I don't even understand this. Doesn't the US arm people and point them at the US's enemies all the time? Is that functionally different from a "bounty" in some way I'm missing?
Liberals are all about aesthetics over meaningful politics. For them there's a huge distinction between 'arming, funding, training and organising local troops' and 'paying local troops to do something I want them to'. The first is 'grassroots opposition', the second is 'hiring mercenaries'. It's the flimsiest of fig leaves, but once everyone agrees that it's a valid excuse, you don't need anything more.
But if its done by the us, its convincing these poor innocent souls to fight against these evil socialists/insurgents/whatever the us doesnt like, didnt you know? Double standards are as strong as ever.
Source: You gotta trust me, dude, we go way back, bro, I wouldn't lie about this, bitcoin is gonna get even bigger
In two decades the CIA will release heavily redacted proof of this being fabricated.
damn i didnt realize the taliban was my landlord, ill be sure to check next time
