Am I an Anarchist?

[Cherub786]

I'm not defending the USSR, rather I'm criticizing the American move that created an organized Islamic front to fight the USSR, using its Wahhabi allies from Saudi Arabia as a main immobilizing component for foreign and local fighters.

I will let the sources talk:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen#Afghanistan

Although the mujahideen were aided by the Pakistani, U.S., and Saudi governments, the mujahideen's primary source of funding was private donors and religious charities throughout the Muslim world—particularly in the Persian Gulf. Jason Burke recounts that "as little as 25 per cent of the money for the Afghan jihad was actually supplied directly by states."[13]

[/url]

However, the mujahideen did not establish a united government, and many of the larger mujahideen groups [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Civil_War_(1992%E2%80%931996)]began to fight each other over power in Kabul. After several years of devastating fighting, a village mullah named Mohammed Omar organized a new armed movement with the backing of Pakistan. This movement became known as the Taliban ("students" in Pashto), referring to how most Taliban had grown up in refugee camps in Pakistan during the 1980s and were taught in the Saudi-backed Wahhabi madrassas, religious schools known for teaching a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam. Veteran mujahideen confronted this radical splinter group in 1996.

Saudi Arabia was the fuel that gave that war its Wahhabi schools, its extreme Jihadi thought.
Osama bin Laden himself was a Saudi.

And hence; who remained are the Taliban. And the Taliban studied at Saudi backed Wahhabi schools. Right?

The soviets did commit atrocities, just like the American soldiers in Iraq in 2003, and just like Mohammed bin Salman ordering his thugs to hack Jamal Kashoggi and melt him in acid. If you wanted the truth; MBS is a disgusting man.

The Sauds are raping women in prisons, and reports were made to HRW.


I underlined a part in your post and made it bold. The Baathists were bad, but the Shiite government that came after them is even worse. They both score 0 on the human rights scale and they both are led by criminals who deserve execution. But TBH Saddam had more dignity, at least he didn't torture his people with an American tank. He did it himself.
Ruthless? yes. Deserves death? yes. But the Shiite government that came riding the American tank is no better. Both are an embarrassment to humanity and Islam. Look at Iraq now.

As for MBS. No, the man is not after something "great and complicated" like liberating his people from religion; the man is after collecting an empire of cash and it's easier to do that when you win the favor of the "west" by trying to mimic western basic habits and if the mimicry failed he pays a lot of money in bribes, flaunting in front of the world and brutalize his foes -just like he did to Kashoggi-, he is a child unworthy of his rank. He wasted the country's money on children dreams -like the 2030 plan-, the bribes to Trump and on failed wars and conflicts.

Assad is liberal? I will respect you because you are new here. But what I saw the Syrian government -under commands from Assad himself- do to the people of Syria is just making me put a huge question mark on how you dare to call this pig a liberal? this pig bombarded children with chemical weapons, gassed them just because their "city of birth" protested against him.

• It's not as simple as saying Saudi exported Wahhabism. First you have to understand what Wahhabism is, what Deobandi is, who Syed Qutb was, who Abd al-Salam Farag was, etc. It's a lot more nuanced than what people generally think. You have to know the major players in Afghanistan during the war of the 1980s, including Osama bin Laden, but also Abdullah Azzam, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Ahmad Shah Massoud, Abdul Rashid Dostum, Abdur Rabb Rasul Sayyaf, Burhanuddin Rabbani. Then you have to understand where the Taliban came from, you have to know who the late Sami ul-Haq was, the Panjpiri school of Deobandis, etc. Until you understand all of these intricacies you will stick to the simplistic idea of saying Saudi exported Wahhabism and that created al-Qaida, Taliban, etc. Since Wikipedia is your source I encourage you to read more about these names I have listed for you on Wikipedia so you can increase your knowledge on the issue.
  
• The atrocities which the Americans committed in Iraq pale in comparison to what the Russians did in Afghanistan.
  
• I agree with you that MBS is a disgusting man. Western governments including the US should put pressure on the Saudis to sack him and appoint a new crown prince, and also end the war in Yemen and cease the blockade of Qatar.
  
• The post-Saddam governments have been corrupt and incompetent, but to say they are worse than Saddam's Baathist regime is outrageous. Iraq is now a democracy with regular elections. Of course there are major problems but don't forget how bad Baathism is. Baathism is basically fascism. Saddam was open about his admiration of Hitler and Stalin. Saddam massacred his own people, he persecuted the Kurds and Shiites, he launched the wars on Iran and then Kuwait.
  
• I never said Assad is liberal. I listed him among the list of autocratic Middle Eastern rulers that are "supposedly liberal" and "secular" because they are not "Islamist".