Mr Ghani soon disqualified?

[Khostai]

I can not find anything about his grandfather. His father was a colonel in the royal Afghan army and his family were native Panshiris.

His father can't be a colonel in the Afghan Army in that time, becuase those functions were never given to Tajiks.... Actualy other minorities were not even allowed to enter the army so how his father bacame a colonel?

Or you going to claim that he was also a Pashtun?

[Herat]

Thats because you are dumb.

Partition will never happen. You will take that dream to your grave, you iranian troll.

You really are a funny guy my friend, a few pages ago you were ranting about how Pashtun culture is "one of the worst cultures in the world" and how Afghanistan is a Brit creation but now Im an Iranian troll? Lol.

[Al-Afghani]

His father can't be a colonel in the Afghan Army in that time, becuase those functions were never given to Tajiks.... Actualy other minorities were not even allowed to enter the army so how his father bacame a colonel?

Or you going to claim that he was also a Pashtun?

Ismail Khan, another Tajik warlord, was a captain in the Afghan army before he joined the Mujahedin.

[vinyard80]

You really are a funny guy my friend, a few pages ago you were ranting about how Pashtun culture is "one of the worst cultures in the world" and how Afghanistan is a Brit creation but now Im an Iranian troll? Lol.

Thanks.

Pashtun culture is one the worst and most violent and barbaric in the world.. and I am pashtun lmao.

Many nationalist pashtuns can not accept this fact. Thats why you guys want me out. And indeed Afghanistan was created by brits. Can please prove me wrong? Can please point out a quote by Ahmad Shah Durrani calling to himself "king of afghanistan"? You can not because there is not any. You are just repeating all that old fake nationalist story.

BTW my mom is half herati, from Inyil. Az koya herat asti, beche khale?

[randolph85]

You can insult Dostum as much as you want, but Ghani is not a warlord he is not your one eyed donkey mullah Omar or the mountain goat MAssoud.

ghani chose dostum to be his right hand man so politically they are one and the same and i don't know why you insult massoud considering that ghani praises him and his bro dostum worked for him.

so why are you so defensive about insults against ghani? he spent decades outside of afghanistan, and didn't even bother marrying an afghan or a muslim for that matter(not that you care about that) and he has courted a man who's only claim to fame is murdering pashtuns.

[khushal]

It is unfortunate that imbeciles like vinyard80 post in this forum as a Tajik, you can add my vote to the request to ban this individual, nothing of value will be lost to this forum.

On the other hand, threads like these and dialogues such as in it are good instantiations of some of the reasons for why Ive come to be convinced that Afghanistan is an inherently doomed enterprise, and that the only solution in the long run can be its people going their separate ways.

I am not going to comment on these childish ethnic verbal fights and rants but let me just say one thing: MostafaM, your conception of non-Pashtuns is pure unadulterated hypocrisy given what appears to be your views regarding Pashtuns on the other side of the border (the standard one of nationalist Afghan-Pashtuns, which I have noticed). On the one hand, you decry the acculturation of Pakistani Pashtuns to the Pakistani state (largely a Punjabi enterprise), for understandable but nonetheless ethnically motivated reasons, and on the other, you expect the same of non-Pashtuns in Afghanistan. We had about as much of a choice to remain a part of Afghanistan-Pashtunistan (yes you are right, Afghanistan as a political entity is Pashtunistan, we generally had little to do with it for most of history) as did the Pashtuns on the other side of your border.

Regardless of any acculturation, the fact is that we are still ethnic Persians (yes Persians in the same sense you are Pashtuns, don't tout that nonsense about purity and originality because with all due respect, there is no definitive historical evidence that Pashtuns existed prior to the Middle ages) and our interests lie with our ethnic kinsmen to the west and to the north just as yours is with your kinsmen across the Durand line.

You also reveal your own hubris and ignorance when you claim we are Pashtunized, what do you know about us? We share more with those Russianized Tajiks than we do with the true, non-acculturated Pashtuns of the South who are supposed to be our countrymen and note unlike that spiteful imbecile vinyard80 I have nothing but respect for the tribal Pashtuns but you were right earlier, there is a difference between the peoples of the North and South and it not just one of war-likeness, it is a difference that is no less deeper than between your Pakistani Pashtuns and the Punjabis. To treat it as otherwise is hypocrisy.

To reiterate, it will be best for the peoples of Afghanistan to go their separate ways and nearly everyone in this thread, including myself, is reason in the living for it.

The doomed enterprise is the separation of the region ie the separate istans including afghansitan and Pakistan. Nationalism is what keeps the region divided and ripe for being used by foreign powers. If you want to create an America in the region than you have to turn the region into what America is. The way Moa did by kicking out the foreigner and uniting his region and what Lincoln did by keeping his union intact. What they did was bloody but the people of America and China are better for it.

