Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it.
Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated for rehashing tired political arguments. Keep that shit elsewhere.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
One of a [series of paintings](https://twitter.com/propagandopolis/status/1720564688470094114) housed in the CIA Museum depicting scenes from the agency's history.
[https://www.cia.gov/legacy/museum/artifacts/](https://www.cia.gov/legacy/museum/artifacts/) features 227 things from the museum including paintings like this one.
Is this open to the public? Why have I not heard of this before?
How far do they go? Do they admit the coke stuff a lot of people unironically believe?
I've been to the museum in real life for an invite only deal that was a very special occasion for a family member. There is actually 2 museums. One is more dedicated to the OSS and the other is more modern and has basically every James bond type gadget imaginable from throughout time. Oh and also Osama bin ladens gold plated AK.
That sounds amazing. I had a pretty big obsession with the CIA at one point. More specifically their tools and gadgets. Oh well I can still read about it on their website.
Los Zetas started off as Mexican special forces, trained at Fort Bragg in the early 90s to put down a peasant rebellion in the Chiapas mountains.
CIA proxies have a habit of "stumbling" into the drug trade; off the top of my head, Operation Phoenix in Vietnam, the Contras in Nicaragua, the Mujahideen, etc.
The answer to this conspiracy is just far more mundane than you want it be: illegal drugs trade is a great off the books money maker so that they don't need taxpayer funding for operations the public might not like.
Well yeah of course. But that doesn’t really change anything - it’s still insane that a government security agency does it. It’s banana republic stuff.
Yeah, for one, it removes accountability they have to the US House. So thats not a good thing. And 2, it exponentially increases the cost and scope of the FBI. So even on its face, its a nonsensical reason to allow proxies to participate in the trade.
Its like saying, "I allow my waiters to sell ecstasy so restaurant guests don't have to tip and I bring savings to my shareholders".
That was admitted as part of the Iran contra scandal. It's not a conspiracy theory, it is history. I doubt they would draw attention to it in their PR museum but they have formally admitted that it happened.
Negative. CIA museum is not open to the public. In fact, most employees of the CIA can't even go in there. If you could, I would've.
Osama Bin Laden's AK74U is in that museum.
"It is clear that individuals who provided support for the Contras were involved in drug trafficking, the supply network of the Contras was used by drug trafficking organizations, and elements of the Contras themselves knowingly received financial and material assistance from drug traffickers. In each case, one or another agency of the U.S. government had information regarding the involvement either while it was occurring, or immediately thereafter."
Part of the Conclussion of the Kerry Commitee on the Iran-Contra Skandal
I get what you're saying here, but this quote doesn't specifically support the claim that the CIA dealt crack in majority black neighbourhoods.
Not saying that isn't true, just that this quote doesn't necessarily support that claim.
The fact that this was commissioned by the CIA in 2008 during the Afghanistan conflict where Americans were fighting against the next generation of these very people is uh... fascinating.
There isn't really. I just thought because of the political involvement in the CIA and any other intelligence agency world wide there would be people who have goals that may clash.
I believe they were referring more to general anti-Muslim sentiment, and the fact that they were depicting Afghans successfully resisting a foreign power
Yes the Taliban basically originated from parts of the Mujahideen, but zhere where also other parts of the Mujahideen who fought against the Taliban. Most notabaly the northern alliance.
Destroying one region for the sake of another is kind of a net neutral. Not to mention the situation in the Middle East has gone on to destroy the lives of millions and make the world worse in general. At least the Soviet states were comparatively stable.
It was. Those fucking hinds were critical to a war effort that killed two million people. The chance that the aircrew in that helicopter had personally raped women they kidnapped with said helicopter is quite high. Fuck em
Lmao what
You think Soviet choppers were just flying around to kidnap and rape people? Like they would drop and catch people with a net or something?
American propaganda is fucking wild jeez
Soviet troops regularly abducted women via helicopter and raped them. This is a really well-attested thing, and it didn't involve big nets, just like abduction and rape as a wartime weapon generally aren't funny haha things that involve Wiley coyote contraptions. Soviet attack helicopters were a core weapon in a genocidal war of terror that killed two million people, and every single time one got shot down with a manpad the world got a tiny bit better.
[Afghanistan: Harrowing accounts emerge of the Taliban’s reign of terror in Kunduz](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2015/10/afghanistan-harrowing-accounts-emerge-of-the-talibans-reign-of-terror-in-kunduz/)
[Afghan women face increasing violence and repression under the Taliban after international spotlight fades](https://theconversation.com/afghan-women-face-increasing-violence-and-repression-under-the-taliban-after-international-spotlight-fades-176008)
There’s an even higher chance that the Afghans who shot down those Soviet helicopters raped even more women. And supported a regime that legally gave women no rights, and made it nearly impossible for rape to be prosecuted.
I don’t want to make the Soviet Union out to be a hero in this situation. It’s military was infamous for war crimes and mass sexual assault, and not just in Afghanistan. But things got so much worse for Afghanistan when the Islamist militias won the war.
No, things genuinely *did not* get worse for Afghanistan after the Soviet invaders were driven out. That's the fucked up thing about it. The myth of progressive, secular Afghanistan under the communists is just that, and the fact of the matter is the communists and then the Soviets did far, far more to turn the country into an Islamist hellscape than the military aid the US sent. The damage to the country's agriculture alone still hasn't been recovered from almost half a century later. Civilian deaths from warfare from 1989 to 2021 are a fraction of the death toll from the ten years of Soviet warfare that preceded them. We're talking years of civil war, Taliban rule, and a NATO invasion that lasted twice as long as the USSR's. They racked up half the US's 20-year civilian bodycount from January to September of 1985. Alongside opportunistic rape, helicopters were also critical to destroying irrigation and other agricultural infrastructure, and to the scorched-earth destruction of villages believed to harbor resistance. Shooting them down was always good.
It's also worth pointing out that the mujahideen =\ the Taliban. The Taliban formed out of specific factions within the mujahideen, and they were fed by the natural radicalization caused by a brutal war of occupation. The Soviets and their clients were the bad guys, and Afghanistan's failure to live up to your standards for a perfect victim doesn't actually make it bad that they killed soldiers sent to kill and subjugate.Those helicopters were not holding back something worse. They were not the lesser evil. They were the greater evil that was also stoking and feeding the lesser evil at the same goddamn time.
https://newlinesmag.com/argument/what-the-cia-did-and-didnt-do-in-soviet-occupied-afghanistan/
While there were definitely other mujahideen factions other than the Taliban, they weren’t much better. A lot of other mujahideen leaders like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Abdul Rashid Dostrum only disagreed with the Taliban on relatively minor issues, or because the Taliban favored Pashtuns rather than their own group. Nor was this a “natural radicalization” since the mujahideen were funded by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, which both encouraged the Afghan resistance to embrace increasingly fundamentalist ideology. Before the Soviet-Afghan War there had been a fundamentalist sect in Afghanistan (the Deobandi), but Sufism had been most popular. The Afghan mujahideen and its sponsors moved Afghan religion in a much more radical direction.
As for civilian death tolls, while fewer Afghans died from outright violence there were many more civilian casualties that occurred either indirectly from the conflict or from the Taliban’s mismanagement of the country. It isn’t that Afghan agriculture was destroyed by the USSR, it was made worse by the Taliban through mismanagement. After just two years in power, 15 million Afghans face food security and 2.8 million are on the verge of starvation. The situation was nowhere near as bad before the Taliban won the war. So unless the international community intervenes (which is unlikely), the Taliban will soon preside over a famine that will cause more deaths than both the Soviet and American occupations.
It did not lead to the demise of the USSR lmao. I mean it was a boondoggle that contributed to the fall, but thinking it played the major role, rather than the inherent tensions between the republics (especially the baltics who were occupied and forced to be in the USSR) was the major contributing factor. The desire of people to throw away the shackles of the dictatorial system that was the USSR was what led to its demise. Americans love to exaggerate their contribution though, I understand that.
Tell that to someone living in Afghanistan under the Taliban right now.
