Division of Afghanistan?

[tripledouble]

Since Pashtun nationalists support the breakaway of pashtun lands from Pakistan and also the seccesion of Baluchistan & Sindh, they should also grant independence to the Baluch in Nimroz and Helmand if they really care for their "Baluch brethren" , but it's all smokescreen, they only support separatism and "human rights" as long as it benefits them.

Afghan-Pashtun nationalists should also support the right to self-determinism for Tajiks,Uzbeks,Hazaras,Turkmens & Nuristanis but alas they won't because it doesn't go along with their loya afghanistan agenda.

So if you want the colonial legacy state of Pakistan to break up, that would also lead to the break up of Afghanistan, I'm personally fine with the status quo mainly because as a Hindkowan i'm a privileged minority.

[khushal]

The Tajikistan Islamic Renaissance Party endorsed Ahmad Shah Massoud in our civil war. There are Islamist "leaders" in Afghanistan (e.g. Ismail Khan), I don't see any of them joining the Taliban any time soon, the opposite in fact.
http://www.dawn.com/news/1114008
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-924019.html

In the end, ethnic loyalties will always triumph over religious ones for a majority of people: non-Pashtuns have their own Islamist fanatics and groups but most of them do not join the Taliban. A salient exception seems to the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which, unlike the Taliban, really is a minority militant group (it has never enjoyed more than a few thousand members). The "Iron Emirs" certainly stand to lose from regional instability but a Taliban style sharia group just isn't going to be happening in Central Asia my friend, those populations aren't rural Pashtuns (in fact, they are far less religious than the non-Pashtuns of Afghanistan, courtesy of the Soviet Union attempting to beat the religiosity out of them for some decades).
You are right, how the non-Pashtuns respond to the Taliban will depend on what they do this time: if they leave them alone as far as the rule of law is concerned, I do think the Taliban have a shot at re-conquering all of Afghanistan again. If they attempt to enforce the rural Pashtunwali-Islam mix, I don't think they are going to have much luck this time.

Well the warlords detest the Taliban way of ruling is because their power would be limited. They like the Karzai way of power arrangement where Karzai depends on them instead of the other way around. Most of these warlords are conservative much like the Taliban but the Taliban would limit their power and wealth. This is why many prominent Pashtun warlords joined the NA and fought their ethnic brethren or at least refused to join their own ethnic brethren.

Another example is Pakistan. The Pakistani Pashtuns like living with Panjabis rather than their own Pashtun brethren across the Durand line because economically they benefit in the Pakistani union.
They even side with Panjabis in killing their own Pakistani Pashtuns in Waziristan just so their own security is guaranteed.

The current political situation in Afghanistan is a struggle between nationalists. The thing is that the tribal Pashtun(who is a huge chunk of the population) does not have the nationalist mentality and this chunk of the population have been left out of the political process. They have no desire to impose their own culture nor language on others and they are loathed by all nationalists including the Pashtun nationalist.

[Smarty]

This is a chicken or egg problem: historical development is not so arbitrary, especially with regard to ethnic issues (why is it that group rivalries most commonly have ethnic basis?). And I never claimed that Iran supports us on altruistic drives but the reason it is in their interest to support us over you Pashtuns has historic, religious and ethnic basis. Iran is also currently a Shiite theocracy and their foreign policy does seem to reflect that; however, that won't last forever -especially considering that very soon the Sunni Arabs are going to end their game in Syria and Iraq at least but very likely, if a Sunni Arab theocracy comes into being, Irans Shiite game in the Middle East is about to come to an end. I strongly believe that the reconciliation, not in a single state but in the escalating growth of social, economic and political ties, of the Persian peoples (Iran, Northern Afghanistan and Tajikistan) is an inevitable event of this century. And I welcome it, why shouldn't I? I do not claim that the state of Iran as it is is an inherently friendly one to us but its peoples are our ethnic kin; you Pashtuns desire to reconcile with your ethnic brethren across the border, why are we not allowed to do the same (yes I know we are far more distant as compared to you Pashtuns but nevertheless, we are ethnic brethren)?





