ASIA
“Good” and “bad” terrorists
These days, the topic of comparing the Taliban and Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) has become a hot topic in the media outlets and social networks. The head of HTS recently said that Syria will not turn into another Afghanistan, because both countries have different social and cultural situations and Afghanistan has tribal structures.
His words have provoked different reactions from Afghan social media users – some have confirmed these statements of Jolani, but some have opposed them. However, the words of the leader of the HTS delegation that Syria will not become another Afghanistan and his gentle and flexible approach to the people have attracted the attention of many.
Jolani has now become the next leader of Syria from the leadership of a terrorist group, and both countries, including Russia, which supported Bashar Assad’s regime, also want political interaction with him. Although it is too early to believe all the words of Jolani, it is clear that he has so far introduced himself as a practical and moderate figure.
He has been able to gain the attention of the Syrian people and the media and be ahead of other Islamists. On the other side of the story, we are dealing with the Taliban, the group that in the last three years has only secretly invited people to follow them with the language of force and violence, including threats, beatings, arrests, torture, and murders. The Taliban came to reform the people they believed in, not to listen to the people’s demands through moderation and to respect the internationally accepted principles.
If we analyze the current situation of Syria and Afghanistan from the point of view of political realism, then we are faced with two different attitudes: one representative is the Tahrir al-Sham group led by Ahmed al-Shara and the other representative is the Taliban group led by Mullah Hibatullah.
“Bad” or “worse” terrorists, a common scourge of realism in today’s politics.
Both groups are hardline Islamic groups and have extensive backgrounds in terrorism, but their attitudes differ from each other. The first group tries to conform to the demands of the people and the world, while the second group stubbornly wants the people and the world to submit to their demands.
The first group wants to interact with the people and the world, but the second group insists that, even if they use the atomic bomb, they will not interact. Such brutality, backwardness, stubbornness and ideological ignorance show that the Taliban never intend to change.
HTS’s leader (L) and the Taliban Prime Minister (R)
The main fear of the Taliban and other ideological groups, whether they are right-wing or left-wing, is death. Based on this reason, in order to preserve their old beliefs and sacred values, which have become old since time and are no longer hurting the society in the process of change, they are willing to commit any kind of crime.
Some groups, such as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, when they realize the failure of their long-term efforts to achieve their imaginary and ambitious goals, they come to the conclusion that without accepting flexibility and leaving aside reality for political stability, which is always changing, he has no other choice.
These groups, however outwardly, are trying to change, but all these efforts continue until their power bases are threatened.
Some terrorist groups are not ready to change, and act like a complete deaf to accept the current world’s reality
However, many extremist groups, such as the Taliban, are not ready for such radical changes. The virus of ideology has entered them so deeply that it has turned them completely deaf and blind and they do not show any flexibility.
The Taliban have not backed down from their decisions in any field and have drawn lines to the world with the language of force.
These are the countries of the world that have always backed away from their positions against the Taliban, so to show that there is no other way than compromise and cooperation with the Taliban. This group, now aware of the weaknesses of the world, is taking a greater toll than before by increasing violence and hostility, because they know that tax payers are easily ready to violate their principles and accept the demands of this group.
It seems that the world has become so helpless that it actually believes that terrorism has not been definitively defeated, because international politics reproduces this phenomenon again and again in geopolitical contests.
Currently, the only way that the countries of the world have adopted to deal with the manifestation of terrorism is to divide the terrorist groups into “bad” and “worse” or “good” and “bad” which presents the ruling realism of international politics. In order to confront the “worse”, you must stand with the “evil” or unite with the “good” to try to defeat the “evil”. But what needs to be noted is that the above division is comparative.
For example, the countries of the world are supporting the Taliban, which is considered a “bad” terrorist group, against ISIS in Afghanistan, which is considered a “worse” terrorist group. The Taliban are only less dangerous than ISIS and for this reason they fall into the category of “bad” terrorists. “Worse” or “good” and “bad” division changes.
There is no way to compare HTS’s of Syria with the Taliban’s of Afghanistan
For another example, if we compare Hayat Tahrir al-Sham with the Taliban, considering what we have seen in Syria in this short period of time, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham is considered a “good” terrorist group by the countries of the world – known as, while the Taliban have proved that they are “evil” in their three years of actions. “Good” terrorists like Jolani go along with the world and give up ideology, even if only temporarily.
But the “bad” terrorists, such as Mullah Hibatullah, the leader of the Taliban, have one leg. A “good” terrorist is a pragmatist and knows that the world is not going his way, and that he must submit to the ruling order of the world. Therefore, “good” terrorists are better than “bad” terrorists who never want to give up their ideological selfishness and be ready for compromise and reconciliation.
There are more chances of political stability and staying, of course, if “bad” terrorists like the Taliban have an exceptional position due to the presence of ISIS, then the world sees the solution in interacting with them, not in turning their face and opposing them. This is a common scourge of realism in today’s politics.
China’s diplomatic influence in the Middle East at risk
Biden administration investigates Chinese semiconductors
Top Arab diplomats visit Syria to build ties with new leadership
“Good” and “bad” terrorists
Silicon Valley giants form consortium to compete for U.S. defense contracts
-
EUROPE1 week agoSweden blames Germany’s nuclear phase-out for energy crisis
-
OPINION2 weeks agoWhy Did the Assad Regime Collapse in Just 12 Days?
-
OPINION1 week agoImplications of the EU–Mercosur free trade agreement from a Latin American perspective
-
DIPLOMACY2 weeks agoOn the brink of war or a new renaissance? Highlights from the Schiller Institute’s 40th anniversary
-
OPINION2 weeks agoWho won in Syria?
-
ASIA1 week agoChinese academy discusses Syria
-
MIDDLE EAST1 week agoSyria after Assad; A look at the future and possible scenarios
-
MIDDLE EAST2 weeks agoHandover in management, and executions in Syria
