where did this happen? And to whom? And what relevance does it have to the meme?
The first Taliban leaders were former Mujaheddin militiamenā¦ the same mujaheddin that were backed by the US against the Soviets
Yes, the Taliban are different from the group the US backed in the 80s, but only because they specifically split from those anti-soviet militias against the factional war-lords who had taken power in the chaos of the second civil war.
I think itās a little weird to be passionately dismissing the USās role in setting the stage for the taliban, though. I didnāt think I was disagreeing with the meme, but it does seem like you really donāt like the implication that the US bears some responsibility for what happened in Afghanistan after the Soviets withdrew.
The first Taliban leaders were former Mujaheddin militiamenā¦ the same mujaheddin that were backed by the US against the Soviets
And the overwhelming majority of opposition to the Taliban were former mujahedin. I donāt really know what you think that proves?
Yes, the Taliban are different from the group the US backed in the 80s, but only because they specifically split from those anti-soviet militias against the factional war-lords who had taken power in the chaos of the second civil war.
As demonstrated in detail elsewhere here, thatās not even close to fucking true. But playing dumb is your specialty, isnāt it? You do this all the fucking time.
I think itās a little weird to be passionately dismissing the USās role in setting the stage for the taliban, though. I didnāt think I was disagreeing with the meme, but it does seem like you really donāt like the implication that the US bears some responsibility for what happened in Afghanistan after the Soviets withdrew.
Ah, so your argument is more of a āIf only the Soviets were allowed to massacre Afghanistan with impunity, we wouldnāt have to deal with this pesky BLOWBACK of Pakistani imperialism in Afghanistan!ā
Nothingā¦ Iām not claiming any kind of political alignment here, only that the taliban shares an origin with the mujaheddin
thatās not even close to fucking true.
You detailed the relationship between the Taliban and the ISI, which I donāt disagree with. But Mullah Omar was absolutely a part of the Hezb-i Islami Khalis, and then later formed the Taliban. You can disagree with the relative influence of that relationship with the US and mujaheddin if you want, but the relationship is there either way.
But playing dumb is your specialty, isnāt it? You do this all the fucking time.
I donāt know who you think I am, but I havenāt had that many interactions with you. Iām a little confused by the hostility.
āIf only the Soviets were allowed to massacre Afghanistan with impunity, we wouldnāt have to deal with this pesky BLOWBACK of Pakistani imperialism in Afghanistan!ā
Jesus fuck, not at all, and where you got that conclusion from is completely beyond my comprehension. The soviets share just as much blame for the chaos that ensued after they withdrew as the US does, and Pakistan bears responsibility, too. Arming militant fundamentalist groups as your method of intervention doesnāt come without consequences.
Nothingā¦ Iām not claiming any kind of political alignment here, only that the taliban shares an origin with the mujaheddin You detailed the relationship between the Taliban and the ISI, which I donāt disagree with. But Mullah Omar was absolutely a part of the Hezb-i Islami Khalis, and then later formed the Taliban. You can disagree with the relative influence of that relationship with the US and mujaheddin if you want, but the relationship is there either way.
So if I were to say that fascism shares an origin with socialism, you would sayā¦?
I donāt know who you think I am, but I havenāt had that many interactions with you. Iām a little confused by the hostility.
Playing dumb is your specialty, like I said. Weāve had numerous encounters wherein youāve pissed away time making vague and contradictory claims, walking back and claiming not to have walked back, and in general feigning ignorance.
Jesus fuck, not at all, and where you got that conclusion from is completely beyond my comprehension. The soviets share just as much blame for the chaos that ensued after they withdrew as the US does, and Pakistan bears responsibility, too. Arming militant fundamentalist groups as your method of intervention doesnāt come without consequences.
āYou armed the people who ended up fighting the Taliban; therefore, youāre responsible for arming the Taliban!ā
Brilliant. Just brilliant.
So, short of āYou should have let the Soviets massacre Afghans unimpeded because some Afghans were religious extremistsā, whatās your argument here?
So if I were to say that fascism shares an origin with socialism, you would sayā¦?
100% agree.
āYou armed the people who ended up fighting the Taliban; therefore, youāre responsible for arming the Taliban!ā
They also armed the people who ended up becoming the Taliban, to say nothing of the atrocities conducted by the mujahadeen themselves that fueled the Talibanās rapid initial popularity.
Playing dumb is your specialty, like I said.
