TED: There are no scraps of men

[faye]

so now we are 'impulsively violent' and i smoke dope and my countrymen are doing violence for me. no they are not khushal. i never asked them to, in fact i have protested aginst wars.
why would jihad in oneself be to control the negative aspects if they are just 'impulses'? wouldn't it be because they are from wrong thinking? if they are mere and natural impulses how would one be able to stop them?
thank you khushal for telling me what i am and what i think. that's a very american attitude you are wearing. i think it might be something in the water, lol. be careful what you drink.
you are definitely bordering on the illogical and irrational. keep your kool, kiddo.

[Khostai]

Secualr democrats will come to Afghanistan once again. Becuase only secular democrats are the ones that are educated en have enough brain capacity to solve the present problems, and not like the taliban that only will teach you how to memorise the Qoran and pray all day for a beterment. And don't come whit a stupid remark like secularists are in parliment and that Karzai's goverment is secular, that is bul**** majority in the parliment are mujhahids and former talibs, there is nothing secular or democratic in the current goverment.

[Afghanistan2010]

Listen carefully. What the muslim brothers from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia did to Afghans and what is an infidel from Italy doing for Afghans.

You decide it yourself.

http://www.ted.com/talks/alberto_cai...ps_of_men.html

So we must listen to foreigners to tell us about afghanistan ? lol

[badmash_khel]

Khudai de ajar warki, such an inspirational man.
just goes to show good people don't belong to certain religion or country. infidel, kafir and muslim are just labels. its what is in the heart that matters.

[randolph85]

Secualr democrats will come to Afghanistan once again. Becuase only secular democrats are the ones that are educated en have enough brain capacity to solve the present problems, and not like the taliban that only will teach you how to memorise the Qoran and pray all day for a beterment. And don't come whit a stupid remark like secularists are in parliment and that Karzai's goverment is secular, that is bul**** majority in the parliment are mujhahids and former talibs, there is nothing secular or democratic in the current goverment.

last time secular democrats were in power, 1.5 million afghans died and 5 million fled the country.

[pir_Rokhan]

hahahaha, your back peddling. the only thing you can do is correct my spelling. your changing the argument. you orginaly said that stalin introduced national socialism.

If you think Afghanistan can turn into a modern Soviet union, keep dreaming. Afghanitan can never survive on its own. it has no resources and its landlocked. Afghanistan has to belong to something that is bigger than afghanistan.

really, you think religion is the source of conflict. conflict is human nature. If Amreica pulls its troops out of europe, it would take less than 20 yrs before europe fall back into its cycle of war. It does not matter if your secular or a theologian. The seculars have been involved in wars that have killed way more people than the theologians.

Empires rise and fall, its a cycle. The ottomans time was up, it had risen, reached its peak and it declined, it had nothing to do with religion, and so did the British Empire, the Soviet empire and it will happen to the American Empire. This cycle is inevitable.

The Roman Empire lasted about 500 yrs, The Khalifa lasted for 1000+ yrs, the British Empire about 500 yrs, The soviets about 70 yrs. So your telling me the one that lasted 1000 yrs was the worst one because it wasnt secular, than why did they last the longest.

industrialisation leads to globalisation. that is why nationalism does not work.

I beleive it is because we are still a tribal society. Afghanistan has not been a real nation in the modern sense. the tribes are autonous and dont really pledge alliegence to the state in a way most people in modern states do. When foreign armies come, they come with the intention to create a functioning central government that can extend its authority to the isolated tribes who really dont want any authority imposed on them. You can see this when we say " I am going to watan," we never say I am going to Afghanistan. Afghan in PAkistan say "kuz tsum, pus tsem, bar tsem, lar tsem" we never say I am going to Pakistan or Ia m going to Afghanistan. WE dont have a national conscience.

@Khushal mia sb

You have an affinity to divert to side topics and dig them out of context by ignoring the main argument. I did not say Stalin introduced Nationalism I meant that even socialists [and I gave Stalin as an example] had to consider the national [and not global] needs of socialism in one country as their globalised policy of USSR was affecting the economy of USSR. It does not prove that he was a nationalist but that the realities of statecraft compel you to think about your country first. No country can survive on its own in the modern world. Afghanistan might not turn into USSR but it has a right to claim back its lost territory from Pakistan. Religion by itself is not a source of conflict but if it interferes into the affairs of state then it ends up in a situation of the dark ages. By the way, talking about your view rather claim about human nature, you need to read McDougal, Adler, Jung, Freud and also the modern theory [which says there is no such thing as human nature]. Empires rise and fall but not just like that there are principles which govern their rise as well as fall. We need to know those principles. Even if you read the holy book of Muslims , the principle of rise and fall is productivity , usefulness , fruitfulness and being beneficial. [ Ref: Amma ma yanfaun naas fa yamkusso fil ardh. Translation: Only that endures which is beneficial to humanity].

