Militant Communists responsbile for Afghanistan wars

[BarakzaiAbdali]

the lie

do you have cognitive problems ? can you read ?

what is your point ?

moving afghanistan closer to islamic nations ? excuse me which islamic nation ? pakistan ? iran ? saudi arabia ?

do we have to ask now the roll chor , which eats british and american **** for decades to teach us islam and truly islamic state , mean while their country is occupied by american french and english soldiers for decades , but now one realize it , because no one care .

or pakistan ?


facts are ,that your non islamic napak friends interacted in our internal affairs even before on single soviet soldier was in afghanistan .

and no the "jahad " was not a response to the soviet intervention but a plan which was workout before , brenzinski admitted this in several interviews , and their are lot of afghan sources which clearly show , that this invasion was provoked by the americans thrue the so called mujahedin and the isi.

so what is your point ? do you want that every ones admitts that its all the "commies " fault and that the ones who are now sitting in kabul are all inocent and for nothing responsibel ???

grow up my child .

and to all non afghans ,especially the ones have the muslim muslim talk .

why is there no sharia in your country and why your people commit so much shirk and kufr ?

As noted in all the references, moscow and the Afghan government's burgeoning relationship was what elicited this response.

You are acting as if Russia did not play the game as well. Just as America was stupid enough to walk into Vietnam and get bled there... all over the map, the Russians and the Americans either forcibly acted or armed particular sides.

And what is confirmed is that Daoud and even his predecessor were strengthening their ties to Moscow. This was all good and well when it came to funding and hospitals and other measures being the gain... and certainly Americans all infrastructure in my father's Kandahar. However, this was a stupid move on the Afghan government's part. Instead of building up internal talent, they decided to parasitize off two super powers under the foolish belief that they could somehow gain all the benefits and have no losses.

And its a fact, as noted above, and as endorsed by Soldat, at the Communists did force land reform and social reform. Watch the videos... the average Afghan in the camp tells how the communists came to their villages and started to insult Islam and attempt to indoctrinate them. When the communist party actually established the face of their government, the intervention was bound to occur.

Regarding Pakistan and these nations... thats a canard. These countries are all propped up by the United States. As you have seen in Egypt, Libya, Saudi, etc and the host of nations you mention, these are not nations that are independent. Their tyrants are funded by the United States. Their own CIA admits this:

" Indeed, one of the reasons Washington associated with and supported Qaddafi after 9/11 was because he was delighted to kill, persecute, and incarcerate Libyan Islamists at home and help us attack others overseas. In this regard, Qaddafi, like Egypt’s Mubarak, Tunisia’s Ben Ali, and Yemen’s Salih, was a key element in Washington’s counter-Islamist strategy. "

- Michael Scheuer, former head of CIA Bin ladin unit.

Regarding the Afghanistan Pakistan conflict, one needs to examine the actual history... the facts as it were:

1. To delve into this some more, I refer you to the classic paper on Afghanistan Pakistan relations by Khurshid Hasan, entitled quiet astutely, Pakistan-Afghanistan Relations in the Asian Survey Vol. 2, No 7 (1962). This source was written and reviewed by diplomats on both sides of the border and generally is the source written closest to the inception of Pakistan. The issue in each conflict is to get to the root and understand what the players are motivated by and figuratively, "who threw the first punch."
A. Per Dr. Hasan, the history speaks for itself. In September of 1947 Afghanistan threw out the first volley and was the ONLY nation in the world to oppose the entry of Pakistan into the realm of nation states.
B. The first ARMED incursions were encouraged by the Afghan government within days of the creation of Pakistan. Tribal militias were armed and entered territories that were not even traditionally within the sphere of particular tribal groups (e.g. Kharoti Pashtun tribal members were armed to invade parts of Waziristan). An added source to buttress this claim is by Ian Talbot, Pakistan: A Modern History, written in 2005.

Unfortunately, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. When the Pakistanis felt that they were in the untenable position of having to defend against Indian action on both sides of their borders, they seek to do what most nation states would and defend their realm with the sorts of tactics they have employed since then. This includes the unfortunate treatment afforded to Balochis.

