>>It might behoove you to remember, also, that we have sheltered, trained, and supported terrorists ourselves, when it suited our purposes to do so. When Osama was blowing up Russians, he was our good buddy. He wasn't
blowing up too many civilians, but that was only because he didn't have the means to do so; if the Mujahedin had started staging raids in Moscow, do you think we would have withdrawn our support?
Do you perhaps remember the Contras? They spent a good deal of time and energy attacking civilians, with the full approval of Mr. Wolfowitz, Ms. Kirkpatrick, etc. We waged a terrorist campaign against the Sandinistas, by
proxy, and we thought that a good thing, because it served our purposes. Many died, I suspect rather more than 6000, but hey, you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs, and we couldn't have another Commie state in our hemisphere.<<
Hi Steven-
Excellent post, as usual, but I'd like some clarification of the part I selected above. There is a hint, and perhaps I am being hypersensitive, that it was/is US policy, covert, unspoken, or otherwise, to support and train people who commit unspeakable acts with the intention that these people would commit these unspeakable acts. In other words, we did not just arm the Contras, we suggested that they kill civilians. We did not just arm bin Laden, we suggested that he commit terrorism.
Maybe you didn't mean that but I've read it enough lately and I'd like to understand why it is said. Is it true? Or is it just projection? |
