to leave office in late 1994 in accordance with the power-sharing arrangement reached by the new government. Other groups among the mujahideen, particularly the Islamic Party (Ḥezb-e Eslāmī), led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, surrounded Kabul and began to barrage the city with artillery and rockets. These attacks continued intermittently over the next several years as the countryside outside Kabul slipped into chaos.

Meanwhile, the newly materialized Taliban (Pashto: “Students”), a puritanical Islamic group led by a former mujahideen commander, Mohammad Omar, began seizing control of the country systematically, occupying Kabul in 1996. The Taliban—augmented by volunteers from various Islamic extremist groups sheltering in Afghanistan, many of whom were Afghan-Arab holdovers from the earlier conflict—soon controlled all but a small portion of northern Afghanistan, which was held by a loose coalition of mujahideen forces known as the Northern Alliance. Fighting continued at a stalemate until 2001, when U.S. special operations forces, in response to the Taliban’s failure to hand over the leaders of al-Qaeda after the latter’s September 11 attacks on the United States, launched a series of military operations in Afghanistan that drove the Taliban from power by early December. (See Afghanistan War.) The Northern Alliance subsequently dissolved into several factions, many of which were absorbed into the new Afghanistan government established in 2004.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/mujahideen-Afghani-rebels

You could argue that if it wasn't for our intervention, the Taliban wouldn't have become the force it did.

[Yorkykopite]

Yep.  And we helped arm and train the Mujahideen (Taliban) to fight them.  Good Taliban when fighting the Soviets, bad Taliban a few years later 

It's hilarious how some people know one thing about the Taliban - and it isn't even true.

However, it is useful. It allows them to blame the West whenever the West is hit by an Islamist attack. We saw it on 9/11, we're still seeing it today in France. We'll keep seeing it too is my prediction.

But the funniest part of the whole game is then seeing the same people claim that the "problem" (of Islamist terrorism) is "complex" and that terrorism has "multiple causes". Those assertions are so obviously true that they are banal. If they were supported by genuine insight into how fundamentalism has grown in different Muslim societies in the 20th and 21st centuries it might be interesting. But it never is. It just sits there as a rebuke to anyone who dares the suggest that the greater part of the responsibility, by far, for terrorist attacks lies with the terrorists themselves.   

[Yorkykopite]

The equivalent in European history would be to say that the Versailles peace settlement in 1919 created Adolf Hitler and Nazism and that the roots of the Holocaust lay in the document signed by Clemenceau, David Lloyd George and Woodrow Wilson.

[DerKaiser]

Not sure where I stated it's "entirely the West's fault???"  Perhaps a single sentence was an oversimplification.

I was just highlighting that it's a very complex issue with many facets.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/mujahideen-Afghani-rebels

You could argue that if it wasn't for our intervention, the Taliban wouldn't have become the force it did.  Of course, just as the Soviets, we were very interest in it's wealth of natural resources.

I never said you did. I said arguments like that 'frame' the discussion in a simplified, one-sided way. Yes, complex, but the facet you are proposing is untrue.

You could try arguing that but it won't get you far. The US was responsible for having Cold War tunnel vision seeking gain the upper hand by questionable means over the Soviet Union. As a result, they had a blind spot to the nefarious goals of Saudi and (especially) Pakistani intelligence services in fostering extreme forms of Islamic extremism im the region. The US was never concerned with Afghanistan's natural resources. Does the country even have an abundance of resource? Not that I know of. The fact that the US pretty much ceased all involvment following the collapse of the Soviet Union showcases this. They only returned almost a decade later when Al Qaeda had made the country its refuge. 

The irony is that it was actually American non-intervention in the 90s that allowed the Taliban to become the force it did.

 

Ghost Wars, wasn't it?

Yep. Director S is excellent as well, also by Steve Coll. I think anyone who wants to move beyond a superficial Corbyn-esque knowledge of the region should start by reading these.

[Red-Soldier]

It's hilarious how some people know one thing about the Taliban - and it isn't even true.

However, it is useful. It allows them to blame the West whenever the West is hit by an Islamist attack. We saw it on 9/11, we're still seeing it today in France. We'll keep seeing it too is my prediction.

