Talk:Ahmad Shah Massoud/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Date of birth

Massoud was born on September 2, 1953[1] and died in Khwaja bahauddin disrtict in Takhar provience in Afghanistan.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.219.217 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 8 November 2006‎

The National Hero of Afghanistan (Lion of Panjshir) message to the people of the United States

I send this message to you today on behalf of the freedom and peace-loving people of Afghanistan, the Mujahedeen freedom fighters who resisted and defeated Soviet communism, the men and women who are still resisting oppression and foreign hegemony and, in the name of more than one and a half million Afghan martyrs who sacrificed their lives to uphold some of the same values and ideals shared by most Americans and Afghans alike. This is a crucial and unique moment in the history of Afghanistan and the world, a time when Afghanistan has crossed yet another threshold and is entering a new stage of struggle and resistance for its survival as a free nation and independent state. I have spent the past 20 years, most of my youth and adult life, alongside my compatriots, at the service of the Afghan nation, fighting an uphill battle to preserve our freedom, independence, right to self-determination and dignity. Afghans fought for God and country, sometime alone, at other times with the support of the international community. Against all odds, we, meaning the free world and Afghans, halted and checkmated Soviet expansionism a decade ago. But the embattled people of my country did not savor the fruits of victory. Instead they were thrust in a whirlwind of foreign intrigue, deception, great-gamesmanship and internal strife. Our country and our noble people were brutalized, the victims of misplaced greed, hegemonic designs and ignorance. We Afghans erred too. Our shortcomings were as a result of political innocence, inexperience, vulnerability, victimization, bickering and inflated egos. But by no means does this justify what some of our so-called Cold War allies did to undermine this just victory and unleash their diabolical plans to destroy and subjugate Afghanistan. Today, the world clearly sees and feels the results of such misguided and evil deeds. South-Central Asia is in turmoil, some countries on the brink of war. Illegal drug production, terrorist activities and planning are on the rise. Ethnic and religiously-motivated mass murders and forced displacements are taking place, and the most basic human and women’s rights are shamelessly violated. The country has gradually been occupied by fanatics, extremists, terrorists, mercenaries, drug Mafias and professional murderers. One faction, the Taliban, which by no means rightly represents Islam, Afghanistan or our centuries-old cultural heritage, has with direct foreign assistance exacerbated this explosive situation. They are unyielding and unwilling to talk or reach a compromise with any other Afghan side. Unfortunately, this dark accomplishment could not have materialized without the direct support and involvement of influential governmental and non-governmental circles in Pakistan. Aside from receiving military logistics, fuel and arms from Pakistan, our intelligence reports indicate that more than 28,000 Pakistani citizens, including paramilitary personnel and military advisers are part of the Taliban occupation forces in various parts of Afghanistan. We currently hold more than 500 Pakistani citizens including military personnel in our POW camps. Three major concerns - namely terrorism, drugs and human rights - originate from Taliban-held areas but are instigated from Pakistan, thus forming the inter-connecting angles of an evil triangle. For many Afghans, regardless of ethnicity or religion, Afghanistan, for the second time in one decade, is once again an occupied country. Let me correct a few fallacies that are propagated by Taliban backers and their lobbies around the world. This situation over the short and long-run, even in case of total control by the Taliban, will not be to anyone’s interest. It will not result in stability, peace and prosperity in the region. The people of Afghanistan will not accept such a repressive regime. Regional countries will never feel secure and safe. Resistance will not end in Afghanistan, but will take on a new national dimension, encompassing all Afghan ethnic and social strata. The goal is clear. Afghans want to regain their right to self-determination through a democratic or traditional mechanism acceptable to our people. No one group, faction or individual has the right to dictate or impose its will by force or proxy on others. But first, the obstacles have to be overcome, the war has to end, just peace established and a transitional administration set up to move us toward a representative government. We are willing to move toward this noble goal. We consider this as part of our duty to defend humanity against the scourge of intolerance, violence and fanaticism. But the international community and the democracies of the world should not waste any valuable time, and instead play their critical role to assist in any way possible the valiant people of Afghanistan overcome the obstacles that exist on the path to freedom, peace, stability and prosperity. Effective pressure should be exerted on those countries who stand against the aspirations of the people of Afghanistan. I urge you to engage in constructive and substantive discussions with our representatives and all Afghans who can and want to be part of a broad consensus for peace and freedom for Afghanistan. With all due respect and my best wishes for the government and people of the United States,

Ahmad Shah Massoud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.147.128.2 (talk) 11:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion: 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)

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)

The British Court judgement 'SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT v E' of November 2006 contains information (#69) on persons involved with facilitating the assassination of Massoud. The document is available here:[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.241.216 (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

Read Steven Coll's Ghost Wars, which is rather neutral, Horse Soldiers, or the more biased Hunting Bin Laden by Robert Moore. I did a research paper on the Soviet Afghan war, so I know a fair amount about the conflict and the players. Massoud was the glue of the troubled north alliance forces together, and he was killed because AQ wanted to weaken the Northern Alliance, and might have made an excellent president that could have appeased both the United States and Afghans and had the military power to keep Afghanistan together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.75.138.52 (talk) 01:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Assasination What is the Source ?

As far as the idea about Al-qaeda behind Masood's death, i believe this is the same source which has given the source to frederick Forsyth's "Afghan" novel.---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunwarsid (talk • contribs) 19:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

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!

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. [4] 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. [5]

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)

You should be careful with telling such lies. The intact camera seen in the video is the one of Fahim Dashty, an Afghan filmmaker, who was making a documentary about Massoud and was thus present in the very back of the room with his camera. Fahim Dashty was also injured in the attack.

JCAla 14:10, 9 August 2010

Camera

"The French secret service revealed on October 16, 2003 that the camera used by Massoud's assassins (...) The French secret service and the FBI then began working on tracing the route the camera took between the time it was taken from Vincendet and the Massoud assassination." says the article. It's now six and a half years later, did those two secret services finish their work? Is there any report on it? Glatisant (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion: War crimes?

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)

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." [6]

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) [7]:

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."

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. [8] . 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)

He did NOT order any crimes

"As in some of the other instances of violence against civilians documented in this report,
there is no indication that senior [Jamiat/]Shura-i Nazar leaders [that included Massoud] ordered the abuses."

Afghanistan Justice Project (that was a huge source for the Human Rights Watch reports) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.22.24.65 (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Massoud abhorred the crimes and once even resigned to gain peace

"During the next four years [1992-1996] I never saw my husband so sad. His disappointment was immense and every day I   
perceived that he became a little more withdrawn. And for me, I understood that the hope of tranquil happiness had 
once more fled his life."

- Sediqa Massoud

"He [Massoud] said that the time in Kabul was the hardest, because people were suffering, and there was almost nothing we 
could do." 

