What Happened to Honor Code of Taliban?

[khushal]

To some degree I understand what motivates this people. Mujahdeens screwed us, our country, our society, everything. Commies were barbaric AF, but its also true that they brought a lot of progress to our country and our society was much "healthier" back then than today. But I can't tolerate how this morons, at the same time, just because they despise the islamists they praise the commies.

In my opinion every single movement/regime in Afghanistan brought positive and negative changes. Daud Khan worked really hard to make Afghanistan a better place, but at the same time he was an emotional moron who screwed our relationship with the URSS and Pakistan. Commies tried hard to educate our people, but they were also a bunch of merciless animals who wanted to erase our culture. Mujahedeens helped us to get rid of those morons, but at the same time they brought shame, destruction and misery to our country. And the Taliban brought us peace and safety but at expense of "insaniyat" and moderation. And of course, they sold us to Pakistan. And finally, these corrupt democrats.. well, democrats are a lost cause. They are by far the most corrupted people ever. Because of them, Taliban are on the rise.

So f*ck everyone lol

The root of the problem lies in 1948 when the Afghan monarchy decided to pursue its pashtunistan policy thinking that choosing the USSR over the newly created nation of Pakistan, it would acquire more territory and influence. The result of that policy was the domino effect as you described above.

The majahideen were never a cohesive or united in any way. It didn't take a genius to figure they would fight one another after the gov fell.

Just think what the people of Afghanistan has grown up in the past 40 years. What kind of gov will they create if left alone. Don't expect a South Korea like nation anytime soon.

Afghanistan has never been really independent since the first British invasion, it had autonomy, but not independence. No matter who governs in Kabul, at least one neighbors will have influence, they have to decide which neighbor is in their best interest. Russia has been tried and tested and we know the result.

[khushal]

Once you remove the stronger enemy from the equation, movements and political parties start fighting each other. In general, Islamist movements are a failure basically because they are very s tupid. They seem to be unwilling to create united fronts. In Syria, Islamist forces are facing annihilation by the regime and Russia and yet they are unwilling to unite. Screw them. They deserve to be exterminated.

The strongest opposition to Asad was ISIS who was vastly weakened by US bombers. The rest are weak players (who call themselves Islamists but are a bunch of fat-arses who fill their pockets with fat-arse gulf arab money and US tax payer's money) of more than 1000 groups where each group claim 10,000 fighters (in reality more like 5-10 fighters and 9,990 imaginary fighters) who can't unite and even if they do, what can a 1000 groups of 10 fat-arse fighters do against Asad and the Russians. ISIS have the hard-core fighters who are being bombed by the US.

US bombers are Asad's and the Russians best assets. US policy in Syria is completely hypocritical which only ensures destruction and misery to the people and is fueling migration to Europe which are empowering right wing parties.

[khushal]

Gofte yaganta 'Koleshana zadem' :D

translate please.

[ذو الفقار]

The strongest opposition to Asad was ISIS who was vastly weakened by US bombers. The rest are weak players (who call themselves Islamists but are a bunch of fat-arses who fill their pockets with fat-arse gulf arab money and US tax payer's money) of more than 1000 groups where each group claim 10,000 fighters (in reality more like 5-10 fighters and 9,990 imaginary fighters) who can't unite and even if they do, what can a 1000 groups of 10 fat-arse fighters do against Asad and the Russians. ISIS have the hard-core fighters who are being bombed by the US.

US bombers are Asad's and the Russians best assets. US policy in Syria is completely hypocritical which only ensures destruction and misery to the people and is fueling migration to Europe which are empowering right wing parties.

I’m not so sure about this simplistic analysis. The Syrian armed opposition were making incredible gains and there was a real possibility of them eventually defeating the Ba’thists. Russia’s active entry into that civil war was the ultimate game-changer.

[khushal]

I’m not so sure about this simplistic analysis. The Syrian armed opposition were making incredible gains and there was a real possibility of them eventually defeating the Ba’thists. Russia’s active entry into that civil war was the ultimate game-changer.

The defeat of Asad will not end the war.

[ذو الفقار]

The defeat of Asad will not end the war.

The war is pretty much over. Assad won. The FSA/rebels were decimated.