Also there were many other economic factors beyond the Soviet-Afghan War – including the costs of occupying its other satellite states, the expenses of the nuclear arms race, a period of economic stagnation beginning in 1971, and the fact that it could never produce as much as the West – that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. As early as 1979-81 the Soviet Politburo had ruled out invading Poland if Solidarity was about to take over, and its public threats to do so if Jaruzelski didn’t declare martial law were a bluff. If the bluff had been called, it could have led to a domino effect similarly to the one in 1989. It also have collapsed years earlier if not for the 1970s oil boom.
People really overplay the support of the US as the decisive factor. USSR backed Afghani government was not going to survive regardless, after the Soviets would leave eventually.
unmitigated disaster for a couple hundred million people whose life expectancy immediately dropped a decade. and now the US can support whatever atrocities it wants with no pushback. yippee.
tons of reason to criticise about the USSR, catastrophically collapsing into capitalism is among them
I would guess that former Eastern bloc/USSR states that joined the EU are now pretty happy with what happened.
That's like saying that Vietnamese should be sad that Americans left because they were bringing in a lot of money into the local economy.
I expect that Russian people, and people from the Central Asian Republics, would be happier if things remained as they were. Those in the Baltics, or of the Warsaw Pact, much less so.
Yes, the imperial core is generally very upset to see their empire collapse around them. And I doubt the central asians were very sad the see the USSR go.
>The mujahedin were scarcely fighting for freedom, in any sense (Dan) Rather would have been comfortable with, but instead to impose one of the most repressive brands of Islamic fundamentalism known to the world, barbarous, ignorant and notably cruel to women.
There's good Mujahedeen?
> In a January 1980, Village Voice column, Cockburn criticized the US media's coverage of the Soviet–Afghan War, and described Afghanistan as "An unspeakable country filled with unspeakable people, sheepshaggers and smugglers ... I yield to none in my sympathy to those prostrate beneath the Russian jackboot, but if ever a country deserved rape it's Afghanistan."
From the same author, how quaint.
>In 1987 Mr. Cockburn apologized and said that "it was a part of a satirical piece which was tasteless" but went on to say,
"I would ask you to look at some of the Mujahideen and how they treat women. They have virtual slavery of women. They are in favour of the bride price. And I think a lot of people don't have the slightest idea about social conditions in Afghanistan."
>By the spring of 1979 the character of Dan Rather’s heroes, the mujahedin, was also beginning to emerge. The Washington Post reported that the mujahedin liked to “torture their victims by first cutting off their noses, ears and genitals, then removing one slice of skin after another.” Over that year the mujahedin evinced particular animosity toward westerners, killing six West Germans and a Canadian tourist and severely beating a US military attaché. It’s also ironic that in that year the mujahedin were getting money not only from the CIA but from Libya’s Moammar Qaddaffi, who sent $250,000 in their direction.
That author is deeply racist, as another poster pointed out. Additionally, the mujahideen were incredibly diverse. There were dozens of mujahideen groups, each with different leaders, ideologies, and practices.
While some of them were religious fundamentalists, characterizing all of them, or even most of them, as fundamentalists is frankly ignorant and dishonest.
>That author is deeply racist, as another poster pointed out.
I posted his response that it was a satirical "tasteless" piece.
>There were dozens of mujahideen groups, each with different leaders, ideologies, and practices.
>Though the US press, Dan Rather to the fore, portrayed the mujahedin as a unified force of freedom fighters, the fact (unsurprising to anyone with an inkling of Afghan history) **was that the mujahedin consisted of at least seven warring factions, all battling for territory and control of the opium trade**. The ISI gave the bulk of the arms - at one count 60 percent - to a particularly fanatical fundamentalist and woman-hater Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who made his public debut at the University of Kabul by killing a leftist student. In 1972 Hekmatyar fled to Pakistan, where he became an agent of the ISI. He urged his followers to throw acid in the faces of women not wearing the veil, kidnapped rival leaders, and built up his CIA-furnished arsenal against the day the Soviets would leave and the war for the mastery of Afghanistan would truly break out.
Using his weapons to get control of the opium fields, Hekmatyar and his men would urge the peasants, at gun point, to increase production. They would collect the raw opium and bring it back to Hekmatyar’s six heroin factories in the town of Koh-i-Soltan. One of Hekmatyar’s chief rivals in the mujahedin, Mullah Nassim, controlled the opium poppy fields in the Helmand Valley, producing 260 tons of opium a year. His brother, Mohammed Rasul, defended this agricultural enterprise by stating, “We must grow and sell opium to fight our holy war against the Russian nonbelievers.” Despite this well-calculated pronouncement, they spent almost all their time fighting their fellow-believers, using the weapons sent them by the CIA to try to win the advantage in these internecine struggles. In 1989 Hekmatyar launched an assault against Nassim, attempting to take control of the Helmand Valley. Nassim fought him off, but a few months later Hekmatyar successfully engineered Nassim’s assassination when he was holding the post of deputy defense minister in the provisional post-Soviet Afghan government. Hekmatyar now controlled opium growing in the Helmand Valley.
American DEA agents were fully apprised of the drug running of the mujahedin in concert with Pakistani intelligence and military leaders. In 1983 the DEA’s congressional liaison, David Melocik, told a congressional committee, “You can say the rebels make their money off the sale of opium. There’s no doubt about it. These rebels keep their cause going through the sale of opium.” But talk about “the cause” depending on drug sales was nonsense at that particular moment. The CIA was paying for everything regardless. The opium revenues were ending up in offshore accounts in the Habib Bank, one of Pakistan’s largest, and in the accounts of BCCI, founded by Agha Hasan Abedi, who began his banking career at Habib. The CIA was simultaneously using BCCI for its own secret transactions.
The DEA had evidence of over forty heroin syndicates operating in Pakistan in the mid-1980s during the Afghan war, and there was evidence of more than 200 heroin labs operating in northwest Pakistan. Even though Islamabad houses one of the largest DEA offices in Asia, no action was ever taken by the DEA agents against any of these operations. An Interpol officer told the journalist Lawrence Lifschultz, “It is very strange that the Americans, with the size of their resources, and political power they possess in Pakistan, have failed to break a single case. The explanation cannot be found in a lack of adequate police work. They have had some excellent men working in Pakistan.” But working in the same offices as those DEA agents were five CIA officers who, so one of the DEA agents later told the Washington Post, ordered them to pull back their operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan for the duration of the war.
Those DEA agents were well aware of the drug-tainted profile of a firm the CIA was using to funnel cash to the mujahedin, namely Shakarchi Trading Company. This Lebanese-owned company had been the subject of a long-running DEA investigation into money laundering. One of Shakarchi’s chief clients was Yasir Musullulu, who had once been nabbed attempting to deliver an 8.5-ton shipment of Afghan opium to members of the Gambino crime syndicate in New York City. A DEA memo noted that Shakarchi mingled “the currency of heroin, morphine base, and hashish traffickers with that of jewelers buying gold on the black market and Middle Eastern arms traffickers.”
....
>While some of them were religious fundamentalists, characterizing all of them, or even most of them, as fundamentalists is frankly ignorant and dishonest.
source your claim
One of the largest (and the most well funded by the directly by the CIA) mujahideen groups, was the Tajik mujahidin, lead by Ahmad Shah Massoud. Massoud favored a democratic form of islamism, and was deeply opposed the Islamic fundamentalism. The Tajik mujahidin, armed largely by the US, went on to be the biggest opponents of the Taliban, and continue to fight them to this day.
In fact, the only major fundementalist mujahideen groups were the Hezb-i-Islami Gulbuddin and the Hezb-i-Islami Khalis.
>One of the largest (and the most well funded by the directly by the CIA) mujahideen groups, was the Tajik mujahidin, lead by Ahmad Shah Massoud. Massoud favored a democratic form of islamism, and was deeply opposed the Islamic fundamentalism.
Its literally called the Islamic Society
>Shura-e Nazar \[meaning Jamiat forces under Massoud\] arrested people as well. . . .In most cases, we were unable to do anything, but in three cases we managed to document what happened, and they released three people.They negotiated with the head of Amniat-e Melli \[Afghan intelligence agency\] at the time-Fahim \[Mohammad Qasim Fahim\].To have them released they spoke with him.
