Joseph Stack's attack
A man flies a plane into a federal building in a suicide mission in which he wishes to sacrifice himself for a political cause or objective, he must be a Muslim! Not so fast, Joseph Stack seems to have blown that idea to bits, highlighting a fact we have pointed out Ad nauseum, terrorism isn’t a Muslim only brand.
Joe Stack’s story is interesting for a number of reasons,one of them being the confusion on whether or not what he did is terrorism, though it fits the definition of terrorism to the letter,
premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets
News media outlets are a perfect example of the confusion over whether or not to label this an act of terrorism, or whether to label Joe Stack a terrorist. The confusion seems to stem from the fact that Stack is a middle aged White male who isn’t Muslim. If he had been Muslim there would be no confusion, instantly pundits would be in unanimous agreement that this is terrorism.
Glenn Greenwald breaks down the hypocrisy and the double standards quite succinctly, (I recommend all read his article, Terrorism: The Most Meaningless and Manipulated Word)
The New York Times‘ Brian Stelter documents the deep reluctance of cable news chatterers and government officials to label the incident an act of “terrorism,” even though — as Dave Neiwert ably documents — it perfectly fits, indeed is a classic illustration of, every official definition of that term. The issue isn’t whether Stack’s grievances are real or his responses just; it is that the act unquestionably comports with the official definition. But as NBC’s Pete Williams said of the official insistence that this was not an act of Terrorism: there are “a couple of reasons to say that . . . One is he’s an American citizen.” Fox News’ Megan Kelley asked Catherine Herridge about these denials: ”I take it that they mean terrorism in the larger sense that most of us are used to?,” to which Herridge replied: “they mean terrorism in that capital T way.”
The things that make you go hmmm.
Think about that for a second, he is an “American citizen,” so he can’t commit terrorism? Jose Padilla was an American citizen, the una-bomber was an American citizen, Timothy McVeigh was an American citizen. Are they all exonerated because they were American citizens?
Megan Kelley’s words are even more illustrative of the Islamophobia that is commonplace now and buried deep within the American psyche, the “terrorism that we are used to” meaning terrorism can only be commited by Muslims. The “capital T,” might as well be a capital M for Muslim.
Joseph Stack is now being considered a hero and a martyr against big government and the intrusive tax system. Facebook pages and Twitter accounts are abuzz proclaiming Stack a “true American hero.”
The silence from Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, who must be busy with their new Orwellian organization Freedom Defense Initiative is deafening. Other Conservatives are busy boohooing against the Left and claiming that they are being painted unjustly as “extremists and terrorists.” Now isn’t that ironic?
February 22nd, 2010 at 2:13 pm
Muslim + plane + building. I wonder how the media would portray that! I like how Angry Arab put it today:
“When a man fueled by rage against the U.S. government and its tax code crashes his airplane into a building housing offices of the Internal Revenue Service, is it a criminal act or an act of terrorism?”
Thanks AP for this important question. Very good question indeed. Well, I will answer you using the standards of Bill Keller of the New York Times. If the man is Muslim or Arab, this would be clearly a terrorist act. But if the man is non-Arab/non-Muslim, it does not qualify as a terrorist act. And if the man is a staunch Zionist, this would be considered a heroic act and the perpetrator in this case would deserve a recognition by US Congress. OK?
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2010/02/moraljournalistic-dilemma-standards-of.html
Such are the bogus standards of “terrorism”. A completely meaningless word meant to defame Muslims and Islam in order desensitize the public so that wars can continue in Muslim countries in the interest of Israel and energy companies.
February 22nd, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Pamela Geller isn’t exactly silent. She has total editorial control over her comments section (which is why you see a dissenting comment only once in a blue moon) and her readers who can post their are defending this terrorist with the dregs of their dwindling honor.
February 22nd, 2010 at 3:25 pm
So glad you wrote about this Emperor!!! When I saw this on the news I went to Fox to see what they thought and didn’t have time to wait for them to cover it.
