Wow...

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by TechGod, Apr 20, 2015.

  1. TechGod macrumors 68040

    TechGod

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2014
    Location:
    New Zealand
  2. steve knight Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #2
  3. A.Goldberg macrumors 68000

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #3
    If this is true, let them dwindle their numbers. I agree though eventually they will probably end up merging. At least there will be fewer combined.
     
  4. TechGod thread starter macrumors 68040

    TechGod

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2014
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #4
    Just because there is less of them, doesn't mean their combined resources wouldn't be devastating.
     
  5. A.Goldberg macrumors 68000

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #5
    Very true.
     
  6. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #6
    Given that Daesh is in Iraq and Syria while the Taliban is in Pakistan and the US South, it seems as though the geographical separation between the two would make actual armed conflict somewhat challenging. I take this as little more than "we hate each other."
     
  7. FrankieTDouglas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    #7
    Even the Middle East can participate in horseshoe theory!
     
  8. APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #8
    [​IMG]

    Honestly I think that if we just left them alone, all these religious extremist groups would eventually tear themselves apart. It's hard to unify when you're completely intolerant of even the slightest deviation from your own belief system. (Unless perhaps it's to engage a "common foe")
     
  9. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #9
    In the mean time they are generating tons of collateral damage, if that's ok.

    Btw, this is not my support of the U.S. continuing to function as the world's police. It's arguable that what we've done since invading Iraq has cost a fortune (lives and monetary), has achieved very little which is galling considering the size of the sacrifice, and is detrimental to our country's sustainability. One of my primary issues with the GOP is how they scream bloody murder over social programs (valid or wasteful) bankrupting us, but don't blink an eye lash when it comes to war costing a billion a day, no ***** problem. :mad:
     
  10. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #10
    That would be convenient but unfortunately you can't leave them alone. They want attention and will resort to unspeakable crimes to get it.
     
  11. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #11
    But ... but ... but .... I thought they loved their Islamic brothers. :rolleyes:
     
  12. TechGod thread starter macrumors 68040

    TechGod

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2014
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #12
    That is one cool theory.
     
  13. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
  14. Scepticalscribe, Apr 21, 2015
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2015

    Scepticalscribe Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    The Far Horizon
    #14
    For quite some time, the Taliban enjoyed a reputation as being the fiercest, most radical, most motivated (and among the hardest to defeat) organisation flying the flag of some sort of militant Islam.

    This perspective failed to recognise that they were rarely completely united, more a group of semi-autonomous commands operating with a common gaol in mind. It also failed to recognise that, in reality, the Taliban were (and are) a sort of surreal take on a perfervid expression of Pashtun nationalism where one's national identity is fused with one's religious identity, in this case, an interpretation of Sunni Islam.

    Never mind that in Afghanistan, historically, far more tolerant interpretations of Islam had been able to indigenously take root in parts of the country, or that the Taliban, were seen as something of an historical aberration in the country's traditions. Never mind, too, that the Pashtun - while influential, and frequently politically dominant - were not even the majority (just - most likely - the largest) ethnicity in Afghanistan, and certainly not the most culturally or commercially advanced of the ethnicities in that country. The other ethnic groups in the country (Tadjiks, Hazara, Uzbek, Turkmen among others) loathed the Taliban, who, it should be recalled, never succeeded in controlling all of Afghanistan - just most of it.

    The issue here is that - for the first time since the mid 1990s when they appeared as a response to the violence, murderous greed, and stupendous rapacity of the mujahideen warlords who were busily fighting one another at the time - the Taliban are no longer the most radical, the most organised, and the most vehemently orthodox among the groups styling themselves armed islamist insurgents in Afghanistan.

    They are facing a challenge to their survival on their 'radical' flank. Some of their older fighters - who have been at this for nearly a quarter of a century now, are tired, and perhaps - are contemplating thinking about negotiation. A considerable number of these - possibly more moderate leaders - have been assassinated in recent years.

    Meanwhile, their supposed leader, Mullah Omar, hasn't been seen in public for years, and there are some considerable doubts about the state of his health, with some doubting that he is even alive. Their younger operatives are in danger of being enticed away with the lure of greater enemies, more dramatic deaths, and ferocious fighting, elsewhere, for the greater glory of Jihad.

    For the Taliban, being - as they were - an expressive of uber Pashtun nationalism (expressed as religious devotion) never set their sights anywhere other than Afghanistan. All they ever wanted was to be left to rule Afghanistan viewed through the flawed and distorted lens of a strongly Pashtun dominated, and ultra reactionary mindset. They had no international agenda, whatsoever.

    A distorted - and indeed, misfortunate - sense of extravagant hospitality (ancient Pashtun traditions, again) led them to offer sanctuary to AQ, and Osama Bin Laden, an offer I am sure they came to have cause to regret, however much that transgressed ancient imperatives of hospitality, as it cost them dearly in a quarrel that, initially, was not theirs.

