Britain: Mujahideen Freedom Fighters, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times
Topic started on 31-7-2010 @ 07:43 PM by oozyism

Great Britain, whose Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher famously called the Mujahedeen “freedom-fighters”.

Read more at Suite101: The Soviet War in Afghanistan: Russian Invasion Of Afghanistan In 1979
middleeasternhistory.suite101.com...


Britain, it wasn't long ago you called these people freedom fighters. Now that they are trying to gain their freedom against you, they have been converted to TERRORISTS.

Do you understand the hypocrisy you are showing, or is ignorance that dominant within you.

Do you understand the TERRORISM you are portraying, or is ignorance that dominant within you.

I can go on, but what is the point, do you listen? Do you see? Or do you refuse to listen and refuse to see? Or do you believe you are misguided?

If you think you are misguided, then why won't you take measures against those who are misguiding you and you fellow citizens?


reply posted on 31-7-2010 @ 10:36 PM by no special characters
reply to post by Misoir


We could get a break if we would have a real dialogue. As a child I was certain that the US was a corrupt government and my own so much more righteous and honest.

Now I see that the world is pretty much the same everywhere only packaged a little bit different.

so....

My promise is to never respond to another poster on ATS, I will state my opinion/argument and walk away. I will not give trolls any satisfaction.


This won't be contributing to that process


[edit on 31-7-2010 by no special characters]


reply posted on 1-8-2010 @ 01:15 AM by muftanan
It has little to do with freedom, oppression, ethnicity, terrorism, ideals or human rights. It's all about power--the haves vs the have-nots. All these groups are just pawns. When they are useful to serve the West's interests, they are "freedom fighters," but when they become "dangerous," they have become "terrorists."

The West was threatened by Communism and the Soviets, so they interfered and supported the Afghans against them. More recently, the West needed control of the resources of the region. By fighting a "war on terror" and promoting infighting amongst the peoples of the Middle East, there was a huge amount of instability created in the region. Now, this instability keeps any kind of power from being consolidated by groups in the region who don't want to be puppets of the West. Now, there is no need to directly colonize when one can indirectly manage the situation. So of course, the West retains power and resources, destroying hundreds of thousands of innocent civilian lives in the process. Justice is irrelevant.

The worst part is, we in the West think we're freedom fighters while the innocent civilians in Afghanistan (rightly) see us in the West as the real terrorists, as we come in and kill and screw with their society. The cycle of violence, therefore, resumes. If we want them to stop attacking us, we have to stop attacking them (and interfering in their governments).

[edit on 1-8-2010 by muftanan]

[edit on 1-8-2010 by muftanan]
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



Memorial day thoughts.
  Posted 3 days ago with 11 member flags
Global governance and the challenge to the American Constitution
  Posted 11 days ago with 5 member flags
Explosive Scoop on Obama from Breitbart.com
  Posted 10 days ago with 1 member flags