February 22nd, 2010 at 3:39 pm
Regardless of whether he ever attended church, his name is a Christian name, and by the same standards the media judges Muslims, that’s all it takes to prove he was a terrorist driven by a toxic, religious ideology. Many times more so if he ever spoke to a Christian pastor or if he said, “Jesus Christ” often.
February 22nd, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Robert4,
Thanks for the tip about Pam. It is interesting how she moderates her site isn’t it? The woman has some of the most insane followers on the net.
Leonora,
Fox so under reported this especially when it happened. I saw CNN, and they had it as breaking news.
February 22nd, 2010 at 4:41 pm
The problem with certian Americans is how they look at their govt and country and her citizens as if we have some sorta monopoly on morality; therfore, Americans and America can’t do anything wrong. Therefore, anybody who opposes Amercas decisions is labeled as “un-American” (as if I could care less). Therefore, the Muslims are/were backwards, because they don’t think, act, or speak like us.
February 22nd, 2010 at 5:05 pm
@Imad “how they look at their govt and country and her citizens as if we have some sorta monopoly on morality”
Many Americans do not have an independent view of other countries and systems, their perception simply mirrors the government’s position as portrayed in the media. See this poll of American favorability ratings of various countries — it’s consistent with the American government’s talking points:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126116/Canada-Places-First-Image-Contest-Iran-Last.aspx
From most favorable to least favorable:
Canada
Great Britian
Germany
Japan
Israel
India
France
Egypt
Mexico
Russia
China
Saudi Arabia
Cuba
Pakistan
Iraq
Yemen
The Palestinian Authority (read: The Palestinian people)
Afghanistan
North Korea
Iran
Is anyone surprised by these results? Any surprise the Iran is last? That countries like Cuba and Pakistan are at the bottom? This polls show American conformity to the government line.
February 22nd, 2010 at 5:43 pm
Hey LW. How come you guys aren’t covering the CPAC event where they had a whole segment about Islam and Jihad? Loons included the likes of Robert Spinster, Pamela Loontastic Geller, Nonie lying Darwish, Wafa Stalin etc. Media Matters, a non-Muslim organization, seems to be covering it and exposing it. Here’s a couple of links that’ll be useful to you guys:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201002220032
and
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201002220029
February 22nd, 2010 at 6:00 pm
@Les
What on earth is wrong about the American public having a low opinion on theocracies like Iran (which has a genocidial policy towards gays) or a stalinist dictatorship like Cuba? It doesn’t mean that Americans are sheepishly following their governments; it means that the American people do not support tyranny.
February 22nd, 2010 at 6:57 pm
@ Lea:
If I understand your comment correctly, then your post confirms mine. Due to this monopoly on morality America supposedly has, “un-American” has become synonymous with “immoral.” Just an example: The burqa, which is obviously un-American, is now synonymous with hiding weapons or being oppressed by her husband/father. Not cultural expression! Not out of her own will! Nope, were going to assume its for the reasons I just said when we have no idea about their culture or identity. Were gonna pass laws based only on assumptions then reality!
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:44 pm
The only people who would equate Joseph Stack with jihad are Muslims and their fools.
Next question.
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:27 pm
@ livinggengine:
you’ve obviously haven’t read the article carefully enough. it did NOT accuse Stack of jihad, but of terrorism. It is obvious I think that you have made jihad synonymous with terrorism, even though it is MUCH more complicated then that.
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:31 pm
“If I understand your comment correctly, then your post confirms mine.”
Yes, I’m agreeing with you and added the poll to support your thesis. That favorability ratings of the American public’s perception of these countries is consistent with the government’s attitude towards these countries. If the US says Iran is bad, the American public agrees that Iran is bad. There’s no independent thought. So if the government/media (really two branches of the same system) says that the Muslim hijab is oppressive, the public will agree. This is hardly an American ruse. Many countries are able to manipulate their citizens in this fashion. We can pretend that we live in a free and open society, but people’s minds are tightly controlled and manipulated by the media and government. There are Muslims who are even manipulated by this. They’re convinced that there is something wrong with them and they force themselves to conform to the anti-Islam attitudes of the general public even if they don’t realize it. People’s prejudices do not develop innocently. It’s the propaganda designed for certain interests.
