dr najeeb speech on shah nawaz tanai

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

That too is a mythologization; because if there was some Arab agenda, why aren't Yemen, Oman, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and other Arab Nations making moves for it?

This is just a scapegoat by Imperialists, their Ethnocentric Nationalists Cronies and Najib supporters to justify their activities; and this too is an extension of Eurocentric Imperialism; because it was British, French etc etc who created all the current nation state demarcations, including of Afghanistan today and of course Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Thus Saudi Arabia is a red herring since they're essentially a puppet state of Imperialists.

What were Arabs doing in Afghanistan before, during and after the Soviet war?

[ScimitarXEdge]

You're so bait.

I am pretty sure your family would rather say you died from cancer than from AIDS.



ps

You commit the same logical fallacies throughout your reasoning. I could go on and show how flawed your thinking is, but you don't have the stamina to keep with me.

Ok please demonstrate using proper logical examples as to why my argumentrs are logically fallacious

I'll be waiting; any attempt to evade this demonstrates you're merely talking fluff.

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

this thread is messed up.

facts

najib was a bad person
so were the warlords who opposed him

Who is your replacement?

[ScimitarXEdge]

What were Arabs doing in Afghanistan before, during and after the Soviet war?

What about the Sudanese, Somalians and Malaysians and Indonesians who were in Afghanistan during this time?

[ScimitarXEdge]

this thread is messed up.

facts

najib was a bad person
so were the warlords who opposed him

Exactly; that's my point, I don't defend Mujahideen; I'm just saying why side with an even MORE evil person for the evils of the Mujahideen or Pakistan. That's completely irrational.

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

What about the Sudanese, Somalians and Malaysians and Indonesians who were in Afghanistan during this time?

Include them all...what were they all doing there?

[ScimitarXEdge]

Include them all...what were they all doing there?

Well if you include them all, then argument of Arab Imperialism becomes null because these people are not Arabs.

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

Even though this has nothing to do with the riddle at all; I feel this highlights exactly what's wrong with the Qadiyani Cult, and why your way of thinking is severely flawed.

see that's your problem; you look at things by what others think of you, rather than substance.

since you represent Qadiyanism; is that what qadiyanism stresses, superficiality over merit?

Ok please demonstrate using proper logical examples as to why my argumentrs are logically fallacious

I'll be waiting; any attempt to evade this demonstrates you're merely talking fluff.

Please don't divert attention. You know exactly what I mean.

And, you want to discuss why you are flawed? You set yourself up. I just seized the moment to show how flawed your thinking is. Take it as a good deed and move on. Just know that you, just like everyone else knows how to use logic. The fundamental difference is that you are indecent and attack the person instead of the argument. This by itself, my friend, is a no no in academia.

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

Well if you include them all, then argument of Arab Imperialism becomes null because these people are not Arabs.

Actually, no, it does not.

Now, tell me why were they all there.

[ScimitarXEdge]

By the way MeemWawMeemNoonAlifLamSheenAlifTawAlifNoon


why haven't you made an attempt to respond to any of my questions or challenges

I have at least made an attempt to answer yours; now it's your turn.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Actually, no, it does not.

Now, tell me why were they all there.

Actually it does; since they came there under their own volition and desire and not under subjugation. It means it can't be Arab Imperialism; since Arab Imperialism denotes subjugating for specifically Arabs.

Thus the premise is null because these people did so completely for reasons independent of that.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Please don't divert attention. You know exactly what I mean.

And, you want to discuss why you are flawed? You set yourself up. I just seized the moment to show how flawed your thinking is. Take it as a good deed and move on. Just know that you, just like everyone else knows how to use logic. The fundamental difference is that you are indecent and attack the person instead of the argument. This by itself, my friend, is a no no in academia.

First of all the comment you're quoting had nothing to do with the debate; you went on a red herring; and I responded to that as to why your approach towards things are flawed

secondly I did respond to the idea, I didn't simply disparage; I highlighted why your ideology is flawed because since you represent qadiyanism and embody the qadiyani teachings, you emphasize the importance of image over substance; as demonstrated in your comment, which is flawed thinking, because how something should not factor into things, it's about whether the content is meritable or not.

Thirdly; I'm not diverting focus; you made a claim about my logistics; thus you must demonstrate logically precisely where the fallacy is. You have only yourself to blame for initiating a subject. I'm merely a responder

Fourthly

Your statement is circular; you're saying I'm flawed because you saw it as flawed and hence it's flawed. This is circular reasoning; which is fallacious in itself, Fallacy does not prove the contrary argument false.

[Shayesta]

Najib was evil, but he was organized evil.

No. Najibullah was cruel, but so was everyone. And not choosing either sides in politics or ignoring the problems wasn't an option, nor were Afghans competent enough to form a group of their own which stood only for Afghanistan; No one and nothing else. Najibullah, in that case, was no exception.

Najib was willing to abdicate and have a cooperative Government with Massoud.

I know, and it was Massoud who kept refusing corporation and suggested to flee Kabul instead. Najibullah kept being reminded several times to leave Kabul as Taliban pose a threat to his life and no matter whatever excuse people give for him not leaving Kabul, it's a fact that he easily could have and that he was killed mainly because he wasn't intended to hand over Kabul to Pakistan that easily. ISI didn't kill him because they thought 'he was evil', as if ISI cared seeing evils roaming around in Kabul.

Sure, his only redeeming quality was that he was not rigidly ethnocentric at least overtly;

Which is a massive factor, mate. Look at all these ethnic mess which has occurred over the years, was it even half as bad during Najibullah's regime? It's mistrust amongst the ethnics why NATO has been able to find their ground in Afghanistan, nothing else. He treated a Pukhtoon in same manner as he treated an Uzbek, whether it was a good treatment or bad. Look at today's politicians, oh dare if anyone even touches their ethnic Qawm.

but can you say Hekmatyar or Massoud were really ethnocentric either. Hekmatyar had tons of Tajiks and Massoud had a few Pashtuns on his side.

Massoud's entire purpose to join anti-Daud Khan camps was an ethnic one. Like every typical Tajik politician, he didn't want 'Pukhtunistan' issue to come upfront either. By keeping a few Pukhtoons in his group he couldn't hide his ethnic-motive, which was the cause of his existence amongst the Mujahideen, and now our so-called Qahrame Milli. And what Hekmatyar's main purpose was I wouldn't know, but anyone taking refuge in a country which trained him to destroy his own country, I got no idea what good to find in him? He was an ISI agent before Russians even thought of Afghanistan, what problem did Afghanistan back then faced that he had to work with our enemies on how to destabilize our nation? Najibullah, as compared, did everything on Afghan soil, and nor was it him inviting the Russians.

Sure Najib was working against all them; but not FOR Afghanistan, but FOR Russia;

And that's the mistake Afghanistan made by inviting the Russians. As if inviting Russia wasn't horrific enough, we challenged them on our own soil which only destroyed us, not them. Russia wasn't invited to chase a war, nor did Russia have any personal enmity with us. But Pakistan was arch enemy, so US was Russia's arch enemy and it was a matter of deep concern seeing both Pakistan and USA taking the advantage and attack Russia on our soil, of which the outcome is right in front of me and you.

Pashtunistan issue would have lead to an ethnic division, so perhaps Najib would have ended up being an ethnofascist in the end if he remained in power.

Perhaps he would have, and perhaps he wouldn't have. For that one 'perhaps' you can't actually accuse someone of whatever idea which didn't even come up on the table yet! He didn't show a slight sign of being ethno-centric, nor did he even mention the word 'Pukhtunistan', which is in fact the reason that if Tajiks respect any Pukhtoon politician of that era, then it was Najibullah for his neutrality regarding ethnics. And once again, for an Afghan living in Afghanistan, ethnic neutrality matters a lot!

