Tajik leaders

[DSM0305]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10201199975199983

This is the consequences of Atta noor and Abdullah. Tajik people vote/support for them solely because of ethnic nationalism and see what that have brought them. If they for a moment looked past of ethnicity and supported Ashraf Ghani or Ramazan Bashardost, who will help all Afghan people, they wouldn't be in this condition. Billions $ of aid money is poured into Afghanistan for poor people, but is stolen by these so called Tajik 'leaders'. Atta noor have built several castle sized houses from money that was supposed to go to the poor. Now look at the consequences.

[Herat]

False, the populations do not support those wretched warlords because of "ethnic nationalism" in the formal political sense of that phrase, the correct term is what the sociobiologist Pierre Van Den Berghe calls "ethnic nepotism", that is, the natural tendency to favour "our people" at the expense of "others" and complementarily what the social and evolutionary psychologist Jonathan Haidt terms "groupishness" - an analog of "selfishness": the predisposition to favour own specific social group at the expense of others - both are aspects of human nature. The second of the two phenomena underlies the Pashtun nationalist support for Ghani vs the tribal Pashtun support for the Taliban.
So you see the real problem here is once again, ethnic heterogeneity, when you have all these different and incompatible folk living together, they tend to resort to ethnic and group interests instead of the meritocracy. The solution once again is the partition of Afghanistan.

[Al-Afghani]

These warlords only exist because Pashtuns are intent on exclusively ruling all of Afghanistan. It's Pashtun racism that allows ethnic warlords to thrive.

Pashtuns didn't allow TajiksUzbeksHazaras to participate in politics, now they have to live with the consequences.

[Badlun]

The solution once again is the partition of Afghanistan.

The solution cannot be a country like Switzerland, Belgium or Canada? Many languages, ethnicities, cultures but one nation and developed country.Every region has its language and culture and no strifes or clashes or violence.

[Herat]

The solution cannot be a country like Switzerland, Belgium or Canada? Many languages, ethnicities, cultures but one nation and developed country.Every region has its language and culture and no strifes or clashes or violence.

Those states all have their own problems with ethnicity, it happens that they are not nearly as severe as typically tends to be the case for the third world and I suspect that the root has something to do with, as most things do, the human development index. In any case, exceptions do not negate the rule of thumb, it is probably possible to make a third world multi-ethnic state work but it is obviously extraordinarily difficult to do so.
I prefer, as a personal precept, what is known as the "principle of least effort": the easiest path, the path of least resistance, to any goal is the most efficient. My goal is to improve the human condition and to that end, I have come to the conclusion, ceteris paribus, in the light of the scientific literature on the phenomenon of ethnicity, that the ethnic-state is the path that requires the least effort.

[Toramana]

[MENTION=8995]DSM0305[/MENTION]

It is a bizarre logic. Because some leaders from your ethnic and linguistic group have done corruption, so that makes it mandatory for you to elect leaders from another (and perceptibly the rival) ethno-linguistic group. This is how different groups disguise their political motives.

By the same token why shouldn't Jewish leaders from Israel be leaders of Muslims or Palestinian because they are more honest and capable than Muslim and Palestinian leaders. Or in global affairs, the right of decision making should be given exclusively to European because of their higher integrity and professionalism.

Isn't it the democratic and natural right of every group to elect whoever they want? When will we become honest and moral and go by the same rule ourselves that we choose for others?

[DSM0305]

False, the populations do not support those wretched warlords because of "ethnic nepotism" in the formal political sense of that phrase, the correct term is what historians calls "ethnic fascism", that is, the natural tendency to favour "our people" at the expense of "others" and complementarily what the social and evolutionary psychologist Jonathan Haidt terms "groupishness" - an analog of "selfishness": the predisposition to favour own specific social group at the expense of others - both are aspects of human nature. The third term ''economist/nation builder'' can be used to describe Ghani and his supporters who happens to be Pashtuns vs the religious extremist who are not necessary Pashtun but support the Taliban.
So you see the real problem here is once again, Tajik ethnic fascism, when you have all these different and incompatible folk living together, they tend to resort to ethnic and group interests instead of the meritocracy. The solution once again is that Tajiks in Afghanistan drop their fascist approach.



Herat, now I literally used the exact same rhetoric you did. A few changes here and there, and the text can be reused for any other posts as-well.

In case you didn't get my point. You keep using the same rhetoric and repeat it over and over. There is no meat in your arguments/statements. Putting a few terms and a few names as makeover, doesn't exactly do any good to your core point.

[Toramana]

The solution cannot be a country like Switzerland, Belgium or Canada? Many languages, ethnicities, cultures but one nation and developed country.Every region has its language and culture and no strifes or clashes or violence.

Every region has its language and culture ....but there is one nation. How? Isn't it another Taleb type utopia expecting all people will be living happily ever after in the face of the fact that the "national leaders" -in order to invent a nation and engender national unity-impose alien languages and cultures on small native groups ?