Thanx for your inputs though.
Khday pa aman

[khushal]

Afghanistan might not turn into USSR but it has a right to claim back its lost territory from Pakistan.

It is because of the pashtunistan issue that afghanistan is in such misery. This policy had forced Kabul to be fully depedent on the soviets and we all know how that ended up.

Religion by itself is not a source of conflict but if it interferes into the affairs of state then it ends up in a situation of the dark ages.

religion interferes with nothing. It actually helps society to be morally just. it is the ignorance of people that takes society into the dark ages. religion is a scapegoat just like commuism was a scapegoat during the cold war and islamic extremism is today. Dont tell me an educated and well read person like yourself is falling for it. Remember it was the Khalifa that brought the golden age that made it possible to translate greek scholarary work and advanced it.

By the way, talking about your view rather claim about human nature, you need to read McDougal, Adler, Jung, Freud and also the modern theory [which says there is no such thing as human nature].

It is human nature to say that there is no such thing as human nature. Hahahaha I kills me with that one.

I am going to have Noam Chomsky answer the modern theory.
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/199808--.htm
CHOMSKY: Not even the most extreme postmodernist can seriously argue that there is no such thing as human nature. They may argue that the exact properties of human nature are difficult to substantiate -- this is certainly correct. However, it is impossible to coherently argue that an intrinsic, universal human nature does not exist. This amounts to the belief that the next human zygote conceived might just as well develop into a worm or a crab as a human being. Postmodernists might limit their assertion to denying any effect of human nature on our mental make-up -- our values, our knowledge, our wants, etc. This also makes no sense. The postmodernist will argue that a child growing up in New York will develop a certain way of thinking, and if that child had grown up amongst Amazon tribespeople she would have developed a completely different way of thinking. This is true. But we must then ask how a child could develop these different consciousnesses. In whatever environment it finds itself, the child will mentally construct a rich and complex culture on the basis of the extremely scattered and limited phenomena it is exposed to. That consideration tells us (in advance of any detailed knowledge) that there must be an extraordinary directive and organisational component to the mind that is internal. We can begin to see human nature in terms of certain capacities to develop certain mental traits. I think we can go further than this and begin to discover universal aspects of these mental traits which are determined by human nature. I think we can find this in the area of morality. For example, not long ago I talked to people in Amazon tribes and I took it for granted that they have the same conception of vice and virtue as I do. It is only through sharing these values that we were able to interact -- talking about real problems such as being forced out of the jungle by the state authorities. I believe I was correct to assume this: we had no problem communicating although we were as remote as is possible culturally.



You have already stated that nations look after their national interests first. nations are inherently aggressive and obsessed with their security, and territorial gains is only constrained by opposing states. This aggressiveness leads to a situation whereby increasing one's own security may lead to more instability as an opposing nation builds up its own security in response which can lead to an arms race. In essence security becomes a useless game where only relative gains can be made. If we humans were not inherently violent we would not worry about security whatsoever.

Empires rise and fall but not just like that there are principles which govern their rise as well as fall. We need to know those principles. Even if you read the holy book of Muslims , the principle of rise and fall is productivity , usefulness , fruitfulness and being beneficial. [ Ref: Amma ma yanfaun naas fa yamkusso fil ardh. Translation: Only that endures which is beneficial to humanity].

Empires rise and fall from within. There will always be greedy people that will attempt to gain control of the empire for self interest. If the political system in the empire can keep these greedy people at bay, then all is well, but these greedy people are steadfast and will never stop trying. It might take 500 years or 1000 years, eventually they will get there. It is these people that contiue the cycle of empires rising and falling, rising and falling.

Thanx for your inputs though.
Khday pa aman

you are welcome, and I thank you for your input.
chay daleel na shay ka wia pa makha de kha

[pir_Rokhan]

It is because of the Pashtunistan issue that Afghanistan is in such misery. This policy had forced Kabul to be fully dependent on the soviets and we all know how that ended up.

