Talk:Ahmad Shah Massoud

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ahmad Shah Massoud article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


Contents

[edit] Most effective?

The text stated "he proved to be the resistance fighter in history against the Red Army". I added the words "most effective". This is not my opinion either way. I have no information as to whether such a claim is valid or not. However, it appears that the original author meant to use the words "most effective".


[edit] Assasination

Well,I heard he was assasinated ten days before September 9th and he died in September 9th,and as you see It's diffrent with article.Which one is truth?--81.31.160.58 21:09, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The assasination attempt took place on the 9.9. and the same day. His death was kept secret for a few days to avoid chaos and loss of morale among the United Front -- CesPis 06:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Did the US kill Massoud?

Masood is a good person in the afghanistan he halp to poor people

The above (unsigned) remark is indeed typical of how Massood is regarded by many people in Afghanistan and abroad. Perhaps the article should expand a bit more on the man's personality, beliefs and statesmanship. I'm not the greatest expert on this, or I would perhaps do it... --me

salom man bache akram az jangalak

The "From non-US" view seems very biased and is emotive rather than factual. I have never seen ANY evidence ANYWHERE that the United States ordered his death. As well, it has gramatical errors. This is pure speculation, and has no place here. Deleted. -24.118.48.14 12:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The idea that the united states would order his death is rediculous. Massoud would have been a great in for the CIA teams sent into the country after 9/11, especially since the leader of the team, Gary Schroen, was a friend of Massoud's.

I agree it's highly unlikely the US would have him killed, but here's a link explaining the theory: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/ShanghaiCO.html#p0

I thought this man had a son and that his son survived the killing of his father. IS the son in hiding?

Massoud has 6 children, one of them a son. -- CesPis 06:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The ratical.org article is incredible. "The US had no trouble co-opting his organization to fight against the Taliban" ?!? His organization had been fighting the Taliban all along. "There was never any evidence made available to the public that would explain how the September 11 attackers were connected to Afghanistan." ?!? The Taliban openly admitted (http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,553159,00.html among many other sources) at the time that bin Laden and company were living in Afghanistan under the Taliban's protection. Phaid 17:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some BBC article

ISI, was often strongly Islamist, encouraged the Americans to aid the fundamentalists in Afghanistan at the expense of moderate, pro-Western groups like the one headed by Ahmad Shah Massoud. For years the Americans obliged.

During the 1980s it sometimes seemed as though they were determined to undermine Massoud, the one leader who really could deliver.

But Pakistan was fiercely opposed to him. Sometimes governments in Islamabad seemed to want to install a fundamentalist Islamic regime in Afghanistan. At other times, they merely encouraged instability there, in order to divert the attention of the Islamic fundamentalists inside Pakistan itself. [1]

Great. How courageous of you to use your anonymity to agitate against people here.You were probably the same person who added that war crimes section to the biography? haroon 12:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] War Crimes (in the fog of war)

Because of the "fog of war", the responsibility for war crimes is very difficult to determine. There is no doubt that crimes were committed, but determing responsibility is near impossible. To be "implicated" simply means that there is suspician. Even if there are well documented accounts of Massoud's soldiers committing crimes, it is not clear what responsibility he should share. Did he encourage crimes or turn a blind eye? An earlier contributer mentioned that he punished soldiers for crimes. I was in Panjir in 1998, and saw his prisoners, who were very well treated. The exact truth is forever lost in the fog of war. However, my sense is that this man did not like war, and certainly not war crimes. His dream was to live in peace and read Persian poetry. roger 17:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Massoud, War Criminal??

Some anonymous person had added rumours and accusations of systematic war crimes committed under the command of Ahmad Shah Massoud. I have removed that section, because - even though it is clear that war crimes did happen in Afghanistan - there are no indications that Massoud ordered them or knew about them. There are many reported cases - I have talked to witnesses - that he had people from his troops (soliders, commanders) tried and arrested for war crimes among other things.

