War, Misinformation, and Social Media: The Double-Edged Sword of Modern Conflict

When military confrontations erupt between nations, multiple battles unfold simultaneously—not just on physical terrain but also across information landscapes. The recent clashes between Pakistan and Afghanistan, which began late Thursday night and continued into early Saturday morning, highlight how modern warfare extends beyond bullets to bytes.

Within the first 12 hours of the conflict, fact-checkers at iVerify Pakistan had already identified more than a dozen false claims circulating on social media. These ranged from fabricated reports about Taliban commanders allegedly killed to doctored footage of Pakistani jets crashing, supposed attacks on the Kakul military academy, and false claims of captured soldiers from both sides.

The misinformation ecosystem thrived as local journalists, social media commentators, and propaganda accounts from India and Afghanistan all contributed to a confusing information landscape that blurred the lines between fact and fiction.

Media outlets also struggled with accuracy. UK’s Sky News ran a bulletin claiming that “Afghanistan’s military authorities say they have begun carrying out air strikes against Pakistan”—a statement quickly ridiculed online since Afghanistan has no functional air force. The clip was eventually deleted, but not before becoming fodder for mockery.

This incident highlights a uniquely Pakistani phenomenon that emerged during the conflict: the immediate proliferation of memes. As military operations unfolded and both nations reported casualties, Pakistani social media users simultaneously shared serious updates and humorous content, mostly centered around claims of Pakistan’s military superiority.

While humor as a coping mechanism during crisis is not unusual in Pakistan—from cricket losses to armed conflicts—the timing and nature of some content raised ethical concerns. As civilians on both sides faced potential harm, government officials amplified problematic content that blended patriotism with mockery.

In one particularly troubling example, the Prime Minister’s Media Coordinator Badar Shahbaz shared a video at 3:13 a.m. Friday of young Pakistanis expressing support for their armed forces. Six minutes later, Information Minister Attaullah Tarar reshared it, praising the “distinct sense of patriotism” of Pakistani youth who “find humor in every situation.”

The video, however, contained derogatory comments about Afghans, including the line: “Apart from running tandoors, you also fight wars?” Such rhetoric perpetuates harmful stereotypes about Afghan refugees and immigrants, reducing them to a single occupation and potential targets for discrimination.

This casual xenophobia becomes particularly problematic considering Pakistan hosts over one million registered Afghan refugees, according to UNHCR data from December 2023. Despite a controversial repatriation program, many Afghans have lived in Pakistan for generations, becoming integral to Pakistani society and contributing to its cultural fabric, including its culinary landscape.

Afghan cuisine, particularly tandoor-based cooking, is widely appreciated across Pakistan, with Afghan restaurants common in major cities. The government-endorsed video reduces this rich cultural contribution to a slur, potentially endangering Afghans who have made Pakistan their home.

The irony is striking: Pakistan’s Foreign Office has previously condemned “increasingly racist and Islamophobic” comments directed at Pakistanis abroad, such as when British-Pakistanis were targeted following the Rochdale grooming scandal. Yet similar principles of protection against collective blame aren’t being applied to foreign communities within Pakistan’s borders.

In conflict situations, three types of problematic information emerge: misinformation (spreading inaccurate information), disinformation (deliberately spreading falsehoods), and malinformation—true information presented out of context to attack individuals or groups. The last category, which often includes hate speech, presents particular challenges for fact-checkers as it exploits historical grievances and deepens societal divides.

While many Pakistanis criticized the government’s endorsement of the insensitive video, they maintained support for the country’s right to defend its territory. The criticism reflects an expectation that leaders should represent and protect all residents, regardless of their origin, especially during heightened tensions when nationalist sentiments run high.

As the situation between Pakistan and Afghanistan demonstrates, in modern conflicts, words can wound as deeply as weapons. Government officials wield significant influence over public sentiment and bear responsibility to maintain dignity and accuracy in their communications—leaving humor to the people while focusing on facts.