Call them what they are: Terrorists!

[Mycroft]

So if this killing of civilians is an 'insurgency', what was is when it took place before the US arrived?

It was called "an oppressive dictatorship."

 

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Skeptic but precised for concision by me
The usual humilating self-parody by which the most hysterical members of the American right portray the whole of the American right as hate-filled paranoid nutters.

I don't need to say anything about your post. Except that I hope RandFan was being ironic when he admired it.

 

[RandFan]

I don't need to say anything about your post. Except that I hope RandFan was being ironic when he admired it.

Woooosh... right over my head. It wouldn't be the first time. Could you indulge my naivete and explain it to me? I'm calm at the moment and I promise to seriously consider your argument.

Thank you,

RandFan

 

[Dr Adequate]

Woooosh... right over my head. It wouldn't be the first time. Could you indulge my naivete and explain it to me? I'm calm at the moment and I promise to seriously consider your argument.

There are two problems.

The first is that Skeptic is telling stupid hideous lies about what the people he calls "progressives" think, feel, and say. Speaking as a pinko liberal Limey who opposed the Iraqi war on the grounds that there were no WMDs and we were making bloody fools of ourselves, I must surely count as a "progressive". But I do not think what he says I think, feel what he says I feel, or say what he says I say.

I feel like an atheist confronted with a fundie who tells me that no matter what I say, I do believe in God, because St Paul says so in the Bible, but on the other hand I hate God, which is why I won't admit that I believe in him.

The second problem is that he does not say what he means by "progressive", any more than people who spew out hate-filled trash about "liberals" say what they mean by "liberals". If the people he hates are just the people who disagree with about foreign policy, let him say that.

Have you checked every policy which you support against Skeptic's opinions? Maybe you, too, are a little bit "progressive" for his tastes. In which case, read his post again, and let him explain to you what you think, and why you behave like a psychopath.

 

[webfusion]

TERROR WARNING!

• Local FBI Warning In Pennsylvania!

The FBI has issued a warning in Lancaster County.
They suspect a terrorist may be hiding among the Amish community.

This photo provided the first clue that triggered the investigation:

 

[RandFan]

The first is that Skeptic is telling stupid hideous lies about what the people he calls "progressives" think, feel, and say.

Perhaps, perhaps he is making a straw man. I'm familiar with the kind of rhetoric that he is referring and it is damn frustrating the hypocrisy of those who decry language of the right but use the very same language. He has a point. Perhaps "progressive" is not well defined. I knew what he meant when he said it though.

Speaking as a pinko liberal Limey who opposed the Iraqi war on the grounds that there were no WMDs and we were making bloody fools of ourselves, I must surely count as a "progressive". But I do not think what he says I think, feel what he says I feel, or say what he says I say.

So, is the use of the word terrorist ok to you? You don't otherwise subscribe to such politically correct terms? Isn't political correctness a hallmark of "progressives"?

I feel like an atheist confronted with a fundie who tells me that no matter what I say, I do believe in God, because St Paul says so in the Bible, but on the other hand I hate God, which is why I won't admit that I believe in him.

I'm not sure that it is a good analogy but I understand. No one wants to be told what they believe. I'm the first to complain when other make claims about me.

The second problem is that he does not say what he means by "progressive", any more than people who spew out hate-filled trash about "liberals" say what they mean by "liberals". If the people he hates are just the people who disagree with about foreign policy, let him say that.

No, I don't think it has anything to do with people who disagree about foreign policy but those who are hypocritical in regards to the use of labels.

Have you checked every policy which you support against Skeptic's opinions?

I have debated skeptic before. We don't agree on everything.

Maybe you, too, are a little bit "progressive" for his tastes. In which case, read his post again, and let him explain to you what you think, and why you behave like a psychopath.

I think it is unfortunate that you did not address his post directly. He makes some valid points.

skeptic]
This attitude, of course, is just what one would expect from those who believe in the two "progressive" dogmas, namely, 1). The USA is in the main a force of evil and oppression in the world due to its "capitalist imperialist system", and (more importantly) 2). that being "nonjudgemental" and devoid of moral outrage is the highest moral stand one can possibly achieve; the more horrified and outraged "unelightened" people feel at some enormity, the more virtuous one is for refusing to be outraged, shocked, or "judgemental" about those who did it.

I wouldn't personally make the argument that these are two progressive dogmas. However it is common in the rhetoric of the day. And it is damn frustrating. It does seem that there is a double standard but I see your point.

