Tweet
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/fea...838393817.html
Mental handicap is actually not a proper term since that is insulting to the disabled.
Generally, if you arrange Latifi's articles in order on Al Jazeera or under his personal webpage you see the classic farsibaan bait and switch going on (and save your breath if you plan to drone on about the "we are one people and this is an attempt to divide Afghans" b-ull sh-it - I'll accept that logic when I see Latifi write a nuanced and well researched article that represents all of the people):
In this particular article, even within the pictures that are present, there are pictures of Mossoud, Karzai, Najib and a host of others - generally men that hated and wanted to kill eachother. In fact, Najib imprisoned Karzai, father and son, in an attempt to purge the burgeosie according to his insane application of Leninist doctrine. Yet that history is glossed over.
Then, he proceeds to leave out the fact that urban Kabul is a world apart from village Behsud or any of the small rural centers that dot the Afghan country side. Try taking one of those Najibullah pictures out there and hanging it up in village square.
What about the chowk in Kandahar? Are Najib pics selling like hot cakes there?
Who the he-ll cares what Heela Najibullah says about her dad? Her word is about as dependable as that of Benazir Bhutto about her dad or any of the UBL kids about their dad. Their words mean nothing without associated proof. Merely because Heela has a messianic love for her dad and chooses to discount his reign of blood and terror doesnt mean that the people who lost loved ones will do the same.
He tries to save some semblance of balance at the end with the quote about how Najibs latter day speeches are run online and that people are forgetting Najib phase 1 versus neutralized Najib.
This sort of drivel permeates Latifi's other articles as well. Take Rock City Kabul where goths in kabul play green zone coffee shops. Once again, drop those kids into the true heart of Afghanistan, into the country side, and see how much they (villagers) like they music that is blasted at them during psyops.
In other world events, he does his typical Arabophobic dance that is classically associated with the Persianized mindset. All problems, large and small from a dog dying to a bank failing to a mullah screeching leads to Riyadh. Take a look at Latifi's inane and infantile discussion on Sudan, glossing over the major role the US and the UN played in the division of that country; once again intervening in the Muslim world in a place that is sure to foment unrest and blowback. Instead Latifi paints the struggle as the desire of indigenous people to roll back the Arabs.
Latifi goes on to quote Karzai aids and government officials who once served under Najib now serving under Karzai. Hmmmm, I wonder what they will say when asked if they liked their former chum. Let us not forget that former communist army level folks like Atmar engrafted themselves like leeches onto this government quickly shape shifting from socialists to capitalists gone wild.
The irony in the Najib article is that it leaves out Najib's equivalent hypocrasy by the standard of his hardline supporters. Generally, what you hear Najib worshippers say (I call them Najibis since he is on par with a messenger for them) is that the Islamists took aid from the Americans (aka Kafirs) and that therefore makes them hypocrits. Odd reasoning considering that there is no religious injunctions on accepting arms from kafirs or even striking alliances (see the famed treaty of Medina for reference) as long as the Muslim group retains territorial integrity and control of the effort, but we will entertain it nonetheless.
I would refer these people to the fact that Islam and democratic capitalism clash far less than Leninist Communism and democratic capitalism by definitions accepted to all three groups. As demonstrated by the cold war, the latter two ideologies are supposedly diametric opposites, nay? So if a democratic capitalist takes on the socialist communist mantra we might say that hypocrasy was even more evident in such an example than an Islamist acquiring capitalist credentials. I think that any student who has taken Marxism 101 would grin and show his teeth and accept that premise. How different democratic capitalism and Leninist Communism are in their creating a power apex in a society in which elites govern the fates of the masses shows that the demarcating line is much more blurry. For the sake of entertainment we will go with the textbook definitions though.
So what then say these folks about this Leninist Communist
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/10/wo...ted=all&src=pm
The same staunch communist, Najib Ahmadzai ---> tacked on the ullah at some point ---> appeals like a thirsty dog to his diametrically ideologically opposed enemy here in the NY Times:
"The Afghan President's praise for the United States and his attempt to enlist Washington in common cause against fundamentalism marked the sharpest departure yet from the open hostility that has characterized relations between Kabul and Washington since Afghanistan's leftist coup of 1978."
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/10/wo...ted=all&src=pm
Begging the Americans to save him and heaping praise on them after killing their ambassador, Adolph Dubs nearly 15 years prior.
Fascinating, his supporters attempt to tout the Islamists as ideological jiggalos, willing to take Benjamins and Guns from Uncle Sam to get the "job done" but Najib's blatant ideological prostitution transmogrifying from a Leninist to Najibullah and then desparately into a wannabe ally of the leader of democratic capitalism is beyond ideological jiggaloism... its blatant ideological prostitution. But oh no, to the Najibis its genius manifest!
Oh and for the Najibi fools attempt to take this part of the NY Times article to show that the man was a modern day Prophet:
""If fundamentalism comes to Afghanistan, war will continue for many more years," he said, the rush of his words repeatedly overwhelming his translator. "Afghanistan will turn into a center of world smuggling for narcotic drugs. Afghanistan will be turned into a center for terrorism."
I refer them to his idiot disregard for reality when he forgets, 3 paragraphs or so later, about the fact that all America needed to control and clamp down on the central asian republics, even in the Taliban's victorious era, were willing allies like China and Russia.
