[dotancohen]

Alright, help me out on this.

The Contras were anti-Marxist central American revolutionaries, yes? The Marxists overthrew the president of Nicaragua, and the US supported them, along with other nations. Israel is mentioned as being an ally, but is not mentioned in any other capacity in the article. The US was funding them with arms sold to Iran, in the hope that Iran would pressure Hezbollah to release American hostages. The Contras were found to be terrorists, that the CIA claimed were due to poor discipline, and then the Contra leader was executed.

Did I get that right? Seriously fill in the blanks for me, the Wikipedia page seems written for somebody who already knows the story. I also read part of the linked Iran-Contra page hoping it would shed some light.

[donkeybeer]

Yeah "poor discipline" /s. It was well known what the Contras were engaging in. And they are far from the only terrorist group the USA has actively sponsored. I do not think Israel is involved in this. These were examples of America funding and supporting terrorism all over the world. So if you say that Iran deserved to be invaded despite not having physically attacked anyone else but due to supposed proxy agents activities, then what should countries do to the USA who has funded much larger and worse terrorist networks?

[dotancohen]

Was the intention of the United States, when funding the Contras, specifically to murder people? Did the United States publicly support and legitimise murder, rape, and hostages as a political tactic?

Serious question. I don't see any evidence they did.

[donkeybeer]

Would you be asking about intent if the end result of some "well intentioned" program was the murder of thousands of jews and terrorism all over Israel? Do you ask about intent for example when speaking of the deaths caused by well intentioned Soviet communism?

And I have given a much longer list than just the contras, where you can't even hide behind "but the origins were noble", they supported already terroristic entities.

[dotancohen]

I'm not hiding behind anything, I'm asking about the only notable example you gave with a link to more specific information. I'm actually learning - that's probably the problem. People on the America-Israel side are willing to ask questions and learn. People on the Muslim axis side find the idea of asking questions and learning so foreign that you don't even recognize it.

And yes, of course, when we study e.g. the German genocide of Jews we ask about intent. The Yad Vashem museum is all about examining the intent - you should go visit. One of the first exhibits is a Deutschmark restamped with a higher denomination, demonstrating the unbearable inflation that the German people were suffering prior to WWII. And the reasons for that suffering are explained as well. As I remember it, the major contributor was the Treaty Of Versailles, which mandated far too heavy war reparations against Germany.

And regarding the Soviets, are you joking? Yes, of course the reasons are discussed. How else does anybody learn a lesson? Have you seriously not studied history at all, to insinuate that one does not ask why?

[donkeybeer]

It is very clear why I asked, because for good reasons you would not accept the "original intent" that led to these massacres the way you were wondering about America's "original intent" regarding Contra and other terrorist groups