Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CCIP
So how does that not make it supporting a terrorist group?
Oh I get it. They're only terrorist when they start attacking YOU. Let's ignore what they perpetrated on their own population and groups within their country, the culture, the monuments they destroyed... 
I think you've yourself admitted a fairly clear causality relationship here. Obviously a wise politician should have thought a few years ahead when committing to support that or other group, or they should be considered criminally irresponsible. Which in my view they are. |
It was a very good means for heading off a much greater threat at the time. They were simply used as tools to destroy Soviet military movements in Central Asia that had severe military and geostrategic implications. We had to intervene, and did so. Perhaps more foresight would have been helpful in cleaning up the mess after they were not "useful" any longer. I know that you Euro's/Canucks and such are so desperate to equivocate. Yet we know there are geostrategic principles here that are greater than the first dimension of your charges. It's not supporting or sponsoring terrorist groups as an issue. Get your head out CCIP. This is where your argument falls flat.
The Mujahadeen were a way to counter Soviet aggression without direct confrontation on a superpower level. It's not clean, but it is not equivalent to terrorist support. Iran on the other hand is a terrorist nation that directly sponsors international terror organizations. Organizations that directly target civilians as a means to force political will. That's pretty clear.