RugbyRebels

rowan wrote:

“Since the beginning, the US presidents (all of European stock, of course), had been promoting slavery, extermination campaigns against the native population of North America, barbaric wars of aggression against Mexico, and other Latin American countries, the Philippines, etc. Has anything changed now? I highly doubt it. Donald Trump is horrendous, but he is also honest. Both Presidents Clinton and Obama were great speakers, but unrepentant mass murderers.”

Andre Vltchek

“The solutions put forth by imperialism are the quintessence of simplicity…When they speak of the problems of population and birth, they are in no way moved by concepts related to the interests of the family or of society…Just when science and technology are making incredible advances in all fields, they resort to technology to suppress revolutions and ask the help of science to prevent population growth. In short, the peoples are not to make revolutions, and women are not to give birth. This sums up the philosophy of imperialism.”

Fidel Castro

The strange sight of liberal America participating in a neo-McCarthyite assault on Trump appointees, not on the grounds of their inherent racism and stupidity, but because they have contacts with Russia, is among the more surreal spectacles of modern political history. At what point did Russia become the official enemy of the U.S.? Wasn’t it just yesterday that Bush Jr looked into Putin’s eyes and declared him a honorable man? The truth is, of course, that Russia never stopped being the enemy. The internalized ethos of the cold war, the anti communist hysteria of post WW2 has always been there. The resentful flinty heart of America tolerates no disobedience. No country exhibiting the slightest autonomy is allowed to escape punishment and censure. The shining light on the hill symbolism is one that demands nobody else dare to exhibit anything that resembles their own leadership role globally.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/03/06/ ... mir-putin/

hahahahahahahahahahahaha

The general Russia approach that Democrats now routinely depict as treasonous – avoiding confrontation with and even accommodating Russian interests, not just in Ukraine but also in Syria – was one of the defining traits of Obama’s foreign policy. This fact shouldn’t be overstated: Obama engaged in provocative acts such as moves to further expand NATO, non-lethal aid to Ukraine, and deploying “missile defense” weaponry in Romania. But he rejected most calls to confront Russia. That is one of the primary reasons the “foreign policy elite” – which, recall, Obama came into office denouncing and vowing to repudiate – was so dissatisfied with his presidency.

A new, long article by Politico foreign affairs correspondent Susan Glasser – on the war being waged against Trump by Washington’s “foreign policy elite” – makes this point very potently. Say what you will about Politico, but one thing they are very adept at doing is giving voice to cowardly Washington insiders by accommodating their cowardice and thus routinely granting them anonymity to express themselves. As journalistically dubious as it is to shield the world’s most powerful people with anonymity, this practice sometimes ends up revealing what careerist denizens of Washington power really think but are too scared to say. Glasser’s article, which largely consists of conveying the views of anonymous high-level Obama officials, contains this remarkable passage:


In other words, Democrats are now waging war on, and are depicting as treasonous, one of Barack Obama’s central and most steadfastly held foreign policy positions, one that he clung to despite attacks from leading members of both parties as well as the DC National Security Community. That’s not Noam Chomsky drawing that comparison; it’s an Obama appointee.

https://theintercept.com/2017/03/06/dem ... hampioned/

Another good read:

Wild, melodramatic claims about hidden Russian plotting and Trump collusion are routinely and constantly hyped by leading media outlets based on nothing but their imaginations or, at best, coordinated whispers from intelligence officials utterly insusceptible to verification, from operatives trained in disinformation. As she writes:

The backbone of the rapidly yet endlessly developing Trump-Putin story is leaks from intelligence agencies, and this is its most troublesome aspect. Virtually none of the information can be independently corroborated. The context, sequence, and timing of the leaks is determined by people unknown to the public, which is expected to accept anonymous stories on faith; nor have we yet been given any hard evidence of active collusion by Trump officials. . . .

