Ahmed Rashid: 'Enormous Anti-Americanism' Spreading in Afghanistan

[Karpo]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/jan-june12/rashid_03-22.html

[randolph85]

is his new book any good? his taliban book, and the other one about islamic groups in central asia was good.

people can say what they want about this guys circles in america but he is a legit journalist who knows a lot about pakistan and afghanistan.

[MostafaM]

His rhetoric about Pashtuns being super-religious and OBL could only be in the tribal areas, that Pakistan´s state has nothing to do with the Taliban but only a small number of ex-ISI officers.....yeah right, this guy is such a brilliant and apologetic propagandist.

His book "Taliban" is full of this BS.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

The guy is probably more against the Pakistani Establishment than anyone here is and he is a Pakistani National. He even fought the Pakistani Government. That gives him more street cred than most. If he portrayed Pashtuns as superrelliious so what? Except for the 0.0000000001 % who are not that focused on religion or do not lead lives where religion has a strong influence ( I am making hyperbole with my percentages). His assertions are no only accurate almost everything can be independently verified. Much better than the posters in here who go on this "My Kaka said" or "my baba said" or my "trorzoy said" nonsense.

Randolph is right, Ahmad Rashid is legit, he is well researched and referenced; no one here has ever done the same.

[Karpo]

Prior to Ahmad Rashid's sudden change and critique of the US-led war, he used to be one the biggest supporters of the US-led war. He fully advocated the heavy handed war in Afghanistan as well as Pakistani war in Swat and FATA. Moreover, his previous research and work which was oriented in favor of the US-led war was even cited by Obama in justifying the escalation of the war with the 'surge.' Obama cited the sanctuaries in Pakistan as one of the reasons why the US could not win, and in several speeches said that Pakistan needed to eliminate these sanctuaries. Obama used Ahmad Rashid's findings to support his case, and even invited Ahmad Rashid to a few dinners (A fact). Ahmad Rashid was welcome in DC and made the rounds on many gatherings and events where he was able to give more speeches in favor of escalating the war as well as speak about his books. Pakistan followed the request with a war in Swat in 2009 (this comes after the previous and ongoing war in Waziristan). The war in Swat resulted in many civilian deaths as well as the displacement of nearly 3 million people. However, now Ahmad Rashid seems to have a change in attitude, and has turned adamantly against the war. Because he has turned against the war, does that mean his words no longer carry any weight for those who are in favor of the war? What an ironic twist.

[randolph85]

^ none of that takes away from the fact that he was researching the taliban movement inside afghanistan when almost no one in the west knew about them, and when most afghans knew nothing of them. yunis khalis gave a speech at the white house while surrounded by ronald regan and khalilzad. not the same situation but does not diminish the legitimacy of either persons works, khalis in jihad and rashid in journalism. rashid didn't exactly come off as majorly biased against the afghan taliban in his book either when it came to outside claims of being created and controlled by pakistan. it was actually that book which made me sympathetic to the taliban movement initially.

[khushal]

Ahmed Rashid does have beef with the pakistani establishment. He led an uprising against ayub khan. He was a war hawk for south and central asia, criticized the bush administration for the invasion of Iraq and ignoring the real threat coming from pakistan. he has advocated the US to invade the taliban sanctuaries in pakistan.

[Karpo]

They uploaded the youtube video

Ahmed Rashid: 'Enormous Anti-Americanism' Spreading in Afghanistan - YouTube

[khushal]

Pakistan was more on the brink before the sovet invasion than it is today. The soviet invasion saved pakistan from the brink.

[abassinafghan]

his book is used in alot of nato members acadamies to lecture intelligence and regular officers . ....

well , i guess thats the reason why they failed so miserabel , i just read his first book to page 60 , i gave it away .

its total bull**** , the claims he is making lack of any proof , he is just the prototyp of expert which people need to orientate .....

he fails totaly or with intention , to name the political reasons for the unrest in central asia ,as he fails to mention the pakistani benefits and politics of pre 1979 and their .

his books can be categorized into the section kite runner ,

The guy is probably more against the Pakistani Establishment than anyone here is and he is a Pakistani National. He even fought the Pakistani Government

if he really did so , i know many people who do it till this day , and their views are totally contradict to his . besides if he was a threat he would be dead along time ago ... so you know afghanistan is also full of mujaheddin ...

