With different undertones. Did Ronald Reagan fight Islamic sharia law and in Islamic countries? No, the meaning of international terrorism has changed greatly over the last 20 years. Brutal terrorists from al-Qaeda, Taleban, Hamas, Hezbollah, Ansar al-Islam, want to see the world united under one religion and political ideology. Islamic sharia law. This was not as much the issue before 9/11, as after.
For me there can only be a real war when it has been declared. Bush declared war on 20 September 2001. There were problems with terrorism before that, but there was never an official declaration of war against it. Like the United States involvement in WWII. It participated in the war, but only became part of the war when it declared War against Japan.
Bush redeclared it. Reagan publicly declared war on terrorism. Seriously, i don't even live in the country and i remember.
When did Reagan publicly declare war? Is it possible to give us a date and some evidence?:unsure:
I prefer a source of the above information and preferably a link so that I can see it for myself. The above is just a repeat of what you have already said.
A lot of people have declared war, and I know what you're talking about. BUT the war on terror that Reagan declared was very different from what Bush did, and that's the point.
I prefer a source of the above information and preferably a link so that I can see it for myself. The above is just a repeat of what you have already said.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/ronaldreagan
When the attack on the WTC back in 2001, it started a new era. Between the Western civilization and the Muslim world. Now the ideologies that radical Muslims have are still pretty much the same today compared to when Reagan was president. But the difference was that Reagan wasn't fighting the female discrimination, the limiting of freedom and the beheading of people with different beliefs as George Bush has, and now Obama has continued, in Afghanistan. This war on terror, the 2000 war on terror, is between world views and to defeat the hate against the West that al-Qaeda and the Taleban represents. When Osama bin Laden and other terrorists decided to attack the United States back in 2001, it wasn't because they think it's fun to see buildings blow up. When they attacked London in 2005, they didn't see undergrounds and buses blowing up as entertaining, same goes for Madrid in 2004. The reason is that the hate for the West is so great amongst these people is great because of a difference in the setting of lives. Bin Laden and a lot of other radical Muslims believe that we are stupid, dirty and filthy unbelievers who need to be taught a lesson and he wants us to join Islam. That is what the current war on terror is all about, especially referring to Afghanistan because of the complex and dangerous situation there. Now Reagan I know would also face this situation head on had he been president today, but his reasons and the situation back in the 1980s was very different. The United States for example supported Mujahideen and the Taleban against the Russians in Afghanistan back in the 70's and 80's because the views and the situations were so different. The priority of the United States, obviously, was to defeat the Russians with every means necessary. Including supporting extremists, unfortunately.
Well, i disagree with your premise for a start. The most radical Muslims live in Saudi Arabia. Most terrorist training happens in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. The similarities are not even that general! The Taliban are a faction of the Mujahadeen, by the way, they're not that seperate. They're horrible and oppressive, but they're moderates compared to Al Qaeda, which is a Wahabbist movement (the Taliban are Sunni). The Wahabbists ae also the religious group in power in Saudi Arabia. Now Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are some of America's best buddies!
Like with Reagan, it's about physically fighting terrorists. Both fought Islamic extremists (1981/2001) - both used physical force (RR -El Salvador/Nicaragua, GW - Afghanistan)
Also, i presume Bush really did want to end terrorism, which Reagan correctly identified as being ultimately impossible, but he had to choose the stupidest way of going about it.
Like with Reagan, it's about physically fighting terrorists. Both fought Islamic extremists (1981/2001) - both used physical force (RR -El Salvador/Nicaragua, GW - Afghanistan)
Also, i presume Bush really did want to end terrorism, which Reagan correctly identified as being ultimately impossible, but he had to choose the stupidest way of going about it.
I've looked through many sources, including Wikipedia and none of them mention Reagen. However, I did find a good source in the second link below, however the date of Reagen's denunciation was 1985, not 1981:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_preseident_declared_war_on_terrorism
Source: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11655.htm
Last edited:
Now don't forget Yemen, Somalia and Afghanistan.
Did I ever say they were? But do remember they ruled in different decades, under different control.
I am aware of that. The reason why the United States are good friends with Pakistan is because they need to be allied with them to defeat the Taleban.
But the reasons were completely different, and the reasons, which I clearly stated in my post, are based on completely different situations.
But they're not that different. Both declarations were made by Republican presidents a a result of state-supported Islamic extremists making violent attacks on US citizens.
Naturally, there were differences. Iran is Shi'a and Afghanstan is Sunni. Iran ultimately released its hostages. George Bush took violent action against "terrorism" in Afghanistan, Reagan against "terrorism" in Nicaragua and El Salvador.
But both declarations were for very similar reasons.
Fair enough, that much is true. But todays basis for world terrorism is still not the same as it was back in the 80's. The terrorist organizations were helped by the United States 20-30 years ago to defeat the Russians. Today the American governments, Bush and Obama administrations, have realized the seriousness of the world view of bin Laden. This started already back in the 80's, but the United States back then defended him, and didn't oppose him.
No, I am arguing because you say that Reagan and Bush's base were the same. Now I don't believe this is true, because if you looked at the United States relations with these organizations back in the 80's when Reagan was president and the decade we just passed, the relations were extremely different.
The United States supported the Islamists, Taleban among others in Afghanistan against the Russians. This shows that for Reagan and Bush senior the fight against the Russians were more important than fighting radical Islam. And I can understand that, because 20-30 years, things looked rather different in the word. And this has been my point all a long that the real fight against radical Islam under the definition terrorism began first back in 2001.
Similar threads