The dream fueling the Russia frenzy is that it will eventually create a dark enough cloud of suspicion around Trump that Congress will find the will and the grounds to impeach him. If that happens, it will have resulted largely from a media campaign orchestrated by members of the intelligence community—setting a dangerous political precedent that will have corrupted the public sphere and promoted paranoia. And that is the best-case outcome. . . . More likely, the Russia allegations will not bring down Trump.

https://theintercept.com/2017/03/07/lea ... ing-trump/

Ah yes, the infamous KGB. Can anything good be said about a person associated with such an organization? We wouldn’t like it if a US president had a background with anything like that. Oh, wait, a president of the United States was not merely a CIA “colonel”, but was the Director of the CIA! I of course speak of George Herbert Walker Bush. And as far as butchery and thuggery … How many Americans remember the December 1989 bombing and invasion of the people of Panama carried out by the same Mr. Bush? Many thousands killed or wounded; thousands more left homeless.

Try and match that, Vladimir!

And in case you’re wondering for what good reason all this was perpetrated? Officially, to arrest dictator Manuel Noriega on drug charges. How is that for a rationalization for widespread devastation and slaughter? It should surprise no one that only shortly before the invasion Noriega had been on the CIA payroll.

Since the end of World War 2, the United States has:

+ Attempted to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments, most of which were democratically-elected.

+ Dropped bombs on the people of more than 30 countries.

+ Attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders.

+ Attempted to suppress a populist or nationalist movement in 20 countries.

+ Grossly interfered in democratic elections in at least 30 countries.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/03/08/ ... 1917-2017/

And the 20 million!

Of course,Russia arming the Taleban, in opposition to the western backed government in Kabul, is just fair game. no criticism of that I'm guessing.

Sandydragon wrote:Of course,Russia arming the Taleban, in opposition to the western backed government in Kabul, is just fair game. no criticism of that I'm guessing.

What a silly fellow you are, Sandy. Don't you know that Afghanistan had a progressive socialist government in place in the 1970s before the US sent in the Mujahideen to destroy it, and from that chaos the Taliban emerged? But somehow you want to blame Russia...

Sandydragon wrote:Of course,Russia arming the Taleban, in opposition to the western backed government in Kabul, is just fair game. no criticism of that I'm guessing.

You should know your history better than that.

rowan wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Of course,Russia arming the Taleban, in opposition to the western backed government in Kabul, is just fair game. no criticism of that I'm guessing.

You should know your history better than that.

I know it better than you ever will, Zhivago.

A powerful letter from a former Guardian reader. Please share this widely. Perhaps this will inspire others to question the Guardian's 'journalism'.
===
After several decades of buying the Guardian Weekly, I have decided not to renew my subscription.
The Guardian always had its faults, but one tolerated them because it also offered high-quality journalism. This is no longer the case. What was once a serious newspaper with high standards has degenerated into little more than a propaganda sheet. One can still occasionally find quality reporting in its pages, but not when it comes to the crucial issues of our time.
On those crucial issues - such as Russia, Ukraine, Greece, US/NATO provocations and interventions in other countries, the Guardian's bias is extreme, without even a pretense of balance or objectivity. Its campaign of vilification against Jeremy Corbyn has been nothing short of disgusting.
Why would I pay for a subscription to the Guardian when I could -- if I wanted to -- get the same level of 'journalism' for free on Fox News or the Mirror website? Why would I pay money to help pay for the salaries of people like Jonathan Freeland?
I made my final decision not to renew my subscription when the Weekly published a fawning piece about Tony Blair in the February 24 issue, followed three days later by the Guardian editorial praising George W. Bush's return as an elder statesman. At the same time, the Guardian's subscription solicitation urged that "You'll help us hold the powerful to account." When a newspaper has arrived at the point of praising war criminals while deluding itself that it is holding the powerful to account, I know that it's not a newspaper that I want to keep receiving.
Sincerely,
Ulli Diemer
Toronto, Canada

Wasn't talking to you...

Sorry, my mistake.

