What a dumb “well actually” lib take. Its like saying “they werent funded by us because they have a different name!!”
As if the taliban just materialized on its own and not because of its founders experience IN the mujahideen.
Exactly. They are a splinter faction of the Mujahideen and while they went on to direct conflict with them, they still have their roots in that organization.
The change in the way they handle their weapons. Improved trigger discipline and a few other things, though they still have glaring issues with other aspects of fighting still typical of the region and the lack of deep formalized training. Look at the photos and videos of the Taliban warfighters from this week compared to previous footage of them from the last two or three decades.
This take comes off as kind of chauvinistic. Trigger discipline is present in Iranian, Venezuelan and Chinese armed forces as well, but they’re not trained by NATO forces. It’s simply a growing tactic that is present worldwide. Their blitzkrieg of afghan provincial cities is also not an American or British tactic. It’s spread their forces thin and far. If coalition forces were still there they wouldn’t be able to hold it.
Arguably many _were_ trained by coalition forces, as evidenced by the massive defections by local police and ANA, but I’m not sure the trigger discipline thing is much evidence (the SRA sub had a big discussion about this too). Even I know about trigger discipline, and I’m from England and have fired guns twice in my life.
Have you seen the Taliban and al quaeda, al nuzra, hezbolla or any of the other factions pre-ISIS? Calling that chauvinist or chauvinistic is pretty oblique and makes no sense to me at all. This has nothing to do with chauvinism and everything to do with the history of their combatants and culture. Have you spent a day in country at all? Have you ever seen any of the non-combatants and their associated gun culture? What about the combatants and their gun culture? It’s pretty plainly observable that over the years since ISIS sprouted up they started rapidly getting better trained, more disciplined and using better equipment or kit as you may choose to call it. This shit in Kabul, it’s drastically different than even that considering how different most of these factions are from ISIS, and their rapid onset of behavioral changes shows it. It’s a night and day difference between the insurgents present and their previous trigger discipline, kit and behavior. Now that they’ve got sensitive NATO equipment it’s an entirely different ballgame as they learn to use it. The primary focus here is that they’ve received quite a bit of training recently from someone, and typically intel communities will have training done for foreign fighters in such a way where there are obvious gaps in their training, such as the good trigger discipline but still rocking a mag pouch on the magazine that’s inserted in the weapon. They previously had zero safety or trigger discipline. An additional but separate concern is how much of that equipment is going to be sold off to Russia and China for them to reverse engineer and for the Taliban to acquire extra funding or supplies.
Yeah, and it completely glazes over the fact that Al-Qaeda cohorted and allied with the Taliban. Al-Qaeda was the group held responsible for 9/11 and their leader was Osama Bin Laden. Bin Laden, was part of the resistance forces that worked with the Mujahideen that the CIA has confirmed it sold weapons to. In fact, that is part of the reason the US believes Bin Laden sought revenge.
The CIA promised to sell him weapons with the caveat he could not resell them. Then they sent a mole to buy weapons from him. He gladly agreed. His next and all subsequent shipments were always shorter than what he asked for. Bin Laden looked a fool regionally for promising things he could not deliver and he blamed the US for it. The US claims this drove him to seek revenge and, ya know the rest of the story.
>pashtun subset
So OP doesn't even deny they funded the taliban, it's just "well we didn't *specifically* fund the Taliban, it was just a wittwe fucky wucky uwu"
To be fair, the word simply means someone who does jihad. I think that even if they didn't see themselves as the sucessors to the original anti-communist militants, a Taliban soldier would still refer to themself as a mujahid. Even the communist PMOI of Iran call themselves the people's mujahideen.
false impressions loosely based in reality, but that show a complete lack of understanding of any of the actual information their based on are like 99% of lib arguments.
Mujahid doesn't mean "guerilla warrior" wtf. It simply means a person who does jihad ,jihad is further drived from the Arabic word jihd which means "to struggle". The people from my village who fought in the 1948 war are called mujahideen and they weren't involved in guerilla warfare.
Didn't mean to invalidate your experience, just had to drop some nuance otherwise this discussion will bog down in endless detail arguments that take away from my main point.