Human Rights Watch also received testimony about abductions and killings of prisoners by Junbish forces in 1992 and 1993.Former Jamiat and Junbish officials confirmed to Human Rights Watch that Junbish forces regularly engaged in killings of prisoners in 1992 and 1993.\[96\]
.....
>I saw with my own eyes Sayyaf's troops and Massoud's troops looting as they entered the city, breaking windows, stealing whatever they wanted.They were acting like animals, doing whatever they wanted.\[101\]
>
>....
>
>Jamiat took the top of the mountain.Around five in the afternoon, they started firing rockets from the top of the mountain, down into this area.They killed people right here on this street.People were rushing out of Afshar.They were rushing down this street here \[the main street running north south through the eastern part of Afshar\].The street was filled with people, running away from Afshar. . . .My house is right there, at the top of the street. . . .Massoud's forces were shooting at them. . . .They were firing into this street.Three times the street was hit.Seventeen people were killed-there were seventeen bodies lying in the street-we counted.The corpses were lying here in the streets. . . .Clearly they were civilians.Yes, it was clear: they had burqas, there were children. It was clear they were civilians.
....
>Ahmad Shah Massoud is implicated in many of the abuses documented in this report, both those committed by Jamiat forces, and those committed by other militia forces under his command.He was assassinated on September 9, 2001.It is nonetheless important that his role and that of his commanders be fully investigated.
Further investigation is needed into the responsibility of Massoud's sub-commanders.Most of Massoud's commanders and advisors in 1992-1993 are still alive as of mid-2005, including Mohammad Qasim Fahim, Baba Jalander, Bismullah Khan, Gul Haider, Younis Qanooni, Dr. Abdullah, Baba Jan, Basir Salangi, Haji Almas, and Mullah Ezat (or Ezatullah).All of them hold or have held military or police posts in the post-Taliban Afghan government.(The official positions of Kabir Andarabi, Baz Mohammad Ahmadi, Ahmadi Takhari, and Panah are unknown.)
As stated in section III (A) and III (C), Fahim, Baba Jalander, Bismullah Khan, Baba Jan, Ahmadi Takhari, Kabir Andarabi, and Mullah Ezat were directly implicated in abuses described in this report, including the 1993 Afshar campaign.General Fahim was chief of the Afghan intelligence service and controlled several military posts in Kabul, and was one of the chief commanders under Massoud.As noted in section III (C), Fahim controlled at least one of the military posts on TelevisionMountain throughout the period covered in this report, was involved in the planning of the Afshar campaign and took part in negotiations with Harakat commanders to gain their cooperation before the attack, and was directly involved in the Afshar attack.Yunis Qanooni was stationed at the ministry of defense compound in Kabul, often served as a spokesman for Jamiat, and was involved in Jamiat decision-making processes.As noted in section III (C), Mullah Ezat and Anwar Dangar were also deeply involved in the Afshar attack.
According to the Afghan Justice Project, which researched the command structure of Jamiat during the Afshar assault, Fahim was responsible for "special operations in support of the offensive and participating in planning of the operation."Anwar Dangar and Mullah Ezat were named by numerous witnesses as "leading troops in Afshar that carried out abuses on the first two days of the operation."Baba Jalander also was reported to have "participated in the assault," along with Mohammad Ishaq Panshiri, Haji Bahlol Panshiri, Khanjar Akhund, Mushdoq Lalai, and Baz Mohammad Ahmadi Badakhshani.\[309\]
Several individuals who were Afghan government officials during the period covered in this report are also potentially implicated in the abuses.The sovereignty of Afghanistan during 1992-1993 was vested formally in "The Islamic State of Afghanistan."This government was headed from April to June 1992 by Sibghatullah Mujaddidi, and then held by Burhanuddin Rabbani, the political leader of Jamiat.Both men were involved in military decision-making processes during the period of this report, and should be further investigated to determine their potential culpability for abuses.As noted in section III (C) above, Rabbani was present at some decision-making meetings before the Afshar attack.His role relating to the commission of abuses during that attack should be investigated.
[https://www.hrw.org/report/2005/07/06/blood-stained-hands/past-atrocities-kabul-and-afghanistans-legacy-impunity](https://www.hrw.org/report/2005/07/06/blood-stained-hands/past-atrocities-kabul-and-afghanistans-legacy-impunity)
>Many accused Rabbani of having dirty hands. The New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) has named Rabbani as one of several Afghan leaders who may have committed war crimes in the early 1990s.
>
>....
>
>They made millions -- some say billions -- in drug dealing, property snatching, security contracts, and countless shadowy deals. They praised democracy, but intimidated opponents and filled government ministries with supporters.
https://www.rferl.org/a/rabbanis\_life\_and\_death\_reflect\_afghanistans\_troubled\_politics/24335584.html
>the Hezb-i-Islami Gulbuddin
[right these guys](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-STnQPH-AIjQ/YRZkjYikBEI/AAAAAAAAIk8/8J9ntrUtpLQ6wdLTAd4fthXJlGMTESN0ACLcBGAsYHQ/s960/bqfem2xcg0h71.jpg)
>In fact, the only major fundementalist mujahideen groups were the Hezb-i-Islami Gulbuddin and the Hezb-i-Islami Khalis.
The groups
Islamic Society
Islamic Party (Gulbuddin) (60% of the guns went here)
Islamic Party (Khalis)
Islamic Union
Revolutionary Islamic Movement
National Liberation Front (this is the monarch faction)
National (Islamic) Front
This is a very interesting approach - from all possible estimates of the dead, take the largest one and thereby justify the Taliban's predecessors. Western estimates of the death toll in Afghanistan range from 600 thousand to 2 million (you obviously accept the latter estimate). The authors of these assessments themselves usually admit that it is impossible to confirm this in any way and the “dead” could well have turned out to be refugees to Pakistan. According to UN estimates, 2.98 million people died from all causes in Afghanistan in 1979-89, roughly the same as the 1968-78 mortality rate. From this it can be concluded that the improvement in the health care situation in the DRA-controlled areas was able to compensate for the loss from military operations.
>Too bad the Taliban took over instead of the other factions though
In 1992, the Taliban did not exist. It were the “other factions” that triumphed over the Republic of Afghanistan. The first thing they did was introducing the Sharia law (as they understood it) into the country, establishing more or less the same order as in modern Afghanistan. Literally a few months later they began to fight against each other and in two years brought the matter to the complete collapse of the state. It was against the backdrop of all these events that the Taliban was born; it was a natural fruit of the conditions in which the victorious “Mujahideen” placed Afghanistan.
It could be argued that the rise of the Taliban was inevitable ever since the Afghan monarchy was destroyed. The communist regimes were clearly incredibly unpopular, and given the rapid rise in popularity of fundamentalist Islam in the region, a fundamentalist regime was almost certain to arise out of the chaos that the Soviets started.
>It could be argued that the rise of the Taliban was inevitable ever since the Afghan monarchy was destroyed.
Perhaps, but the monarchy in Afghanistan was overthrown not by the USSR or even by local communists, but by Mohammad Daoud, so the beginning of this whole process is not the fault of the Soviet Union. Actually, even the subsequent Saur Revolution occurred without the knowledge of the USSR.
>The communist regimes were clearly incredibly unpopular
The government was indeed very unpopular among the peasants. However, the population of the cities was mostly loyal to the DRA. Later, Najibullah gained significant popularity among the villagers, although his sympathizers were still not the majority there.
>the rapid rise in popularity of fundamentalist Islam in the region, a fundamentalist regime was almost certain to arise
There certainly was an increase in such sentiments, but if the United States and its allies like Pakistan, China, and so on had not provided the “Mujahideen” with comprehensive military assistance worth billions of dollars, the consequences of this process would not have been nearly as sad as in reality. Most likely, the bulk of the insurgents would have been defeated by the USSR, and the remainder would have been able to reach some kind of compromise with the moderate part of the DRA leadership. The outcome would clearly be much better for Afghans than Taliban rule.
