Che Guevara and the Soviets

[randolph85]

Lol---you are forgetting 70 thousand the most dreadful rabbies-bitten terrorists gathered from all around the world and brought into Afg in addition to the most primitive-ape minded recruited from within Afg in hundred of thousands to be fuel of the war. This is not to mention the tens of dozens of agencies in including Mossad aiding them and stuffing their tummies with stuff.

show me any legit reference which states that foreign recruits were of any aid to the afghan mujahadin, at best they were a nuisance. even the likes of bin laden simply stayed in peshawar.

[khushal]

Lol---in the mid of 1985 the apes were on the verge defeat so were supplied with stingers. No amount of lies can change the facts.

Yourt quoting Brezenski and so am I. This is what he said:

"not in deciding the conflict, because actually the fact is that even though we helped the mujaheddin, they would have continued fighting without our help, because they were also getting a lot of money from the Persian Gulf and the Arab states, and they weren't going to quit. They didn't decide to fight because we urged them to. They're fighters, and they prefer to be independent. They just happen to have a curious complex: they don't like foreigners with guns in their country. And they were going to fight the Soviets."

And you are wrong about their defeat in 1985. The soviet Generals in the Afghan theater were telling the Kremlin as early as 1984 that the Afghan war is lost and recommended withdrawal but the Kremlin was in denial just like the US is today and like Alexander was when he faced mutany by his own troops.
SOVIET AFGHAN WAR DOCUMENTARY Part 1/5 - YouTube
at 8:50 the soviet official admits that the afghan government was pushing for soviet troops and the soviets kept refusing.

SOVIET AFGHAN WAR DOCUMENTARY Part 2/5 - YouTube

At 1:45 the Soviet General says that the soviets feared that Amin wanted foreign troops so bad that he might ask the Americans for armed troop intervention.

[randolph85]

So did Taleban kill Ahmad Shah Masud ---so what is that point?

he was killed long after the soviet-afghan war was over. the commie leaders killed and betrayed each other during war time. imagine if karzai was killed by the americans and replaced by abdullah x2 who was detroned by another US favorite in khalilzad, they get tired of him so they tell him to move back to the US and put atmar in place, after which in a few years they forget about him and let him get hanged. this is the legacy of communism and soviet involvement in afghanistan.

[Toramana]

Read this academic source instead of spitting out Mujahidinsit propaganda to blur the facts.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2657738?seq=2

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Toramana are you saying the backwards thinking Pashtunwali which rests itself on the despotic control of tribal chieftains and purtitanical moral bullying was intrinsically willing to embrace the Soviets if it weren't for the Pakistani and Saudi supported radicals urging them on?

[randolph85]

that link did nothing for me, it was just 2 opposing views. the fact that the mujahadin survived 6 years under soviet onslaught until the stinger was actually introduced should speak volumes about the fight that the afghans gave to them. this was before superpowers had to contend with the media about mass atrocities, and bombing villages to kill a few mujahids was commonplace.

[Toramana]

that link did nothing for me, it was just 2 opposing views. the fact that the mujahadin survived 6 years under soviet onslaught until the stinger was actually introduced should speak volumes about the fight that the afghans gave to them. this was before superpowers had to contend with the media about mass atrocities, and bombing villages to kill a few mujahids was commonplace.

Read that article carefully---In the end Zia-ul-Haq urged Americans to give Mujahideen or else they'll be butchered. Six years mean nothing (the same arguments can be made for Afg army and soveits as well who were thrashing the so called Munafiqeen like donkeys for 6 years and were about to wipe them out), it is the outcome that matters.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Not quite since the Army were the aggressors, they were better funded and prepared.

[randolph85]

Read that article carefully---In the end Zia-ul-Haq urged Americans to give Mujahideen or else they'll be butchered. Six years mean nothing (the same arguments can be made for Afg army and soveits as well who were thrashing the so called Munafiqeen like donkeys for 6 years and were about to wipe them out), it is the outcome that matters.

6 years means a lot since it was only a short while later that the soviets devised an exit strategy, and if you think it was all because of one single piece of technology vs another, then you are being naive. stinger vs gunship helicopters that is.

i know you're a pakistani secularist who doesn't grasp the brutality of the soviet military atrocities against afghans because you didn't leave pakistan for the same reason millions of afghans left afghanistan.

if you want to name drop like you did with zia, i could name dozens of neo con **** who support/supported this war today so lets not play that game.

[Toramana]

I can grasp the brutality of both sides---but objectively speaking the other side was a bit more civil than the savage Mujahideen-donkeyeens who destroyed schools, bridges, hospitals, ---ultimate canable.

[randolph85]

I can grasp the brutality of both sides---but objectively speaking the other side was a bit more civil than the savage Mujahideen-donkeyeens who destroyed schools, bridges, hospitals, ---ultimate canable.

civil in what way? millions have poured back into afghanistan during the taliban insurgency while far more millions flee'd afghanistan during the communist aggression. that should give you an idea of the far reaching effects of communist/soviet action in the country. no afghan family immigrated because they liked the soviet invasion. most kabuli or other city people left because they were forced to join the ruling party or be thrown in prison.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

According to this 1998 interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, the CIA's intervention in Afghanistan preceded the 1979 Soviet invasion. This decision of the Carter Administration in 1979 to intervene and destabilise Afghanistan is the root cause of Afghanistan's destruction as a nation.

The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan

Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser

Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998
Posted at globalresearch.ca 15 October 2001

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul (much to your chagrin he does NOT quantify the number of people or the races of people he was supplying. If he said: "There were 4 Arab guys and a Panjabi guy named Haqqi and thats how it all started with 5 foreigners" you would have a point. But you dont. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would (you glossed over this little tidbit - once again no mention of 4 Arab guys and a Panjabi named Haqqi).

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism (uh his quote here seems to make it clear that your PMAP/ANP/Najibu-Shaitaan nonsense about a global Islamic conspiracy - the same nonsense being peddled by Glenn Beck and Fox News - is an idiotic and nonsensical feel good narrative) ? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

Translated from the French by Bill Blum

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

http://www.american-buddha.com/lit.b...ewlenouvel.htm

x

[khushal]

Lol---in the mid of 1985 the apes were on the verge defeat so were supplied with stingers. No amount of lies can change the facts.

This is was the soviets assessment of the afghan war in 1985:
http://wilsoncenter.org/sites/defaul..._Web_Final.pdf

Soon after Mikhail Gorbachev took over as General Secretary in 1985 he began to
look for new approaches to the Afghan problem. Although he believed that the Soviet Union
must withdraw from Afghanistan, he departed only slightly from his predecessors in that he
continued to look for ways the Soviet Union could withdraw without facing the collapse of its
Kabul client and the loss of prestige and reputation as a defender of third world states. Until
late 1987, at least, that meant leaving Afghanistan with a stable, functioning government and
a self-reliant military. At the same time Gorbachev and other leaders came to realize that
certain aspects of their nation-building approach had failed and sought to find a new
approach. They realized that Karmal had made little progress in reaching out to the
population, that economic aid was not reaching its intended destination, and that the

mujahadeen

as a whole still had the widespread support of the population.81 The Kabul
government had not made major gains in legitimacy.

And in this documentary the soviet general clearly says that he was advising the kremlin as early as 1984 that the afghan war is lost and unwinnable:
SOVIET AFGHAN WAR DOCUMENTARY Part 4/5 - YouTube[/URL]

So stop talking nonsense from your arse.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

This is not theory, this is a reality. Some Akhwanis like Gul Babu and Mullahs were rented by CIA and ISI to subvert revolution and provoke USSR into invading Afghanistan. No amount of Akhwani chicanery can hide that fact himself accepted and mentioned by Brezenski and Robert Gates (From the Shadows) the ex-defense secretary.

But filthy Islamists that stuffed their tummies with $$$s and got visa to American heaven can now go on denying the fact and inventing lies.

OK, lets discuss this. Here are some simple questions for the sake of a rational discussion. Answer them as numbered:

Randolph, as a mod can you enforce a discussion? Meaning if he responds with some assinine comments about flea ridden turbanites or whatever kindly request a redirection to the very reasonable questions below.

1) The theory you appear to posit says this, am I wrong or right?, correct the errors:

Once upon a time the Afghan people were overJOYED at the Communist party's goals and implementation of their manifesto. From Kandahar to Balkh to Jalalabad and to the all the villages there was nothing except joy in each household. When Hafizullah Amin came to power, the Afghan people except 1% of the population composed of mullahs on the payroll of Panjabistan and the Arab states as well as Uncle Sam were the only evils unhappy with this revolution. So, in their own sneaky way, they found another 1% of the population to serve as eager and willing tools to work shaitanyaat against this modern day saviour.

The communists did NOTHING wrong and forced no one to do anything against their will. It was all just propaganda to make them look bad and stunt the revolution's growth.

America then became the catalyst which took these 2% and put them on steroids while the other 98% of Afghans haplessly watched and lamented the loss of modernization.

Those dastardly Muslims, they had done the exact same thing to Amanullah.

2) If you concede the above is ludicrous then surely you would agree that a sizable portion of the population, mainly rurals, had some problems with the reforms.

Vietnam for instance had Sino Russian backing of their own insurgents right? Does that mean absolutely no native insurgency existed??? Was one created out of thin air by the Russians?

3) What legitimized Assfandyaar and Abdul across the way in Chaman and Hafizullah Amin taking Russian aid and using Russian arms, tanks, missiles, guns, goods, etc against their own populace. Why was it more legitimate for these clowns to take Russian Aid under the false belief that the Russians offered an anti imperialistic route? Segueing off that same question; you yourself use the term "revolution" indicating that an active process was being instigated and it was being fomented by the Russian government. So whats good for the goose ought to be good for the gander right? Why was it OK for your ideologues to take Russian aid to implement alien ideologies but not for the ones you hate to take foreign aid in the same manner?

4) If you loathe the Americans so much, why are your boys Karzai, Atmaar, and your AIRRA tabla band taking so much aid, arms, and protection from them? Isn't it the height of hypocrasy to advocate that your "revolution" be implemented onto the Afghan people to experiment on them wherein the principles run diametrically opposite to the goals of the power whose tit you now suck nourishing milky funds from?

In the least your assertion is laughable because Islam makes no comment except on interest when it comes to free market systems and capitalism. Your prior "revolution" on the other hand was well described by Marx in what its goals were.

What they ended up selling out to sort of shows a massive amount of hypocrasy right?

5) How do you deal with the fact that it is well documented by the PULITBURO itself that Hafizullah Ameen ASKED for armed Russian intervention into Afghanistan. Was he an agent too? Was he Brzenski baba in disguise?

Thats exactly why Brzenski was so wildly successful.... he knew that fools were around that thought they were smart enough to play powers off against eachother and somehow rise from the ashes.

6) How do you reconcile Che Geuvara's rift with the Russians and its empiric proof that the Russians were no less imperialistic than Brits or Americans? The backstabbing Kruschev did to him in Cuba clearly shows what Russia was willing to do for its own interests. Or wait, was Guevara also an agent of Islamic radicals?
6a) What about Hamidullah Tarzi and that other communists officials commentary on admitting their own faults? They openly admit they tried to implement alien ideologies and that the populace had issues with the open resentment of Islam. So why is it that Afghan communist officials are saying this openly? What makes you a more reliabe source than them????

7) You talk about the "butt kicking" the muj fighters were getting. Do you mean the videos of Russian aircraft doing blanket carpet bombing? How do you justify that?
How do you reconcile your faux vision of the Russians as saviors when their own leaders (and I can provide you the references) said clearly that in the state of war they went overboard and used scorched earth policies.

How was their approach of carpet bombing more humanistic and less imperialistic then your phantom enemies?

8) final question: are you really this dense that you think the muj fighters were going to call it a day and pack up and lose? They would simply have done what they are doing today.. recede into friendly territory and stage a lengtheir guerilla war.

If some rich Arabs (and mind you these funding sources are squeezed off in the modern era) and the 3rd world Pakistanis are funding the insurgency with Korean era weaponry and its gone on to the frustration of Holbrooke and caused one US dignitary to say on his deathbed "we need to get out of that place!" and it frustrated D-icky Davy Petreus's lusts for power and prestige - what makes you think victory was right around the corner??? Do you have evidence? All you have are statements of a protracted stalemate at best.

9) Would you like to comment on the wildly successful implementations of that "revolution" you held so dear on Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Dagestan? Are these nation states your models for achievement and progress? In the 1980s were they beacons of G8 style prowess that you claim Afghanistan is on the way to?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Read that article carefully---In the end Zia-ul-Haq urged Americans to give Mujahideen or else they'll be butchered. Six years mean nothing (the same arguments can be made for Afg army and soveits as well who were thrashing the so called Munafiqeen like donkeys for 6 years and were about to wipe them out), it is the outcome that matters.

You mean the carpet bombing?

At 20.45 in this video what do you have to say about the interview with the Russian general?
Afghanistan - The Graveyard of Empires Part -2 - YouTube[/URL]

He clearly indicates that they used brutal aggression.

At 22 minutes DIRECT footage is shown of a Russian copter CARPET bombing indiscriminantly through Panjshir.

Afghanistan - The Graveyard of Empires Part -2 - YouTube[/URL]

Was that UBL and Brzenski up in that copter?

You are so addicted to party politics that you fly into a nearly religious rage when the very bases that you were brainwashed with are undone.

Its very obvious that you have contrived automatan responses at hand to deal out. That is exactly why you simply had no way to response except to post the exact same Brzenski interview that I criticized you for using haphazardly in the first place.

Here was my original comment:

"Then, a very common Brzenski video is posted to somehow prove this assertion. The reality is that Brzenski never comments and never supposes that they invented the insurgency. He just makes it apparent that they harnassed native angst and catalyzed events that were already in motion."

Looks like I Brzenski'd you!