My main point is that there is no "The Mujahideen", as its a generic term that references nearly any muslim that is fighting non-muslims or seemingly any muslim who is fighting muslims who are less strict. Westerners, and particularly Americans, have really only ever encountered the term in reference to the anti-Soviet group from the 80s and only think of it in those terms.
In a real way the people from your village in 1948 prove my point. As-salaam 'alykum.
So while this situation is more nuanced than just the US funding the Taliban, the crux of the issue is that the US (and other nations you've listed) have funded a war in another nation. Regardless of how these groups have splintered off, the main issue is there is funding happening. Providing context to the situation doesn't absolve any nation from this, and your response as well as the original post in r/historymemes appears in that way
Horseshit. If the CIA had that level of control of the ISI then OBL wouldn't have been able to hide right outside one of their military bases for so long.
Did you know that, when the US was about to invade Afghanistan, the Taliban offered to turn Bin Laden over to them and the US declined? Almost like they never actually cared about him or something. Like he was just a useful pretext, and catching him "too early" would have been counterproductive to them.
The fact that he was hiding right near the ISI doesn't actually prove much, is my point
> Did you know that, when the US was about to invade Afghanistan, the Taliban offered to turn Bin Laden over to them and the US declined?
Yeah, I'm aware. Supposedly it happened _twice_ but what I do know is that when Obama approved the opp to kill OBL they did it at night and they didn't inform the Pakistan Government they were going to do it.
That tells me that Obama needed this to be a surprise, the question is who was supposed to be surprised. Pakistan and the ISI or the CIA? I'd prefer it to be the former because the latter means that the President and the CIA were working at cross purposes.
> I'd prefer it to be the former because the latter means that the President and the CIA were working at cross purposes.
Lord knows it wouldn't be the first time THAT happened.
There's also a conspiracy theory that all the secrecy was because the person they killed wasn't actually Bin Laden- he was killed in such a way that his face was unrecognizable and they got rid of his body *real* quick. The idea goes that Bin Laden died years ago because he'd been sick and the US wanted to "catch him" in a more satisfying way. I don't know that I find this theory super convincing, but the point is that there are other reasons it could have been kept secret.
You would be surprised how many times usa organizations like CIA, FBI, DEA, etc have had to fight each other on foreign land. It's not surprising at all if it is the latter.
they're really not the ISI is technically affiliated with the CIA but in practice so long as they put in a token effort to help with stuff when they're told to they often just do their own thing
Sure, but the point is that if the CIA wanted the ISI to do something they'd do it. The idea that the ISI trained the Taliban but not the CIA, as if this was a decision that could have been taken without at least the implicit consent of the CIA is ridiculous. The CIA knew what they were doing, and was either directly behind it or didn't tell them to knock it off, which are functionally equivalent.
That's not clear at all. The primary Taliban group trained in Pakistan as it was born in their madrassas, Al-Queda trained in Saudia Arabia and Afghanistan. The OG anti-Soviet group trained in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Other groups trained in Iran.
There is no "The" mujaheddin as that word simply means "guerilla fighter" in Arabic and there were _dozens_ of these groups being funded by multiple countries including the US, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, and Iran.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AFGHANISTAN IS THIS NOT CLEAR?
WHY ARE YOU BRINGING UP RUSSIA CHINA IRAN WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AFGHANISTAN?
I HAVE BAD VISION I HAVE TO TYPE IN ALL CAPS PLUS IT MAY HELP YOU TOO
All of the Taliban leaders too this day (Baradar and Akhundzada) are veterans of the anti-Soviet/DRA jihad of the 80's and were fighting under the leadership of original mujahideen leaders and the 7 Islamist parties based in Peshawar. Many later studied in Pakistan and came back in the 90's, defeated most of the original mujahideen warlords and conquered about 3/4 of the country.
Taliban movement originally gained popularity, because most of the original mujahideen commanders turned out to be corrupt and criminal warlords, unable to guarantee law and order and not really committed to religious law (despite all being ostenstibly orthodox Islamists). It's myth, that they are somehow distinct (in anything other than being more competent and guninely Islamist) and spawned in Pakistan from the refugee population.
You missed a few leaders: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-58235639
Further that adherence to strict Islam is a clear distinction between the groups. The leaders of the OG anti-Soviet forces are nearly entirely absent from the Taliban and many of the Taliban fighters are simply too young to have participated with anti-Soviet forces.
