"Throwing Dust in the Eyes of Our People"
For exposing the nature of the Afghanistan parliament, which is full of warlords and drug lords, I was threatened to be raped and even killed right inside the parliament house and finally unlawfully suspended. . . .
Afghanistan is a haven for abusers of human rights and for fundamentalist terrorists, but those who speak for justice and democracy are under much pressure. The Western countries are only supporting criminals in Afghanistan and are there for their own strategic, economic, and regional interests in Afghanistan for which they are sacrificing the poor Afghan people. . . .
There are no human rights and democracy in Afghanistan. Our legislative, executive, and judicial bodies are infected with the voices of fundamentalism. The U.S. and its allies are busy in the warlordization, criminalization, drug lordization of our wounded land, and billions of dollars spent in the country only make the warlords and human rights abusers more powerful than before.
Afghanistan has a presidential election scheduled soon, but everyone knows that the election is a show that is throwing dust in the eyes of our people. The actual choice is with the White House to select its next puppet in Afghanistan and give him legitimacy through this show. The Afghanistan constitution clearly bans those accused of war crimes from running in the election, but the list of candidates includes many of those accused of serious war crimes and brutalities against our people. Hamid Karzai, who seems to be the choice of the White House, selected two infamous warlords as his vice presidents. . . .
By Malalai Joya, Afghanistan's leading feminist and member of parliament
This is but a sampling of Joya's article in the August issue. To read the entire text of this great article, please subscribe to The Progressive for only $14.97 by clicking here.
Plus, you’ll have access not only to the Green Day article, but also to these other features:
--Naomi Klein on "Capitalism, Sarah Palin-Style."
--Barbara Ehrenreich’s piece on the future for journalists
--Ruth Conniff’s interview with William Greider
--Mikhail Gorbachev on the need for nuclear disarmament
--Kate Clinton on the gay rights movement
--Dave Zirin on the Pentagon taking over PE classes.
On top of all that, you’ll get 11 months’ more of The Progressive magazine. All for only $14.97. So please subscribe now.
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Tags:
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Resist Censorship in Tucson
- Banned in Tucson
- An Interview with Carlos Muñoz on the Tucson Book Ban
| Banned Authors Respond | |
CURRENT ISSUE: FEBRUARY 2012
Inside the Occupy Movement
| We visited nearly thirty occupations in twenty states in two months.
What I got at Occupy Wall Street
I spent seven weeks in Zuccotti Park, and here is what I got.
Danny Glover
| The Progressive Interview | March 2012 issue
To Wed or Not to Wed
| March 2012 issue
Progressive Matt
The Koch Brothers Conspire to Buy the White House
Comments
I am in Oak Ridges Markham, I have voted GPC for many years, and I've been a member for a couple. Yes, I am involved with my EDA, and I donate well more than $10.
Noam Chomsky's contributions are on linguistics and grammar, and I dare say his best days are far behind him. His academic qualifications and his public opinion on Afghanistan do not intersect.
So, if you can think of no one better, no one more learned on Afghanistan, then you're not trying hard. Last I checked, a linguist hell-bent on social anarchism is not an unbiased resource on military operations. He's no more qualified than a Hollywood actor.
As a side note, one of his important contributions to computer science is the Chomsky hierarchy, a method of defining computer languages. And, in the mid to late 1950s, I guess he was ahead of his time, but Chomsky Grammar is a most obvious solution to the problem. Had he not developed it, it surely would have been developed soon thereafter by someone else. It makes me wonder about the worthiness of his notoriety (or whether he was just at the right place at the right time).
Noam Chomsky, like a lot of Hollywood actors, has opinions on how the world should be, but he offers no credible path to accomplishing it. He just expects if you behave as a social anarchist, that the world around you will reward you for it. Nothing is further from the truth. A nation that unilaterally adopts a social anarchist structure will find itself pillaged by the rest of the world.
Submited by Paul Bajar Libros