But the funniest part of the whole game is then seeing the same people claim that the "problem" (of Islamist terrorism) is "complex" and that terrorism has "multiple causes". Those assertions are so obviously true that they are banal. If they were supported by genuine insight into how fundamentalism has grown in different Muslim societies in the 20th and 21st centuries it might be interesting. But it never is. It just sits there as a rebuke to anyone who dares the suggest that the greater part of the responsibility, by far, for terrorist attacks lies with the terrorists themselves.

I wrote one sentence, so not sure where you've got all your insinuations from.  Perhaps you've put it through the Yorky filter again 

Not too far off though - "Meanwhile, the newly materialized Taliban (Pashto: “Students”), a puritanical Islamic group led by a former mujahideen commander, Mohammad Omar"

Also, it seems like you've missed this follow-up post:

Not sure where I stated it's "entirely the West's fault???"  Perhaps a single sentence was an oversimplification.

I was just highlighting that it's a very complex issue with many facets.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/mujahideen-Afghani-rebels

Lots of blame and deflection going on about how we arrived here, but, moving forward, perhaps you could try to address this question:

How do you tackle the issue of islamic extremism?  There's clearly some real issues within that form of religion.

[Red-Soldier]

I never said you did. I said arguments like that 'frame' the discussion in a simplified, one-sided way. Yes, complex, but the facet you are proposing is untrue.

You could try arguing that but it won't get you far. The US was responsible for having Cold War tunnel vision seeking gain the upper hand by questionable means over the Soviet Union. As a result, they had a blind spot to the nefarious goals of Saudi and (especially) Pakistani intelligence services in fostering extreme forms of Islamic extremism im the region. The US was never concerned with Afghanistan's natural resources. Does the country even have an abundance of resource? Not that I know of. The fact that the US pretty much ceased all involvment following the collapse of the Soviet Union showcases this. They only returned almost a decade later when Al Qaeda had made the country its refuge. 

The irony is that it was actually American non-intervention in the 90s that allowed the Taliban to become the force it did.

 
Yep. Director S is excellent as well, also by Steve Coll. I think anyone who wants to move beyond a superficial Corbyn-esque knowledge of the region should start by reading these.

It isn't helpful labelling people you have absolutely no idea about!  I very much dislike Corbyn and have no idea of his opinions on the region.  I form my own from what I have read, watched etc.

I am no Middle East expert, just like yourself (I am making an assumption here).  But I do believe I am correct when I say it is a very complex and multifaceted situation.  Not sure why others cannot agree with that and try to force through one agenda or another.

Perhaps you could try and answer this question:

How do you tackle the issue of islamic extremism?  There's clearly some real issues within that form of religion.

[Yorkykopite]

Lots of blame and deflection going on about how we arrived here, but, moving forward, perhaps you could try to address this question:

Is that your homework question this week? 

I should leave you to answer it then. But if you want some guidance I'd recommend you look into secular (ie long-term) trends and changes that are taking place in the Arab world and Muslim societies generally, rather than concentrating on western foreign policy. And should you mention Iran - and I think you should - it would be much more profitable to look at the 1979 revolution rather than the overthrow of Mossadegh.

[Red-Soldier]

Is that your homework question this week? 

I should leave you to answer it then. But if you want some guidance I'd recommend you look into secular (ie long-term) trends and changes that are taking place in the Arab world and Muslim societies generally, rather than concentrating on western foreign policy. And should you mention Iran - and I think you should - it would be much more profitable to look at the 1979 revolution rather than the overthrow of Mossadegh.

Fair enough if you cannot, or will not answer.  Of course, there's no obligation.

[Yorkykopite]

Fair enough if you cannot, or will not answer.  Of course, there's no obligation.

Thanks! The truth is I cannot. It's way beyond me.

The pat solutions - solutions which I believe in as a matter of principle - may not be solutions at all. A reign of democracy in the Middle East for example. Who knows what that might do? It's desirable in principle but it might actually fan wild Islamist ideas and ultimately encourage more hatred to the West. Yet having cruel dictators and theocrats in charge, as we have today, is also intolerable.  I don't know enough about Islam to know whether a Reformation of some kind is likely or possible and what the consequences of such a Reformation might even be. But it's blindingly clear, to me at least, that the Koran needs to become a more modest book (like the Bible has become in Britain for example) rather than a manual on how to live your life and order your society. But how that transformation can happen, I don't know. It has obviously been the most important document in the Arab world for centuries and Arab society during that time has been mired in ignorance and poverty. Even its astonishing early intellectual breakthroughs in science and mathematics were squandered and pissed away. That's all.

