Martyrdom of Dr Najibullah

[roadrunner]

Before saying something negative about him you all should first understand who he was, what he did and what he predicted of afghanistan. The current state of afghanistan was predicted by him long time ago... i can even find you the video on youtube... he says it clearly that if i leave, arabs will come here, pakistanis will come here... soviets have left.. lets work together, lets put our arms down and work for the betterment of this country... lets be united... he was addressing this speech to mujahideen and he said , if you want this chair this government, it is yours, i will leave it to you but i am sure you will see you will have arabs and pakistanis ruling you and ruling afghan milllat...

Do you agree that Najibullah was a Soviet stooge or not?

If no, then I would say to look at when he came to power, in 1986 at the height of Soviet interference in Afghanistan.

If yes, then why support a Soviet stooge?

I'm not saying the president of Afghanistan should not have a leader influenced by some foreign governments. All political leaders are. But the Soviets would not have cared one $ for the interests of Afghanistan. It would not have been like a Canada-USA relationship. It would have been like Saudi Arabia exerting influence over the USA. Not many Americans would agree with that sort of relationship.

He was a member of Khad... Afghanistan's intelligence agency, and what all he did was required by his job and i am not saying all of that was positive, but as a politician his goal was to work for afghans and afghanistan. he could have run away from afghanistan if he wanted to and no one could ever reach him and harm him... many countries had offered him exile but he DIDN'T... he stayed there in afghanistan till he took his last breath...

Khad was also ruthless. Do you believe Khad were decent with the people of Afghanistan? Just a question, I'm not 100% sure of the answer myself to that.

the dirty pakistani ISI killed him to further their own agenda in Afghanistan... if he was a criminal or he was a saint an outsider had no right to kill him.

my own cousins were standing witnessing this and they told me that all of this dirty people that hanged him were speaking Urdu saying "chalo chalo hato, peechay hojao" they were all panjabis along side sold out pashtoons!

This isn't evidence.

The Mujahideen was a primarily Afghan force, predominantly Pashtun.

If these so-called Punjabis in the ranks killed Najibullah when the Afghan Pashtuns did not want them to, I'm sure the Punjabis would not have lasted long.

So, it's highly unlikely what you say is true. But provide evidence. I'd like to have it, and I will change my mind.

[Maiwand]

ahaha, "martyrdom" of a former communist leader who is responsible for the killing of many muslims.

[roadrunner]

Even though Hekmatyar was a Pukhtoon, yet he very bravely was in slavery for foreigners. Even though one eyed donkey Mullah Omar is a Pukhtoon, yet he will not give up on his loyalty to ISI. Even though Karzai is a Pukhtoon, yet he will not give up on his loyalty to 40+ NATO states. Surprised? Don't be!

Being pro-Soviet for an Afghan leader was not in Afghanistan's interests.

The Soviets could not have cared less about Afghanistan.

They were there to steal minerals, oil, and gain passage to the Sea near the Persian Gulf.

Anyone who is installed into power under the eye of any foreigner whose interests are not aligned with the Afghan people are stooges. You need someone like a USA-Canada relationship, not a Soviet-Afghan one.

Eh, dude, by the time Najibullah was in 'charge', Soviet army was already gone and nor did they intend to come back......

Najibullah became president in 1986?

That was the height of Soviet interference.

Or the fact that Najibullah knew exactly which forty countries will rule Afghanistan, if not communism? Or the fact that he was the only one who didn't escape the Taliban till his dead. Orrrrr, the fact he was the only leader since past three decades who did not invite any foreign army/soldiers/terrorists to the country? Reasons enough?

See above.

[roadrunner]

That isn't the point.

The Taliban are just a product of the Soviet invasion.

You invade, destroy everything, tell people have faith in God and that deobandi militancy will save you, they will start acting like the Taliban. It doesn't matter who they are.

Najibullah was happy to do the work of the Soviets in Afghanistan. He did not know the Soviets were going to withdraw in 1986.

The ideal scenario should have been this:

Soviets invade.
No Afghan sides with the Soviets since they are invaders that have come to steal
Soviets leave
Afghans rejoice and a leadership takes over
Afghanistan prospers and the Mujahideen reeducate themselves.

So you're still talking about someone who did side with the Soviet invaders.

The question might be did he side with them because Afghanistan had nothing anyway, and the Soviets were in the best position to heal Afghanistan at that point. Either way they would still have stolen Afghanistan's wealth.

[roadrunner]

I agree with you but it was either we side with the soviets and try to develop our country or we set ourselves up for failure. Look at what the soviets ended up doing to our Afghanistan. Wouldn't have it been better if we could have been allies with soviets and by diplomacy we could have limited the influence they have on our politics?

This is a legitimate question.

But on the other hand, the Soviets were not interested in being your ally.

They were interested in all those minerals you have in the mountains.

The Nazis invaded France in 1942.

Some of the French sided with them, I suspect because they didn't want to get on the wrong side of the Nazis.

