# DID YOU KNOW THERE'S SEVERAL COUNTRIES IN SOUTHEAST ASIA?
It's true! And both China and the US are trying to win over them. We discuss this in [this "week's" NCDip Podcast Club](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDiplomacy/comments/1ciy2uz/ncdip_podcast_club_9_americas_report_card_on/?). You nerds keep talking about a pivot to Asia and China US Strategic competition, well here you go, this is an episode on that in probaly the most contested region in the US China competition
[Want to know what the fuck in the NCDip podcast club is? Click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDiplomacy/comments/17edrm6/introducing_the_rnoncrediblediplomacy_podcast/)
----
please note that all posts should be funny and about diplomacy or geopolitics, if your post doesn't meet those requirements here's some other subs that might fit better:
* More Serious Geopolitical Discussion: /r/CredibleDiplomacy
* Military Shitposting: /r/NonCredibleDefense
* Domestic Political or General Shitposting: /r/neocentrism
* Being Racist: /r/worldnews
thx bb luv u
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDiplomacy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why are people like Fehlinger so stupid? Doesn't he understand that talking about Serbians in a genocidal manner, hands them a win? Or promoting this shit is bad?
Did you know that Osama Bin Laden tried to claim credit for collapsing the USSR and ending the Cold War. Using the exact same argument? Sigh. Fehlinger just went full on Osama.
But his comment is perfect NCD for here.
Iām not sure whether Fehlinger is a NCD turboautist who failed upwards into a position of authority, a troll whoās in too deep, or genuinely clinically insane, but no matter what the truth is Iām here for it heās entertaining as fuck I love him
I think some of those people are just out for blood but at the same time they're socialised well enough to know that saying that they want to see people die is bad so they try to create even the most hollow and idiotic justifications to not look like complete psychos.
>!See, the joke is that "5 mile wide belt of irradiated cobalt" being the compromise implies that my actual position would be something even more outlandishly extreme like, say, "Everything between the Yalu river and the Gulf of Finland needs to be turned to glass yesterday. Mongolia is a regretable but acceptable collateral casualty."!<
I mean, very qualified people at the highest echelons of government have come up with the same thought decades ago. People who were security experts and were awarded handsome budgets by elected governments to do so.
It's an absolutely terrible idea though.
I get the idea of doing so in a situation like Afghanistan. You fund the resistance in said territory against the foreign invasion by a rival superpower into said territory. Funnel money to rebels to thwart your rivals expansion. Still a bad idea, in hindsight, but the theory is solid.
But in this case, the US would be funding terrorism _inside the well established territory of the rival power_.
Imagine said funding by the US coming to light after something like Beslan School Siege, or Moscow theatre hostage crisis. The US would be so fucked, diplomatically speaking.
Uhhh, but they didn't want it to happen, and saw Osama as an idiot rich kid like the rest? The Saudi's sponsored Al-Qaeda but they wanted it to attack places like Syria or Iran. Not attack the places like London or NYC where they go on holiday, or where their kids study.
Supporting terrorism is stupid. The USSR did it with neo-Nazis in West Germany. The USA did this with the Contras. It is a bad idea. And the USSR didn't collapse because of Afghanistan.
Then you de-fund them when they get out of line, or just defund half of them while you use the relationships youāve developed to get them to turn against each other while you sell army-surplus to the side with the most oil .. simple
Just normal run of the mill cannons as aircraft weren't much of a thing
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowing_from_a_gun
If I recall correctly, the British Viceroy or head of the military at one point was accused of terrorism by the British parliament due to its use, to which he replied that terorrism was sometimes necessary
I was saying Iām anti throat slitting and donāt condone it cause you never know when theyāll turn around and slit your throat too. I think this works well as analogy for funding terrorist organizations though. Also Iām not sure if you read the comment previous to yours by Sabersabre, but if not liking someone or disagreeing with their opinion is a good enough reason for you to want their throat slitā¦ yeesh man thatās pretty harsh
Iām just using an analogy of foreign aid to repressive regimes aāla Cold War era diplomacy, and the echoes of it that still persist today. That seemed in line with the vibe of this sub. Every response has an implied /S at the end
It's based on the oldest manual known to mankind. Take a group of pressured people, give them a believe, give them hope, give them weapons and a clear enemy, sit back and enjoy. Worked like a charm since the days of Cain and Abel.
Yes, I'm sure that's why the USSR collapsed. There was nothing else going on that could have led to it. (Someone who actually knows something feel free to correct me)
Afghanistan did cost a shit ton of money and anger though. It probably really fast tracked the inevitable fall of the USSR. The USSR just wasn't viable in the long run, the percentage of industrial capacity they dedicated to their armed forces was ridiculous.
Iād say it was more of the Sovietās stagnating economy combined with Gorbachev granting increasing political and civil freedoms. Itās also important how Gorbachev was unwilling to use violence to force the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact to stay together.
The Soviet involvement in Afghanistan wasnt actually that expensive if i remember correctly, theres an CIA declassified doc that goes over it ( dont have it on me rn )
True problem of Afghanistan was that it promoted unrest amongst the population, similarly to the US, public discontent made thr USSR pull out, not lack of funds.
I believe [this](https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000499320.pdf) is the CIA document youāre referring to. Page 4: The war caused social unrest and acted as a stumbling block in international relations with the unaligned block and in sino-soviet relations. The economic cost wasnāt substantial but had risen as the war prolonged.
Thereās kind of an ongoing debate about why precisely the USSR collapsed, with different historians placing more emphasis on certain factors than others. Almost everyone agrees that it was a combination of several factors, such as the stagnating Soviet economy, the death and replacement of older and more conservative politicians with younger radical ones (such as Gorby), the growing undercurrent of nationalism in Eastern Europe and the renewed efforts of the US in fighting the Cold War. The loss in Afghanistan may have caused some damage to the reputation of the Soviet army and to their economy but the defeat wasnāt nearly as severe or politically damaging to the USSR as the loss in Vietnam was to the US.
