• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Top Intellectuals

Batman Jr., you know what?

I only just realised your signature doesn't say "I think therefore I have to do a doody".
 
Originally posted by Batman Jr.
This is the same straw man. Chomsky was comparing the Phnom Penh incident with the Kabul incident (the death toll is 50,000, not 30,000), not Hekmatyar and Pol Pot.
This is true in the narrowest sense of the word but for all practical purposes it is bunk. Chomsky chose the incident because it was opportunity to compare Hekmatyar to Pol Pot. He chose Pol Pot because the Cambodian genocide evokes instant nausea. The comparison is bunk.

Even if someone was foolish enough to think that he/she should compare the worst action of one man to a minor incident in a genocide committed by another man, the comparison is still bunk.

There was a civil war in Afghanistan. Hekmatyar was the leader of one of the worst factions in a civil war. 30,000 (or 50,000) died. In the American Civil war, over 600,000 people are thought to have died.

Pol Pot was greeted in Phnom Penh with cheers. The people were thrilled to have him there because they foolishly thought it meant the end to bloodshed. He immediately started an evacatuation that kill 20,000 people. He emptied hospitals without providing any means of caring for the sick. It was a totally pointless exercise in immediate mass murder.

If Chomsky had really wanted compare Hekmatyar's press with some similar person who was excoriated by the US press, there a lots of options. In the same region, Ho Chi Minh come to mind immediately.

If you or Chomsky thinks causing tens of thousands of death by evacuating a city for no reason is the same as fighting a civil war, then I am not sure what to say. Robert E Lee would be considered 10 times worse than Hekmatyar.

CBL
 
This is true in the narrowest sense of the word but for all practical purposes it is bunk. Chomsky chose the incident because it was opportunity to compare Hekmatyar to Pol Pot. He chose Pol Pot because the Cambodian genocide evokes instant nausea. The comparison is bunk.

Chomsky was only comparing the contemporary media coverage each incident received at the time.

To make the comparison effective, he has to compare an infamous incident and/or figure to an incident and/or figure most people have never heard of. Otherwise it would be pointless.

Your stated grounds for condemning Chomsky make it practically impossible to make any comparisons between the media coverage of different atrocities without having ones entire body of work condemned, and everyone who agrees with you labeled as evil.

Comparing Hekmatyar to Ho Chi Minh, as you suggest, would defeat the point because Ho Chi Minh is a relatively ambiguous figure, at least compared to Pol Pot.

If you or Chomsky thinks causing tens of thousands of death by evacuating a city for no reason is the same as fighting a civil war, then I am not sure what to say. Robert E Lee would be considered 10 times worse than Hekmatyar.

Robert E Lee was personally responsible for the whole war? If that was the case, sure, I would say he was worse that Hekmatyar.
 
Originally posted by Kevin Lowe
Comparing Hekmatyar to Ho Chi Minh, as you suggest, would defeat the point because Ho Chi Minh is a relatively ambiguous figure, at least compared to Pol Pot.
Exactly. A accurate comparison would defeat Chomsky's point. A bogus comparison inflames misplaced angers.

Robert E Lee was personally responsible for the whole war? If that was the case, sure, I would say he was worse that Hekmatyar.
Exactly. Lee was not responsible for the civil war nor was Hekmatyar responsible for the Afghan civil war but both contributed to unneeded deaths. Hekmatyar was fighting for his clan and his own power against not very legitimate leaders. Lee was treasonously fighting for his state and for slavery against his own country.

CBL
 
And how about what Kevin said before those two quotes, CBL? What do you think of that?
 
Originally posted by Orwell
And how about what Kevin said before those two quotes, CBL? What do you think of that?
I hate overquoting in my responses because it lengthens my posts unnecessarily. I thought I covered his whole post in my answers but I will clarify since apparently it was confusing.

Originally posted by Kevin Lowe
Chomsky was only comparing the contemporary media coverage each incident received at the time.
Chomsky was comparing two very different scenarios (civil war vs. unnecessary forced evacuation). They got very different coverage exactly as would be expected.