You are suggesting, in other words, that if someone takes control of a part of your property then instead of struggling to gain it back and raising a voice against the oppression of the oppressor, you just leave it to the oppressor saying that all this will make you dependent on your neighbor hence you should leave your property and keep quiet.

Religion interferes with nothing. It actually helps society to be morally just. it is the ignorance of people that takes society into the dark ages. Religion is a scapegoat just like communism was a scapegoat during the cold war and Islamic extremism is today. Dont tell me an educated and well read person like yourself is falling for it. Remember it was the Khalifa that brought the golden age that made it possible to translate greek scholarary work and advanced it.

It is to avoid the ignorance of retrogressive people that religion should be segregated from political and state affairs. This segregation does not make religion a scapegoat. As far as “khalifa” is concerned so unless you explain what do you mean by it, I will just assume that you mean the dynasties of Arabs, Ottomans etc otherwise I stand agnostic on the use of this word by you.

The translation of Greek scholarly work was a passion of Abbasids as the construction of glorious gardens and buildings was that of Mughals. It had practically no or a very weak link to religion. The reason is Abbasids were influenced by Persians whom they called as “Mawalis” instead of treating them as equal Muslims like themselves but considered them intellectually superior.
[P.S : More of less the same situation is faced by Pakistanis who consider just Pakistan to the land of the Muslims despite their poor socio-politico-economic and even religious status and consider Indians as inferiors despite their superior intellectual, technological and politico-economic status]. So the crux of the matter is all the achievements your are assigning to “khalifa” had nothing to do with “khalifa” but to individuals [monarchs] that is why we don’t see the same level of contribution to knowledge and enlightenment in others dynasties of "khalifa" - Umayyad’s ,Fatimid’s, Ottoman dynasties.

It is human nature to say that there is no such thing as human nature. Hahahaha I kills me with that one.
I am going to have Noam Chomsky answer the modern theory.
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/199808--.htm
CHOMSKY: Not even the most extreme postmodernist can seriously argue that there is no such thing as human nature. They may argue that the exact properties of human nature are difficult to substantiate -- this is certainly correct. However, it is impossible to coherently argue that an intrinsic, universal human nature does not exist. This amounts to the belief that the next human zygote conceived might just as well develop into a worm or a crab as a human being. Postmodernists might limit their assertion to denying any effect of human nature on our mental make-up -- our values, our knowledge, our wants, etc. This also makes no sense. The postmodernist will argue that a child growing up in New York will develop a certain way of thinking, and if that child had grown up amongst Amazon tribespeople she would have developed a completely different way of thinking. This is true. But we must then ask how a child could develop these different consciousnesses. In whatever environment it finds itself, the child will mentally construct a rich and complex culture on the basis of the extremely scattered and limited phenomena it is exposed to. That consideration tells us (in advance of any detailed knowledge) that there must be an extraordinary directive and organisational component to the mind that is internal. We can begin to see human nature in terms of certain capacities to develop certain mental traits. I think we can go further than this and begin to discover universal aspects of these mental traits which are determined by human nature. I think we can find this in the area of morality. For example, not long ago I talked to people in Amazon tribes and I took it for granted that they have the same conception of vice and virtue as I do. It is only through sharing these values that we were able to interact -- talking about real problems such as being forced out of the jungle by the state authorities. I believe I was correct to assume this: we had no problem communicating although we were as remote as is possible culturally.

If we limit human nature to resulting behavior of genetic properties then Chomsky is right but it would be a very deterministic and limited scope definition which fails in explaining the phenomena like mutations , the birth of a genius , prophethood [to give you an example from religion] etc. So you see this has a wide scope and you can’t do justice to it by quoting an excerpt from Chomsky who is just one philosopher of the modern times. There is a host of others who don’t believe in human nature. One needs to read Chomsky-Foucault debate to know the scope of what is it all encompass , as an example.

You have already stated that nations look after their national interests first. Nations are inherently aggressive and obsessed with their security, and territorial gains are only constrained by opposing states. This aggressiveness leads to a situation whereby increasing one's own security may lead to more instability as an opposing nation builds up its own security in response which can lead to an arms race. In essence security becomes a useless game where only relative gains can be made. If we humans were not inherently violent we would not worry about security whatsoever.

You are assuming a certain theory of human nature to be there again. The proof is that you used the phrase “inherently violent” which points to an assumption. Now let me tell you as example that your neighboring and my own nation - Afghans despite their bravery and physical strength have never been aggressive or imperialist and I would even say they never bothered about their security or relative gains that is why every aggressive nation tried to conquer them or exploited their geo-political status and Afghanistan went through a war in which muslim brother Pakistan gained a lot while Afghanistan gained nothing. It is now when security is tied with the diplomacy, technology and knowledge and not physical strength that Afghans are worrying about their security just to safeguard themselves against their “muslim brothers” Pakistan and Iran.