Iām not going to engage with this - I think youāre misdirecting frustration from somewhere else at me.
And so if I were to say, then, that support of socialism caused fascism, and that fascism was blowback to those who dared support socialism?
They also armed the people who ended up becoming the Taliban,
What? The leaders youāre discussing were largely detached from Mujahedeen organizations by the time of the formation of the Taliban, and were armed by Pakistan.
to say nothing of the atrocities conducted by the mujahadeen themselves that fueled the Talibanās rapid initial popularity.
This is the first legitimate point made so far, but still makes no sense as a claim of āsharing an originā.
Iām not going to engage with this - I think youāre misdirecting frustration from somewhere else at me.
so if I were to say, then, that support of socialism caused fascism, and that fascism was blowback to those who dared support socialism?
Err, yea I mean you could try arguing that I suppose. Seems like youāre just trying to find something to argue about though - I think itās unlikely you actually believe this.
The leaders youāre discussing were largely detached from Mujahedeen organizations by the time of the formation of the Taliban, and were armed by Pakistan
Eventually, sure. Just like the Mujaheddin were largely detached from US material support by the time they were actively fighting against the Taliban.
This is the first legitimate point made so far, but still makes no sense as a claim of āsharing an originā.
I havenāt been anywhere near as hostile as you have been in this thread, and I donāt think it has anything to do with some previous interaction you had with me.
Err, yea I mean you could try arguing that I suppose. Seems like youāre just trying to find something to argue about though - I think itās unlikely you actually believe this.
I donāt - in fact, I find it a very idiotic argument. My point is that this is the same argument youāre leveling about āoriginsā with the Taliban.
Eventually, sure. Just like the Mujaheddin were largely detached from US material support by the time they were actively fighting against the Taliban.
The Mujahidin still retained large stocks of US weapons, even if the flow had stopped.
The US supported and emboldened religious extremist militants,
The mujahidin were a diverse group united against the Soviet invasion.
Again, what is your position here? āThe US supporting people against being massacred is Bad and the Afghan people deserve Blowbackā¢ for accepting aidā?
and then those extremists started abusing children
Child abuse is a sadly long-standing tradition in Afghanistan society, not something that Mujahidin āextremistsā just āstarting doingā after the Soviet-Afghan War.
and fractured into oppositional factions (also religious extremists) who were then funded by Pakistan.
Except the Taliban wasnāt jack fucking shit until literal tens of thousands of recruits were provided by Pakistan.
Treating the Taliban as a serious outgrowth of the Mujahidin instead of a handful of lunatics being transformed into catspaws for imperialist interests is insanity. If Pakistan had decided that reviving the Communist throwbacks was in their national interests, would you be decrying the US for creating Communist āblowbackā in Afghanistan and declare that the Mujahidin were the origin of the Communist terrorists?
The US thought that destroying the Soviet Union was worth creating whatever militant fundamentalist groups that happened to rise out of the ashes of that conflict, and here we are 40 years later.
The US thought that there was going to be an intervention by the Soviet Union, and considered frustrating that aim to be worth the risk that it might not happen.
Brzezinski doing triumphalist laps in the 90s is not particularly relevant in comparison to the evidence of government communications occurring at that time.
My point is that this is the same argument youāre leveling about āoriginsā with the Taliban.
Lol, no it isnāt bud. Iām not saying the US ācreatedā the Taliban, just that their support of islamic fundamentalism lead to the proliferation of islamic fundamentalist groups. If āsupporting socialismā involved arming and funding fascist militants, then sure - that involvement could be said to have lead to the growth of fascism. Similarly, if āopposing socialismā involved funding and arming fascist militants (or islamic fundamentalistsā¦), then that involvement could be said to have lead to the growth of fascism (or islamic fundamentalismā¦). But āsocialism leads to fascismā would be an exceedingly dumb thing to say.
The Mujahidin still retained large stocks of US weapons, even if the flow had stopped.
Rightā¦ And once the soviets had left, all the weapons and funding the US had dumped into the country helped fuel factional conflicts between competing fundamentalist groups.
The mujahidin were a diverse group united against the Soviet invasion.
I mean, maybe at the time? Once the war ended they certainly werenāt united anymore. The only other thing they had in common other than their religion (and the only thing that mattered to the US) was their opposition to the Soviets. The US preferred this group over the secular militias because, in their view, they were less likely to install another communist or socialist government after the soviets were defeated.