Originally posted by Kevin Lowe
To make the comparison effective, he has to compare an infamous incident and/or figure to an incident and/or figure most people have never heard of. Otherwise it would be pointless.
Exactly. To make the comparison effective (e.g. inflamatory and anti-American) he needed to compare two disimilar things. To make the comparison meaningful, he would have had to compare Hekmatyar to a similar civil war leader. I suggested Ho but there are, unfortunately, numerous other examples including Jonas Savimbi who led a faction in Angola's civil war or Charles Taylor in Sierra Leone.

Savimbi and Taylor have about the same amount of noteriety that Hekmatyar has which not surprising considering they were similar warlords. Pol Pot is infamous which not surprising since he killed well over a million people.

CBL
 
CBL, Chomsky needed to compare the media coverage given to two similar events, not two similar "leaders". Ideally, he should have compared two similar "leaders" responsible for two similar events, but that's not always easy to do, obviously.
 
Originally posted by Orwell
Chomsky needed to compare the media coverage given to two similar events, not two similar "leaders".
The events were similar only in the amount of manmade deaths that occurred in one city. It would be similar to comparing the notoriety of Osama bin Laden for 9/11 with Robert E Lee in the Five Forks battle in the American civil war. The death tolls were similar.

Ideally, he should have compared two similar "leaders" responsible for two similar events, but that's not always easy to do, obviously.
It would have been easy for Chomsky to find a leader similar to Hekmatyar. I found 3 very quickly. However, with similar leaders, it would have been impossible for him to inflame leftists with anti-American rhetoric.

Chomsky went for effect over accuracy.

CBL
 
Chomsky was comparing two very different scenarios (civil war vs. unnecessary forced evacuation). They got very different coverage exactly as would be expected.
What!!? Hekmatyar went in with his people and destroyed Kabul so he could take over the country. He initiated the conflict. The dispute with the Soviets was over, and he became Prime Minister in 1993; he wanted more power, so he broke ranks with the new government and launched a bloody siege on Kabul, which had previously been a stable and safe place to live. This is exactly why Pol Pot leveled Phnom Penh. Kabul was very unnecessary, and the only reason it was overlooked is because Hekmatyar had previously fought against the Soviets.
 
Originally posted by Batman Jr
Hekmatyar went in with his people and destroyed Kabul so he could take over the country. He initiated the conflict. The dispute with the Soviets was over, and he became Prime Minister in 1993; he wanted more power, so he broke ranks with the new government and launched a bloody siege on Kabul, which had previously been a stable and safe place to live.
Your post implies that Kabul and Afghanistan were peaceful places with a stable government which is not the case. From the time the Soviet left until the Taliban entered, there was civil war. There were times of less intense war but there was never any real stability. There were many warlords who constantly changed alliances. Hekmatyar was one of the worst offender (perhaps the worst) but he far from being the only vicious warlord in Afghanistan.

From Human Right Watch:
Negotiations to end the war culminated in the 1988 Geneva Accords, whose centerpiece was an agreement by the Soviet Union to remove all its uniformed troops by February 1989. With substantial Soviet assistance, the communist government held on to power through early 1992 while the United Nations frantically tried to assemble a transitional process acceptable to all the parties. It failed. In the aftermath, the U.S. and its allies abandoned any further efforts toward a peace process until after the Taliban came to power. The UN effort continued. but suffered from the lack of international engagement on Afghanistan. Donor countries, including the U.S., continued to support the relief effort, but as the war dragged on, aid donor fatigue and the need to respond to other humanitarian crises left the assistance effort in Afghanistan chronically short.

In early 1992, the forces of Tajik leader Ahmed Shah Massoud, Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum, head of a powerful Uzbek militia that had been allied with Najibullah, and the Hazara faction Hizb-i Wahdat, joined together in a coalition they called the Northern Alliance. On April 15, non-Pashtun militia forces that had been allied with the government mutinied and took control of Kabul airport, preventing President Najibuillah from leaving the country and pre-empting the UN transition. Najibullah took refuge in the UN compound in Kabul, where he remained for the next four years. On April 25, Massoud entered Kabul, and the next day the Northern Alliance factions reached an agreement on a coalition government that excluded the Hizb-i Islami led by Gulbuddin Hikmatyar-the protégé of Pakistan. Rejecting the arrangement, Hikmatyar launched massive and indiscriminate rocket attacks on Kabul that continued intermittently until he was forced out of the Kabul area in February 1995. (For more on the Afghan parties, see Human Rights Watch backgrounder, Poor Rights Record of Opposition Commanders).

