• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Afghanistan Mullah's "amazed" Muslims are free to worship in Western Europe

MetalGear

In a house by the river
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 25, 2009
Messages
1,233
Reaction score
197
Location
Denmark, Grena
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Their faces etched from years of conflict in the war-torn deserts of Helmand Province, four senior Islamic scholars step into a pod on the London Eye.
As the giant wheel turns they stare in silence at the city spread beneath them; the River Thames, the Houses of Parliament and miles beyond.
It is their first time ever in Britain. As they soak up the sights, they know this visit is about much more than tourism.
It marks a new initiative in British government strategy; the recognition that military progress in southern Afghanistan will not hold unless international forces also win the battle for hearts and minds.
In the intense propaganda war on the ground, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office now hopes to improve communication with ordinary Afghans by targeting their religious leaders.
Massive influence
Officials invited these scholars to see life for themselves in the UK, as they have the unique ability to influence thousands of mosques and their congregations in Britain's key military campaign ground.
Across Afghanistan there is widespread ignorance and deliberate misinformation about Britain and Britain's military intentions.
Ordinary people will listen to religious scholars often before politicians. The Taliban uses its religious credentials to tell local people repeatedly that the British are an occupying force which wants to destroy Muslims and their faith.

BBC News - Afghanistan Mullahs in London to bridge cultural divide

They were particularly taken aback by the Afghan mosque in north-west London. They watched as several hundred turned up to pray.
Haji Mokhtar Aqqani, the most senior religious figure in Helmand, addressed the congregation. In Afghanistan he has spoken out against the Taliban, delivered radio messages condemning suicide bombings, and issued a fatwa against the growing of poppies. However even he still thought that Muslims in the UK could not go to the mosque.
After prayers, he told the BBC: "People in Helmand say that in Britain there are no mosques and no freedom to worship, so I was really surprised to see so many people come and pray here freely. I will take that message back home."
 
I'd say this is one of Labour's better ideas. (Rare admission - frame this post!) Pity there's even a need but at least they're doing something now.

I can't remember why we're in Afhanistan, other than to wipe out terrorists who are still at liberty now. I think Islam is a tailor-made cult for dangerous psychopaths', but if good peaceful Muslims out there can be engaged with and dissuaded from siding with the extremists then it's all for the good.

It's more of a poser when thinking about them. It's easy to think in black and white terms about terrorists and mercenaries - kill them before they kill our soldiers. But put yourself in the shoes of ordinary Afghan Muslims baffled at events of the last 25 years, when all they've known is invasion, destruction, occupation and tyranny from their own side.
 
Last edited:
I'd say this is one of Labour's better ideas. (Rare admission - frame this post!) Pity there's even a need but at least they're doing something now.

I can't remember why we're in Afhanistan, other than to wipe out terrorists who are still at liberty now. I think Islam is a tailor-made cult for dangerous psychopaths', but if good peaceful Muslims out there can be engaged with and dissuaded from siding with the extremists then it's all for the good.

It's more of a poser when thinking about them. It's easy to think in black and white terms about terrorists and mercenaries - kill them before they kill our soldiers. But put yourself in the shoes of ordinary Afghan Muslims baffled at events of the last 25 years, when all they've known is invasion, destruction, occupation and tyranny from their own side.

Exactly and who put these people into Afghanistan? Who trained and funded them with full knowledge of what they were like?

None other than the USA - others did too but the USA did this with full knowledge and little forethought on what it was letting loose on the world.

The people who became the Taliban were in the main Afghan refugee orphans who were educated at schools run by the nasty insane religious fanatics, who we would come to know as Al Qaeda.

Given that those people were brainwashed from infancy they cannot be expected to know any better.

The CIA knew how fanatical they were and had been asked time and again by a genuine Afghan freedom fighter to stop funding and training them as he did not want them in his country. However the CIA believed their fanaticism would make them all the better fighters so Abdul Haq's pleas went unnoticed. It is I think a lesson for us all to not think we can give up our morality for short term goals.
 
Of course the Soviet Union launched an invasion of Afghanistan in 1981. The US did what they could to covertly help the Mujahadeen because failure in Afghanistan meant the Soviets' military presence in Europe would be stretched and morale lowered.

In America's defence it could be said that nobody expected the Cold War to end for most of the '80s and back then the superpowers facing each other down was of more significance than what a bunch of seething Islamists may or my not have done in their own land.
 