Skeptic
The eiptome of this attitude is, of course, Howard Dean, who claimed a Republican senator "should be in jail", but refused to say Osama bin Laden is guilty before he is convicted in trial. (Taking Dean's logic to its logical conclusion, no suicide bomber should ever be called guilty of anything, since by definition they cannot be put on trial for their crimes. Neither, for that matter, should we emotionally prejudge Hitler or Stalin as "evil" or "guilty"--they were never on trial, were they? But I digress...)

Would you agree that this is an example of the kind of double standard that skeptic is referring to?

I might not see the world in the black and white way that skeptic does. If that is what he means by moral flatness I don't quite agree with him. However it is frustrating for people to talk about foreingers using relative morality but use a different standard for America. At least that is my take.

RandFan

 

[delphi_ote]

in·sur·gen·cy n. The quality or circumstance of being rebellious.

ter·ror·ism n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

I have to say "insurgent" probably a better description of most of the people fighting in Iraq, though the line between one and the other is obviously blurred.

In America, the word "terrorism" is shrieked so often in hysterics it's starting to lose meaning. If we're fighting a war against it, we should probably be careful about when we apply the label of "terrorist," lest the new definition becomes:

terorist n.
1. A person the speaker does not like very much. See also: communist.

 

[RandFan]

I have to say "insurgent" probably a better description of most of the people fighting in Iraq, though the line between one and the other is obviously blurred.

??? Point of view is an amazing thing. I would have to say that the word "terrorist" is far better. These are not people simply rebelling. These are people who are absolutely using terror and violence to intimidate the US and the Iraqi people to achieve a political end. Further they are using that terror indiscriminately against innocent people as well as military targets in the attempt to terrorize those people. In this instance who are they suppose to be rebelling against?

 

[crimresearch]

in·sur·gen·cy n. The quality or circumstance of being rebellious.

ter·ror·ism n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

I have to say "insurgent" probably a better description of most of the people fighting in Iraq, though the line between one and the other is obviously blurred.

In America, the word "terrorism" is shrieked so often in hysterics it's starting to lose meaning. If we're fighting a war against it, we should probably be careful about when we apply the label of "terrorist," lest the new definition becomes:

terorist n.
1. A person the speaker does not like very much. See also: communist.

Then what was being rebelled against when all those civilians were killed before the US military arrived?

 

[stup_id]

Then what was being rebelled against when all those civilians were killed before the US military arrived?

It is plain simple, it was just terrorism before, when they used against a dictatorship goverment, or against US occupation it became also insurgence. You see many things can be both things at the same time just as I'm a human being and also stupid at the same time!.

 

[Manny]

Re: TERROR WARNING!

• Local FBI Warning In Pennsylvania!

The FBI has issued a warning in Lancaster County.
They suspect a terrorist may be hiding among the Amish community.

What is the following:

Clop clop clop clop, clop clop clop clop, BANG!

 

[Dr Adequate]

Perhaps, perhaps he is making a straw man. I'm familiar with the kind of rhetoric that he is referring and it is damn frustrating the hypocrisy of those who decry language of the right but use the very same language.

Please provide quotations.

Scott "Dilbert" Adams, I think it was, summed up this kind of smear with the phrase "Some women are in favour of animal rights. Some women wear fur. Therefore all women are hypocrites."

I think of you as being very right-wing. I think of the KKK as being very right-wing. I would jump up and down in a fit of fury if anyone suggested that because you are very right-wing you must (secretly, and without ever mentioning it) agree with their stupid crap. That would be a hateful slur on you and others who agree with you politically.

And yet ... "progressives" ...

I have described my political opinions to you. Skeptic has explained how all "progressives" really feel. He is misinformed, a liar, stupid, or insane.

He has a point. Perhaps "progressive" is not well defined. I knew what he meant when he said it though.

Certainly you did. Immediately. You might have immediately known what "Commie" meant in the McCarthy era. Those people. To the left of you.

So, is the use of the word terrorist ok to you? You don't otherwise subscribe to such politically correct terms? Isn't political correctness a hallmark of "progressives"?

I don't understand the questions, but I just about understand the snide implications of your questions. The answer is "no".

But "political correctness" is another of those vague right-wing terms.

That's the third:

Words right-wing people will use to stigmatize people further left than they are but won't actually define:

(1) "Liberal"
(2) "Progressive"
(3) "Politically Correct"

The fourth and fifth terms, "Commie" and "Marxist" are now considered obsolete and archaic.

