What's new

What Afghanistan looked like in the past.

LOL Iranian wet dreams. Saudi arabia has a lot more diplomatic power than Iran will ever. Not to mention the worlds largest oil fields.

Lol number 2))

I'm not Iranian. I am not Shia. :unsure:

I Caucasian Man (Caucasian race. Caucasian Nation - Lezghians). I'm Muslim - Sunni. :partay:

I hate to see the entrenched Wahhabis agents, worldwide. fuuuuuu :tdown:
 
certainly it looked better but got worse in the hands of WAR and its own people
 
Thats why pakistan is most unpopular nation in a-stan :lol:

and india is most popular.Even afghanis visiting here call your facilities backward and india is their top choice in asia. :whistle:
Congrats!! Hey, would you like millions of them? We would be more thn happy to hand them over to you.
 
Congrats!! Hey, would you like millions of them? We would be more thn happy to hand them over to you.

nahi ji ,india joi dharam shala ni hai :P

agey hi bangladeshiyon ne att kiti huyi hai :P ...and aaj kal to pakistan se bi aatey hai ;)
 
I browsed thru the book for an hour in Chennai airport - on Feb 20.

It was a hardcover, it cost around Rs 1500 or so (maybe more, dont remember) so didnt buy. i will wait for 2-3 months when it will be available in Bangalore platform for Rs100 :)

Lucky, I can't wait. :D
 
SO Afghan elite living in Kabul was rich, had all the money and were westernized. Cool.


Looks like it was something new for the Indian member that's why he created this thread. :)
 
Soviet "invasion" was in response to Afghan Govt's call for help in dealing with Islamic Fundamentalism and terrorism in Afghanistan, sponsored by - surprise, surprise - Pakistan. Apparently, the Mujaheedin here indoctrinated into Jehad against the "Godless Communists" who were in power in Afghanistan then.

The tribals were against the 'reforms' initiated by the government and started a revolt - supported by Pakistan. Even upon request by the Afghan govt, the Soviets were initially reluctant to intervene.


more "moronics" from our 'prized' indian guests here

the prize does go to soviets indeed......they alienated an entire section of society, used their soviet police-state tactics on opposition groups of Afghan society (an honour-based and highly tribalistic society)

gun-shipped entire villages, leaving nothing but death and destruction -- especially mass murder of Pashtuns

obviously there was a mass uprising against both the unpopular [installed] government and there was mass opposition to the invasion itself. If there was no popular opposition, the mujahideen would have never succeeded


So the prize for "fvcking" up the region does not go to the SU.

the soviets made a huge mistake for disturbing the equilibrium and status quo. Had they not invaded, none of the phenomenon we saw today (of this scale) would be taking place


even many Russians acknowledge their excesses

Soviets Reveal Afghan Atrocities - Chicago Tribune

For the first time since its 1979 invasion, the Soviet Union spoke publicly of atrocities committed by Soviet soldiers in Afghanistan.

The respected weekly Literaturnaya Gazeta, carefully controlled like all other Soviet publications, reported that Soviet soldiers had apparently executed a group of innocent Afghan civilians on orders from a superior officer who said he did not ``need captives.``

The newspaper did not say exactly where or when the events took place, but from details included in the report it appeared to have happened in 1985 somewhere near the Afghan border with another country.

According to the story by Gennady Bocharov, one of the country`s more seasoned war reporters, a group of Soviet soldiers with orders to interdict weapons being smuggled to Afghan guerrillas shouted at a car to stop as it approached a border checkpoint.

``The soldiers ordered the driver to stop,`` Bocharov wrote, ``but he just accelerated. It can`t be ruled out that it just seemed that way to the soldiers.``

The story said that the troops fired warning shots into the air, and when the car didn`t stop, they fired at the automobile. The newspaper said that when the car eventually stopped and the soldiers searched it, they found no weapons.

But they discovered a dead woman, a wounded man and a wounded teenager who had been hit in the hail of bullets. Four other passengers, including an old woman and two children, escaped unharmed.

At that point the commanding officer of the patrol said he would radio his superiors and call for a helicopter to come and take the civilians away.

When he contacted his superior, identified only as Rudykh, the officer said that he had no interest in prisoners.

``I don`t need them,`` the newspaper quoted Rudykh as saying. As if for emphasis, or as if seeking support, the newspaper said, Rudykh repeated himself. ``I don`t need them.``

He ordered the men to take care of the situation ``quietly`` and to dispose of all of the ``traces.`` The article did not say specifically what happened to the civilians, but it clearly implied that they had been executed. The newspaper said that a trial was held in the Soviet city of Tashkent and that Rudykh and a soldier who actually carried out his orders, identified only as Pvt. Shmakov, were sentenced to five and six years respectively. The commander of the patrol was hit in the head by shrapnel shortly after the incident and was never brought to trial.

Rudykh was set free a few months later as part of an amnesty marking the 40th anniversary of the end of World War II.

This and other reports in Literaturnaya Gazeta Wednesday as well as letters published by other newspapers appeared to be the latest step in a government effort to portray the involvement in Afghanistan as a tragic mistake.