[khushal]

The war is pretty much over. Assad won. The FSA/rebels were decimated.

Trump stopped funding the 1000 small weak loose groups and bombed ISIS so what did you expect. They are reverting war to the Afghan theatre.

[maneatinglizard]

The strongest opposition to Asad was ISIS who was vastly weakened by US bombers. The rest are weak players (who call themselves Islamists but are a bunch of fat-arses who fill their pockets with fat-arse gulf arab money and US tax payer's money) of more than 1000 groups where each group claim 10,000 fighters (in reality more like 5-10 fighters and 9,990 imaginary fighters) who can't unite and even if they do, what can a 1000 groups of 10 fat-arse fighters do against Asad and the Russians. ISIS have the hard-core fighters who are being bombed by the US.

US bombers are Asad's and the Russians best assets. US policy in Syria is completely hypocritical which only ensures destruction and misery to the people and is fueling migration to Europe which are empowering right wing parties.

This is pretty much on the money. A lot of people don't realize how hard the US screwed over the Syrian resistance.

ISIS was by far the most effective resistance group, and was steamrolling Assad's forces. Not only that, but their effectiveness was allowing other groups to gain ground through the attention they garnered. So not only did the US cripple the best resistance force against Assad, but they also forced the rest of the resistance to split its attention, as they made fighting against ISIS and other Jihadi groups a requirement for receiving US arms. And while ISIS did begin fighting against the other factions on their own, the other Jihadi groups (like Nusra) were largely cooperating with everyone else in the resistance. Groups like FSA did not want to fight against the Jihadis, as they were the best forces in the war after ISIS. But the US bombed them and forced their stooges to fight them too.

Additionally, Russia wasn't that interested in keeping Assad in power until the US got involved. Russia's main concern was making sure the US couldn't install their own stooge government in Syria, as it was Russia's last major ally in the region. As long as Assad was replaced by something that wasn't a US puppet, they were willing to let Assad go. But when the US started taking an active part in the war, and prepping their stooges to become the replacement to Assad, they forced Russia's hand. And they used the US' bombing campaign to justify their own against the resistance forces. Just like the US, they simply labeled anyone they wanted to eliminate a terrorist and bombed them to death.

The US bungled Syria so badly it's hilarious that liberals still respect Obama as if he were some visionary leader. While pretty much everyone accepts Bush failed miserably in Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama has largely gotten a pass (by the Left) at what was probably an even more poorly executed intervention.

With the massive failures that the US has been involved in in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, the Kurdish independent movement, etc., one can only hope Muslims realize that they're not any better an ally than Communist Russia was (they're probably worse because at least the Soviets put a lot of effort into their bad policies, whereas the US does everything half-heartedly), and begin seeking independent power. But since our leaders are all incompetent losers with little ingenuity and lots of greed, they'll probably just flock to the latest power. Pakistan is already starting with their alliance with China. Wonder how long it'll take before that screws them over.

[Firdousi]

The strongest opposition to Asad was ISIS who was vastly weakened by US bombers. The rest are weak players (who call themselves Islamists but are a bunch of fat-arses who fill their pockets with fat-arse gulf arab money and US tax payer's money) of more than 1000 groups where each group claim 10,000 fighters (in reality more like 5-10 fighters and 9,990 imaginary fighters) who can't unite and even if they do, what can a 1000 groups of 10 fat-arse fighters do against Asad and the Russians. ISIS have the hard-core fighters who are being bombed by the US.

US bombers are Asad's and the Russians best assets. US policy in Syria is completely hypocritical which only ensures destruction and misery to the people and is fueling migration to Europe which are empowering right wing parties.

Hmm, thats partially right/wrong. Its true that ISIS had the best, most hardcore and prepared forces, but its absolutely wrong to say that they were Assad´s worst enemy. ISIS has been busy fighting Kurds and other rebel forces as well as the Iraqi Shia forces. Its also true that most of rebels are a bunch of fat losers, but its wrong to say all of them. I mean HTS, the former branch of AQ in Iraq (AN) got very well organized and battle-hardened troops and chain of command.

What triggered Russian intervention in Syria was the formation of an Islamist coalition called "Jaish al Islam". They easily took over Idlib, made huge progress in Latakia (which is the main Shia stronghold of psycho Bashar) and were making huge progress in Aleppo and Hama. It was then when Qassem Soleimani went to Russia and asked for Russia to step in.

