You’re correct, my apologies. I was confusing my Middle Eastern history. In my comment, where it reads that the French and British are to blame for the divisions through ethnic and religious lines, it should be the Russians and the British, during their sphere of influence games, which eventually coalesced Afghanistan’s borders into the Durand line, with further meddling by the Soviets later on. But the whole comment still maintains pretty much the same sentiment. Nevertheless, thank you for pointing out my mistake and helping me remember it correctly. I will try to do better to reinforce my weaknesses in history knowledge.

I may be misunderstanding the point on your last paragraph, but i wouldn’t consider it is an inherent quality of the country, culture or people that prevents stability within the country, but the countless meddling with its affairs by different countries. None of these countries (including the US) have meaningfully attempted to change anything in the country with the purpose to make it more stable. Instead, the changes that have been attempted have been more towards making the country more useful/pliable to the sphere of influence of the country that is occupying/influencing it for purposes other than the country’s best interests.

That may be a nature of its geographical location and the importance it had throughout history, but nevertheless i sure hope we will arrive at some point in the future where the country will be able to stabilize and stand on its own and it will never be through the means of the establishment of a puppet government. I believe it’s precisely by leaving it alone and providing humanitarian aid that the country will find stability, as previously said.

In 1916 France and the UK create the Sykes-Picot secret agreement with agreement of Russia and Italy to divide the middle east in a way so they would never be able to pose any threat and could be easily manipulated into their spheres of influence, by cutting through areas of ethnic and religious affiliations.

108 years later on Lemmy “Afghanistan actively rejects civilization”. It’s just unfair to say such a thing when so many civilizations have contributed so much to ensure Afghanistan would never be able to be politically and economically stable.

If anything, everyone should stop sending soldiers to Afghanistan and simply support them humanitarily throughout the long road of recovery ahead of them from what has been done to them for the last 100 years. Ideally, France and the UK should be bearing the brunt of the cost of that humanitarian effort, but in practice, it’s difficult to pin the blame on modern day France and UK of their forefathers’ sins.

I’m thinking a terrorist attack of this magnitude with the amount of collateral casualties it had will have international implications that reach far beyond convincing Hezbollah from escalating into a war, if it’s actually going to achieve that at all. We’re talking about a terrorist group, not an army. Personally i think this will probably just delay it and strengthen their resolve to actually go to war and be even more cruel. Terror groups thrive in terror conditions. The strongest military force on the world couldn’t make a dent in terrorist groups operating in the middle east. Peace and stability, however, destroy terror groups.

I’m pretty sure everyone has realized that further atrocities are not the way out of this war. I just hope the belligerent parties can realize it faster and start coming to terms that they will have to share the land and make concessions. Until then i guess we’ll keep seeing innocents die for motivations that make less sense each time, like Fatima Abdullah, who was just 9.