this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2025
210 points (93.0% liked)
Political Memes
8951 readers
2905 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well that wouldn't make any sense at all - blowback isn't a description of something you wanted to have happen that you didn't expect, it's a description of something you didn't want to happen that you didn't expect
Like the militant extremists you supported fracturing into new adversarial militants that fuck your shit up later.
Yes, which is why it would be a ridiculous term to apply here.
Again, where did this happen? And to whom? And what relevance does it have to the meme?
The first Taliban leaders were former Mujaheddin militiamen.... 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 it's a little weird to be passionately dismissing the US's role in setting the stage for the taliban, though. I didn't think I was disagreeing with the meme, but it does seem like you really don't 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 don't really know what you think that proves?
As demonstrated in detail elsewhere here, that's not even close to fucking true. But playing dumb is your specialty, isn't it? You do this all the fucking time.
Ah, so your argument is more of a "If only the Soviets were allowed to massacre Afghanistan with impunity, we wouldn't have to deal with this pesky BLOWBACK of Pakistani imperialism in Afghanistan!"
Lovely.
Nothing.... I'm 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 don't 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 don't know who you think I am, but I haven't had that many interactions with you. I'm 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 doesn't come without consequences.
So if I were to say that fascism shares an origin with socialism, you would say...?
Playing dumb is your specialty, like I said. We've had numerous encounters wherein you've pissed away time making vague and contradictory claims, walking back and claiming not to have walked back, and in general feigning ignorance.
"You armed the people who ended up fighting the Taliban; therefore, you're responsible for arming the Taliban!"
Brilliant. Just brilliant.
So, short of "You should have let the Soviets massacre Afghans unimpeded because some Afghans were religious extremists", what's 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 Taliban's rapid initial popularity.
I'm not going to engage with this - I think you're 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 you're 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 'sharing an origin'.
Sorry for having a sense of pattern recognition.
Err, yea I mean you could try arguing that I suppose. Seems like you're just trying to find something to argue about though - I think it's 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 'sharing an origin' to mean 'sharing a political alignment'. 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 haven't been anywhere near as hostile as you have been in this thread, and I don't think it has anything to do with some previous interaction you had with me.
I don't - in fact, I find it a very idiotic argument. My point is that this is the same argument you're leveling about 'origins' 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? "The US supporting people against being massacred is Bad and the Afghan people deserve Blowback(tm) for accepting aid"?
Child abuse is a sadly long-standing tradition in Afghanistan society, not something that Mujahidin 'extremists' just 'starting doing' after the Soviet-Afghan War.
Except the Taliban wasn't 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 'blowback' 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 isn't bud. I'm not saying the US 'created' the Taliban, just that their support of islamic fundamentalism lead to the proliferation of islamic fundamentalist groups. If 'supporting socialism' involved arming and funding fascist militants, then sure - that involvement could be said to have lead to the growth of fascism. Similarly, if 'opposing socialism' involved funding and arming fascist militants (or islamic fundamentalists....), then that involvement could be said to have lead to the growth of fascism (or islamic fundamentalism.....). But 'socialism leads to fascism' would be an exceedingly dumb thing to say.
Right.... 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 weren't 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 don't deny the US's 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 doesn't 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 doesn't 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 US's perspective, it didn't 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.
I'm pretty sure this is exactly my point (your phrasing makes it a little ambiguous).