I'm not sure that it is a good analogy...

I am sure because I have been the target of both and I found the fundies much less venomous than the right-wing fantasists on these forums.

No, I don't think it has anything to do with people who disagree about foreign policy but those who are hypocritical in regards to the use of labels.

That is exactly what I was trying to say.

It's funny, we have a common language and yet you don't speak irony.

My point was, Skeptic is trying to tar a whole lot of people with the same brush. Who are the "progressives"?

I think it is unfortunate that you did not address his post directly. He makes some valid points.

He has some valid points, does he? And here is what you quote to support that:

This attitude, of course, is just what one would expect from those who believe in the two "progressive" dogmas, namely, 1). The USA is in the main a force of evil and oppression in the world due to its "capitalist imperialist system", and (more importantly) 2). that being "nonjudgemental" and devoid of moral outrage is the highest moral stand one can possibly achieve; the more horrified and outraged "unelightened" people feel at some enormity, the more virtuous one is for refusing to be outraged, shocked, or "judgemental" about those who did it.

This is lie a from start to finish if it is applied to, for example, me. That is not what I think or feel or say. To whom does it apply? Give their names.

Or just read my previous post. The whole problem with Skeptic is that instead of arguing his case he spews out foul lies about the people who disagree with him.

I wouldn't personally make the argument that these are two progressive dogmas. However it is common in the rhetoric of the day.

But we have not referred at any time to left-wing rhetoric. The only rhetoric which as been quoted is right-wing rhetoric about what left-wing people really think (secretly, without ever mentioning it, but in the dark depths of their evil, evil hearts).

And, face it, it's just not true.

Would you agree that this is an example of the kind of double standard that skeptic is referring to?

The "He should be in jail" quote?

Of course I can say "That man should be in jail, they should lock the door and throw away the key", as my opinion, and also say about the same man "Obviously he should not be jailed for life unless he has been tried by a court of law and found guilty".

I don't know anything else about this Howard Dean --- except that I think he ran in the last primaries but didn't make the final cut --- and he may be an idiot in other ways, but in this instance Skeptic is just mucking about.

I might not see the world in the black and white way that skeptic does. If that is what he means by moral flatness I don't quite agree with him.

You don't quite agree with him? I might be a "progressive" but I might not quite be behaving like a psychopath?

I seem to remember saying kinder things about you, but then I'm one of those wishy-washy liberals. I probably love terrorists as well.

However it is frustrating for people to talk about foreingers using relative morality but use a different standard for America. At least that is my take.

Again, I'd like you to produce the quotations.

You complain about "people" doing that. Would that be the "liberals"? The "progressives"? The "politically correct"? The "Commies"? The "Marxists"?

Me?

 

[Orwell]

Then what was being rebelled against when all those civilians were killed before the US military arrived?

Your question doesn't make sense.

 

[crimresearch]

Sure it does.

If the behavior is the same, and the targets are the same, and the goal appears to be to manipulate people through fear, why change the name to 'insurgents', or 'freedom fighters', etc?

 

[varwoche]

Please provide quotations.

Scott "Dilbert" Adams, I think it was, summed up this kind of smear with the phrase "Some women are in favour of animal rights. Some women wear fur. Therefore all women are hypocrites."
(snip)

Now that was a good post.

 

[Orwell]

Oh, bull. You chose to link to an altered copy of the 1983 Proclamation when a half-second web search (exactly .55 seconds according to Google) would have turned up an unaltered copy. You link to that pre-election article with a one-liner which referred to its headline, not to any point you were trying to make. Ward Churchill up there chose statistics whose period ended prior to the post-election strategy change of the terrorists from targeting US troops and Iraqi police recruits to targeting civilians. I'm just not reading any good-faith effort to discuss the subject of this thread or any other issue from you or the left generally.

Nitpicking, aren't we? Were the mujaheddin called "freedom fighters" or not by the Reagan administration? Does a bear **** in the woods? You know, that's my whole point! A pretty simple point, actually. To the soviets, the mujaheddin were "terrorists". See, I don't trust the word "terrorist" because, in the mouths of many people, the word has become akin to an accusation used to discredit. The word terrorist has been voided of its original meaning by intense propaganda and by the fact that people tend to use it irresponsibly.