Of course the Soviet Union launched an invasion of Afghanistan in 1981. The US did what they could to covertly help the Mujahadeen because failure in Afghanistan meant the Soviets' military presence in Europe would be stretched and morale lowered.

In America's defence it could be said that nobody expected the Cold War to end for most of the '80s and back then the superpowers facing each other down was of more significance than what a bunch of seething Islamists may or my not have done in their own land.

I think you have possibly misunderstood what I am saying.

These people were not Afghanis. They were people who were so extreme in their religious beliefs that they had been put in Arab jails.

It was these Insanely religious Arabs who would become what you call 'Islamists' and who are the very people you hate and wrongly believe are all Muslims, that the US supported. This was against the wishes of genuine Afghan Leaders. Against the people of the land which was being played football with which was not in an extreme Islamic land.

The people you so hate and believe all Muslims are, are the people that US funding and training allowed to come into being.

As to whether the US needed to fight the Russians over Afghanistan. Not for security. Not for the people of Afghanistan - otherwise they would have taken their council.

I think it was just one upmanship - and I think you are possibly using that as a diversion.
 
It's not fair to say the mujahadeen were not Afghans, though they did have help from foreign Islamists seizing their chance for some mayhem. Just supercharged football hooligans really, dosed up on religious fervour.

Mujahideen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And I didn't say all Muslims are terrorists. That's your little diversion.



The communist government asked the USSR to invade to prop up its system. it murdered the president and installed its own. In that light it would be more than a case of one-upmanship. Remember you had a huge number of these little punk states around the world with Marxist governments and revolutionaries, just vying to join the communist world. And that was big enough as it was.

So what would have happened had the US not helped the likes of Bin Laden, people who at the time swore blind that all they were fighting for was Afghanistan's freedom? I think the Americans felt they needed to deal with one problem at a time and there was no global Islamic problem back then.

I'm not saying the Yanks were completely right in hindsight, but they took the option they saw best suited them. And what could be better than fighting the expansion of murderous communist regimes, something which Afghan leaders did like the sound of? In the bigger picture it was the USSR which did the real sparking of today's global jihadi problem:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB57/soviet.html

Afhan leaders wanted US help: http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary...iets-learned-in-Afghanistan-about-assumptions

Propping up an illegal government - that was the Russian side!: http://www.e-ir.info/?p=2905
 
Last edited:
It's not fair to say the mujahadeen were not Afghans, though they did have help from foreign Islamists seizing their chance for some mayhem. Just supercharged football hooligans really, dosed up on religious fervour.

Mujahideen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well Wiki is not goiing to give you a very thorough or impartial understanding.

Of course the Afghans would fight when their country was invaded. But the Afghan Mujahideen did not have the sort of ideas that came about with the vast influx of Arabs particularly prom Arab jails.

In this documentary Abdul Haq clearly described his horror when they arrived and started preaching their words to the Afghan Mujahideen

BBC - BBC Four Documentaries - Afghan Warrior

He describes how the US stopped funding the original warriors and started instead funding the ones they became the leaders of.


I have checked this out and confirmed it before but on a different computer.

Abdul was no petty Afghan, he was the one person known to be able to unite the Afghans after the Taliban rule.


And I didn't say all Muslims are terrorists. That's your little diversion.

That isn't what I said. That is your little Freudian slip.

and yes they asked for help and one of the things they asked for help for was that the US stop providing help for the people it was funding.

More on Abdul Haq

Obituary: Abdul Haq | World news | The Guardian

The execution of anti-Taliban warrior Abdul Haq | World news | The Observer
 
Last edited:
"Well Wiki is not goiing to give you a very thorough or impartial understanding." The facts are enough. Other people give me Wiki links and I'm satisfied with that.

I never denied the hardcore Arabs coming in with their ulterior motives and making things worse, as I said in my last comment. And Abdul Haq was indeed the patriot hero.

All I'm saying is that the Americans saw the mujahadeen (of any flavour) as solid fanatical fighters against the Soviets, who were at that time the big Red menace. But I do think the Yanks should have taken the 'Arab' warnings more seriously and at least had a workable plan to combat any consequences, which they indeed had not. 'No plan, no Arabs', that's what I would have said as the President (if I even knew the full facts).

But they, I suppose, didn't want to listen to any advice about raising the Islamist genie from the bottle.
 