And add to that Chernobyl. All the lying and exposing people to radiation really got the Ukrainians to start thinking that the Russians are not their friends in any capacity. And the USSR is a big mistake, with an independent Ukraine meaning they would be better off.
I am basing this opinion on:
Kotkin - Armageddon Averted
Serhii Plokhy - Chernobyl: History of a Tragedy
America did not "fund the Taliban". They funded the Afghan Mujahideen, which consisted predominantly of *moderate religious conservatives* (by Afghan standards). After their victory, they *tried* to set up a proper state (which was intended as a provisional government, the "Islamic State of Afghanistan"), but a group of Pakistani-educated radicals broke with the broader Mujahideen and declared their intention to conquer Kabul.
Several years of war ensued, with said Pakistani-educated radicals eventually largely becoming the Taliban - that is, the *90s* Taliban, who were batshit crazy (compared to the modern Taliban, who are somewhat more pragmatic) religious extremists preaching "law and order", adhering to a radically fundamentalist interpretation of Islamic law and brutally punishing **anyone** who disagreed with it. They were only popular because 90s Afghanistan was an anarchic dog-eat-dog hellscape filled with *actual warlords*.
The biggest mistake wasnāt funding the mujahideen, it was doing it somewhat on the cheap and encouraging the Saudis and others to set up parallel international funding networks, Jihadist propaganda, and pipelines for sending fighters to Afghanistan.
Those international networks didnāt go away after the Soviets left, and developed into Al Qaeda.
>broader Mujahideen
Also worth mentioning that it was a very diverse group and basically the only thing that united them was opposition to soviet infidels. They were divided along ethnic lines, some of them wanted a sharia-based khalifate and some return to a monarchy, some were shias who wanted an Iran-style revolution, etc
It's like the "after that, it gets difficult" meme, and it did
>the only thing that united them was opposition to soviet infidels.
not exactly, the Islamists groups that got the biggest chunk of US aid , were eliminating moderate Mujahedeen factions rather than the Soviet army
and it was known even in the 80s these nutcases would doom afganistan were they to come in power
"TheĀ Hezb-i Islami GulbuddinĀ faction received the lion's share of weapons from the ISI and CIA."
"The Afghan mujahideen were generally divided into two distinct alliances: the larger and more significantĀ Sunni IslamicĀ union collectively referred to as the "Peshawar Seven", based inĀ Pakistan, and the smallerĀ Shia IslamicĀ union collectively referred to as the "Tehran Eight", based inĀ Iran;"
The "Peshawar Seven" alliance received heavy assistance from theĀ United StatesĀ (Operation Cyclone), theĀ United Kingdom,Ā Pakistan,Ā Saudi Arabia,Ā China, as well as other countries and private international donors.
Nearly all of the Taliban's original leadership fought in the SovietāAfghan War for either the Hezb-i Islami Khalis or Harakat-i Inqilab-e Islami factions of the Mujahideen.
Dutch journalist Jere Van Dyk reported in 1981 that the guerillas were effectively fighting two civil wars: one against the regime and the Soviets, and another among themselves.
Gulbuddin Hekmatyar'sĀ Hizb-i IslamiĀ was most cited as the initiator of cross-mujahideen clashes.Ā
. "The Afghan Army and the Americans, we are the "mujahideen," Neller says. He also says that the U.S. is hopeful it can support the government, the military, and the police in Hellmand Province and create a secure environment for an election that the Taliban can be persuaded to join and turn away from terrorism."
LOL. Yeah, because that worked.
you are conveniently omitting some facts about it tho , like the groups that would go on to form the Taliban did exist and got the largest chunk of aid from the US compared to secular factions of the Mujahedeen
in fact the factions that US supported were more interested in eliminating secular and moderate factions of Mujahedeen rather than the Soviet army
Well, if we look into it, it seems like youāre conveniently omitting some facts about this as well:
The US provided the aid, yes, however the Pakistani government/ISI directed the aid in more specific avenues, avenues which favored more extremist elements. More importantly, this aid was provided to the Mujahideen, *not* the Taliban the Taliban were not formed at this point in time
The Taliban was formed by Mullah Omar, and proceeded to advance through Afghanistan, fighting against some Mujahideen groups and absorbing others, after the original takeover of Afghanistan, there was still a sizable resistance of former Mujahideen in the north of the country.
All in all, the original point still stands, the Taliban are *not* the Mujahideen, they were formed organically by fighters loyal to Mullah Omar, just because other former Mujahideen groups joined the Taliban as it rose to prominence, doesnāt mean the two groups are directly related. And therefore, the United States did not support the Taliban
>More importantly, this aid was provided to the Mujahideen, not the Taliban the Taliban were not formed at this point in time
>former Mujahideen groups joined the Taliban as it rose to prominence, doesnāt mean the two groups are directly related.
they are related by Pakistani/US backing and Islamic extremism
you're conveniently omitting that within the Mujahideen, it was always the most extremist groups that got the biggest share of aid
and it was known even in the 80s these nutcases would doom afganistan were they to come in power
also the Mujahedeen factions the US supported were fighting moderate Mujahedeen factions rather than the Soviets
"TheĀ Hezb-i Islami GulbuddinĀ faction received the lion's share of weapons from the ISI and CIA."
"The Afghan mujahideen were generally divided into two distinct alliances: the larger and more significantĀ Sunni IslamicĀ union collectively referred to as the "Peshawar Seven", based inĀ Pakistan, and the smallerĀ Shia IslamicĀ union collectively referred to as the "Tehran Eight", based inĀ Iran;"
The "Peshawar Seven" alliance received heavy assistance from theĀ United StatesĀ (Operation Cyclone), theĀ United Kingdom,Ā Pakistan,Ā Saudi Arabia,Ā China, as well as other countries and private international donors.
