Yeah, plenty of people have misconception that it was just the Taliban who the US funded. The US funded everyone who were against USSR. The mujahideen was a catch-all term of Afghans who fought against the Soviets.
this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2025
203 points (93.2% liked)
Political Memes
8945 readers
2825 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
Even in Russia people often don't know this.
They also don't know that despite catch-alls and such, usually the word (I know it's pretty generic in Arabic) was used for a leftist-Islamist hybrid typical for that time and not typical now (the Islamic Republic of Iran has some remnants of that ideology). And before that there was a socialist dictatorship. And before it a British-aligned monarchy.
Yet people trained by USSR for police and military work are still employed by Taliban in positions requiring qualifications, or so I've been recently told. Will be interesting to see what happens when they get too old. Will such new states disassemble into tribal zones or will they manage to create their own institutions at least for training people capable of maintaining a basic military organization.
This post is dedicated to the brave mujahideen fighters of afghanistan.
I think we should just dedicate it to the gallant people of Afghanistan tbh
Keep reaching for that rainbow
I wonder if there's a term for these kind of 'unintended' consequences to reckless foreign subterfuge
Was it too difficult for you to read the meme? Does it need to be rephrased in simpler terms for you to understand?
I can't say for sure but I think you've mistaken me for someone else.
I can’t say for sure but I think you’ve mistaken me for someone else.
For... pointing out that your comment is in direct contradiction to the fact stated in the meme, the only thing stated by the meme, the purpose of the meme, which is hard to miss without failing to read the meme entirely?
Are we taking about the same comment here? Where did I contradict you?
I wonder if there’s a term for these kind of ‘unintended’ consequences to reckless foreign subterfuge
Unless your implication is that there was 'unintended' consequences by the reckless foreign subterfuge of Pakistan - which would be deeply questionable, considering that the Taliban did and has offered them since nearly all their desired policy goals from supporting it.
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.
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
Yes, which is why it would be a ridiculous term to apply here.
Like the militant extremists you supported fracturing into new adversarial militants that fuck your shit up later.
Again, where did this happen? And to whom? And what relevance does it have to the meme?
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.
The first Taliban leaders were former Mujaheddin militiamen… 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 don't 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, that's not even close to fucking true. But playing dumb is your specialty, isn't it? You do this all the fucking time.
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.
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.
I don’t really know what you think that proves?
Nothing.... I'm not claiming any kind of political alignment here, only that the taliban shares an origin with the mujaheddin
that’s not even close to fucking true.
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.
But playing dumb is your specialty, isn’t it? You do this all the fucking time.
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.
“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!”
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.
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.
So if I were to say that fascism shares an origin with socialism, you would say...?
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.
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.
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.
"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?
So if I were to say that fascism shares an origin with socialism, you would say…?
100% agree.
“You armed the people who ended up fighting the Taliban; therefore, you’re responsible for arming the Taliban!”
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.
Playing dumb is your specialty, like I said.
I'm not going to engage with this - I think you're misdirecting frustration from somewhere else at me.
100% agree.
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 you're 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 Taliban’s rapid initial popularity.
This is the first legitimate point made so far, but still makes no sense as a claim of 'sharing an origin'.
I’m not going to engage with this - I think you’re misdirecting frustration from somewhere else at me.
Sorry for having a sense of pattern recognition.
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 you're just trying to find something to argue about though - I think it's unlikely you actually believe this.
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
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 ‘sharing an origin’.
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.
Sorry for having a sense of pattern recognition.
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.
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.
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.
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? "The US supporting people against being massacred is Bad and the Afghan people deserve Blowback(tm) for accepting aid"?
and then those extremists started abusing children
Child abuse is a sadly long-standing tradition in Afghanistan society, not something that Mujahidin 'extremists' just 'starting doing' after the Soviet-Afghan War.
and fractured into oppositional factions (also religious extremists) who were then funded by Pakistan.
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 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 you’re leveling about ‘origins’ with the Taliban.
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.
The Mujahidin still retained large stocks of US weapons, even if the flow had stopped.
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.
The mujahidin were a diverse group united against the Soviet invasion.
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.
Again, what is your position here? “The US supporting people against being massacred is Bad and the Afghan people deserve Blowback™ for accepting aid”?
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.
