A benefits of the digital age is that it allows people to make comments like this decades later.
Ahhhhhhhh ok.
So if I have an enemy let’s call them “A” And an ally “B” Another group, “C”, also is an enemy of A and an ally of B. But I cannot, for optics and political reasons, openly befriend C.
The Guardian is saying if I simply give fuckloads of cash to B and “off the record” make sure B understands that they are meant to spread some cash to C if they would like to continue receiving funding themselves then this acceptable and fine. It cannot be alleged that I funded C because I gave the cash to B! What B did with it was out of my hands!
It’s like the 1970s version of “in Minecraft.”
Now I wonder, hypothetically of course NSA calm down, someone gave funds to a friend in, let’s say, Iraq, which is legal and fine. And let’s say that friend gave those funds to Hezbollah. And it was my understanding from the beginning that exactly this would happen.
I wonder how the CIA, DHS, DOJ, NSA, FBI, would feel about that. “No, no I just did what the CIA does! It’s legal and fine!”
Hack-ass journalism. Pathetic really. And people fall for this shit I assume.
article link
