>America funds the mujahideen
>Leads to the formation of Al-Qaeda
>Al-Qaeda starts causing shit in the Middle East
>"It's actually America's fault for creating Al-Qaeda"
>Colonial power leaves country
>Tribal/Ethnic tensions result in civil war
>"It's actually the colonists' fault for fucking up the borders"
Is there a name for this logic, and why do idiots keep using it?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
It's the "Only white people are capable of rational thought everyone else is a dumb animal with no agency of their own" school of historical analysis.
>America funds the mujahideen
>Leads to the formation of Al-Qaeda
>Al-Qaeda crashes a bunch of planes with no survivors into WTC with mostly saudi citizen as culprits
>"It's actually Saddam's fault for having imaginary wmds"
Is there a name for this logic, and why do Americans keep using it?
Setting up strawmen?
Hey Sultan how's life been going for ya?
Growing that new harem?
It's the precious oil strawman
>back rebel groups you know nothing about because >fuggin gommies
>they later bite you in the ass
>"lol fuggin muzzies we dindu nuffin muh freedumbs"
>back tribal tensions for the sake of dividing and conquering
>they start genociding eachother
>"lol not my fault nigs gonna nig xD"
The name of this "logic" is double standards, made by uneducated stormfags, and other historical revisionists.
>Dispose leader who was elected in or a keystone leader who is the one that stabilized the nation
>put in a complete sociopath who bows to your whims as long as he gets paid and support him
>Fucks shit up harder then a sugar high toddler in a ball pit
>"wow those people are so crazy"
There was actually a member of the Army that came by my school to talk about his war experience, he insisted that Saddam had something to do with it, how true is this?
>Create artificial countries with shitton of unrelated ethnicities and absolutely no shared history
>Tribal/Ethnic tensions result in civil war
>if some popular leader wanting to stabilize the country emerges, assassinate him because despite you still want the dosh from your former colonies
>"lol shitskins xD"
It's called
Cause & Effect
>>America funds the mujahideen
>>Leads to the formation of Al-Qaeda
This isnt even correct in the first place lmao, after the Soviets left most of the Mujj trained by the Americans formed the Northern Alliance, which opposed AQ.
He's obviously wrong. Saddam was a fascist piece of shit, but he wasn't an Islamic fundamentalist piece of shit.
white ppl wuz a good boy he dindu nuffin
[Citation needed]
>everyone respected and loved each other before ebil whitey came along and sowed the seeds of discord
Jewish logic
>in Africa ethnic separatism is the only answer
>if you propose the same for Europe you're racist
Someone explain this
Generally those tensions were prompted by the former colonizer. Divide and rule.
Now the group that had less privileges is out to get them.
Think north and south Nigeria.
Also, proxy wars and interests are still a thing.
The current civil war in the Central African Republic is basically France vs China.
The African Franc is a way to exert influence.
The Chinese are buying up Africa for cheap.
He didn't imply that son.
Him being a member of the army doesn't magically qualify him on anything to do with Saddam's responsibility, unless he was part of the secret service and had access to information we don't (doubt it).
It's a case of most European men lacking these.
It's not the skin color that mattered. This isn't about """"white guilt"""" it's about imperialism.
Ebil whitey didn't sow the seeds, but it's naive to think they didn't water them in the name of colonial rule / geopolitics.
The behavior is nothing unique to white people, though.
because in europe there's mostly ethnic harmony, there's no particular need to separate groups
in africa people get violent if you're from a different tribe
different situations provoke different solutions
>because in europe there's mostly ethnic harmony, there's no particular need to separate groups
lol
there's no violence that's anywhere near the level of african inter-tribal violence. you're free to provide counterexamples if you wish.
Noć pred paljenje naoružanog naroda
youtube.com
The Balkans
>In Africa ethnic separatism is the only answer
No one says that and is taken seriously.
>U.S. soldiers were instructed to ignore the sexual abuse of boys by Afghan allies, even when it occurred on military bases, according to a report in the New York Times. The policy of looking the other way was designed to maintain good standing with the U.S.-trained Afghan police and militia in a country where the practice of bacha bazi (boy play) is widespread. In some cases, the U.S. ended up arming suspected pedophiles.
The type of people you protected from the ebil soviets
>there's no violence that's anywhere near the level of african inter-tribal violence
Not right now maybe, but the entire history of Europe is literally tribal and nationalistic bloodshed.
