BBC | Secret Pakistan.

[W.11]

You are confusing the Afghan Mujaheedin with the Taliban. Different entities, different times.

Try again.

you mean talibans didnt evolve from mujahideens?

 

[[Bregs]]

Had laden been handed over to US by Pakistan long before they killed him in his hideout then things would have been different in Afghanistan border as longer the US sponsored war in Afghan got, the more messier it gets for Pakistan to control it after 2014

 

[gubbi]

Seriously? Resorting to name calling now, eh? Stay classy dude!

He's not confusing anything - only thing wrong he's doing is talking to an ignorant jackass who thinks he knows everything when he actually knows jack shittt about the Afghanistan's history with the Mujahideen.

 

[[Bregs]]

Afghanistan's mujahideen defeated the Red Army. How do they compare with the Taliban who followed ?

 

[Hosseini]

An old, old documentary. Was published in 2011. I've seen it a gazillion times! But yes, it's a nice video.

A must see for those who haven't chanced upon it as yet!

2 years is old?

 

[karan.1970]

Of course wrong because the Pakistani regime fought the Soviets alone, funded the Taliban and other mujahideen alone, which were in the words of Reagan, 'representing the highest aspiration of human freedom.' had no logistical and financial input from the CIA which is a US institution unless you disagree with that as well.

This argument of Pakistanis is almost as absurd as the argument about their economy being bad because of war on terror. I mean, yes, in past, USA had an alignment with Afghan Mujahideens. At that time, they were not hob nobbing with people who blow up malls, hotels and other civilian centers or fly airplanes into tall buildings. The Afghan Mujahiddeens changed their ideology and accordingly the attitude of the civilized world changed towards them. Pakistan on the other hand kept propping them up even after they went hand in glove with the international terrorist organizations.

Now blaming USA for that is like punishing a father if his son commits a murder because the father was responsible for the birth of the son.. Sounds absurd.. Isn't it

Pakistan being blamed is different ball game since in the above example, Pakistan is the friend who gave the knife to that son to commit the murder.. Kind of like an accessory

 

[gubbi]

No, the Taliban rose out of that cauldron. They were a part of that war and its consequences.

And this is not an arcade game, kid, so what do you mean by try again? Learn to argue rightfully do not try to insult the other poster.

That part you are right. Taliban did arise out of the cauldron that were the various Afghan Mujaheedin factions fighting the civil war AFTER the SU (and subsequently USA/CIA) left Afghanistan in 1989. US/CIA had no more interest in Afghanistan after SU was given their version of "Vietnam".

Your claim that USA/CIA funded Taliban is wrong. According to available sources, Mullah Omar - a local mujaheedon warlord fed up with corruption and 'immorality' took his band of fighters to avenge a rape victim. Out of that incident in 1994 came the Taliban and hoardes of fighters belonging to other factions joined his faction. It was then Pakistan and ISI jumped in with resources to support Taliban to counter Indian and Russian support for Ahmed Shah Massoud.

Now where does US and CIA come into the pic? So like I said, try again. It aint no arcade game.

 

[gubbi]

Afghanistan's mujahideen defeated the Red Army. How do they compare with the Taliban who followed ?

The Mujaheedin DID NOT defeat the Red Army. It was rather a lack of vision and a political failure on part of the Soviet Union politburo bosses than a military failure on the ground.

The ISAF is now doing what the Soviets did not.

 

[jaibi]

Had laden been handed over to US by Pakistan long before they killed him in his hideout then things would have been different in Afghanistan border as longer the US sponsored war in Afghan got, the more messier it gets for Pakistan to control it after 2014

Purely on their structure I can tell you that that would not have happened. Their organisation is not hierarchial, it is in a 'dome' shaped structure. Where leadership directives are minimal, that is why they are so effective. Killing Bin Laden early on would not have made much of a difference, they would have been just as strong as now. That is the reason why there are so many terrorist organisation because they are not 'created' they form on their own. The funds that the CIA provided were to set up a self sustaining economic infrastructure so that large scale movement of supplies, especially finances could not be used for intelligence gathering by the Soviets. The US strategy was to make sure the Soviets stay as long as possible in Afghanistan and that's why they favoured such tactics.

Thus, the Talibs and other Mujahideen had a free run at the social fabric of the Afghani society and created a system a sustained them and their war effort. It is the basic reason why they are still thriving.

 

[illusion8]

This argument of Pakistanis is almost as absurd as the argument about their economy being bad because of war on terror. I mean, yes, in past, USA had an alignment with Afghan Mujahideens. At that time, they were not hob nobbing with people who blow up malls, hotels and other civilian centers or fly airplanes into tall buildings. The Afghan Mujahiddeens changed their ideology and accordingly the attitude of the civilized world changed towards them. Pakistan on the other hand kept propping them up even after they went hand in glove with the international terrorist organizations.