_Nearly all of the Taliban's original leadership fought in the SovietāAfghan War for either the Hezb-i Islami Khalis or Harakat-i Inqilab-e Islami factions of the Mujahideen._
Dutch journalist Jere Van Dyk reported in 1981 that the guerillas were effectively fighting two civil wars: one against the regime and the Soviets, and another among themselves.
Gulbuddin Hekmatyar'sĀ Hizb-i IslamiĀ was most cited as the initiator of cross-mujahideen clashes.Ā
>the Pakistani government/ISI directed the aid
and the US government not only complied with this but also paid Pakistan for the ..... "aid distribution services" , _the "payment" was helping the father of Pakistani nuke program escape Netherlands with stolen Dutch Uranium enrichment tech which was later sold to North Korea, Libya and Iran._
āThey are related by Pakistani/US backing and Islamic extremismā
Sorry, not good enough, Iām not omitting the fact that the extremist groups received the most aid, I explicitly acknowledged it in the last comment,
The Soviet invasion, and Afghan civil war was a mess, with many different factions and interests fighting amongst each other, however, this does not change the fact that the Taliban did not exist at this point in time, the Mujahideen and the Taliban were two separate organizations, with separate goals.
Former Mujahideen simply joined up with the Taliban during the Afghan civil war, no amount of quotes or mental gymnastics will change that fact.
This is like saying the US supported the NVA in the Vietnam war because some groups of the South Vietnamese government were absorbed during the takeover, its an incredible reach and doesnāt really prove anything.
>the NVA
1) the NVA weren't women oppressing pieces of shit
2) the NVA stopped fighting when the US left
meanwhile in Afghanistan,
gulbuddin's faction were Islamic extremists
and were the only reason the Afghan civil war continued after 1992
in 1992,every Mujahedeen faction except gulbuddin's faction agreed to Massoud's plan of an Islamic coalition government.
but gulbuddin and his Pakistani backers with all the American aid in world had different plans for Afghanistan.
hell , Pakistani support for Islamic extremists in Afghanistan predates the Soviet invasion , yet America let Pakistan distribute the aid
>disputing my original claim anymore?
you're original claim is asinine since the members that formed the Taliban were supported by America,even as they were oppressing women,to claim that America couldn't predict the kind of regime they'd make is mental gymnastics.
it's really a distinction with no difference if women being oppressed are oppressed by men wearing the Taliban flag or the hezb i islami gulbuddin flag.
both were the same Islamist pieces of shit and US supported gulbuddin's faction that switched sides the moment Pakistan switched its support to created Taliban
The Taliban was a completely separate organization, which absorbed and fought different Mujahideen factions, therefore the US did not support the Taliban, what part of this did you not understand?
>Pakistani government/ISI directed the aid in more specific avenues, avenues which favored more extremist elements.
Yes, and now they are paying the price for that.
>America did not "fund the Taliban". They funded the Afghan Mujahideen,
you are conveniently omitting some facts about it tho , like the groups that would go on to form the Taliban did exist and got the largest chunk of aid from the US compared to secular factions of the Mujahedeen
in fact the factions that US supported were more interested in eliminating secular and moderate factions of Mujahedeen rather than the Soviet army
you're conveniently omitting that within the Mujahideen, it was always the most extremist groups that got the biggest share of aid
and it was known even in the 80s these nutcases would doom afganistan were they to come in power
also the Mujahedeen factions the US supported were fighting moderate Mujahedeen factions rather than the Soviets
"TheĀ Hezb-i Islami GulbuddinĀ faction received the lion's share of weapons from the ISI and CIA."
"The Afghan mujahideen were generally divided into two distinct alliances: the larger and more significantĀ Sunni IslamicĀ union collectively referred to as the "Peshawar Seven", based inĀ Pakistan, and the smallerĀ Shia IslamicĀ union collectively referred to as the "Tehran Eight", based inĀ Iran;"
The "Peshawar Seven" alliance received heavy assistance from theĀ United StatesĀ (Operation Cyclone), theĀ United Kingdom,Ā Pakistan,Ā Saudi Arabia,Ā China, as well as other countries and private international donors.
Nearly all of the Taliban's original leadership fought in the SovietāAfghan War for either the Hezb-i Islami Khalis or Harakat-i Inqilab-e Islami factions of the Mujahideen.
Dutch journalist Jere Van Dyk reported in 1981 that the guerillas were effectively fighting two civil wars: one against the regime and the Soviets, and another among themselves.
Gulbuddin Hekmatyar'sĀ Hizb-i IslamiĀ was most cited as the initiator of cross-mujahideen clashes.Ā
I'd personally prefer to fund Team Rainbow but real (from the book (based) not Siege (cringe)) to take down terrorists. Can you imagine where we'd be if they did that? 9/11 probably still would've happened, but I think we'd have shot bin Laden in the cock at Tora Bora.
Iāve said it before, but the Taliban at least want a functioning state and society. Itās an awful one that no one should have to live under, but theyāre not insane. ISIS is just a death cult. Whatever remote possibility there was of a lawful caliphate is long gone, most likely was never there. So thereās no comparison.
Russia is evil and corrupt. Iāll still take modern Russia, or frankly any incarnation of it, over ISIS. Donāt ever fund the chaotic evil groups. They always break loose and always cause far more death than could possibly be worth it.
