Or were they speaking in general terms, noting that they were supporting civilians on both sides -- just like the US military does -- and that this is unusual? Why did they put the "other side" in quotes in that statement, huh? Does that help? I doubt it.
And why would they publicly declare it if they were sending money to terrorists? Huh?
Your problem is that you jump to wild conclusions based on simplistic, literal reading of words. You just can't handle something that's not spoon fed to you.
When you have proof of exactly what the money was spent on, get back to us. Until then, you have nothing but a vague statement.
Yes, it does follow, to anyone with half a brain. Grow one.Does not follow. Please stop being obtuse. thanks