Now blaming USA for that is like punishing a father if his son commits a murder because the father was responsible for the birth of the son.. Sounds absurd.. Isn't it

Pakistan being blamed is different ball game since in the above example, Pakistan is the friend who gave the knife to that son to commit the murder.. Kind of like an accessory

Makes one wonder what sort of a monster is being created in the name of FSA, ISIS, Al Nusra in Syria for the future of that region or the world and how will it impact the jehaadi / militant movement for all of us.

 

[Sugarcane]

Why open new thread for years old documentary when there are already many threads on this

 

[jaibi]

That part you are right. Taliban did arise out of the cauldron that were the various Afghan Mujaheedin factions fighting the civil war AFTER the SU (and subsequently USA/CIA) left Afghanistan in 1989. US/CIA had no more interest in Afghanistan after SU was given their version of "Vietnam".

Your claim that USA/CIA funded Taliban is wrong. According to available sources, Mullah Omar - a local mujaheedon warlord fed up with corruption and 'immorality' took his band of fighters to avenge a rape victim. Out of that incident in 1994 came the Taliban and hoardes of fighters belonging to other factions joined his faction. It was then Pakistan and ISI jumped in with resources to support Taliban to counter Indian and Russian support for Ahmed Shah Massoud.

Now where does US and CIA come into the pic? So like I said, try again. It aint no arcade game.

Again, it seems you lack the manners to address someone respectfully and that is the only strenght of your arguments. The 'warlords' as you say were directed to be a loose organistaion there was no structure to them and what was was based on soley logistical grounds so that they would be supported in terms of supplies. The ISI lead by Gen. Akhtar kept a minimal quota for all fighters against the Soviets which included leftists, anti-communists, conservatives that you call 'Mujahids' and patriotic Afghans, the ISI kept a minimal quota for all arms and then supplemented it on two factors: engagement areas and successes. This comes from the book by the Brigadier who worked with Gen. Akhtar and supplied them directly.

Secondly, the USSR took towards hard show of fields which were directed at supressing the will of the Afhgans to fight back. The USSR conducted heavy bombardments and confined the wide areas of influence. This lead to an eruption of anti-Soviet mettle and the religious class rose to the occassion by labeling it as communist infraction on their lands. The Afghanis took heavy tolls at first but later due to the anarchic structure of their resistance the Soviet war machine took heavier financial and attritional damages.

The Soviets withdrew but left behind a society without civil order and it was there that different factions in terms of political orientations started to emerge. It is historically a fallacy to state the Talib did not emerge from the CIA/US tactics by that case neither did Al-Qaeda.

Read some history, kid, and try again with some brains.

 

[Donatello]

soviet invasion ended in 89 and taliban was formed in 94 . So how is cia resposible for creating taliban.

Just like life existed before you were born?

 

[gubbi]

Again, it seems you lack the manners to address someone respectfully and that is the only strenght of your arguments.

I am not generous with doling out respect. It needs to be earned IMHO and starting conversations with name calling definitely doesnt help.

The 'warlords' as you say were directed to be a loose organistaion there was no structure to them and what was was based on soley logistical grounds so that they would be supported in terms of supplies. The ISI lead by Gen. Akhtar kept a minimal quota for all fighters against the Soviets which included leftists, anti-communists, conservatives that you call 'Mujahids' and patriotic Afghans, the ISI kept a minimal quota for all arms and then supplemented it on two factors: engagement areas and successes. This comes from the book by the Brigadier who worked with Gen. Akhtar and supplied them directly.

Secondly, the USSR took towards hard show of fields which were directed at supressing the will of the Afhgans to fight back. The USSR conducted heavy bombardments and confined the wide areas of influence. This lead to an eruption of anti-Soviet mettle and the religious class rose to the occassion by labeling it as communist infraction on their lands. The Afghanis took heavy tolls at first but later due to the anarchic structure of their resistance the Soviet war machine took heavier financial and attritional damages.

The Soviets withdrew but left behind a society without civil order and it was there that different factions in terms of political orientations started to emerge. It is historically a fallacy to state the Talib did not emerge from the CIA/US tactics by that case neither did Al-Qaeda.

That is exactly what I said, although in far fewer words, except that everyone else in Afghanistan was fighting the leftists/commies. Where you ultimately try to blame the US/CIA for rise of taliban, I lay the blame directly on the failed Soviet policies or rather lack thereof, in Afghanistan. Lack of political vision in Afghanistan and withdrawal of Soviet war machinery did nothing to replace the vacuum it created, not to mention failure to place even a semblance of a political infrastructure, leading to a free for all grab for power by the leading factions of the Mujaheedin.
The ISAF is trying to do what the Soviets did not or failed to, post 'war'.

Read some history, kid, and try again with some brains.

Lets be adults here, shall we?

 

[Umair Nawaz]

He's not confusing anything - only thing wrong he's doing is talking to an ignorant jackass who thinks he knows everything when he actually knows jack shittt about the Afghanistan's history with the Mujahideen.

Aeronaut........

Good i like this new aeronaut more.