Even Hillary Clinton blames the US for creating the Taliban. What's missing from this story, though, is that the Soviets the Taliban were created to fight had been drawn into the conflict by America's earlier use of the Mujahideen to bring down a progressive Socialist government in Kabul which, among other things, had given women equal rights:

WASHINGTON, April 24 Two days of continuous congressional hearings on the Obama administration's foreign policy brought a rare concession from US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who acknowledged that the United States too had a share in creating the problem that plagues Pakistan today.

In an appearance before a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee on Thursday, Mrs Clinton explained how the militancy in Pakistan was linked to the US-backed proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

“We can point fingers at the Pakistanis. I did some yesterday frankly. And it's merited because we are wondering why they just don't go out there and deal with these people,” said Mrs Clinton while referring to an earlier hearing in which she said that Pakistan posed a “mortal threat” to the world.

“But the problems we face now to some extent we have to take responsibility for, having contributed to it. We also have a history of kind of moving in and out of Pakistan,” she said.

“Let's remember here... the people we are fighting today we funded them twenty years ago... and we did it because we were locked in a struggle with the Soviet Union.

“They invaded Afghanistan... and we did not want to see them control Central Asia and we went to work... and it was President Reagan in partnership with Congress led by Democrats who said you know what it sounds like a pretty good idea... let's deal with the ISI and the Pakistan military and let's go recruit these mujahideen.

“And great, let them come from Saudi Arabia and other countries, importing their Wahabi brand of Islam so that we can go beat the Soviet Union.

“And guess what ... they (Soviets) retreated ... they lost billions of dollars and it led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

“So there is a very strong argument which is... it wasn't a bad investment in terms of Soviet Union but let's be careful with what we sow... because we will harvest.

“So we then left Pakistan ... We said okay fine you deal with the Stingers that we left all over your country... you deal with the mines that are along the border and... by the way we don't want to have anything to do with you... in fact we're sanctioning you... So we stopped dealing with the Pakistani military and with ISI and we now are making up for a lot of lost time.”

It was question from Congressman Adam Shciff, a California Democrat that spurred Secretary Clinton to delve into history and come out with an answer that other US politicians have avoided in the past.

The congressman noted that while the US had provided “a phenomenal amount of military support for Pakistan,” they had not changed the paradigm.

“And more pernicious, there are elements within the Pakistani intelligence services, the ISI that may be working at cross-purposes with us.

“How we can possibly be funding the Pakistani military if elements of the military or intelligence services are actually working against us and having the effect of killing our troops next door?” he asked.

https://www.dawn.com/news/847153

Socialist Afghanistan before Washington sent in the Mujahideen:

And women rights is one thing the western governments looked to ensure - something the Taliban are trying to undo again, with the help of Russia. Do keep up.

rowan wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Of course,Russia arming the Taleban, in opposition to the western backed government in Kabul, is just fair game. no criticism of that I'm guessing.

What a silly fellow you are, Sandy. Don't you know that Afghanistan had a progressive socialist government in place in the 1970s before the US sent in the Mujahideen to destroy it, and from that chaos the Taliban emerged? But somehow you want to blame Russia...

40 years ago. This is now and Russia is backing a group that is trying to overthrow a government. I thought you disapproved of such things - or is that just when the US does it?

An the US never 'sent in' the Mujaheddin you utter buffoon. They armed a resistance group that was already in existence, they didn't create it. They were already revolting against the Socialist Paradise before the US got involved., which post dated the Soviet invasion. And for someone who like to pretend they know a bit about history, what exactly were the Soviets doing with South Vietnam? US involvement in afghanistan was as much about revenge for that as anything to do with interest in that country.

Strange too that an alleged serious student of history would ignore the Communist Coup (by a party with very close links to Moscow) in 1978 which overthrew the legitimate government. No doubt the Rowan (TM) version of history cant see past those red tinted spectacles.

rowan wrote:Even Hillary Clinton blames the US for creating the Taliban. What's missing from this story, though, is that the Soviets the Taliban were created to fight had been drawn into the conflict by America's earlier use of the Mujahideen to bring down a progressive Socialist government in Kabul which, among other things, had given women equal rights:

WASHINGTON, April 24 Two days of continuous congressional hearings on the Obama administration's foreign policy brought a rare concession from US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who acknowledged that the United States too had a share in creating the problem that plagues Pakistan today.

In an appearance before a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee on Thursday, Mrs Clinton explained how the militancy in Pakistan was linked to the US-backed proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

“We can point fingers at the Pakistanis. I did some yesterday frankly. And it's merited because we are wondering why they just don't go out there and deal with these people,” said Mrs Clinton while referring to an earlier hearing in which she said that Pakistan posed a “mortal threat” to the world.

“But the problems we face now to some extent we have to take responsibility for, having contributed to it. We also have a history of kind of moving in and out of Pakistan,” she said.

“Let's remember here... the people we are fighting today we funded them twenty years ago... and we did it because we were locked in a struggle with the Soviet Union.

“They invaded Afghanistan... and we did not want to see them control Central Asia and we went to work... and it was President Reagan in partnership with Congress led by Democrats who said you know what it sounds like a pretty good idea... let's deal with the ISI and the Pakistan military and let's go recruit these mujahideen.

“And great, let them come from Saudi Arabia and other countries, importing their Wahabi brand of Islam so that we can go beat the Soviet Union.

“And guess what ... they (Soviets) retreated ... they lost billions of dollars and it led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

“So there is a very strong argument which is... it wasn't a bad investment in terms of Soviet Union but let's be careful with what we sow... because we will harvest.

“So we then left Pakistan ... We said okay fine you deal with the Stingers that we left all over your country... you deal with the mines that are along the border and... by the way we don't want to have anything to do with you... in fact we're sanctioning you... So we stopped dealing with the Pakistani military and with ISI and we now are making up for a lot of lost time.”

It was question from Congressman Adam Shciff, a California Democrat that spurred Secretary Clinton to delve into history and come out with an answer that other US politicians have avoided in the past.

The congressman noted that while the US had provided “a phenomenal amount of military support for Pakistan,” they had not changed the paradigm.

“And more pernicious, there are elements within the Pakistani intelligence services, the ISI that may be working at cross-purposes with us.

“How we can possibly be funding the Pakistani military if elements of the military or intelligence services are actually working against us and having the effect of killing our troops next door?” he asked.

https://www.dawn.com/news/847153

Of course the US bears some responsibility. Mostly for ignoring the country once the Soviets were defeated. They didn't create the problem, but they did exploit it.

And the less said about the Pakistani ISI the better.

Sandy, your approach is simply to invert the truth and pretend the opposite is what really happened, blaming the Russians for exactly what it is the Americans have done themselves. And by your twisted logic America was entitled to some manner of "revenge" against the Soviets for Vietnam - one of many nations America had bombed to rubble?? That defies belief. America should be free to bomb and slaughter without restraint, in Sandy Land, evidently. You also seem confused about the difference between sending in and creating. These are not the same things. Your knowledge of the English language is found wanting almost as much as your understanding of history. The US supported the Mujahideen against a progressive Socialist government in Afghanistan, because it was allied to Moscow, and for no other reason than to draw the Soviets into a proxy war. In fact, this is exactly the same tactic the US applied in Syria - except this time they didn't get what they wanted. I mean, what you are denying about Afghanistan has all been admitted by the Americans themselves; celebrated, in fact, as part of their cunning plan to bring down the USSR (forget the fact it aslo destroyed women's rights in Afghanistan in the process). So the fact that you are in denial over it really is an indication of just how extremely biased you are, I'm afraid. & the fact you clearly have a problem with a coup which brought down a dictatorship further exposes your hypocrisy and lack of insight into this matter.

rowan wrote:Sandy, your approach is simply to invert the truth and pretend the opposite is what really happened, blaming the Russians for exactly what it is the Americans have done themselves. And by your twisted logic America was entitled to some manner of "revenge" against the Soviets for Vietnam - one of many nations America had bombed to rubble?? That defies belief. America should be free to bomb and slaughter without restraint, in Sandy Land, evidently. You also seem confused about the difference between sending in and creating. These are not the same things. Your knowledge of the English language is found wanting almost as much as your understanding of history. The US supported the Mujahideen against a progressive Socialist government in Afghanistan, because it was allied to Moscow, and for no other reason than to draw the Soviets into a proxy war. In fact, this is exactly the same tactic the US applied in Syria - except this time they didn't get what they wanted. I mean, what you are denying about Afghanistan has all been admitted by the Americans themselves; celebrated, in fact, as part of their cunning plan to bring down the USSR (forget the fact it aslo destroyed women's rights in Afghanistan in the process). So the fact that you are in denial over it really is an indication of just how extremely biased you are, I'm afraid. & the fact you clearly have a problem with a coup which brought down a dictatorship further exposes your hypocrisy and lack of insight into this matter.

Yeah Sandy. Your use of the English language has been found wanting.

I mean, the proof is in the pudding.

Thank goodness a published journalist is here to point out your idiocy.

rowan wrote:Sandy, your approach is simply to invert the truth and pretend the opposite is what really happened, blaming the Russians for exactly what it is the Americans have done themselves. And by your twisted logic America was entitled to some manner of "revenge" against the Soviets for Vietnam - one of many nations America had bombed to rubble?? That defies belief. America should be free to bomb and slaughter without restraint, in Sandy Land, evidently. You also seem confused about the difference between sending in and creating. These are not the same things. Your knowledge of the English language is found wanting almost as much as your understanding of history. The US supported the Mujahideen against a progressive Socialist government in Afghanistan, because it was allied to Moscow, and for no other reason than to draw the Soviets into a proxy war. In fact, this is exactly the same tactic the US applied in Syria - except this time they didn't get what they wanted. I mean, what you are denying about Afghanistan has all been admitted by the Americans themselves; celebrated, in fact, as part of their cunning plan to bring down the USSR (forget the fact it aslo destroyed women's rights in Afghanistan in the process). So the fact that you are in denial over it really is an indication of just how extremely biased you are, I'm afraid. & the fact you clearly have a problem with a coup which brought down a dictatorship further exposes your hypocrisy and lack of insight into this matter.

Vietnam where communists aided a revolution to overthrow the government which the US supported.
Afghanistan, where the US aided a revolution to overthrow the government which Moscow supported.

Revenge is a perfectly justifiable term to use - the US saw their chance to inflict a Vietnam style defeat on the Soviets. Unlike Vietnam, the defeat in Afghanistan severely undermined the USSR, so in the context of the Cold War, the US got more value out of their involvement than the Soviets managed.

The Communists overthrew the Afghan government which caused the rebellion. The US eventually supported that, once the Soviets had intervened. Your version of events is false. Moscow supported the coup and then lost the war.

Now, Moscow is arming the Taliban. Care to comment on your double standards? You claim to be a journalist and frankly its not surprising that much of the ME believes fantasy conspiracy theories with people like you printing half truths and down right bullshit.

And the difference between 'sending in' and 'creating'. The Mujaheddin was already there. The US supported them. They didn't send them in, as you wrote, which implies that they were some outside force that the US instructed to enter the fight. They were already in a brutal battle with the Soviets when the US got involved. Your history is broadly comparable to jackanory.

The Vietnam War was about the US attempting to stop the spread of communism, and getting involved in an Asian conflict via the Gulf of Tonkin false flag incident. Since when does the US have the right to go about waging war on every continent when it does not agree with the ideology? The US also get involved with the Chinese civil war, and before Vietnam it had destroyed Korea, and after Vietnam it destroyed Cambodia and Laos, as well as supporting an anti-communist genocide in Indonesia (and later the East Timor genocide as well). But all this is okay in Sandy Land. Of course those white Christian Americans should be able to drop bombs on Asians to stop the spread of an ideology they don't like, and kill millions in the process.

& sending in Islamic terrorists to overthrow progressive governments is also fine in Sandy Land, because that's what the US did when it aided the Mujahideed against the Socialist government in Afghanistan. This was very similar to what has just taken place in Syria, and quite probably served as the blueprint. The Saur Revolution which brought the Socialists to power got rid of the last remnants of the monarchical rule by removing a self-appointed dictator. At this stage there was a progressive government in place with full rights for women, but America decided to destroy that. The Mujahideed didn't stand a chance without them. Well, look where Afghanistan is today . . . but of course that's all Russia's fault - in Sandy Land.

Canta brian, you came along with all the haughty arrogance in the universe to dismiss an idiom which was proved, unequivocally, to be correct, and you never got over the embarrassment of that. But rather than be a man and admit you were wrong, it is evidently your nature to resort to school yard bitchiness instead.

Sandydragon wrote: Your history is broadly comparable to jackanory.

Now come on, I'm sure a lot of people like Jackanory

Anything is better than a brainwashed-by-British-propaganda illusion of history.

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Of course,Russia arming the Taleban, in opposition to the western backed government in Kabul, is just fair game. no criticism of that I'm guessing.

What a silly fellow you are, Sandy. Don't you know that Afghanistan had a progressive socialist government in place in the 1970s before the US sent in the Mujahideen to destroy it, and from that chaos the Taliban emerged? But somehow you want to blame Russia...

40 years ago. This is now and Russia is backing a group that is trying to overthrow a government. I thought you disapproved of such things - or is that just when the US does it?

An the US never 'sent in' the Mujaheddin you utter buffoon. They armed a resistance group that was already in existence, they didn't create it. They were already revolting against the Socialist Paradise before the US got involved., which post dated the Soviet invasion. And for someone who like to pretend they know a bit about history, what exactly were the Soviets doing with South Vietnam? US involvement in afghanistan was as much about revenge for that as anything to do with interest in that country.

Strange too that an alleged serious student of history would ignore the Communist Coup (by a party with very close links to Moscow) in 1978 which overthrew the legitimate government. No doubt the Rowan (TM) version of history cant see past those red tinted spectacles.

Legitimate government? You mean the government of Mohammed Daoud? Daoud of the royalty? Daoud, the nationalist autocrat, who rose to power in 1973 through a coup that saw the king exiled in Italy? Daoud who declared a state of emergency, disbanded parliament, suspended the constitution, banned all forms of opposition organisations, and closed all private newspapers and magazines? Daoud who ruled by decree? Daoud who introduced a new constitution in 1977 that cemented in place a strong presidency and a one-party system? The one-party being the National Revolutionary Party. Daoud who began purging the Parchamis and Khalqis? Daoud who arrested the leaders of PDPA when they demonstrated in 1978 against such oppression as the assassination of one of their leaders, Mir Akbar Khaibar?

That 'legitimate government'?

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:
What a silly fellow you are, Sandy. Don't you know that Afghanistan had a progressive socialist government in place in the 1970s before the US sent in the Mujahideen to destroy it, and from that chaos the Taliban emerged? But somehow you want to blame Russia...

40 years ago. This is now and Russia is backing a group that is trying to overthrow a government. I thought you disapproved of such things - or is that just when the US does it?

An the US never 'sent in' the Mujaheddin you utter buffoon. They armed a resistance group that was already in existence, they didn't create it. They were already revolting against the Socialist Paradise before the US got involved., which post dated the Soviet invasion. And for someone who like to pretend they know a bit about history, what exactly were the Soviets doing with South Vietnam? US involvement in afghanistan was as much about revenge for that as anything to do with interest in that country.

Strange too that an alleged serious student of history would ignore the Communist Coup (by a party with very close links to Moscow) in 1978 which overthrew the legitimate government. No doubt the Rowan (TM) version of history cant see past those red tinted spectacles.

