What Happened to Honor Code of Taliban?

[Firdousi]

My dear "chimi kuni" friend I guess your low IQ is in the way of proper reading comprehension. Where in my comment did I say they were organized? They called themself warriors of Islam. Becuase big bad commies were destroying the almighty Gods only true relligion on earth lol.

Afghanistan communist would have won. But becuase USA with pakis and Saudis helped and poured millions of money to the insurgency they overtrew the goverment. A lot of countries had similar regime changes and had the same conservatism if not worse, but they succeeded, Afghanistan would have too.

But thats history, you got your Islamic goverment with Islam as state relligion and billions in aid. However Afghanistan is still unstable and on a brinck of collapse. Becuase in 15 years your "chimi kuni" bacha baaz mudjhahids who fought for sharia were to busy molesting children and building mansions.
That is your Islamic legacy, that is what future generations will remeber your warriors for. Theft, rape and pillage.

All this I coulda woulda shoulda is a waste of time, gipsy. What is done is done. Commies lost by a superior enemy. Get over it, loser.

[Firdousi]

Its not that they take advantage of chaos, its that chaos makes people realize their starvation for some sort of true muslim sovereignty. People know that client regimes do not represent their interests. They want something, anything to cling on to. One of the main argument over ISIS split from AQ was over proclaiming a caliphate or not. The Baghadadi camp's argument was that people are starving for it so claim it even if it does not exist and it will build itself.

AQ strategy was much smarter: they knew the Islamic world was not ready for Caliphate. Any attempt would be thwarted by superior American forces. Attrition/asymmetric warfare was the only valid strategy for AQ. But those rabid dogs from ISIS, were eager to create it, open several fronts and fight everyone. Well they lost lol

The main schism between AQ and IS was over theological issues I believe.

[Firdousi]

In the case of Egypt, I would like to point out that the Arab Spring there, which forced Mubarak to resign, could not have succeeded without tacit support from Egypt’s military. I believe the Egyptian military simply did not want the kind of nepotism you described to persist since it was well known that Mubarak was grooming his son Gamal to succeed him. But as soon as the Egyptian military realized the threat faced to them by the Muslim Brotherhood, which basically operates as a ‘state within the state’ and pursues its own secretive agenda, it decided to act quickly and decimate the Brotherhood and overthrow its elected government. Now it is decisively known that the Brotherhood is completely decimated and has no more chance in Egypt. Egyptians basically proved that they respect the powerful State and its military and are not interested in anything that could potentially undermine that, especially since they obviously have become acquainted with the kind of anarchy that visited their neighbors in Syria and Libya.

Similarly, in Pakistan the military is building up its position of respect among the public through a shrewd propaganda machinery and by giving the impression that it is above and beyond the kind of nepotism and corruption associated with civilian politicians who are running the government. Therefore, while governments fail and continue to fail in much of the Muslim world, the actual ‘deep state’, whose survival hinges on maintaining a powerful military, is becoming stronger and entrenching itself. Governments can rise and fall today and tomorrow, but the State is a permanent institution which the public can take solice in as their ‘savior’.

I don’t think that most Muslims really value democracy. What they value is a strong and stable State that is efficient and has the interests of the country at heart, especially economic development. The Arab Spring in the early 2010s was all the rage because Arabs thought democracy was the answer to increasing corruption and economic stagnation. Turns out, though, all they really needed was a new generation of autocratic leaders. So Sisi replaces Mubarak, and while King Salman is absolute monarch of Saudi Arabia, basically his 32 year old son is running the show.

Erdogan is an interesting phenomenon. I believe his success is in large part due to Europe’s decline and the EU’s consistent refusal to have Turkey join it. The Turks, a proud and nationalist people, could not digest the fact that Europe looks down on them, so they decided to look back to their Islamic roots and identity. While he certainly represents conservative values, I hesitate to call him a truly ‘Islamic’ leader. He is popular and considered a hero among more religious Muslims of the world simply because they don’t have anyone else, and they are desperate for a hero.

Very good points. I do agree.

Just I believe we shouldn't use the term "muslim" so lightly. Islamic world is very diverse when it comes to sects, races, ideologies and realities. People from Senegal, Bosnia, Iran, Bangladesh or Indonesia have absolutely nothing in common and all of them are considered "Islamic".

I do believe many places people value democracy to some degree. Most of them don't even know what that is, but it sounds like a good idea. But I don't mean liberal democracy, I mean illiberal and authoritarian democracy.