he was like your ali jinna except rabani did not suceed.

rabbani became an aloof buffoon, not a crazy mass murderer. the title of president is only as good as the authority it demands. if rabbani was the ****miest leader in afghanistan, then what does that make father haqqani or other prominent jihadis who served in his administration? if mullah omar calls himself the commander of the faithful, by your reasoning that would not only make him responsible for what happens in afghanistan, but in the entire muslim world, no? if rabbani is **** because of what happened under his watch in afghanistan, then what does that make the amir ul momineen for what has happened in the muslim world since whenever he took that title?

i don't know how you can say he is worse than communists that murdered over a million afghans, that is ridiculous.

the thing is that this argument doesn't really hold up when you see that hekmatyar used general tanai and his khalqis to lead failed coup against najibullah.

both sides used defected to jamiat or hezb.

But you failed to mention the president that was before him, Sibghatullah Mojaddedi, who gave up the presidency after his turn was up. Rabani refused to give up the presidency after he got the seat which forced hekmatyar to throw rockets at Kabul and limited Kabuls administration over the country. Rabani was the kind of khar that would rather be a president of a destroyed country, which is what happened because of his action to refuse to abide to what he agreed to, then be a citizen of a stable country, which was possible if he had done what he agreed to. The 92-96 war and the destruction of the country and paksitans stratigic influence that lead to the rise of the Taliban was completely his fault.

The reason I think he was worse than Najib was because Najib was a stooge of the soviets who had limited decision making. He on the other hand was no stooge of anyone except his own ego, and if he was that power hungary, which was realized(92-96), than he is as much responisible for the million afghan deaths as Najib and the Soviets because that means he was never fighting for justice, he was fighting for his own greed and power.

well there is no doubt that rabbani was an opportunist and his extention of power rubber stamped from a sham group made up of his own cronies was a crime. the thing is that you are acting like paki influence was only introduced because of rabbanis backtracking, when we know that this country and others had their claws in the country since the 70s. hell, it was paki backing in the first place that helped create the initial post commie afghan government. thinking that hekmatyar and criminal actions was some sort of victim of circumstances created by rabbani would be dishonest, as even the taliban considered hekmatyar a warlord and murderer and fought his hezb. and of course a jihadi leader would fight for power, rabbani/hekmatyar and other islamic figures fought in the late 70s and sacrificed their lives for 13 years fighting commies when most ran. you only fight when you think you have a solution to a problem, you don't win and then go away.

what i want to know from you is what you think about omar going by the title of amir ul momineen. this while you are judging rabbani for the failures of the afghan nation at the time of his appointed title when our grand invisible mullah took the helm of the muslims of the world.

sure it was from the 70's but Rabani put the final nail in the coffin. Even after 2001, Afghanistan had a huge opportunity, he again was at the helm but because of his ego, he again robbed the afghan nation of any dignity and unity. The man was a symbol of disunity, the problems the afghan nation is facing today is because of what he did. He was more than a title, he should have followed in the footsteps of Mojadidi.

You have to look at his from a rational point of view. Think of it this way, When George Washtington stepped down after his turn as president(which was revolutionary at the time considering what was going on in the rest of the world) and John Adams took the presidency, what do you think would have happened if John Adams had refused to step down from power?

The title, the commander of the faithful was given to him to try to rebuild what was destroyed by rabani. To bring unity back to the country. clearly titles like the president or king was not working. I doubt it was intended for the faithful of all in the world but I think it was more for afghanistan, and he is more of a spiritual leader, intended for unity, than an actual commander.
To me the Taliban was a reaction to what Rabani caused. The Taliban could have been prevented if Rabani had done what John Adams did.

actually your argument that "since he has done it they must have done it too" doesnt hold up.

hekmatyar used general tanaai? i hope you were joking because that is some of the most ignorant **** ive ever heard.

tanai did his coup because he didnt like najib which was from parcham faction,he only joined the "mujahideen" after he escaped and his coup failed.

how can you compare that to the coup by parchamis on parchami leader and than the parchamis sitting in rababni government?

hekmatyar didnt want them in the government neither did he want khalqis and he treated khalqis very badly ,putting them captive in underground holes with schorpions or using generals as soldiers.

be a little more intelectually honest because your bias is obvious.

where you in kabul when the COUPS happend and the civil war?

wrora
this rababni and his gang by sacking kabul declared that the pashtuns rule is over.Rabani was one of the ethnofascists who caused the ethnic tensions.They wished to rule Afghanistan and contain pashtuns and pashto and limit them.

i have seen his thugs in my neighbourhood and ive seen hekmatyar's men and i can tell you hekmatyar's men were angels compared to them.

these guys actually banded together with dostum and his gilamjam and looted kabul,raped women(their own tajiks),killed people.
they had checkpints and they would rob people at these checkpoints.

i can tell you in details if it is needed.

I agree with bredmel on this one. you cant bring tanai into this because tanai was his own man. He didn agree with Najibs policy and wanted to eliminate him. Hekmatyar didnt pull any strings, he just welcomed him when Tanai escaped which was a sign telling other communist leaders to defect. What Rabani did was different.

I agree with you. I know what rabani did. The people on here think he was some kind of a ikhwani unity leader when in fact he was the exact opposite. In my opinion he was worse than Najib because you knew where Najib stood. Rabani was a complete hypocrit.