If he portrayed Pashtuns as superrelliious so what? Except for the 0.0000000001 % who are not that focused on religion or do not lead lives where religion has a strong influence

well its not he just mentioned pashtun as religious people but he is potraying us in the colours of colonial british raj times and he makes conclusions out of it , which may sound good in western ears , but which dont show the real roots of the problems or the conflict ...

politics are politics and religion is religion , he wants to teach and tell the west what kind of hill billies the taliban are because their acts are not political acts as a goverment but religious one , so there is no need to consolidate on what point ever , because it will change nothing , so the old narrative of the blind fanatic is repeated .


but the best things are his claims about the cash reserves of the taliban , and how they handle them ,...... well the stupids never die out .


but the most redicioulus thing is , if people so called afghans need to read the nonsence of **** bags like him , and then start to repeat it like parrotts ......

[abassinafghan]

when most afghans knew nothing of them

hahahaha but he knew ??? and they trusted him because he was a guest right ???


i dont know how old you are or where do you live , or where you have been in the 90s , but dont let impress your self by such idiots , i can gurantee you that mor than 90% of his claims , are just this , claims .

just ask arround some people in cabul or khandahar they may tell you more than he ever could ...

[RevolutionThroughReason]

his book is used in alot of nato members acadamies to lecture intelligence and regular officers . ....

well , i guess thats the reason why they failed so miserabel , i just read his first book to page 60 , i gave it away .

Proving you haven't actually read the book, reading 60 pages =/= reading the book.

ts total bull**** , the claims he is making lack of any proof , he is just the prototyp of expert which people need to orientate .....

You've only read 60 pages and it's "total" bull****. Interesting .....?


The competence of NATO in accomplishing their goals and their reading of Ahmed Rashid are mutually exclusive. If they were incompetent this is their incompetence, not the books; There's no evidence their incompetence had any correlation with the material therein.

he fails totaly or with intention , to name the political reasons for the unrest in central asia ,as he fails to mention the pakistani benefits and politics of pre 1979 and their .

Actually he mentions ALL of that in a few books, maybe you should read more than just 60 pages next time.

his books can be categorized into the section kite runner ,

Yeah for people who haven't read him and do the typical naive reaction of speaking of something they dont actually fully know about sure. And you admitted you've only 60 pages so your views are uniformed as of yet.

if he really did so , i know many people who do it till this day , and their views are totally contradict to his . besides

exactly anecdotal, not researched, moving on.

if he was a threat he would be dead along time ago

Just because he's alive still has no bearing on whether or not he's a threat; and whether they see him as a threat now, has no bearing on his credibility in general.

well its not he just mentioned pashtun as religious people but he is potraying us in the colours of colonial british raj times and he makes conclusions out of it , which may sound good in western ears , but which dont show the real roots of the problems or the conflict ...

how so? What are the colours of colonial times and what is different about Pashtuns from the portrayal you allege he gives. are you saying that Pashtuns aren't living by customs and practices that have at least been en vogue since those times?

politics are politics and religion is religion , he wants to teach and tell the west what kind of hill billies the taliban are because their acts are not political acts as a goverment but religious one , so there is no need to consolidate on what point ever , because it will change nothing , so the old narrative of the blind fanatic is repeated .

Well in the Middle East and Central Asia politics and religion are very intertwined. but I digress, you can't say the Taliban behavior was not motivated bu ideology.

but the best things are his claims about the cash reserves of the taliban , and how they handle them ,...... well the stupids never die out

What's your counter evidence, something your Kaka once said?

but the most redicioulus thing is , if people so called afghans need to read the nonsence of **** bags like him , and then start to repeat it like parrotts ......

All I've seen you do so far is just a lambasting the things you allege which, by the way aren't demonstrated. I won't blame you for that since you've only read 60 pages, perhaps 20 of those pages being a preface. This is simply an effigy, and you are demonstrably wrong on them too.