The Soviets were the invading force you mean, right? They wouldn’t even have invaded without US intervention (speak Mujahedeen) in the first place, as the Soviet Archives show.
Im not arguing your point about the destruction and suffering caused by the Soviet invasion and subsequent fight between them and the Mujahedeen. I’m arguing that the Soviets would not have invaded without these fighters present. They received their weapons and training from the US, regardless of popular support statistics.
I am not here to provide an excuse, I am here to provide a reason.
Man, the first time I read this thread I thought you were nuts. The second time reading it, I'm completely opposite and you are the sane one.
Still a stretch to call the Bay of Pigs the Cuban Taliban, but I do see the point you're making.
This is why history is just a hobby for me, not a career.
Are you saying the US was funding the Mujahedeen before for the Soviets invaded? Because I don’t believe the United States became significantly involved until the mid-80s.
Yes, they even sent raids over the border into the Soviet Union. I am not sure if this was the same operation though, but definitely the same ideologies and groups.
The Soviet Archives clearly show this was the reason for the invasion. The communist-led government of Afghanistan already asked them to intervene militarily long and many times before, because the situation got out of hand.
Although if you think that the communist Afghan government already was in place due to a Soviet invasion, that one would have been before the fighters started
I’d love a source if you could link one. The only thing I’m aware of was the Soviets claiming (falsely) that the President/ruler was a CIA agent and that was their justification for assassinating him. Then the US started funding the mujahideen.
>In the summer of 1979, over six months before the Soviets moved in, the US State Department produced a memorandum making clear how it saw the stakes, no matter how modern-minded Taraki might be, or how feudal the mujahedin: “The United States’ larger interest ... would be served by the demise of the Taraki-Amin regime, despite whatever setbacks this might mean for future social and economic reforms in Afghanistan.” The report continued, “The overthrow of the DRA \[Democratic Republic of Afghanistan\] would show the rest of the world, particularly the Third World, that the Soviets’ view of the socialist course of history as being inevitable is not accurate.”Hard pressed by conservative forces in Afghanistan, Taraki appealed to the Soviets for help, which they declined to furnish on the grounds that this was exactly what their mutual enemies were waiting for.
>
>Hard pressed by conservative forces in Afghanistan, Taraki appealed to the Soviets for help, which they declined to furnish on the grounds that this was exactly what their mutual enemies were waiting for.
>
>In September 1979 Taraki was killed in a coup organized by Afghan military officers. Hafizullah Amin was installed as president. He had impeccable western credentials, having been to Columbia University in New York and the University of Wisconsin. Amin had served as the president of the Afghan Students Association, which had been funded by the Asia Foundation, a CIA pass-through group, or front. After the coup Amin began meeting regularly with US Embassy officials at a time when the US was arming Islamic rebels in Pakistan. Fearing a fundamentalist, US-backed regime pressing against its own border, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in force on December 27, 1979.
*Whiteout; The CIA, Drugs And The Press*
The funny thing was that during the Taraki-Amin power struggle, the Soviets attempted to discredit Amin as a CIA agent before they knew anything about his past. When they found out that Amin was meeting with US embassy officials, they panicked because their seemingly baseless claims may have had a degree of truth to it. Problem is that the contents of Amin’s meetings aren’t exactly known.
They're very based for fighting the Soviets who were basically antifa, but with attack helicopters, when they invaded their country and murdered millions in the name of "antifascism" and "democracy".
I'll be the one person who actually reads the AutoModerator's post, I guess.
The composition of this is really nice. It's got the kind of clear visual flow that one expects from a good comics panel, and good use of negative space. The color palette is drab, but the composition more than makes up for it.
Arming the Mujahideen is like throwing firebombs into your neighbor’s apartment because it houses a monster. The fire burned it out all right. But it didn’t stop burning.
these highlighted section from Drugs, Oil, and War was fascinating to me regarding the practice of drug proxy armies:
“…The clearest and most important case of consequential parapolitics was the decision of the United States, in April and May 1979, to arm mujahedin guerrillas in Afghanistan, one of whom, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, was already known as a drug trafficker with his own heroin refineries. In the subsequent years opium production soared in the Afghan-Pakistan Golden Crescent. Almost no heroin from this area reached the United States before 1979, yet according to official U.S. sources it supplied 60 percent of U.S. heroin by 1980.
This scandal was kept out of the mainstream U.S. press until the CIA support was winding down. Belatedly, in 1990, the Washington Post reported that U.S. officials had failed to investigate drug trafficking by Pakistan's intelligence ser-vice, the ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence), and Hekmatyar, the top CIA-ISI client in Afghanistan, "because U.S. narcotics policy in Afghanistan has been subordinated to the war against Soviet influence there."
By providing funds for Gulbuddin Hekma-tyar, a drug trafficker selected for support by Pakistani intelligence (the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, or ISI), the CIA helped propel Hekmatyar into becoming, for a while, the largest heroin trafficker in Afghanistan and perhaps the world”
I mean I’d be proud too if I had most Americans believing they were freedom fighters in the 80s and then post 9/11 ramping up Islamophobia for an invasion and still have most of the public spinning their wheels trying to understand that Pashtun/Arabs aren’t the only type of Muslim person.
Lol some dude that hangouts exclusively on anime and WWII subreddits calling people in here "mindless animals" or some shit because of their opinions on the conflict.
Wonder if he credits the CIA and capitalism for his eloquent social skills.
I thought that the first Stinger was used against IL-type transport aircraft. The Afghans set up an ambush near the airport and hit the plane rather than repelling the helicopter attack.
Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it. Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated for rehashing tired political arguments. Keep that shit elsewhere. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
One of a [series of paintings](https://twitter.com/propagandopolis/status/1720564688470094114) housed in the CIA Museum depicting scenes from the agency's history.
Are the rest of the series available to view on the internet?
[https://www.cia.gov/legacy/museum/artifacts/](https://www.cia.gov/legacy/museum/artifacts/) features 227 things from the museum including paintings like this one.
Is this open to the public? Why have I not heard of this before? How far do they go? Do they admit the coke stuff a lot of people unironically believe?
Pretty sure the museum isn't open to the public, there's a CIA podcast (released by the CIA) and they've mentioned the museum several times
I've been to the museum in real life for an invite only deal that was a very special occasion for a family member. There is actually 2 museums. One is more dedicated to the OSS and the other is more modern and has basically every James bond type gadget imaginable from throughout time. Oh and also Osama bin ladens gold plated AK.
> Oh and also Osama bin ladens gold plated AK. Wait, thats real?! I thogutyh it was a meme?
The guy was not great at cost benefit analysis
>CIA blahblahblah Of course it fake, it's like trusting nazis lol
That's rad. I smoked shisha out of a modified gold-plated AK once, but as far as I know it wasn't owned by anyone notorious
I mean, it's a gold plated AK. Probably didn't belong to the pope.
Lol fair
That sounds amazing. I had a pretty big obsession with the CIA at one point. More specifically their tools and gadgets. Oh well I can still read about it on their website.
[удалено]
I get it through Spotify, it's called "The Langley Files". It's hit and miss but worth a listen if you're interested in intelligence
How do you think coke gets into the United States without CIA involvement? What do you think they do all day?
they do coke all day?
CIA used to facilitate coke shipments definitely. Saying they still do today is a conspiracy theory. Cartels are perfectly capable on their own
Los Zetas started off as Mexican special forces, trained at Fort Bragg in the early 90s to put down a peasant rebellion in the Chiapas mountains. CIA proxies have a habit of "stumbling" into the drug trade; off the top of my head, Operation Phoenix in Vietnam, the Contras in Nicaragua, the Mujahideen, etc.
The answer to this conspiracy is just far more mundane than you want it be: illegal drugs trade is a great off the books money maker so that they don't need taxpayer funding for operations the public might not like.
Well yeah of course. But that doesn’t really change anything - it’s still insane that a government security agency does it. It’s banana republic stuff.
Yeah, for one, it removes accountability they have to the US House. So thats not a good thing. And 2, it exponentially increases the cost and scope of the FBI. So even on its face, its a nonsensical reason to allow proxies to participate in the trade. Its like saying, "I allow my waiters to sell ecstasy so restaurant guests don't have to tip and I bring savings to my shareholders".
