Why and Who killed Ahmad Shah Massoud?

[MostafaM]

Why is Abdullah Azzam an institution in your mind to hail someone or not?

Abdullah Azzam himself arrived in Pakistan when the war against the Russian occupation had started already.

The other thing is:
Massoud clearly left Afghanistan on several occasions, specially when the Taliban had encircled Panjsher. He had left Afghanistan and was staying in a military garrison of the Russian troops securing the Tajik border in Kulab. It's funny because his own grandfather was from that very Kulab, Tajikistan and had left for Afghanistan to flee the Zarist invasion.
He was in Pakistan in 70ies, after and before the so-called "Panjsher Mutiny".
Untill 1980 he didn't enter Afghan soil and was prepared by the Pakistani armed forces alongside Hekmatyar and others.

[badmash_khel]

^
Abdullah Azzam is not an institution but his opinion is used because he is widely respected among differing groups.

Well if a wazir from waziristan can live in afghanistan than why not a tajik form tajikistan in tajik dominated areas?

I am not defending Massoud here but I only want to get to the bottom of matter.
Is there a reliable book available about him?

[MostafaM]

Abdullah Azzam was an islamic internationalist with absolute zero understanding of Afghanistan, it's people and history.

I don't have any problem with Tajiks from Tajikistan even living in Kandahar or Paktia.

I do have a problem with people who's loyalty is not with the people they live with or the sociaty that has welcomed them and safed them from persecution.

Massouds behaviour was absolutly not in favour of the Afghan people. The "Panjsher Mutiny" is one good example where he and other islamic factions revolted against the Daoud Regime in 70ies. They did this under the guidance of the ISI to undermine a national and strong Afghanistan by implementing islamic, internationalistic Ikhwani ideology.

I haven't read an unbiased book about him so far. People write polemic books about him and others praise him and would love to give a post hum Noble Peace Price.

But if we look at the facts with the intention to understand his legacy, we first encounter his actions against the Daoud Regime.
There was no PDPA regime and no Russian intervention......isn't this treason to fight against your own country with the help of a foreign and enemy entity?

[badmash_khel]

^
Massoud was ikhwanite style islamist so ofcourse republicanism, democracy and communism are against his belief system. His revolt is natural since he is an ikhwani.

Like Taliban these islamists don't recognize international borders, no borders between muslims. Well Massoud can use the old excuse that the Daud regime wasn't islamic so his revolt and opposition was islamic just like Taliban fought the Rabbani-Hekmatyar regime with the help of Pakistan. Isn't it the same thing?

[MostafaM]

Massoud himself was an opportunist who fought under many political believes just to implement his own agendas.

In the 80ies he was preaching Islam, in 2000 when he came to Luxemburg to talk in front of the European Parliament, he was talking about democracy and women's rights.

His natural believe was that of an anti-Pashtun agenda. This becomes clear when we look at how, when and where he established the Shura-e Nezar to sideline the Pashtun dominated real resistance in the south.

It's more than clear that large parts of Khad and Khad-e Nezami who united with him in 91/92 and large segments of the anti-Pashtun Setami factions of the PDPA rallied around him to counter those who were bombed on a daily basis in the south while he enjoyed peace treaties with the Russians.

One of his first speeches in 1992 to his commanders was that "they had finally ended the 300 year rule of Pashtun rulers at last". A witness of these words was the Military Attaché of Afghanistan to India at that time, named Kakar (forgot his first name), who was present when Kabul was taken by him and large parts of the collapsing Afghan Army joined Massoud.

[Catya Sher]

Replying to Roadrunner's cynical comment about Afghan Arabs -
of course there is some truth in that.
But too, one must remember that these people GOT THERE,
and TRIED to do something, maybe not military as much as provide
moral support by showing brotherhood with fellow Muslims struggling
in the first REAL Jihad in probably centuries.


I didn't interview any, so I don't claim to know the general motives

The only time I really heard of them was ironically when writing a travel article
on Chitral. There was a new regulation that foreigners must register, so when I
went in for that, the official mentioned how many Arabs were up in Chitral.
It was a surprise to me.

They apparently kept to themselves and did not mingle well with afghans
in Peshawar, even, let alone in Afghanistan.

My attitude is : at least they did a little !

Compare this with the rest of the planet which largely sat back and watched
the bloody war of occupation by the Soviet Union. There was a lot talk
from European intellectuals - even leftist ones - against that war.
But few took concrete action, outside of MSF, Medecins du Monde, etc.