Last edited:
Such a great idea.

If you notice that there is a correlation between the likelihood a foreign religious/political figure will be xenophobic, and the amount of travel the figure has had.

Deng Xiaoping reformed China in a way that the xenophobic Mao did not. He studied in France.

I think allowing the Mullahs and religious leaders in the region to see the way that Muslims are allowed to freely profess their faith is a great step in a good direction
 
"Well Wiki is not goiing to give you a very thorough or impartial understanding." The facts are enough. Other people give me Wiki links and I'm satisfied with that.

I never denied the hardcore Arabs coming in with their ulterior motives and making things worse, as I said in my last comment. And Abdul Haq was indeed the patriot hero.

All I'm saying is that the Americans saw the mujahadeen (of any flavour) as solid fanatical fighters against the Soviets, who were at that time the big Red menace.
What the US saw fanatical enough to do the job in Afghanistan was ideologies which were so extreme they got people put in jail in Arab countries, the ideologies of extreme radical Muslim . Not the thinking of Afghans just wanting to free their country. That is why they changed who they supported from the genuine freedom fighter to the extremist with ideologies brought in from outside Afghanistan

But I do think the Yanks should have taken the 'Arab' warnings more seriously and at least had a workable plan to combat any consequences, which they indeed had not. 'No plan, no Arabs', that's what I would have said as the President (if I even knew the full facts).

But they, I suppose, didn't want to listen to any advice about raising the Islamist genie from the bottle.



As to what the CIA and the US Government thought about Islamism/ Wahhabism



Extremist Education

The Reagan administration sensed the most hard-line elements of the resistance were less likely to reach negotiated settlements, but the goal was to cripple the Soviet Union, not free the Afghan people. Recognizing the historically strong role of Islam in Afghan society, they tried to exploit it to advance U.S. policy goals. Religious studies along militaristic lines were given more importance than conventional education in the school system for Afghan refugees in Pakistan. The number of religious schools (madrassas) educating Afghans rose from 2,500 in 1980 at the start of Afghan resistance to over 39,000. The United States encouraged the Saudis to recruit Wahhabi ideologues to come join the resistance and teach in refugee institutes.

The U.S. and the Afghan Tragedy « RAWA News

After the Afghan war Afghistan got the Taliban and the rest of the world has been having to put up with previous Mujahideen with extreme radical ideas unleashed from the most extreme in Arab jails and those they themselves train looking for something to do - and those people and their recruits, trained and funded by the US are the people you are talking about when you talk about Islamists, not the general Afghan or Muslim. That is where they come from. ;)
 
Last edited:
Its this type of misinformation and lack of education to facts in that part of the world that are steaming the wheels of anti-western rhetoric and the terrorist movements.
 
I think you have possibly misunderstood what I am saying.

These people were not Afghanis. They were people who were so extreme in their religious beliefs that they had been put in Arab jails.


You are being ignorant in your haste to blame America and haste to deny Muslims their responsibilities.

These people were products of their own reigon and the House of Saud. The House of Saud engineered a generation of Sunni Wahhabists to combat the fanaticism of Shia Khomeini. They did this. The CIA was involved in training and organizing some of them in Afghanistan in order to combat the Soviets. None o9f this training involved the religious fanaticism that came from Saudi funded Madrasas. They were not America's problem and America had nothing to do with making them the fanatical mess their culture spawned. But, hanging around and dealing with them and molding Afghanistan to your liking after the Soviets were kicked out would have only given the world their flip side complaint that America is "interfering" wouldn't it?

I love how pathetic the world is.....


1) America attempts to groom Iran (Shah) into the future and the world criticizes America for interfering.
2) America leaves Afghanistan to Muslims after the Soviets were kicked out and America is blamed for not interfering further.
3) America saves Kuwait from Saddam Hussein so Bin Laden creates Al-Queda to hate on America, which leads to 9/11.
4) America is blamed for the starvation of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis by Bin Laden and the world criticizes America for taking Saddam Hussein out after 9/11.
5) America gives Iraqis an opportunity they wouldn't have gotten otherwise and America is blamed for when they slaughter each other.




