Ahmad Shah Abdali was a Wahhabi

[khushal]

Oh so the sons of Ahmed Shah Abdali kill each other by even making their own blood brother blind, but it is the tribes fault and it is Ahmed Shah Abdalis fault because he didn't model his empire to the European style of ruling?

Makes allot more sense.

I did not say that.

The European monarch system lasted for many centuries because of its strong centralized system, that is the way their society is structured according to their environment. A Leader has to work within the system of how his society is structured and Abdali understood this. It was impossible for abdali to build centralized system like the Europeans had because the societies are structured differently. This is what most Interventionist Afghans who support the Soviet effort and the American effort don't understand. Its like they are trying to propel themselves to the moon by using a slingshot.

Pashtun society is structured to reject central authority which is why Kabul ever since Ahmed shah death had a difficult time exerting control over Pashtuns. Najib with all the support of the Soviet Union and Karzai with all the support of the Americans including their powerful militaries could not accomplish what is natural for the Pashtun society to reject.

My point is that it did not matter who Ahmed Shah left behind, the Pashtun were going to go back to their natural course eventually and that is to live with no central authority.

[khushal]

Wait a second ...he had no central authority ....but somehow built an empire where he was deemed the ruler ...and managed to convince the people he had no central authority over to stick together and be known as Afghanstan instead of ruling themselves in their own fiefdoms? What doesn't seem logically consistent about Khushal's bogus picture?

The Pashtun tribes kept their authority, he was chosen leader in a Jirga system. your the one with the bogus picture. you don't understand Pashtun because you have never been to pashtunland.

[khushal]

It shouldn't have ever existed; the fact that people of HIS OWN tribe were primarily in support of him or they were motivated by Greed and lust for money and fortune isn't this romanticized idea that people were taking up the Pashtun cause for a United Pashtun country. The Fact you admit that Abdalis own sons were rivals of each other for LUST, MONEY AND POWER would only be more so with the other tribes who joined him. Logic would dictate the tribes who joined him were only doing so to fill their own pockets.

This is why Afghanistan should never have existed. It still shouldn't exist, but for the time being it's better to have an Afghanistan than to have a Pakistan.

LOL You understood it but then you said she doesn't say anything about Pakistan. LOL yeah ok. You were called out by nearly every member here. You're posing hard.

United Pashtun Country? Pashtun by nature are not nationalists that is why people like Badlun need American troops for their unachievable goals, they can not muster up their own afghan army because the afghan reject nationalism. People naturally do things for their own interest, but Pashtuns wont compromise their independence for anything.
You could have your own little theories but the fact is that Pashtun joined him because they viewed him as a leader that could muster a strategy to keep the Persian and moghul influence at bay which was in their interest at the time.

People can visit that thread and see for themselves what happened. your manipulating what actually happened like always.

[randolph85]

it is unfortunate that we know so little about abdali because of the lack of scholarship at the time, and even from then until recent times.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

I did not say that.

The European monarch system lasted for many centuries because of its strong centralized system, that is the way their society is structured according to their environment. A Leader has to work within the system of how his society is structured and Abdali understood this. It was impossible for abdali to build centralized system like the Europeans had because the societies are structured differently. This is what most Interventionist Afghans who support the Soviet effort and the American effort don't understand. Its like they are trying to propel themselves to the moon by using a slingshot.

Pashtun society is structured to reject central authority which is why Kabul ever since Ahmed shah death had a difficult time exerting control over Pashtuns. Najib with all the support of the Soviet Union and Karzai with all the support of the Americans including their powerful militaries could not accomplish what is natural for the Pashtun society to reject.

My point is that it did not matter who Ahmed Shah left behind, the Pashtun were going to go back to their natural course eventually and that is to live with no central authority.

You are just BSing around now as usually you do whenever you are confronted with your inaccurate and misinformed judgement of history and current affairs.

[khushal]

your a shallow thinker shamlawar. try to think deeper.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

By thinking "deeper" Khushal means try to fabricate a totally unrealistic scenario inconsistent with actual facts. LOL

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Khushal just doesn't realize the internal contradiction of praising Abdali and his conquest to make a Kingdom where he was absolute ruler and his belief of Pashtun central authority. If he praises one he must disavow the other.

[khushal]

^^You, Shamlawar and Badlun think that you know what's good for Afghans and Afghans are too stupid to know what's good for them.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

The Pashtun tribes kept their authority, he was chosen leader in a Jirga system. your the one with the bogus picture. you don't understand Pashtun because you have never been to pashtunland.

By the Sadozais; HIS OWN clan which he was inherited from his father who was also chief of the Sadozais. Not Pashtun tribes in general. .... this isn't the "tribes keeping their authority" and why would they call him SHAH and not Khan? Hmmmm Inconsistent.

You don't even understand Pashto, nevermind never having been to Pashtunland. Talk about not understanding; making things up as you go along is NOT understanding; it's lying.

[khushal]

Khushal just doesn't realize the internal contradiction of praising Abdali and his conquest to make a Kingdom where he was absolute ruler and his belief of Pashtun central authority. If he praises one he must disavow the other.

He was not an absolute ruler. I disavow the latter.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

^^You, Shamlawar and Badlun think that you know what's good for Afghans and Afghans are too stupid to know what's good for them.

Irrelevant; you're outrightly lying despite what we know about historical facts regarding Abdali's ascension to power.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

He was not an absolute ruler. I disavow the latter.

So he was called "Shah" because he was just a chieftan?

[khushal]

By the Sadozais; HIS OWN clan which he was inherited from his father who was also chief of the Sadozais. Not Pashtun tribes in general. .... this isn't the "tribes keeping their authority" and why would they call him SHAH and not Khan? Hmmmm Inconsistent.

You don't even understand Pashto, nevermind never having been to Pashtunland. Talk about not understanding; making things up as you go along is NOT understanding; it's lying.

your an idiot. He was already leader of the Sadozais before the jirga in Kandahar choose him, and it was not inherited. He was leader because of his success on the battlefield. Pashtun tribes stood with him, he did not rule them.

[khushal]

So he was called "Shah" because he was just a chieftan?

by calling someone shah does not make one a direct authority. The kings of afghansitan were not like the kings of Europe. you fail to understand this.