@Tshering22: You're going off in a dozen unrelated directions, and in most there are elementary factuals which are missing, that would contradict your narrative. I'm not sure what central point you were trying to make here.
For example, you're saying that the Soviet Army had not not come to Afghanistan to fight the Afghans:
You might not be aware but the Taliban didn't exist during that era, they were formed in the mid-90s; the Soviets would have needed a time-machine to fight them in the 80's. Also, Soviet Generals commanding the Red Army seem to disagree with you when you're saying the Soviets weren't fighting the nation. Here's Gen. Igor Rodionov, Commander of the Red Army in Afghanistan had to say about their "peaceful" activities in Afghanistan:
Rusisa goes back to Afghanistan for NATO? - English pravda.ru
So on the Afghan war, this guy's opinion completely trumps your opinion I'm afraid. He's General was the bleeping Commander of the Russian army there. So you're wrong when you say that the Soviets weren't intending to destroy Afghanistan. Soviets did intentionally destroy the nation, they aimed to wage a war of attrition, burning out entire villages where the resistance might take sanctuary, burning crops to cut their food supply. The resistance would disappear before the Soviets could engage them or retaliate, and this is how they dealt with that. The good General also refutes your claims that the Taliban aren't fighting a war of independence which enjoys wide support of the Afghan people.
The Soviets had been steadily expanding, from Poland to Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan was only the latest and last victim of their aggression. They tried meddling inside Afghanistan covertly, supporting coups, trying to install puppets, assassinating unfavorable Presidents, and when that failed, they invaded. Once their invasion started to flop, only then did they began to whine and complain about how they didn't really want to be in Afghanistan in the first place, only beginning in the mid-80's. The Soviets tried to oppress the Afghan nation, but miserably failed.
Europe has huge, lofty mountain ranges(The Alps) and so does Russia, and the Soviets were trained to fight in the mountains. Afghanistan has vast plains as well. Also, the Russian armed forces have been fighting against guerrilla warfare tactics in the mountaneous Dagestan region since the 18th century. That resistance movement still goes on, in Chechnya and Dagestan, and has been going on for quiet a while. This was obviously not the first time an army faced guerrilla tactics. Even the American war of Independence(in 1776) was won with guerrilla warfare. Your knowledge of history is rather inaccurate I'm afraid.
Your opinion belittling the Afghan resistance's strength, is unfounded as well unfortunately. The Afghans resisted the Red Army like they've resisted every invader. These people have resisted every foreign invader from Alexander the "great" to Tsarist Russia, Imperial Britain, the Soviets, and most recently the US and it's NATO puppets. The British sent in multiple invading armies back when Britain was at the height of it's power, and every time they retreated with heavy losses. They gave up after their invading army was completely annihilated, with only one British soldier sent back to tell the tale. These people have been the most effective resistance force in recorded history - they've repelled every invader, and annihilated superpowers, much like the USSR and now the USA.
No wonder India's been very afraid of them, every time India tried to plot and scheme against them, they've rolled in and defeated every Indian army at Panipat. They've won every friggin' time, much to the humiliation of Indian leaders.
So the Afghans blame Pakistan for the Soviet and American invasions??! That is absurd. This jingoistic hatred is understandable but hardly logical. Afghans are somehow supposed to "hate" Pakistan for supporting the Afghans during the Soviet invasion, because otherwise the "extremist" Taliban would have been eliminated? Weren't you the one talking about looking at the facts, rather than "feel good" statements. Pakistan did host 1/3rd of Afghanistan here, many neighbors seal borders and move their military to the border areas to keep other people in their own country. Pakistan was the neighbor that didn't, they were also granted special permits to work and earn a living, though the economy was under alot of strain due to the war.
I already pointed out to you how even recently, when the US was pressuring Pakistan on having ties with one of the factions of the Afghan resistance(the Haqqani group), the main Afghan resistance issued public statements to the effect that Pakistan was not responsible for the Haqqani group, as this group held allegiance to Mullah Omer. And that Pakistan was not responsible for their activities.
They were, in effect, coming to Pakistan's aid diplomatically, and trying to alleviate pressure from Pakistan by contradicting US accusations.. The Afghan resistance controls over 80% of the territory, a fact even western sources now acknowledge. Outside a few major cities, the Taliban control the majority of the territory. Even the Americans are trying to negotiate with them, to cut a deal so the Americans can retreat and withdraw with their dignity in-tact. Given how the Afghans were trying to diplomatically alleviate International pressure from Pakistan, they clearly don't seem to hate Pakistan very much.
Like I told you earlier, according to western allegations, a group within the ISI("S Wing") even provides the Afghan resistance logistics and strategic support, much like they did during the 80's. They are helping the Afghans repel this foreign invader as well, the Americans were lauding this is a great freedom struggle back then, even saying that the resistance leaders were "the moral equivalent of America's founding fathers".
And I don't think you know very much about the Taliban or their history. Much of what you're stating is western propaganda word-for-word. For example, the Taliban actually arose out of the civil war Afghanistan was in after the US reneged on all promises to help rebuild the country after the war they'd funded. The US was only interested in making the Soviets "have their Vietnam", where they'd get defeated and humiliated like the US was in Vietnam(and again now, in Afghanistan). Out of the anarchy, the Taliban arose and promised brutal justice. They were a product of the time, and not under Pakistan's influence. For example, when Pakistan demanded that the Haqqani group turn over some of their people involved in fighting inside Pakistan, the group flatly refused. Pakistan tried everything in their control to get Mullah Omar to surrender Osama bin Laden, the Mullah Omar refused to do so without the US providing any evidence first. Later on, he agreed to turn Osama bin Laden over to the International Court of Justice(and not to the US), but the US was interested in having a war and continued down that path. Even now, the only evidence they've managed to produce, are some grainy home videos with some chubby guy who's facial bone structure is very different from bin Laden's, fessing up to blowing up some buildings.
The Indian media loves to claim that it's actually al these militant movements causing anarchy in Pakistan. Actually, we went through a very similar phase during the 80's. The KGB agents caused a slew of bombings and assassinations in Pakistan, with the Indian RAW folks riding on their shoulders. After the war ended, this stopped as well. During this war, CIA assets have repeatedly been found in Pakistan, even near military installations. And India seems to be eager to help as well, the media's covered Indian-manufactured weaponry being used by these terrorists. But with America desperate to run back home, this should end pretty soon as well.
That might not be very good news for India. During the 80's Afghan resistance, Muslims came from all over the world to participate in the Jihad, Americans actually facilitated that. After the war was over, Muslim freedom struggles got a boost all over the world, from Palestine(the Hamas movement, because PLO was being influenced by Israel), to Chechnya to Kashmir. India has had a very hard time there. The Indian government has a very heavy-handed approach towards it's own people, almost as if they're second-grade citizens in their own country. The Maoists fighting in the seven provinces, to Kashmiri Muslims to Sikhs who Indian law humiliates by forcing them to marry as Hindus.
Your narrative on the Afghan situation is divorced from the facts.