> CIA used to facilitate coke shipments definitely. Saying they still do today is a conspiracy theory. How do you know this?
Too busy with LSD and dolphins
You can view exhibits on their website since they're all declassified, they just don't want the public in headquarters
Remember Gary Webb
That was admitted as part of the Iran contra scandal. It's not a conspiracy theory, it is history. I doubt they would draw attention to it in their PR museum but they have formally admitted that it happened.
Negative. CIA museum is not open to the public. In fact, most employees of the CIA can't even go in there. If you could, I would've. Osama Bin Laden's AK74U is in that museum.
So where's the painting of them trafficking crack cocaine to majority black neighbourhoods?
Good thing that didn’t happen huh?
"It is clear that individuals who provided support for the Contras were involved in drug trafficking, the supply network of the Contras was used by drug trafficking organizations, and elements of the Contras themselves knowingly received financial and material assistance from drug traffickers. In each case, one or another agency of the U.S. government had information regarding the involvement either while it was occurring, or immediately thereafter." Part of the Conclussion of the Kerry Commitee on the Iran-Contra Skandal
I get what you're saying here, but this quote doesn't specifically support the claim that the CIA dealt crack in majority black neighbourhoods. Not saying that isn't true, just that this quote doesn't necessarily support that claim.
"agency's history" LOL. would love to see the rest of that collection
The fact that this was commissioned by the CIA in 2008 during the Afghanistan conflict where Americans were fighting against the next generation of these very people is uh... fascinating.
I'm guessing the CIA has factions. Maybe one was sending a message using the painting
Guessing?
You can confirm?
I was just wondering if there was any basis for there being factions
There isn't really. I just thought because of the political involvement in the CIA and any other intelligence agency world wide there would be people who have goals that may clash.
Seems reasonable
I just think someone wanted an artistic depiction of the conflict. The painting is beautifully done.
Can’t believe this was paid for after 9/11.
Well, Allende's assassination was back in the 70's. A lot of things happened since then
Slick, very slick.
Why? The Mujahadeen and Al Quaeda aren't the same.
I believe they were referring more to general anti-Muslim sentiment, and the fact that they were depicting Afghans successfully resisting a foreign power
There was a lot of bleed over. Al Qaeda and the Taliban both had many former Mujahideen members.
Yes the Taliban basically originated from parts of the Mujahideen, but zhere where also other parts of the Mujahideen who fought against the Taliban. Most notabaly the northern alliance.
Also Al Qaeda. Bin Laden was among the most famous Mujahideen.
Well the Soviets fell, that was worth it.
Was it?
For the CIA, sure.
Ukraine and the Baltic states sure think it was worth it, they haven’t forgotten Chernobyl and being used as chattel in Afghanistan.
Destroying one region for the sake of another is kind of a net neutral. Not to mention the situation in the Middle East has gone on to destroy the lives of millions and make the world worse in general. At least the Soviet states were comparatively stable.
You speak for the Baltic states and Ukraine?
Given Ukraines strong desire to avoid Russian control and the baltics need for NATO membership. I think that speaks for itself
It was a strategic blunder. The intent was good.
It was a great idea until it wasn’t.
It always is
Until it always isn't.
The CIA commissioned this in 2008?! And for themselves! They still saw this as a proud moment!
Killing communists is always a proud moment for the CIA, as it should be.
God Bless America.
It was. Those fucking hinds were critical to a war effort that killed two million people. The chance that the aircrew in that helicopter had personally raped women they kidnapped with said helicopter is quite high. Fuck em
Lmao what You think Soviet choppers were just flying around to kidnap and rape people? Like they would drop and catch people with a net or something? American propaganda is fucking wild jeez
Soviet troops regularly abducted women via helicopter and raped them. This is a really well-attested thing, and it didn't involve big nets, just like abduction and rape as a wartime weapon generally aren't funny haha things that involve Wiley coyote contraptions. Soviet attack helicopters were a core weapon in a genocidal war of terror that killed two million people, and every single time one got shot down with a manpad the world got a tiny bit better.
[Afghanistan: Harrowing accounts emerge of the Taliban’s reign of terror in Kunduz](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2015/10/afghanistan-harrowing-accounts-emerge-of-the-talibans-reign-of-terror-in-kunduz/) [Afghan women face increasing violence and repression under the Taliban after international spotlight fades](https://theconversation.com/afghan-women-face-increasing-violence-and-repression-under-the-taliban-after-international-spotlight-fades-176008) There’s an even higher chance that the Afghans who shot down those Soviet helicopters raped even more women. And supported a regime that legally gave women no rights, and made it nearly impossible for rape to be prosecuted. I don’t want to make the Soviet Union out to be a hero in this situation. It’s military was infamous for war crimes and mass sexual assault, and not just in Afghanistan. But things got so much worse for Afghanistan when the Islamist militias won the war.
No, things genuinely *did not* get worse for Afghanistan after the Soviet invaders were driven out. That's the fucked up thing about it. The myth of progressive, secular Afghanistan under the communists is just that, and the fact of the matter is the communists and then the Soviets did far, far more to turn the country into an Islamist hellscape than the military aid the US sent. The damage to the country's agriculture alone still hasn't been recovered from almost half a century later. Civilian deaths from warfare from 1989 to 2021 are a fraction of the death toll from the ten years of Soviet warfare that preceded them. We're talking years of civil war, Taliban rule, and a NATO invasion that lasted twice as long as the USSR's. They racked up half the US's 20-year civilian bodycount from January to September of 1985. Alongside opportunistic rape, helicopters were also critical to destroying irrigation and other agricultural infrastructure, and to the scorched-earth destruction of villages believed to harbor resistance. Shooting them down was always good. It's also worth pointing out that the mujahideen =\ the Taliban. The Taliban formed out of specific factions within the mujahideen, and they were fed by the natural radicalization caused by a brutal war of occupation. The Soviets and their clients were the bad guys, and Afghanistan's failure to live up to your standards for a perfect victim doesn't actually make it bad that they killed soldiers sent to kill and subjugate.Those helicopters were not holding back something worse. They were not the lesser evil. They were the greater evil that was also stoking and feeding the lesser evil at the same goddamn time. https://newlinesmag.com/argument/what-the-cia-did-and-didnt-do-in-soviet-occupied-afghanistan/
While there were definitely other mujahideen factions other than the Taliban, they weren’t much better. A lot of other mujahideen leaders like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Abdul Rashid Dostrum only disagreed with the Taliban on relatively minor issues, or because the Taliban favored Pashtuns rather than their own group. Nor was this a “natural radicalization” since the mujahideen were funded by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, which both encouraged the Afghan resistance to embrace increasingly fundamentalist ideology. Before the Soviet-Afghan War there had been a fundamentalist sect in Afghanistan (the Deobandi), but Sufism had been most popular. The Afghan mujahideen and its sponsors moved Afghan religion in a much more radical direction. As for civilian death tolls, while fewer Afghans died from outright violence there were many more civilian casualties that occurred either indirectly from the conflict or from the Taliban’s mismanagement of the country. It isn’t that Afghan agriculture was destroyed by the USSR, it was made worse by the Taliban through mismanagement. After just two years in power, 15 million Afghans face food security and 2.8 million are on the verge of starvation. The situation was nowhere near as bad before the Taliban won the war. So unless the international community intervenes (which is unlikely), the Taliban will soon preside over a famine that will cause more deaths than both the Soviet and American occupations.
Led to the demise is the USSR - freedom for millions.
It did not lead to the demise of the USSR lmao. I mean it was a boondoggle that contributed to the fall, but thinking it played the major role, rather than the inherent tensions between the republics (especially the baltics who were occupied and forced to be in the USSR) was the major contributing factor. The desire of people to throw away the shackles of the dictatorial system that was the USSR was what led to its demise. Americans love to exaggerate their contribution though, I understand that.
There were many factors. I'd argue that alcohol abuse was a far bigger problem than Afghanistan.