Also notice how the bottom of the list compromises of Muslim or communist countries. The government and media are anti-Muslim and anti-Communist. Hence the negative public attitudes towards these countries.
“Due to this monopoly on morality America supposedly has, “un-American” has become synonymous with “immoral.”… Not cultural expression! Not out of her own will! Nope, were going to assume its for the reasons I just said when we have no idea about their culture or identity. Were gonna pass laws based only on assumptions then reality!”
Right. And who defines what’s moral and what’s not? Certainly not secular governments. Does a government have the right to declare what’s moral? By what standard are they comparing it to? How are they comparing it? Criticisms of Islamic morality are meaningless when morality has changed over time based on changing social, economic, and geographic circumstances. What is currently considered ‘moral’ in the West did not become moral through righteous arguments. It came about due to circumstances. As an example, monogamy and having small families was first done by the Scandinavians in order to survive the harsh winters. It was obviously easier for men to take care of one wife and 2-3 children instead of 4 wives and 12 children. This practice was then adopted by the rest of Europe and now it’s considered the ‘moral’ position even though it was just a survival tactic. The point is the West has no right to claim that Islam is ‘immoral’ for having women wear the hijab and to dress conservatively since morality is always changing. For the Muslim, Who defines morality is Allah. A divine law is morally absolute and Muslims should never feel that the others know what’s best and what’s ‘moral’ because like terrorism, “morality” is a term that’s different for different people. The West is entitled to say that their morality is superior, BUT they can not tell the Muslims that they are not entitled to claim the same thing about their morality.
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:45 pm
@Hellboy
And I suppose they’re against the Palestinian Authority because they think it’s an Israeli collaborationist organization that is not standing up for the Palestinians as they should? No, they’re against the PA because their government and media hate the Palestinian people and smear them as terrorists. What’s your defense of that? The PA is not a theocracy nor is it a communist tyranny. So why are Americans anti-PA? (and by Palestinian Authority, you should read it as anti-Palestinian people).
February 22nd, 2010 at 11:16 pm
Actually, if you go by the literal meaning of Jihad which is to struggle, Jospeh Stack’s actions does equate with Jihad, specifically a struggle against tax! I find it funny that rather than condemn what Stack did, livingengine takes a swipe at Muslims instead. Loon mentality at its best! Moreover, notice that the other loons are just as silent on this issue as they were on the Wembley preacher rapist. Again, loon mentality at its best!
February 22nd, 2010 at 11:34 pm
Emperor,
I wonder if she thinks her commentors are representative of her readers, or of the general ideas about her hate in the US.
My own humble blog addresses some of the things she says because she refused to let me comment there. (I’ll admit that most of my posts adopted a toungue-in-cheek tone about her brilliant racist insights.) All of the Typepad accounts I “follow” on the belong to Pam’s most hateful commenters.
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:04 am
@living
The only person who mentioned jihad so far is the real fool here. Stack’s actions are those of a terrorist. He has a political axe to grind, he feels he has no legal outlet, he can’t get his way, so he forces his views on others by use of violence. I’m guessing you have him as a hero, attacking big government. That simply confirms the brainwashing which clearly has ahd some success in your case. Try original thought.
February 23rd, 2010 at 4:14 am
Was this suiside bomber a tea bagger ?
He certainly was a terrorist by any sane logical definition
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:38 am
As long as America is in Iraq and Afghanistan using 911 as their justification, or the prevention of future terrorist attacks, then I will not tolerate this guy being called anything else lower then “terrorist.” This man called a hero? By following their idiot ways, I now recognize osama bin laden and his hijackers as heroes, becase the American govt played a major role in causing Afghanistan to shatter into tiny pieces.