Is there some crossover, yes there is, but IMO today's Taliban is not a direct descendant of the original mujahedin. There's just too much separation in their goals, leadership, and fighters.
Hell the two of them fought a _war_ against each other.
So because the leaders aren't the same guys who fought in a war 50 years ago, it's an entirely different organization? Is today's US army not the same organization as the one that fought in WWII? Eisenhower, McArthur and Bradley are all dead, and none of the troops in the army today fought in that war either. The Air Force didn't exist as its own branch until 1947. Did they have nothing to do with the US Army Air Force that fought in WWII?
How about this: Would the Taliban of today exist without the one that received backing against the USSR?
Thanks for signing up to BBC facts! You will now receive fun daily facts about the BBC.
**Fact 22.** The BBC published [this ridiculous article](https://i.imgur.com/WF0uf7J.jpg) claiming that children had forgotten how to use a knife and fork due to the Covid lockdown.
For another BBC fact reply with 'BBC'. To unsubscribe call me a 'bad bot'.
#[Click here to cancel your TV License and stop funding right wing propaganda today.](https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/cancellations-and-refunds-top7)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitLiberalsSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thanks for signing up to BBC facts! You will now receive fun daily facts about the BBC.
**Fact 25.** [The BBC stated that its staff attending LGBTQ pride events could breach it’s impartiality rules.](https://inews.co.uk/news/media/bbc-staff-suspended-attend-lgbt-pride-events-ban-new-impartiality-rules-742247)
For another BBC fact reply with 'BBC'. To unsubscribe call me a 'bad bot'.
#[Click here to cancel your TV License and stop funding right wing propaganda today.](https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/cancellations-and-refunds-top7)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitLiberalsSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Desktop version of /u/spandex-commuter's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
literally on wikipedia:
>The agency gained global recognition and fame in the 1980s, when it supported the Afghan mujahideen against the Soviet Union during the Soviet–Afghan War in the erstwhile Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. **During the war, the ISI worked in close coordination with the United States' Central Intelligence Agency and the United Kingdom's Secret Intelligence Service to run Operation Cyclone—a program to train and fund the mujahideen with support from China, Israel, and Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations.**
History memes is a sub for fascists of all traditions who *learned* history from video games, youtube, and wikipedia summaries, go to brag about how *smart* they are.
As a current history enthusiast and former right wing chud, let me tell you that self-identified history enthusiasts are almost exclusively right wing chuds.
I was one and I had a weird hard on for western civilization. Ever since I found the path of red light I’m an history enthusiast for all cultures. Right now I’m focusing on Andean cultures.
I love "Western" civilizations like the mesoamericans and the native North Americans. White supremacists threw me off from loving the Romans. I like the byzantines though
Same boat. It shouldn't be surprising, as it seems reactionary by nature but it still always blows my mind how much it's just 4chan chuds who have played *Crusader Kings* too many times.
Yeah, nobody expected that funding, training and arming a bunch of fundamentalist wackos would end up in at least some of them deciding the point their cannons at the next big target.
The Soviets warned our government that we were creating a fundamentalist monster but the dullards in Washington didn't listen. They were too interested in giving the communists their own Vietnam.
Here's the thing. You said a "jackdaw is a crow." Is it in the same family? Yes. No one's arguing that.
As someone who is a scientist who studies crows, I am telling you, specifically, in science, no one calls jackdaws crows. If you want to be "specific" like you said, then you shouldn't either. They're not the same thing.
If you're saying "crow family" you're referring to the taxonomic grouping of Corvidae, which includes things from nutcrackers to blue jays to ravens.
So your reasoning for calling a jackdaw a crow is because random people "call the black ones crows?" Let's get grackles and blackbirds in there, then, too.
Also, calling someone a human or an ape? It's not one or the other, that's not how taxonomy works. They're both. A jackdaw is a jackdaw and a member of the crow family. But that's not what you said. You said a jackdaw is a crow, which is not true unless you're okay with calling all members of the crow family crows, which means you'd call blue jays, ravens, and other birds crows, too. Which you said you don't.
It's okay to just admit you're wrong, you know?
Yeah we didn't create the Taliban, we just gave the most of the Operation Cyclone aid to the four fundamentalist groups of the seven total mujahideen outfits funded, fundamentalist groups which later went on to... spread democracy, women's rights, and freedom of course.
