A “backward regime” 2001. USA?

 The Taliban’s backwards regime was no match for the cruise missiles and B-52s of America's military colossus 
Taliban 2018
Thank you Bush & Blair et al -  Twenty years after the Americans and their NATO allies first arrived and raised such high hopes among many Afghans, they are now faced with the prospect of rearming and a return to the anarchy and civil war of the 1990s.

I will continue to bear witness.

I have always borne witness …

Priests and theologians have a right to offer their opinion, 
and even a ‘duty to be a warning,’ when people’s spiritual and
psychological well-being is in danger from someone
or something.

Indeed, if they aspire to follow the teaching of the
‘real Jesus’, they are under an obligation to do so.
If a priest or a preacher becomes upset, anxious and even 
angry about the immorality of his or her religion, they share
the fate to soldiers, for example, during the Viet Nam war, 
who felt impelled to speak out about the atrocities they had
witnessed. Many soldiers were sent to a psychiatrist who 
would be expected to help them be strong enough to return to
committing atrocities.
Similarly, people defend the behaviour of their ‘God’, even 
when that behaviour is evil and destructive! What’s more, 
they treat such behaviour as normal, and even ethically    
permissible. Some call this behaviour ‘Bible Study!”
I call such normality, a ‘malignant normality,’ a 
spiritual illness, that is deeply destructive, not only to an 
individual’s general well-being and spiritual health, but also to
his or her family and society as a whole. 

I have always borne witness to the fact that such behaviour 
is not normal. It is abnormal. (More about my stance, my 
rubicon of July 2011, to come) 

Sadly, many theologians and clerics have become 
complicit in maintaining this ‘malignant normality’ and its
psychopathic God. 
John Martin’s ‘Sodom & Gomorrah’ 1852

The original Zarathustra has a lot to answer for, although our media would be lost without their favourite god or idol.

The original Zarathustra (Century7/6BC)

1 Posited the distinction between Good and Evil
2 The meaning of the world as a Moral Event.
This war between good and evil first emerged as a separation/disjunction of an archaic deity called Ahura Mazda into Vohu and Angro.

So, we see a world consisting of: 1 An ethical opposition and 2 A metaphysical opposition, between contradictory principles of existence. 

And thus a makeshift regime(s) of Good and Evil becomes the reality and meaning of the world.

Such a regime is neither 1 An endless Heraclitean opposition, nor 2 An alchemical marriage. What we have instead is a war of attrition, an endless battle, a focus on winning or losing. 
Zarathustra or Zoroaster
Nietzsche has a different take on Zarathustra, creating his very antithesis: 'And thus they parted from one another, the old man and Zarathustra, laughing as two boys laugh. But when Zarathustra was alone, he spoke thus to his heart: "Could it be possible! This old saint has not heard in his forest that God is dead!"