Literaturnaya Gazeta also gave details of the rage and sometimes madness of Soviet soldiers sent off to fight in a country they could not fathom.

In the same article, Bocharov told a story of a group of Soviet soldiers who stole gasoline from a helicopter and used it to burn the bodies of Afghan rebels they had just killed.

``We could hardly breathe from the stink and we cursed,`` the story quoted the soldiers as saying.

It said they went on to shoot and burn the camels that the rebels had been riding and that one rebel who escaped, albeit with a broken pelvis, was picked off by a Soviet sniper.

``Perhaps he had decided he had saved his skin,`` one of the soldiers said of the escaping rebel. ``We shot him too.``

The story also spoke of the growing disenchantment and eventual revulsion Soviet soldiers had toward Afghans because the Soviets could never decide if they were friends or foes, allies or spies.


You Pakistanis are funny people can you tell me how distributing land to landless angred the afghans
The rich land owners & the jagirdars got angry so they supported the insurgency which had the blessings of Pakistani Govt &the ISI

they were angry because foreign boots were in their country against the will of OBVIOUSLY a LOT of people.....

just because you had a few puppets in kabul and you long to see Afghan women in mini-skirts (and gauge that as a symbol of "modernity") doesnt mean you can viably overlook the aspirations of the masses

the jihad against soviets would never have existed had it not been for a long and bloody popular resistance against the soviets

and yes - rich land-owners and industrialists will obviously have an interest not to see their wealth RE-distributed...i know you hindustani marxist minded people still have some of those degenerate leftist/marxist tendencies but obviously Afghanistan then and Afghanistan now is different. Makes no difference to me what are Afghan political views however when an unpopular soviet invasion of Afghanistan would encircle Pakistan with a pro-indian ally (one of their primary arms suppliers and a strategic ally) and when millions of Afghan pour into Pakistan in the millions -- damn right will we have a say and damn right we will take actions -- light or extreme - to eliminate the threat. We did it then, we are still doing it today.

so supporting the mujahideen in Afghanistan made sense and if confronted by a similar scenario like what happened in 1970s/80s during height of cold war we'd do it 1,000 more times
 
Dumbest assessment of Soviet Afghan war by a poster after the Indians.

I agree. His post was very stupid.

No the thousands of tank shells that kind of put their country back into the middle ages made the choice for them.

Please explain how tank shells make people want to ban simple things such as music, dancing, telephones, televisions etc etc. This is the "middle ages" i was talking about.

Dumbest assessment of Soviet Afghan war by a poster after the Indians.

I agree. His post was very stupid.

No the thousands of tank shells that kind of put their country back into the middle ages made the choice for them.

Please explain how tank shells make people want to ban simple things such as music, dancing, telephones, televisions etc etc. This is the "middle ages" i was talking about.
 
I agree. His post was very stupid.



Please explain how tank shells make people want to ban simple things such as music, dancing, telephones, televisions etc etc. This is the "middle ages" i was talking about.



I agree. His post was very stupid.



Please explain how tank shells make people want to ban simple things such as music, dancing, telephones, televisions etc etc. This is the "middle ages" i was talking about.

When your whole country is bombarded into bits and peaces the tech goes with it. They did not have telephones or televisions or music and anything of that sort to give them solace. In times like those people turn to what they do have and in Afghanistan all they had was religion so they clung to it and when that happens fundamentalist groups can sometimes take advantage. Which is exactly what happened.
 
Soviets, khalqis and prachmis have primary role in destruction of Afghanistan, U.S and Pakistan roles are secondary. The reforms of communists of Afghanistan were too sudden, forceful, without taking care of the sentiments, culture and values of rural population of Afghanistan. They brutally suppressed protests against reforms. the internal strifes among afghan communists and instability led to soviet invasion. What soviets did to rural population to counter mujahideens, is not forgetton by Afghans. They carried out planned genocide of rural population to lure the "rats" out. They used toy bombs, which killed or disabled afghan childern...believe me americans/NATO are saints compared to soviets. Afghan communists were responsible for disappearance of tens of thousands of those Afghans who did'nt agree with them. So ask from any Afghan whether they love soviets and Afghan communists....
The hate for Pakistan among Afghans stems from durand line issue and our interferance in their internal affairs.....
 
When your whole country is bombarded into bits and peaces the tech goes with it. They did not have telephones or televisions or music and anything of that sort to give them solace. In times like those people turn to what they do have and in Afghanistan all they had was religion so they clung to it and when that happens fundamentalist groups can sometimes take advantage. Which is exactly what happened.

That's not what happened.

The Taliban actively banned things such as mobilies, radios, music, dancing, singing under their f.ucked up sharia medieval government system, not because the soviet "blew everything up"

The Taliban still continue to blow up mobile towers in Afghanistan today.........
 
That's not what happened.

The Taliban actively banned things such as mobilies, radios, music, dancing, singing under their f.ucked up sharia medieval government system, not because the soviet "blew everything up"

The Taliban still continue to blow up mobile towers in Afghanistan today.........

Yeah they fall in the fundamentalist bit.
 
Back
Top Bottom