Again, what is your position here? āThe US supporting people against being massacred is Bad and the Afghan people deserve Blowbackā¢ for accepting aidā?
Not at all. My position is that the US knowingly armed and funded religious fundamentalists in order to undermine Soviet influence, and that funding ended up fueling religious extremist movements that threw the entire region into chaos for decades after. Does that mean I support the Soviet invasion? Fuck no. But I sure as fuck donāt deny the USās role in the formation of the Taliban and other militant groups that terrorized the country once the soviets were gone.
Child abuse is a sadly long-standing tradition in Afghanistan society, not something that Mujahidin āextremistsā just āstarting doingā after the Soviet-Afghan War.
Ok, so they were religious extremists before the US was supplying them with weapons, too? That doesnāt exculpate the US from empowering them just because they were dead-set on stopping the spread of communism at any cost, and acknowledging that cost doesnāt somehow legitimize communism, either.
If Pakistan had decided that reviving the Communist throwbacks was in their national interests, would you be decrying the US for creating Communist āblowbackā in Afghanistan and declare that the Mujahidin were the origin of the Communist terrorists?
If that made any sense at all, sure? The US was aligned with Pakistan during the war, and much of the aid was distributed to the groups Pakistan thought favored them. From the USās perspective, it didnāt matter who was fighting against the Soviets, only that they fought the Soviets. If Pakistan was preferencing communist militants instead of islamic fundamentalists, would the US have still worked with them against the Soviets? Doubtful, but also the culpability for what came after would have been the same regardless.
The US thought that there was going to be an intervention by the Soviet Union, and considered frustrating that aim to be worth the risk that it might not happen.
Iām pretty sure this is exactly my point (your phrasing makes it a little ambiguous).
The first Taliban leaders were former Mujaheddin militiamenā¦ the same mujaheddin that were backed by the US against the Soviets
Yes, the Taliban are different from the group the US backed in the 80s, but only because they specifically split from those anti-soviet militias against the factional war-lords who had taken power in the chaos of the second civil war.
I think itās a little weird to be passionately dismissing the USās role in setting the stage for the taliban, though. I didnāt think I was disagreeing with the meme, but it does seem like you really donāt like the implication that the US bears some responsibility for what happened in Afghanistan after the Soviets withdrew.
And the overwhelming majority of opposition to the Taliban were former mujahedin. I donāt really know what you think that proves?
As demonstrated in detail elsewhere here, thatās not even close to fucking true. But playing dumb is your specialty, isnāt it? You do this all the fucking time.
Ah, so your argument is more of a āIf only the Soviets were allowed to massacre Afghanistan with impunity, we wouldnāt have to deal with this pesky BLOWBACK of Pakistani imperialism in Afghanistan!ā
Lovely.
Nothingā¦ Iām not claiming any kind of political alignment here, only that the taliban shares an origin with the mujaheddin
You detailed the relationship between the Taliban and the ISI, which I donāt disagree with. But Mullah Omar was absolutely a part of the Hezb-i Islami Khalis, and then later formed the Taliban. You can disagree with the relative influence of that relationship with the US and mujaheddin if you want, but the relationship is there either way.
I donāt know who you think I am, but I havenāt had that many interactions with you. Iām a little confused by the hostility.
Jesus fuck, not at all, and where you got that conclusion from is completely beyond my comprehension. The soviets share just as much blame for the chaos that ensued after they withdrew as the US does, and Pakistan bears responsibility, too. Arming militant fundamentalist groups as your method of intervention doesnāt come without consequences.
So if I were to say that fascism shares an origin with socialism, you would sayā¦?
Playing dumb is your specialty, like I said. Weāve had numerous encounters wherein youāve pissed away time making vague and contradictory claims, walking back and claiming not to have walked back, and in general feigning ignorance.
āYou armed the people who ended up fighting the Taliban; therefore, youāre responsible for arming the Taliban!ā
Brilliant. Just brilliant.
So, short of āYou should have let the Soviets massacre Afghans unimpeded because some Afghans were religious extremistsā, whatās your argument here?
100% agree.
They also armed the people who ended up becoming the Taliban, to say nothing of the atrocities conducted by the mujahadeen themselves that fueled the Talibanās rapid initial popularity.
Iām not going to engage with this - I think youāre misdirecting frustration from somewhere else at me.
And so if I were to say, then, that support of socialism caused fascism, and that fascism was blowback to those who dared support socialism?