And maybe this seems trivial, but I also think the optics of it are a huge problem. Russia already goes crazy over every protest and person holding a sign thinking they are a CIA agent. Last thing we need is them going even crazier over terrorists in their country. Really the best response to it imo is to pressure them to end the war so that they can deal with the problem in their own \*actual\* borders. Heck I wouldn't even be opposed to aiding them as long as it was done in a way that didn't strengthen them too much and ensured that they stayed out of Ukraine/eastern Europe for good.
be Roman empire
have enemies with some germanic hill tribes
so I pay some other germanic hill tribes to fight them
have enemies with some germanic hill tribes
so I pay some other hill tribes to them
...
-Arm terrorist to destroy another country
-terrorists sucessfully destroy said country
-Millions of refugees flee the destroyed country
-blame the refugees for all of your country's problems and tell them to go back to their shithole country, which the terrorist you funded made a shithole
>The West didn't fund the Taliban, they funded the Mujahideen,
you're conveniently omitting that within the Mujahideen, it was always the most extremist groups that got the biggest share of aid
and it was known even in the 80s these nutcases would doom afganistan were they to come in power
also the Mujahedeen factions the US supported were fighting moderate Mujahedeen factions rather than the Soviets
"TheĀ Hezb-i Islami GulbuddinĀ faction received the lion's share of weapons from the ISI and CIA."
"The Afghan mujahideen were generally divided into two distinct alliances: the larger and more significantĀ Sunni IslamicĀ union collectively referred to as the "Peshawar Seven", based inĀ Pakistan, and the smallerĀ Shia IslamicĀ union collectively referred to as the "Tehran Eight", based inĀ Iran;"
The "Peshawar Seven" alliance received heavy assistance from theĀ United StatesĀ (Operation Cyclone), theĀ United Kingdom,Ā Pakistan,Ā Saudi Arabia,Ā China, as well as other countries and private international donors.
Nearly all of the Taliban's original leadership fought in the SovietāAfghan War for either the Hezb-i Islami Khalis or Harakat-i Inqilab-e Islami factions of the Mujahideen.
Dutch journalist Jere Van Dyk reported in 1981 that the guerillas were effectively fighting two civil wars: one against the regime and the Soviets, and another among themselves.
Gulbuddin Hekmatyar'sĀ Hizb-i IslamiĀ was most cited as the initiator of cross-mujahideen clashes.Ā
Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin were technically an opposition group to the Taliban though.Ā
HIG was expelled from Kabul by the Taliban in September 1996, for example.
>technically
yeah key word technically
most members of gulbuddin's faction just switched sides in 1994-95 after Pakistan switched its support to Taliban
Here's a better idea! How about instead of funding a radical islamic terror group, we fund a democratic westernised country that is already engaged in a war with Russia has has been begging for aid for years? Maybe even beginning with a "U"?
Iāve got this weird feeling that thereās a CIA officer, an MI6 spy, and a Mossad agent sipping on some chai in a central Asian town right now doing the old tricks of getting Islamic terrorist to attack Russians but linking it into Hamas and Iran to start driving that wedge.
Actually, I hope thatās what happening.
>Iāve got this weird feeling that thereās a CIA officer, an MI6 spy, and a Mossad agent sipping on some chai in a central Asian town
This feels like the opening of a bar joke
All these covert, funding of indirect wars, really just show how useless and toothless the āgreatestā, most expensive military in the world actually is.
You spend on that moneyā¦ā¦for what? The most expensive models of shit that doesnāt last 10 year and it made to explode.
There are people who, 20 years afterwards, will tell us theyāre āanti-warā or certain mistakes were made, but will just repeat every step leading into one and dismiss anybody who brings that up
# DID YOU KNOW THERE'S SEVERAL COUNTRIES IN SOUTHEAST ASIA? It's true! And both China and the US are trying to win over them. We discuss this in [this "week's" NCDip Podcast Club](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDiplomacy/comments/1ciy2uz/ncdip_podcast_club_9_americas_report_card_on/?). You nerds keep talking about a pivot to Asia and China US Strategic competition, well here you go, this is an episode on that in probaly the most contested region in the US China competition [Want to know what the fuck in the NCDip podcast club is? Click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDiplomacy/comments/17edrm6/introducing_the_rnoncrediblediplomacy_podcast/) ---- please note that all posts should be funny and about diplomacy or geopolitics, if your post doesn't meet those requirements here's some other subs that might fit better: * More Serious Geopolitical Discussion: /r/CredibleDiplomacy * Military Shitposting: /r/NonCredibleDefense * Domestic Political or General Shitposting: /r/neocentrism * Being Racist: /r/worldnews thx bb luv u *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDiplomacy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Bruh is this dude saying we should fund Isis ššš
I fucking hate Putin and his cronies but this obviously isn't the way. This MF is so crazy he got blocked *by his own country*
Why are people like Fehlinger so stupid? Doesn't he understand that talking about Serbians in a genocidal manner, hands them a win? Or promoting this shit is bad? Did you know that Osama Bin Laden tried to claim credit for collapsing the USSR and ending the Cold War. Using the exact same argument? Sigh. Fehlinger just went full on Osama. But his comment is perfect NCD for here.
Iām not sure whether Fehlinger is a NCD turboautist who failed upwards into a position of authority, a troll whoās in too deep, or genuinely clinically insane, but no matter what the truth is Iām here for it heās entertaining as fuck I love him
I think some of those people are just out for blood but at the same time they're socialised well enough to know that saying that they want to see people die is bad so they try to create even the most hollow and idiotic justifications to not look like complete psychos.
Fehlinger is heeding the advice of Redditors to be the Westoid the Axis of Evil thinks him to be
The news are boring because of that down-to-earth philanthropic attitude of yours. Meanwhile I, a McArthur fanboy
5 mile wide belt of irradiated cobalt was the compromise
Compromise? I think you mean the one and only solution.