Empires rise and fall from within. There will always be greedy people that will attempt to gain control of the empire for self interest. If the political system in the empire can keep these greedy people at bay, then all is well, but these greedy people are steadfast and will never stop trying. It might take 500 years or 1000 years, eventually they will get there. It is these people that continue the cycle of empires rising and falling, rising and falling.

In my opinion, it is usefullness and superior technology wich makes you lead others not greed or violence but if you think so then tell me which political system can keep the greedy people at bay from destroying the empires [as a matter of fact there is no more empires as such as the world is moving towards democracies- the reflection of their will in statecraft? Don’t tell me its “khalifa”.

[Khostai]

last time secular democrats were in power, 1.5 million afghans died and 5 million fled the country.

from whom were those 5 million runing away? And who killed most of the Afghans in the name of Islam?

[khushal]

You are suggesting, in other words, that if someone takes control of a part of your property then instead of struggling to gain it back and raising a voice against the oppression of the oppressor, you just leave it to the oppressor saying that all this will make you dependent on your neighbor hence you should leave your property and keep quiet.

You fail to realize that KP pashtuns dont want to seperate nor want to join afghanistan because those alternatives are ot viable. If KP pashtuns really want to join afghaistan or seperate, beleive me, no one can stop them. Mostly KP pashtuns have leveraged Afghanistans pashtunistan policy to their own advantage inside the pakistani establishment.
Unless Afghanistan can provide itself as a viable or better option, then you will fail over and over again.

It is to avoid the ignorance of retrogressive people that religion should be segregated from political and state affairs. This segregation does not make religion a scapegoat. As far as "khalifa" is concerned so unless you explain what do you mean by it, I will just assume that you mean the dynasties of Arabs, Ottomans etc otherwise I stand agnostic on the use of this word by you.

You have claimed that religion should be seperate from the state because religion brings in the ignorant dark ages. I have told you that is not the case since the khalifa has brought us the golden age. you are using religion as a scapegoat for the ignorance of people who are the real cause.

The translation of Greek scholarly work was a passion of Abbasids as the construction of glorious gardens and buildings was that of Mughals. It had practically no or a very weak link to religion. The reason is Abbasids were influenced by Persians whom they called as "Mawalis" instead of treating them as equal Muslims like themselves but considered them intellectually superior.
[P.S : More of less the same situation is faced by Pakistanis who consider just Pakistan to the land of the Muslims despite their poor socio-politico-economic and even religious status and consider Indians as inferiors despite their superior intellectual, technological and politico-economic status]. So the crux of the matter is all the achievements your are assigning to "khalifa" had nothing to do with "khalifa" but to individuals [monarchs] that is why we don’t see the same level of contribution to knowledge and enlightenment in others dynasties of "khalifa" - Umayyad’s ,Fatimid’s, Ottoman dynasties.

you are guilty of what in logic is called a red herring. Again you are back peddling because you cant prove your point. The khalifa created an environment where individual scholars could bring in achievements. The scholars achievments of the golden age was not just brought in by muslims, but by muslims, jews, christians, hindus, and others and of multiethnic people, indic, european, semitic, asian, african. This enviroment exists today in america and others are desperatly tryin to duplicate it.
Again to help you not lose focus, you claimed that religion interferes with scholars achievements and I claimed it does not and its being used as a scapegoat.

If we limit human nature to resulting behavior of genetic properties then Chomsky is right but it would be a very deterministic and limited scope definition which fails in explaining the phenomena like mutations , the birth of a genius , prophethood [to give you an example from religion] etc. So you see this has a wide scope and you can’t do justice to it by quoting an excerpt from Chomsky who is just one philosopher of the modern times. There is a host of others who don’t believe in human nature. One needs to read Chomsky-Foucault debate to know the scope of what is it all encompass , as an example.

I have seen the debate and the french has demonstrated their stupidity once more. no wonder their war theory was defeated by the germans war theory in less than 4 weeks.

You are assuming a certain theory of human nature to be there again. The proof is that you used the phrase "inherently violent" which points to an assumption.

hahahaha, everything is an assumption. isnt the atomic theory the mostly widely accepted assumption of how atoms work. nobody can really prove it. no theory can be proven with certainty.