Some French joined the French resistance and fought them.

The French resistance are regarded as heroes that liberated France. The Nazi collaborators are regarded as traitors.

If Najabullah were a Frenchman, he would have been regarded as a traitor by his actions.

The main difference between what happened to France and what happened to Afghanistan is probably down to the warlord structure that was created in Afghanistan. The French resistance did not have this sort of format.

[BLS_1919v2.0]

Those are not entirely the same...the Saur revolution came into Afghanistan before one soviet troop even stepped in. The Americans (according to Brzezinski) had set the stage to entice the Soviets into Afghanistan...the Afghan bear trap was what it was called.

[roadrunner]

Those are not entirely the same...the Saur revolution came into Afghanistan before one soviet troop even stepped in. The Americans (according to Brzezinski) had set the stage to entice the Soviets into Afghanistan...the Afghan bear trap was what it was called.

Yes, they're not entirely the same.

But if a Frenchman had acted the way Najibullah did (for example Maurice Papon who was a Frenchman that aided the invading Nazis), do you think he was a hero or a traitor?

He, Papon, could also say that Nazi Germany was too powerful and he just wanted to collaborate with them so that France would be spared.

[Sher Malang]

Guys, as of following the hadith we shall not be taking bad about dead people. kindly pray for him.

[BLS_1919v2.0]

Yes, they're not entirely the same.

But if a Frenchman had acted the way Najibullah did (for example Maurice Papon who was a Frenchman that aided the invading Nazis), do you think he was a hero or a traitor?

He, Papon, could also say that Nazi Germany was too powerful and he just wanted to collaborate with them so that France would be spared.

He was not the one who invited them in...he was head of KHAD at the time. You can't use that example. For Babrak Karmal yes but not him. He was presiding when the soviets had left and he was there during the 90s civil war.

[roadrunner]

He was not the one who invited them in...he was head of KHAD at the time. You can't use that example. For Babrak Karmal yes but not him. He was presiding when the soviets had left and he was there during the 90s civil war.

Does it matter?

When the Nazis invaded the Vichy people of France were not ruling, and didn't invite them in.

But when the Nazis were in, the Vichy rulers collaborated with the Nazis.

So Najilbullah didn't invite the Soviets in, but he did eventually collaborate with the Soviets.

Aren't they alike?

[BLS_1919v2.0]

Does it matter?

When the Nazis invaded the Vichy people of France were not ruling, and didn't invite them in.

But when the Nazis were in, the Vichy rulers collaborated with the Nazis.

So Najilbullah didn't invite the Soviets in, but he did eventually collaborate with the Soviets.

Aren't they alike?

You are looking for things where they aren't. In order for your example to hold then you would need to use a personality in the Vichy government who rose to power in such circumstances was able to survive a good 5-6 years after the fall of Nazis and on top of that be able to predict many (if not all) of the issues that would plague Afghanistan. BTW I am not a fan of him either, but you have to call a spade a spade.

[drona]

Umm .. Mr.Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor to Carter said in an interview with the French news magazine Le Nouvel Observateu that :

"We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would... That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Soviets into the Afghan trap... The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, "We now have the opportunity of giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War."

Source:CRG -- The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
Read the full interview.

Hmmm ... So which neighboring country is the US puppet in the region which allowed it to carry out its dastardly plan for Afghanistan that will culminate in the Soviet invasion ?

Regards,
Drona

[drona]

BTW, I saw Dr. Najibullah's wife when she came to attend (about 4-5 yrs ago) a seminar organized in the University in which I am studying. She seemed a very dignified and resilient woman. I think she is still is living here in Delhi with her daughters. I hope she has found some peace.

~Drona

[roadrunner]

You are looking for things where they aren't. In order for your example to hold then you would need to use a personality in the Vichy government who rose to power in such circumstances was able to survive a good 5-6 years after the fall of Nazis and on top of that be able to predict many (if not all) of the issues that would plague Afghanistan. BTW I am not a fan of him either, but you have to call a spade a spade.

If Phillippe Petain managed to hang onto power 5-6 years after the Nazis had left, do you think it would have made any difference to how the French viewed the Nazi collaborators?

Jean Moulin is widely considered a hero in France, for his role in the French Resistance.

Petain is not considered a hero by the French even though he was considered a hero for his role in WW1. It was his action of siding with the Nazis in WW2 that many saw as treason.

[BLS_1919v2.0]

If Phillippe Petain managed to hang onto power 5-6 years after the Nazis had left, do you think it would have made any difference to how the French viewed the Nazi collaborators?

Jean Moulin is widely considered a hero in France, for his role in the French Resistance.

Petain is not considered a hero by the French even though he was considered a hero for his role in WW1. It was his action of siding with the Nazis in WW2 that many saw as treason.

Lolzz look at the requirements I gave you and put it in context to what happened to Afghanistan. As of now you are arguing just to argue and holding onto threads. You are comparing two entirely different regimes that took place in two very seperate circumstances with a very different political dynamic in each.