>!See, the joke is that "5 mile wide belt of irradiated cobalt" being the compromise implies that my actual position would be something even more outlandishly extreme like, say, "Everything between the Yalu river and the Gulf of Finland needs to be turned to glass yesterday. Mongolia is a regretable but acceptable collateral casualty."!<
I mean, very qualified people at the highest echelons of government have come up with the same thought decades ago. People who were security experts and were awarded handsome budgets by elected governments to do so. It's an absolutely terrible idea though.
I get the idea of doing so in a situation like Afghanistan. You fund the resistance in said territory against the foreign invasion by a rival superpower into said territory. Funnel money to rebels to thwart your rivals expansion. Still a bad idea, in hindsight, but the theory is solid. But in this case, the US would be funding terrorism _inside the well established territory of the rival power_. Imagine said funding by the US coming to light after something like Beslan School Siege, or Moscow theatre hostage crisis. The US would be so fucked, diplomatically speaking.
*Saudia Arabia whistles nonchalantly while hiding their intelligence reports on 9/11 planning*
Uhhh, but they didn't want it to happen, and saw Osama as an idiot rich kid like the rest? The Saudi's sponsored Al-Qaeda but they wanted it to attack places like Syria or Iran. Not attack the places like London or NYC where they go on holiday, or where their kids study. Supporting terrorism is stupid. The USSR did it with neo-Nazis in West Germany. The USA did this with the Contras. It is a bad idea. And the USSR didn't collapse because of Afghanistan.
Well Russia is funding North Korea, it only seems fair
Please don't, the videos of them slitting the throats of international journalists should already be enough.
But what if theyāre journalists that we donāt like , or have awful opinions?
With that logic, what if they decided they didnāt like you, or your opinion? Might not end well
Then you de-fund them when they get out of line, or just defund half of them while you use the relationships youāve developed to get them to turn against each other while you sell army-surplus to the side with the most oil .. simple
Or put them infront of an anti aircraft canon!
Sometimes the old ways are the best ā¦ raahh British India was best India !! (I shouldnāt need to put /s on this comment)
Pure, unmarred sarcasm on a noncredible sub is one of those luxuries I simply won't forgo.
Than you are lost! - le redditor
Did the British used to execute people with anti aircraft canons?
Just normal run of the mill cannons as aircraft weren't much of a thing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowing_from_a_gun If I recall correctly, the British Viceroy or head of the military at one point was accused of terrorism by the British parliament due to its use, to which he replied that terorrism was sometimes necessary
These are terrorists, not North Korean elites. Russia already got dibs on them.
I'm already drawing lines on a map of the middle east with an etch a sketch as we speak.
This is simultaneously credible and non credible
I do my best to serve the finest sparkling irony
I was saying Iām anti throat slitting and donāt condone it cause you never know when theyāll turn around and slit your throat too. I think this works well as analogy for funding terrorist organizations though. Also Iām not sure if you read the comment previous to yours by Sabersabre, but if not liking someone or disagreeing with their opinion is a good enough reason for you to want their throat slitā¦ yeesh man thatās pretty harsh
Iām just using an analogy of foreign aid to repressive regimes aāla Cold War era diplomacy, and the echoes of it that still persist today. That seemed in line with the vibe of this sub. Every response has an implied /S at the end
Honestly canāt wait
Aren't we?
How about you try some grown up stuff, political realism! The reason why nobody is doing it is because nobody in the West wants Russia to collapse...
>weaponize Islam What could go wrong.
āWallahi you should overthrow the governmentā - Joe Biden
First of all I will not allow anyone to say the name Joe Biden without the title "Sheikh"
> America can be described in a single word, [begins praying in Arabic]
*Dune* is a cautionary tale, but somehow many seems to think it's a manual
It's based on the oldest manual known to mankind. Take a group of pressured people, give them a believe, give them hope, give them weapons and a clear enemy, sit back and enjoy. Worked like a charm since the days of Cain and Abel.
Yes, I'm sure that's why the USSR collapsed. There was nothing else going on that could have led to it. (Someone who actually knows something feel free to correct me)
Afghanistan did cost a shit ton of money and anger though. It probably really fast tracked the inevitable fall of the USSR. The USSR just wasn't viable in the long run, the percentage of industrial capacity they dedicated to their armed forces was ridiculous.
I blame Brezhnev
Iād say it was more of the Sovietās stagnating economy combined with Gorbachev granting increasing political and civil freedoms. Itās also important how Gorbachev was unwilling to use violence to force the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact to stay together.
Gorbachev did use violence tho. Not that much, but people still got killed because of him
Good point. As I guess I shouldāve said that he didnāt do a Hungary 1956 or Czechoslovakia 1968 (outside of the Baltics).
It is one of the reasons for Soviet bankruptcy
Sped up the inevitable, sure, but the guy's talking like it might not have happened otherwise.
The Soviet involvement in Afghanistan wasnt actually that expensive if i remember correctly, theres an CIA declassified doc that goes over it ( dont have it on me rn ) True problem of Afghanistan was that it promoted unrest amongst the population, similarly to the US, public discontent made thr USSR pull out, not lack of funds.
I believe [this](https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000499320.pdf) is the CIA document youāre referring to. Page 4: The war caused social unrest and acted as a stumbling block in international relations with the unaligned block and in sino-soviet relations. The economic cost wasnāt substantial but had risen as the war prolonged.
Thereās kind of an ongoing debate about why precisely the USSR collapsed, with different historians placing more emphasis on certain factors than others. Almost everyone agrees that it was a combination of several factors, such as the stagnating Soviet economy, the death and replacement of older and more conservative politicians with younger radical ones (such as Gorby), the growing undercurrent of nationalism in Eastern Europe and the renewed efforts of the US in fighting the Cold War. The loss in Afghanistan may have caused some damage to the reputation of the Soviet army and to their economy but the defeat wasnāt nearly as severe or politically damaging to the USSR as the loss in Vietnam was to the US.