[Azmal]

We hear a lot about Iron Amir Abdul Rahman moving Pashtun to north but never ever hear about Amu Jumpers that naive and impotent Amanullah allow in north. In fact even Massod’s great grandfather was a Amu Jumper.


"Afghanistan occupies an important strategic position. It had a long border with the

Soviet Union. In the past the border had been open from both sides and the populations
mixed freely. Following the introduction of the Bolshevik regime in Central Asia, free and
easy movement was stopped and open opponents forced into neighboring Afghanistan.
There are now almost 750,000 descendants of the Tadjiks, Uzbeks, Turkmen and

Kirghizians who fled from the repression living in Afghanistan." The KGB in Afghanistan. Mitrokhin,V.2002 http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/de...40-english.pdf




As far is Amrullah, he is Pedrams version 3.0…like it or not there is a civil war going in Afghanistan and pashtun need to wake up.

[Herat]

The doomed enterprise is the separation of the region ie the separate istans including afghansitan and Pakistan. Nationalism is what keeps the region divided and ripe for being used by foreign powers. If you want to create an America in the region than you have to turn the region into what America is. The way Moa did by kicking out the foreigner and uniting his region and what Lincoln did by keeping his union intact. What they did was bloody but the people of America and China are better for it.

Regional cooperation a la the European Union (something I am in favour of) and state homogeneity are not mutually exclusive things. As a rule, it seems that the later is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for long term stability (well not counting authoritarian states that keep their populations under control with the bludgeon).

I can't comment on China (I don't know much) but I know a bit about America which is this: it has been for most of its history dominated demographically and state-wise by English speaking Northern Europeans, the shift has been rather recent (about half a century old) and the demographic changes in the US does not bode well. American politics has already been polarised by ethnicity to a certain extent: the GOP derives its base almost exclusively from the Europeans while the Hispanics and African-Americans tend to the democrats. While economics is certainly a factor there, I think it's also clear that ethnic interests play a role too.

In western Europe, the situation is even more revealing: we're currently experiencing a resurgence of ethno-nationalist far right politics that has not seen the light of day since the end of the second world war. Here in England, the left is losing its traditional base of working class ethnic British voters who are migrating to the right and far right, this makes no sense from economically-based perspectives; the reality is that this is an ethnic issue.

Frankly, I don't care much about Europeans, my sympathy is only for our region of the world but there is something to be learned from this: different peoples generally tend not to get along in the same state. Afghanistan seems to be just another instantiation of this law of human nature.

Note that I generally agree with the themes of your posts in this thread concerning Tajik power brokers. That Pashtuns pretty much solely have been the victims of this occupation is undeniable but its largely because your leaders made an enemy of the west and not because of the "Tajik fascist mindset". What those idiots are doing is simply pursuing what they perceive to be their ethnic interests, tough I think it is extremely short-sighted (as it is contingent on a foreign occupation) and immoral (since it victimizes Pashtuns) but it is what it is.

Now in the short term, a strongly authoritarian, centralized Islamic state (the Islamic Emirate) is the best option since recent history has made it all too clear that only it can operate as the Hobbesian "Leviathan" and bring stability. Order inherently precedes progress but in the long term we will have to go our separate ways state-wise because we can't get along and we can't get along in the same state because we are different people.

We hear a lot about Iron Amir Abdul Rahman moving Pashtun to north but never ever hear about Amu Jumpers that naive and impotent Amanullah allow in north. In fact even Massod’s great grandfather was a Amu Jumper.


"Afghanistan occupies an important strategic position. It had a long border with the

Soviet Union. In the past the border had been open from both sides and the populations
mixed freely. Following the introduction of the Bolshevik regime in Central Asia, free and
easy movement was stopped and open opponents forced into neighboring Afghanistan.
There are now almost 750,000 descendants of the Tadjiks, Uzbeks, Turkmen and

Kirghizians who fled from the repression living in Afghanistan." The KGB in Afghanistan. Mitrokhin,V.2002 http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/de...40-english.pdf

As far is Amrullah, he is Pedrams version 3.0…like it or not there is a civil war going in Afghanistan and pashtun need to wake up.

Is it my business that tribal Pashtuns from Pakistan move freely between the Durand line? No and I do not see it as my business either. So what business is it of yours regarding what happens in Balkh?

[khushal]

Regional cooperation a la the European Union (something I am in favour of) and state homogeneity are not mutually exclusive things. As a rule, it seems that the later is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for long term stability (well not counting authoritarian states that keep their populations under control with the bludgeon).

