Its called strawman fallacy. He is trying to divert the orginal argument in to a new argument that is easily defendable.

you say rabbani was the worst of the worst, worse than the commies and yet its taboo to talk about communists joining the mujahadin for their supporters. so what does that make the taliban if they had followers of the worst of the worst join them when they jumped from the sinking ship of the rabbani government?

this is afghanistan we are talking about, there is ethnic animosity but there is not ethnic hatred. rabbani was allied with pashtuns and hekmatyar was allied with hazaras, with the uzbeks being the wild card.

his death only served to make the anti afghanistan/pro federalists stronger as karzai had the likes of fahim and rabbani in his camp.

your bringing in khalis and haqani who were never communists. those alliance you talk about were alliances of convenience the way the russians and americans were allies during WW2 against a common foe at a particular time plus the groups did not have good central leadership. You had commanders that were loyal to one group one day and another group another day depending on who they benifited from on that day.
But again, all that was the cause of chaos which Rabani caused by violating the agreement and refused to step down. And he was no ikhwani as you claim. His goal was not to create a government of Islamic values, his goal was to create a government dominated by his own ethnicity. He was not an ideologist, he was an ethnofacist.

What a joke...

neither were najib and company communists or karzai and co democrats, it was simply hanging on the coat tails of the people who could bring them power and were/are themselves alliances of convenience. if rabbani is worse than najib and others, does that make a communist commander better than the likes of haqqani who allied himself with rabbanis ethnofacist government as you put it? would this not be a stain on the taliban movement that they have someone worse than a communist high up in their ranks?