[Peach]

Huh? My comment is that we do often work with groups we would prefer not to work with but at the time make strategic decisions on which is the more evil.

From the article: Yet America’s role in backing the mujahedin a second time in the early and mid-1990s is seldom mentioned — largely because very few people know about it, and those who do find it prudent to pretend that it never happened.

The author's comments that we worked with terrorist groups is technically correct. What he fails to point out is that we worked with Stalin too to defeat Nazism during WWII. BUT, we did not consider Stalin an ally after the war.

That was MY ONLY point. I do not know why you think I forgot yesterday was 9/11.

You have mis-interpreted my comments.

[Hoplite]

It's a Balkans thread.

Don't walk away, run.

[konijn]

It still remains a redidculoius comparison.
Here America was supporting mujahedeen in Bosnia while these were placing bombs in American cities. And what was the american strategic interest in bashing the serbs for 10 years, what did it gain. That Milosevics is gone now and replaced by other mafiosis? A camp bondsteel in the hellhole of Europe. Great. Or the consequences in the above article?
And were do you get the idea that the USA 'supported' Stalin in WOII. You could as well turn that sentence around. Without an eastern front there would be no vulnerable western flank.