I can't comment on China (I don't know much) but I know a bit about America which is this: it has been for most of its history dominated demographically and state-wise by English speaking Northern Europeans, the shift has been rather recent (about half a century old) and the demographic changes in the US does not bode well. American politics has already been polarised by ethnicity to a certain extent: the GOP derives its base almost exclusively from the Europeans while the Hispanics and African-Americans tend to the democrats. While economics is certainly a factor there, I think it's also clear that ethnic interests play a role too.

In western Europe, the situation is even more revealing: we're currently experiencing a resurgence of ethno-nationalist far right politics that has not seen the light of day since the end of the second world war. Here in England, the left is losing its traditional base of working class ethnic British voters who are migrating to the right and far right, this makes no sense from economically-based perspectives; the reality is that this is an ethnic issue.

Frankly, I don't care much about Europeans, my sympathy is only for our region of the world but there is something to be learned from this: different peoples generally tend not to get along in the same state. Afghanistan seems to be just another instantiation of this law of human nature.

Ethnic issues do rise during economic hardships and decline during economic booms. If there is plenty for everyone, there are no problems, but if there is not, then ethnic groups do tend to organize as a survival mechanism.
The reason the political migration you speak of took place is because Europe was hit with the financial crises it had not seen since WW2. The economic hardship events that led to WW2 had forced people to blame their misfortunes on the Jews(not to mention Europeans were fighting each other for resources) and today most are blaming the new immigrants.
Even the cause of the Arab spring has its roots in economics.
http://www.arabiangazette.com/econom...ring-20130206/

That Pashtuns pretty much solely have been the victims of this occupation is undeniable but its largely because your leaders made an enemy of the west and not because of the "Tajik fascist mindset".

What did Pashtun leaders do that created so much animosity in the west?

in the long term we will have to go our separate ways state-wise because we can't get along and we can't get along in the same state because we are different people.

I have to disagree with this since I don't think we are that different. We have coexisted for many centuries and our most stable times have been when we were one unit with South Asia. We are tied with each other culturally, geographically and economically. Pashtun/Tajiks animosities have been recent and foreign imposed(The west has sided with Tajik leaders that refuse to coexist with their neighbors.)
Even during the 92-96 civil war, most war crimes were between Pashtun/Hazara and Tajik/Hazara and during the American invasion, major war crimes were done by an Uzbek named Dostom.

Don't get fooled by some of the people here, most are venting because they see their ethnicity as the victim of the occupation and they are frustrated why the Tajiks are allowing it to happen.

Is it my business that tribal Pashtuns from Pakistan move freely between the Durand line? No and I do not see it as my business either. So what business is it of yours regarding what happens in Balkh?

Not that it matters but Azmal is a Tajik troll but your response is spot on whether he was Pashtun or Tajik. Those borders are obstacles to freedoms and progress for the people of the region.

[Herat]

Ethnic issues do rise during economic hardships and decline during economic booms. If there is plenty for everyone, there are no problems, but if there is not, then ethnic groups do tend to organize as a survival mechanism.
The reason the political migration you speak of took place is because Europe was hit with the financial crises it had not seen since WW2. The economic hardship events that led to WW2 had forced people to blame their misfortunes on the Jews(not to mention Europeans were fighting each other for resources) and today most are blaming the new immigrants.
Even the cause of the Arab spring has its roots in economics.
http://www.arabiangazette.com/econom...ring-20130206/

A very astute observation (tough Im not talking just about Greece), however I hold a difference in the degree of causation. Most intelligent folk notice this recurring pattern of human behaviour: whenever there is -especially a sudden one- change in the economic well-being of a population for the worst, group conflict virtually always emerges. And so they conclude that social-economic-political turmoil causes group conflict. But I believe this is merely the most salient link in the chain of causation: group, especially ethnic, competition itself is a property of the social behaviour of even homo sapien, it merely manifests in its most ugliest form (conflict/war) when the environment comes to the same (in times of social-economic-political turmoil). I think the argument is getting too Darwinian for the tastes of this audience so I won't push it further but I will say one more thing: the western Europeans instituted the best solution after their second world war when they broke their part of Europe into largely ethnically homogeneous states. And Europe thereafter saw regional cooperation of a magnitude that had been unprecedented for at least a century or two. I am of course simplifying things but I am making appeals to ultimate (human nature) as opposed to proximate causes (economics and politics).
And now I have realized too late that these type of arguments (which seems to be a recurring theme in my posts in this forum) will not be well received here (its not even well received in the mainstream of the west and part of it has to do with the Philosopher that your link cites who contributed to the promulgation of an erroneous, overly idealistic view of human nature) so we will have to agree to disagree.