- Dr. Abdullah Abdullah in "Massoud: An Intimate Portrait of the Legendary Afghan Leader" by Marcela Grad, Webster University Press

"I reported from Kabul for The Economist and the Associated Press from 1991 through 1994 during the 
new government in Kabul, with Massoud as defense minister, which basically upheld the liberal provisions 
of the National Constitution of 1964 - including the right of women to health care, education, and 
professional work.  [...] Afghanistan's unfriendly neighbours joined hands to destroy the city [...]  
Massoud never stopped negoiating with his enemies behind the scenes [...] He [Massoud] can hardly be 
blamed for the presence of irresponsible armed groups in the capital, having done everything within his power 
to prevent it. Until November 1994, I witnessed firsthand the resulting dilemmas he faced, the amazing restraint 
with which he met them, and the almost willfully feckless manner in which absentee Western "observers" based 
in Pakistan distorted the situation in accord with ISI [Pakistan intelligence service] propaganda. [...] Massoud did   
everything within his power to restrain the [...] "ethnic cleansing" campaign [by Wahdat forces against the non-Shia  
population] in south-west Kabul, which began barely a month after the communist regime collapsed. 
[note: Sayyaf's Ittihad committed the same crimes against Shias.] 
When his [Massoud's] efforts fell short, Western aid workers and diplomats - parroting their contacts in ISI [...] 
- derided him for "failing to control the situation". When he finally crushed them, to stop their abuses, the Western 
parrots began chattering the tune of Radio Iran, blaming him [...] 
Massoud's hands were tied to some extend [...] just as better equipped communist troops before them and NATO troops 
afterward have proven unable to stop terrorist attacks in Kabul. The enemy used Pakistani army depots to shell 
marketplaces [...] They deliberately killed tens of thousands of civilians. Despite the ongoing disinformation, 
there is no doubt and no question, in the minds of objective observers who were actually present, that it was 
Massoud [...] who struggled to uphold human rights [...]" 

- journalist of the AP & The Economist in "Massoud: An Intimate Portrait of the Legendary Afghan Leader" by Marcela Grad, Webster University Press

" [...] it is true that there was bad behavior on the part of certain forces. Massoud was always talking to his people about  
not behaving badly; he told them that they were accoutable to their God. But because of the rocket attacks on the city the   
number of troops had to be increased, so there were ten or twelve thousand troops from other sources that came in [...] 
I think people blamed Massoud because they expected him to test out the reliability of all the troops and at the same time 
to maintain the [...] hold on Kabul and help all the people [against Hekmatyar and Pakistan, Mazari and Iran, Dostum and 
Uzbekistan]. 
Those who criticized him admit they don't have any evidence that Massoud ordered any killings. He not only did not 
order any, but he was deeply distressed by them.
I remember once [...] Massoud commented that some commanders were behaving badly, and said that he was trying to bring 
them to justice, even to put them in jail."

- Engineer Mohammed Eshaq in "Massoud: An Intimate Portrait of the Legendary Afghan Leader" by Marcela Grad, Webster University Press

"One day he was going from Kabul to Shamali, and he saw a trailer truck and somehow got suspicious. He stopped it, and 
when they opened the back there were goods in it, things that belonged to other people, probably taken from houses or 
government offices.
He accused them: "You are thieves, you are trying to steal." Then he saw his own picture in the back of their truck 
- you know that people tried to use Massoud's name and picture to gain power or to take advantage of things - and he said, 
"First remove that picture of your leader, the leader of thieves." In his way he was telling them, listen if you say 
I am your leader and you do these things, that is what you make me - a leader of thieves." 

- Farid Amin in "Massoud: An Intimate Portrait of the Legendary Afghan Leader" by Marcela Grad, Webster University Press

"One of Hekmatyar's conditions for his forces to stop their fighting [...] was that Massoud leave the Ministry of 
Defense. [...] He [Massoud] said without hesitation that in exchange for peace he would resign, but they would have 
to guarantee that peace was achieved, and the one doing the fighting was Hekmatyar. 
Massoud did not believe in taking power for its own sake, but only as an opportunity of service. One of his greatest  
wishes was peace in Afghanistan. They [Rabbani, and others] sent Massoud a message from Jalalabad, and he resigned and 
went to the Panjshir [...] as a commander, not as defense minister. Of course, when the political leaders made this 
decision, they did not make sure that peace was achieved. Hekmatyar continued fighting, so it did not stop the war."

- Dr. Abdullah Abdullah in "Massoud: An Intimate Portrait of the Legendary Afghan Leader" von Marcela Grad, Webster University Press

Cease fires were negotiated mainly by Massoud, the presidents and the ICRC

"A great deal of tension was caused by the influence of foreign combatants and foreign military advisors and 
intelligence agents [from Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia] ...
Rare ceasefires, usually negotiated by [Massoud's] Jamiat commanders, representatives of Mojaddedi or Rabbani 
[backed by Massoud], or officials from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), commonly collapsed 
within days. ..." 

- Human Rights Watch

He represented the legitimate government of Afghanistan as opposed to all other militias and foreign invaders

"During most of the period discussed in this report, the sovereignty of Afghanistan was vested formally in 
"The Islamic State of Afghanistan," an entity created in April 1992, after the fall of the Soviet-backed Najibullah 
government." 

- Human Rights Watch (meaning Massoud as minister of defense was the only legitimate force in Kabul)

About the Afshar operation

Massoud planned the operation but he did not plan the crimes. Instead he deeply abhored the crimes taking place during the operation that to a large extent were committed by forces of Abdul Rasul Sayyaf supported by Saudi Arabia.

“There were two tactical objectives to the operation. First, Massoud intended, through the operation to capture the 
political and military headquarters of Hezb-i Wahdat […] and to capture Abdul Ali Mazari, the leader of Hezb-i Wahdat. 
Second, the ISA [the Islamic State of Afghanistan with defense minister Massoud] intended to consolidate the areas of 
the capital directly controlled by Islamic State forces by linking up parts of west Kabul controlled by Ittihad-i Islami 
with parts of central Kabul controlled by Jamiat-i Islami. Given the political and military context of Kabul at the time, 
these two objectives (which were largely attained during the operation) provide a compelling explanation of why the 
Islamic State forces attacked Afshar.” 

- Afghanistan Justice Project, p. 82

"When Iran-backed [Wahdat] Hazara militiamen [who had also been involved in ethnic cleansing and were allied to Hekmatyar] 
began shelling Kabul's northwestern neighborhoods, Massoud worried aloud to his aides that driving them from their positions 
would risk allowing some of his allies' camp followers [notably Abdul Rasul Sayyaf] to commit atrocities against Hazara 
captives. On the other hand, he noted, the alternative was to allow Hazara militiamen to continue shelling much more 
heavily populated araeas, and killing many more noncombatants,on the other side of the town. [...] [Being on the ground 
during the Afshar campaign] During the battle, I watched Panjsheris [from Massoud's troops] rescue a wounded Hazara woman  
caught in a cross fire [...] Next day, I stumbled across one of Wahdat's impromptu jails in the basement of an abandoned 
house, complete with three non-Hazara corpses, tied up with baling wire and shot [...]" 

- journalist of the Economist and the Associated Press who was present in Afshar at that time in "Massoud: An Intimate Portrait of the Legendary Afghan Leader" by Marcela Grad / Webster University Press p. 178-180

On the second day of the operation, February 12, Massoud convened a meeting in the Hotel Intercontinental 
which, belatedly, discussed arrangements for security in the newly captured areas. 

- Afghanistan Justice Project, p. 85

The meeting ordered a[n immediate] halt to the massacre and looting [...] It also called for a withdrawal of the offensive 
troops, leaving a smaller force to garrison the new areas. 

- Afghanistan Justice Project, p. 85

ISA [under Massoud's leadership] did claim a Shia constituency and Hussain Anwari, as a senior ISA commander, was under 
pressure from Shia civilians to make some arrangements for their safety. 