Arab Sunnis are a force to be reckoned with. They are very good at fighting but they suck when it comes to politics. Bashar knows very well how naive the Western public is so he portrayed himself as some sort of secular force fighting against an Zionist-Wahabit plot, which is BS. Most of Syrians had some legit concerns when they took the streets and it was him, psycho Bashar, who for almost six months butchered Syrian civilians. Well, he won the diplomatic war. Kudos to him.

[Elias]

translate please.

Fck them all.

[Firdousi]

The Islamic world is going through a phase of ideological wars. Its similar to the European WWI, when several ideologies (liberal democracy, illiberal democracy, Russian revolution in 1917, death of Othomanism, death of the austro-hungarian empire, etc) fought each other. Right now the same is happening in the Islamic world where several ideoligies and systems are fighting each other: GCC absolutism, Iran Islamic republicanism, ISIS caliphate, AQ emirate, Israel´s liberal democracy, Egyptian military dictatorship, Bashar´s corrupt Arab natioanlism, Kurdish socialist forces in Syria and Kurdish clientelism in Iraq (B arzanis and Talabanis), Turkish neo-othomanism, Russian kleptocratic federalism, Western imperialist interventionism, Pakistani dual civil-military dictatorship, Taliban tribalism, CAR´s authocratism, etc.

All these forces are currently involved in the mess. This "Islamic WWI" didnt change s hit. Most of the factors that led to this war are still there. We still have corrupt governments, we still lack of an universal political system, we still have weak economies, we still have high birth rates, we still ahve the West invading our countries, we still have this stupid regional rivalries (ShiavsSunni, PersianvsArabsvsJews, KurdsvsTurks, AfghanvsPakisvsIndians), and so on.

This means that, just like the Western WWI eventually triggered WWII, in matter of few decades this Islamic civil war will lead to a new civil war, much more brutal and out of that one finally an universal ideological system will emerge in the Islamic world just like liberal democracy emerged as the universal political system for the West after WWII.

So yeah, bumpy years ahead.

[ذو الفقار]

It’s ridiculous to say that ISIL was the only force that could have toppled Assad. ISIL are responsible for sabotaging the armed uprising against Assad. ISIL came out of Iraq and took advantage of the anarchy and civil war in Syria. They ended up harming the cause of those Syrian Sunnis that wanted to end the fascist regime in Damascus and establish a moderate Islamic state. This is why right now the Syrian Sunnis are cursing ISIL. The truth is that these Takfiri groups ISIL and Qaeda always end up sabotaging legitimate armed Islamic movements and insurgencies against foreign occupation or anti-Islamic regimes. You as Afghans should know this very well. If it wasn’t for the presence of Qaeda in Afghanistan and their stupid shenanigans, perhaps the Taliban would still be in power. Anyways, the threat of ISIL is now decisively over and that’s a good thing. Their remnant in Afghanistan needs to be exterminated mercilessly too.

[Firdousi]

From Kabul and you?

From Herat. But was born in Kabul, in Shar-e Naw. So I guess I am Kabuli to some degree lol

[ذو الفقار]

The Islamic world is going through a phase of ideological wars. Its similar to the European WWI, when several ideologies (liberal democracy, illiberal democracy, Russian revolution in 1917, death of Othomanism, death of the austro-hungarian empire, etc) fought each other. Right now the same is happening in the Islamic world where several ideoligies and systems are fighting each other: GCC absolutism, Iran Islamic republicanism, ISIS caliphate, AQ emirate, Israel´s liberal democracy, Egyptian military dictatorship, Bashar´s corrupt Arab natioanlism, Kurdish socialist forces in Syria and Kurdish clientelism in Iraq (B arzanis and Talabanis), Turkish neo-othomanism, Russian kleptocratic federalism, Western imperialist interventionism, Pakistani dual civil-military dictatorship, Taliban tribalism, CAR´s authocratism, etc.

All these forces are currently involved in the mess. This "Islamic WWI" didnt change s hit. Most of the factors that led to this war are still there. We still have corrupt governments, we still lack of an universal political system, we still have weak economies, we still have high birth rates, we still ahve the West invading our countries, we still have this stupid regional rivalries (ShiavsSunni, PersianvsArabsvsJews, KurdsvsTurks, AfghanvsPakisvsIndians), and so on.

