dr najeeb speech on shah nawaz tanai

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

Saying that Najib was bad is justified. No one here is discrediting that. However, what right did Arab and Pakistani clowns have to murder him? Anyhow, I will get to the nitty gritty, first I want to show Mr. Logic how illogical he is.

So, Mr. Logic, why did they all gather in Afghanistan? For what purpose?

Just keep up with me and you will see why I find your arguments flawed.

[ScimitarXEdge]

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.

That's just a euphemism for evil. Call a spade a spade.

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.

If you know, then why the silly attempts to rationalize and portray him otherwise? I never said the ISI, killed him because he was Evil. I said just because the ISI had evil agendas, and he was against those agendas, Doesn't make him a hero because he TOO had evil agendas. It was just ISI's evil agendas conflicted with Najibs and Massoud's.

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.

Najibullah was pro Pashtunistan; what sort of ethnic impact would that
have had on other ethnic groups? He didn't treat a Pakhtoon the same manner he did an uzbek; he sided with Dostum who hated Pakhtoons. He just was a good manipulator so sometime's he'd play Pakhtoon sympathies, sometimes Islam by showing videos of him in the Mosque, sometimes he's call for National Unity. Ultimately this was Russia's instructions.

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.

Even I wouldn't want the Pakhtunistan issue to come up; not because I think Pakistan has a right to the land, but all these Nations, in Central Asia have been carved out by the Imperial Powers; by making more artificial divisions it's only. The world doesnt revolve around ethnicity. I can totally understand why Tajiks would oppose such a thing, and they're very right for doing so. I'm of Pashtun background, and used to be a supporter of Pashtunistan a few years ago; until i realized how it's a total contradiction to everything that mankind is supposed to be working towards.

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.

Russia didn't have any personal enmity; because they thought we were their property and would be good obedient Soviet Sattelite. Russia saw itself as "Master" of Afghanistan, which in a sense is worse than being an Arch Enemy, because it means they saw us as at their disposal.. Sure you can say fighting them "destroyed" us, but you can also say the Rape Victim would have lived if she only cooperated and let the Rapist rape her. Basically the same logic. The fact is, we'd have been destroyed either way. Most of all we weren't really together to begin with. All the little Romantic Stories of pre-war Afghanistan was simply that Romance, in reality Afghanistan was a poor, destitute country carved out from Imperial Britain's conquest of Asia, just like Pakistan. Only reason Pakistan is an arch enemy is because Britain created the situation for conflict. It was apart of their divide and rule scheme.

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!

Sure I am speculating, but the man was offering citizenship to Pakhtuns of Khyber Pakhtunkhwah; not that it's a bad thing, but

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.

Do you have evidence of Massoud, or Hekmatyar? Do you have evidence of Fathers killing daughters , wives , sisters because they would rather die than be raped during that time?

That's the thing; we have the testimony of people who were victimized. That's my evidence, if you say these people are lying, the same can be argued against you. So either they're one or the other is lying, both are lying or both are telling the truth.

Now most of my references were Amnesty International, but I'll have to search their logs to find the specific testimonial references.

but here's a reference to let you know that Soviets did in fact rape Afghan women and sexually abuse them.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Imp...page&q&f=false

remember Najibullah was on their side.

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.

I don't think that they were fighting the Pakistani/American/NATO war, Russia very BLATANTLY invaded Afghanistan, Without any provocation other than they saw Afghanistan as their property. Pakistan, America NATO wanted the war and used it for their advantage; it was very much the Afghan peoples war, since the things that were going on in afghanistan went against the things Afghans themselves valued.

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.

Sure I agree, it's about Imperial conquest; but Russia was doing the same, their ultimate goal was have most of the Middle East under it's sphere; same with America now a days. I oppose American Imperialism, too; but America's evil doesn't make Russia good and vice versa.

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.

Najibullah was the leader of KHaD; isn't that evidence enough?

Here's a reference about it though
http://books.google.com/books?id=jzX...20KHaD&f=false

Which date are we talking about here?

1995-1996

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.

You proved my point; rather than doing what was good for his country; he served Russia. It was about Russian Political Goals. He wanted to keep his power. Actually Pakistan wasn't trying to destablize Afghanistan, they wanted to use Afghanistan for their war with India. Which is just as bad, but definitely not aimed at destablizing. Now they want to destablize Afghanistan to help the Americans exploit Afghanistan and get money.