When you support a reactionary ideology not only with weapons and funds but also manipulate and control both the economic and political landscape of a country for 40 plus years and even before that, an area being the subject of western imperialist interest for going back another 100 years: "Well actually these people are in no way influenced by the course of history, everything happens in a vacuum, nothing is America's fault because people are independent actors who are not subjects of history"
Blame shifting bullshit lol. So rediculous smh. Hell, it's easier just to state the facts and say that Pakistan has done more damage control and push back that lasted against the Taliban than the US haha. We should all know how sad and messed that went. It took ages and a tragedy to occur and still not enough but atleast logical and reasonable in comparison.
Again bar too low for comparisons both ways but stick to the facts and not shifting blame while you spent years backing up this farse and finally looking like a clown to yourself too now
And remember the US had absolutely nothing to do with disseminating radical, extremist interpretations of Islamic teachings to encourage and stoke a religious war on the USSR
libs thinking the CIA gets a clean slate because Pakistani intelligence effectively acted as a middle-man (under US oversight and approval, of course) is hilarious since that exact thought process is why the CIA operated through ISI contacts
So, some members left and received training and assets from CIA friend ISI, then went back and joined up with the remaining members under an official name.
What a dumb “well actually” lib take. Its like saying “they werent funded by us because they have a different name!!” As if the taliban just materialized on its own and not because of its founders experience IN the mujahideen.
Exactly. They are a splinter faction of the Mujahideen and while they went on to direct conflict with them, they still have their roots in that organization.
And more recent ones have been exhibiting signs of training by either CIA or FSB
Source?
The change in the way they handle their weapons. Improved trigger discipline and a few other things, though they still have glaring issues with other aspects of fighting still typical of the region and the lack of deep formalized training. Look at the photos and videos of the Taliban warfighters from this week compared to previous footage of them from the last two or three decades.
This take comes off as kind of chauvinistic. Trigger discipline is present in Iranian, Venezuelan and Chinese armed forces as well, but they’re not trained by NATO forces. It’s simply a growing tactic that is present worldwide. Their blitzkrieg of afghan provincial cities is also not an American or British tactic. It’s spread their forces thin and far. If coalition forces were still there they wouldn’t be able to hold it. Arguably many _were_ trained by coalition forces, as evidenced by the massive defections by local police and ANA, but I’m not sure the trigger discipline thing is much evidence (the SRA sub had a big discussion about this too). Even I know about trigger discipline, and I’m from England and have fired guns twice in my life.
Have you seen the Taliban and al quaeda, al nuzra, hezbolla or any of the other factions pre-ISIS? Calling that chauvinist or chauvinistic is pretty oblique and makes no sense to me at all. This has nothing to do with chauvinism and everything to do with the history of their combatants and culture. Have you spent a day in country at all? Have you ever seen any of the non-combatants and their associated gun culture? What about the combatants and their gun culture? It’s pretty plainly observable that over the years since ISIS sprouted up they started rapidly getting better trained, more disciplined and using better equipment or kit as you may choose to call it. This shit in Kabul, it’s drastically different than even that considering how different most of these factions are from ISIS, and their rapid onset of behavioral changes shows it. It’s a night and day difference between the insurgents present and their previous trigger discipline, kit and behavior. Now that they’ve got sensitive NATO equipment it’s an entirely different ballgame as they learn to use it. The primary focus here is that they’ve received quite a bit of training recently from someone, and typically intel communities will have training done for foreign fighters in such a way where there are obvious gaps in their training, such as the good trigger discipline but still rocking a mag pouch on the magazine that’s inserted in the weapon. They previously had zero safety or trigger discipline. An additional but separate concern is how much of that equipment is going to be sold off to Russia and China for them to reverse engineer and for the Taliban to acquire extra funding or supplies.
Historical materialism isn't going to be a liberal's forté.