An idea from economics comes in handy once again: marginal utility. Intelligent people do not think and endeavour in terms of unrealistic absolutes; its not so much about magically solving the ethnic problem in Afghanistan as significantly ameliorating it. Currently, there are 4 significant competing ethnic groups in the failed colonial-legacy state of Afghanistan, partition will remove one giant one (Pashtuns) from the game, that is one less competitor gone, that means a significant reduction in the intensity of political/economic ethnic zero-sum games.
Moreover, the Hazara do not have anywhere near as much enmity and incompatibility, historical and modern, with us Tajiks as they do with you Pashtuns. I believe it would be wise for us to give both the Hazara and the Uzbeks regional autonomy; in fact, I personally support Hazara independence but I don't think such a mini-state will be economically viable hence the non-Pashtun state will be a federal state. The difference is that you Pashtuns will never allow us autonomy because you know it will mean disintegration of your failed colonial-legacy state.
By the way, tell me, do you plan on giving the Baloch their own state? Or does regard for minorities only concern you insofar as they serve your Pashtun ethnic interests, you hypocrite?

What hypocricy? .Its in the qaumi interest of pashtuns to prevent division of afghanistan.
You are so intensely wishing for civil war, while sitting in west. First permenantly migrate to herat with your family, then lets see how much you desire for civil war.

[Herat]

Well the warlords detest the Taliban way of ruling is because their power would be limited. They like the Karzai way of power arrangement where Karzai depends on them instead of the other way around. Most of these warlords are conservative much like the Taliban but the Taliban would limit their power and wealth. This is why many prominent Pashtun warlords joined the NA and fought their ethnic brethren or at least refused to join their own ethnic brethren.

Another example is Pakistan. The Pakistani Pashtuns like living with Panjabis rather than their own Pashtun brethren across the Durand line because economically they benefit in the Pakistani union.
They even side with Panjabis in killing their own Pakistani Pashtuns in Waziristan just so their own security is guaranteed.

The current political situation in Afghanistan is a struggle between nationalists. The thing is that the tribal Pashtun(who is a huge chunk of the population) does not have the nationalist mentality and this chunk of the population have been left out of the political process. They have no desire to impose their own culture nor language on others and they are loathed by all nationalists including the Pashtun nationalist.

Tajikistans Islamic Renaissance Party was its only significant Islamist group in the civil war, they are not warlords, in fact even I would have preferred a moderate Islamist group like them to Rahmons corrupt thugs. The tribal Pashtuns "have no desire to impose their own culture nor language on others"? What are you talking about my friend, what was the Taliban rule about? They may have been fighting warlords in the beginning but that was definitely not what they were doing once they were in power in Kabul, why do you think the common non-Pashtuns (who are not necessarily nationalists like Pashtun nationalists) resent them? See this is the problem that I keep on repeating, namely the paradox of centralized rule in Afghanistan: centralized rule cannot be a stable political arrangement in a highly diverse society like Afghanistan and yet, decentralized rule is just de-facto balkanization. Afghanistan in and of itself is a paradox, it just cannot work.

What hypocricy? .Its in the qaumi interest of pashtuns to prevent division of afghanistan.
You are so intensely wishing for civil war, while sitting in west. First permenantly migrate to herat with your family, then lets see how much you desire for civil war.

Hypocrite in that you wish for my people what you do not want for your own in Pakistan; Pakistan is a country where the Punjabi majority dominate a resentful Baluch and Pashtun minority and yet you want the same for us you piece of trash. It is in the interests of the Tajik, Hazara and Uzbek to partition Afghanistan as much as it is in the interests of Pashtuns and Baluch to do Pakistan, hypocrite. What alternative is there to civil war when most Pashtuns seem to think like you, because most Pashtuns think like you, we will have to win our independence in a war. And I have 5 years of medical school to finish here but don't worry, after that I will be joining the civil war to break-up Afghanistan. I have no interest in killing people but I will do my part by serving as a Physician and treating the civilians in the war, the risk won't be as much as for the fighters but I think it will ease my conscious knowing that I did not just call for partition from the west.

[abassinafghan]

farsisaban boy , please take your tajikism into your tajik homeland of tajikistan .

the difference of pakistan as an artificial state created by the brits and kept alive till today by the west and afghanistan as a grown and natural state is quiet obvious .

and if you claim anything , than please do it from your country of birth , germany or holland or whatever country . you dont belong to afghanistan and probably also not your parents , who maybe live for 30 plus years in the west .

you are just a piece of eurotrash . kossmadare haramzada , kirem am i ahmad shah massoud ou kulle tajik facist millata . harami .