In the end, America is the ultimate scapegoat. At what point do Middle Eastern Arabs get to be blamed for their own decisions and creations? As long as people like you seek to hang a noose around America for breathing, probably never. If you think this region needs America's help to develop their own monsters and wreck their own civilization then you don't understand the history of this region. Muslims in the Middle East are not America's responsibility. Ther are responsible for each other and if they produce the Al-Quedas, Tali-Bans, Hezbollahs, House of Sauds, Bashirs, Saddam Husseins, Khomeinies, and so many other identities of destruction, slaughter, and disaster, then they design their own path to hell.

It's ironic how America is unfairly criticized for being the "world policeman," but also criticized for not holding the hand of other cultures.
 
Last edited:
Hey Msgt, again with the US propaganda :)

............."1) America attempts to groom Iran (Shah) into the future and the world criticizes America for interfering.".....................

Msgt, again you are caught boosting US gvt and "right wing" propaganda. How about the US and The UK engineer the "removal" aka "coup d'etat" of Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953. Mohammad Mosaddegh, Iran prime minister and duly elected, was removed from power in a coup on 19 August 1953, organised and carried out by the United States CIA at the request of the British MI6 which chose Iranian General Fazlollah Zahedi to succeed Mosaddegh. The CIA called the coup Operation Ajax after its CIA cryptonym, and as the 28 Mordad 1332 coup in Iran, after its date on the Iranian calendar. Mosaddegh was imprisoned for three years, then put under house arrest until his death. All of this was for one purpose and one purpose only........ To keep Iran oil.
 
Hey Msgt, again with the US propaganda :)

............."1) America attempts to groom Iran (Shah) into the future and the world criticizes America for interfering.".....................

Msgt, again you are caught boosting US gvt and "right wing" propaganda. How about the US and The UK engineer the "removal" aka "coup d'etat" of Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953. Mohammad Mosaddegh, Iran prime minister and duly elected, was removed from power in a coup on 19 August 1953, organised and carried out by the United States CIA at the request of the British MI6 which chose Iranian General Fazlollah Zahedi to succeed Mosaddegh. The CIA called the coup Operation Ajax after its CIA cryptonym, and as the 28 Mordad 1332 coup in Iran, after its date on the Iranian calendar. Mosaddegh was imprisoned for three years, then put under house arrest until his death. All of this was for one purpose and one purpose only........ To keep Iran oil.

So we are to Blame for the Mullahs executing 4000 Gays and the Iranian Theocracy. AND it's current Brutal oppression of course!
They have NO responsibility because of 'original sin'.
They are still 'victims' 57 years after Mossaddegh.
I think it's rather Racist to see them as so unable/immature.

Who's been "caught"?
Can il Manifestos think of ANY problem on the planet that isn't the USA's fault... or in the case of Islamism in Europe, Europe's fault.
Third world people are NEVER to blame.. Islamism from Malmo to Mecca (who the "USA supports") is 'Our' fault.

The USA "supported Saddam". Very Bad.
The USA Overthrew Saddam. VERY Bad.
(and it's inane twin, "we created Osama", ergo 9/11)

and so it goes.
Tiresome doncha think?
And Well said MSgt.
-
 
Last edited:
So we are to Blame for the Mullahs executing 4000 Gays and the Iranian Theocracy. AND it's current Brutal oppression of course!
They have NO responsibility because of 'original sin'.
They are still 'victims' 57 years after Mossaddegh.
I think it's rather Racist to see them as so unable/immature.

Who's been "caught"?
Can il Manifestos think of ANY problem on the planet that isn't the USA's fault... or in the case of Islamism in Europe, Europe's fault.
Third world people are NEVER to blame.. Islamism from Malmo to Mecca (who the "USA supports") is 'Our' fault.

The USA "supported Saddam". Very Bad.
The USA Overthrew Saddam. VERY Bad.
(and it's inane twin, "we created Osama", ergo 9/11)

and so it goes.
Tiresome doncha think?
And Well said MSgt.
-

That doesn't negate his point I'm afraid. If one country messes another countries affairs up (for whatever good reason it believes in at the time) the consequences may go on for days or even centuries after.
You might as well pretend that Iran would have gone down the same path if Mossaddegh hadn't been removed?
 
You are being ignorant in your haste to blame America and haste to deny Muslims their responsibilities.

These people were products of their own reigon and the House of Saud. The House of Saud engineered a generation of Sunni Wahhabists to combat the fanaticism of Shia Khomeini. They did this. The CIA was involved in training and organizing some of them in Afghanistan in order to combat the Soviets. None o9f this training involved the religious fanaticism that came from Saudi funded Madrasas. They were not America's problem and America had nothing to do with making them the fanatical mess their culture spawned. But, hanging around and dealing with them and molding Afghanistan to your liking after the Soviets were kicked out would have only given the world their flip side complaint that America is "interfering" wouldn't it?

I love how pathetic the world is.....


1) America attempts to groom Iran (Shah) into the future and the world criticizes America for interfering.
2) America leaves Afghanistan to Muslims after the Soviets were kicked out and America is blamed for not interfering further.
3) America saves Kuwait from Saddam Hussein so Bin Laden creates Al-Queda to hate on America, which leads to 9/11.
4) America is blamed for the starvation of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis by Bin Laden and the world criticizes America for taking Saddam Hussein out after 9/11.
5) America gives Iraqis an opportunity they wouldn't have gotten otherwise and America is blamed for when they slaughter each other.




In the end, America is the ultimate scapegoat. At what point do Middle Eastern Arabs get to be blamed for their own decisions and creations? As long as people like you seek to hang a noose around America for breathing, probably never. If you think this region needs America's help to develop their own monsters and wreck their own civilization then you don't understand the history of this region. Muslims in the Middle East are not America's responsibility. Ther are responsible for each other and if they produce the Al-Quedas, Tali-Bans, Hezbollahs, House of Sauds, Bashirs, Saddam Husseins, Khomeinies, and so many other identities of destruction, slaughter, and disaster, then they design their own path to hell.

It's ironic how America is unfairly criticized for being the "world policeman," but also criticized for not holding the hand of other cultures.

No the Afghans are not Saudi Arabia and what I have said is c orrect.


Many Americans are profoundly ignorant of history, even regarding distant countries where the United States finds itself at war
. One need not know much about Afghanistan's rich and ancient history, however, to learn some important lessons regarding the tragic failures of U.S. policy toward that country during the past three decades.

The Soviet Union invaded in December 1979, after the Afghan people rose up against two successive communist regimes that seized power in violent coup d'etats in 1978 and 1979. The devastating aerial bombing and counterinsurgency operations led to more than six million Afghans fleeing into exile, most of them settling into refugee camps in neighboring Pakistan. The United States, with the assistance of Pakistan's Islamist military dictatorship, found their allies in some of the more hard-line resistance movements, at the expense of some very rational enlightened Afghans from different fields and aspect of life.

The United States sent more than $8 billion to Pakistani military dictator Zia al-Huq, who dramatically increased the size of the Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) to help support Afghan mujahedeen in their battle against the Soviets and their puppet government. Their goal, according to the late Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, was "to radicalize the influence of religious factions within Afghanistan." The ISI helped channel this American money, and billions more from oil-rich American allies, from the Gulf region to extremists within the Afghan resistance movement.

Extremist Education

The Reagan administration sensed the most hard-line elements of the resistance were less likely to reach negotiated settlements, but the goal was to cripple the Soviet Union, not free the Afghan people. Recognizing the historically strong role of Islam in Afghan society, they tried to exploit it to advance U.S. policy goals. Religious studies along militaristic lines were given more importance than conventional education in the school system for Afghan refugees in Pakistan. The number of religious schools (madrassas) educating Afghans rose from 2,500 in 1980 at the start of Afghan resistance to over 39,000. The United States encouraged the Saudis to recruit Wahhabist ideologues to come join the resistance and teach in refugee institutes.

While willing to contribute billions to the war effort, the United States was far less generous in providing refugees with funding for education and other basic needs, which was essentially outsourced to the Saudis and the ISI. Outside of some Western non-governmental organizations like the International Rescue Committee, secular education was all but unavailable for the millions of Afghan refugees living in Pakistan. None of these projects could match the impact the generous funding for religious education and scholarships to Islamic schools in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. As a result, the only education that became available was religious indoctrination, primarily of the hard-line Wahhabi tradition. The generous funding of religious institutions during wartime made it the main attraction of free education, clothing, and boarding for poor refugee children. Out of these madrassas came the talibs (students), who later became the Taliban.

This was no accident. It seemed that such policies were intentionally initiated that way to drag young Afghans towards extremism and war, and to be well prepared not only to fight a war of liberation, but to fight the foes and rivals of foreigners at the expense of Afghan destruction and blood. And the indoctrination and resulting radicalization of Afghan youth that later formed the core of the Taliban wasn't simply from outsourcing but was directly supported by the U.S. government as well, such as through textbooks issued by the U.S. Agency for International Development for refugee children between 1986 and 1992, which were designed to encourage such militancy.

Often mathematics and other basic subjects were sacrificed altogether in favor of full-time religious and indoctrination. Sardar Ghulam Nabi, an elementary school teacher in a Peshawar refugee camp, stated that he was discouraged by the school administration to teach Afghan history to Afghan refugee children, since most of the concentration and emphasis was placed on religious studies rather than other subjects.

This focus on a rigid religious indoctrination at the expense of other education is particularly ironic since, while the Afghans have tended to be devout and rather conservative Muslims, they hadn't previously been inclined to embrace the kind of fanatic Wahhabi-influenced fundamentalism that dominated Islamic studies in the camps.

It seemed during the Afghan wars that no one cared and valued Afghan lives. Afghans became the subject of struggle between different rival and competing ideologies. The foreign backers of Afghanistan didn't care about the impact and consequences of their policies for the future of Afghanistan. Milt Bearden, the former CIA station chief in Islamabad, Pakistan during the Afghan-Soviet war, commented that "the United States was fighting the Soviets to the last Afghan." According to Sonali Kolhatkar, in her book Bleeding Afghanistan: Washington, Warlords, and the Propaganda of Silence, some in the United States saw the Soviet invasion as a "gift." Zbigniew Brzezinski, former President Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor, even claimed that the United States helped provoke the Soviet invasion by arming the mujahideen beforehand, noting how "we did not push the Russians to intervene but we knowingly increased the probability that they would." Once they did, he wrote to Carter, "We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War."

Professor Hassan Kakar, a renowned Afghan historian formerly of Kabul University now exiled in California after spending time in a Afghan prison during the communist era, notes in his book how the competition between the Afghan left and right had been previously confined to a verbal debate, comparable to those taking place in intellectual and other politicized circles in other developing countries during the late Cold War period. With the invasion of Soviet troops and the U.S. backing of the mujaheddin, however, it took the shape of direct armed conflict. The conflict evolved into open confrontation backed by the two Cold War rivals and other regional powers. Afghanistan was split and divided into different ideological groups, resulting in bloodshed, killing, destruction, suffering, and hatred among Afghans.

A whole generation of Afghan children grew up knowing nothing of life but bombings that destroyed their homes, killed their loved ones, and drove them to seek refuge over the borders. As a result, they became easy prey to those willing to raise them to hate and to fight. These children, caught in the midst of competing extremist ideologies from all sides, learned to kill each other and destroy their country for the interests of others.

Most Afghans with clear vision and strategic insight were deliberately marginalized by outside supporters of the Afghan radicalization process. Members of the Afghan intelligentsia who maintained their Afghan character in face of foreign ideologies and were therefore difficult to manipulate were threatened, eliminated, and in some cases forced into exile. One was Professor Sayed Bahauddin Majrooh, a renowned Afghan writer, poet, and visionary. Another was Aziz-ur-Rahman Ulfat, the author of Political Games, a book that criticized the politics of the U.S.-backed Afghan resistance movements based in Pakistan. Both were among the many who were assassinated as part of the effort to silence voices of reason and logic.

The Hezb-e-Islami faction, a relatively small group among the resistance to the Soviets and their Afghan allies, received at least 80% of U.S. aid. According to Professor Barnett Rubin's testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives, the militia -- led by the notorious Gulbuddin Hekmatyar -- conducted a "reign of terror against insufficiently Islamic intellectuals" in the refugee camps of Pakistan. Despite all this, Rubin further noted how "both the ISI and CIA considered him a useful tool for shaping the future of Central Asia."

Assassinations of Afghan intellectuals deprived Afghan refugees of enlightened visionaries who would have represented the balanced Afghan character of religious faith, cultural traditions, and modern education. What these early victims of extremist violence had in common was opposition to the radicalization and hijacking of the Afghan struggle for purposes other than Afghan self-determination. The Afghan resistance to the Soviets was a nationalist uprising that included intellectuals, students, farmers, bureaucrats, and shopkeepers as well as people from all the country's diverse ethnic groups. Their purpose was the liberation of their country, not the subjugation and radicalization of their society by bloodthirsty fanatics. Some Afghan field commanders with clear conscience and strategic insight also took a different approach than radical Afghan leaders supported by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia who -- with U.S. acquiescence -- sought to replace hard-line communist puppets with hard-line Islamist puppets.

The U.S. and the Afghan Tragedy « RAWA News

and this is the group Abdul Haq repeatedly warned the US about and asked them to stop funding.

I spent time in Afghanistan before any of this happened. You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

You will see that it was the US handing the education of poor Afghans over to the Saudi's, knowing that this would result in them being taught to be fanatical not educated afghan's at the expense of a proper education that has caused this problem.

Imo the US has an enormous responsibility for this. None of this was done for the good of the Afghan people and the US's aim to train children to be fanatical fighters giving 80% of its aid to those who were the most fanatical and would become Al Qaeda shows exactly who is responsible for the Taliban and Al Qaeda coming into being.

Read the article.
 
So we are to Blame for the Mullahs executing 4000 Gays and the Iranian Theocracy. AND it's current Brutal oppression of course!
They have NO responsibility because of 'original sin'.
They are still 'victims' 57 years after Mossaddegh.
I think it's rather Racist to see them as so unable/immature.

Who's been "caught"?
Can il Manifestos think of ANY problem on the planet that isn't the USA's fault... or in the case of Islamism in Europe, Europe's fault.
Third world people are NEVER to blame.. Islamism from Malmo to Mecca (who the "USA supports") is 'Our' fault.

The USA "supported Saddam". Very Bad.
The USA Overthrew Saddam. VERY Bad.
(and it's inane twin, "we created Osama", ergo 9/11)

and so it goes.
Tiresome doncha think?
And Well said MSgt.
-

He is 100% correct and MSgt is like always wrong. MSgt does nothing but attempt to rewrite history to show the US in a glorious angel view and damn the facts.

Fact.. the US DID support Saddam. They did give him WMD technology and did give him intelligence against Iran. He was a US ally. And so what if you overthrew Saddam? Does that some how justify or give the US a free pass for what its done in the past? By overthrowing him you gave Iran a burst of life to spread their power threw out the region and world, the very thing ironically enough, Saddam was doing his damnest to stop and why the US made him an ally in the first place.

Fact... the US DID overthrow the elected government of Iran. They did put in place a puppet regime that made Saddam look like a *****. The reaction was to overthrow the puppet regime and make the US the nr. 1 enemy of the state.. go figure when you have a foreign country run part of your administration and train your secret police through former Nazies in techniques that murder and torture hundreds of thousands of people.

Any action will always give a reaction.. something the US and the US right seem never to learn.
 
How do you know this? Nobody found WMD's. That was misinformation.

Bio and chemical warfare technology was given by the US to Iraq. That the WMD made from this information (along with other information from France, and others) was destroyed after the first gulf war, does not mean Saddam did not have it at one point. He did after all use it in the Iraq-Iran war.
 
Bio and chemical warfare technology was given by the US to Iraq. That the WMD made from this information (along with other information from France, and others) was destroyed after the first gulf war, does not mean Saddam did not have it at one point. He did after all use it in the Iraq-Iran war.

I thought you was talking about the second Gulf war.
 
Exactly and who put these people into Afghanistan? Who trained and funded them with full knowledge of what they were like?

None other than the USA - others did too but the USA did this with full knowledge and little forethought on what it was letting loose on the world.

The people who became the Taliban were in the main Afghan refugee orphans who were educated at schools run by the nasty insane religious fanatics, who we would come to know as Al Qaeda.

Given that those people were brainwashed from infancy they cannot be expected to know any better.

The CIA knew how fanatical they were and had been asked time and again by a genuine Afghan freedom fighter to stop funding and training them as he did not want them in his country. However the CIA believed their fanaticism would make them all the better fighters so Abdul Haq's pleas went unnoticed. It is I think a lesson for us all to not think we can give up our morality for short term goals.

The Americans are very short sighted, they rarely if ever think any action through.

Heavens to Betsy they even lauded Charlie Wilson who insisted AQ be armed with latest American armaments in order to fight the Russians.

Not that I was against anyone killing off Russian troops, but the end result was America both armed and financed the thugs who then did 911.
So I guess in that respect the US Governments under Big Bush, Wee Willie Clinton, Lil Bush can be blamed for 911.
 