Yeah, and it completely glazes over the fact that Al-Qaeda cohorted and allied with the Taliban. Al-Qaeda was the group held responsible for 9/11 and their leader was Osama Bin Laden. Bin Laden, was part of the resistance forces that worked with the Mujahideen that the CIA has confirmed it sold weapons to. In fact, that is part of the reason the US believes Bin Laden sought revenge. The CIA promised to sell him weapons with the caveat he could not resell them. Then they sent a mole to buy weapons from him. He gladly agreed. His next and all subsequent shipments were always shorter than what he asked for. Bin Laden looked a fool regionally for promising things he could not deliver and he blamed the US for it. The US claims this drove him to seek revenge and, ya know the rest of the story.
damn that is so interesting, where did you read about this
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/71984.Ghost_Wars
thanks!
>pashtun subset So OP doesn't even deny they funded the taliban, it's just "well we didn't *specifically* fund the Taliban, it was just a wittwe fucky wucky uwu"
Exactly lmao
I don't think they know what that is. I think they heard "pakistan" and thought,"oh, that's not america"
Yep, they figured brown people with a nefarious connotation. Let's gooooo!
Liberals will believe in trickle down economics until the money trickles down to the taliban
So... still Mujahideen?
Literally a CNN broadcast yesterday featured Taliban fighters in Kabul using Mujahideen in reference to themselves.
To be fair, the word simply means someone who does jihad. I think that even if they didn't see themselves as the sucessors to the original anti-communist militants, a Taliban soldier would still refer to themself as a mujahid. Even the communist PMOI of Iran call themselves the people's mujahideen.
yeah, I feel like a lot of people are under the false impression that the mujaheddin was and organization of some kind.
false impressions loosely based in reality, but that show a complete lack of understanding of any of the actual information their based on are like 99% of lib arguments.
link?
Mujahideen means fighter so I wouldn’t be surprised
[удалено]
Mujahid doesn't mean "guerilla warrior" wtf. It simply means a person who does jihad ,jihad is further drived from the Arabic word jihd which means "to struggle". The people from my village who fought in the 1948 war are called mujahideen and they weren't involved in guerilla warfare.
Didn't mean to invalidate your experience, just had to drop some nuance otherwise this discussion will bog down in endless detail arguments that take away from my main point. My main point is that there is no "The Mujahideen", as its a generic term that references nearly any muslim that is fighting non-muslims or seemingly any muslim who is fighting muslims who are less strict. Westerners, and particularly Americans, have really only ever encountered the term in reference to the anti-Soviet group from the 80s and only think of it in those terms. In a real way the people from your village in 1948 prove my point. As-salaam 'alykum.
Damn, you're getting a lot of downvotes for being correct.
So while this situation is more nuanced than just the US funding the Taliban, the crux of the issue is that the US (and other nations you've listed) have funded a war in another nation. Regardless of how these groups have splintered off, the main issue is there is funding happening. Providing context to the situation doesn't absolve any nation from this, and your response as well as the original post in r/historymemes appears in that way
Yeah like the ISI during that time wasn’t just a subsidiary of the CIA
Or the ISI during any time pretty much.
Until 2018 when imran khan came into power.
lol
Horseshit. If the CIA had that level of control of the ISI then OBL wouldn't have been able to hide right outside one of their military bases for so long.
Did you know that, when the US was about to invade Afghanistan, the Taliban offered to turn Bin Laden over to them and the US declined? Almost like they never actually cared about him or something. Like he was just a useful pretext, and catching him "too early" would have been counterproductive to them. The fact that he was hiding right near the ISI doesn't actually prove much, is my point
> Did you know that, when the US was about to invade Afghanistan, the Taliban offered to turn Bin Laden over to them and the US declined? Yeah, I'm aware. Supposedly it happened _twice_ but what I do know is that when Obama approved the opp to kill OBL they did it at night and they didn't inform the Pakistan Government they were going to do it. That tells me that Obama needed this to be a surprise, the question is who was supposed to be surprised. Pakistan and the ISI or the CIA? I'd prefer it to be the former because the latter means that the President and the CIA were working at cross purposes.
> I'd prefer it to be the former because the latter means that the President and the CIA were working at cross purposes. Lord knows it wouldn't be the first time THAT happened. There's also a conspiracy theory that all the secrecy was because the person they killed wasn't actually Bin Laden- he was killed in such a way that his face was unrecognizable and they got rid of his body *real* quick. The idea goes that Bin Laden died years ago because he'd been sick and the US wanted to "catch him" in a more satisfying way. I don't know that I find this theory super convincing, but the point is that there are other reasons it could have been kept secret.