I have to disagree with this since I don't think we are that different. We have coexisted for many centuries and our most stable times have been when we were one unit with South Asia. We are tied with each other culturally, geographically and economically. Pashtun/Tajiks animosities have been recent and foreign imposed(The west has sided with Tajik leaders that refuse to coexist with their neighbors.)
Even during the 92-96 civil war, most war crimes were between Pashtun/Hazara and Tajik/Hazara and during the American invasion, major war crimes were done by an Uzbek named Dostom.

The thing is that historically our region (actually pretty much most of the world) existed as a quasi-federal tribal region where affairs were in the hands of local tribes and communities (whom pledged to the Emir/King). Think about it, to most peoples of our region prior to the last century even (in fact in many rural areas the same is probably true today), the world generally consisted of nothing more than the village (compare this to the modern technological state). In the modern centralized state, our interests will generally conflict because we are different peoples. Just consider the idiocy over the naming of universities(the pohantoon vs daneshgah affair) or the naming of cities/provinces in Farsi vs Pashto, for example. That idiocy was enough to arouse the ethnic issue in the Afghan media. And Federalism is more or less a soft form of partition in any case; I just dont think a centralized state will work in the long run.

Once again, I generally agree with your assessment of Tajik leaders but the point Im trying to make is that we have to expect this, they will pursue their perceived ethnic interests to the detriment of others and frankly I think secularly oriented Pashtun leaders do / will do the same if given the opportunity. The only groups and types of leaders who genuinely at least attempt ethnic impartiality are "Islamists" which is why I actually do not mind the Taliban. However, tough the ethnic problem will be ameliorated by Islamic rule, I do not think it will go away. Islamic rule can only be a palliative at best and the only long lasting cure it seems to me will be the formation of ethnically homogenous states.

Don't get fooled by some of the people here, most are venting because they see their ethnicity as the victim of the occupation and they are frustrated why the Tajiks are allowing it to happen.

In retrospect, the last few post were far more sentimental than Id have liked. These forums (Ive been reading certain other ethnic forums and must say yours is the most civil) as well as reading Afghan current affairs has been a rather depressing experience and I think I need to stay away from it all for a while. Its been nice talking to you all.

Not that it matters but Azmal is a Tajik troll but your response is spot on whether he was Pashtun or Tajik. Those borders are obstacles to freedoms and progress for the people of the region.

On a final note, I will say that the religiously politically oriented people among our folk (regardless of ethnicity) are generally far more sensitive to the interests of others than are the nationalists. I have been trying to peddle my own "everyone go their separate ways, live and let live" brand of nationalism but I do concede that Im probably in the minority. I think the non-Pashtuns of Afghanistan will (tough reluctantly) accept an "Islamist" Pashtun rule but I do not think they will accept the rule of the "Greater Afghanistan" nationalist Afghan-Pashtuns (nor should they ever).

[Khostai]

Ismail Khan, another Tajik warlord, was a captain in the Afghan army before he joined the Mujahedin.

That was in after the saur revolution around 1979-80, that is not the time I mean, prior to 1973 all the high function be it in the military or goverment were placed by Pashtuns. No Tajik or what so ever, where in the army.

[randolph85]

That was in after the saur revolution around 1979-80, that is not the time I mean, prior to 1973 all the high function be it in the military or goverment were placed by Pashtuns. No Tajik or what so ever, where in the army.

where do you get these facts from? as far as i know, it was only hazaras who did not receive high promotions in the military. massouds father was a colonel in the army.

[khushal]

[MENTION=17960]Herat[/MENTION],
Nationalistic tendencies are not deep rooted in Afghanistan as they are in place like Europe plus European national borders were carved where almost all had access to the sea not to mention the main culprit Germany was split up and had foreign soldiers stationed on both sides who feared the other's nuclear arsenal.
Homogenous states in central Asia would not work since all would be landlocked and one can have leverage over another. For example, Pashtuns can blockade Tajiks where by forcing the tajiks to rely on Russians. WE all know what happened when The whole Afghanistan was forced to rely on Russia since Pakistan's creation.

[khushal]

Also I would like to add that the Pashtun nationalist is not a threat to the Tajik identity since the Pashtun nationalist can not organize his people under such an agenda. Vineyard calls the Pashtun tribal society disgusting but he fails to realize that it is because of the tribal tendency that has prevented the Pashtun nationalist to assault the Tajik identity. That which he calls disgusting is his savior.

[vinyard80]

Also I would like to add that the Pashtun nationalist is not a threat to the Tajik identity since the Pashtun nationalist can not organize his people under such an agenda. Vineyard calls the Pashtun tribal society disgusting but he fails to realize that it is because of the tribal tendency that has prevented the Pashtun nationalist to assault the Tajik identity. That which he calls disgusting is his savior.

What you call "tajik identity" has been adopted by thousands of pashtuns in Afghanistan.