• 0 Posts
  • 61 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 23rd, 2023

help-circle









  • It is funny that involvement in Afghanistan has been passed back and forth between the US an Russia for half a century. Before that it was the UK and Russia. But thats not what the meme is about. The meme revels in its own ignorance of the situation.

    Yes, ISKP is a direct consequence of US meddling in the region. Many of it’s members were our collaborators. But I think you’re being unfair here if you’re going to equate Russia trying to stabilize the Taliban’s rule with America’s failure to replace it. Its possible that Russia’s involvement can escalate like it did in the 80s but I doubt that’ll happen. That would be like the America deciding to send troops to Vietnam again.


  • Finally anyone who has a grain’s worth of intuition about the world’s politics would know that what Russia calls “a partnership against terrorism” is a cover up for continuing to meddle in affairs of middle eastern countries

    See that’s just it. You’re operating off you’re preconceived notions instead of the facts on the ground. The fact is the ISKP is operating in northern Afghanistan and is a threat to literally everyone in the region. When you put that into perspective, the meme is not funny and is massively ignorant. Despite all the injustices the Taliban commits, the Islamic State is far far worse. They’re the ones actively suicide bombing Hazari women and the only ones who can stop them are, regrettably the Taliban. Thats a grim and morbid reality, because the Taliban is racist as hell against Hazari’s but they aren’t genocidal like the Islamic State. We’d both like to seem some progressive secular democracy in the region but we spent two decades pissing any chances of that away.



  • I never said they didn’t arm them. I explicitly stated multiple times that we agreed on this front. All I stated is that the only islamists doing terrorism are the wahhabists and then you’re like “ah BUT did you consider that the CIA funded those terrorists???” as though that disproves anything I said.

    You tried to frame what should’ve been an “yes AND” as some disagreement. There is no disagreement.








  • I said “Islamic terrorism is almost exclusively the domain of wahhabi’s” and you’re argueing, “what if the CIA funded the wahhabi’s?” as though that contradicts my point.

    I don’t know what the disagreement is. Its always the wahhabi’s executing the actual terrorism. If you want to lump in their sponsors, like is said, “go off”. But you’re framing it like I’m ignorant of that which I’m not.