- Afghanistan Justice Project, p. 85 JCAla 18:50, 9 August 2010

Discussion: Main article design

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".

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?

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)

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)

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)

Peace Prize Nomination

The year following his assassination, in 2002, Massoud was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

I don't see the relevance of this meaning. A nobel nomination doesn't really mean anything at all. Anyone can get nominated! Besides, they don't give the prize posthumous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.157.124 (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This makes absolutely no sense to me either.. you can't get a nobel prize posthumous.. see Gandhi!

How About a Photo?

There is no shortage of photographs of Ahmed Shah Massoud to be found at http://images.google.com/images?q=Ahmed+Shah+Massoud. I don't know the protocols, but certainly one of them has got to be suitable.

--C-U RPCV (talk) 04:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a great photo available here. I would strongly suggest that an editor contact the copyright holder and try to have him release the work for use on this site. -- Veggy (talk) 06:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record: I strongly suggest not to ask the Flickr use. The linked photo is one of Reza Deghatis photos, taken 1985, see http://pa.photoshelter.com/c/webistan/image/I0000l1jygqMfBa4. Permission must come from Reza, not from a collection of unfree photos on Flickr. --Martin H. (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sad And Pathetic

The Administrators of this foolish website need to stop deleting things just because they don't like it. I referenced my edits, but the admins felt obliged to defend the slave of the West, for whatever reason. Good for you. Go on and continue spreading misinformation.Wasabi salafi koonkati (talk) 09:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Putting this gently, I'd hesitate to call some random Geocities homepage a reliable source... – Luna Santin (talk) 09:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

POV tag Added

This article is very clearly violating NPOV policy. Its clearly in favor of the guy, despite the fact that a whole lot of people have nothing but bad to say about him.Pukhtunman (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you were more specific. Sources, please? – Luna Santin (talk) 08:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm Afghan. You're not. I don't like him, and everyone I know doesn't like him. That's my source.Pukhtunman (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

good for you if you dont like him, but as a fact, in Afghanistan officialy he is national hero of Afghanistan, it means most of the people are agree with him, you and taliban or Al Qaeda maybe dont like him, it doesnt mean you are eveyone!

Actually, the Karzai government has made him a "national hero". This says nothing about the reality of public approval, especiialy considering that signifigant portions of the population view Karzai in a negative light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.128.52 (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the equivalent of me stating that I am from the US so if I don't like Obama then the page should be changed to reflect that. Really don't care taht you're Afghan or if your sphere of influence doesn't either. That's not how this works. Bdg4 (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Citations

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)--

File:Jamiat e-Islami in Shultan Valley 1987 with Dashaka.jpg

Young fighters of Abdul Rasul Sayyaf in the Sultan Valley of Kunar Province, showing their Soviet captured DShK in 1987.

Erwin Franzen (User:Erwin Franzen) took the photo of these men from the Kunar Province of Afghanistan in 1987. Erwin met with Abdul Rasul Sayyaf [9] and so this image is showing Sayyaf's fighters.--AYousefzai (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

WPMilHist assessment

Demoted to "Start" as more inline citations are needed. Ejosse1 (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

farnucating

This word, farnucating, appears in the article but has no definition I can find in english. It need to be explained or edited out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.150.220.105 (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Media information

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

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>

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. [10]

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)

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)

Discussion: Resistance against the Soviet Union

Did the USA support Massoud against the Soviet Army?

The USA, in particular their services involved in the assistance of anti-Soviet resistance in Afghanistan, did not trust Massoud because he did not speak English [Source : "Massoud l'Afghan" (1988) by Christophe de Ponfilly, a French cineast who knew Afghanistan quite well]. They very much preferred contacts with Gulbudin Heykhmatyar, the leader of the political and religious party, called Hezb-e-Islami, because Heykhmatyar could speak English ; NB : Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin, (HIG) is considered a terrorist organization by Coalition Forces in Afghanistan and is an ally of Al-Qaeda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.36 (talk) 08:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

In Coll's Ghost Wars, he states that aid didn't go to Massoud for two reasons, one ISI (Pakistani Intelligence) didn't like Massoud and were essentially contracted out by the CIA during most the Soviet occupation, and that the United States saw Hekmartyer as "their guy" and the British saw Massoud as theirs. I remember reading (don't have the book anymore) that a couple CIA agents/officers tried to get US aid to him, but ran into bureaucratic inertia and Pakistani stonewalling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.75.138.52 (talk) 01:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Criminal Gulbuddin Hekmatyar

"The U.S. let Pakistan handle the daily administration of funding and arms distribution. Pakistan favored the criminal Gulbuddin Hekmatyar" The 1st sentence is half-true, as the U.S. waffled on how much funding Afghan fighters received through the ISI. By the end of the decade, they were getting only about half. The second sentence is clearly bias. I am not a fan of Hekmatyar, and he is a major Taliban-affliated group commander (Hezbi-Islami-Gulbuddin), but you cannot label him a criminal in that period. He was a leading figure in the mujahideen. Michealb401 (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

??"you cannot label him a criminal in that period"??

Hekmatyar was convicted of homicide murdering a fellow student at Kabul University in the 1970s. He threw acid in the faces of women who did not wear the all-covering scarf in the 1970s. He also is known for attacking more Afghans (attacking other Afghan groups especially Massoud's) than Soviets during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (leaving the U.S. to fear he was a KGB agent). In 1989 his forces attacked the senior leadership of Massoud's forces torturing 30 men to death (which included pulling their eyes out, cutting their ears and nose and their stomach open, ...). Now what is your definition of criminal? JCAla 13:30, 9 August 2010

I take issue with the use of the statement "the criminal Hekmatyar" in a Wikipedia article. The usage of language like this is inflammatory and inappropriate. Wikipedia is a neutral platform; not a platform to apply judgements. I certainly am not defending Hekmatyar's actions. While his actions during the last 30 years have shown that he has little remorse for others, that can be said of virtually any person in history that believes in the concept of "total war", to include historical persons that today are considered heroes. It is history that decides how a person will be remembered. Michealb401 (talk)

Independence of Massoud

"...who was under their control and is nowadays attacking ISAF-troops and the civilian population in Afghanistan, over the more talented and independent Massoud..." Massoud's talent and independance, as compared to any other major commander is only opinion. Michealb401 (talk) 04:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

His independence is a historic reality. It is the reason why he got close to none support from the U.S. through its middleman Pakistan. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahgtzNvhiK0 . This is just one of many sources.

That Massoud was the most talented of the commanders is also a historical fact told by many Afghanistan experts, intelligence agencies and observers alike.

"Massoud was the best of the commanders. The most effective." - Senator Gordon Humphrey (R-NH, Ret.) 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_l_rGyltwo

"The military mastermind of the mujahideen victory was Ahmad Shah Massoud." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahgtzNvhiK0

"... had the most possibility for being a statesman. ... He was not the favourite of the Pakistanis ... sorry." 
- Milt Bearden, CIA chief of Station to Pakistan (1986-1989) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_l_rGyltwo

"He [Massoud] was independent, he did not let them [Pakistan] run the show. ... And he quite frankly disturbed the Paks."