Where was this prominent Jewish French writer and "philosopher"
Bernard-Henri Levy, for example, in those days? He was vocal enough
when Daniel Pearl, fellow Jew, was executed. THEN, he went to Pakistan,
made extensive interviews, wrote an entire book detailing the investigation
of the death of one Wall Street Journal writer.

I doubt such types were bothered to publicize even this PRIME
anti-Communist cause of the Afghan jihad of the 80s.

By contrast, at least Arabs all over the world roused themselves and
traipsed to Peshawar. One can complain this and that, but
at least they WENT ! At least they had that much sincerity.
Surely the Afghan Arabs did not go to make MONEY !

[Catya Sher]

Mostafa,

Then what was the problem with Abdullah Azzam specifically if he
was ignorant of Afghan ways.

For example, what problem did this cause ?

I had always heard of him as altruistic and caring.

Did he cause friction with local Afghan leaders, then?
Was he abrasive or demanding ?

I am curious to understand better.

Regarding Massoud, Mostafa's last comment was excellent.
That was awful that he descended to that level of
catering to Europeans' obsessions with
women's rights and their insistence on "democracy".

Pursuant to the part about Massoud wishing for the end of 300 years
of Pashtun rule, didn't he say something like "Instead of Ahmad Shah Baba,
it will be Ahmad Shah Massoud leading the country" -

[roadrunner]

One thing in favour of Massoud is that he fought shoulder to shoulder with his people, didn't leave Afghanistan when people like Hekmatyar and Mullah Omar fled to Iran and Pakistan.

He fled to the Panshir Valley. The Panshir Valley has the best hiding places.

If he was more brave than the others you quote, why did he flee Kabul and not stay?

For all we know he was a muslim and took part in Jihad. His biggest criticism is that he allegedly signed a treaty with Russians. If that is the case and he was a traitor and munafiq then why would Abudllah Azzam of all people say good things about him?

Probably because Abdullah Azzam was a fanatic like Massoud and he was willing to overlook the Massoud's treachery that cost many Pashtun lives?

What makes Abdullah Azzam highly respected btw? Only in radical literature is he highly respected. He seems like a douchebag.

[roadrunner]

Replying to Roadrunner's cynical comment about Afghan Arabs -
of course there is some truth in that.
But too, one must remember that these people GOT THERE,
and TRIED to do something, maybe not military as much as provide
moral support by showing brotherhood with fellow Muslims struggling
in the first REAL Jihad in probably centuries.


I didn't interview any, so I don't claim to know the general motives

The only time I really heard of them was ironically when writing a travel article
on Chitral. There was a new regulation that foreigners must register, so when I
went in for that, the official mentioned how many Arabs were up in Chitral.
It was a surprise to me.

They apparently kept to themselves and did not mingle well with afghans
in Peshawar, even, let alone in Afghanistan.

My attitude is : at least they did a little !

Compare this with the rest of the planet which largely sat back and watched
the bloody war of occupation by the Soviet Union. There was a lot talk
from European intellectuals - even leftist ones - against that war.
But few took concrete action, outside of MSF, Medecins du Monde, etc.

Where was this prominent Jewish French writer and "philosopher"
Bernard-Henri Levy, for example, in those days? He was vocal enough
when Daniel Pearl, fellow Jew, was executed. THEN, he went to Pakistan,
made extensive interviews, wrote an entire book detailing the investigation
of the death of one Wall Street Journal writer.

I doubt such types were bothered to publicize even this PRIME
anti-Communist cause of the Afghan jihad of the 80s.

By contrast, at least Arabs all over the world roused themselves and
traipsed to Peshawar. One can complain this and that, but
at least they WENT ! At least they had that much sincerity.
Surely the Afghan Arabs did not go to make MONEY !

No they didn't go to make money. They went to earn reputations for themselves as holy or unholy warriors.

I don't think many of them did it for the right reasons (solidarity etc). If they did they would have done it from the beginning.

[badmash_khel]

He fled to the Panshir Valley. The Panshir Valley has the best hiding places.

If he was more brave than the others you quote, why did he flee Kabul and not stay?

From what I know, his "withdrawl" from Kabul was a tactical manoeuvre to spare kabul from becoming the battleground and its citizens being killed.He couldn't defend Kabul alone so he did what he thought was best for the citizens of Kabul. Throughout history many commanders have withdrawn from cities. its not a big issue.

Probably because Abdullah Azzam was a fanatic like Massoud and he was willing to overlook the Massoud's treachery that cost many Pashtun lives?