    ISIS (or Daesh) are a very different story, and regard the Taliban as illiterate, and limited primitives, lacking imagination, skill, and ambition, both domestically and internationally. The sneer at Mullah Oma's supposed illiteracy is not new (even for Daesh - this first came up a few months ago), but it is a telling hit, and is one that they know will hurt - hard.

    What is happening here is a struggle for the soul (and bodies, and guns) of the radicals (mostly Pashtun) - the armed, radical insurgents in Afghanistan. As the Taliban is tired, and somewhat divided, and has ambitions that are confined to Afghanistan (and possibly some of the tribal areas of Pakistan, too), it does face challenges from the hungry, ferociously ambitious, well armed and well resourced Daesh (IS). However, history should teach everyone that foreign armed interventions - of any religious hue or political complexion - are not always warmly welcomed in Afghanistan.
     
  15. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #15
    It's all relative. Once upon a time secular nationalists like Mohammad Mosaddegh and Gamal al-Nassar were the Islamic world's boogymen. Then it was the Mullahs in Iran, then the Taliban, then Al Qaeda, then ISIS. Next week it will be some other group of fanatics.
     
  16. Scepticalscribe Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    The Far Horizon
    #16
    To be honest, I think your analysis is a bit vague, and rather sweeping.

    Moreover, at the time that Colonel Nasser and Mr Mossadeq held office the radical Islamists had little influence and no power in either of those countries.

    Mr Mossadeq was not overthrown by Islamists, but by western backed vested interests, (an action - I would argue - that has had catastrophically lingering and profoundly negative effects to this day, and signalled the end of any attempt to seek political change and economic and social reform through secular, democratic means in the Islamic) and Colonel Nasser was loathed - again - by the west, which saw him as a threat when he seized the Suez canal.
     
  17. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #17
    From what I've read over the years during Nassers time the Muslim Brotherhood held great sway with the people to the point where they were the defacto government in the small villages. The Muslim Brotherhood and all that happened to them are what spawned what we now call radical Islam.
     
  18. APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #18
    It's not okay, but I don't see any better path. Hatred of the West and the US especially is what fuels these groups.
     
  19. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #19
    I agree, but will also say, these are power plays by groups who hate anyone who disagrees with them including other Muslims over the best flavor of ice cream.* We made the West a target by facilitating a large power vacuum in the Middle East which got the ball rolling.

    *That comment was made by a Middle Eastern Muslim in one of the forums I visit. Don't remember if it was this one... :eek:
     
  20. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #20
    You completely missed the point.
     
  21. Scepticalscribe, Apr 22, 2015
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2015

    Scepticalscribe Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    The Far Horizon
    #21
    Which was? Whose perspective are you writing from, when you write 'bogeymen'?

    The Islamic world is not remotely united, - not in goals, and nor in defined 'enemies' - and I imagine that that is going to become even more pronounced over time; it is much more than just the Shia Sunni division with which we are already familiar.

    Different conflicts lead to different alliances, and different, and shifting enemies all within the Islamic world.

    Re Daesh and the Taliban, while there may be the start of some sort of a battle for hearts and minds in areas of eastern Afghanistan, some of this is disaffected Taliban commanders seeking a more radical outlet for an expression of their radicalism. Some of these commanders are merely switching their flag of allegiance - and the east of the country - where Salafist values are more strongly held, might prove a more fertile ground for that than elsewhere in Afghanistan.

    And some of it is internal divisions within the Taliban, which is more splintered than ever, and even less answerable to a central authority than before.

    Also worth noting is the position of the Afghan Government who are seeking to ensure that Kabul and its concerns remain on the radar of foreign (western) governments, donors and troops. This means that arguing that Daesh is a threat is likely to win a much more supportive and robust (and remunerative) response than arguing that the Taliban (who have just announced the start of this year's 'fighting season') is; outside of Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan, the Taliban never threatened anyone.
     
  22. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #22
    That there will always be boogeymen in the M.E. from the West's perspective--a perspective skewed by the dominant zeitgeists of their eras--was my point. For example, Nasser was such a perceived threat we (the West) started wars in reaction to his actions. However, today what we wouldn't give to have a secular nationalist like the good Colonel as the biggest "threat" in the M.E.?
     
  23. Scepticalscribe Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    The Far Horizon
    #23
    Fair comment and yes, I would be in agreement with you on that. Foolishness on the west's part, and an extreme case of political myopia, too. We seem to be rather slow learners, I'm afraid.

    But yes, call it the epic turn of time's wheel, these days, an Egyptian Government led by someone such as Colonel Nasser, would be seen in a much more positive light by most western leaders. And not before time.
     
  24. sim667 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    #24
    What have Hitler and Stalin got to do with the price of fish?

    A. Neither were religious fundamentalists
    B. They did not have the same goals
     
  25. JamesMike macrumors demi-god

    JamesMike

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2014
    Location:
    Oregon
    #25
    I agree, they are not using social media to be left alone.
     

Share This Page