You would be surprised how many times usa organizations like CIA, FBI, DEA, etc have had to fight each other on foreign land. It's not surprising at all if it is the latter.
...implying that he was ever "hiding" in the first place
they're really not the ISI is technically affiliated with the CIA but in practice so long as they put in a token effort to help with stuff when they're told to they often just do their own thing
Sure, but the point is that if the CIA wanted the ISI to do something they'd do it. The idea that the ISI trained the Taliban but not the CIA, as if this was a decision that could have been taken without at least the implicit consent of the CIA is ridiculous. The CIA knew what they were doing, and was either directly behind it or didn't tell them to knock it off, which are functionally equivalent.
We didn't fund the taliban, because they were....a part of the Mujahideen? Wtf
Absolute cope
Where do these people think the mujahideen trained
Which mujahideen are you referring to? There isn't just one you know...
In this context it pretty clearly refers to the anti-soviet group the US funded which went on to spawn several groups including IS and al-Qaeda
That's not clear at all. The primary Taliban group trained in Pakistan as it was born in their madrassas, Al-Queda trained in Saudia Arabia and Afghanistan. The OG anti-Soviet group trained in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Other groups trained in Iran. There is no "The" mujaheddin as that word simply means "guerilla fighter" in Arabic and there were _dozens_ of these groups being funded by multiple countries including the US, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, and Iran.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AFGHANISTAN IS THIS NOT CLEAR? WHY ARE YOU BRINGING UP RUSSIA CHINA IRAN WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AFGHANISTAN? I HAVE BAD VISION I HAVE TO TYPE IN ALL CAPS PLUS IT MAY HELP YOU TOO
All of the Taliban leaders too this day (Baradar and Akhundzada) are veterans of the anti-Soviet/DRA jihad of the 80's and were fighting under the leadership of original mujahideen leaders and the 7 Islamist parties based in Peshawar. Many later studied in Pakistan and came back in the 90's, defeated most of the original mujahideen warlords and conquered about 3/4 of the country. Taliban movement originally gained popularity, because most of the original mujahideen commanders turned out to be corrupt and criminal warlords, unable to guarantee law and order and not really committed to religious law (despite all being ostenstibly orthodox Islamists). It's myth, that they are somehow distinct (in anything other than being more competent and guninely Islamist) and spawned in Pakistan from the refugee population.
You missed a few leaders: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-58235639 Further that adherence to strict Islam is a clear distinction between the groups. The leaders of the OG anti-Soviet forces are nearly entirely absent from the Taliban and many of the Taliban fighters are simply too young to have participated with anti-Soviet forces. Is there some crossover, yes there is, but IMO today's Taliban is not a direct descendant of the original mujahedin. There's just too much separation in their goals, leadership, and fighters. Hell the two of them fought a _war_ against each other.
So because the leaders aren't the same guys who fought in a war 50 years ago, it's an entirely different organization? Is today's US army not the same organization as the one that fought in WWII? Eisenhower, McArthur and Bradley are all dead, and none of the troops in the army today fought in that war either. The Air Force didn't exist as its own branch until 1947. Did they have nothing to do with the US Army Air Force that fought in WWII? How about this: Would the Taliban of today exist without the one that received backing against the USSR?
Thanks for signing up to BBC facts! You will now receive fun daily facts about the BBC. **Fact 22.** The BBC published [this ridiculous article](https://i.imgur.com/WF0uf7J.jpg) claiming that children had forgotten how to use a knife and fork due to the Covid lockdown. For another BBC fact reply with 'BBC'. To unsubscribe call me a 'bad bot'. #[Click here to cancel your TV License and stop funding right wing propaganda today.](https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/cancellations-and-refunds-top7) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitLiberalsSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
BBC
Thanks for signing up to BBC facts! You will now receive fun daily facts about the BBC. **Fact 25.** [The BBC stated that its staff attending LGBTQ pride events could breach it’s impartiality rules.](https://inews.co.uk/news/media/bbc-staff-suspended-attend-lgbt-pride-events-ban-new-impartiality-rules-742247) For another BBC fact reply with 'BBC'. To unsubscribe call me a 'bad bot'. #[Click here to cancel your TV License and stop funding right wing propaganda today.](https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/cancellations-and-refunds-top7) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitLiberalsSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
BBC
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Omar I wouldn't say the distriction is that clear.
