Replies

"Then the US qualifies as well. An uncontroversial example would be the support for and involvement in terrorism in Nicaragua, for which the US has been condemned by the world court. There are many more instances of US support for terrorism, even more extreme, but less clear-cut."

I assume you're refering to the contras who fought the communist Sandinistas in the '80's. Hmmm, I don't think I've seen evidence they attacked civilians. I assume you have such evidence?

Assuming that they did attack civilians not involved with the government or military, and this was a policy, not just an isolated individual, I certainly would want to support another group. Some advocates of "real-politik" would advocate supporting any group that would overthrow a communist government. I wouldn't.

""Since we have declared war on terrorism, any state supporting it is also our enemy."

If applied universally, this statement means that every other state has the right to attack the US. Certainly Nicaragua would have had the right to bomb the US."

Not quite the same situation. The Nicaraguan contras were natives who were rebelling against the communist government. To be analogous, we'd have to host and train them in our country while they had the avowed policy of killing uninvolved civilians, not just in Nicaragua, but worldwide, as the al Qaeda does.

But were we to do that, and if they had such a policy, I would agree Nicaragua or any country fighting terrorism
would be justified in attacking the US to eliminate them.

"'Then the US qualifies as well. An uncontroversial example would be the support for and involvement in terrorism in Nicaragua, for which the US has been condemned by the world court. [...]'

I assume you're refering to the contras who fought the communist Sandinistas in the '80's. Hmmm, I don't think I've seen evidence they attacked civilians. I assume you have such evidence?"

The Contras attacked almost exclusively "soft targets" - elected officials, teachers, doctors, nurses, etc. That is hardly a secret; you might wish to read some articles from that time.

"The Nicaraguan contras were natives who were rebelling against the communist government. To be analogous, we'd have to host and train them in our country while they had the avowed policy of killing uninvolved civilians, not just in Nicaragua, but worldwide, as the al Qaeda does."

The Contras were recruited, trained and armed by the CIA. The CIA training manuals explicitly called for the "selective use of violence for propagandistic effect."

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1997_rpt/soarpt.htm

Why do you require the terrorists to operate worldwide, as well as the training not to take place in some client state like Honduras? That does not make sense.

"But were we to do that, and if they had such a policy, I would agree Nicaragua or any country fighting terrorism would be justified in attacking the US to eliminate them."

Welcome to hell.