Najib ripped eyes, limbs, tongues, had women stripped, raped and urinated on; often Pashtun women,

And have you got evidences for him 'stripping women' and 'urinating on them'? All Afghan women from all ethnics faced rape, and still are facing daily rapes. Did you even know that it was during the Mujahideen war when brothers were killing their sisters, fathers were killing their daughters and husbands were killing their wives, only because they had rather die than being raped by one of the Mujahideen Hizbs? That's how common rape was during Mujahideen and Khalili's, Dostum's, Massoud's and Rabbani's men were experts in that.

It was Russia's war which Najib was fighting on Afghan soil.

While Mujahideen were fighting Pakistani/American/NATO war, and today they are doing the exact same thing. Mujahideen haven't vanished, they are right there in Northern Alliance. Russia wanted Afghanistan as an ally, they would get nothing out of our destruction. While our destruction was target of ISI, and US/NATO target was collapse of Russian influence.

Russia was fighting for Soviet Hegemony, the same way the U.S and the 40+ countries of NATO are fighting for Capitalist Hegemony.

USA and forty NATO countries are fighting for oil, diesel, petrol, gas, and all the other resources we got. It was this very same USA who funded the Taliban, and these very same Americans know what they are doing. Afghan government invited Communism to Afghanistan, Americans are forcing Democracy on Afghanistan. It was USA with plans made to Eastern invasion way before you and I were even born, not Russia.

The Mujahideen wasn't apart of the death of 1.5 Million Afghans, they were apart of the death 100,000, Najib however was apart of 1.5 Million deaths whether by collaboration or direct murders.

And have you got any evidence for this claim as well? Russians obviously didn't bomb goats and sheep, one attack came from the Mujahideen and the another from the Russians. And this is called 'war' were the most painful part of it is loss of lives, and that also in millions. And if you can claim that it doesn't matter how many countries are involved but rather the intention of those countries, then even I can claim it doesn't matter how many lives are lost (which matters a lot) but rather with the intention they were killed. See, not everything is as black and white as we think it is. The matter is way more deep and way more nasty, that's way every single angle of that era should be studied very precisely.

If Najib was so brave, he wouldn't have sought refuge in the UN Consulate, seeking asylum.

Which date are we talking about here?

How does being a puppet of the Russians, even after Soviet collapse equate to freedom.

As much as you like to ignore my point, a fact is that anyone who was neutral wouldn't last in politics. Russia was gone, but other countries newly started their tricks in Afghanistan which proved that Russia wasn't the target, a complete destabilisation of Afghanistan was. Afghanistan hardly had any 'independent' government which is why we have been very weak politically.

the Pakistani ISI was behind Najibs death; but just because that's the case that doesn't make Najib a hero, someone who stood for freedom or anything of the sort;

Like someone said before, ISI's atrocities actually made him look so much better than everyone else. ISI wasn't only behind his death. They even planned Daud Khan's death, they trained Mujahideen for the purpose of Afghan instability, they supported Taliban so they can rule entire of Afghanistan per their own wish, and even today it's them who are sending us suicide bombers. You will be surprised after speaking to residence of Kabul regarding Najibullah, because a huge majority of them will say they prefer Najibullah over Taliban and/or Mujahideen.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

No. Najibullah was cruel, but so was everyone. And not choosing either sides in politics or ignoring the problems wasn't an option, nor were Afghans competent enough to form a group of their own which stood only for Afghanistan; No one and nothing else. Najibullah, in that case, was no exception.


I know, and it was Massoud who kept refusing corporation and suggested to flee Kabul instead. Najibullah kept being reminded several times to leave Kabul as Taliban pose a threat to his life and no matter whatever excuse people give for him not leaving Kabul, it's a fact that he easily could have and that he was killed mainly because he wasn't intended to hand over Kabul to Pakistan that easily. ISI didn't kill him because they thought 'he was evil', as if ISI cared seeing evils roaming around in Kabul.