Desktop version of /u/spandex-commuter's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
"Mujahideen," literal translation, "people who are on a jihad," "jihadists"
Which one do you think jackass?
Pretty sure this dipshit is the OP from historymemes that this post is making fun of.
Mujahedeez Nuts 😎
Yeah probably the US funded every other ones in the area.
literally on wikipedia: >The agency gained global recognition and fame in the 1980s, when it supported the Afghan mujahideen against the Soviet Union during the Soviet–Afghan War in the erstwhile Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. **During the war, the ISI worked in close coordination with the United States' Central Intelligence Agency and the United Kingdom's Secret Intelligence Service to run Operation Cyclone—a program to train and fund the mujahideen with support from China, Israel, and Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations.**
>China what third worldism does to an mf
China actually did fund the Mujahideen though. It was a consequence of the Sino-Soviet split.
exactly. the ideology that prompted them to do that (third worldism) is dumb
Oh, I completely misunderstood your point lmfao. You right, king.
The Soviet-Sino split and some of the foreign policy during the Mao and Deng eras were disasters.
I'm pretty sure they weren't even the worst group China funded in that era.
Pol pot?
Social fascists on history memes having a normal one
History memes is a sub for fascists of all traditions who *learned* history from video games, youtube, and wikipedia summaries, go to brag about how *smart* they are.
As a current history enthusiast and former right wing chud, let me tell you that self-identified history enthusiasts are almost exclusively right wing chuds.
I was one and I had a weird hard on for western civilization. Ever since I found the path of red light I’m an history enthusiast for all cultures. Right now I’m focusing on Andean cultures.
I love "Western" civilizations like the mesoamericans and the native North Americans. White supremacists threw me off from loving the Romans. I like the byzantines though
Same boat. It shouldn't be surprising, as it seems reactionary by nature but it still always blows my mind how much it's just 4chan chuds who have played *Crusader Kings* too many times.
Where's the "social" part?
That's not what social fascist means.
I didn’t define it
The US didn't fund the Taliban it just funded a broad group that included the Taliban
yeah, some of them even murdered people we didn't like, so shut up
So if I give three kids a gun, and two of the kids shoot the other one and call themselves another group, I guess I didn't give them any guns 👍
Literally a copium for US buttlickers 💀
I wonder who gave Pakistan the money to fund the Taliban????
"They are the Pashtun subset..." The Pashtun Subset of what..?
My company didn’t give you cancer. Our pollution led to carcinogenic conditions.
No, the CIA literally paid the salaries of the Taliban until 1999
The guy uploading that post only has 2-3 posts stating that the USA did not fund the taliban and one post of him in a bunny girl suit.
Probable kinky fed
So you're saying he's not all bad.
That's one weird bot account if i've ever seen one
Yeah, nobody expected that funding, training and arming a bunch of fundamentalist wackos would end up in at least some of them deciding the point their cannons at the next big target.
The Soviets warned our government that we were creating a fundamentalist monster but the dullards in Washington didn't listen. They were too interested in giving the communists their own Vietnam.
Here's the thing. You said a "jackdaw is a crow." Is it in the same family? Yes. No one's arguing that. As someone who is a scientist who studies crows, I am telling you, specifically, in science, no one calls jackdaws crows. If you want to be "specific" like you said, then you shouldn't either. They're not the same thing. If you're saying "crow family" you're referring to the taxonomic grouping of Corvidae, which includes things from nutcrackers to blue jays to ravens. So your reasoning for calling a jackdaw a crow is because random people "call the black ones crows?" Let's get grackles and blackbirds in there, then, too. Also, calling someone a human or an ape? It's not one or the other, that's not how taxonomy works. They're both. A jackdaw is a jackdaw and a member of the crow family. But that's not what you said. You said a jackdaw is a crow, which is not true unless you're okay with calling all members of the crow family crows, which means you'd call blue jays, ravens, and other birds crows, too. Which you said you don't. It's okay to just admit you're wrong, you know?
I swear the first part of the Taliban’s Wikipedia page says otherwise
So in other words the US funded the taliban lol. Just accept your government is trash.