The fact that Massoud was not directly involved does not mean that he did not have part of the responsability. As Minister of Defense and literally Commander-in-chief of the Northern Alliance Army, he is politicaly responsable for that. I believe that the tag for Neutrality Disputed is more accurate that simply erase all that and pretend that nothing happened. BTW, you are an anonymus also in wiki. If you wanna join, just create a user account. Messhermit 13:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not a Wikipedia expert, so I am sorry if that was not the right procedure. I actually did log in and use those tildes to sign, but for some reason it seems like it didnt work. So what do I have to do, put that paragraph back and put up that tag? Now to the responsibility: First of all it has to be understood, that he was not a leader of a tightly organised military, like the western militaries with a exact chains-of-command etc. As a consequence commanders act more independently than they would in western style militaries, you can see that in the instances where the Taliban were easily able to take over places east of Kabul by just paying the commanders there more money. Secondly, especially in the time that he was minister of defense, he was opposed by fundamentalists (Hekmatyar) and others (Hezb-e Wahdat, Dostum) who were also in the government and worked more or less secretly against him, which led to the situation, that although he was theoretically minister of defense, more than half of the troops in and around Kabul where not under his command. PS: I ll try and sign this again now, in the case it doesnt work, my Wikipedia name is haroon1376 haroon 17:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Does that mean that Massoud did not any responsability AT ALL? He, just as Jekmatyar, Dostum and many others, are acused of use brutal methods during the Afghan Civil Wat. It would be pointless to portrait him as someone that has nothing to do with his violations. Messhermit 18:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It means, that he has not ordered these killings and crimes as it was conveyed in that paragraph ('systematic war crimes' does sound like as if it was broadly planned). It has listed some events, e.g. the firing of rockets into civilian areas in Kabul, which are widely known to have been done by others (here: Hekmatyar). People who were in Afghanistan at that time and people who were involved in the fightings on different sides have confirmed this to me. As far as I know only the killing of Hazaras in Kabul was something where I was able to confirm, that he knew about it and tolerated it, because the people of Kabul actually pressed him to do something about the Hazara militia mass raping , killing etc. The point about that war crimes paragraph was, that it was writing all these accusations as facts. If the accusations are written as accusations, rumours as rumours and facts as facts, then I can live with that, at least until one knows if those rumours are true or not. BTW, comparing a person like Massoud with fundamentalist fools like Hekmatyar or principle-less opportunists like Dostum is not very sensible. haroon 12:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


On July 7, 2005, The Human Rights Watch published a 133-page report, “Blood-Stained Hands: Past Atrocities in Kabul and Afghanistan’s Legacy of Impunity,” about the atrocities committed in 90's in Kabul, in the report Massoud is accused of planning and carrying on the Afshar Massacre where around one thousands people were killed, a part of the report says:

"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. It is nonetheless important that his role and that of his commanders be fully investigated." [2]

According to The Guardian (November 16, 2001), "... on February 11, 1993, Massoud and Sayyaf's forces entered the Hazara suburb of Afshar, killing - by local accounts - "up to 1,000 civilians", beheading old men, women, children and even their dogs, stuffing their bodies down the wells."

This is also documented by the State Department of the USA. According to Los Angeles Times (Apr.26, 1999): "In one terrible incident in 1993, documented by the State Department, Masoud's troops rampaged through a rival neighborhood, raping, looting and killing as many as a thousand people."

The Amnesty International report, "International responsibility for human rights disaster", (1995) writes:

"In March 1995 Shura-e-Nezar (led by Massoud) forces reportedly carried out raids on hundreds of civilian homes in Kabul's south-western district of Karte She, killing or beating whole families, looting property and raping Hazara women. One family, interviewed by a foreign journalist in Kabul, said President Rabbani's soldiers had told them they wanted to "drink the blood of the Hazaras". Medical workers in the area confirmed at the time at least six incidents of rape and two attempted rapes, but believed the actual number was much higher."

Another account of crimes by Massoud forces have been documented by Amnesty International in the document "WOMEN IN AFGHANISTAN: A human rights catastrophe" (11/03/95) [3]:

In mid-1993 Nafisa, a 25-year-old woman, reportedly tried to kill herself when armed guards came for her. A neighbouring family who subsequently took refuge in Pakistan recalled how in June that year armed men from Shura-e Nezar had come to the woman's house.

"Nafisa ran to the third floor of the building and jumped off the balcony. The neighbours came to the streets and the guards left the area. This happened in the Khairkhana district of Kabul. She had broken her legs and her back. She was in hospital for a very long time. We do not know where she is now."

[edit] War Crimes

Witnesses, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and all major Human Rights organisations have records of all Mujahideen troops belonging to all factions and parties including 'those of Massoud' having direct involvement in the destruction of Kabul city, the massacre of civilians, and other Human Rights voilations. For details please visit the website of Human Rights Watch. [4] . I know that it would be untrue to state Massoud as a genuine hero of all Afghans, Massould specially remained popular among the people of the areas under his influence and most of the people of his ethnic group living in north and north-western Afghanistan. Massoud has "zero" popularity or fame among other ethnic groups, and the educated groups of all ethnicities specially Tajiks of Afghanistan.


Yeah, but who actually believes Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International after the crap they pull over and over again in Israel/Palastine. - Stolypin


After further reading, its interesting that no war crimes section has been edited in yet espicially with the amount of aggregarate information suggesting Ahmad Masood was involved in these acts. In response to others who mentioned doubt in the above sources, I don't think we can discredit the work of these large organizations just because they dont agree with a circumstance going on in another part of the world. To further aid the original sources, here is a link from an organization whos misssion aim is "an independent research and advocacy organization whose objective is to document serious war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by all of the parties during the conflict in Afghanistan".

It can be found here - http://afghanistanjusticeproject.org/warcrimesandcrimesagainsthumanity19782001.pdf#search=%22afghanistan%20war%20crimes%22

All citations are comprehensively listed at the end of the article. I think if theres no reasonable objection, I'd like to see something posted to this article in the next few weeks or so by someone or I might be willing to give it a go. Cheers

-Zero ZeroFC 05:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] about the assasiantion

There is alot of specualtion that Massood found out about the Sept 11th plot and was subsequently murdered at the order of Bin Laden bofore he could get the information to the US government.

I recently heard a journalist report that Osama Bin Laden and Zawahiri ordered the death of Masud in order that Mullah Omar (who was an enemy of Masud) would be permanently in his (OBL's) debt. This would assure that AQ operatives would have some safe haven. Juggins 19:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a pretty good description of his assassination in the beginning of the book First In, written by Gary Schroen. While it does not make reference to any knowledge about the 9/11 plot Massoud may have had it does indicate that OBL was behind the assassinations in order to gain favor with Omar, as stated above.


"SOME commentators" see a connection between his death and the Sept. 11 attacks!?!? What moron doesn't see a connection? I consider Massoud the first person killed in the 9/11 attack. He was working with the CIA all through the 90s to hunt down Osama Bin Laden. I heard he was with the CIA agents when Sandy Berger told the agents not to take out OBL. Bin Laden knew Massoud would be a threat if the US responded to the attacks, and wanted Massoud out of the way.

It is possible Massoud was killed so Bin Laden would be protected by the Taleban after the attacks or that he was concerned about a well funded Northern Alliance toppling the regime. But neither of that makes sense, did the Taleban really think they were gonna be able to stay in power when under attack by the army of the USA (working with Massoud or not?) I guess the only explanation is that the Taleban didn't expect USA would retaliate itself, only through funding the Northern Alliance?Evilbu 13:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

In a word, yes. In another -- absolutely! 9/11 may have been the most prominent terrorist attack in history, but Bin Laden's organization of various other bombings during the decade earlier were certainly not "low-key." Al Qaeda saw no real response from the USA over the course of 10 years, and likely never imagined the one they got after 9/11. This impression could only have been more ingrained by the USA being pressured out of Somalia, which numerous sources have acknowledged as emboldening the image of a "paper tiger" USA in Bin Laden's mind. Given how unfamiliar he was with the personality of the administration elected just months before, it is entirely plausible that he anticipated only a huge influx of weapons and funds into the Northern Alliance, and removed Massoud in an effort to dispirit the resistance before that happened. - Rory Vincent 68.202.139.80 20:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that's an interesting point. Most of Bin Laden's "actions" in Somalia, Sudan, Kenya, Tanzania (Bosnia perhaps?) were all during Clinton's administration. So you are suggesting that Bin Laden was not familiar enough with the new Bush administration and miscalculated?Evilbu 18:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] civil war

I'm sorry to see the civil war part containing nothing but some quotations. Wouldn't it be better to at least add (or maybe replace the current content with) some undisputed historical facts in a storyform. Like what role he played when the soviets left the country (I thought I recalled he actually went up to Kabul with his army and formed a ring around it, being sort of a neutral buffer between Hekmattyar and the Najibullah governement). The way he entered into the governement and the role he played in it (being minister of defence?). Maybe his reaction to the Taliban takeover and how he became leader of the northern alliance? I think that is more important to his biography than disputing wether or not he ordered human rights violations or wether or not he was a hero in this period.

I won't replace it myself, as I don't know enough about any dates and official positions during this period, but there must be someone around that can make a historically correct account of his positions during this period?

[edit] The Assassination, Bin Laden, and the Taliban

As noted in the "About the assassination" thread, the link between his murder and 9/11 is clear. I understand the link as a probable quid pro quo between Bin Laden/Al Qaeda and the Taliban: Al Qaeda gets rid of the Taliban's main enemy (Massoud), and in return, the Taliban will protect Bin Laden.