Mental handicap is actually not a proper term since that is insulting to the disabled.
Generally, if you arrange Latifi's articles in order on Al Jazeera or under his personal webpage you see the classic farsibaan bait and switch going on (and save your breath if you plan to drone on about the "we are one people and this is an attempt to divide Afghans" b-ull sh-it - I'll accept that logic when I see Latifi write a nuanced and well researched article that represents all of the people):
In this particular article, even within the pictures that are present, there are pictures of Mossoud, Karzai, Najib and a host of others - generally men that hated and wanted to kill eachother. In fact, Najib imprisoned Karzai, father and son, in an attempt to purge the burgeosie according to his insane application of Leninist doctrine. Yet that history is glossed over.
Then, he proceeds to leave out the fact that urban Kabul is a world apart from village Behsud or any of the small rural centers that dot the Afghan country side. Try taking one of those Najibullah pictures out there and hanging it up in village square.
What about the chowk in Kandahar? Are Najib pics selling like hot cakes there?
Who the he-ll cares what Heela Najibullah says about her dad? Her word is about as dependable as that of Benazir Bhutto about her dad or any of the UBL kids about their dad. Their words mean nothing without associated proof. Merely because Heela has a messianic love for her dad and chooses to discount his reign of blood and terror doesnt mean that the people who lost loved ones will do the same.
He tries to save some semblance of balance at the end with the quote about how Najibs latter day speeches are run online and that people are forgetting Najib phase 1 versus neutralized Najib.
This sort of drivel permeates Latifi's other articles as well. Take Rock City Kabul where goths in kabul play green zone coffee shops. Once again, drop those kids into the true heart of Afghanistan, into the country side, and see how much they (villagers) like they music that is blasted at them during psyops.
In other world events, he does his typical Arabophobic dance that is classically associated with the Persianized mindset. All problems, large and small from a dog dying to a bank failing to a mullah screeching leads to Riyadh. Take a look at Latifi's inane and infantile discussion on Sudan, glossing over the major role the US and the UN played in the division of that country; once again intervening in the Muslim world in a place that is sure to foment unrest and blowback. Instead Latifi paints the struggle as the desire of indigenous people to roll back the Arabs.
Latifi goes on to quote Karzai aids and government officials who once served under Najib now serving under Karzai. Hmmmm, I wonder what they will say when asked if they liked their former chum. Let us not forget that former communist army level folks like Atmar engrafted themselves like leeches onto this government quickly shape shifting from socialists to capitalists gone wild.
The irony in the Najib article is that it leaves out Najib's equivalent hypocrasy by the standard of his hardline supporters. Generally, what you hear Najib worshippers say (I call them Najibis since he is on par with a messenger for them) is that the Islamists took aid from the Americans (aka Kafirs) and that therefore makes them hypocrits. Odd reasoning considering that there is no religious injunctions on accepting arms from kafirs or even striking alliances (see the famed treaty of Medina for reference) as long as the Muslim group retains territorial integrity and control of the effort, but we will entertain it nonetheless.
I would refer these people to the fact that Islam and democratic capitalism clash far less than Leninist Communism and democratic capitalism by definitions accepted to all three groups. As demonstrated by the cold war, the latter two ideologies are supposedly diametric opposites, nay? So if a democratic capitalist takes on the socialist communist mantra we might say that hypocrasy was even more evident in such an example than an Islamist acquiring capitalist credentials. I think that any student who has taken Marxism 101 would grin and show his teeth and accept that premise. How different democratic capitalism and Leninist Communism are in their creating a power apex in a society in which elites govern the fates of the masses shows that the demarcating line is much more blurry. For the sake of entertainment we will go with the textbook definitions though.
So what then say these folks about this Leninist Communist
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/10/wo...ted=all&src=pm
The same staunch communist, Najib Ahmadzai ---> tacked on the ullah at some point ---> appeals like a thirsty dog to his diametrically ideologically opposed enemy here in the NY Times:
"The Afghan President's praise for the United States and his attempt to enlist Washington in common cause against fundamentalism marked the sharpest departure yet from the open hostility that has characterized relations between Kabul and Washington since Afghanistan's leftist coup of 1978."
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/10/wo...ted=all&src=pm
Begging the Americans to save him and heaping praise on them after killing their ambassador, Adolph Dubs nearly 15 years prior.
Fascinating, his supporters attempt to tout the Islamists as ideological jiggalos, willing to take Benjamins and Guns from Uncle Sam to get the "job done" but Najib's blatant ideological prostitution transmogrifying from a Leninist to Najibullah and then desparately into a wannabe ally of the leader of democratic capitalism is beyond ideological jiggaloism... its blatant ideological prostitution. But oh no, to the Najibis its genius manifest!
Oh and for the Najibi fools attempt to take this part of the NY Times article to show that the man was a modern day Prophet:
""If fundamentalism comes to Afghanistan, war will continue for many more years," he said, the rush of his words repeatedly overwhelming his translator. "Afghanistan will turn into a center of world smuggling for narcotic drugs. Afghanistan will be turned into a center for terrorism."
I refer them to his idiot disregard for reality when he forgets, 3 paragraphs or so later, about the fact that all America needed to control and clamp down on the central asian republics, even in the Taliban's victorious era, were willing allies like China and Russia.
Comment