As to the topic, there is literally nothing to discuss except what took them so long and what holds back others from doing the same. The Dallas Morning News policy is exactly and presicely right (but apparently not implemented as of this morning). Even if one is a reflexive America-hater and previously insisted on believing that the "insurgents" were waging a justified war against Bushitlerburton's illegal occupation before, it is undisputable now that they are targeting civilians and that they are doing so because they know that those civilians oppose their efforts to impose their will and that they instead support the democratically-elected government. Democracy being one of the values which the terrorists hate. They are terrorists.

It's spelled "precisely" and "indisputable".

Who are these terrorist exactly? Are all of the insurgent groups now operating in Iraq equally guilty of blowing up civilians? How do you know if they are? Do you think it's possible to be an "insurgent" without being a "terrorist", or are the two concepts incompatible? You sound like you are grouping everyone together and then sticking a nasty label on them.

 

[Orwell]

Sure it does.

If the behavior is the same, and the targets are the same, and the goal appears to be to manipulate people through fear, why change the name to 'insurgents', or 'freedom fighters', etc?

Why, for political convenience, of course! That's why it is more honest, in these situations, to try to use a "neutral" term as much as possible.

And besides, loaded words tend to make communication difficult.

 

[RandFan]

Scott "Dilbert" Adams, I think it was, summed up this kind of smear with the phrase "Some women are in favour of animal rights. Some women wear fur. Therefore all women are hypocrites."

I don't know anyone making this argument.

I think of you as being very right-wing.

Define "irony"? I support a woman right to choose. I'm for the legalization of pot and the end of the drug war. I'm for the legalization of prostitution. I'm an active member of the Log Cabin Republicans and support them financially. I'm for gay marriage. I support flag burning. I'm against all instances of church and state. I believe that the constitution intended a wall between the two. I don't want prayer in school. I would like to get "in god we trust" of our money. I would like very much for the republican party to be ruled by moderates. I'm a huge fan of John McCain. I supported Bill Clinton and don't care he got a BJ from his intern and that the investigation was wrong. "Right wing"? "Very Right Wing"? Are you 'effing nuts? Oh wait, I got it you are going to claim this was all an object lesson, right?

I think of the KKK as being very right-wing. I would jump up and down in a fit of fury if anyone suggested that because you are very right-wing you must (secretly, and without ever mentioning it) agree with their stupid crap. That would be a hateful slur on you and others who agree with you politically.

Lousy analogy. Pathetic actually. And I would jump and down if anyone accused you of killing puppies. Hey, thanks for that.

I have described my political opinions to you. Skeptic has explained how all "progressives" really feel. He is misinformed, a liar, stupid, or insane. Certainly you did. Immediately. You might have immediately known what "Commie" meant in the McCarthy era. Those people. To the left of you. I don't understand the questions, but I just about understand the snide implications of your questions. The answer is "no".

Take a chill pill. It was rhetorical. Where it was wrong I disagreed with him. He has a point. You disagree fine. We could discuss the issues and if wrong I would apologize. However it doesn't look like you want to discuss. You already know what I believe and don't see any point in Skeptics post but simply label him a liar.

But "political correctness" is another of those vague right-wing terms.

Great object lesson. See, the labels and "smear" is ok on the left but folks better not disparage "progressives", hell no! Now, calling folks "Right-wing" and accusing the "right-wing" of dispariging liberals with the use of "political correctness", now that is just fine. The problem is that you can't see the forest for the trees.

Words right-wing people will use to stigmatize people further left than they are but won't actually define:

You mean words like "RIGHT-WING" I don't remember ever having hypocrisy rear its head so blatantly.

(1) "Liberal"
(2) "Progressive"
(3) "Politically Correct"

If you are going to spring some kind of "gotcha" I'm not at all impressed.

(4) "RIGHT WING". You forgot that one.

The fourth and fifth terms, "Commie" and "Marxist" are now considered obsolete and archaic. I am sure because I have been the target of both and I found the fundies much less venomous than the right-wing fantasists on these forums. That is exactly what I was trying to say.

Whatever, your actions are louder than your words. You are labeling a libertarian moderate (namely me) a right-wing and complaining about labels.

It's funny, we have a common language and yet you don't speak irony.

Like I said, your little object lesson misses the point (assuming it was an object lesson and I'm really beginning to wonder).

My point was, Skeptic is trying to tar a whole lot of people with the same brush. Who are the "progressives"? He has some valid points, does he?

Right, and you are not trying to tar an entire group of those on the right. By the way he did modify it with those who believe in the two dogmas.