- Professor Tom Johnson, U.S. Naval Postgraduate School http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_l_rGyltwo

"Rather than allow the most gifted Afghan commanders and parties to flourish, who would be hard to control later, Pakistan  
preferred to groom the incompetent ones for the role of future leaders of Afghanistan. Being incompetent they would be fully 
reliant on Pakistan for support. The principal beneficiary of this policy was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. His credentials were that 
of an anti-western Islamic fundamentalist who reportedly boasted about throwing acid in the faces of women who did not wear 
the traditional all covering Afghan chadof at Kabul University." 
- Defense Intelligence Agency http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB97/tal29.pdf

"In tandem with favoring the incompetent Hekmatyar over more enterprising and gifted commanders such as the Ahmad Shah Massoud, 
the Tadjik commander from Northern Afghanistan, Pakistan also encouraged, facilitated and often escorted Arabs from the Middle 
East into Afghanistan.” 
- Defense Intelligence Agency http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB97/tal29.pdf 

"With his victory over the [communist] regime Massoud proved how much the planners and strategists of the American policy   
regarding Jihad generally and the distribution of their help to the parties involved were wrong. Massoud’s genius and 
experience and the devoted support of his people enabled him to become the victor of the Cold War." 
- Robert KaplanJCAla 14:10, 9 August 2010

Good source citations. "independent and talented" seems perfectly justified if these sources are used. Michealb401 (talk) 01:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Massoud's defeat of the Soviet Army

"...[23] Still, the Soviet army and the Afghan communist army were defeated by primarily Massoud and the mujahideen in ..." The implication that Massoud was primarily responsible for the defeat of the Soviet army is bias. If the intention was to say that the mujahideen was primarily responsible with Massoud's group playing an important role, that should be cited, as the statement constitutes original research.

"...With the strong support of Pakistan and later Saudi financed Osama Bin Laden[verification needed] the Taliban proceeded to Kabul, where at first Massoud handed them their first major defeat..." I am not aware of any link between Bin Laden and the Taliban at that time in history. Please cite the supporting documents that validate this point.

The entire article is heavily biased towards Massound. All unsourced content with a "source request" tag should be deleted if the tags were placed 2+ months ago. Two months should be more than enough. Some of the tags are even 2 or 3 years old. (Ketabtoon (talk) 05:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC))

The facts you see as "biased" are historic realities. For further proof see the section "Independence of Massoud". JCAla 14:10, 9 August 2010

My point was that labeling Massoud as the singular leader of the mujahideen victory is not appropriate without source material, otherwise, it is bias. If a major point (especially a arguable point) is made, citations should be put there in order to justify it. User Ketabtoon makes a valid point when the article was read as a whole. When a Wikipedia article reads like an action novel, it is bias. Michealb401 (talk) 01:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

Fair use image

File:Ahmad Shah Massoud.jpg is now fair use and the lead image. We dont know anything about the photo, it appears to be a 'known' portrait because it was used in the event File:Abdul Rahim Wardak in Kabul April 2010.jpg, if the photo is unknown they will not use it. Thats however all we know. [:File:Ahmad Shah Massoud.jpg]] was an attempt to find a free image, our search for free images often leads to 'bad but free images', under fair use we can have a little more focus on quality in our search for images. If we decide to use a fair use photo we should use the best we can use inside the restrictions of fair use policy. Thats possibly the portraits by Reza Deghati of 1985 or later portraits by him who highly influenced the public image of Massoud in the western hemisphere. All portraits have been published in Massoud, des Russes aux talibans, 20 ans de résistance afghane (the 1985 portrait is the cover image). The 1985 portrait was first published in France and/or National Geographic in the U.S., so it is not free but should be ok under fair use with an appropriate image caption.
Aditionally I removed File:Cmdt massoud ill artlibre jn.png from the article. That scribbling is trash, even no image in the article is better than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin H. (talk • contribs) 14:52, 19 November 2010

This article is unintelligible

Seriously, was someone drunk when they wrote this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.57.177 (talk) 04:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Malicious edits on 03December2010?

Please pardon my naivete - this is the first time I've tried to do anything other than read at Wikipedia.

I noticed that the introductory paragraphs conflict with points made in the rest of the article, and that no substantiation is provided for the changes. The edits came from 109.189.28.36.

The most obvious problem is the statement that Massoud "killed" 70,000 people in Kabul. This is explicitly contradicted later in the article.

I would propose reversing the 03Dec2010 edits. Brownwn (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I had heard that Massoud was involved in attacks and killings of Hazaras between '93 and '95 (see http://hazaranation.blogspot.com/2008/03/afshar-and-kartehsahe-massacre1993.html which footnotes The Guardian as a source). I was wondering if anyone could respond to, confirm or refute this. Any information anyone has on this is very very welcome.81.131.184.195 (talk)

---*---*---*---

To once and for all clear this issue here

---*---*---*---

Ahmad Shah Massoud did not order any crimes nor human rights abuses and did not commit any crimes personally. The Afghanistan Justice Project which is frequently used by Human Rights Watch as a source concluded:

"[T]here is no indication that senior Shura-e Nazar leaders [which included Massoud] ordered abuses."

1) Unreliable source

Your (IP 81.131.184.195's) source is of course a politically-motivated blog by a political party. The beginning of the blog's text contains already some major propaganda and flaws. It says:

"Victims: [...] members of the Hezb-e-Wahdat (Unity Party) who defended the Hazara people and fought for equal rights."

The Afghanistan Justice Project concluded about Wahdat:

"Listening to testimony from those living in Wahdat-controlled areas, there is a strong sense of daily and often arbitrary 
abuse, what one witness described as ‘oppression.’" (p 94)

Human Rights Watch wrote:

"There is compelling evidence ... that Ittihad [of Abdul Rasul Sayyaf] and Wahdat forces abducted thousands of persons in the 
first year of  the post-Najibullah era, as well as more in later years. The fact that so many persons arrested were never again 
seen by their families suggests that both the Ittihad and Wahdat factions killed thousands of these detainees.There 
is also compelling evidence that detainees who survived their detention were tortured or otherwise mistreated.The widespread 
murders, arbitrary deprivations of liberty, torture and other mistreatment committed by Ittihad and Wahdat forces may amount to 
war crimes and crimes against humanity."

Also, according to Afghanistan expert and scholar Amin Saikal:

"Combat units affiliated with this party [Wahdat] were often directly linked to particular religious leaders in Iran and were  
supervised by Iranian intelligence officers who knew (or cared) little about … politics in Afghanistan."  (p 211)

Your source further states:

"... former President Rabbani, his chief military commander and son-in-law, the so-called "lion of Panjshir" Ahmad Shah Massoud ..."

Ahmad Shah Massoud has never been Rabbani's son-in-law. To the contrary they were having a relatively rough relationship, not going along that well.

You say they footnote the Guardian as a source. Yes, but half of the Guardian outtakes used by the blog are direct quotes cited in the Guardian article, not what the Guardian wrote itself. The blog is intentionally misleading by not giving the source of the direct quotes which could be a spokesperson for the Wahdat quoted in the Guardian article for example. That is the art of propaganda.

2) The facts

First and foremost, it needs to be noted that any human rights abuse accusations labeled against Massoud personally by either his enemies or misinformed well-meaning people are dated in the period from 1992 to 1995, the period in Kabul. It also needs to be noted that neither his enemies nor misinformed well-meaning people have been able to provide any evidence for any direct involvement in crimes nor any direct order for crimes on the part of Massoud. That is, because they simply do not exist.