Oh, apart from the obvious fact that we in the West need to keep our security up and to find and punish Islamists who plan terrorist attacks and give terrorists moral, logistical and financial support. And, at all costs, we should avoid beating ourselves up for crimes committed - and committed enthusiastically - by others who hate us.

[Red-Soldier]

Thanks! The truth is I cannot. It's way beyond me.

The pat solutions - solutions which I believe in as a matter of principle - may not be solutions at all. A reign of democracy in the Middle East for example. Who knows what that might do? It's desirable in principle but it might actually fan wild Islamist ideas and ultimately encourage more hatred to the West. Yet having cruel dictators and theocrats in charge, as we have today, is also intolerable.  I don't know enough about Islam to know whether a Reformation of some kind is likely or possible and what the consequences of such a Reformation might even be. But it's blindingly clear, to me at least, that the Koran needs to become a more modest book (like the Bible has become in Britain for example) rather than a manual on how to live your life and order your society. But how that transformation can happen, I don't know. It has obviously been the most important document in the Arab world for centuries and Arab society during that time has been mired in ignorance and poverty. Even its astonishing early intellectual breakthroughs in science and mathematics were squandered and pissed away. That's all.

Oh, apart from the obvious fact that we in the West need to keep our security up and to find and punish Islamists who plan terrorist attacks and give terrorists moral, logistical and financial support. And, at all costs, we should avoid beating ourselves up for crimes committed - and committed enthusiastically - by others who hate us.

That makes two of us.  I agree with most what you have said there, as we have both said, it is a very complex situation.

I hope things can improve as they are very fascinating places, and I very much would like to visit one day.

[Yorkykopite]

I hope things can improve as they are very fascinating places, and I very much would like to visit one day.

I would love to see Iran before I die. I'd like a bottle of wine with my meal too. And no women dressed in medieval black rags to spoil my enjoyment.

[DerKaiser]

It isn't helpful labelling people you have absolutely no idea about!  I very much dislike Corbyn and have no idea of his opinions on the region.  I form my own from what I have read, watched etc.

I am no Middle East expert, just like yourself (I am making an assumption here).  But I do believe I am correct when I say it is a very complex and multifaceted situation.  Not sure why others cannot agree with that and try to force through one agenda or another.

Perhaps you could try and answer this question:

I'm not trying to label you, apologies. That's why I did not put that comment in the part that I quoted you. Your simplification about the Taliban just reminded me of much of the rehotoric that comes from parts of the left in the UK & US.

Yep, I cannot answer that question. I imagine it must be up to religious leaders within Islam to do a much better job than they have been. But I fear we will be left waiting a long time as ultimately they still haven't solved their own Sunni-Shia split - and they have had a millennia to do that.

[Sangria]

Thanks! The truth is I cannot. It's way beyond me.

The pat solutions - solutions which I believe in as a matter of principle - may not be solutions at all. A reign of democracy in the Middle East for example. Who knows what that might do? It's desirable in principle but it might actually fan wild Islamist ideas and ultimately encourage more hatred to the West. Yet having cruel dictators and theocrats in charge, as we have today, is also intolerable.  I don't know enough about Islam to know whether a Reformation of some kind is likely or possible and what the consequences of such a Reformation might even be. But it's blindingly clear, to me at least, that the Koran needs to become a more modest book (like the Bible has become in Britain for example) rather than a manual on how to live your life and order your society. But how that transformation can happen, I don't know. It has obviously been the most important document in the Arab world for centuries and Arab society during that time has been mired in ignorance and poverty. Even its astonishing early intellectual breakthroughs in science and mathematics were squandered and pissed away. That's all.

Oh, apart from the obvious fact that we in the West need to keep our security up and to find and punish Islamists who plan terrorist attacks and give terrorists moral, logistical and financial support. And, at all costs, we should avoid beating ourselves up for crimes committed - and committed enthusiastically - by others who hate us.

See Tony Blair for an example of someone who thought this would work. It doesn't.

[Jiminy Cricket]

See Tony Blair for an example of someone who thought this would work. It doesn't.

Well, anyone who thinks that they can impose democracy has a very poor grasp on the subject.

[Sangria]

Well, anyone who thinks that they can impose democracy has a very poor grasp on the subject.