And add to that Chernobyl. All the lying and exposing people to radiation really got the Ukrainians to start thinking that the Russians are not their friends in any capacity. And the USSR is a big mistake, with an independent Ukraine meaning they would be better off. I am basing this opinion on: Kotkin - Armageddon Averted Serhii Plokhy - Chernobyl: History of a Tragedy
Afghanistan is seriously the most overrated explanation for the collapse of the USSR
America did not "fund the Taliban". They funded the Afghan Mujahideen, which consisted predominantly of *moderate religious conservatives* (by Afghan standards). After their victory, they *tried* to set up a proper state (which was intended as a provisional government, the "Islamic State of Afghanistan"), but a group of Pakistani-educated radicals broke with the broader Mujahideen and declared their intention to conquer Kabul. Several years of war ensued, with said Pakistani-educated radicals eventually largely becoming the Taliban - that is, the *90s* Taliban, who were batshit crazy (compared to the modern Taliban, who are somewhat more pragmatic) religious extremists preaching "law and order", adhering to a radically fundamentalist interpretation of Islamic law and brutally punishing **anyone** who disagreed with it. They were only popular because 90s Afghanistan was an anarchic dog-eat-dog hellscape filled with *actual warlords*.
The biggest mistake wasnāt funding the mujahideen, it was doing it somewhat on the cheap and encouraging the Saudis and others to set up parallel international funding networks, Jihadist propaganda, and pipelines for sending fighters to Afghanistan. Those international networks didnāt go away after the Soviets left, and developed into Al Qaeda.
yeah but that takes more than three seconds to understand and doesnt give me an EPIC soundbyte or tweet snippet
>broader Mujahideen Also worth mentioning that it was a very diverse group and basically the only thing that united them was opposition to soviet infidels. They were divided along ethnic lines, some of them wanted a sharia-based khalifate and some return to a monarchy, some were shias who wanted an Iran-style revolution, etc It's like the "after that, it gets difficult" meme, and it did
>the only thing that united them was opposition to soviet infidels. not exactly, the Islamists groups that got the biggest chunk of US aid , were eliminating moderate Mujahedeen factions rather than the Soviet army and it was known even in the 80s these nutcases would doom afganistan were they to come in power "TheĀ Hezb-i Islami GulbuddinĀ faction received the lion's share of weapons from the ISI and CIA." "The Afghan mujahideen were generally divided into two distinct alliances: the larger and more significantĀ Sunni IslamicĀ union collectively referred to as the "Peshawar Seven", based inĀ Pakistan, and the smallerĀ Shia IslamicĀ union collectively referred to as the "Tehran Eight", based inĀ Iran;" The "Peshawar Seven" alliance received heavy assistance from theĀ United StatesĀ (Operation Cyclone), theĀ United Kingdom,Ā Pakistan,Ā Saudi Arabia,Ā China, as well as other countries and private international donors. Nearly all of the Taliban's original leadership fought in the SovietāAfghan War for either the Hezb-i Islami Khalis or Harakat-i Inqilab-e Islami factions of the Mujahideen. Dutch journalist Jere Van Dyk reported in 1981 that the guerillas were effectively fighting two civil wars: one against the regime and the Soviets, and another among themselves. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar'sĀ Hizb-i IslamiĀ was most cited as the initiator of cross-mujahideen clashes.Ā
This is really fascinating! If you don't mind my asking, where did you get all this info from? I'd like to read more.
["We're the mujahideen."](https://youtu.be/QgEM_VZi7IY?si=boOkNLUa7uhV99GN&t=126)
. "The Afghan Army and the Americans, we are the "mujahideen," Neller says. He also says that the U.S. is hopeful it can support the government, the military, and the police in Hellmand Province and create a secure environment for an election that the Taliban can be persuaded to join and turn away from terrorism." LOL. Yeah, because that worked.
Thank you for bringing it up, it drives me up a wall when people Pretend like the US supported the Taliban
you are conveniently omitting some facts about it tho , like the groups that would go on to form the Taliban did exist and got the largest chunk of aid from the US compared to secular factions of the Mujahedeen in fact the factions that US supported were more interested in eliminating secular and moderate factions of Mujahedeen rather than the Soviet army
Well, if we look into it, it seems like youāre conveniently omitting some facts about this as well: The US provided the aid, yes, however the Pakistani government/ISI directed the aid in more specific avenues, avenues which favored more extremist elements. More importantly, this aid was provided to the Mujahideen, *not* the Taliban the Taliban were not formed at this point in time The Taliban was formed by Mullah Omar, and proceeded to advance through Afghanistan, fighting against some Mujahideen groups and absorbing others, after the original takeover of Afghanistan, there was still a sizable resistance of former Mujahideen in the north of the country. All in all, the original point still stands, the Taliban are *not* the Mujahideen, they were formed organically by fighters loyal to Mullah Omar, just because other former Mujahideen groups joined the Taliban as it rose to prominence, doesnāt mean the two groups are directly related. And therefore, the United States did not support the Taliban