No i do not think the terrorists are heroes, I’m just taking their standards if judging a hero and applying it to Taliban and al-Qaeda. But America, coupled with the USSR, are responsible for the destabilization of Afghanistan.
If ur debating of whether or not to call him a terrorist (like an idiot), then I have a MUCH easier way to define this man, the “All American suicide bomber.” I wanna see ANYONE deny that.
February 23rd, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Joseph Stack was nothing but a coward, to his family, to god, to our country. Boo, hoo, hoo, I have money problems and its not my fault, it the big bad government. Talk about a domestic terrorist who happens to be white trailer trash.
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:58 pm
I don’t think Stack was a terrorist*. I don’t think the Fort Hood shooter is a terrorist either. It’s the double standard that people have with regard to “terrorism” that I oppose.
*He was not trying to intimidate the general public in order to influence a change in government policy. He was a fool, a loser who felt that tax rules did not apply to his brilliant self so he took out his anger externally by flying into a building. It makes him a criminal and a moron, but not a terrorist. Pretty much these are the same reasons why the Fort Hood shooter is not a terrorist also. Stack’s government views and Hasan’s religious views are irrelevant.
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:30 pm
The question asked by Loonwatch is “What if he were a Muslim?”
I am not the one trying to make a connection between Jospeh Stack, terror and Muslims ie jihad.
If Stack were a Muslim, shouted “Allahu Akbar”, and quoted from the Koran it would be reasonable to assume it was jihad.
But he wasn’t, he didn’t, and it isn’t.
It is a tag line at Loonwatch to ask “what if he were a Muslim?”
I think it is fair to say Loonwatch’s mission is to obviscate jihad.
Joseph Stach has nothing to do with Muslims, or jihad.
Neverless, the threat of jihad remains whether Loonwatch likes it or not.
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Hellboy,
Your comments are being moderated because you are the same Cassidy and B.Lyndon who has been warned for your misinformation, obfuscation and bigotry.
February 23rd, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Livingengine The threat from terroism remains weather jihad is a threat depends on your definition of jihad. For those who see jihad as a personal inturnal stuggle to live a good life how does this threaten you.
February 23rd, 2010 at 5:39 pm
Nobody is denying that Islamic terrorism (jihad by everyone else’s definition) a problem.
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:22 pm
@ Any CPAC Coverage?:
just saw the video of Robert Spencer and two things stand out: one, his sense of humor (“everybody knows Islam is a religion of peace” in a sarcastic tone with everyone laughing) and two (and more important): when he says “the truth is on our side.” What a phony, and I love the way he speaks; he’s no way near as a powerful speaker as the famous ones, like MLK. His voice is timid like a school presentation.
February 23rd, 2010 at 11:05 pm
“The silence from Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, who must be busy with their new Orwellian organization Freedom Defense Initiative is deafening”
But he sent the verbose and pompous, yet oh-so-devoid of either style or wit Hugh to post about it
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/02/fitzgerald-joe-stack-nihad-awad-andrew-sullivan-and-terrorism.html
The gist of the article is basically that Stack wasn’t a terrorist, because only Muslims are terrorist.
I may be wrong in my interpretation. Let me know if I am.
February 24th, 2010 at 12:53 am
@ Livingengine
I’ve read and reread your post and one or two things spring to mind. Firstly, if you’re going to use words you don’t properly understand, at least use a spell check first. When you use the word ‘obviscate’, and I’ll assume you mean obfuscate, it seems you’re accusing Loonwatch of suggesting that we accuse this loon of ‘jihad’, although it seems you have not the first grasp of the meaning of the word. What Loonwatch is suggesting, in fact, is that different principles appear to be applied to an idiot who is Muslim and one who isn’t. Imagine for a moment the outcry if this particular moron were a Muslim. Consider the security blanket which would have been thrown over flying schools, private airfields etc, the calls for all people of middle eastern appearance flying light aircraft or looking for flying lessons to be reported to Homeland Security. You know the script. Instead, it seems the attitude of the news media is “Attack, what attack?”