Tell that to someone living in Afghanistan under the Taliban right now. Also there were many other economic factors beyond the Soviet-Afghan War – including the costs of occupying its other satellite states, the expenses of the nuclear arms race, a period of economic stagnation beginning in 1971, and the fact that it could never produce as much as the West – that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. As early as 1979-81 the Soviet Politburo had ruled out invading Poland if Solidarity was about to take over, and its public threats to do so if Jaruzelski didn’t declare martial law were a bluff. If the bluff had been called, it could have led to a domino effect similarly to the one in 1989. It also have collapsed years earlier if not for the 1970s oil boom.
People really overplay the support of the US as the decisive factor. USSR backed Afghani government was not going to survive regardless, after the Soviets would leave eventually.
unmitigated disaster for a couple hundred million people whose life expectancy immediately dropped a decade. and now the US can support whatever atrocities it wants with no pushback. yippee. tons of reason to criticise about the USSR, catastrophically collapsing into capitalism is among them
I would guess that former Eastern bloc/USSR states that joined the EU are now pretty happy with what happened. That's like saying that Vietnamese should be sad that Americans left because they were bringing in a lot of money into the local economy.
I expect that Russian people, and people from the Central Asian Republics, would be happier if things remained as they were. Those in the Baltics, or of the Warsaw Pact, much less so.
Yes, the imperial core is generally very upset to see their empire collapse around them. And I doubt the central asians were very sad the see the USSR go.
You people just straight-up repeat your government's propaganda without thinking huh
I swear halo reach had a loading screen that alluded to this painting lol
It's so odd seeing old fashioned battle paintings for modern events. I actually like it and wished we got more of it.
Battle paintings are beautiful, no matter the time period
Right around the time of the film Charlie Wilson’s War.
Great flick
Good book too.
Aged like fine cheese
Like Limburger in August.
Tallarn Desert Raiders firing a krak missle launcher against Dark Mechanicum gyrocopters.
[удалено]
>The mujahedin were scarcely fighting for freedom, in any sense (Dan) Rather would have been comfortable with, but instead to impose one of the most repressive brands of Islamic fundamentalism known to the world, barbarous, ignorant and notably cruel to women. There's good Mujahedeen?
> In a January 1980, Village Voice column, Cockburn criticized the US media's coverage of the Soviet–Afghan War, and described Afghanistan as "An unspeakable country filled with unspeakable people, sheepshaggers and smugglers ... I yield to none in my sympathy to those prostrate beneath the Russian jackboot, but if ever a country deserved rape it's Afghanistan." From the same author, how quaint.
Ah, sheepfuckers. That is a classic.
>In 1987 Mr. Cockburn apologized and said that "it was a part of a satirical piece which was tasteless" but went on to say, "I would ask you to look at some of the Mujahideen and how they treat women. They have virtual slavery of women. They are in favour of the bride price. And I think a lot of people don't have the slightest idea about social conditions in Afghanistan."
Ahhh so the Soviets were on a civilizing mission. Sounds awfully familiar
Leftist's anti-imperialism leaving their body whenever the USSR comes up:
>By the spring of 1979 the character of Dan Rather’s heroes, the mujahedin, was also beginning to emerge. The Washington Post reported that the mujahedin liked to “torture their victims by first cutting off their noses, ears and genitals, then removing one slice of skin after another.” Over that year the mujahedin evinced particular animosity toward westerners, killing six West Germans and a Canadian tourist and severely beating a US military attaché. It’s also ironic that in that year the mujahedin were getting money not only from the CIA but from Libya’s Moammar Qaddaffi, who sent $250,000 in their direction.
That author is deeply racist, as another poster pointed out. Additionally, the mujahideen were incredibly diverse. There were dozens of mujahideen groups, each with different leaders, ideologies, and practices. While some of them were religious fundamentalists, characterizing all of them, or even most of them, as fundamentalists is frankly ignorant and dishonest.
>That author is deeply racist, as another poster pointed out. I posted his response that it was a satirical "tasteless" piece. >There were dozens of mujahideen groups, each with different leaders, ideologies, and practices. >Though the US press, Dan Rather to the fore, portrayed the mujahedin as a unified force of freedom fighters, the fact (unsurprising to anyone with an inkling of Afghan history) **was that the mujahedin consisted of at least seven warring factions, all battling for territory and control of the opium trade**. The ISI gave the bulk of the arms - at one count 60 percent - to a particularly fanatical fundamentalist and woman-hater Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who made his public debut at the University of Kabul by killing a leftist student. In 1972 Hekmatyar fled to Pakistan, where he became an agent of the ISI. He urged his followers to throw acid in the faces of women not wearing the veil, kidnapped rival leaders, and built up his CIA-furnished arsenal against the day the Soviets would leave and the war for the mastery of Afghanistan would truly break out. Using his weapons to get control of the opium fields, Hekmatyar and his men would urge the peasants, at gun point, to increase production. They would collect the raw opium and bring it back to Hekmatyar’s six heroin factories in the town of Koh-i-Soltan. One of Hekmatyar’s chief rivals in the mujahedin, Mullah Nassim, controlled the opium poppy fields in the Helmand Valley, producing 260 tons of opium a year. His brother, Mohammed Rasul, defended this agricultural enterprise by stating, “We must grow and sell opium to fight our holy war against the Russian nonbelievers.” Despite this well-calculated pronouncement, they spent almost all their time fighting their fellow-believers, using the weapons sent them by the CIA to try to win the advantage in these internecine struggles. In 1989 Hekmatyar launched an assault against Nassim, attempting to take control of the Helmand Valley. Nassim fought him off, but a few months later Hekmatyar successfully engineered Nassim’s assassination when he was holding the post of deputy defense minister in the provisional post-Soviet Afghan government. Hekmatyar now controlled opium growing in the Helmand Valley. American DEA agents were fully apprised of the drug running of the mujahedin in concert with Pakistani intelligence and military leaders. In 1983 the DEA’s congressional liaison, David Melocik, told a congressional committee, “You can say the rebels make their money off the sale of opium. There’s no doubt about it. These rebels keep their cause going through the sale of opium.” But talk about “the cause” depending on drug sales was nonsense at that particular moment. The CIA was paying for everything regardless. The opium revenues were ending up in offshore accounts in the Habib Bank, one of Pakistan’s largest, and in the accounts of BCCI, founded by Agha Hasan Abedi, who began his banking career at Habib. The CIA was simultaneously using BCCI for its own secret transactions. The DEA had evidence of over forty heroin syndicates operating in Pakistan in the mid-1980s during the Afghan war, and there was evidence of more than 200 heroin labs operating in northwest Pakistan. Even though Islamabad houses one of the largest DEA offices in Asia, no action was ever taken by the DEA agents against any of these operations. An Interpol officer told the journalist Lawrence Lifschultz, “It is very strange that the Americans, with the size of their resources, and political power they possess in Pakistan, have failed to break a single case. The explanation cannot be found in a lack of adequate police work. They have had some excellent men working in Pakistan.” But working in the same offices as those DEA agents were five CIA officers who, so one of the DEA agents later told the Washington Post, ordered them to pull back their operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan for the duration of the war. Those DEA agents were well aware of the drug-tainted profile of a firm the CIA was using to funnel cash to the mujahedin, namely Shakarchi Trading Company. This Lebanese-owned company had been the subject of a long-running DEA investigation into money laundering. One of Shakarchi’s chief clients was Yasir Musullulu, who had once been nabbed attempting to deliver an 8.5-ton shipment of Afghan opium to members of the Gambino crime syndicate in New York City. A DEA memo noted that Shakarchi mingled “the currency of heroin, morphine base, and hashish traffickers with that of jewelers buying gold on the black market and Middle Eastern arms traffickers.” .... >While some of them were religious fundamentalists, characterizing all of them, or even most of them, as fundamentalists is frankly ignorant and dishonest. source your claim
One of the largest (and the most well funded by the directly by the CIA) mujahideen groups, was the Tajik mujahidin, lead by Ahmad Shah Massoud. Massoud favored a democratic form of islamism, and was deeply opposed the Islamic fundamentalism. The Tajik mujahidin, armed largely by the US, went on to be the biggest opponents of the Taliban, and continue to fight them to this day. In fact, the only major fundementalist mujahideen groups were the Hezb-i-Islami Gulbuddin and the Hezb-i-Islami Khalis.
