Division of Afghanistan?

[Da Bannu Mazdigar]

Always with the military, man you Pashtuns really do know nothing except war huh? Have the Persians been as productive as those effeminate Ashkenazi Jews (who despite making up less than 1% of the population of the west account for more than 20% of its Science Nobel Laureates and Fields medalists), for example? Oh certainly no and I have never claimed as such, however, certainly Iran is centuries ahead of your craphole in Afghanistan and Pashtun-Pakistan (don't tell me your going to start bragging about the oh so advanced Pakistani military, I thought you hated the Punjabis). They've just produced their first Fields medalist the day before, and judging from their performance on the Math/Science Olympiads and academic output/technological growth rate, I think they will remain some centuries ahead of you Pashtuns tomorrow too.

Actually Iran is a rentier state(Classified so) and despite all this please watch the Most latest DATA for Iran from IMF and if possible the forecast upto 2017-18.Iran Future under those mullah is not really bright as it is slowly being overtaken by its neighbours.

Iran indeed should be proud of the lady with nobel prize but countries like Pakistan has already recieved a nobel prize in physics 3 decades earlier when Dr Abdus Salam became the first muslim with nobel prize in science with a total of 16 nominations from Pakistan so far included Malala this and Edhi in 2011-12.

In the End,Iran is not ahead of pashtuns.PERIOD

[tripledouble]

Actually Iran is a rentier state(Classified so) and despite all this please watch the Most latest DATA for Iran from IMF and if possible the forecast upto 2017-18.Iran Future under those mullah is not really bright as it is slowly being overtaken by its neighbours.

Iran indeed should be proud of the lady with nobel prize but countries like Pakistan has already recieved a nobel prize in physics 3 decades earlier when Dr Abdus Salam became the first muslim with nobel prize in science with a total of 16 nominations from Pakistan so far included Malala this and Edhi in 2011-12.

In the End,Iran is not ahead of pashtuns.PERIOD

Persians are ahead of everybody in the middle east and south asia; Abdus Salam wouldn't be considered Muslim by most Takfiris or the constitution of Pakistan, most Pashtun nationalists don't even think Jinnah was a Muslim just cause he was Ismaili -only Pakistani Punjabis can take pride in him because he was their ethnic kin.

[khushal]

^^JInnah was not panjabi

[Da Bannu Mazdigar]

Persians are ahead of everybody in the middle east and south asia; Abdus Salam wouldn't be considered Muslim by most Takfiris or the constitution of Pakistan, most Pashtun nationalists don't even think Jinnah was a Muslim just cause he was Ismaili -only Pakistani Punjabis can take pride in him because he was their ethnic kin.

At the end of the day he was a Pakistani,further more Iran as i said has a rentier economy with no industrial base to sustain the growth rate without enough oil export(hell even under sanction iran exported 50Billion dollars worth oil) with total Export of only 65Billion dollars on the otherhand countries like bangladesh has export of 30Billion dollars.

Can you tell me how are persian ahead of the rest of the middle easterns?and most importantly south asians?

Considering both iran and ksa has a rentier economy with iran having almost 3times more population,it still has a per capita income 5times more than iran.

I am not sure about india but Differnece b/w Pakistan and iran per capita income in 1998 was 7times now reduced to 3times and is suppose to be reduce to 2 times or equal by 2020 without any oil export from Pakistan side having formed and history of intense internal and external problems.

Iran people deserve this as they are the one responsible for having a *ickhead like khomeni on top.If this was not oil,iran would have a per capita income worst than Pakistan/india

[Da Bannu Mazdigar]

I find it really funny when the iranian boost about the per capita and standard of living without considering the Oil input into iran economy and small population.

It is even more funny when they talk of war with iraq,a country that can be defeated with paramilitary forces

[Al-Afghani]

Well, there are also Pashtun warlords as well, you seem to be under the impression that warlords are only in Shamali. In reality the ethnic hatred started with Ahmed S Masoud not willing to share power with the other ethnic groups including Hazara and Uzbeks, before that, there was no ethnic animosity. You have to remember it was a Pashtun named Najib who empowered Tajiks and Uzbeks and then in return back stabbed him. All of sudden they had power they never had before and they became greedy and wanted it all for themselves like Maliki in Iraq.

Warlords appear in a society when their is a weak central authority. You have a problem understanding cause and effect.

Current warlords exist because Pashtuns are poised to take over Afghanistan and exclude all other people, they have little to do with the Soviet war.

[Fish]

So are you saying you're in favor of recognizing the durrand line and giving up your claims on Pashtun parts of Pakistan?Or is your idea of a multi-ethnic utopia only for Afghanistan?