Furthermore, in the 1996-2001 period, during the resistance against the Taliban, there have been no accusations against troops under Massoud's direct control. Human Rights Watch cites no human rights crimes for the forces under direct control of Massoud for the period from October 1996 until the assassination of Massoud in September 2001.

Now, what made 1992-1995 different to 1996-2001? Both periods witnessed terrible war. It was the amount of control he was able to exert over his troops in the different periods that made them distinct from one another. Edward Girardet, director of the Global Journalism Network in Geneva, stated:

"When Massoud operated in the north during the fight against the Soviets, and towards the end of the Taliban period, his Northern 
Front commanders he watched quite closely and controlled well, but in Kabul, no. Of the people working around him, many were not 
Panjshiris, and a lot became corrupt very quickly. [...] People who were supposedly supporting Massoud were just using his name 
to benefit themselves. That was one of the main concerns. He could not control all of them." 

The Afghanistan Justice Project report states about the period in Kabul:

"Senior faction leaders and commanders did not always have full control over their subordinates."  (p 106)

So, what was different in Kabul? The Afghan political parties agreed on a peace- and powersharing agreement (Peshawar Accords) in early 1992 which also established the Islamic State of Afghanistan. Massoud, appointed as Afghanistan's minister of defense and relying on his already existing Shura-e Nazar forces - without any support - had to deal with attacks on multiple fronts. Attacks against the Islamic State were carried out by heavily armed militia forces that were supplied and partly instructed by regional powers, foremost Pakistan, Iran and Uzbekistan. These milita forces were occupying some neighborhoods in Kabul. Militia leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar in some periods rained as much as 3,000 (Pakistani) rockets daily on Kabul. The joint bombardment campaign by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Rashid Dostum and the Wahdat in early 1994 cost the lives of over 25,000 civilians and destroyed half of Kabul.

Meanwhile, all structures that had existed during the Communist regime had collapsed. There was no working police. There was no working system of justice. Hekmatyar had released over 10,000 dangerous criminals from the prisons in order to further destabalize the situation in Kabul. Security or insecurity in certain neighborhoods (normally the responsibility of the Interior Ministry) relied solely on the specific (sub-)commander controlling a specific area.

Massoud as minister of defense, who was the only one who could effectively counter the threat posed by foreign-controlled militia forces like the one of Hekmatyar who strived for uncontested dictatorial power, was working to preserve the Peshawar Accords. But, like it was the case with all the armed factions, there were individuals inside Massoud's troops who terribly exploited the situation of lawlessness and chaos prevalent in Kabul. Additionally, there were many criminals (as pointed out 10,000 dangerous criminals had been released by Hekmatyar as a strategy) who then pretended to belong to the troops of Massoud in order to "benefit" themselves. This was in no way a policy ordered by Massoud. To the contrary, all reports show Massoud detesting and abhorring crimes committed by some individuals in some neighborhoods or during military operations.

An Afghan observer described the situation during that time:

"Massoud was always talking to his people about not behaving badly; he told them that they were accountable to their God. But 
because of the rocket attacks on the city the number of troops had to be increased, so there were ten or twelve thousand troops 
from other sources that came in [...] I think people blamed Massoud because they expected him to test out the reliability of all 
the troops and at the same time to maintain the [...] hold on Kabul and help all the people. Those who criticized him admit they 
don't have any evidence that Massoud ordered any killings. He not only did not order any, but he was deeply distressed by them. I 
remember once [...] Massoud commented that some commanders were behaving badly, and said that he was trying to bring them to 
justice ..." 

Farid Amin reports the following incident:

"One day he [Massoud] was going from Kabul to Shamali, and he saw a trailer truck and somehow got suspicious. He stopped it, and 
when they opened the back there were goods in it, things that belonged to other people, probably taken from houses or government 
offices. He accused them: "You are thieves, you are trying to steal." Then he saw his own picture in the back of their truck - 
you know that people tried to use Massoud's name and picture to gain power or to take advantage of things - and he said, "First 
remove that picture of your leader, the leader of thieves." In his way he was telling them, listen if you say I am your leader 
and you do these things, that is what you make me - a leader of thieves." 

Imagine Cairo in the current situation had reached a peace-agreement including a plan to hold general elections after a transitional period (which was the case in Afghanistan). Imagine there was no police - permanently. Imagine instead of 1,000 criminals 10,000 dangerous criminals had been released into the streets. Imagine three heavily armed militia forces (i. e. the Muslim Brotherhood, a Coptic militia and a militia loyal to a ousted Mubarak) were striving for a dictatorship with the support of let's say Lybia, the EU and Saudi Arabia respectively. Imagine they were shelling Cairo with more than 3,000 rockets daily from multiple fronts. Imagine Eqypt's army trying to preserve the peace-agreement and a plan for general elections not receiving any support from the international community. Imagine Eqypt's army equalling the numeric and armor strength of only one of those militia factions. Imagine Egypt's army having to import about 10,000 fighters from other parts of the country for enforcement. Imagine these additional troops, not being under the daily control of the head of the Eqyptian army, setting up control points in the city and operating under their specific sub-commanders in military operations. Imagine no system of justice and accountability. Imagine the situation among some of the Eqyptian army's internal allies on the one side and another militia on the other side heavily laden with prejudices and facism. How is the head of the Eqyptian army going to prevent every single crime - even from individuals in his own troops - from happening? Who - even among the most gifted U.S. military commanders - can claim that he would have controlled such a situation 100 %?

Now, the blog you linked to refers to two separate incidents. One was the Afshar Operation in February 1993 which was launched because Wahdat allied with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was shelling civilian neighborhoods in Kabul from their positions in Afshar killing thousands. A journalist from the Associated Press and the Economist who was present in Kabul and Afshar during that time stated:

"When Iran-backed [Wahdat] Hazara militiamen who had also been involved in ethnic cleansing and were allied to Hekmatyar 
began shelling Kabul's northwestern neighborhoods, Massoud worried aloud to his aides that driving them from their positions 
would risk allowing some of his allies' camp followers [notably the Ittihad of Abdul Rasul Sayyaf] to commit atrocities against 
Hazara captives. On the other hand, he noted, the alternative was to allow Hazara militiamen to continue shelling much more 
heavily populated araeas, and killing many more noncombatants,on the other side of the town."

He decided to launch an operation in 1993 to stop Wahdat's bombardment of civilian neighborhoods. The Afghanistan Justice Project gives the following objectives - none of them criminal - for the military operation:

"There were two tactical objectives to the operation. First, Massoud intended, through the operation to capture the 
political and military headquarters of Hezb-i Wahdat […] and to capture Abdul Ali Mazari, the leader of Hezb-i Wahdat. 
Second, the ISA [the Islamic State of Afghanistan with defense minister Massoud] intended to consolidate the areas of 
the capital directly controlled by Islamic State forces by linking up parts of west Kabul controlled by Ittihad-i Islami 
with parts of central Kabul controlled by Jamiat-i Islami. Given the political and military context of Kabul at the time, 
these two objectives (which were largely attained during the operation) provide a compelling explanation of why the 
Islamic State forces attacked Afshar." 

Before the operation Massoud - since he had no ethnically-driven objectives whatsoever - conducted negotiations with dissident Wahdat commanders. Massoud and the dissident Wahdat commanders signed secret protocols specifically in order to help avoid a long (ugly) fight. This has been described in your blog-source as "helped by traitors within the Party, who had already been bought off".