This means that, just like the Western WWI eventually triggered WWII, in matter of few decades this Islamic civil war will lead to a new civil war, much more brutal and out of that one finally an universal ideological system will emerge in the Islamic world just like liberal democracy emerged as the universal political system for the West after WWII.

So yeah, bumpy years ahead.

Good analysis. I fear the rise of ‘Statism’ in much of the Muslim world where the State is holding all the cards. Apart from places where the State has failed (Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya), majority of Muslims now live under strong durable modern States. These States have consolidated themselves largely by maintaining bloated militaries. Pakistan, Iran, Egypt, and Turkey are the best examples of this. None of these States can perish so easily because they simply have too powerful militaries. They also have some degree of stability, despite the fact that these States (with possible exception of Egypt) have powerful enemies. America, Israel and Saudi Arabia are implacable foes of Iran, while India is Pakistan’s mortal nemesis. Nevertheless, Iran and Pakistan can’t be swept away like what happened to Saddam or Gaddafi. Pakistan has the nuclear deterrent, while the Iranian spirit of nationalism would mean any foreign attack on it would be met with a united front of resistance. Foreign interventions can only work in places where the State has failed because the population of those countries are fragmented, i.e., Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Afghanistan and Syria.

Like what happened to the Jews, who abandoned the idea of an individual Messiah to redeem them and substituted that with the establishment of a secular but powerful Jewish State (Israel), I fear that Muslims will look to the State, despite it being inherently modern, secular, irreligious and even anti-religious to a degree, as their savior. The State knows that Muslims cannot so easily be parted from their Religion, so it is now pushing forward a new ideology, State-Islam or ‘Statist’ Islam. This is the new Islam of the future. In it, the State itself will determine the religious narrative its citizens have to adapt. The State will maintain control over the institutions of religion, such as the mosque, the Ulama, the madrassa, etc. Textbooks will indoctrinate children about that brand of Islam which the State favors.

[ذو الفقار]

Continuing on the premise I expressed in my previous post, I want to elaborate about the implications of the ideology that is currently being developed (State version of Islam). The purpose of developing this new version of Islam is to control religion and to prevent what they call ‘religious adventurism’. The State has traditionally feared the role of Religion as a counter influence on the public, and its potential to incite people’s emotions, sometimes against the State itself. The State wants to control this force called Religion by sapping its life force, primarily through what is called a ‘counter narrative’. This idea of ‘counter narrative’ was put forward by the Pakistani modernist Ghamidi. He argues that the way to curtail ‘religious extremism’ is not through secularism, but through a ‘counter narrative’ where the State allows for, and may even encourage, the practice of the essentials of Islam such as the five daily prayers, fasting in Ramadan, and pilgrimage to Mecca, while at the same time indoctrinating the youth, who now overwhelmingly attend public schools about the philosophy of Islam which omits key concepts that are potential threats to the State.

I believe one of these concepts is the idea of Jihad. Either it will be taught that Jihad is synonymous with defending the borders of the State from foreign aggression, or the concept of armed Jihad will be dispensed with altogether. Similarly, the concept of the emergence of the Mahdi as an Islamic warrior who will establish a theocratic State and restore justice in the land for the oppressed, will be dispensed with. Iqbal, the ideological reference for the Pakistani State, viciously attacked ideas like Mahdi and Messiah, because he knew how potentially disruptive they could be to the smooth running of a modern State which requires a high level of emotional attachment and fealty from its citizens.

The State’s ‘sanitized’ brand of Islam will also strip it of all mystical concepts associated with Sufism. For example, the role of the Sufi ‘shaikh’ or ‘pir’ will have to be diminished, because that too is an uncontrolled variable. The Sufi shaikh by definition is not a functionary of the State and is therefore always a potential threat, since the Sufi-disciple relationship is a very strong one, which could potentially be stronger than the State-citizen relationship. Again, this explains why virtually all modernist thinkers of the 20th and 21st centuries have detested Islamic mysticism, especially Iqbal, Ghamidi, Abduh, Rida, and others.