In fact, we know for a fact that the assassins were sent by Al Qaeda. We know this because we found electronic drafts of the pseudo-journalists introductory letter on Al Qaeda computers! The story is certain and well known; see, for instance, www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/599257/posts (originates from the Wall Street Journal).

I WAS VERY SURPRISED TO FIND *NO* MENTION OF THIS FACT IN THE MAIN WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE. I cleaned up some of the grammar myself, but don't have the time or expertise to fix this blatant hole in the Massoud article. Someone do it, please!

[edit] I think this is worth reading

This article puts the multi-billion dollar opium-herion industry into scope in regards to Afghanistan. It deals with the Northern Alliance and the Taliban too and paints a clearer picture. If you want to learn more about this aspect of Afghansitan and how it ties in with Kosovo, the KLA, and the rest of the world and the world economy read this article. It also talks about the assasination of Ahmad Shah Masoud and both US and Pakistani involvement.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NAZ20061017&articleId=3516

[edit] Date of birth

Massoud was born on September 2, 1953[5] and died in Khwaja bahauddin disrtict in Takhar provience in Afghanistan.[6]

[edit] Why isn't his profile on wikipedia?

I can not see Ahmed Shah Massoud's profile in wikipedia. Is something wrong ? Why isn't wikipedia displaying the profile of this important leader? If there are any discrepiancies/differences, we can sort it but for the time being, we should have at least a basic profile of the man on wiki.

We do have it, ofcoarse. Someone vandalized and deleted the whole thing. I have reversed it and now we have it back! Behnam 19:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hagiography, poor grammar

This is supposed to be a biography, not a hagiography. Also, the grammar/coherence in the following passage is poor or redundant. "As soon as he was sure about their determination he departed with a group of 20 young men to Panjshir in 1979. Still not sufficiently armed Massoud and his troops marched on to Panjshir, Massoud’s home. Their enemy was a superpower and those who were weak or required help had to be protected; especially one’s own family." Those who were weak yada yada ... who's writing this? His best friend? Use impartial language please. Also, how many times did he go to Panjshir?

How about fixing the bad grammar yourSELF instead of complaining about it! Can't stand NON-editing complainers! SimonATL 15:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

206.248.141.38 19:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)marko

Oh, and by the way, the UN's voting gives a huge voice to tinpot dictators and other fools. Don't tell me that it's credible.

I have cleaned up the grammar and the hagiography elements in this article, it is not perfect, but it is better than before. --Seth J. Frantzman 07:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can someone spell "Lion of Panjshir" phonetically?

So we can get a sense of its sound and also explain why its a play on words? Thanks. SimonATL 15:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

let's play more: "Panj" in Persian means Five, and "Shir" means lion!!! 195.146.46.15 21:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why not "Ahmad Shah Masoud"?

Why Ahmed? and why Massoud? Jahangard 03:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

And why not? It's the most commonly used spelling.Raoulduke47 22:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What it is worth

first time i heard about The Lion of Panjshir was on a clear day while driving to work, listening to NPR's Morning Addition. The date was September 11, 2001 at approximately 8:50 EST. the NPR report stated Ahmed Shah Massoud was assassinated. the report immediately following, to my best recollection, was a small plane hit the World Trade Center with more information to follow -- the rest is history. παράδοξος 20:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

 This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2007)

Good article, but I am not sure where each fact originated. Is Shah Massoud's biographical information from a single source or multiple sources? I'm putting this article on my to-do-list, and will help.

παράδοξος 18:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The other biographies of Masoof online are either very short or mostly lauditory, see http://www.massoudhero.com/English/biography.html as retrieved on 19 Jul 2007 22:18:00 GMT.

Unfortunatly this may be the best that there is until someone finds a book on Masood or Afghanistan and gives references from it.

--Seth J. Frantzman 07:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)--

[edit] March 26, 2001

Charlie Rose held an interview (available on google video) about Afganistan. A Taliban leader, Sayed Hashimi, and United States academic, Barnett Ruben, discuss Afganistan thoroughly. Then, Sebastian Junger talks about the time he spent with Ahmad Massoud. <embed style="width:400px; height:326px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=2911290068493351924&hl=en" flashvars=""> </embed>


[edit] Masoud was killed by his own men??

Some Afghans express doubts about killing of Masoud by the two Arab journalists and believe that they themselves were victims. [7] especially the claim about usage of the camera for the explosion is quite unrealistic because the film shot only seconds after the explosion shows the camera intact on the ground. [8]

Some Afghan writers even go further and accuse close aids of Masoud for the plot. Specifically Gen. Arif has been named as the one carrying the plot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabulzamin (talk • contribs) 15:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)