[DSM0305]

@DSM0305

It is a bizarre logic. Because some leaders from your ethnic and linguistic group have done corruption, so that makes it mandatory for them to elect leaders from another (and perceptibly the rival) ethno-linguistic group. This is how different groups disguise their political motives.

By the same token why shouldn't Jewish leaders from Israel leaders of Muslims or Palestinian because they are more honest and capable than Muslim and Palestinian leaders. Or in international terms, the right of decision making about global matters be given to European because of their integrity and professionalism.

Isn't it the democratic and natural right of every group to elect whoever they want? When will we become honest and moral and go by the same rule we choose for others?

This isn't about ethnicity. I honestly couldn't care less if a Tajik or Hazara rules the entire country.
My point is that they chose a leader who is a warlord and doesn't help his own people. They can elect/vote for a Tajik as long that he helps the people, which isn't the case here.
Ramazan Bashadost as an example who is a Hazara, I would personally chose him as a leader over any other, despite him being a Hazara. The reason is plain and simply, because he will do good for the people.
They can vote for their own ethnicity if that what they wish for, but that particular leader should help his people with all his might.
Take this video as an example.
- The people are from the north, most likely Tajiks
- The people who rules the north is Atta noor and company(who also are tajiks)
- Atta noor uses billions $ of aid money which are supposed to go to the poor(like these people in this video), but instead Atta noor use those money for his own personal benefit.
Now my point is, why chose a leader who steals poor peoples money, instead of a leader that will do good for them.

My point isn't, ''why they support a tajik'', but rather ''why they don't support a competent leader''.

[Al-Afghani]

This isn't about ethnicity. I honestly couldn't care less if a Tajik or Hazara rules the entire country.
My point is that they chose a leader who is a warlord and doesn't help his own people. They can elect/vote for a Tajik as long that he helps the people, which isn't the case here.
Ramazan Bashadost as an example who is a Hazara, I would personally chose him as a leader over any other, despite him being a Hazara. The reason is plain and simply, because he will do good for the people.
They can vote for their own ethnicity if that what they wish for, but that particular leader should help his people with all his might.
Take this video as an example.
- The people are from the north, most likely Tajiks
- The people who rules the north is Atta noor and company(who also are tajiks)
- Atta noor uses billions $ of aid money which are supposed to go to the poor(like these people in this video), but instead Atta noor use those money for his own personal benefit.
Now my point is, why chose a leader who steals poor peoples money, instead of a leader that will do good for them.

My point isn't, ''why they support a tajik'', but rather ''why they don't support a competent leader''.

If Pashtuns were not exclusionist, we would have a genuine democratic system in place that favors good leadership. Instead Afghanistan is like a jungle, where only the strongest survive. Pashtuns had a few enlightened kings, but their tribal brethren caused their demise.

Also, it's funny you think Ghani is a competent leader. He sure displayed those qualities when he fled to America during the Soviet war. Not to mention allying himself with a brutal warlord. Can you imagine, Dostum as VP?

[Herat]

This isn't about ethnicity. I honestly couldn't care less if a Tajik or Hazara rules the entire country.
My point is that they chose a leader who is a warlord and doesn't help his own people. They can elect/vote for a Tajik as long that he helps the people, which isn't the case here.
Ramazan Bashadost as an example who is a Hazara, I would personally chose him as a leader over any other, despite him being a Hazara. The reason is plain and simply, because he will do good for the people.
They can vote for their own ethnicity if that what they wish for, but that particular leader should help his people with all his might.
Take this video as an example.
- The people are from the north, most likely Tajiks
- The people who rules the north is Atta noor and company(who also are tajiks)
- Atta noor uses billions $ of aid money which are supposed to go to the poor(like these people in this video), but instead Atta noor use those money for his own personal benefit.
Now my point is, why chose a leader who steals poor peoples money, instead of a leader that will do good for them.

My point isn't, ''why they support a tajik'', but rather ''why they don't support a competent leader''.

The problem here DSM0305 is that you are confounding the real and the moral, not a single of my statements in this thread has been normative except the one about the partition of Afghanistan, in fact I deliberately and consciously used the adjective "wretched" before warlord to make this more than clear. Not only am I also fond of Bashardost but I prefer your Ghani to Abdullah if that means less bloodshed in the long term (economist, don't make me laugh, you and I need to worry about the inevitable upcoming civil war) but my preferences and the real world are two different things and more importantly, unlike you, I acknowledge that my preferences are simply not realistic in that damned country at this point in time. Tell me, how much of the Pashtun vote do you think Bashardost garnered as opposed to your corrupt Karzai in the last election?

DSM0305, I want you to carry out reasoning your for me in this way: obviously Tajik leaders are ethnic fascists who want nothing more to dominate the country a la Hitler, the Tajik and Hazara populations who support them (Abdullah did garner their vote) are obviously acutely aware of this, ergo the Tajik and Hazara are ethnic fascists. Expecting them to change is obviously a quixotic fantasy hence the only solution is to get rid of them (without genocide of course), how do we do that? Partition the country of course! See everybody wins with a partition, you Pashtuns will finally be free of us Tajik ethnic fascists and we also get what we want anyways, our obviously ethnic-fascist goal of creating our own state.