The vast majority of testimony regarding the Afshar operation suggests that human rights abuses committed by some troops took place after the military operation itself when forces started to establish posts and to search homes for remaining Wahdat elements. The vast majority of testimony regarding the Afshar operation also shows that such abuses were to a very large part carried out by the Ittihad forces of Abdul Rasul Sayyaf not by the forces of Massoud. The Ittihad forces were not absorbed into the ministry of defense of Massoud. They worked directly under Sayyaf and received pay from him and Sayyaf acted as the de facto general commander of Ittihad forces during the operation. Sayyaf's Ittihad forces played a role in the assault because they where part of the Peshawar Accords. They were furthermore stationed in West Kabul nearby the Wahdat positions. Under the then-prevalent circumstances conducting the Islamic State's offensive close to the area of influence of Ittihad without the involvement of Ittihad might have led to another war between Ittihad and Islamic State forces. Not acting at all would have led to the continuation of Wahdat's bombardment of civilian neighborhoods. The cause for human rights abuses by individuals during the operation: Ittihad was a Wahhabi Pashtun force backed by Saudi Arabia while Wahdat was a Shia Hazara force controlled by Iran. Individuals of both factions (Ittihad and Wahdat) had a fascist hatred for one another. Except for some exceptions Massoud's forces did not have this degree of fascist prejudices and hatred like Ittihad or Wahdat. A Western journalist with the AP who was on the ground during the Afshar operation reported entering a nearby basement where the expelled Wahdat fighters had tied up non-Hazara hostages with wire, shot them and tried to burn the bodies, before fleeing the scene ahead of Massoud's advancing troops.

Human Rights Watch quoted eyewitness stating the following about the operation:

F.W. ... who fled during the fighting east toward the Hotel Intercontinental, said that some troops were stopping  
civilians and killing some of them at the side of the road, although at least one commander attempted to stop abuses:
While we were fleeing, toward the Intercontinental, the troops were stopping civilians, and killing them. One of the commanders 
said to the troops, "Stop bothering these people. We are fighting with gunmen, not children and wives." But some others disagreed 
with him, and said, "No, on the battlefield, everyone is an enemy. Everyone who helps the enemy is an enemy."[190]

R.J.G. ... fled Afshar with his family early on the morning of February 12. He said that Jamiat [Massoud's] forces 
near the Hotel Intercontinental stopped his family [without harming them] and told them that the "fighting was 
over" and [that they could] return to Afshar. R.J.G. and his family returned. "But when we got back, we could see that Sayyaf's 
forces were [still] there - and that there were Kandaharis among them, and that they were looting. "He fled once again: "We saw 
that there was no security, so we left again."

The journalist on the ground in Afshar also described Massoud's troops rescuing a wounded Hazara civilian caught in the crosssfire during the height of the battle. So, the large majority of crimes that took place after the military operation was committed by the Ittihad troops of Sayyaf. Yet, there were individuals among Massoud's troops that did also commit crimes, but this was in no way ordered by Massoud as reflected by the acts of different individuals inside his troops displaying the opposite to crimes by rescuing Hazara civilians.

In the Afshar operation 70-80 people were killed in the streets fighting according to Human Rights Watch and 700 people disappeared of whom up to 200 people were later released after ransoms were paid to Abdul Rasul Sayyaf's Ittihad - not Massoud's troops. Reportedly cursing Sayyaf in private for the deadly escalation of the operation, Massoud on the second day of the operation convened a meeting in the Hotel Intercontinental to discuss arrangements for security in the newly captured areas. In the meeting he ordered an immediate halt to the abuse and looting. He withdrew most of the offensive troops, leaving a smaller force to garrison the new areas and thereby hoping to make it less likely for widespread crimes to take place. Massoud also trusted Shia commander Hussain Anwari to make arrangements for the safety of the largely Shia civilian population and arranged a compensation (of course there can be no real "compensation") be payed to families who had become victims during the operation.

The American journalist of the AP who was present in Afshar during that time concluded:

"He [Massoud] can hardly be blamed for the presence of irresponsible armed groups in the capital, having done everything within 
his power to prevent it. Until November 1994, I witnessed firsthand the resulting dilemmas he faced, the amazing restraint with 
which he met them, and the almost willfully feckless manner in which absentee Western "observers" based in Pakistan distorted the 
situation in accord with ISI [Pakistan intelligence service] propaganda." 

Abdul Rasul Sayyaf (Ittihad) was really no ally of choice nor convenience to Massoud. To the contrary it was Sayyaf who was going to play a role in Massoud's assassination in September 2001. The assassins are said to have entered United Front (Northern Alliance) territory under the auspices of Sayyaf and had his assistance in bypassing "normal security procedures."

The other incident mentioned in the blog was an offensive by government troops in March 1995 which defeated Wahdat in Kabul after Wahdat had tried to ally itself with the arriving Taliban. During that operation at least six incidents of rape and two attempted rapes were confirmed. Again, this were the acts of cruel individuals, their crimes were in no way ordered by Massoud, a man who personally intervened in at least two cases of forced marriage and to whom reportedly no crime was worse than rape of women and children.

These two incidents were mentioned and mispresented by the propaganda blog in a way to lay blame and in a repetitive way so that a reader gets the impression there were "multiple massacres", which was not the case. Although there were some gruesome individuals among his troops that committed terrible crimes, Massoud did not order any massacre not even crimes against Hazaras nor others. Many people know this about Massoud and that was the reason why, after the Taliban some years later had indeed targeted Hazaras and other civilians in systematic massacres compared by the United Nations to war crimes in Bosnia, hundreds of thousands of Hazaras and other Afghans fled to seek the protection of Ahmad Shah Massoud. After the rise of the Taliban an estimated 400,000 to 1,000,000 Afghan civilians found shelter in the area of Massoud. National Geographic concluded in its documentary "Inside the Taliban":

The only thing standing in the way of future Taliban massacres is Ahmad Shah Massoud."

3) Reports about Massoud

The AP journalist who was in Afshar in 1993 and in Kabul from 1992-1994 explained:

"Any popular movement, if it is truly popular, is going to harbor a criminal element, just because any large population harbors a 
criminal element. It is unrealistic to expect zero crimes. Yet Afghans, even Massoud's enemies, know that abuses by his troops 
were rare [compared to other troops] and punished [if possible] as often as they were caught. [...] His enemies on the other hand 
undertook mass murder, looting , and ethnic cleansing as a matter of policy. [...] Had Massoud not fought to hold on to Kabul, 
the human rights situation in Afghanistan and throughout the region would have been vastly worse than it was."

Edward Girardet (Global Journalim Network Geneva):

"I just don't think that Massoud went out of his way to kill civilians, only to deal with the Hazara resistance because they were 
siding with Hekmatyar. I was in Kabul many times in the '90s, including the edges of Kabul. There, until Massoud's forces were 
forced to withdraw, security was relatively good, and there was no signs of harrassment against the local Hazara population. When 
I was there quite a lot of fighting was going on. Hekmatyar's forces did most of the shelling ..."

Aref Shajahan (Hazara):

"I am a Hazara with the Harakat-e Islami ... Hazaras live mostly in the west part of Kabul, but the fighting between them and 
Massoud's people started as a misunderstanding between a small group of Hazaras and Massoud's forces in east Kabul. That day 
Massoud was not even in the city but in Tagab ... At that time, I went to the east side of the city with a few people to try to 
see somebody [from Massoud's forces] and stop the fighting. ... After twenty minutes Massoud arrived from Tagab, and I remember 
the first thing he said to Fahim and Rahman was, 'Stop this fighting against the Hazaras as soon as possible. ... Don't fight 
them; how soon can it be stopped?' Then he had to go back to Tagab because Hekmatyar was attacking his group there too, but he 
was serious about stopping the fighting with the Hazaras."

Dr. Abdullah Abdullah stated:

"He [Massoud] said the time in Kabul was the hardest, because people were suffering, and there was almost nothing we could do."

"One of Hekmatyar's conditions for his forces to stop their fighting [against the government and Islamic State] was that Massoud 
leave the Ministry of Defense. In a meeting in Jalalabad at the end of 1993, President Rabbani and Sayyaf were present and this 
issue was raised. They discussed it, then contacted Commander Massoud. He said without hesitation that in exchange for peace he 
would resign, but they would have to guarantee that peace was achieved, and that the one doing the fighting was Hekmatyar. ... 
They sent Massoud a message from Jalalabad, and he resigned and went ... Jabul-Saraj ... Of course when the political leaders 
made this decision they did not make sure that peace was achieved. Hekmatyar continued fighting, so it did not stop the war." 
[Massoud then resumed the post.]

Sediqa Massoud (Massoud's wife) about the period in Kabul:

"I never saw my husband so sad. His disappointment was immense and every day I perceived that he became a little more 
withdrawn."

Abdul Latif Pedram :

"During the time Massoud controlled Kabul, not one of the prisoners from the Communist Party, nor any who fought against him, was 
ever [ordered to be] put to death [by Massoud]. This was very important in a country which had been at war for years. He said 
very clearly. "I am against killing anyone because they believe in communism, liberalism, or any other 'isms.'"

Dr. Mohammad Sidiq:

"Once there was a young Taliban fighter, and the question was whether he was going to be sent to jail. Massoud said, "No, because 
he did not have time to learn any better. He should go to school instead."

Pakistani Taliban:

"I was a prisoner in Afghanistan, and one day Commander Massoud came to our prison. He said, 'I am Commander Massoud. Whenever 
your food is not good or my boys hit you, insult you, or you are abused in any way, you tell me. I tell you this in front of 
everybody. Keep in mind that you are prisoners, but you are human beings. If you are made sad, in the next world God will ask me 
about it and I'll be punished. If I have good food and you have bad food, I will be punished.' [...] There was a boy there who 
was thirteen years old. Massoud said, 'It's not right that you are in prison. Let him out. Go boy, you should not be here. You 
came here to fight me. Well, you cannot kill me; I have lots of people. But you go back to your country [Pakistan].[...]' And the 
boy was released."

Princeton University Professor Michael Barry:

"Massoud treated his prisoners with such compassion that Soviet soldiers preferred to surrender to him over anybody else, or to 
desert and go to his side. [...] Back in the '80s, I was involved in negotiations [about the release of Russian prisoners who 
wanted to seek asylum in the West]. [...] You just had this little gestures. One Russian prisoner was about to be taken to 
Pakistan, and Massoud himself gave Nikolai a camera so he would look like a journalist, and a warm sweater to go over the 
mountains."

Now, if there is someone who does not believe what is being quoted above ... If Massoud was a man of cruelty, why did he neither hurt Najibullah nor Hekmatyar the slightest, both having made multiple attempts on Massoud's life, when he had them in his hands (Najibullah from 1992 to 1996 and Hekmatyar in 1996)? JCAla (talk) 10 February 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Violation

There is a biased tone throughout the article. It reads like a propaganda piece about Massoud. Criticism by PDPA and Taliban supporters is conspicuously absent from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ummonk (talk • contribs) 22:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

A user removed the template. I undid his revision and ask that people please review NPOV. Well-sourced does not imply neutral point of view. Ummonk (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not an article for "criticism" by Taliban supporters as you would like it to be. This article portrays the life of Massoud and again everything is well-sourced. The perception whether something is neutral or not is always a matter of opinion, what counts is if there are reliable sources for the text in the article, and there are plenty. If you want to read a commentary about Massoud by Taliban supporters you need to go somewhere else. Your personal wish for a Taliban opinion is not a valid reason to put a template. JCAla (talk) 28 April 2011 (UTC)

KGB

There are rumors about Ahmad Shah Massoud being KGB and staging sham operations with the Russians. I have no opinion on this, but mightn't this be the venue to air out such rumors? Or are they so fringe as not to be worthwhile? Thanks. QLineOrientalist (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not a venue to air out rumors. Especially not when they come from the person who worked with the Pakistani intelligence agency ISI to support terrorist and Massoud archenemy Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. From a military history point of view these rumors, or should I say defamations, contradict every expert analysis done on the 1979-1989 war. JCAla (talk), 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article is by no means neutral. Where are the denunciations of the crimes committed against civilians by their terrorists (1, 2, 3)?--Falerístico (talk) 12:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is very well sourced. All reference are considered to be very reliable. Your links on the other hand are by no means neutral nor informed about Massoud himself. An opinion-ed in some unknown online blog called the Weekend Post by a Pakistani agent who writes: "He thrives on war. He eats, drinks and inhales war." is a polemic peace of nothing and by no means reliable as a source. Rawa is a maoist organization based in Pakistan, although doing valuable work on some fronts, politically they denounce each and every political adversary with smear campaigns including some human rights organizations. JCAla (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The article may contain references, but that does not mean the article is neutral. Editors highlight phrases praising this terrorist and a traitor to his country. I did not edit because I can not write well in english, but I wanted make this complaint.--Falerístico (talk) 10:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Some people complain say this man is a terrorist. Other people say this man is a freedom fighter. There is honestly a dispute of opinion, but the Wikipedia page doesn't do reflect that dispute and instead present one POV side. I don't know enough about this guy, but I do know that a biased Wikipedia article is not one that I want to read. No, I don't want to read Taliban propaganda. I also don't want to read Massoud propganda, and this entire article is Massoud propaganda. I reinserted that NPOV tag, so that at least people know what is going on.--50.15.180.29 (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

@ JCAla - Like Falerístico mentioned, the article may contain some references, but there is no way we can call this a neutral article. It is heavily biased, pro Massoud and anti Talebans & Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. (Ketabtoon (talk) 05:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC))

File:Massoud Pakol.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Massoud Pakol.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize nominee

The "Nobel Peace prize nominee" line was initially unsourced when I removed it. User:JCAla reverted me once before he/she seemingly haphazardly inserted a previously used source, p. 310 in a book published by Webster University Press. I question the validity of this sourcing - I doubt it is indeed mentioned in the book, on p. 310 that Mr. Shah was nominated for the Nobel peace prize. Please provide the full paragraph from that page, here on the talk page! You must obviously have the book so I fully expect you to comply. 126.59.94.251 (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hold on, he was allegedly nominated the year after his assassination? This is, if you excuse the pun, asinine. The Nobel prizes are never awarded posthumously. One group or an individual, among 10's of thousands of politicians and university rectors and professors who are allowed to nominate somebody for the prize (see [11]), decided to nominate Mr. Shah for a prize he wasn't even eligible to win. If this deserves a mention, it should be further down in the body of the text, not in the opening paragraph, where it's touted as if he were indeed shortlisted or likely to win it, as if it were an accolade or a high point of his career. It should also be clearly stated WHO nominated him.126.59.94.251 (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Since you do not have the Webster University book, I will even give you the full letter of The Supporting Committee for the Nobel Peace Prize to Ahmad Shah Massoud who nominated him and who also addressed the issue you raised last:

The Supporting Committee for the Nobel Peace Prize to Ahmad Shah Massoud

Letter to Good-Willed People This letter is addressed to the members of the Nobel Committee and to all the human beings for whom democracy, human rights, and universal brotherhood are not empty words. 2001 will remain engraved in our memories as a turning point in the history of the 21th century: a year when a group of extremists endeavoured to trigger off a worldwide cataclysm – "the conflict between civilizations" that some theoreticians had feared. The Nobel Peace Prize 2002,which will be awarded for events taking place in 2001, will inevitably have to take into account those events, which cannot be considered as an epiphenomenon. It will have to consecrate the actions of men and women who, thanks to their courage, have contributed the most to maintain peace and human rights in this dreadful year. Among the many candidacies which were submitted to the Nobel Committee on February 1, 2002, there is that of Mr. Ahmad Shah Massoud, which we have supported, with the help of intellectuals, politicians, and citizens from all over the world. Indeed, this man fought all his life to preserve his people’s freedom and to maintain all their natural rights. Despite his gifts as a strategist and as a resistant, Mr. Ahmad Shah Massoud cannot be considered as just a fighter. He was first and foremost a man of peace, who was concerned about human rights in his country, and who always called for a political solution for Afghanistan, for democratic elections transcending religious and ethnic differences. This stance was aimed at preserving stability in his country, but also in the region and in the world at large, which were confronted with the proliferation of terrorism and of drug production and trafficking, which he wanted to eradicate. He never ceased to warn the international community against their harmful effects before becoming their victim himself. His action in favor of peace and of the preservation of liberty was especially noticeable in the areas under his control in Afghanistan (most particularly in the Panjshir Valley), primarily through the maintaining of schools for boys and girls, and the signing of the Dushanbe Declaration on Afghan women’s basic rights on July 2, 2000. However, solving problems in Afghanistan required acting on a greater scale. He was acutely aware of those problems and knew their roots extended beyond Afghanistan. Working abroad became necessary: hence he played a role in Tajikistan, where his influence over Muslim nationalist movements resulted in a peace accord between the latter and governmental forces in 1997. Ahmad Shah Massoud also expressly and consistently called for international help. In a letter dated October 8,1998, he addressed the Senate of the United States of America in these terms: "...the war must cease, fair peace and a transitional administration aiming at setting up a representative government must be established. This is the noble aim we wish to attain. We consider it is our duty to defend humanity against the scourges of intolerance, violence, and fanaticism." In May 2000, he answered the questions of representatives of the French National Assembly and of the European Parliament in an interview filmed by Interscoop:" the only solution for Afghanistan is democracy through elections. Each individual must have one vote. When we are in Kabul, we will hold elections under the control of international organizations [...] women will have the right to vote, they will be eligible, and they will be allowed to work and study [...] each ethnic group must be represented proportionally to its size." Following Mollah Omar’s declarations on the destruction of the Buddhas in Bamyan, he made the following statement on RFI (Radio France International) on March7, 2001: "...an act I most firmly condemn. This is not the first time the Taliban have acted thus: they have trampled on human rights, especially on women’s rights, they have encouraged the production and trafficking of drugs, and they have supported and sheltered international terrorists..." He wished the international community to exert more pressure on the Taliban regime, to help him make peace in his country and fight terrorist and extremist exactions that he alone could not prevent because of the presence and implications of foreign powers. He warned that, without this support, "the world will witness even more barbarous acts." He reiterated these demands when he came to Europe in April 2001. Today, it can be asserted without the slightest shadow of a doubt that if Commander Massoud had received the help he had demanded for so many years, thousands of Afghan people, especially women, would not have had to endure the tyrannical and liberticidal regime of the Taliban, and they would not have had to suffer their corporal punishments and humiliating treatments. Similarly, Osama bin Laden’s militias would not have disseminated all over the world, the tragic events of New York and Washington would have been averted, and thousands of American lives would have been spared. Coming to this, it is impossible not to link those dreadful events to the cowardly assassination of Mr. Massoud only two days before. Only God knows what Islamic militias would have done all over the world, if he had not been this "wall" that the fanatics feared so much that they thought it necessary to assassinate him before extending their wrongdoing to the whole world. This learned man, who had a deep interest in poetry and philosophy, who in his youth had been exposed to Western culture, and who also was a very pious man, could have been a major link between Islam and the Western world and their respective cultures, since he represented, like many other people, the real face of Islam: an open, tolerant religion. We would like to quote here what he said to photographer Reza Deghati: "... I can see all the children of Abraham live together in peace on earth." Unlike the fanatics, he thus reminded people that the three great monotheistic faiths are descended from Abraham, that they are rooted in the same Book, and that all sensible people must bear this close kinship in mind so as to avoid all fratricidal wars. His premature death, caused by those who hit the Western world two days later, has deprived him of the most noble task his courage and self-denial entitled him to: the reconstruction of his country. With his culture, intelligence, and humanism, he could have established a new model of democracy previously unknown in Afghanistan, respectful of human rights and representative of all Afghans. He did not have the time to achieve his modern vision of Afghanistan. However, those who believed in him and in his project are now trying to carry on with his work. His work was about the preservation of world peace, and of human rights, while at the same time it transformed his country. The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize would constitute a posthumous recognition of his action, and would also serve as an example for the generations to come, in order for our children not to commit the same mistakes we made of remaining blind and deaf to the fight of one man. We would like the posthumous character of this recognition not to be an obstacle. It is true that it is extremely important and wise to abide by Mr. Nobel’s will, as well as by the statutes of his foundation as they have been modified over the years. However, if there is in the statutes a provision allowing to take such an exceptional decision, we think it would be appropriate to apply it. In the past, other people, although perhaps in a different set of circumstances, have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize posthumously. We have in mind Mr. Dag Hammerskjöld. If Mr. Ahmad Shah Massoud deserves this distinction, we believe that it would be deeply unfair to deprive him of it just because of a blind act of the terrorism he fought against. We also believe that it would be an opportunity for the Nobel Committee to emphasize the importance of this year by including in its decisions an exceptional procedure related to it. Finally, the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Mr. Ahmad Shah Massoud would be beneficial for the immediate future of Afghanistan and of the whole world. On the one hand, 2002 will be the year of reconstruction in Afghanistan. Awarding the Nobel Prize to a person who embodied the project and the hope of this country would also be a strong sign coming from the Western world towards the Afghan people, thus facilitating financial support, but also, and above all, moral support. On the other hand, the world today is in a difficult plight: it is confronted with an imbroglio of religious and political conflicts whose end is uncertain. Awarding the Nobel Prize to Mr. Ahmad Shah Massoud, a Muslim, would also be a way of appeasing tensions, and of narrowing the gap between the Western world and Islam, by showing the real face of the latter. The supporting committee for the Nobel Peace Prize to Ahmad Shah Massoud

For the full text see the website of Professor André Canessa (Marseille) (here). The Prof. who runs the website about Massoud in collaboration with the Afghan Embassy in Paris has provided contact information on his web, so if this issue is of such importance to you, I suggest you contact him and ask him about Ahmad Shah Massoud. JCAla (talk) 10:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)