Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) 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.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
«¿Cuántas naciones ha bombardeado USA desde 2001?» (Infografía: Al Jazeera)
Do you think the Taliban 'fell out of a coconut tree', as one of your politicians used to say? It is a successor to the Hezbi Islami, Haraqat Inqilab Islami and other factions of the Mujahideen. These were funded and armed by the US to destabilise the Soviets, with zero thought going into what would happen if a country's government is weakened and religious zealots let loose with weapons and cash. (This is not to absolve Pakistan's ISI, by the way. They wanted a weak and divided Afghanistan, and have helped various shady groups over the years.)
"Um, aktually, the Taliban is the successor to the Islamist groups it literally fought a brutal civil war against."
Your intellect is truly frightening.
"if a country's government is weakened"
I love how casually you gloss over the genocidal Soviet occupation as implicitly some form of harmless stability, but what should one expect from campist bootlickers?
Yes. The Taliban was a faction (well, a couple of factions) of the Mujahideen that then fought a civil war against various other factions of the Mujahideen.
Genocidal? Taraki and Karmak were not perfect. They tried to change things too quickly, and angered many traditionalists and rural groups. But there's a bit of a difference between 'repressive' or 'harsh' and genocidal. It's the difference between, say, Saudi Arabia and Israel. Anyway, back to my criticism:
The US funded and armed a bunch of ultra-religious nutjobs to fight a government which, while far from perfect, had enacted reforms, protected the rights of women, and maintained a balance between the various tribes. It is not hard to predict what would result if that government collapsed, and, in fact, that is exactly what happened. Are all US military experts dumb? Or did they simply not care? Either way, they destroyed a country.
And then, of course, they repeated the same 'mistake' in Iraq, Libya and Syria. At this point, it is difficult to call it a mistake. Perhaps oil companies were involved.
Again, ignoring that the Taliban was formed largely by Pashtun religious students from Pakistan who were too young to have been involved in the Mujahideen.
Fucking lmao. Killing 10% of Afghanistan's population is just 'harsh'.
Did you forget that US aid to Afghanistan didn't even start until the Soviets invaded to prop up their puppet government, which had failed of its own accord, not 'maintained a balance between the various tribes'?
Fuck off, tankie.
Heard of this guy called Mullah Omar? Google that name.
Any evidence for this claim?
Again, evidence? The Afghan government was beating the terrorists even after the Soviets left, so on what basis had they 'failed'?