A similar circumspection should be applied to abbreviations. ‘i.e.’ (Latin, ‘id est’) literally means ‘that is’. So what you’re actually saying is ‘…..terror and Muslims that is jihad…..’ Since Muslims are not literally Jihad, then this makes no sense.
Livingengine, if in future you should feel the need to enter the intellectual equivalent of a gunfight, make sure you don’t arrive firing blanks.
February 24th, 2010 at 8:34 pm
To the question about CPAC coverage, we will have a feature tomorrow on the charade that was Scamela Geller and the Third Rail panel.
February 25th, 2010 at 2:30 am
@ HGG:
I’d rather have a shiny apple computer freeze before I read such disgusting garbage.
Denying he’s a terrorist is stoopid. Writing an essay of that length to do just that is a waste of time… And also stoopid. But saying only Muslims can commit terrorism… Is infinitly beyond… Stoopidity.
Once again we see a combination of bigotry brought about by the American’s idea of our monopoly on morality.
February 25th, 2010 at 3:10 am
@ HGG (again)
I have to admit I didn’t even read the essay and I jus read the first few paragraphs Now (what better to do at 1:35 and u can’t sleep?) I immediatly stopped when he cited verse 8:60, which is of course one of those violent verses that cannot be understood by just READING it. I always laugh tho when ppl cite 8:60, cuz the verse rite after says “if the enemy incline toward peace, then u also incline toward peace.” (paraphrase)
from what I can tell, Spencer is just pissed cuz CAIR made an ACCURATE statement (I don’t trust CAIR a lot myself) and is now spitting shit cuz he can’t stand the thought of his readers pondering WHAT IF ROBERT SPENCER IS WRONG? If a lot of ppl call this guy a terrorist, then they’ll think that. Unfirtunatly, they have too much faith in Spencer.
February 25th, 2010 at 7:21 am
It is terrorism to me, just like 9-11. The fact that Stack was not doing it out of religion doesn’t change that.
“By following their idiot ways, I now recognize osama bin laden and his hijackers as heroes, becase the American govt played a major role in causing Afghanistan to shatter into tiny pieces. ”
You do that.
The Taliban pretty much wrecked Afghanistan. And if they had not harbored AQ in Afghanistan from where they launched their terrorist attacks, we would not be there now.
Since we are there there are efforts to help them rebuild:
U.S. Military Experiments With Empowering Afghan Businesswomen
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/world/asia/30iht-afwomen.html
Talk about the good along with the problems with the US.
Hold those terrorists in Afghanistan accountable for their own actions.
February 25th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
@ TYO:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_CIA_Taliban.html
whether you like it or not, America was funding fanatical Muslims and setting up training camps for training them. Long story short, the Taliban were students of these schools and fought in the USSR Afghan war. Also, in October 2001, the Taliban offered negotiations to hand over bin laden, if only America provided evidence of bin laden being guilty of 911, and stopped air strikes in Afghanistan. Bush did not accept te offer and went on with the invasion. Taliban and all those fanatical Muslims would have a LOT less influence in Afghanistan, let alone the world, if they were not funded by America. If we cared so much about rights in Afghanistan, we wouldve stopped the Taliban in 1996, when they massacred hazaras and their oppression of women started.
February 25th, 2010 at 10:14 pm
@ TYO:
judging from ur last statement, u must think I’m anti amercan. I definitly am not, I love this country but it’s policies with Afghanistan since 1979 were an utter failure. I am glad America is helping rebuild Afghanistan but like I said, I’m pretty sure that Afghanistan would turn out a lot different if America, coupled with the USSR, did not intervene and leave them to their own affairs.
February 26th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
Glad to know you are not anti-American. I am kinda tired of people everything always is all America’s fault and only America’s. And I say this as a liberal, which no doubt to some on the conservative far right would be a shock (as if they are the only ones who love our country).