And here is what you quote to support that: This is lie a from start to finish if it is applied to, for example, me. That is not what I think or feel or say. To whom does it apply? Give their names.

If you are willing to be intellectually honest he said:

those who believe in the two "progressive" dogmas

Do you believe in the two progressive dogmas? I don't know if they are dogmas of progressives but it is damn sure typical of the rhetoric.

And, face it, it's just not true. The "He should be in jail" quote?

Not true? Hmmm.....

I don't know anything else about this Howard Dean --- except that I think he ran in the last primaries but didn't make the final cut --- and he may be an idiot in other ways, but in this instance Skeptic is just mucking about. You don't quite agree with him? I might be a "progressive" but I might not quite be behaving like a psychopath?

Non responsive.

I seem to remember saying kinder things about you, but then I'm one of those wishy-washy liberals. I probably love terrorists as well. Again, I'd like you to produce the quotations.

I'm just human. I'm willing to admit when shown wrong and I have a lot of respect for people I disagree with. I don't claim to be perfect. If that is your expectation and I fail to live up to it then so be it.

You complain about "people" doing that. Would that be the "liberals"? The "progressives"? The "politically correct"? The "Commies"? The "Marxists"?

The folks that do it. And they are typically those on the left. BTW, folks on the right do it also but I've noted it more from the left. I'm sorry you were so offended. I'll dig up some quotes. Give me some time. Of course if you are just going to dismiss them as you did Howard Dean, who only happens to be the DNC chair then what is the point?

In any event if you decide to have a discussion instead of a pissing contest then I think it would be a good thing. There is a point there that you refuse to see because you have been personally slighted. I understand I have been in your shoes myself before. But we can't do that if you refuse to look at the world outside of your own carefully crafted world view.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I don't know anyone making this argument.

That would be what we call an "analogy".

Define "irony"? I support a woman right to choose. I'm for the legalization of pot and the end of the drug war. I'm for the legalization of prostitution. I'm an active member of the Log Cabin Republicans and support them financially. I'm for gay marriage. I support flag burning. I'm against all instances of church and state. I believe that the constitution intended a wall between the two. I don't want prayer in school. I would like to get "in god we trust" of our money. I would like very much for the republican party to be ruled by moderates. I'm a huge fan of John McCain. I supported Bill Clinton and don't care he got a BJ from his intern and that the investigation was wrong. "Right wing"? "Very Right Wing"? Are you 'effing nuts? Oh wait, I got it you are going to claim this was all an object lesson, right?

No, it's just a matter of perspective. I'm English, I vote Labour, you're very right wing. You're American, you're a huge fan of John McCain and a moderate libertarian, I'm very left-wing. Were you not listening when I called myself a pinko liberal?

Lousy analogy. Pathetic actually. And I would jump and down if anyone accused you of killing puppies. Hey, thanks for that.

Why is it a "lousy analogy"? I find what Skeptic said about "progressives" (if I am one) about as hateful as I would if someone tried to link me to the KKK. Why is comparing me to a psychopath less offensive than comparing you to a Klansman? Do tell.

However it doesn't look like you want to discuss.

But being one of those Evil Liberals, I cunningly concealed that by entering into discussion. What a hypocrite I am.

You already know what I believe and don't see any point in Skeptics post but simply label him a liar.

I said that if he was saying those things about me (do I not count as a "progressive") then he is a liar. If he is talking about someone else, then my question: Who are these "progressives"? still stands. Are they made entirely of straw, or do they exist? Who are these evil lunatics? I will help you mock them.

Great object lesson. See, the labels and "smear" is ok on the left but folks better not disparage "progressives", hell no! Now, calling folks "Right-wing" and accusing the "right-wing" of dispariging liberals with the use of "political correctness", now that is just fine. The problem is that you can't see the forest for the trees.

You mean words like "RIGHT-WING" I don't remember ever having hypocrisy rear its head so blatantly.

If you are going to spring some kind of "gotcha" I'm not at all impressed.

(4) "RIGHT WING". You forgot that one.

I had absolutely no idea that the phrase "right wing" was offensive.

Nor, indeed, that it was "hypocritical" to say that the right wing use the words "politically correct" to sneer at the left wing. It may be "hypocritical" to say this, but it is also completely true, so score a point for "hypocrisy" (i.e. telling the truth).

Whatever, your actions are louder than your words.

THIS IS AN INTERNET FORUM. MY "ACTIONS" ARE MY "WORDS". THIS IS THE SORT OF RUBBISH I'VE BEEN COMPLAINING ABOUT.

