Replies

"'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.'

The context is the war against terror. This is not a war on all terrorism everywhere--strictly those terrorist groups which operate on a worldwide basis against the US. We are not fighting the IRA or the Tamil Tigers or the Shining Path guerillas, which operate on a local, national basis."

There are some interesting implications to your statement. You state that the "war on terror" is directed solely against those who target the US. It is obviously not directed against those terrorists who attack states which have been declared enemy or "rogue" states by the US government. This is a fact which is not lost on many people outside the US. When Reagan declared the first "war on terrorism", the US-sponsored Contra terrorism in Nicaragua was in full swing.

Another curious distinction you make is that between "worldwide" and "local" terrorism. It is funny that you should mention the IRA. This terrorist organization has received a lot of funding from US citizens, and IRA terrorists have been known to travel to the US and parts of Europe. I guess that makes it transatlantic terrorism.

No legal or moral argument supports the conclusion, that a country only has the right to defend itself against "worldwide" terrorism, but not against "national" terrorism. There is no significant difference between US-sponsored Contra terrorism and Al Qaeda terrorism, except that one is in the interests of the US, and the other is clearly not.

Again - support of terrorism against everybody else and the declared intention to fight terrorism which is directed at oneself, does not make a good combination.

"My comment about training in the US, is that that would fit the analogy with Iraq; they have trained al Qaeda in Iraq. The Sandinistas seem to have been trained mostly in Honduras. If Nicaragua attacked Honduras to wipe out the training camps, that would be similar to a US attack on Iraq."

Analogies easily lead to wrong conclusions. I would rather that we talk about legal principles. If you support the principle, that every country has the right to attack another country which sponsors terrorism, then Nicaragua clearly had (maybe still has) the right to bomb the US. The US gave training and material support (including air reconnaissance) to the Contra terrorists. Some Contra leaders were trained at Fort Benning. The US has even been condemned by the world court for its actions. You will not find a more clear-cut example.

I said: "The context is the war against terror. This is not a war on all terrorism everywhere--strictly those terrorist groups which operate on a worldwide basis against the US. We are not fighting the IRA or the Tamil Tigers or the Shining Path guerillas, which operate on a local, national basis."

You said: "There are some interesting implications to your statement. You state that the "war on terror" is directed solely against those who target the US. It is obviously not directed against those terrorists who attack states which have been declared enemy or "rogue" states by the US government. This is a fact which is not lost on many people outside the US. When Reagan declared the first "war on terrorism", the US-sponsored Contra terrorism in Nicaragua was in full swing."

As I said, the contra support was in the context of our fight against worldwide communism, focused on Nicaragua. I see this as supporting one side in a civil war. While there may have been terrorist acts by the contras, I dispute that was an official policy, and it was definitely not US policy. I do not see the equivalency with an al Qaeda or Palestinian group that officially targets citizens.

You said: "Another curious distinction you make is that between "worldwide" and "local" terrorism. It is funny that you should mention the IRA. This terrorist organization has received a lot of funding from US citizens, and IRA terrorists have been known to travel to the US and parts of Europe. I guess that makes it transatlantic terrorism."

Yes, US citizens have supported the IRA and I would prosecute them to the full extent of the law. That is not the official policy of the US government. The aims of the IRA are local to Ireland. Their target is England and its government. That makes them local.

You said: "No legal or moral argument supports the conclusion, that a country only has the right to defend itself against "worldwide" terrorism, but not against "national" terrorism."

I agree with this.

You said: "There is no significant difference between US-sponsored Contra terrorism and Al Qaeda terrorism, except that one is in the interests of the US, and the other is clearly not."

I dispute that the Contras were terrorists and targeted solely or primarily civilians. They were counter revolutionaries who opposed the Communist regime and engaged in civil war, the most vicious of all wars. In wars civilians always get killed; that is why I am a conscientious objector to war. The only alternative is to trust in God for protection. But if you don't trust in God to fight for you, which the neither the US nor any other nation does, then you must fight to win.

You said "Again - support of terrorism against everybody else and the declared intention to fight terrorism which is directed at oneself, does not make a good combination."

You overreach here; the US has never supported terrorism against everyone else. You would be hard pressed to say the US ever supported terrorism, since you are using the disputable example of the Contras.

I said: "My comment about training in the US, is that that would fit the analogy with Iraq; they have trained al Qaeda in Iraq. The Sandinistas seem to have been trained mostly in Honduras. If Nicaragua attacked Honduras to wipe out the training camps, that would be similar to a US attack on Iraq."

You said: "Analogies easily lead to wrong conclusions. "

I agree.

You said: "I would rather that we talk about legal principles. If you support the principle, that every country has the right to attack another country which sponsors terrorism, then Nicaragua clearly had (maybe still has) the right to bomb the US. "

Even if the Contras weren't terrorists, I agree. We definitely were fighting against the Sandinista government, an act of war. We aren't currently, since they now have a democratic government, so I'm not sure why you suggest they might still have a "right".

No doubt our disagreement about the Contras is what gave rise to the phrase "one man's terrorist is anothers freedom fighter". However, targeting and killing civilians is always wrong, whether in Israel, New York, or Nicaragua. I think we can agree that when the Contras did so, they were wrong to do so. Can you agree that when they targeted the government military that was acceptable within a civil war context?