Legitimate government? You mean the government of Mohammed Daoud? Daoud of the royalty? Daoud, the nationalist autocrat, who rose to power in 1973 through a coup that saw the king exiled in Italy? Daoud who declared a state of emergency, disbanded parliament, suspended the constitution, banned all forms of opposition organisations, and closed all private newspapers and magazines? Daoud who ruled by decree? Daoud who introduced a new constitution in 1977 that cemented in place a strong presidency and a one-party system? The one-party being the National Revolutionary Party. Daoud who began purging the Parchamis and Khalqis? Daoud who arrested the leaders of PDPA when they demonstrated in 1978 against such oppression as the assassination of one of their leaders, Mir Akbar Khaibar?

That 'legitimate government'?

Precisely. Mohammed Daoud did push through some meritorious reforms after usurping his cousin, but it remained an oppressive dictatorship nonetheless, and he was still royalty. That's why the Socialists got rid of him. Now Sandy might wish to compare that to Assad. Well, I'd have no problem with a coup from within Syria replacing Assad, although he is certainly not the Hitler-of-the-Month the West has decided to portay him as (following bin Laden, Saddam, Gaddafi et al). What I don't agree with is America invading these countries on the other side of the world, either directly, by proxy or otherwise, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civlians, if not millions, and trying to tell us it was all in the name of freedom and democracy and everyone else was to blame - especially the Russians...

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:Sandy, your approach is simply to invert the truth and pretend the opposite is what really happened, blaming the Russians for exactly what it is the Americans have done themselves. And by your twisted logic America was entitled to some manner of "revenge" against the Soviets for Vietnam - one of many nations America had bombed to rubble?? That defies belief. America should be free to bomb and slaughter without restraint, in Sandy Land, evidently. You also seem confused about the difference between sending in and creating. These are not the same things. Your knowledge of the English language is found wanting almost as much as your understanding of history. The US supported the Mujahideen against a progressive Socialist government in Afghanistan, because it was allied to Moscow, and for no other reason than to draw the Soviets into a proxy war. In fact, this is exactly the same tactic the US applied in Syria - except this time they didn't get what they wanted. I mean, what you are denying about Afghanistan has all been admitted by the Americans themselves; celebrated, in fact, as part of their cunning plan to bring down the USSR (forget the fact it aslo destroyed women's rights in Afghanistan in the process). So the fact that you are in denial over it really is an indication of just how extremely biased you are, I'm afraid. & the fact you clearly have a problem with a coup which brought down a dictatorship further exposes your hypocrisy and lack of insight into this matter.

Vietnam where communists aided a revolution to overthrow the government which the US supported.
Afghanistan, where the US aided a revolution to overthrow the government which Moscow supported.

Revenge is a perfectly justifiable term to use - the US saw their chance to inflict a Vietnam style defeat on the Soviets. Unlike Vietnam, the defeat in Afghanistan severely undermined the USSR, so in the context of the Cold War, the US got more value out of their involvement than the Soviets managed.

The Communists overthrew the Afghan government which caused the rebellion. The US eventually supported that, once the Soviets had intervened. Your version of events is false. Moscow supported the coup and then lost the war.

Now, Moscow is arming the Taliban. Care to comment on your double standards? You claim to be a journalist and frankly its not surprising that much of the ME believes fantasy conspiracy theories with people like you printing half truths and down right bullshit.

And the difference between 'sending in' and 'creating'. The Mujaheddin was already there. The US supported them. They didn't send them in, as you wrote, which implies that they were some outside force that the US instructed to enter the fight. They were already in a brutal battle with the Soviets when the US got involved. Your history is broadly comparable to jackanory.

Nonsense. It is widely accepted now among historians that the Soviets had no hand in the coup. They might have had some prior knowledge of the developments among certain foreign policy experts, but that was it. Of course they ended up supporting the resulting regime, but that's clearly different.

Mujahideen already there? Of course there was already a local un-organised resistance, but the mujahideen that the CIA and ISI funded was recruited in Pakistan and Iran, and other volunteers from across the Muslim world, such as the Saudi Osama bin Laden.