I am well aware of America’s involvement in Afghanistan in the 1980s. I am familiar with “Taliban” by Ahmed Rashid, and “Ghost Wars” by Steve Coll. That was no secret. The USSR invaded, and my country supported those who were fighting them. You say America should not have intervened. Perhaps you are right and the anti-Soviet Afghans should have been left alone to fight the USSR without US money and weapons($2 billion), and an array of intelligence, military expertise and advanced weapons. http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/afghanistan-history-pr.cfm
But you know, the US was not alone. You condemn the US, but not Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. You know the three countries who recognized the Taliban when they took over are? Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirate. You know what their role was in Afghanistan?: “[I]t really swelled between 1981 and 1985. Essentially, under Bill Casey, the CIA created a three-part intelligence alliance to fund and arm the Mujahadeen, initially to harass Soviet occupation forces and eventually they embraced the goal of driving them out. The three-way alliance in each of the parties had a distinct role to play. The Saudi, their intelligence service primarily provided cash. Each year the congress would secretly allocate a certain amount of money to support the CIA’s program. After that allocation was complete, the US Intelligence liaison would fly to Riyadh and the Saudis would write a matching check. The US role was to provide logistics and technological support as well as money. The Saudis collaborated with Pakistan’s intelligence service, ISI, to really run the war on the front lines. It was the Pakistani army, in particular the ISI, that picked the political winners and losers in the jihad, and who favored radical Islamist factions because it suited the Pakistan’s army goal of pacifying Afghanistan, a long-time unruly neighbor to the west, whose ethnic Pashtun nationalism the army feared. The army saw Islam not only as a motivating force in the anti-Soviet jihad, but as an instrument of Pakistan’s regional policy to control Afghanistan. The US acquiesced with all of this in part because they thought that the only purpose that brought them to the region was to drive the Soviets out, and they didn’t really care about local politics. But also because after Vietnam, the generation of CIA officers involved in this program were scarred by their experiences in Southeast Asia, and they essentially operated under a mantra of no more hearts and minds for us. We’re not good at picking winners and losers in a developing world. Let’s let the Pakistanis decide who carries this jihad forward. That’s how the favoritism of the radical Islamic factions was born and nurtured.” http://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/10/ghost_wars_how_reagan_armed_the
But it seems to be just easier to blame all of it on the US even though the USSR invaded, even though China sold the weapons used to fight the Soviets, even though money came from Saudi Arabia too, even though Saudi Arabia and Pakistan took the lead in the war on the front lines and even though the Taliban long after the Soviets left – the USSR doesn’t even EXIST anymore — are the ones still making the people of Afghanistan live in the Middle Ages in 2010.
By the way I find the US right wing fundamentalist rather hypocritical. They looooove to blame the left, but it was the religious right who supported Muslim fundamentalists for decades not only in Afghanistan but anywhere where there was a secular and left leaning government: “In the Cold War period, I think there was a real belief, certainly by Bill Casey, who was a devout catholic and by the Saudi royal family, that the support of religious networks and organizations against soviet supported either communist or leftist governments was not only good tactics, but it was also righteous. It was the battle of the faithful against the godless was really, I think, at some personal level, how Casey and some of the Saudis saw it. As you say, that wasn’t spontaneous idea. It was rooted in approaches that governments had taken, the British and the United States, when secular socialist governments had risen in the Middle East earlier. ” http://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/10/ghost_wars_how_reagan_armed_the
It is not right to blame the US for Afghanistan like you did.
Plus it is mind blowingly hypocritical of of the US right to act as if they had nothing to do with supporting their fellow fundamentalists against secular and left leaning governments. Both are examples of cherry picking.
February 28th, 2010 at 12:41 am
@ TYO:
You’re right of course; I made a big mistake condemning only the U.S. And USSR only. I a tually knee about Saudi Arabia and pakistan and the ISI. I forgot to mention them I guess.