Which is a massive factor, mate. Look at all these ethnic mess which has occurred over the years, was it even half as bad during Najibullah's regime? It's mistrust amongst the ethnics why NATO has been able to find their ground in Afghanistan, nothing else. He treated a Pukhtoon in same manner as he treated an Uzbek, whether it was a good treatment or bad. Look at today's politicians, oh dare if anyone even touches their ethnic Qawm.


Massoud's entire purpose to join anti-Daud Khan camps was an ethnic one. Like every typical Tajik politician, he didn't want 'Pukhtunistan' issue to come upfront either. By keeping a few Pukhtoons in his group he couldn't hide his ethnic-motive, which was the cause of his existence amongst the Mujahideen, and now our so-called Qahrame Milli. And what Hekmatyar's main purpose was I wouldn't know, but anyone taking refuge in a country which trained him to destroy his own country, I got no idea what good to find in him? He was an ISI agent before Russians even thought of Afghanistan, what problem did Afghanistan back then faced that he had to work with our enemies on how to destabilize our nation? Najibullah, as compared, did everything on Afghan soil, and nor was it him inviting the Russians.


And that's the mistake Afghanistan made by inviting the Russians. As if inviting Russia wasn't horrific enough, we challenged them on our own soil which only destroyed us, not them. Russia wasn't invited to chase a war, nor did Russia have any personal enmity with us. But Pakistan was arch enemy, so US was Russia's arch enemy and it was a matter of deep concern seeing both Pakistan and USA taking the advantage and attack Russia on our soil, of which the outcome is right in front of me and you.


Perhaps he would have, and perhaps he wouldn't have. For that one 'perhaps' you can't actually accuse someone of whatever idea which didn't even come up on the table yet! He didn't show a slight sign of being ethno-centric, nor did he even mention the word 'Pukhtunistan', which is in fact the reason that if Tajiks respect any Pukhtoon politician of that era, then it was Najibullah for his neutrality regarding ethnics. And once again, for an Afghan living in Afghanistan, ethnic neutrality matters a lot!


And have you got evidences for him 'stripping women' and 'urinating on them'? All Afghan women from all ethnics faced rape, and still are facing daily rapes. Did you even know that it was during the Mujahideen war when brothers were killing their sisters, fathers were killing their daughters and husbands were killing their wives, only because they had rather die than being raped by one of the Mujahideen Hizbs? That's how common rape was during Mujahideen and Khalili's, Dostum's, Massoud's and Rabbani's men were experts in that.


While Mujahideen were fighting Pakistani/American/NATO war, and today they are doing the exact same thing. Mujahideen haven't vanished, they are right there in Northern Alliance. Russia wanted Afghanistan as an ally, they would get nothing out of our destruction. While our destruction was target of ISI, and US/NATO target was collapse of Russian influence.


USA and forty NATO countries are fighting for oil, diesel, petrol, gas, and all the other resources we got. It was this very same USA who funded the Taliban, and these very same Americans know what they are doing. Afghan government invited Communism to Afghanistan, Americans are forcing Democracy on Afghanistan. It was USA with plans made to Eastern invasion way before you and I were even born, not Russia.


And have you got any evidence for this claim as well? Russians obviously didn't bomb goats and sheep, one attack came from the Mujahideen and the another from the Russians. And this is called 'war' were the most painful part of it is loss of lives, and that also in millions. And if you can claim that it doesn't matter how many countries are involved but rather the intention of those countries, then even I can claim it doesn't matter how many lives are lost (which matters a lot) but rather with the intention they were killed. See, not everything is as black and white as we think it is. The matter is way more deep and way more nasty, that's way every single angle of that era should be studied very precisely.


Which date are we talking about here?


As much as you like to ignore my point, a fact is that anyone who was neutral wouldn't last in politics. Russia was gone, but other countries newly started their tricks in Afghanistan which proved that Russia wasn't the target, a complete destabilisation of Afghanistan was. Afghanistan hardly had any 'independent' government which is why we have been very weak politically.