[tripledouble]

farsisaban boy , please take your tajikism into your tajik homeland of tajikistan .

the difference of pakistan as an artificial state created by the brits and kept alive till today by the west and afghanistan as a grown and natural state is quiet obvious .

and if you claim anything , than please do it from your country of birth , germany or holland or whatever country . you dont belong to afghanistan and probably also not your parents , who maybe live for 30 plus years in the west .

you are just a piece of eurotrash . kossmadare haramzada , kirem am i ahmad shah massoud ou kulle tajik facist millata . harami .

If Pakistan is an artificial state then so is Afghanistan, it was created as a buffer state between British India and Tsarist Russia, that's all Afghanistan was ever intened to be -a buffer state, they didn't want to colonize it because it was and still is a barren wasteland.

The Tajiks,Uzbeks and other minorities in Afghanistan are natives to the land they inhabit, no different from KPK in Pakistan, so if you want Tajiks to go join Tajikistan, then you should let them secede their lands in northern and western Afghanistan.

[Herat]

farsisaban boy , please take your tajikism into your tajik homeland of tajikistan .

the difference of pakistan as an artificial state created by the brits and kept alive till today by the west and afghanistan as a grown and natural state is quiet obvious .

and if you claim anything , than please do it from your country of birth , germany or holland or whatever country . you dont belong to afghanistan and probably also not your parents , who maybe live for 30 plus years in the west .

you are just a piece of eurotrash . kossmadare haramzada , kirem am i ahmad shah massoud ou kulle tajik facist millata . harami .

Nope, no difference whatsoever, Aoghanistans northern borders were negotiated by Britain and Russia, not even your grand-daddy Abdul Raman Khan (may his name be obliterated, that ******* piece of ****ing ****, **** him, **** his mother and father, **** his entire ancestry, **** all of his lineage).

And don't you worry a thing my homosexual (judging by the insults) Awghani fascist friend, however we will be taking all of our native lands with us to Tajikistan, from Herat to Badakshan, every single inch of Tajik, Hazara and Uzbek land. After that, you can have your Awghanistan all to yourself to do whatever you wish, we mean you no harm, for you see, unlike you Awghan colonizing, Pashtunizing, land thieves, we are not interested in Pashtun land at all, just our own, thats it.

[Smarty]

Tajikistans Islamic Renaissance Party was its only significant Islamist group in the civil war, they are not warlords, in fact even I would have preferred a moderate Islamist group like them to Rahmons corrupt thugs. The tribal Pashtuns "have no desire to impose their own culture nor language on others"? What are you talking about my friend, what was the Taliban rule about? They may have been fighting warlords in the beginning but that was definitely not what they were doing once they were in power in Kabul, why do you think the common non-Pashtuns (who are not necessarily nationalists like Pashtun nationalists) resent them? See this is the problem that I keep on repeating, namely the paradox of centralized rule in Afghanistan: centralized rule cannot be a stable political arrangement in a highly diverse society like Afghanistan and yet, decentralized rule is just de-facto balkanization. Afghanistan in and of itself is a paradox, it just cannot work.






Hypocrite in that you wish for my people what you do not want for your own in Pakistan; Pakistan is a country where the Punjabi majority dominate a resentful Baluch and Pashtun minority and yet you want the same for us you piece of trash. It is in the interests of the Tajik, Hazara and Uzbek to partition Afghanistan as much as it is in the interests of Pashtuns and Baluch to do Pakistan, hypocrite. What alternative is there to civil war when most Pashtuns seem to think like you, because most Pashtuns think like you, we will have to win our independence in a war. And I have 5 years of medical school to finish here but don't worry, after that I will be joining the civil war to break-up Afghanistan. I have no interest in killing people but I will do my part by serving as a Physician and treating the civilians in the war, the risk won't be as much as for the fighters but I think it will ease my conscious knowing that I did not just call for partition from the west.