Your last paragraph sums it up best; and I am glad you’ve shown me my error. I promise to take it into consideration next time I think about afghan affairs. My two pet peeves about some American people are when they act as if we had no role in supporting Islamic fundamentalism, and when ppl think the war in Afghanistan should be continuing for the sake of the afghan people. My problem with the second thing is that, if we cared so much about their rights and all that, we wouldve stopped the Taliban in 1996, when they were massacring hazaras and destroying womans’ rights.
Is my statement correct?
February 28th, 2010 at 9:53 am
I get annoyed at right wing conservatives who forget that their number one hero Reagan during his administration in the 1980s was the one funding the anti-Soviet Afghans, and since Pakistan was the one who picked whom to support (“Ghost Wars”), many of the were fanatics. But under that conservative Republican administration they were then seen as fellow co-religionists against the Godless communists. The Afghans even made it into a Rambo movie. The irony is that the USSR saw the danger of those fanatics rising in Afghanistan:
“Reagan can’t be blamed for ignoring the threat of Osama Bin Laden. Not for another few years would any analyst see Bin Laden as a significant player in global terrorism; not till the mid-1990s would his organization, al-Qaida, emerge as a significant force.
However, Reagan—and those around him—can be blamed for ignoring the rise of Islamic militancy in Afghanistan and for failing to see Gorbachev’s offer to withdraw as an opportunity to clamp the danger. Certainly, the danger was, or should have been, clear. Only a few years had passed since the Ayatollah Khomeini rose to power in Iran—the shah toppled, the U.S. Embassy employees held hostage, the country turned over to the mullahs, the region suddenly destabilized. Reagan beat Jimmy Carter so decisively in the 1980 election in part because of the hostage crisis.
Gorbachev had accepted that Afghanistan would become an Islamic country. But he assumed that Reagan, of all people, would have an interest in keeping it from becoming militantly, hostilely, Islamist.” http://www.slate.com/id/2102243
I think that more people should have helped during the 1990s. But then I get frustrated when some Muslims then say they don’t want us there. Then you have the likes of the Pakistanis who bitch about their feeling of abandonment. What crap. If those three countries were the only ones who recognized the Taliban. Then it seems to me Afghanistan was under the Pakistani control just as they wanted it. Let’s not forget the assasination of Masood just before 9-11 “In April 2001, Nicole Fontaine invited Massoud to address the European Parliament in Brussels, Belgium. In his speech, Massoud warned that the Taliban had connections with al-Qaeda and that he believed an important terrorist attack was imminent.[29]… News of Massoud’s death was reported almost immediately, appearing on the BBC, and in European and North American newspapers on September 10, 2001. However, the news was quickly overshadowed by the September 11, 2001 attacks the following day, which appeared to be the terrorist attack that Massoud had warned against in his speech to the European Parliament several months earlier.
The timing of the assassination, two days before the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, is considered significant by commentators who believe Osama bin Laden ordered the assassination to help his Taliban protectors and ensure he would have their protection and co-operation in Afghanistan. The assassins are also reported to have shown support for bin Laden in their questioning of Massoud. The Pakistan Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Mujahideen leader Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, an Afghan Wahhabi Islamist, have also been mentioned as possible organizers or collaborators of the Massoud assassins.[32] Massoud was a strong opponent of Pakistani involvement in Afghanistan. The assassins are said to have entered Northern Alliance territory under the auspices of the Abdul Rasul Sayyaf and had his assistance in bypassing “normal security procedures.”[32]” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Shah_Massoud
The US could have provided even more humanitarian aid and more for the women and other ethnic groups, sure. But what about the other 56 OICs? Shouldn’t they have done even more than the US to help them, being Islamic countries themselves? I find it hard to believe that if all the other Islamic countries wanted to they could not have uplifted the Afghan women and protected the ethnic groups like the Hazaras. FYI in “Taliban” it reports that “there was no coherent US policy, except to go along with what Pakistan and Saudi Arabia wanted” p177