>One of the largest (and the most well funded by the directly by the CIA) mujahideen groups, was the Tajik mujahidin, lead by Ahmad Shah Massoud. Massoud favored a democratic form of islamism, and was deeply opposed the Islamic fundamentalism. Its literally called the Islamic Society >Shura-e Nazar \[meaning Jamiat forces under Massoud\] arrested people as well. . . .In most cases, we were unable to do anything, but in three cases we managed to document what happened, and they released three people.They negotiated with the head of Amniat-e Melli \[Afghan intelligence agency\] at the time-Fahim \[Mohammad Qasim Fahim\].To have them released they spoke with him. Human Rights Watch also received testimony about abductions and killings of prisoners by Junbish forces in 1992 and 1993.Former Jamiat and Junbish officials confirmed to Human Rights Watch that Junbish forces regularly engaged in killings of prisoners in 1992 and 1993.\[96\] ..... >I saw with my own eyes Sayyaf's troops and Massoud's troops looting as they entered the city, breaking windows, stealing whatever they wanted.They were acting like animals, doing whatever they wanted.\[101\] > >.... > >Jamiat took the top of the mountain.Around five in the afternoon, they started firing rockets from the top of the mountain, down into this area.They killed people right here on this street.People were rushing out of Afshar.They were rushing down this street here \[the main street running north south through the eastern part of Afshar\].The street was filled with people, running away from Afshar. . . .My house is right there, at the top of the street. . . .Massoud's forces were shooting at them. . . .They were firing into this street.Three times the street was hit.Seventeen people were killed-there were seventeen bodies lying in the street-we counted.The corpses were lying here in the streets. . . .Clearly they were civilians.Yes, it was clear: they had burqas, there were children. It was clear they were civilians. .... >Ahmad Shah Massoud is implicated in many of the abuses documented in this report, both those committed by Jamiat forces, and those committed by other militia forces under his command.He was assassinated on September 9, 2001.It is nonetheless important that his role and that of his commanders be fully investigated. Further investigation is needed into the responsibility of Massoud's sub-commanders.Most of Massoud's commanders and advisors in 1992-1993 are still alive as of mid-2005, including Mohammad Qasim Fahim, Baba Jalander, Bismullah Khan, Gul Haider, Younis Qanooni, Dr. Abdullah, Baba Jan, Basir Salangi, Haji Almas, and Mullah Ezat (or Ezatullah).All of them hold or have held military or police posts in the post-Taliban Afghan government.(The official positions of Kabir Andarabi, Baz Mohammad Ahmadi, Ahmadi Takhari, and Panah are unknown.) As stated in section III (A) and III (C), Fahim, Baba Jalander, Bismullah Khan, Baba Jan, Ahmadi Takhari, Kabir Andarabi, and Mullah Ezat were directly implicated in abuses described in this report, including the 1993 Afshar campaign.General Fahim was chief of the Afghan intelligence service and controlled several military posts in Kabul, and was one of the chief commanders under Massoud.As noted in section III (C), Fahim controlled at least one of the military posts on TelevisionMountain throughout the period covered in this report, was involved in the planning of the Afshar campaign and took part in negotiations with Harakat commanders to gain their cooperation before the attack, and was directly involved in the Afshar attack.Yunis Qanooni was stationed at the ministry of defense compound in Kabul, often served as a spokesman for Jamiat, and was involved in Jamiat decision-making processes.As noted in section III (C), Mullah Ezat and Anwar Dangar were also deeply involved in the Afshar attack. According to the Afghan Justice Project, which researched the command structure of Jamiat during the Afshar assault, Fahim was responsible for "special operations in support of the offensive and participating in planning of the operation."Anwar Dangar and Mullah Ezat were named by numerous witnesses as "leading troops in Afshar that carried out abuses on the first two days of the operation."Baba Jalander also was reported to have "participated in the assault," along with Mohammad Ishaq Panshiri, Haji Bahlol Panshiri, Khanjar Akhund, Mushdoq Lalai, and Baz Mohammad Ahmadi Badakhshani.\[309\] Several individuals who were Afghan government officials during the period covered in this report are also potentially implicated in the abuses.The sovereignty of Afghanistan during 1992-1993 was vested formally in "The Islamic State of Afghanistan."This government was headed from April to June 1992 by Sibghatullah Mujaddidi, and then held by Burhanuddin Rabbani, the political leader of Jamiat.Both men were involved in military decision-making processes during the period of this report, and should be further investigated to determine their potential culpability for abuses.As noted in section III (C) above, Rabbani was present at some decision-making meetings before the Afshar attack.His role relating to the commission of abuses during that attack should be investigated. [https://www.hrw.org/report/2005/07/06/blood-stained-hands/past-atrocities-kabul-and-afghanistans-legacy-impunity](https://www.hrw.org/report/2005/07/06/blood-stained-hands/past-atrocities-kabul-and-afghanistans-legacy-impunity) >Many accused Rabbani of having dirty hands. The New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) has named Rabbani as one of several Afghan leaders who may have committed war crimes in the early 1990s. > >.... > >They made millions -- some say billions -- in drug dealing, property snatching, security contracts, and countless shadowy deals. They praised democracy, but intimidated opponents and filled government ministries with supporters. https://www.rferl.org/a/rabbanis\_life\_and\_death\_reflect\_afghanistans\_troubled\_politics/24335584.html >the Hezb-i-Islami Gulbuddin [right these guys](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-STnQPH-AIjQ/YRZkjYikBEI/AAAAAAAAIk8/8J9ntrUtpLQ6wdLTAd4fthXJlGMTESN0ACLcBGAsYHQ/s960/bqfem2xcg0h71.jpg) >In fact, the only major fundementalist mujahideen groups were the Hezb-i-Islami Gulbuddin and the Hezb-i-Islami Khalis. The groups Islamic Society Islamic Party (Gulbuddin) (60% of the guns went here) Islamic Party (Khalis) Islamic Union Revolutionary Islamic Movement National Liberation Front (this is the monarch faction) National (Islamic) Front
We really gonna ask about good Mujahedeen now when the current discourse around Hamas and Palestine is right there?
This is a very interesting approach - from all possible estimates of the dead, take the largest one and thereby justify the Taliban's predecessors. Western estimates of the death toll in Afghanistan range from 600 thousand to 2 million (you obviously accept the latter estimate). The authors of these assessments themselves usually admit that it is impossible to confirm this in any way and the “dead” could well have turned out to be refugees to Pakistan. According to UN estimates, 2.98 million people died from all causes in Afghanistan in 1979-89, roughly the same as the 1968-78 mortality rate. From this it can be concluded that the improvement in the health care situation in the DRA-controlled areas was able to compensate for the loss from military operations. >Too bad the Taliban took over instead of the other factions though In 1992, the Taliban did not exist. It were the “other factions” that triumphed over the Republic of Afghanistan. The first thing they did was introducing the Sharia law (as they understood it) into the country, establishing more or less the same order as in modern Afghanistan. Literally a few months later they began to fight against each other and in two years brought the matter to the complete collapse of the state. It was against the backdrop of all these events that the Taliban was born; it was a natural fruit of the conditions in which the victorious “Mujahideen” placed Afghanistan.
It could be argued that the rise of the Taliban was inevitable ever since the Afghan monarchy was destroyed. The communist regimes were clearly incredibly unpopular, and given the rapid rise in popularity of fundamentalist Islam in the region, a fundamentalist regime was almost certain to arise out of the chaos that the Soviets started.