Now let me tell you as example that your neighboring and my own nation - Afghans despite their bravery and physical strength have never been aggressive or imperialist and I would even say they never bothered about their security or relative gains that is why every aggressive nation tried to conquer them or exploited their geo-political status and Afghanistan went through a war in which muslim brother Pakistan gained a lot while Afghanistan gained nothing. It is now when security is tied with the diplomacy, technology and knowledge and not physical strength that Afghans are worrying about their security just to safeguard themselves against their "muslim brothers" Pakistan and Iran.

just to let you know, I am afghan so afghanistan is not my neighbor. afghans have conquered iran, central asia, india. the durranis had the second largest empire of its time after the ottomans.

In my opinion, it is usefullness and superior technology wich makes you lead others not greed or violence but if you think so then tell me which political system can keep the greedy people at bay from destroying the empires [as a matter of fact there is no more empires as such as the world is moving towards democracies- the reflection of their will in statecraft? Don’t tell me its "khalifa".

many political systems can keep these people at bay, the problem is that these people change the political structure to their advantage.
democracy is not a new concept, it is as old as man itself. athenian democracy was used in 500 bc. the khalifa in its early days also ruled with direct democracy more than 1500 years ago, even the pashtun jirga system is a democratic system. you think this is the first time the world is moving towards democracy. you seem to forget these are all cycles, just in case you forgot I am here to tell you its deja vu. dont worry its human nature to forget.

[pir_Rokhan]

You fail to realize that KP pashtuns dont want to seperate nor want to join afghanistan because those alternatives are not viable. If KP pashtuns really want to join afghaistan or seperate, beleive me, no one can stop them. Mostly KP pashtuns have leveraged Afghanistans pashtunistan policy to their own advantage inside the pakistani establishment. Unless Afghanistan can provide itself as a viable or better option, then you will fail over and over again.

KP Pshtuns have lost their language, culture, history and what not. The KP Pashtuns have not leveraged Pashtunistan policy they have compromised over freedom and have accepted the slavery of Punjab by being silent on illegal occupation of their land by Punjab army. All the institutions are against KP Pashtuns so they are not even raising their voice against the defacto military occupation. The military - civil elite of Punjab have bribed KP Pashtuns by giving them some jobs and told them to forget their language and have imposed an Indian language Urdu over them as their medium of education.

The point about viability is not relevant as a person has to accept his sick mother whether it is viable or not. Afghanistan has gone through three decades of war and is standing on her feet slowly. KP Pashtuns stand nowhere if they detach Afghanistan from their history.

You have claimed that religion should be seperate from the state because religion brings in the ignorant dark ages. I have told you that is not the case since the khalifa has brought us the golden age. you are using religion as a scapegoat for the ignorance of people who are the real cause.

Have you not studied the history of Arabs [which you call "khalifa"] and the fueds and wars amongst them on the interpretation of religion starting from the reign of Usman till Ottoman empire. Read history of Shia,Mutazilla for example.

I have seen the debate and the french has demonstrated their stupidity once more. no wonder their war theory was defeated by the germans war theory in less than 4 weeks.

As I said this is a view subject to much debate and research. You are used to using words in slang more than in their academic meaning.

hahahaha, everything is an assumption. isnt the atomic theory the mostly widely accepted assumption of how atoms work. nobody can really prove it. no theory can be proven with certainty.

In the scinetific method, theory is just a second step and unless verified by experiments it is not upgraded to a law. So this comment of yours is rather superficial. There is a certain principle even for uncertainty called Heisenberg's principle.

just to let you know, I am afghan so afghanistan is not my neighbor. afghans have conquered iran, central asia, india. the durranis had the second largest empire of its time after the ottomans.

What good is an Afghan for Afghanistan if his political views benefit Pakistanis/Punjabis and his religious views benefits Arabs [both of whom are guilty of destroying Afghanistan despite being "muslim brothers"].

many political systems can keep these people at bay, the problem is that these people change the political structure to their advantage.
democracy is not a new concept, it is as old as man itself. athenian democracy was used in 500 bc. the khalifa in its early days also ruled with direct democracy more than 1500 years ago, even the pashtun jirga system is a democratic system. you think this is the first time the world is moving towards democracy. you seem to forget these are all cycles, just in case you forgot I am here to tell you its deja vu. dont worry its human nature to forget.

I meant democracies based on nation states.

You ignored my basic question:

What do you mean by Khalifa?