Hello my question is about Afghanistan ?

Why are there Communists/Marxists/Leftists who are against the American attack/invasion/bombings of Afghanistan but see the Soviet/Soviet Union's/Russian invasion of Afghanistan as justified ?


en.wikipedia.org...


en.wikipedia.org...(2001%E2%80%93present)


en.wikipedia.org...(August_1998)

reply to post by mikejohnson2006


To be honest , i dont know , but it may have something to do with the new agenda to brand anyone who speaks out against the gov as communist jihad british terrorists , including us right here on ATS. Hence the rise in crazy threads containing the keywords we were warned about months ago ....... but no one listens , "its in one ear and out the other"

(i say british because of all the "LETS KILL SOME BRITS" games and movies coming out of America lately...... war on the cards , mark my words)

reply to post by mikejohnson2006


Because they are hypocrites.

Personally I find most adherent's to any form of ism to be bound by political / religious rhetoric or creed and by and large incapable of independant thought and reason.

reply to post by mikejohnson2006


I find the title quite funny. I have no idea why.
It seems like you are asking a question, and then questioning yourself.

But The soviets have invaded Afghanistan first I believe, The americans supplied the Al Quada with arms to defeat them, to which they did. Probably for Oil I imagine. But every battle is victorious in Soviet eyes.

I'm no expert, but from my understanding, it was something like Vietnam, where Russia was there supporting one side, the govt, in the conflict. They had been asked to be there. The Mujahideen were 'rebels' fighting against the govt and the US sided with them, arming them and training them, which is when they (the US) formed ties with Bin Laden. The Mujahideen went on the become Al Qaeda.

When the US invaded, they were there supposedly in response to 9/11. To remove from power 'terrorist factions' or some such who supported terrorism against the US; not really clear on that. The point is, they weren't asked to do this.
So, it seems to me that those are very different circumstances.
If Afghanistan had asked the US to come help them with their problems with Al Qaeda or the Taliban or whatever, then later came to resent them, it still would have been an action initiated by them. That isn't what happened.

Again, I could be wrong, just my understanding of the situation.
(I guess this doesn't really answer your question either...I don't know enough about it to answer that, although my understanding is that Russia did not invade them)

reply to post by mikejohnson2006


Because in the Marxist-Leninist viewpoint the proletariat’s revolution usurps exploitation—a history that supposedly culminates to a class struggle which rids of exploitation brought on by capitalism. Bringing the revolution to Afghanistan was simply expediting the revolution. More practically, however, it was little more than libido dominandi.

Marxism is dogma that spoke in general terms, transcending borders and all other dogma except its own. In any case the Left tends to be sympathetic to Communism, providing all sorts of excuses for the Communist’s atrocities (e.g. “Communism just had bad apples” and such).

A picture is worth a thousand words, yes? Dr. Gary North recently posted this picture in one of his blogs as a reminder of what Communism has to offer:



[img][pic]sv5093359d.gif[/pic[/img]


Hmm, technical difficulties. Well, the image I'm referring to can be found here: www.garynorth.com...

Originally posted by hellzdoms
But The soviets have invaded Afghanistan first I believe, The americans supplied the Al Quada with arms to defeat them, to which they did. Probably for Oil I imagine. But every battle is victorious in Soviet eyes.

There are so many things wrong with this post that I don't know what to say other than please read some unbiased history books from the Library of your choice.

Please.

Originally posted by mikejohnson2006
Why are there Communists/Marxists/Leftists who are against the American attack/invasion/bombings of Afghanistan but see the Soviet/Soviet Union's/Russian invasion of Afghanistan as justified ?

What makes you believe they do?

reply to post by hellzdoms
That's a bit different than history would record things to have happened.... Hmm...

You'd find the history quite interesting on the Soviet Occupation period, I'm sure...but that definitely isn't the right time frames to match for events.

@Wrabbit or Slayer

So what is the deal there? If you can sum it up in a few sentences and don't mind? Otherwise, i can certainly research this myself, I'm curious now...
I know what I said is extremely simplified, and possibly it's not even correct? lol

reply to post by curiouscanadian777

Okay, to sum it up short version. The Soviets invaded in 1979. The CIA became involve in supporting the Mujaheddin and gave the most critical support in the form of Stinger Antiaircraft missiles to combat the Soviet Hind flying Battleships that were known to low hover, while taking ground fire that they can damn near ignore and strafing up whole villages at their leisure. It was an ugly ugly war beyond anything this one has become.

Bin Laden brought his Arabs in to join the Jihad against the Soviets but was also quoted as saying he'd take a CIA agent as happily as a KGB Officer if given the opportunity. He hated the US even then about as much as our side is reported to has distrusted him...and the Afghans were never terribly appreciative of Arabs coming in like they were far better than everyone else, to begin with as I have understood it.

The Soviets left in 1989, the CIA dropped support not too long after and it fell into civil war. Out of that, the Taliban emerged and split the old Mujaheddin in two. One half Taliban and the other half is what we fought with against the Soviets and then against the Taliban in 2001. Those are/were the Northern Alliance.

Bin laden and his Al Qaeda also formed in the early 90's and his first credited strike inside the United States was the WTC bombing in 1993. Long before 2001...He was a long long running threat but not one we created. Not this time.

Hey, thanks for answering.
Wow, I sure got it wrong!
I assumed what I said was overly simplified b/c with the border no doubt they've been fighting with each other going back many many years, the Afghans and Soviets.
So the govt didn't ask the Soviets to help them? Or the Afghan ppl and/or 'rebels' didn't consider that govt to be legitimate?
Or, I got it completely wrong? lol
Yes, I definitely DO need to research this myself.

reply to post by curiouscanadian777

Here is a University text that is not overly long and focuses quite narrowly on the invasion itself and political conditions in the period leading up to it. It's dry but thorough in what it looks at.

The Soviet Invasion and the Afghan Response, 1979--1982

Thank You Wrabbit

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Well I was not sure either way of the relationship between Russia and Afghanistan.
So yeah I do accept that I might of been wrong
But I will read on it later on and have a look.
EDIT:
I believe I was right to say that the US did supply the Afghan rebels (the ones that fought against the Soviets) But I just named them wrong and said Al Quada, mistaking the fact that they changed to that after some time.

reply to post by mikejohnson2006

I'm with LadySkadi here. Who says they do? Also, who exactly are you talking about? The followers of the Democratic party in the US? Liberals? Or some group outside of the US?

Who are these Communists/Marxists/Leftists you are referring to? Are they the dudes who are opposed to Fascists/Nazis/Rightists?

Such labels are almost never helpful, and almost always simply a method of incendiary rhetoric.

Heck, is there anyone still around who actually thinks that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a good idea?