The better tactic for having to deal with Pakistan was exactly what Ghaznavi proposed. Pakistan is a loose confederation of ethnicities that are forcibly united under lines drawn by a British mandate. What unites them? The idea that they are constantly under threat from their enemy India, as per the Pakistani's governmental stance. The Army is painted as the savior of the people. The Pakistan that I saw in 1996 was one where Army soldiers were given more of a hero's salvo than real professionals or other folks who could actually do good for Pakistan.

This is primarily BECAUSE Pakistan is able to divert the citizenry's attention away from the real divisions that exist in its society (ethnic and religious) including terrible government corruption, towards somewhat inflated outside threats.

Afghanistan ought not to have made these foolish moves in the initial, without any evidence that the denizens of the NWFP wanted to be a part of Afghanistan... instead, Afghanistan should have adopted a clear neutrality policy towards Pakistan. It should have basically defended Afghan borders with massive shows of strength and not allow Afghan soil to be used for anyone's motivations.

This in turn would then force Pakistanis to self reflect. At some juncture, as we see now in the US, militarism fails. People begin to ask: "wait... why are we waisting money fighting this war in that useless place now?" Sure, it would have taken generations... but economic discontent coupled to Pakistan's repeated vigor to accept outside aid, foment massive amounts of corruption, and concentrate power in the hands of the few and far between would have been enough.

My proof that my approach is superior? The East/West Pakistan conflict. Nothing is more lethal to Pakistan than Pakistan itself. It is its own worst enemy. However, if you travel to the NWFP province and encounter the average Pashtun, he is awash in conspiracy theories that every discontented individual is a RAW agent working with Mossad or a Black water affiliate. Why? Because intervention is going on right next door.

Even now, Pakistan is proving its own worst enemy. It is willing to take foreign aid and kill its own people.

[thetruth]

I was not aware that historical facts were up for debate. This is taking tin foil hat wearing to a whole new level.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7764852.stm

Body of Afghan leader identified


Mr Khan will be remembered as a reformer

The body of first Afghan President Mohammad Daud Khan has been identified three decades after he was killed in a Communist coup, officials say.
The discovery was made by members of a government-appointed commission during excavation at a military base outside the capital, Kabul.
Daud Khan overthrew the last king of Afghanistan, Zahir Shah, in 1973.
His death five years later ushered in a decade of Soviet occupation followed by the rise of the Taleban.
The former president is to be given a special funeral ceremony by the government.
Teeth moulds
A spokesman for the Ministry of Health told the Associated Press news agency that the former president's body was among dozens discovered at two mass graves in the Pul-e-Charkhi area, east of Kabul, six months ago.
The spokesman said that Mr Khan and 17 family members and associates were executed inside the presidential palace in Kabul during a communist-inspired coup in 1978.
He said that teeth moulds were used to identify the late president's body but the determining factor was a small golden Koran that was found with his remains.
"This Koran was given to him as a gift by the king of Saudi Arabia when he went on a trip to the kingdom," the spokesman said.
Correspondents say that many Afghans see Mr Khan's murder as one of their country's darkest days, because it was followed by 10 years of Soviet occupation, civil war and the rise of the Taleban, who themselves were toppled by US-led troops in 2001.
It is estimated that about two million people have been killed since the 1978 coup and more than six million have fled the country.
Mr Khan is remembered for his efforts to counter the influence of Islamists and for establishing a republic. He introduced wide ranging reforms and towards the end of his life favoured relations with the West over the Soviet Union.

I am still awaiting refutation of this fact. Some here imply that Mujahideen, and not Communists were behind the assassination.

Please give the facts as we all want to know about this.

There is no debate about whether or not Daud Khan was a secular politician- obviously he was- but what is being pointed out is that this event along with the Communist revolution is the start point for all of Afghanistan's troubles.

[unknownprince]

I am still awaiting refutation of this fact. Some here imply that Mujahideen, and not Communists were behind the assassination.

Please give the facts as we all want to know about this.

There is no debate about whether or not Daud Khan was a secular politician- obviously he was- but what is being pointed out is that this event along with the Communist revolution is the start point for all of Afghanistan's troubles.

I would like to revisit this thread as it seems no evidence was provided to refute the historical record. We all know that Daud khan was a secularist but that does not change the fact tha militant secularists/ communists killed him. Again, in no way get any idea that I favor Daud khan. We are discussing facts not fantasies. There is no need for me to divulge my opinion on him and nor is it important to this debate. The point of this is to point to the start point of Afghanistan's problems which was the militant secularist/ communist activity