What? The leaders youāre discussing were largely detached from Mujahedeen organizations by the time of the formation of the Taliban, and were armed by Pakistan.
This is the first legitimate point made so far, but still makes no sense as a claim of āsharing an originā.
Sorry for having a sense of pattern recognition.
Err, yea I mean you could try arguing that I suppose. Seems like youāre just trying to find something to argue about though - I think itās unlikely you actually believe this.
Eventually, sure. Just like the Mujaheddin were largely detached from US material support by the time they were actively fighting against the Taliban.
Sure it does, but not if you take āsharing an originā to mean āsharing a political alignmentā. The US supported and emboldened religious extremist militants, and then those extremists started abusing children and fractured into oppositional factions (also religious extremists) who were then funded by Pakistan. The US thought that destroying the Soviet Union was worth creating whatever militant fundamentalist groups that happened to rise out of the ashes of that conflict, and here we are 40 years later.
I havenāt been anywhere near as hostile as you have been in this thread, and I donāt think it has anything to do with some previous interaction you had with me.
I donāt - in fact, I find it a very idiotic argument. My point is that this is the same argument youāre leveling about āoriginsā with the Taliban.
The Mujahidin still retained large stocks of US weapons, even if the flow had stopped.
The mujahidin were a diverse group united against the Soviet invasion.
Again, what is your position here? āThe US supporting people against being massacred is Bad and the Afghan people deserve Blowbackā¢ for accepting aidā?
Child abuse is a sadly long-standing tradition in Afghanistan society, not something that Mujahidin āextremistsā just āstarting doingā after the Soviet-Afghan War.
Except the Taliban wasnāt jack fucking shit until literal tens of thousands of recruits were provided by Pakistan.
Treating the Taliban as a serious outgrowth of the Mujahidin instead of a handful of lunatics being transformed into catspaws for imperialist interests is insanity. If Pakistan had decided that reviving the Communist throwbacks was in their national interests, would you be decrying the US for creating Communist āblowbackā in Afghanistan and declare that the Mujahidin were the origin of the Communist terrorists?
The US thought that there was going to be an intervention by the Soviet Union, and considered frustrating that aim to be worth the risk that it might not happen.
Brzezinski doing triumphalist laps in the 90s is not particularly relevant in comparison to the evidence of government communications occurring at that time.
Lol, no it isnāt bud. Iām not saying the US ācreatedā the Taliban, just that their support of islamic fundamentalism lead to the proliferation of islamic fundamentalist groups. If āsupporting socialismā involved arming and funding fascist militants, then sure - that involvement could be said to have lead to the growth of fascism. Similarly, if āopposing socialismā involved funding and arming fascist militants (or islamic fundamentalistsā¦), then that involvement could be said to have lead to the growth of fascism (or islamic fundamentalismā¦). But āsocialism leads to fascismā would be an exceedingly dumb thing to say.
Rightā¦ And once the soviets had left, all the weapons and funding the US had dumped into the country helped fuel factional conflicts between competing fundamentalist groups.
I mean, maybe at the time? Once the war ended they certainly werenāt united anymore. The only other thing they had in common other than their religion (and the only thing that mattered to the US) was their opposition to the Soviets. The US preferred this group over the secular militias because, in their view, they were less likely to install another communist or socialist government after the soviets were defeated.
Not at all. My position is that the US knowingly armed and funded religious fundamentalists in order to undermine Soviet influence, and that funding ended up fueling religious extremist movements that threw the entire region into chaos for decades after. Does that mean I support the Soviet invasion? Fuck no. But I sure as fuck donāt deny the USās role in the formation of the Taliban and other militant groups that terrorized the country once the soviets were gone.
Ok, so they were religious extremists before the US was supplying them with weapons, too? That doesnāt exculpate the US from empowering them just because they were dead-set on stopping the spread of communism at any cost, and acknowledging that cost doesnāt somehow legitimize communism, either.
If that made any sense at all, sure? The US was aligned with Pakistan during the war, and much of the aid was distributed to the groups Pakistan thought favored them. From the USās perspective, it didnāt matter who was fighting against the Soviets, only that they fought the Soviets. If Pakistan was preferencing communist militants instead of islamic fundamentalists, would the US have still worked with them against the Soviets? Doubtful, but also the culpability for what came after would have been the same regardless.
Iām pretty sure this is exactly my point (your phrasing makes it a little ambiguous).