You're right Afghanistan hasn't had an independent Government; in pretty much all of it's history; not even Amanullah's government was independent as he was pleading for the interventions of all of Europe. That's why the Government has never represented the people. That's why it was the people who fought Russia and not the Government, that's why it was the people who are protesting America and not the Government.

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.

We're talking about Najib here, Daud Khan, at least never massacred or helped to Massacre millions of Afghans, even if he's a stooge. Karzai is a stooge but he at least vocally opposes the Americans when they kill Afghans, his government as far as we know doesn't have secret detention centers to rip out out balls and stick rifles in the private organs of women.
Which ISI atrocities made him look better? Like Yawkalang? Even Yaw Kalang was small compared to his participation in 1.5 Million afghan deatsh

We're talking numbers here, no way you can tell me 100,000 deaths in the 90's was worse than 1.5 Million deaths in the 80's. That would simply defy logic.

As for the instability argument; I disagree; they wanted stability in the 90's but so they can use afghanistan for it's battles with India. You can't really have a good launch pad against India it's unstable.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Saying that Najib was bad is justified. No one here is discrediting that. However, what right did Arab and Pakistani clowns have to murder him? Anyhow, I will get to the nitty gritty, first I want to show Mr. Logic how illogical he is.

So, Mr. Logic, why did they all gather in Afghanistan? For what purpose?

Just keep up with me and you will see why I find your arguments flawed.

It's not about who's right or who's wrong; It's like the mafia; One Mafia hitman kills another Mafia Hitman, neither have the "right"l but why shed tears for evil either way.

Yeah thanks for telling me how illogical I am; also thanks for never explaining Logically, exactly how. lol Because we all know just shouting a word makes it true right? And that's not logically fallacious in itself right? lol

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

Again, why were non-Afghans in Afghanistan in the place? Answer this.

ps

As I said, don't be frustrated. You will see how illogical you are. Just answer the question.

pss

I will give you a hint: your premise is wrong for justifying why Najib is wrong and the rest are not.

[ScimitarXEdge]

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.

See this is the stuff Najib supporters are in denial of; Najib, rather than say ...F*CK Off to the Soviets; Helped these guys.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Again, why were non-Afghans in Afghanistan?

ps

As I said, don't be frustrated. You will see, how illogical you are. Just answer the question.

pss

I will give you a hint: your premise is wrong for justifying why Najib is wrong and the rest are not.

Why do you keep changing goalposts? First it was Arab Imperialism; now it's Non-Afghans?

First renounce the Arab Imperialism argument as logically false, then I will answer your question.

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

I am referring to present day Arab imperialistic aspirations.

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?

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?

Why do you keep changing goalposts? First it was Arab Imperialism; now it's Non-Afghans?

First renounce the Arab Imperialism argument as logically false, then I will answer your question.

This is the history of my question. Answer it. There is no doubt about Arab imperialistic aspirations in the modern era. I am trying to get to that by posing some set of questions. I will show you that you are not justified for only pinpointing Dr. Najib as the bad guy. Moreover, I want to show you that your idea is not supported by Quran. Hence, don't mix religion and politics. Heads up, this is what I want to establish with you. Unless, you concede that everyone was just as bad as he was when it came to murder, regardless of the type of murder. If we can agree on that then, we can move on. Your move. Otherwise, be ready to face a whole heap of questions.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Ok then I can't answer your question

because you have "no doubt" of your premise when you haven't given logical support for the premise.

You in essence want me to answer a question based on a logical fallacy.

it would be illogical to answer a question based on false premises.

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

I edited my post.

[Toramana]

"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."

"Of all this information, the most troubling concerns the duplicitous double dealing by Pakistan's powerful spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI. While some of the intelligence seems wildly implausible (surely the ISI did not plot to poison Kabul-bound beer, an enormously complex operation with limited pay off since US troops are not allowed to drink alcohol in Afghanistan), the WikiLeaks documents show a continued relationship between the ISI and the Taliban. This is not surprising. In the 1990s, the ISI helped create the Taliban and Pakistani support was decisive to the Taliban's capture of Kabul in 1996. The US has known since 2001 that Pakistan did not break its ties with the Taliban as President Pervez Musharraf had promised President Bush. After all, Mullah Omar and his close associates have been in Pakistan since 2001 and it is not plausible that Pakistan did not know where any of them were."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-taliban-nexus

YouTube - Matt Waldman on Taliban-ISI links

"There was a meeting at ISI headquarters with some of the early leaders of the Taliban -- not Mullah Omar, but some of his aides -- and the ISI chief in the late autumn of 1994. It was a get-to-know-you, introductory meeting. From that beginning, the ISI became more and more involved with the Taliban as the Taliban increased its ambitions in southern Afghanistan.