Like someone said before, ISI's atrocities actually made him look so much better than everyone else. ISI wasn't only behind his death. They even planned Daud Khan's death, they trained Mujahideen for the purpose of Afghan instability, they supported Taliban so they can rule entire of Afghanistan per their own wish, and even today it's them who are sending us suicide bombers. You will be surprised after speaking to residence of Kabul regarding Najibullah, because a huge majority of them will say they prefer Najibullah over Taliban and/or Mujahideen.

Kabul is hardly representative of the rest of Afghanistan, particularly the rural countryside. In fact, the disconnect between the rural and the urban elite (who ran away when their country needed them the most) is particularly glaring just at the city's edges.

"History tells a different story. The conflict is very complex, multi-dimensional and goes back three decades. In 2001–02 we installed a government in Kabul headed by Karzai. In doing this, we backed one side in a long civil war—the more progressive-secular and urban camp, Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras, and some Pashtuns and those who live in the north and west. But it excluded one-third of Afghans, the rural, religious, traditional camp, who are Pashtuns in the south and east—which include the Taliban—whose forerunners we backed in 1980s, against the Soviets."
http://www.thenation.com/article/157...talks?page=0,0

Also regarding having to take sides, that argument is weighted in even more fallacy. By extension it allows Zia and the Pakistanis to be off the hook for "taking a side." Also, when it comes to taking sides between communism and the iron curtain, versus the Western American backed powers, I would think the choice was obvious (if those are the only two choices). Take a look at the countries and the part of Germany over which the Iron curtain fell. The famous graffiti phrase spray painted on a wall in Uzbekistan was: "There is no God and Lenin is his Prophet." This phraseology encompassed the attitude of the Soviets towards the regions over which the curtain fell.

Interestingly enough, you are also dead wrong on who the West did and did not support (from Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA Bin Ladin Unit):

"While the assertion that Washington and the West Abandoned the Afghans after the Soviet withdrawal is now accepted as fact, it is an fact entirely inaccurate. From the exit of the last Red Army trooper in 1989 until well after the Afghan communists' defeat in 1992, the United States, Britain, Germany, and the UN worked diligently to install a regime in Kabul that would include representatives of all Afghan groups-- so long as they were not Islamists and had not fought and bled to drive out the USSR. At one point, for example, Washington had three diplomats of ambassadorial rank and one special envoy--Peter Tomsen, Robert Oakley, Phyllis Oakley, and Zalmay Khalilzad--working to produce a regime that would include sophisticated, English speaking, secular Afghans, Afghan technocrats; former communists--even former Afghan communist president Najibullah; supporters of the deposted Afghan king and Afghans who had spent the war making money in America, Europe, Iran, and India. In other words, the West was ready to consider anyone save those who had carried AK47s and killed Soviets. Indeed, a major reason a post Soviet Afghan civil war began was because those who had fought saw their hard-won right to rule being haded by Westerners to Afghans who were nominal Muslims and who had chosen to sit out the war."

You also forget cause and effect. It was commander atrocities that led to their rise. You commit a massive historical fallacy by simply lumping that movement together with the overall mujahideen groups.

"The Taliban emerged out of the chaos of the post-1992 period. In this group’s first successful military operation, the Taliban disarmed and executed a notoriously predatory commander in Kandahar. The Taliban moved on to take on other commanders and very quickly attracted the support of Pakistan, who needed a client it thought would protect Pakistan’s interests. By 1995 the Taliban took control of Herat, and in 1996, Kabul. The Taliban’s actions with respect to women have been well documented, as they imposed harsh restrictions on girls’ schools and employment for women."