Dear Tripledouble,

My concern is with today's Afghanistan. Durand line is Afghan land and should be returned back to Afghanistan, but the first goal should be to rebuild what we have today not should've been or can be.

I wish those in the west that favour disintegration can stop their dream and think more about the people of the country and how they can help.

[Herat]

Well, there are also Pashtun warlords as well, you seem to be under the impression that warlords are only in Shamali. In reality the ethnic hatred started with Ahmed S Masoud not willing to share power with the other ethnic groups including Hazara and Uzbeks, before that, there was no ethnic animosity. You have to remember it was a Pashtun named Najib who empowered Tajiks and Uzbeks and then in return back stabbed him. All of sudden they had power they never had before and they became greedy and wanted it all for themselves like Maliki in Iraq.

Warlords appear in a society when their is a weak central authority. You have a problem understanding cause and effect.

I beg to differ: had those morons in the civil war only defended their own ethnic territories, and established autonomous rule, instead of competing for central rule in Kabul, none of this mess, including, I surmise, the NATO war, would have occurred. You call for distinguishing between cause and effect yet ironically refuse to consider the still deeper element in the chain of causality: the very existence of a central authority, over which different ethnic and social groups compete. A totalitarian group that can repress a resentful population can never be a stable political arrangement, that is inherently what a "strong" central authority in Afghanistan would look like, e.g. the Taliban. Again my friend, Taliban rule over the Northern parts will never be accepted by the non-Pashtuns just as rural Pashtuns will never accept a western propped up government. Warlords appear in a society after prolong conflict and war, the truth is that Afghanistan as a state was destined for disintegration the moment the Soviet Union invaded the country.

[Smarty]

I beg to differ: had those morons in the civil war only defended their own ethnic territories, and established autonomous rule, instead of competing for central rule in Kabul, none of this mess, including, I surmise, the NATO war, would have occurred. You call for distinguishing between cause and effect yet ironically refuse to consider the still deeper element in the chain of causality: the very existence of a central authority, over which different ethnic and social groups compete. A totalitarian group that can repress a resentful population can never be a stable political arrangement, that is inherently what a "strong" central authority in Afghanistan would look like, e.g. the Taliban. Again my friend, Taliban rule over the Northern parts will never be accepted by the non-Pashtuns just as rural Pashtuns will never accept a western propped up government. Warlords appear in a society after prolong conflict and war, the truth is that Afghanistan as a state was destined for disintegration the moment the Soviet Union invaded the country.

In your wet dreams.......

[Herat]

In your wet dreams.......

By the way, I take it that you identify with the nationalist groups as opposed to the Taliban in Afghanistan, right? Truth be told my barking friend, the only "wet dream" is your one of secular Pashtun-nationalist rule. The Taliban will not be fighting just the TajikUzbekHazara, your group will be the first in the coming civil war (and frankly the only losers in the game) when they start conquering the Pashtun regions of Afghanistan and this time, I think that you will not be welcome in the Northern Alliance either if you intend to keep the country intact. I suspect that the moment a single province, e.g. Kandahar, falls to the Taliban, the non-Pashtuns in the farcical "Afghan army" will abandon the Pashtun areas (even in Kabul), it will be just Ghanis Pashtuns trying to control the mess but that won't be a Maliki-Iraqi Shiite situation for unlike the Iraqi Shiites, the non-Pashtuns and their leaders will have no interest in keeping Afghanistan intact. Lets make a bet: Afghanistan will fall apart faster than Iraq once the Taliban gain momentum (e.g. after their gain of a single province).

[Smarty]

By the way, I take it that you identify with the nationalist groups as opposed to the Taliban in Afghanistan, right? Truth be told my barking friend, the only "wet dream" is your one of secular Pashtun-nationalist rule. The Taliban will not be fighting just the TajikUzbekHazara, your group will be the first in the coming civil war (and frankly the only losers in the game) when they start conquering the Pashtun regions of Afghanistan and this time, I think that you will not be welcome in the Northern Alliance either if you intend to keep the country intact. I suspect that the moment a single province, e.g. Kandahar, falls to the Taliban, the non-Pashtuns in the farcical "Afghan army" will abandon the Pashtun areas (even in Kabul), it will be just Ghanis Pashtuns trying to control the mess but that won't be a Maliki-Iraqi Shiite situation for unlike the Iraqi Shiites, the non-Pashtuns and their leaders will have no interest in keeping Afghanistan intact. Lets make a bet: Afghanistan will fall apart faster than Iraq once the Taliban gain momentum (e.g. after their gain of a single province).

Doesn't matter whether Taliban or Secular nationalists are in power, as long as they are Pashtuns and prevent falling apart of Afghanistan, they are in my good books.
You might not know but Taliban were defeated in their first attempt against Ahmad shah Masood in 1995, After that thousands of pashtun madrassa students of Pakistan poured into Afghanistan on encouragement from military establishment and masood was defeated. He had to retreat to his panjsher valley. Those Pakistani pashtun madrassa students . later became TTP.
There are two important factors due to which your tajiks would suffer a great deal in civil war.
1- Pashtuns from pakistan, specially from tribal areas, would pour into Afghanistan in very large numbers if they were asked to assist them in establishing Pashtun rule over entire Afghanistan. No tajiks from Tajikistan would come to your aid.
2- Pakistan, for her own interests, would prevent division of Afghanistan. A neighboring Pashtunistan would be dangerous for Pakistan so most likely help would be provided to Afghan Taliban.

This time , tajks have no Ahmad shah masood, they will not be even allowed to retain pansher. Any Tajik rebel would meet the fate of bacha saqao. Look at the picture of dead bacha saqao and his comrades

[Herat]

Doesn't matter whether Taliban or Secular nationalists are in power, as long as they are Pashtuns and prevent falling apart of Afghanistan, they are in my good books.
You might not know but Taliban were defeated in their first attempt against Ahmad shah Masood in 1995, After that thousands of pashtun madrassa students of Pakistan poured into Afghanistan on encouragement from military establishment and masood was defeated. He had to retreat to his panjsher valley. Those Pakistani pashtun madrassa students . later became TTP.
There are two important factors due to which your tajiks would suffer a great deal in civil war.
1- Pashtuns from pakistan, specially from tribal areas, would pour into Afghanistan in very large numbers if they were asked to assist them in establishing Pashtun rule over entire Afghanistan. No tajiks from Tajikistan would come to your aid.
2- Pakistan, for her own interests, would prevent division of Afghanistan. A neighboring Pashtunistan would be dangerous for Pakistan so most likely help would be provided to Afghan Taliban.

This time , tajks have no Ahmad shah masood, they will not be even allowed to retain pansher. Any Tajik rebel would meet the fate of bacha saqao. Look at the picture of dead bacha saqao and his comrades

The state of affairs are very different today than then you know; Ahmad Shah Massoud seems to have become a sort of hero to Tajiks post-death but my family remember the days of the civil war very well and during those days, he was considered little more than another murderous warlord commander among common Tajiks. This is the thing you don't understand: the Northern Alliance never had the support of the Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara populations during the last civil war, back then they were just warlord militias who, as far as common Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazara were concerned, were doing nothing but pillaging, looting and killing. It was only after the non-Pashtuns had a taste of Taliban rule -by the time of which the Taliban had conquered most of the country and the Northern Alliance officially formed- that the "Northern Alliance" finally started to gain the sympathy of common Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazara. This time, the Northern Alliance will not be seen as a murdering militia, this time, in the context of the prospects of another Taliban re-conquest, they will have the support of the common Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara.

When entire populations are hostile to you and are prepared to resist, it is utterly hopeless my friend -this is the secret to the failure of the NATO wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the Soviet war in Afghanistan. ISIS may have conquered the Sunni territories and a few border towns but they have absolutely no shot deep into Shia and Kurdish territory, no matter how much support they get from Sunni Arab Islamists in Syria and even thousands of foreign jihadists: this is why at least the de facto balkanization of Iraq is inevitable; in fact after Malikis departure, recently the Sunni tribes have come out to agree to deal with ISIS but only on the condition of Sunni regional autonomy a la Kurdistan, thus Iraq is de facto partitioned even if ISIS is dealt with (the reason why I suspect the tribes have agreed to deal with ISIs is because unlike those jihadist morons, they realize that they have no shot at conquering the Shiite and Kurdish regions). The same holds for Afghanistan, the Taliban have absolutely no shot at re-conquering the North, the non-Pashtuns will resist (unlike in the case of the last Taliban conquest) just as the Kurds and Shiites will resist the Sunni Arabs in their own territories.