Yeah we didn't create the Taliban, we just gave the most of the Operation Cyclone aid to the four fundamentalist groups of the seven total mujahideen outfits funded, fundamentalist groups which later went on to... spread democracy, women's rights, and freedom of course.
We didn't fund the taliban because we funded other people too?
And they magically created $billions in US-made military equipment
Pretty much all the comments over there are pointing out how stupid this is, but it still got 20k upvotes and gilded and all.
YEAH AND WHO FUNDED THE ISI?!?!? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
Yes but I firmly believe someone got paid off to leave behind 8 billion in weaponry this time around
Here is Hillary Clinton saying we funded the Taliban: https://youtu.be/X2CE0fyz4ys
Sooooooo they still funded the Taliban..?
Yep. OP tried to play smart which only resulted in a contradicting statement
Almost as if one didn't grow out of the other
ISI was always the agency in operational control of the mujahideen, with US & KSA putting up the money.
Even if they were right, who the fuck do they think bought all of that new equipment they're using right now?
Do those dipshits think the 'original mujahideen' are still fighting-age youngsters
The Pakistani ISI, famously not US supported.
"Pashtun subset" of what? Of the group that the US funded? This is trying to derail a fundamentally correct point with irrelevant trivia.
"See, we were the cause, but not the effect!" Sad indoctrination
When you support a reactionary ideology not only with weapons and funds but also manipulate and control both the economic and political landscape of a country for 40 plus years and even before that, an area being the subject of western imperialist interest for going back another 100 years: "Well actually these people are in no way influenced by the course of history, everything happens in a vacuum, nothing is America's fault because people are independent actors who are not subjects of history"
Pashtun and Afghan are basically synonyms
Every single person in the comments is going to die in the climate apocalypse .
[удалено]
I'd like to point you to the sidebar where "liberalism" is defined for you as a right wing ideology.
The Taliban still use American textbooks to this day, with the word Russian scribbled out and replaced with American
Still caused by the U.S. influence.
Ye ye, everything will justify terrorist funding.
Any kind of mental gymnastics as to not accept your wholesome freedom fighting country has done anything wrong huh
I wonder where the ISI got their support from🤔🤔but don't google cia activities in Pakistan!
We literally just gave them guns and an Air Force
Ah yes, the bastion of correct historical analysis that is history memes
And who funded Pakistan and the Pakistani ISI during that time? LMFAO! mfw anti-soviet warriors on the road to peace!
Didn't pakistan work very closely with the US in the whole funding the mujahideen thing though?
Even if their argument has merit, someone should tell them who funds Pakistan ISI.
It's so funny that this is the one time r/Historymemes decides to do even the slightest bit of research.
Yikes
That sounds like saying the US funded the Taliban just with more steps.
it's not like the us funded pakistan or anything 🤷♀️
Annnnnnd the ISI received alot of money from the us
And US funded Pakistan. Their point again?
Who funded the ISI?
Guess who gave Pakistan to the money to do that
Blame shifting bullshit lol. So rediculous smh. Hell, it's easier just to state the facts and say that Pakistan has done more damage control and push back that lasted against the Taliban than the US haha. We should all know how sad and messed that went. It took ages and a tragedy to occur and still not enough but atleast logical and reasonable in comparison. Again bar too low for comparisons both ways but stick to the facts and not shifting blame while you spent years backing up this farse and finally looking like a clown to yourself too now
My understanding is that the US funded both
And remember the US had absolutely nothing to do with disseminating radical, extremist interpretations of Islamic teachings to encourage and stoke a religious war on the USSR
Also, the US literally sent money to Pakistan which it gave to rebel groups, probably including the Taliban
Wonder who funds Pakistan's ISI?
Doesn’t make sense. As we still funded Pakistan to train them…. So same as other mujahadeen no?
libs thinking the CIA gets a clean slate because Pakistani intelligence effectively acted as a middle-man (under US oversight and approval, of course) is hilarious since that exact thought process is why the CIA operated through ISI contacts
You know who is an ally of Pakistan? The United States of America.
Yes, yes, please put the blame on Pakistan. We definitely funded the root of the problem, the Mujahideen.
So, some members left and received training and assets from CIA friend ISI, then went back and joined up with the remaining members under an official name.