But did i ever request/beg you and other tajiks to not wish for partition of afghanistan?. I only said that its in the interest of pashtuns (both lar o bar) to prevent partition of Afghanistan. I should add "at any cost".
You are calling me hypocrite because you were expecting me to sympathize with your cause because of similar situation?. Well degenerated short-legged tajik, how can i sympathize with your cause when i am a supporter of loy Afghanistan?. I am not even driven by "atrocities" and injustices of punjabis or paki army, i am driven by pashtunwali and pashtunism , unity of pashtuns would be my desire even if pakistan become paradise for pashtuns.
You and your civil war dreams.......heratis are not even like punjsheris, they are pus.sies. You wont come to Afghanistan to participate in your fantasy "war of Independence", you are just an effeminate dari-zaban

[khushal]

Tajikistans Islamic Renaissance Party was its only significant Islamist group in the civil war, they are not warlords, in fact even I would have preferred a moderate Islamist group like them to Rahmons corrupt thugs. The tribal Pashtuns "have no desire to impose their own culture nor language on others"? What are you talking about my friend, what was the Taliban rule about? They may have been fighting warlords in the beginning but that was definitely not what they were doing once they were in power in Kabul, why do you think the common non-Pashtuns (who are not necessarily nationalists like Pashtun nationalists) resent them? See this is the problem that I keep on repeating, namely the paradox of centralized rule in Afghanistan: centralized rule cannot be a stable political arrangement in a highly diverse society like Afghanistan and yet, decentralized rule is just de-facto balkanization. Afghanistan in and of itself is a paradox, it just cannot work.
.

Well, non Pashtuns also resent Ghani but what has he done to them. The warlords, including Pashtun warlords who supported Ax2, are very nervous about Ghani because they don't know him, he is unpredictable to them. They do know Ax2 and are much more comfortable with him.

In reality, Afghanistan is already decentralized. Karzai has no power over his Balkh Governor Atta or the governor in Panjshir or Hazara regions and those governors are in reality warlords. It is them who dictates to (Karzai). So the country is already balkanized where the warlords rule their respective regions just like they did before the Taliban came into the picture. This is the main reason why Pakistan shells Kunar freely and Iran steals resources from the western part of the country without resistance. They are stealing 70% more water than what the agreements says.
http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2012...-of-kabul.html



Warlords can not protect the country, they are not a means to an end, they are the very reason Afghanistan is in a chaotic stage. They were gone and America brought them back for their own interests at the expense of the afghan people interests.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-...set-back-peace

[Herat]

But did i ever request/beg you and other tajiks to not wish for partition of afghanistan?. I only said that its in the interest of pashtuns (both lar o bar) to prevent partition of Afghanistan. I should add "at any cost".
You are calling me hypocrite because you were expecting me to sympathize with your cause because of similar situation?. Well degenerated short-legged tajik, how can i sympathize with your cause when i am a supporter of loy Afghanistan?. I am not even driven by "atrocities" and injustices of punjabis or paki army, i am driven by pashtunwali and pashtunism , unity of pashtuns would be my desire even if pakistan become paradise for pashtuns.
You and your civil war dreams.......heratis are not even like punjsheris, they are pus.sies. You wont come to Afghanistan to participate in your fantasy "war of Independence", you are just an effeminate dari-zaban

Oh you blood thirsty Awghan mountain thug! I never asked you to sympathize with me, I was merely trying to determine whether you are self-deceptive or not, good to see you are not, you are the straight forward Awghan brute. But Awghan savage, you have little understanding of human nature: you are indeed correct, we Tajiks are not a brutal savage people like you Pashtuns who have lived and live on nothing except war but let me show you how far even a people far, far less aggressive than we can go when provoked enough. Let me quote a bit from the opening chapter (On Aggression) of E.O. Wilson's on Human Nature:

Are human beings innately aggressive? This is a favorite question of college seminars and cocktail party conversations, and one that raises emotion in political ideologues of all stripes. The answer to it is yes. Throughout history, warfare, representing only the most organized technique of aggression, has been endemic to every form of society, from hunter-gatherer bands to industrial states . During the past three centuries a majority of the countries of Europe have been engaged in war during approximately half of all the years; few have ever seen a century of continuous peace. Virtually all societies have invented elaborate sanctions against rape, extortion, and murder, while regulating their daily commerce through complex customs and laws designed to minimize the subtler but inevitable forms of conflict. Most significantly of all, the human forms of aggressive behavior are species-specific: although basically primate in form, they contain features that distinguish them from aggression in all other species. Only by redefining the words "innateness" and "aggression" to the point of uselessness might we correctly say that human aggressiveness is not innate. Theoreticians who wish to exonerate the genes and blame human aggressiveness wholly on perversities of the environment point to the tiny minority of societies that appear to be nearly or entirely pacific. They forget that innateness refers to the measurable probability that a trait will develop in a specified set of environments, not to the certainty that the trait will develop in all environments. By this criterion human beings have a marked hereditary predisposition to aggressive behavior. In fact, the matter is even more clear*cut than this qualification implies. The most peaceable tribes of today were often the ravagers of yesteryear and will probably again produce soldiers and murderers in the future. Among contemporary !Kung San violence in adults is almost unknown ; Elizabeth Marshall Thomas has correctly named them the "harmless people." But as recently as fifty years ago, when these "Bushman" populations were denser and less rigidly controlled by the central government, their homicide rate per capita equalled that of Detroit and Houston. The Semai of Malaya have shown an even greater plasticity. Most of the time they seem to be innocent of even the concept of violent aggression. Murder is unknown, no explicit word for kill exists ("hit" is the preferred euphemism), children are not struck, and chickens are beheaded only as a much regretted necessity. Parents carefully train their children in these habits c: nonviolence. When Semai men were recruited by the British colonial government to join in the campaign against Communist guerillas in the early 1 950S, they were simply unaware that soldiers are supposed to fight and kill. "Many people who knew the Semai insisted that such an un*warlike people could never make good soldier s," writes the American anthropologist Robert K. Dentan. But they were proved wrong:

Communist terrorists had killed the kinsmen of some of the Semai counterinsurgency troops. Taken out of their nonviolent society and ordered to kill, they seem to have been swept up in a sort of insanity which they call "blood drunkenness." A typical veteran's story runs like this. "We killed, killed, killed. The Malays would stop and go through people's pockets and take their watches and money . We did not think of watches or money. We thought only of killing. Wah, truly we were drunk with blood." One man even told how he had drunk the blood of a man he had killed.

Thanks to you right here, I will be buying an Awghanistan flat to urinate on, or perhaps I ought to get my neighbour's dog to excrete on it, would you like me to upload to youtube for you? Just you ****ing wait and see mountain savage, let the war begin and just you try to stop our right to self-determination, we will see how far your "Pa****unwali" can take you indeed!

[DSM0305]

Don't argue with idiots. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.

Guys stop arguing with this herat dude. He is plain insane. Look what he writes and how he writes it. And for love of god, don't push his bottoms; He may get a temper tantrum, and that can be dangerous both for his health and his surroundings.

I immediately stopped arguing with him, as soon I found out about his mental condition. So for love of humanity, you guys please do the same.

[Smarty]

Thanks to you right here, I will be buying an Awghanistan flat to urinate on, or perhaps I ought to get my neighbour's dog to excrete on it, would you like me to upload to youtube for you? Just you ****ing wait and see mountain savage, let the war begin and just you try to stop our right to self-determination, we will see how far your "Pa****unwali" can take you indeed!

I am not interested in your internet/youtube war. Upload as much non-sense to youtube as you want, who cares?. Youtube is already saturated with anti-pashtun material posted by your short-legged tajikam friends. Who knows, may be you are a tajikistani not herati pu.ssy

[Herat]

I am not interested in your internet/youtube war. Upload as much non-sense to youtube as you want, who cares?. Youtube is already saturated with anti-pashtun material posted by your short-legged tajikam friends. Who knows, may be you are a tajikistani not herati pu.ssy

No worries then Awghan barbarian, and Id infinitely prefer to be a Tajikistani "pu.ssy" than a Pashtun animal-savage/donkey penis.

[DSM0305]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu5r5OCVVKk

Our friends love us, our enemy fear us. Zindabad Pashtuns!

[Smarty]

No worries then Awghan barbarian, and Id infinitely prefer to be a Tajikistani "pu.ssy" than a Pashtun animal-savage/donkey penis.

Do share your youtube video, of you excerting on afghanistan flag, when you upload it.