[khushal]

I beg to differ: had those morons in the civil war only defended their own ethnic territories, and established autonomous rule, instead of competing for central rule in Kabul, none of this mess, including, I surmise, the NATO war, would have occurred. You call for distinguishing between cause and effect yet ironically refuse to consider the still deeper element in the chain of causality: the very existence of a central authority, over which different ethnic and social groups compete. A totalitarian group that can repress a resentful population can never be a stable political arrangement, that is inherently what a "strong" central authority in Afghanistan would look like, e.g. the Taliban. Again my friend, Taliban rule over the Northern parts will never be accepted by the non-Pashtuns just as rural Pashtuns will never accept a western propped up government. Warlords appear in a society after prolong conflict and war, the truth is that Afghanistan as a state was destined for disintegration the moment the Soviet Union invaded the country.

then what are these reports about Taliban taking territory in the heart of Tajik and hazara territory:
http://www.khaama.com/district-falls...-province-6122
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...89F1MG20121016

and this one where it says the following:
http://www.rferl.org/content/quishlo.../26530471.html

The lawmaker also claimed part of the reason the Taliban militants are growing in number in Jowzjan is because increasingly more ethnic Turkmen are joining them. "In Akja, Sheberghan, and Ankhoi districts 90 percent of the Taliban are ethnic Turkmen," he said.

You seem to forget that the job of a warlord is to loot, not to actually serve his people. When NATO came in, they came in with big bags full of cash empowering warlords and it was that cash that gave incentive for ordinary people to be employed by warlords. You forget that the only place the Taliban faced real resistance was in Mazar and Panjshir. The rest was no problem.

That bold part of your statement goes farther, rural Pashtuns wont accept any government. They like to live with no government, they have their own way of life. Don't underestimate the power of the mullah in a conservative society especially when your forcing foreign ideology on those conservative people, in such a situation, people flock to the mullah.

[Smarty]

The state of affairs are very different today than then you know; Ahmad Shah Massoud seems to have become a sort of hero to Tajiks post-death but my family remember the days of the civil war very well and during those days, he was considered little more than another murderous warlord commander among common Tajiks. This is the thing you don't understand: the Northern Alliance never had the support of the Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara populations during the last civil war, back then they were just warlord militias who, as far as common Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazara were concerned, were doing nothing but pillaging, looting and killing. It was only after the non-Pashtuns had a taste of Taliban rule -by the time of which the Taliban had conquered most of the country and the Northern Alliance officially formed- that the "Northern Alliance" finally started to gain the sympathy of common Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazara. This time, the Northern Alliance will not be seen as a murdering militia, this time, in the context of the prospects of another Taliban re-conquest, they will have the support of the common Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara.

When entire populations are hostile to you and are prepared to resist, it is utterly hopeless my friend -this is the secret to the failure of the NATO wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the Soviet war in Afghanistan. ISIS may have conquered the Sunni territories and a few border towns but they have absolutely no shot deep into Shia and Kurdish territory, no matter how much support they get from Sunni Arab Islamists in Syria and even thousands of foreign jihadists: this is why at least the de facto balkanization of Iraq is inevitable; in fact after Malikis departure, recently the Sunni tribes have come out to agree to deal with ISIS but only on the condition of Sunni regional autonomy a la Kurdistan, thus Iraq is de facto partitioned even if ISIS is dealt with (the reason why I suspect the tribes have agreed to deal with ISIs is because unlike those jihadist morons, they realize that they have no shot at conquering the Shiite and Kurdish regions). The same holds for Afghanistan, the Taliban have absolutely no shot at re-conquering the North, the non-Pashtuns will resist (unlike in the case of the last Taliban conquest) just as the Kurds and Shiites will resist the Sunni Arabs in their own territories.

I didnt see any resistance, insurgency in the non-pashtun portion of taliban-controlled afghanistan, it was very peaceful. Your herat was the most peaceful. Dont expect the people ,other than warlords, resisting. Only westren powers can bestow you people a separate country.

[Herat]

then what are these reports about Taliban taking territory in the heart of Tajik and hazara territory:
http://www.khaama.com/district-falls...-province-6122
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...89F1MG20121016

and this one where it says the following:
http://www.rferl.org/content/quishlo.../26530471.html
You seem to forget that the job of a warlord is to loot, not to actually serve his people. When NATO came in, they came in with big bags full of cash empowering warlords and it was that cash that gave incentive for ordinary people to be employed by warlords. You forget that the only place the Taliban faced real resistance was in Mazar and Panjshir. The rest was no problem.

That bold part of your statement goes farther, rural Pashtuns wont accept any government. They like to live with no government, they have their own way of life. Don't underestimate the power of the mullah in a conservative society especially when your forcing foreign ideology on those conservative people, in such a situation, people flock to the mullah.

This is why I despise the presence of your people in our lands, unlike in the case with Iraq, Pashtuns have colonized the heartlands of our lands in North. But a few districts and a region that borders with Pashtun land is not sufficient to convince me my friend. Sadly but unfortunately out of necessity, Pashtuns from the North have to be made to leave once and for all this time if they continue to act as nothing more than a foreign ethnic colony there. By the way, read your own link on the Turkmens: see what made those people turn to a former warlord again?