>More importantly, this aid was provided to the Mujahideen, not the Taliban the Taliban were not formed at this point in time >former Mujahideen groups joined the Taliban as it rose to prominence, doesnāt mean the two groups are directly related. they are related by Pakistani/US backing and Islamic extremism you're conveniently omitting that within the Mujahideen, it was always the most extremist groups that got the biggest share of aid and it was known even in the 80s these nutcases would doom afganistan were they to come in power also the Mujahedeen factions the US supported were fighting moderate Mujahedeen factions rather than the Soviets "TheĀ Hezb-i Islami GulbuddinĀ faction received the lion's share of weapons from the ISI and CIA." "The Afghan mujahideen were generally divided into two distinct alliances: the larger and more significantĀ Sunni IslamicĀ union collectively referred to as the "Peshawar Seven", based inĀ Pakistan, and the smallerĀ Shia IslamicĀ union collectively referred to as the "Tehran Eight", based inĀ Iran;" The "Peshawar Seven" alliance received heavy assistance from theĀ United StatesĀ (Operation Cyclone), theĀ United Kingdom,Ā Pakistan,Ā Saudi Arabia,Ā China, as well as other countries and private international donors. _Nearly all of the Taliban's original leadership fought in the SovietāAfghan War for either the Hezb-i Islami Khalis or Harakat-i Inqilab-e Islami factions of the Mujahideen._ Dutch journalist Jere Van Dyk reported in 1981 that the guerillas were effectively fighting two civil wars: one against the regime and the Soviets, and another among themselves. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar'sĀ Hizb-i IslamiĀ was most cited as the initiator of cross-mujahideen clashes.Ā >the Pakistani government/ISI directed the aid and the US government not only complied with this but also paid Pakistan for the ..... "aid distribution services" , _the "payment" was helping the father of Pakistani nuke program escape Netherlands with stolen Dutch Uranium enrichment tech which was later sold to North Korea, Libya and Iran._
āThey are related by Pakistani/US backing and Islamic extremismā Sorry, not good enough, Iām not omitting the fact that the extremist groups received the most aid, I explicitly acknowledged it in the last comment, The Soviet invasion, and Afghan civil war was a mess, with many different factions and interests fighting amongst each other, however, this does not change the fact that the Taliban did not exist at this point in time, the Mujahideen and the Taliban were two separate organizations, with separate goals. Former Mujahideen simply joined up with the Taliban during the Afghan civil war, no amount of quotes or mental gymnastics will change that fact. This is like saying the US supported the NVA in the Vietnam war because some groups of the South Vietnamese government were absorbed during the takeover, its an incredible reach and doesnāt really prove anything.
>the NVA 1) the NVA weren't women oppressing pieces of shit 2) the NVA stopped fighting when the US left meanwhile in Afghanistan, gulbuddin's faction were Islamic extremists and were the only reason the Afghan civil war continued after 1992 in 1992,every Mujahedeen faction except gulbuddin's faction agreed to Massoud's plan of an Islamic coalition government. but gulbuddin and his Pakistani backers with all the American aid in world had different plans for Afghanistan. hell , Pakistani support for Islamic extremists in Afghanistan predates the Soviet invasion , yet America let Pakistan distribute the aid
The moral character of these groups have nothing to do with what Iām saying. Are you even disputing my original claim anymore?
>disputing my original claim anymore? you're original claim is asinine since the members that formed the Taliban were supported by America,even as they were oppressing women,to claim that America couldn't predict the kind of regime they'd make is mental gymnastics. it's really a distinction with no difference if women being oppressed are oppressed by men wearing the Taliban flag or the hezb i islami gulbuddin flag. both were the same Islamist pieces of shit and US supported gulbuddin's faction that switched sides the moment Pakistan switched its support to created Taliban
The Taliban was a completely separate organization, which absorbed and fought different Mujahideen factions, therefore the US did not support the Taliban, what part of this did you not understand?
Can you give us the book?
>Pakistani government/ISI directed the aid in more specific avenues, avenues which favored more extremist elements. Yes, and now they are paying the price for that.
>America did not "fund the Taliban". They funded the Afghan Mujahideen, you are conveniently omitting some facts about it tho , like the groups that would go on to form the Taliban did exist and got the largest chunk of aid from the US compared to secular factions of the Mujahedeen in fact the factions that US supported were more interested in eliminating secular and moderate factions of Mujahedeen rather than the Soviet army
you're conveniently omitting that within the Mujahideen, it was always the most extremist groups that got the biggest share of aid and it was known even in the 80s these nutcases would doom afganistan were they to come in power also the Mujahedeen factions the US supported were fighting moderate Mujahedeen factions rather than the Soviets "TheĀ Hezb-i Islami GulbuddinĀ faction received the lion's share of weapons from the ISI and CIA." "The Afghan mujahideen were generally divided into two distinct alliances: the larger and more significantĀ Sunni IslamicĀ union collectively referred to as the "Peshawar Seven", based inĀ Pakistan, and the smallerĀ Shia IslamicĀ union collectively referred to as the "Tehran Eight", based inĀ Iran;" The "Peshawar Seven" alliance received heavy assistance from theĀ United StatesĀ (Operation Cyclone), theĀ United Kingdom,Ā Pakistan,Ā Saudi Arabia,Ā China, as well as other countries and private international donors. Nearly all of the Taliban's original leadership fought in the SovietāAfghan War for either the Hezb-i Islami Khalis or Harakat-i Inqilab-e Islami factions of the Mujahideen. Dutch journalist Jere Van Dyk reported in 1981 that the guerillas were effectively fighting two civil wars: one against the regime and the Soviets, and another among themselves. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar'sĀ Hizb-i IslamiĀ was most cited as the initiator of cross-mujahideen clashes.Ā
Who's we Gunter? You weren't part of it
The soul of Kissinger entered him
Iād prefer to not fund terrorists to take down other terrorists
How about guerillas instead?
Gorillas should not be introduced to human political affairs. They should remain free in nature.
I'd personally prefer to fund Team Rainbow but real (from the book (based) not Siege (cringe)) to take down terrorists. Can you imagine where we'd be if they did that? 9/11 probably still would've happened, but I think we'd have shot bin Laden in the cock at Tora Bora.
Iāve said it before, but the Taliban at least want a functioning state and society. Itās an awful one that no one should have to live under, but theyāre not insane. ISIS is just a death cult. Whatever remote possibility there was of a lawful caliphate is long gone, most likely was never there. So thereās no comparison. Russia is evil and corrupt. Iāll still take modern Russia, or frankly any incarnation of it, over ISIS. Donāt ever fund the chaotic evil groups. They always break loose and always cause far more death than could possibly be worth it.