Child abuse is a sadly long-standing tradition in Afghanistan society, not something that Mujahidin ‘extremists’ just ‘starting doing’ after the Soviet-Afghan War.
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 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?
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.
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.
I'm pretty sure this is exactly my point (your phrasing makes it a little ambiguous).
Get this shitposter a NCD hat!
😄 lol I think I saw the comment that fueled this post
So, it's still fallout from that.
How is it fallout from that?
Because it's formed from a splinter group of the previously installed government?
... it literally isn't. The Taliban wasn't a 'splinter group' of the Mujahedeen government, it was a largely Pakistani-funded and supported initiative whose even most embryonic form post-dates the entire Soviet-Afghan War in creating a paramilitary with the express purpose of overthrowing the previous Mujahedeen government (a goal in which it succeeded).
Hey, quick question, who was providing Pakistan with weapons and was allied with them around that time?
Hey, quick question, who was providing Pakistan with weapons and was allied with them around that time?
In the 1990s, when the Taliban was formed and the US had an arms embargo on Pakistan?
That's a good question. Do you have any suggestions?
In the 1990s, when the Taliban was formed and the US had an arms embargo on Pakistan?
Having an arms embargo doesn't mean you don't sell them weapons, apparently. It wasn't a whole lot of stuff though..
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-03-06-mn-3321-story.html
But just score free points in this quiz, the answer is "China, but they developed a pretty major arms industry themselves during the embargo"
Intergang?
That’s not quite the case. The mujahideen did splinter and civil war broke out, then the Taliban arose from the US+Pakistani training program from the Cold War with Saudi funding and steamrolled the factions taking over.
I'd still say it's related
The sons of liberty didn't set up America but they certainly played a huge role.
And likely some people were involved with both.
The Sons Of Liberty predated the American Revolutionaries, the Taliban postdates the entire Soviet-Afghan War.
The Sons Of Liberty didn't fight a literal fucking civil war against the successful American Revolutionaries.
Comparisons aren't exact matches but the relationship still stands. Individuals are tied to both, ideology they both share exists.
You're trying to paint them as two totally different things and they're not. You're comparing apples and pears
Comparisons aren’t exact matches but the relationship still stands. Individuals are tied to both,
"Individuals are tied to both"
Fuck's sake, you can find individuals who were Nazis in 1938 and Communists in 1950 East Germany, or capitalists in 1950 West Germany. That doesn't mean that those three sides have one secret common cause; it means individuals change allegiances - especially opportunists in times of crisis.
ideology they both share exists.
What ideology is that, again?
You’re trying to paint them as two totally different things and they’re not.
What are their similarities, other than both being vaguely nonsecular Afghan paramilitaries?
You're like really mad about this while being completely obtuse. Relax.
The Mujahedeen weren't as organized or as unionized, they were scrambled together to fight the Russians. When that was over another imperial force was pushing onto them, now organized they sort of merged with radicalized groups to form what is the Taliban. I had to Google his name but Jalauddin Haqqani is an exact example of what I mean, cut his teeth fighting Russians and moved to fighting US/NATO.
The ideology they share is main entire reason they were fighting in the first place that you're completely overlooking. The entire reason any of this happened. To fight imperial powers, to remove them from their country. Which is the same thing the sons of liberty wanted hence the comparison.
They're not vaguely nonsecular afghan paramilitaries. They're people motivated to fight western influence and were lining up under dozens of labels to do so.
How is this hard to understand?
The Mujahedeen weren’t as organized or as unionized, they were scrambled together to fight the Russians. When that was over another imperial force was pushing onto them, now organized they sort of merged with radicalized groups to form what is the Taliban.
... fucking what
What 'another imperial force' was 'pushing onto them' in 199 fucking 4, other than the one supporting the Taliban itself, Pakistan??
The ideology they share is main entire reason they were fighting in the first place that you’re completely overlooking. The entire reason any of this happened. To fight imperial powers, to remove them from their country.
"The Taliban is anti-imperialist" is the entire idiotic take that this is against. The Taliban is literally an imperialist tool of Pakistan and whose entire existence and rise to power postdates the Soviet invasion and predates the American invasion.
Jesus fucking Christ.
How is this hard to understand?
It's hard to understand because it's utter nonsense with no relation to facts as they actually occurred.