Regarding references for war crimes:

http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/afghanistan.html
(from Professor Grossman's the crimes of war project)

"The Soviet occupation brought about a shift in tactics in the war as the resistance forces began to coalesce around a number of factions largely organized along ethnic lines. They did not control the cities, but moved mainly in the rural areas where they enjoyed popular support. Most of the factions maintained headquarters or political representatives in Pakistan or Iran, where they also established conduits for vast amounts of military assistance that began to flow principally from the U.S. through Pakistan. Aware that the mass arrests and executions carried out earlier by the PDPA had only fueled the resistance and nearly destroyed the Army, the Soviets employed more systematic means of intelligence gathering. The secret police, the KhAD, was modeled on the Soviet KGB. It engaged in widespread summary executions, detentions and torture of suspected mujahidin (resistance) supporters. Torture survivors from this period whom I have interviewed regularly identified Soviet personnel supervising the torture.

In the countryside, Soviet forces bombed routinely and indiscriminately; the aim was both to demoralize the civilian population supporting the resistance and to destroy its means of providing food and shelter to the mujahidin. Thus, irrigation systems, cropland and other rural resources were bombed as well as villages. The bombing killed countless civilians and devastated the countryside. From the early 1980s on, most refugees arriving in Pakistan reported they had fled because of the bombing. In all, some five million Afghans fled the country. In addition to the bombing, Soviet and Afghan forces carried out reprisals against civilians, executing any they believed to support the resistance. Soviet forces also sowed mines throughout the country; many remain a threat to Afghans living in rural areas today."

http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/afghanistan.html

Finally, regarding the glaring issue you gloss over and why the Taliban were accepted in the first place (which delineates them from the Mujahideen commanders like Abdul Haq who they killed):

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...714936,00.html

"Scheuer: We're really not in a position to push these people. Who's going to replace them? There isn't anyone less corrupt. Probably the only incorrupt people in Afghanistan are the Taliban. If you want no corruption, give the government back to the Taliban."

And please do not do yourself the disservice of answering with utter illogic dismissing the references because they come from a former CIA analyst. The individual is renowned in security studies and folks like Paul Pillar laude his work.

And once again, you will have to prove that the outcome of the iron curtain falling over Afghanistan would have been any different than it was in the central Asian republics or eastern europe/germany. If not, then advocating that we ought to have simply "let the Russians make nice with us on our own soil" flies in the face of reality. Finally, it was Afghans, and not Pakistanis that deserve the honor of being known as the killers of Russians and the ones who won that war. If you cannot provide me references to show specifically that Pakistanis were in disguise fighting that war and dying in the masses then desist from giving that bozdil nation the honor of the Afghans that bled for their soil.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Regarding sourcing Najib's atrocities (note that the Opportunist Diktatoor took on the name Najibullah when the Soviets high tailed it out of Afghanistan):

"Common sense should have persuaded the Kremlin decision makers to stop the destruction and let the Afghans live the way they pleased, but they did so only in 1989, after almost ten years of war. By that time every ninth Afghan had died, every seventh (or eighth) had been disabled, and every third had fled abroad. Afghanistan lay in ruins, and the Soviets had still not accomplished their war objective. This, then, was the longest, costliest, most destructive, and most indecisive war a superpower (with 280 million people) has ever fought against a small country (with 15.5 million people)."

http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpresse...n&brand=eschol

"Incidents of the mass killing of noncombatant civilians were observed in the summer of 1980, when the mujahideen frustrated the invaders in their program of speedy conquest. Three considerations prompted the invading army to resort to indiscriminate mass killing outside battle zones. Unable to locate the elusive mujahideen, the wrath of the invading army fell on civilians as well, punishing them for their support of the mujahideen."

-Ibid

"Another aspect of the genocide was the killing of civilians while praying in mosques, performing wedding or funeral ceremonies, forming sizable groups for any civil purpose, or engaging in the customs and conventions that constitute the Afghan social fabric."

Kakar, M. Hassan (1995). "Features of Genocide in Afghanistan". The Soviet Invasion and the Afghan Response 1979-1982. University of California Press. http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpresse...3&brand=eschol.