I said “Islamic terrorism is almost exclusively the domain of wahhabi’s” and you’re argueing, “what if the CIA funded the wahhabi’s?” as though that contradicts my point.
I don’t know what the disagreement is. Its always the wahhabi’s executing the actual terrorism. If you want to lump in their sponsors, like is said, “go off”. But you’re framing it like I’m ignorant of that which I’m not.
I specified “Islamic terrorists” for a reason but go off.
If the CIA sends aid to the Islamic State, what do we call that?
I said “Islamic terrorism is almost exclusively the domain of wahhabi’s” and you’re argueing, “what if the CIA funded the wahhabi’s?” as though that contradicts my point.
I don’t know what the disagreement is. Its always the wahhabi’s executing the actual terrorism. If you want to lump in their sponsors, like is said, “go off”. But you’re framing it like I’m ignorant of that which I’m not.
Is the CIA Wahhabist?
No. And no patience for the semantic argument you’re wasting my time with when we both agree on the material reality
I don’t think I’d call arming a terrorist group sementics