Throughout 1995, the collaboration between ISI and the Taliban increased, and it changed character. It became more and more of a direct military alliance. The ISI was itself divided in this period of the Taliban's emergence about how to conduct its policy in Afghanistan, who to favor. The ISI, during a long period of the anti-Soviet war, had been closest to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a Pashtun commander, an Islamist. But by the 1990s, Hekmatyar was no longer effective, at least in the judgment of many within ISI. ...

The Taliban gradually proved themselves as the better client. They became more effective militarily, and it became increasingly clear that something about their austere discipline appealed to ordinary Pashtuns, at least in the south and east of Afghanistan.

You describe them as a client of the ISI.

They received guns; they received money; they received fuel; they received infrastructure support. They also, we know, had direct on-the-ground support from undercover Pakistani officers in civilian clothes who would participate in particular military battles.

Is it a fair characterization to say that the Taliban were an asset of the ISI?

They were an asset of the ISI. I think it's impossible to understand the Taliban's military triumph in Afghanistan, culminating in their takeover of Kabul in 1996, without understanding that they were a proxy force, a client of the Pakistan army, and benefited from all of the materiel support that the Pakistan army could provide them, given its own constrained resources."

Interviews - Steve Coll | Return Of The Taliban | FRONTLINE | PBS

[Fahd]

najib is m*********

[graveyardofempires]

"Of all this information, the most troubling concerns the duplicitous double dealing by Pakistan's powerful spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI. While some of the intelligence seems wildly implausible (surely the ISI did not plot to poison Kabul-bound beer, an enormously complex operation with limited pay off since US troops are not allowed to drink alcohol in Afghanistan), the WikiLeaks documents show a continued relationship between the ISI and the Taliban. This is not surprising. In the 1990s, the ISI helped create the Taliban and Pakistani support was decisive to the Taliban's capture of Kabul in 1996. The US has known since 2001 that Pakistan did not break its ties with the Taliban as President Pervez Musharraf had promised President Bush. After all, Mullah Omar and his close associates have been in Pakistan since 2001 and it is not plausible that Pakistan did not know where any of them were."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-taliban-nexus

YouTube - Matt Waldman on Taliban-ISI links

Toramana you are educated yet so guilable.

who made this guy an expert and how do you know what al jazeera's agenda is?

[ScimitarXEdge]

This is the history of my question. Answer it. There is no doubt about Arab imperialistic aspirations in the modern era. I am trying to get to that by posing some set of questions. I will show you that you are not justified for only pinpointing Dr. Najib as the bad guy. Moreover, I want to show you that your idea is not supported by Quran. Hence, don't mix religion and politics. Heads up, this is what I want to establish with you. Unless, you concede that everyone was just as bad as he was when it came to murder, regardless of the type of murder. If we can agree on that then, we can move on. Your move. Otherwise, be ready to face a whole heap of questions.

There you go again with false premises; Where did I ONLY pin point Najib as the bad guy? I'm just saying he was the WORST of them; based on how many people lost their lives ON ACCOUNT OF HIS actions. Both in KHaD and when he became a leader.

Religion and politics don't mix; but Islam isn't a religion, it's a system of life. So your premise is logically invalidated again.


please explain to me how 1.5 million deaths = just as bad as 100,000 deaths?

[ScimitarXEdge]

najib is mordagawwwwww

yes indeed he was, and that was proven by the Afghan women he let get raped by the Soviets.

and these people defend the guy?

[Fahd]

yes indeed he was, and that was proven by the Afghan women he let get raped by the Soviets.

and these people defend the guy?

:O who the hell is defending this ***** !! ?

and what make them defend him :S

what the **** happening in this thread :O i thought it was about talking about the bad thing he did LOL i didnt read any posts cuz its 20+ page :O