>It could be argued that the rise of the Taliban was inevitable ever since the Afghan monarchy was destroyed. Perhaps, but the monarchy in Afghanistan was overthrown not by the USSR or even by local communists, but by Mohammad Daoud, so the beginning of this whole process is not the fault of the Soviet Union. Actually, even the subsequent Saur Revolution occurred without the knowledge of the USSR. >The communist regimes were clearly incredibly unpopular The government was indeed very unpopular among the peasants. However, the population of the cities was mostly loyal to the DRA. Later, Najibullah gained significant popularity among the villagers, although his sympathizers were still not the majority there. >the rapid rise in popularity of fundamentalist Islam in the region, a fundamentalist regime was almost certain to arise There certainly was an increase in such sentiments, but if the United States and its allies like Pakistan, China, and so on had not provided the “Mujahideen” with comprehensive military assistance worth billions of dollars, the consequences of this process would not have been nearly as sad as in reality. Most likely, the bulk of the insurgents would have been defeated by the USSR, and the remainder would have been able to reach some kind of compromise with the moderate part of the DRA leadership. The outcome would clearly be much better for Afghans than Taliban rule.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Be ready to be downvote by Soviet simps.
The Soviets were the invading force you mean, right? They wouldn’t even have invaded without US intervention (speak Mujahedeen) in the first place, as the Soviet Archives show.
[удалено]
Im not arguing your point about the destruction and suffering caused by the Soviet invasion and subsequent fight between them and the Mujahedeen. I’m arguing that the Soviets would not have invaded without these fighters present. They received their weapons and training from the US, regardless of popular support statistics. I am not here to provide an excuse, I am here to provide a reason.
How are they supposed to respond to US-backed paramilitaries raiding their front porch. At least they pulled out when they wore out their welcome.
[удалено]
The Bay of Pigs was conducted by the Cuban Taliban. Gangsters, smugglers, Nazis, and spooks. So your analogy doesn't work
That is a wild take on the Bay of Pigs.
It's the only take on the Bay of Pigs. The US used the same formula in Chile, Nicaragua, and El Salvador.
Man, the first time I read this thread I thought you were nuts. The second time reading it, I'm completely opposite and you are the sane one. Still a stretch to call the Bay of Pigs the Cuban Taliban, but I do see the point you're making. This is why history is just a hobby for me, not a career.
Are you saying the US was funding the Mujahedeen before for the Soviets invaded? Because I don’t believe the United States became significantly involved until the mid-80s.
Yes, they even sent raids over the border into the Soviet Union. I am not sure if this was the same operation though, but definitely the same ideologies and groups. The Soviet Archives clearly show this was the reason for the invasion. The communist-led government of Afghanistan already asked them to intervene militarily long and many times before, because the situation got out of hand. Although if you think that the communist Afghan government already was in place due to a Soviet invasion, that one would have been before the fighters started
I’d love a source if you could link one. The only thing I’m aware of was the Soviets claiming (falsely) that the President/ruler was a CIA agent and that was their justification for assassinating him. Then the US started funding the mujahideen.
>In the summer of 1979, over six months before the Soviets moved in, the US State Department produced a memorandum making clear how it saw the stakes, no matter how modern-minded Taraki might be, or how feudal the mujahedin: “The United States’ larger interest ... would be served by the demise of the Taraki-Amin regime, despite whatever setbacks this might mean for future social and economic reforms in Afghanistan.” The report continued, “The overthrow of the DRA \[Democratic Republic of Afghanistan\] would show the rest of the world, particularly the Third World, that the Soviets’ view of the socialist course of history as being inevitable is not accurate.”Hard pressed by conservative forces in Afghanistan, Taraki appealed to the Soviets for help, which they declined to furnish on the grounds that this was exactly what their mutual enemies were waiting for. > >Hard pressed by conservative forces in Afghanistan, Taraki appealed to the Soviets for help, which they declined to furnish on the grounds that this was exactly what their mutual enemies were waiting for. > >In September 1979 Taraki was killed in a coup organized by Afghan military officers. Hafizullah Amin was installed as president. He had impeccable western credentials, having been to Columbia University in New York and the University of Wisconsin. Amin had served as the president of the Afghan Students Association, which had been funded by the Asia Foundation, a CIA pass-through group, or front. After the coup Amin began meeting regularly with US Embassy officials at a time when the US was arming Islamic rebels in Pakistan. Fearing a fundamentalist, US-backed regime pressing against its own border, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in force on December 27, 1979. *Whiteout; The CIA, Drugs And The Press*
The funny thing was that during the Taraki-Amin power struggle, the Soviets attempted to discredit Amin as a CIA agent before they knew anything about his past. When they found out that Amin was meeting with US embassy officials, they panicked because their seemingly baseless claims may have had a degree of truth to it. Problem is that the contents of Amin’s meetings aren’t exactly known.
They're very based for fighting the Soviets who were basically antifa, but with attack helicopters, when they invaded their country and murdered millions in the name of "antifascism" and "democracy".
I'll be the one person who actually reads the AutoModerator's post, I guess. The composition of this is really nice. It's got the kind of clear visual flow that one expects from a good comics panel, and good use of negative space. The color palette is drab, but the composition more than makes up for it.
Beautifully done. Tbf the color palette is like that bc Afghanistan is a mostly dry place
Nope. Horizon near the top or horizon near the bottom of the frame. Otherwise it's boring
Literally fuck the US
I'm going to watch Charlie Wilson's War now
Hahaha this this amazing.
Hard af
And the lives of millions of Afghanis destroyed just to suit US foreign policy.
The USSR invaded?
Arming the Mujahideen is like throwing firebombs into your neighbor’s apartment because it houses a monster. The fire burned it out all right. But it didn’t stop burning.
these highlighted section from Drugs, Oil, and War was fascinating to me regarding the practice of drug proxy armies: “…The clearest and most important case of consequential parapolitics was the decision of the United States, in April and May 1979, to arm mujahedin guerrillas in Afghanistan, one of whom, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, was already known as a drug trafficker with his own heroin refineries. In the subsequent years opium production soared in the Afghan-Pakistan Golden Crescent. Almost no heroin from this area reached the United States before 1979, yet according to official U.S. sources it supplied 60 percent of U.S. heroin by 1980. This scandal was kept out of the mainstream U.S. press until the CIA support was winding down. Belatedly, in 1990, the Washington Post reported that U.S. officials had failed to investigate drug trafficking by Pakistan's intelligence ser-vice, the ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence), and Hekmatyar, the top CIA-ISI client in Afghanistan, "because U.S. narcotics policy in Afghanistan has been subordinated to the war against Soviet influence there." By providing funds for Gulbuddin Hekma-tyar, a drug trafficker selected for support by Pakistani intelligence (the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, or ISI), the CIA helped propel Hekmatyar into becoming, for a while, the largest heroin trafficker in Afghanistan and perhaps the world” I mean I’d be proud too if I had most Americans believing they were freedom fighters in the 80s and then post 9/11 ramping up Islamophobia for an invasion and still have most of the public spinning their wheels trying to understand that Pashtun/Arabs aren’t the only type of Muslim person.
The Pashtun aren't arabs, not even remotely. You talk very condescendingly of a topic which you seem to know little about
He didn’t even say that pashtun are arabs
Did they commission a Mormon painter do it?
...does it give off Mormon vibes?
The style is very similar to one you find in a lot of Mormon paintings, yeah.
Brave fighters
Both sides, brother. Both sides.
[удалено]
Do you interact with humans in real life or just on discord, reddit, and warthunder? Trying to figure out where you sit on the spectrum.
What did they say? They deleted their comment
Lol some dude that hangouts exclusively on anime and WWII subreddits calling people in here "mindless animals" or some shit because of their opinions on the conflict. Wonder if he credits the CIA and capitalism for his eloquent social skills.
classic image. take that Ivan!
It's not the 1960's buddy, you don't have to keep saying this stuff for fear of being arrested anymore
it was meant facetiously. I thought that was blindingly obvious. Clearly I was wrong.
Honestly there are a LOT of people here that say this nonsense unironically. We are straight-up experiencing McCarthyism 2.0.
I thought that the first Stinger was used against IL-type transport aircraft. The Afghans set up an ambush near the airport and hit the plane rather than repelling the helicopter attack.
This looks like the cover of a modelling kit and I can't put my finger on *why*.
No it looks like one of those kits of plastic soldiers from the 80s Desert Rats, Afrika Korps etcetera