It had worked twice before in his experience. The problem wasn't the imposition of a liberal democracy. He'd made it work before. The problem was the pushback from a considerably stronger force. I thought at the time, based on what I was told by people with decades of experience in the region, that it was going to be messy and not worth it. I wasn't wrong. What made it worse was the left's tendency to point to that one issue to invalidate the Labour government. That was where the real damage was.

[Yorkykopite]

Well, anyone who thinks that they can impose democracy has a very poor grasp on the subject.

Possibly, although Sangria is right to point to two exceptions under New Labour. And, certainly, democracy was successfully imposed on West Germany, Italy and Japan after the war. It can be done - at least outside the Muslim world - but it requires a large degree of popular assent and,  initially at least, some vigorous policing.

[Jiminy Cricket]

It had worked twice before in his experience. The problem wasn't the imposition of a liberal democracy. He'd made it work before. The problem was the pushback from a considerably stronger force. I thought at the time, based on what I was told by people with decades of experience in the region, that it was going to be messy and not worth it. I wasn't wrong. What made it worse was the left's tendency to point to that one issue to invalidate the Labour government. That was where the real damage was.

Possibly, although Sangria is right to point to two exceptions under New Labour. And, certainly, democracy was successfully imposed on West Germany, Italy and Japan after the war. It can be done - at least outside the Muslim world - but it requires a large degree of popular assent and,  initially at least, some vigorous policing.

But it also requires a general desire (or, at least, acceptance) of democracy as a goal. Without that, it surely cannot succeed. I think, in most (or all) of those countries, this was the case. Albeit, for a wide set of varying reasons. Or, at least, that's the view from my (admittedly) limited perspective.

[So… Howard Philips]

I would love to see Iran before I die. I'd like a bottle of wine with my meal too. And no women dressed in medieval black rags to spoil my enjoyment.

Shiraz would fit the bill.

[Yorkykopite]

Shiraz would fit the bill.

Good call!

[J_Kopite]

But it also requires a general desire (or, at least, acceptance) of democracy as a goal. Without that, it surely cannot succeed. I think, in most (or all) of those countries, this was the case. Albeit, for a wide set of varying reasons. Or, at least, that's the view from my (admittedly) limited perspective.

I don't know the exact numbers, but surely the Arab Spring offered plenty of evidence democracy was something people in Muslim countries desired.

[Jiminy Cricket]

I don't know the exact numbers, but surely the Arab Spring offered plenty of evidence democracy was something people in Muslim countries desired.

Of course, I am talking in generalisations. It generally takes a good majority of the population to change to (force) a democracy. I am not even sure there is simple majority in favour of democracy in many Muslim countries. If your religion is of primary importance, and you see democracy as a threat to your religion, then, guess what!? Again, I am talking in generalisations. (Stable) democracy usually evolves.

[Sangria]

I don't know the exact numbers, but surely the Arab Spring offered plenty of evidence democracy was something people in Muslim countries desired.

Is it our duty to give them what they may or may not desire? There's also a substantial religious allied with post-colonialist tendency even in the seemingly solidly democratic Muslim countries (eg. Turkey) that would turn against anything we do. If they want democracy enough, they can achieve it by themselves without our intervention. If we intervene, even with the best of intentions like Blair in Iraq, we are imperialists invading their country, and the international nature of Islam makes it an international outrage. It also doesn't help of course when the left wing in our own country see this as a way into power by demonising the Labour government that did this.

[Yorkykopite]

I don't know the exact numbers, but surely the Arab Spring offered plenty of evidence democracy was something people in Muslim countries desired.

Indeed. There is obviously a burning desire for democracy amongst Arabs. Why wouldn't there be? They've suffered for generations without it - centuries of Ottoman imperial rule included. They can also see the advantages of democracy when they look to the freer, more prosperous and happier societies of the West. But the resistance to democracy and liberal ideas is also colossal in those countries - from the army, from the mosques, from the state and religious apparatus. So it's...not easy!

[TepidT2O]

It’s telling perhaps that the narrative on terrorist atrocities has changed form the regressive left..

Foreign wars was the mantra.... Iraq, Afghanistan ....etc etc...


But Belgium and France have had no involvement in those wars, yet have paid such a terrible toll.

Instead, what we must realise is that these attacks are direct attacks on the European way of life.  Of liberal values, of freedom of expression, thought and deed.

They are nothing less than an assault on our raison d’etre.. 

[Sangria]

It’s telling perhaps that the narrative on terrorist atrocities has changed form the regressive left..