Finally, even corrupt warlords have their use. In the inevitable upcoming civil war, they will be the only military leaders the non-Pashtun populations can rely on and if they can win their independence then yes, I will be supporting them in that endeavor.

[DSM0305]

The problem here DSM0305 is that you are confounding the real and the moral, not a single of my statements in this thread has been normative except the one about the partition of Afghanistan, in fact I deliberately and consciously used the adjective "wretched" before warlord to make this more than clear. Not only am I also fond of Bashardost but I prefer your Ghani to Abdullah if that means less bloodshed in the long term (economist, don't make me laugh, you and I need to worry about the inevitable upcoming civil war) but my preferences and the real world are two different things and more importantly, unlike you, I acknowledge that my preferences are simply not realistic in that damned country at this point in time. Tell me, how much of the Pashtun vote do you think Bashardost garnered as opposed to your corrupt Karzai in the last election?

DSM0305, I want you to carry out reasoning your for me in this way: obviously Tajik leaders are ethnic fascists who want nothing more to dominate the country a la Hitler, the Tajik and Hazara populations who support them (Abdullah did garner their vote) are obviously acutely aware of this, ergo the Tajik and Hazara are ethnic fascists. Expecting them to change is obviously a quixotic fantasy hence the only solution is to get rid of them (without genocide of course), how do we do that? Partition the country of course! See everybody wins with a partition, you Pashtuns will finally be free of us Tajik ethnic fascists and we also get what we want anyways, our obviously ethnic-fascist goal of creating our own state.

Finally, even corrupt warlords have their use. In the inevitable upcoming civil war, they will be the only military leaders the non-Pashtun populations can rely on and if they can win their independence then yes, I will be supporting them in that endeavor.

Bashadost generate most votes in Ghazni. So yes, Pashtuns were the one who voted for him. While fellow Hazaras didn't support him in several province where they dominate. Which is exactly my point.

Lets drop the chase and head to your main point. You want Afghanistan partitioned and the rest of your post is the usually rhetoric.

So lets assume you have the sole power in Afghanistan and have the ability to divide it. Now give me your plan to divide Afghanistan based on ethnicity into 4 pieces. Hazara, Uzbek, Tajik and Pashtun.

[kanishka]

The solution cannot be a country like Switzerland, Belgium or Canada? Many languages, ethnicities, cultures but one nation and developed country.Every region has its language and culture and no strifes or clashes or violence.

1. Landlocked
2. Belgium should split and have either parts join France and Netherlands
3. Quebec ......

[mazdaarya]

There is no Tajik leaders.

Atta Mohammad Noor, Abdullah Abdullah, Massoud et cetera - are not Tajik leaders - but puppets of the CIA et cetera - we do not even know if its true that they were born here in Afghanistan or in the USA - like Marshal Fahim - he definitely looks like an Arab - he even knows Arabic FLUENTLY. I was reading an article by a university tutor - he said Atta Mohammad Noor is an Arab.

Those who promote Abdullah, Atta Mohammad Noor, Marshal Fahim, Ismail Khan et cetera - are the enemies of Tajiks. They are known as Farsiwans (Iranians in Afghanistan) and Qizilmaqs (Qizilbash+Aimaq). Farsiwans and Qizilmaqs both live in west of Afghanistan (Ghor, Herat etc) and they are not Tajik. They are trying their best to fit under the Tajik category but real Tajiks from the North East like Badakhshanis know that these are not Tajiks but Iranians. They are in reality - spies and workers of Iran. And remember Iran is a Turkic state - ran by Turks. The Qizilmaqs and Farsiwans Turks are the children of the Safawidi, Qajari and Afshari Turkic Empires whom invaded Afghanistan several times and thus their children populated most of west Afghanistan. They are Shia like their Iranian brothers and they are of Turkic origin. They inherited powers and high status from previous Turkic and Mongol Empires like the Timurid Empire. When the Safawidi, Qajari and Afshari empires were no more - the offspring of these empires continued to rule and run Afghanistan - like today on the internet there is "Tajikam" website - but the founder and owner is a Qizilbash.

Basically: Tajiks have no leaders and they are being tricked. Pashtuns are also have no leaders. Most of their so called "leaders" are puppets too - puppets of the US, Arabs et cetera.

[mazdaarya]

When the Safawidi, Qajari and Afshari empires were no more - the offspring of these empires continued to rule and run Afghanistan - the Iranian books, creation of ethnic-wars, genocide of Pashtuns in West Afghanistan et cetera was created mainly by these Farsiwans and Qizilmaqs.

Real Tajiks are in Kabul, Panjshir, Kapisa, Parwan, Baghlan, Kunduz, Badakhshan, Balkh, Laghman, Takhar, Samangan... not in the west.



ethnic map of afghanistan: