this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2026
277 points (98.6% liked)

Political Memes

11411 readers
1252 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

1) Be civilJokes 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 misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

3) Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

4) No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow 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

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

«¿Cuántas naciones ha bombardeado USA desde 2001?» (Infografía: Al Jazeera)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

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.

"Um, aktually, the Taliban is the successor to the Islamist groups it literally fought a brutal civil war against."

Your intellect is truly frightening.

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.

"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?

[–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 0 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

the Taliban is the successor to the Islamist groups it literally fought a brutal civil war against.

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.

I love how casually you gloss over the genocidal Soviet occupation

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.

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 0 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

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.

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:

Fucking lmao. Killing 10% of Afghanistan's population is just 'harsh'.

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.

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.

[–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works -1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

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.

Heard of this guy called Mullah Omar? Google that name.

Fucking lmao. Killing 10% of Afghanistan's population is just 'harsh'.

Any evidence for this claim?

which had failed of its own accord

Again, evidence? The Afghan government was beating the terrorists even after the Soviets left, so on what basis had they 'failed'?

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 0 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Heard of this guy called Mullah Omar? Google that name.

I'm well aware of Mullah Omar. Are you going to continue the ignore the point like the good little bootlicker you are, or are you going to try to make an actual response?

Any evidence for this claim?

Are you fucking kidding me.

There is generally accepted to have been well over a million civilian deaths in Afghanistan over the course of the Soviet invasion. Afghanistan's population at the time was ~13 million.

Are you disputing the number of deaths, the math, or just jerking off?

Again, evidence? The Afghan government was beating the terrorists even after the Soviets left, so on what basis had they ‘failed’?

...

First off, since your literacy appears to be quite subpar, the accusation I made was that the Soviets invaded in order to prop up the government - ie the government failing was what initiated the invasion.

Second, in what world is losing to the Mujahedeen 'beating the terrorists'?

Third, failing to maintain power is generally considered a failure on the part of a government, especially a government in civil war.

Fourth, this is not in any way a disputed fact, unless you live in an alternate reality where the Communist government of Afghanistan was invaded in 2001 by the evil USA, or where the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan never happened.

[–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 0 points 43 minutes ago

Are you going to continue the ignore the point like the good little bootlicker you are, or are you going to try to make an actual response?

I can tell you where to start reading, but I'm afraid you'll have to do the reading yourself. So, once again, Google that Omar guy. Read his Wikipedia page. You'll learn about the Taliban's connections to the Mujahideen.

There is generally accepted to have been well over a million civilian deaths in Afghanistan over the course of the Soviet invasion.

There are over ten million civilian deaths in my country every year. People die of all sorts of reasons. That's not what 'genocide' means.

the Soviets invaded in order to prop up the government - ie the government failing was what initiated the invasion.

If you read the part of my comment you quoted, you might notice that I was talking about the period immediately after the Soviets left, when the Afghan army did win battles against the Mujahideen. In fact, the Soviets made the same mistake the US would make later - when you directly intervene in another country's,internal matters, even the people who might otherwise have agreed with you will see you as an invader (because, well, you are) and fight you.