4 ms·
> Sure, I bet Afghanis sit around at night reminiscing of the good old days under the taliban... Who were strongly financially supported (and thus in some sens
by wolfgke 8y ago
> Sure, I bet Afghanis sit around at night reminiscing of the good old days under the taliban...
Who were strongly financially supported (and thus in some sense "enthroned") by the CIA:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taliban&oldid=846682806#Soviet_intervention_(1978%E2%80%931992) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taliban&oldid=846...
"A while later, the U.S. CIA and Saudi Arabic General Intelligence Directorate (GID) funneled funding and equipment through the PakistanI Inter-Service Intelligence Agency (ISI) to the Afghan mujahideen."
- jeffreyrogers 8y agoYou're leaving out why they were given money: to fight back against a Communist coup supported by the Soviet Union.
- pofilat 8y agoSo? The Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight a few years later. The (negative) dividends of US militarization are still being paid.
- jeffreyrogers 8y agoBecause it's an important part of the context and explains why the US funded the Taliban.
- AmericanChopper 8y agoYou’re also leaving out the part where the Taliban didn’t exist during the time that Afghani forces were receiving US support. If you look at the reason for getting involved in the first place, most people would agree that it wasn’t entirely unreasonable. That said if you look at how they handled the aftermath, most people would agree that part was a fuck up.
- AmericanChopper 8y agoWhich again is completely irrelevant to the point I’m making.