"Technically the enemy during the Soviet invasion/occupation was aetheist in its religious leanings officially. In reality, the Soviet troops deployed in the country were the full hodgepodge of religious leanings found in the former Soviet Union, to include plenty of Muslims from the central Asian SSRs." True. But for radical muslims, maybe atheism is even worst taht christianism. Anyway, from a radical islamic point of view, both are unbelievers. "Actually it remained a very significant one, with the Arabs mainly tying into the Pakistani effort and so coming to line up primarily with the religious radicals in the Pashtun areas (predecessors of the Taliban). Mohammed Shah Massoud and what would be the Northern Alliance some years later were slighted by the Pakistanis for various reasons, and had much less to do with the Arab mujaheddin. The lines for what would be the subsequent civil war were being drawn quite noticably, in hindsight, during the Soviet invasion/occupation, but even at the height of the war cooperation among Mujaheddin factions was limited and very much prone to the sort of warlordism we tend to associate with the post-Soviet era in Afghan politics." I guess that's true too. The pashtun were the main support of the arab talibans after the afghanistan war. With the support of Pakistan of course. If there were some divisions betweens tribes during the war, the main priority for them, as Mujahidins, was to fight the soviet invader. With american help of course (how could they refuse it?)

There is no oil in Afghanistan... but there is (plenty of) natural gas in Turkmenistan... And the only way to take it out avoiding Iran and Russian-controlled areas is... Aghanistan. got it? Of course, we are talking about 1980-1989, at which point Turkmenistan was part of the USSR. Got it?

"There is no oil in Afghanistan... but there is (plenty of) natural gas in Turkmenistan... And the only way to take it out avoiding Iran and Russian-controlled areas is... Aghanistan. got it? Of course, we are talking about 1980-1989, at which point Turkmenistan was part of the USSR. Got it? " Geostrategy is made of long time foreseeing. The U.S and their middle eastern allies (SA and PAk) made the gamble that a soviet defeat in Afgh. could trigger a chain reaction. They were right! In fact, this energetical policy took place mainly in the 90's, during the taliban era (so we can guess that, through Saudi/pakistanese hands, the U.S. did support the Talibans ) , but it required to free Afgh. from Russian influence, to be ready at the door of Turkmens.

>>Talk to the Ambassador of Saudi Arabia. He will tell you who bin Laden was thanking for getting him in touch with useful America Operatives during the Afghan War. << What possibly more reliable source could there be in the whole, wide world, Lizard King, than a Saudi Arabian politician? I don't know why I've not turned to them for the answers to all life's little questions come to think of it . . .

>>How do you think Al Qaeda morphed into an Organization that is taken seriously by most Nations of the World? -Afghan Arabs received sophisticated training by the CIA. << Um, no. Sorry, once again, and thanks for playing along at home. But, even if the CIA had directly trained the Afghan Arabs (a premise that is contraindicated by all the credible evidence out ther) you will then have to show me how training a bunch of Arabs/Afghans/cave men/martians/whoever to conduct a guerilla war against Soviet occupiers has *any* match up with the skills needed to conduct a terrorist campaign on the international stage. It's not exactly like the war in Afghanistan called for high levels of field craft, as such is defined by intelligence agencies and operatives, and the like, for instance, while such skills are a central part of AQ's current operating procedures. You'll unfortunately have to look a bit further afield for your smoking gun. Best of luck.

>>No but you are seeing advanced Guerilla Warfare... << No, not really, and certainly not in a context that has anything to do with the Soviet experience in Afghanistan in particular. "Advanced" guerilla warfare would imply some solid competence with TTPs beyond nuisance mortar attacks, nuisance IED attacks, and the occasional . . . wait for it . . . nuisance road side ambush. Oh, and kidnapping of non-combatants. Can't forget that. Put the Iraqi insurgents at a tail mixer with some veterans of the Viet Cong, the anti-French Algerians rebels, octogenarian French resistance members, some equally long in the tooth Filipino veterans of the Japanese occupation, various African rebel groups like ZAPU and, yes, even the Afghan mujaheddin and you'll mostly see a bunch of old guys bitch-slapping some Arabs and telling them how kids these days just can't cut it. Get the ghost of Mao in the room and he'd simply have the Iraqi insurgents crying like four your old girls (Che would probably try to pump them up, but then he was always a dilletante and a cheerleader, not a war leader, anyway).

>>Geostrategy is made of long time foreseeing. The U.S and their middle eastern allies (SA and PAk) made the gamble that a soviet defeat in Afgh. could trigger a chain reaction. They were right! In fact, this energetical policy took place mainly in the 90's, during the taliban era (so we can guess that, through Saudi/pakistanese hands, the U.S. did support the Talibans ) , but it required to free Afgh. from Russian influence, to be ready at the door of Turkmens. << Um, no. The majority of experts were quite surprised at the speed with which the USSR crumbled when the collapse came. No one at the time of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was licking their chops and thinking now we have them right where we want them. And why should they have thought so -- the US did not collapse after Vietnam, France did not collapse after Indochina, etc. Second, what interest does Saudi Arabia have in getting Turkmen natural gas onto the market? Third, how has Pakistan benefitted from Turkmen natural gas? Pipelines were built . . . but not via Afghanistan -- in fact they run due west towards Turkey, not south to Pakistan.

GV, Here are the first words of the article. "After the fall of the Soviet Union" We were talking about the Afghan-Soviet War, i.e. before the fall of the Soviet Union. Please read your own material. Thanks.

Sorry. I forgot to precise that I posted this link to react to this: "Second, what interest does Saudi Arabia have in getting Turkmen natural gas onto the market? Third, how has Pakistan benefitted from Turkmen natural gas? Pipelines were built . . . but not via Afghanistan -- in fact they run due west towards Turkey, not south to Pakistan"