In June 1992 Burhanuddin Rabbani, the Tajik leader of Jamiat-i Islami, became president of the Islamic State of Afghanistan (ISA), while Hikmatyar continued to bombard Kabul with rockets. In fighting between the Hazara faction, Hizb-i Wahdat, and Sayyaf's Ittihad-i Islami, hundreds of civilians were abducted and killed. After ensuring that the governing council (shura) was stacked with his supporters, Rabbani was again elected president in December 1992. In January 1994, Hikmatyar joined forces with Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum, head of a powerful Uzbek militia that had been allied with Najibullah until early 1992, to oust Rabbani and his defense minister, Ahmad Shah Massoud, launching full-scale civil war in Kabul. In 1994 alone, an estimated 25,000 were killed in Kabul, most of them civilians killed in rocket and artillery attacks. By 1995, one-third of the city had been reduced to rubble.

The Third Phase: The Taliban's Conquest of Afghanistan

During this period, the rest of the country was carved up among the various factions, with many mujahidin commanders establishing themselves as local warlords. Humanitarian agencies frequently found their offices stripped, their vehicles hijacked, and their staff threatened. It was against this background that the Taliban emerged. Former mujahidin who were disillusioned with the chaos that had followed their victory became the nucleus of a movement that coalesced around Mullah Mohammad Omar, a former mujahid from Qandahar province. The group, many of whom were madrasa (Islamic school) students, called themselves taliban, meaning students. Many others who became core members of the group were commanders in other predominantly Pashtun parties, and former Khalqi PDPA members. Their stated aims were to restore stability and enforce (their interpretation of) Islamic law. They successfully attacked local warlords and soon gained a reputation for military prowess, and acquired an arsenal of captured weaponry.

By October 1994 the movement had attracted the support of Pakistan, which saw in the Taliban a way to secure trade routes to Central Asia and establish a government in Kabul friendly to its interests. Pakistani traders who had long sought a secure route to send their goods to Central Asia quickly became some of the Taliban's strongest financial backers. In September 1995, the Taliban took control of Herat, thereby cutting off the land route connecting the Islamic State of Afghanistan with Iran. The Taliban's innovative use of mobile warfare appeared to indicate that Pakistan had provided vital assistance for the capture of Herat. In September 1996, the Taliban took control of Kabul after Massoud was forced to retreat to the north. Sometime after Massoud's loss of Kabul, he began to obtain military assistance from Russia as well as Iran. The Northern Alliance was reconstituted in opposition to the Taliban.
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/afghan-bck1023.htm

(BTW, I realize that this synopsis leaves out the short period where Hekmatyar was prime minister.)

He was a nasty person during a nasty civil war which has been going on from 1978 and still continues.

CBL
 
Last edited:
Your post implies that Kabul and Afghanistan were peaceful places with a stable government which is not the case. From the time the Soviet left until the Taliban entered, there was civil war. There were times of less intense war but there was never any real stability. There were many warlords who constantly changed alliances. Hekmatyar was one of the worst offender (perhaps the worst) but he far from being the only vicious warlord in Afghanistan.

From Human Right Watch:
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/afghan-bck1023.htm

(BTW, I realize that this synopsis leaves out the short period where Hekmatyar was prime minister.)

He was a nasty person during a nasty civil war which has been going on from 1978 and still continues.

CBL
Other parts of Afghanistan were under the control of warlords, but Kabul itself was stable. It still stands that Hekmatyar's assault on Kabul was nothing more than an unapologetic and selfish power grab and was completely unnecessary. There was no justification for it. It could easily be compared to the takeover of Phnom Penh. If you want to tell me exactly what mitigating factors there are that force us to see Kabul as a lesser atrocity, please do.
 