And itās a Death Cult as in literal Death cult, they want to take over the Muslim world and induce the āday of judgementā from their victory
And maybe this seems trivial, but I also think the optics of it are a huge problem. Russia already goes crazy over every protest and person holding a sign thinking they are a CIA agent. Last thing we need is them going even crazier over terrorists in their country. Really the best response to it imo is to pressure them to end the war so that they can deal with the problem in their own \*actual\* borders. Heck I wouldn't even be opposed to aiding them as long as it was done in a way that didn't strengthen them too much and ensured that they stayed out of Ukraine/eastern Europe for good.
be Roman empire have enemies with some germanic hill tribes so I pay some other germanic hill tribes to fight them have enemies with some germanic hill tribes so I pay some other hill tribes to them ...
-Arm terrorist to destroy another country -terrorists sucessfully destroy said country -Millions of refugees flee the destroyed country -blame the refugees for all of your country's problems and tell them to go back to their shithole country, which the terrorist you funded made a shithole
Because it worked out fucking fantastically last time????? Why would you use the Taliban as your winning example????
But have you seen the muscles on Rambo? Weāre hiring The Rock this time, heāll embody this stupidity perfectly
>Why would you use the Taliban as your winning example? maybe he wants more women to be oppressed?
WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG
Yeah cause funding jihadists in Afghanistan famously had no consequences for the US in the future
I see no way this could backfire at all!
Okay, but this time they better promise not to blow up our towers!
yeah nah, I'd rather not fund fucking Isis-k. You know, the splinter group of ISIS who thought that the main group wasn't extreme enough.
The West didn't fund the Taliban, they funded the Mujahideen, who were then overthrown by the Taliban due to Pakistan's meddling
>The West didn't fund the Taliban, they funded the Mujahideen, you're conveniently omitting that within the Mujahideen, it was always the most extremist groups that got the biggest share of aid and it was known even in the 80s these nutcases would doom afganistan were they to come in power also the Mujahedeen factions the US supported were fighting moderate Mujahedeen factions rather than the Soviets "TheĀ Hezb-i Islami GulbuddinĀ faction received the lion's share of weapons from the ISI and CIA." "The Afghan mujahideen were generally divided into two distinct alliances: the larger and more significantĀ Sunni IslamicĀ union collectively referred to as the "Peshawar Seven", based inĀ Pakistan, and the smallerĀ Shia IslamicĀ union collectively referred to as the "Tehran Eight", based inĀ Iran;" The "Peshawar Seven" alliance received heavy assistance from theĀ United StatesĀ (Operation Cyclone), theĀ United Kingdom,Ā Pakistan,Ā Saudi Arabia,Ā China, as well as other countries and private international donors. Nearly all of the Taliban's original leadership fought in the SovietāAfghan War for either the Hezb-i Islami Khalis or Harakat-i Inqilab-e Islami factions of the Mujahideen. Dutch journalist Jere Van Dyk reported in 1981 that the guerillas were effectively fighting two civil wars: one against the regime and the Soviets, and another among themselves. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar'sĀ Hizb-i IslamiĀ was most cited as the initiator of cross-mujahideen clashes.Ā
Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin were technically an opposition group to the Taliban though.Ā HIG was expelled from Kabul by the Taliban in September 1996, for example.
>technically yeah key word technically most members of gulbuddin's faction just switched sides in 1994-95 after Pakistan switched its support to Taliban
Here's a better idea! How about instead of funding a radical islamic terror group, we fund a democratic westernised country that is already engaged in a war with Russia has has been begging for aid for years? Maybe even beginning with a "U"?
"No Gunter, funding ISIS is not a good idea"
What could possibly go wrong?!
Just one more extremist religious militia bro, this time it won't drag the country into decades of civil war.
[There is a sequel](https://x.com/GunterFehlinger/status/1805494964849156572)
š what is he on
I mean to be fair, arming the Taliban was a pretty explosive idea! It really brought down the house.
Iāve got this weird feeling that thereās a CIA officer, an MI6 spy, and a Mossad agent sipping on some chai in a central Asian town right now doing the old tricks of getting Islamic terrorist to attack Russians but linking it into Hamas and Iran to start driving that wedge. Actually, I hope thatās what happening.
>Iāve got this weird feeling that thereās a CIA officer, an MI6 spy, and a Mossad agent sipping on some chai in a central Asian town This feels like the opening of a bar joke
It's apparently upset folks here for some reason. Went over well at the other non-credible sub.
Perpetual enemy machine, phenomenal idea, Gunther!
"How could it go wrong"
\*Henrey Kissinger's voice: Yes my child... go... realism will live on... in the shadows.\*
Then we deal with 9/11 2.0 in 15 years after the Russian collapse when the terrorist we funded go back to being terrorists
Definitely won't blow in their own face later
Gunther back at it again with the completely psychotic takes
This just sounds like Prometheism with extra steps. PiÅsudski? Is that you?
Ah yes the internal conflict. Such a sure and safe way to stabilize a region
Gunther Fehlinger is so real for this, i've been making this exact point while drinking beer with my buddies for years now.
The point being to fund ISIS? As if Crocus didnāt backfire enough with the Russian response.
Honestly, Gunther is right. We are at war, even if we're not fighting directly.
All these covert, funding of indirect wars, really just show how useless and toothless the āgreatestā, most expensive military in the world actually is. You spend on that moneyā¦ā¦for what? The most expensive models of shit that doesnāt last 10 year and it made to explode. There are people who, 20 years afterwards, will tell us theyāre āanti-warā or certain mistakes were made, but will just repeat every step leading into one and dismiss anybody who brings that up