You are labeling a libertarian moderate (namely me) a right-wing and complaining about labels.

(1) As I said, I didn't think that the phrase "right wing" was taken to be offensive. If it has become like the N-word, I am sorry for using it.

(2) I am not in the least complaining about labels. I called myself a pinko liberal Limey, remember. I said that I am a "progressive" if anyone is. Remember? You are talking rubbish about what I actually wrote. Do you remember? Well if not, go and read my posts.

I glory in those labels. What I object to is the comparison between me and a psychopath.

I will wear any label --- but not a libel.

Right, and you are not trying to tar an entire group of those on the right.

I am not. Show me where I said that.

By the way he did modify it with those who believe in the two dogmas.

If you are willing to be intellectually honest he said: Do you believe in the two progressive dogmas? I don't know if they are dogmas of progressives but it is damn sure typical of the rhetoric.

And if he, or you, or anyone else, will name one single person who believes in those two dogmas, then at least you will have found yourself a man of flesh instead of a man of straw.

But can you?

Non responsive.

I was "non-responsive" halfway through your post?

You have taken the Argument From Bedtime one step further.

I'm just human. I'm willing to admit when shown wrong and I have a lot of respect for people I disagree with. I don't claim to be perfect. If that is your expectation and I fail to live up to it then so be it.

I think that I have already made it clear in the past that although I disagree with your politics I respect you personally. If you will continue to be snarky I may change my opinion.

The folks that do it. And they are typically those on the left. BTW, folks on the right do it also but I've noted it more from the left.

I think the way the quote button hides quotations from previous quotes has fooled you. We were talking about people who "talk about foreingers using relative morality but use a different standard for America." My challenge was: You complain about "people" doing that. Would that be the "liberals"? The "progressives"? The "politically correct"? The "Commies"? The "Marxists"? Me?

You may reply "the folks that do it", as indeed you did. Who are they?

Of course if you are just going to dismiss them as you did Howard Dean, who only happens to be the DNC chair then what is the point?

I'm not up with your domestic politics. As I said, I didn't know who Dean was, and I was just trying to be fair.

I did not "dismiss" the Howard Dean quotes (one of which was not a quote but a paraphrase). I debunked them. They do not show the "double standard" that Skeptic wanted to see in them.

I'm sorry you were so offended... In any event if you decide to have a discussion instead of a pissing contest then I think it would be a good thing. There is a point there that you refuse to see because you have been personally slighted.

I don't see what you're getting at. If you've offended me or personally slighted me, I missed it. The only thing that bothers me personally is that I thought we were friends and you think this is a "pissing contest". We may be miles and miles apart politically, but I thought that you were one of the right wing (sorry, what should I call you?) Americans, like Bruce, where in spite of our political differences, reason and a sense of humour could bridge the gap between us. What hurts me about the way you are conducting this discussion is that I've always held you up as a sensible right-wing (sorry) American. And I've told you so. It always hurts to learn that I've misjudged someone. I am not "slighted", but damn, I'm disappointed.

 

[demon]

Orwell:
"Nitpicking, aren't we? Were the mujaheddin called "freedom fighters" or not by the Reagan administration?"

The Afghanistani alumni poured into Bosnia and Kosovo with the blessing of the Clinton government.
Jihadi terrorism was no problem then because the head-choppers were separating Serbian heads from Serbian necks. The west has funded and supported these extreme Islamist movements when it suited them to do so.
The old "the headchoppers chopping the heads of my enemy are my friend" doctrine at work again.
Now, thanks to Bush & Blair, we've got the Iraqi alumni along with hundreds of thousands if not millions of radicalised Muslims throughout the world.

Since our esteemed leaders and their lackeys on this forum loudly supported a war that was predicted to increase the threat of terrorism, boost recruits of militant Islamists and provide them with a better training ground than Afghanistan in the 80's, I can only conclude that they are still supporters of jihadi terrorists.
Why else would they support policies predicted to heighten the threat? Perhaps they are traitors with another agenda, who simply don't care about the likely consequences of the policies they support?

Afterall, didn't Bush actively incite Iraqis to attack Americans?

"There are some who, uh, feel like that, you know, the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is: Bring 'em on. We got the force necessary to deal with the security situation." - George W. Bush, July 2, 2003

Hundreds of U.S. troops have been killed since Bush urged Iraqis to "bring it on"...have any of our fair weather "terrorist haters" complained about that?