What makes Abdullah Azzam highly respected btw? Only in radical literature is he highly respected. He seems like a douchebag.

I am sure he was a better person than many of us.

Abdullah Azzam is respected within radical circles who are some of Massoud's harshest critics. Thats why I mentioned. If you want I can mention the opinion of some of his french supporters as well

[roadrunner]

One of his first speeches in 1992 to his commanders was that "they had finally ended the 300 year rule of Pashtun rulers at last". A witness of these words was the Military Attaché of Afghanistan to India at that time, named Kakar (forgot his first name), who was present when Kabul was taken by him and large parts of the collapsing Afghan Army joined Massoud.

I agree he wanted Tajik ethnic domination in Pashtun majority Afghanistan. I don't know if those words are true or not.

The wearing of the Pashtun cap was was a token gesture.

[roadrunner]

From what I know, his "withdrawl" from Kabul was a tactical manoeuvre to spare kabul from becoming the battleground and its citizens being killed.He couldn't defend Kabul alone so he did what he thought was best for the citizens of Kabul. Throughout history many commanders have withdrawn from cities. its not a big issue.

I agree it's not a big issue. You made it a big issue by saying other commanders had withdrawn to other places.

I am sure he was a better person than many of us.

Abdullah Azzam is respected within radical circles who are some of Massoud's harshest critics. Thats why I mentioned. If you want I can mention the opinion of some of his french supporters as well

So what does that prove? Only that Massoud was admired by radicals, some who admired his treason, others that did not. Abdullah Azzam would be the worst of the lot of his radical admirers as he doesnt see treason as a big issue.

[Khostai]

It's bad to be happy that someone got killed even if he was a bad persson but I gona say killing Massoud was a good job, to bad they didn't kill the rest of the gang..

[MostafaM]

Mostafa,

Then what was the problem with Abdullah Azzam specifically if he
was ignorant of Afghan ways.

For example, what problem did this cause ?

I had always heard of him as altruistic and caring.

Did he cause friction with local Afghan leaders, then?
Was he abrasive or demanding ?

I am curious to understand better.

What the problem with Abdullah Azzam was?

If I am ignorant of something, then I do my best to get more knowledge about it before I try to help or fix a problem.

Internationalistic worldviews like communism and political islam deny cultural and social differencies because in their world view these things are "part of the past".

The "past" is very present in Afghanistan, even today.

Abdullah Azzam tried to import his internationalist views into a sociaty and we see the outcome of political islam today: we can interprete the current conflict in Afghanistan of theocracy vs non-theocratical systems.

Before 1979 an idea of a state where the religious and wordly leadership is united in one person was unthinkable. To be historically correct, it never happened during the last 1000 years in modern day Afghanistan that the clerus led the country.

Abdullah Azzam did his part for destroying the tribal and social structures, shifting the power of the old powerbases of the tribes and elders to those who owned guns and could hire thugs to fight for them.

He and his Arab friends were as alien to Afghanistan as the Russian advisers and soldiers were on the PDPA side of the game.

Ordinary Afghans were sandwiched in an ideological proxy war fought on our expenses.

Since Abdullah Azzam was a Palestinian, the question remains why he came to Afghanistan instead of fighting in Palestine against the Zionists.

[MostafaM]

From what I know, his "withdrawl" from Kabul was a tactical manoeuvre to spare kabul from becoming the battleground and its citizens being killed.He couldn't defend Kabul alone so he did what he thought was best for the citizens of Kabul. Throughout history many commanders have withdrawn from cities. its not a big issue.

Military tactical withdrawls have nothing to do with protecting the people that you leave behind to be overrun by the enemy.
Military tactis are opportunistic in nature. It´s only in the media that spokesmen of militaries try to give a human nature to their decisions.

If Massoud was so concerned about the people of Kabul which he wasn´t, he shouldn´t have

a) united with the Parcham faction that had massacred thousands of people in Pul-e Charkhie prison 1992;

b) fought with Hekmatyar for the controle of Kabul; he could have come to terms with Hekmatyar and avoid the destruction of the city and the murder of 50.000 Kabulis but he didn´t.

He knew he couldn´t stand his ground in Kabul because his troops were demoralized, outnumbered and outgunned.
He had to flee in 1996.

His treaties with the Russians didn´t mean that he spared the poor conscripts of the Afghan army. General Khudaidad gave speeches about the attacks on the Afghan army in Jabel Sarraj and surroundings, he exposed the show-battles between the Russians and Massoud, too.