Does the CIA fund terrorist groups?

Were the Contras rebels or terrorists (yes, there is a difference)?

@WoodyAq: does it matter...
One would think they'd rethink their failed plan.. Guess there's too much money to be made sticking there nose in everyone's business under the guise of humanitarians..

@theoneyouwerewarnedabout: it does. For example, in Syria: there are terrorists and rebels. And the regime is using extensive use of terrorism to try to get its way. Funding the rebels to fight the terrorists seems like a good move.

only reason why Isis is still a thing is because Assad is still alive.. Or still running his country...

@WoodyAq: How do you distinguish the two? At one time, Osama Bin Laden was a US backed "rebel". Some of the rebels in Syria are just terrorists who are loyal to a different organization than ISIS or Hezbollah. @theoneyouwerewarnedabout is right, we always give money and guns to what is ostensibly the lesser of two evils, only to have our selfs bit in the ass.

@paresseux: some of regime forces are just terrorists loyal to Assad. It's a confused situation, and it's difficult ... but not impossible.

@WoodyAq: Thats fair.

@paresseux: btw, the problem with US funding in Afghanistan was that they let Pakistan decide who got the funds. Not funding Syrian rebels has practically guaranteed that terrorists have been better armed, better paid and better recruiters. In a sense, the US has supported ISIS by not supporting the people fighting ISIS. Spoiler alert: Assad and the Russians aren't fighting ISIS.