Foreign wars was the mantra.... Iraq, Afghanistan ....etc etc...


But Belgium and France have had no involvement in those wars, yet have paid such a terrible toll.

Instead, what we must realise is that these attacks are direct attacks on the European way of life.  Of liberal values, of freedom of expression, thought and deed.

They are nothing less than an assault on our raison d’etre.. 

More to the point, not everyone thinks like we do. To assume that there is one set way of thinking and that everyone who thinks otherwise is a victim of our actions is a form of racism in itself, that denies others their agency. See the Japanese Army manuals from WWII that talk about how Europeans are corrupt and soft, that the symbols of "civilisation" are indications of how morally inferior they were, etc. Incomprehensible to our eyes, but indicative nonetheless of how they thought.

[Bobsackamano]

More to the point, not everyone thinks like we do. To assume that there is one set way of thinking and that everyone who thinks otherwise is a victim of our actions is a form of racism in itself, that denies others their agency. See the Japanese Army manuals from WWII that talk about how Europeans are corrupt and soft, that the symbols of "civilisation" are indications of how morally inferior they were, etc. Incomprehensible to our eyes, but indicative nonetheless of how they thought.

Well there is the argument from John Gray about our whole Western Way of being from the start of Christianity through to now as a delusion. That the true way humans are is animalistic. To believe its not is to invest humans in qualities that seperate them from animals that they actually dont have. We assume that our liberal humanism, especially from the enlightenment onwards is the natural way all humans will evolve into. When in fact we are our own curious offshoot of humanity that has no natural monopoly on the way people should live and behave.


As an arch Liberal Humanist i find this challenging stuff but it does give me food for thought when thinking about relations between Islam and the West.

[Yorkykopite]

Over 50 more people beheaded by the Islamist nutjobs. God is Great.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-54877202

[GBF]

2 days since their obscene drawing about the earthquake and 0 news on this from western media

[Gerry Attrick]

2 days since their obscene drawing about the earthquake and 0 news on this from western media

Free speech eh? Beautiful isn’t it?

[Bullet500]

Not true. It is correct that some of those who called themselves mujahid would later fight under the Taliban; however, It is a gross simplification to say these groups were the same. The Mujahideen was comprised of many groups with differing ethnic, religious and political backgrounds. The Taliban started as a native Pashtun movement helped along by Pakistani support alone. The two most significant factions of the mujahid, those of Massoud and Hekmatayr (the man who received the lion's share of American support), were in fact bitter enemies of the Taliban. Massoud died at the hands of a Taliban suicide bomber.

That is what frustrates me with widely spread theories like this. They frame Islamic fundamentalism as being part of a 'blowback' that is entirely the West's fault.

Yes. In fact, the doctrine that Taliban ascribe to is Deobandi. The Deobandi Movement started in late 1800s in the town of Deoband in Northern India, not too far from New Delhi.

[I've been a good boy]

2 days since their obscene drawing about the earthquake and 0 news on this from western media

They're scumbags, plain and simple. Their cartoons aren't worth the toilet paper they're printed on.

[Nobby Reserve]

Not true. It is correct that some of those who called themselves mujahid would later fight under the Taliban; however, It is a gross simplification to say these groups were the same. The Mujahideen was comprised of many groups with differing ethnic, religious and political backgrounds. The Taliban started as a native Pashtun movement helped along by Pakistani support alone. The two most significant factions of the mujahid, those of Massoud and Hekmatayr (the man who received the lion's share of American support), were in fact bitter enemies of the Taliban. Massoud died at the hands of a Taliban suicide bomber.

That is what frustrates me with widely spread theories like this. They frame Islamic fundamentalism as being part of a 'blowback' that is entirely the West's fault.

All terrorists, mind.

[Bobsackamano]

Free speech eh? Beautiful isn’t it?

It most certainly is, should be cherished and defended by all people who appreciate the freedoms we enjoy in the West today.

[Bullet500]

All terrorists, mind.

I think it's very difficult to call Ahmad Shah Massoud as such.

[Nobby Reserve]

I think it's very difficult to call Ahmad Shah Massoud as such.

He was. Beginning in 1975.

The entire Mujahidin was a terrorist organisation. Using terrorist tactics against the Afghan government and people of Kabul and other pro-government cities long before the USSR finally acquiesced to Afghan government pleas for help against the terrorist insurgency of the Mujahidin.