Originally posted by Batman Jr.
Other parts of Afghanistan were under the control of warlords, but Kabul itself was stable. It still stands that Hekmatyar's assault on Kabul was nothing more than an unapologetic and selfish power grab and was completely unnecessary.
Chomsky made his quote in December of 1993. Therefore any relevent period of stability must have been before then.

Najibullah's Soviet supported government fell in April 1992. Therefore any relevent period of stability must have been after then.

Here is a quote for the entire period. It does mention relative peace for three months but that it not what I call stability. (The Shia group Wahdat was the first to attack Kabul after this peace.)

I will bold the two mentions of Hekmatyar rocket attacks.

Mujaddidi had little chance to organize a government during his two months as interim president. Hekmatyar was an immediate threat: Mujaddidi was nearly killed when his plane was hit by a Hezb rocket. The cumbersome Leadership Council assured meddling by the parties, and the government's very uncertain security depended on a motley mix of army units taken over from Najib's government, Mausood's forces, and elements of Dostam's militia. Attempting to find maneuvering room, Mujaddidi favored Dostam as a regional power whom he might balance against Massoud, who had taken charge of the defense ministry. The President raised Dostam's rank from militia chief to senior army general.

Mujaddidi attempted to extend his short term, but lacked the political leverage to offset the military weakness of his party. His resentment toward Rabbani, his successor, would later add to the rivalries between mujahidin politics.

Rabbani and Massoud attempted to create a national army by recruitment of mujahidin rank and file primarily to gain government control over Kabul itself. It had been divided into separate armed camps of mujahidin who settled among their own ethnic groups clustered in separate neighborhoods. These efforts were interrupted by Hekmatyar's first major rocket attack on the city in August, 1992. His forces were pushed back jointly by Massoud and Dostam. Under Pakistani pressure Rabbani agreed to a cease-fire which brought general peace to the city for more than three months. Massoud attempted to recruit leaders from other parties, including the Shias, for senior military positions. Mazari's Hezb-i-Wahdat party was assigned two cabinet positions.

With Hekmatyar apparently deflated, Rabbani's government concentrated on preparing for a national shura which was to draft a constitution and choose an interim government for the next eighteen months. The accord reached in Peshawar in April called for elections at the end of the second interim period. The Leadership council gave Rabbani an extension until December to complete the drafting. His proposal for the next interim period was ambitious. He called for a Shura-yi-Ahl-i Hal-u-'Aqd (Council of Resolution and Settlement). A comprehensive effort was made to convene a large assembly representing sentiment in every district in the country. Some 1,400 representatives were brought to Kabul in mid-December where they overwhelmingly (916 to 59 with 366 abstentions) voted to elect Rabbani to a full two-year term, not the eighteen months mandated by the Peshawar accords.

The backlash from this decision reshuffled alignments and took the Islamic Republic's politics in an uncharted direction. Among the major parties only Jamiat (from which Rabbani formally resigned to assume the new presidency), Muhammad Nabi's Harakat, and Sayyaf's Ittehad accepted the election. Gailani and Mujaddidi (vexed already by the extension of Rabbani's term) joined Khalis, Hekmatyar, Mazari, and Dostam to oppose it on grounds that the election had been rigged and was not representative of the country. Rabbani had attempted to garner a popular mandate and instead had united his rivals, greatly strengthening Hekmatyar's position.

Rabbani was immediately thrown on the defensive, politically and militarily. Alienated by government attempts to get control of the city, the Shia Wahdat had attacked the government in western Kabul before the council met and was temporarily supported by Dostam's units on the other side of the city. These assaults were quickly repulsed, but immediately after Rabbani's election Hekmatyar attacked with Wahdat support. The city was again massively rocketed until mid-February. Only three foreign embassies remained open in the capital: Italy's, India's, and China's. For the government there was one compensation: Sayyaf, the most consistent ideologue of the party leaders, maintained his alliance with the government in order to pursue his sectarian struggle with the Shias
http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-126.html

The first rocket attack took place within 4 months of the fall of the Najibbullah. There were armed camps of ethnic group within Kabul - not very stable.

The second round of rocket attacks were preceded by two other attacks on Kabul by other warlords. Again - no stability.

CBL
 

Back
Top Bottom