>if you ever criticize any of the actions of any white man in history you're a race traitor durr hurr
>what is this logic called
Israeli exceptionalism and subversion of the American government via AIPAC funding and large donors as well as pressure from prominent Jews
en.wikipedia.org
>A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm(commonly known as the "Clean Break" report) is a policy document that was prepared in 1996 by a study group led by Richard Perle for Benjamin Netanyahu, the thenPrime Minister of Israel.[1]The report explained a new approach to solving Israel's security problems in the Middle East with an emphasis on "Western values." It has since been criticized for advocating an aggressive new policy including the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and the containment of Syria by engaging in proxy warfare and highlighting its possession of "weapons of mass destruction. "
You must be retarded.
If we let the Soviets win in Afghanistan, 9/11 would not have happened plain as fucking day.
Chances are they'd be flying airliners into the Kremlin instead of our buildings.
Really. Regan was fucking retarded for not figuring out Islamism was worse than Communism.
Muja-muja-hideen!!!
Turski sin!!!!
Lalalalalala lalalallala!
OH and don't get me started about Isis.
First we take out Saddam and then we back the Syrian rebels.
Both fucking bad ideas.
Saddam and Assad never had fanatical followers who would shoot up nightclubs and drive trucks into crowds of people.
Sure they kill their own people, but they don't kill ours and that is more important.
Because apparently if we let them not have strong armed secular leaders they just revert to Islamism and vote in Muslim Brotherhood and support actual terrorists.
Really, its not rocket science.
Nothing wrong with arming boy fiddlers
And what I mean to type is....
The USA is entirely responsible for creating the environment that Isis thrived in.
The US leaders are directly responsible to the Christian genocide in in Syria and Iraq.
What we should have did was just contain Saddam and Assad. The Russians have the right idea.
Ignoring all the attempts at modernization of current war torn countries during the Cold War being quashed by American/Nato subversion and minor fundamentalist clans being bolstered to power through oil trade.
>inb4 do you want the communists to win?
Yeah and now they're winning anyway with increased encroachment on our freedoms in the name of security, Europe being flooded with Muslims, Christians being driven from the Middle East, and the former Soviet Union having a better display of fighting terrorism than anyone else atm.
Except Saudis did 9/11, not Afghanis
>Is there a name for this logic
"cause and effect"
>Is there a name for this logic,
It's not logic, it's rhetoric.
>and why do idiots keep using it?
Because they keep buying it.
Yeah, but Osama Bin Laden founded Al Qaeda and he was a fighter in the Afghan war and kept his primary residence there.
If the Soviets killed him or kept Afghanistan communist then he wouldn't have had a base to fund his operations.
>people think the Mujihadeen had anything to do with the Arab volunteers
>people think the CIA needed to fund Arab volunteers when there were hundreds of thousands of pissed of Afghans in country and the Arabs had a ton of oil money
>people think that the ISI didn't create the Taliban in an effort to gain strategic depth from an Indian invasion
>people think the lesson of the Soviet-Afghan War is "don't get involved" when it was American isolationism and short attention spans in the aftermath of the Cold War that enabled the Taliban to steamroll the Northern Alliance
He just said he was one of the guards that watched over him while captive
>Leads to the formation of Al-Qaeda
CIA support extended to the Afghan Muhjahideen under Hekmatyar, but they were not the only ones to oppose the Soviets, and they were not the only actors to support this war. Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia had all supported Muhjahideen and supported the transfer of foreign fighters as well, and the latter two are the ones most directly responsible for creating Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
Al-Qaeda stems from Saudi Arabian support, and was formed primarily from foreign (not Afghan) fighters which had went to Afghanistan to join the war. While they received assistance from Hekmatyar for a time, this occurred well after American support had ceased in the 1990s.
The Taliban, meanwhile, were formed in Pakistan by the ISI, Pakistan's intelligence agency, and its fighters also hailed primarily from Pakistan before defeating the other Muhjahideen militias that fought for power after the Soviets had withdrawn. These defeated groups (Supported by actors such as Iran) formed the Northern Alliance under Massoud, which continued to oppose the Taliban, and eventually sided with coalition forces after 9/11.
While elements of CIA aid eventually made it into the hands of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, they were not the intended recipients of American aid, and they were certainly not created by the United States in anything more than passing.
America and its allies are the only thing funding terrorism. It has always been this way.
Kinda funding and other times helping it spread or benefit from it.
France currently has a pretty much permanent presence in Mali now.
>a bunch of nignogs weren't talking to each other
>whitey gives them heavy weaponry and creates artifical states that foster hostility among said tribes.
>AYOOO HOL' UP, WE DINDU NUFFIN
Europe has had the Roman Empire, the Catholic church and today the EU. Bloody, yes, but far more uniting forces than almost any other continent
delete this
Who else funds Islamic terrorism?
Technically, the Saudis, but American funds them, so it all balances out.
Yeah but France is gay. Nobody cares.
>Leads to the formation of Al-Qaeda
Thats not even true