He is 100% correct and MSgt is like always wrong. MSgt does nothing but attempt to rewrite history to show the US in a glorious angel view and damn the facts.
Just stating something, doesn't make it true.
(tried several times on the last page by you)
In fact, there's a 90% chance it's untrue.

Fact.. the US DID support Saddam. They did give him WMD technology and did give him intelligence against Iran. He was a US ally. And so what if you overthrew Saddam? ...
Yes, if you remember, or ever knew before your auto-US-Hate thing kicked in, the US was mortal enemies with "Death-to-America" Iran and we supported Saddam against Iran who had just a year before taken our hostages.
How UNTHINKABLE! What Ogres the USA is. How could they!

Then when he began using weapons on the Kurds, etc (and invading Kuwait), the USA rightly turned on him

And of course you missed the point as well as common sense history.
The US is blamed for, ie, supporting tyrannical arab regimes. But is also blamed for overthrowing the Worst of them, Iraq.
You can't have it both ways just to make your Hate and bizarro history fit.
Even today, we are blamed foor 'supporting the Saudis'.
Shall we overthrow? Egypt the same?

Fact... the US DID overthrow the elected government of Iran. They did put in place a puppet regime that made Saddam look like a *****. The reaction was to overthrow the puppet regime and make the US the nr. 1 enemy of the state.. .....
We did overthrow that govt but didn't install one "that made saddam look like a *****".
What an ridiculous statement.
Saddam is responsible for the death of perhaps 1.5-2 million people... his tally only cut short BY the USA.

And of course, Unaddressed is why Iran can't be civilized 57 years later/It's STILL the USA's fault.
This is nonsensical il Mainfesto speak.
Compare it, ie, to Chile, in which we meddled as badly, and see what a non-Islamist constructive people can do.
-
 
Hey Msgt, again with the US propaganda :)


Frenchforever (funny name),

Is it really that simple? There wasn't another superpower on the earth that was beating the West to the punch of oil before America stepped into their game? Everything we and your kind have done in the Middle East throughout the 20th century was about controlling the direction of oil. Rather than allow the Soviets to have it, we built and won influence. Our economies boomed. Our technology skyrocketed. Not the Soviets who in the end couldn't keep up. Nobody's denying anything about oil. But it is Europeans who deny all circumstances and predicaments in favor of dragging the U.S. through the mud.

In the end, these are Muslims betraying Muslims. Our attempts to use Iran as a power base in the Middle East failed as parts of the population and the intellectuals pushed forward their support of religious fanatacism (their bad). Our attempts to conduct oil business with the House of Saud has given us trouble. Notice how no European complains about our business with China? COuld it be because they conduct the same business? I think so.

Nobody told Muslims how to spend their money in the Middle East. Nobody prevented them from building proper universities instead of religious schools of superstition. Nobody prevented them from separating religion from government. The entire world was colonized by Europeans, to include the Middle East, and only the Middle East continues to celebrate an inability to move on.

Culture is fate. Blaming America for being a part of the world Europe created merely soothes the inadequacies of the Sunni tribe.
 
That doesn't negate his point I'm afraid. If one country messes another countries affairs up (for whatever good reason it believes in at the time) the consequences may go on for days or even centuries after.


Of course this is true. But considering that the entire world has been able to move on from what Europeans did I find it pathetic that Europeans offer pats on the backs to the entrie Middle East for their superhuman talents at failure. Trillions of dollars worth of oil money throughout the 20th century and this culture can't even produce a car.

America's a scapegoat for a culture that refuses to grow up and meet the rest of the world.
 
No the Afghans are not Saudi Arabia and what I have said is c orrect.


You don't seem to get the point here. I read your simplistic article. I've also read books on the matter (it's my job you see). In the end, these are Muslims from a Muslim culture in the Muslim Middle East. They are responsible for their own culture and their own symptoms of failure. Did it take the U.S. to create these religious freaks or did it take America to merely organize them to fight the Soviets?

Over a decade later, it was America that had to go back and put down what Muslims couldn't do for themselves. You may as well parade around that Germans had no responsibility for their behaviors during World War II because other European nations created them post WWI. At what point do you people assign proper responsibility? Are Middle Eastern Muslims children in need of a care taker like America or are the capable of shaping their own peaceful and progressive futures like the West is? You people can't get away with trying to have it both ways so America comes out with **** all over its face every time.
 
Back
Top Bottom