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.
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.
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’.
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™ 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).
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™ 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).