Should Cuba be removed from the State's Sponsor of Terrorism List

FRAMEWORK 1. Pro agrees that this debate is about Cuba. So, as I said earlier, "it's not my job to argue that the list is comprehensive and perfect; my only job is to assert that Cuba should be on it, regardless of what other state might or might not be included. " Therefore, we can disregard the issue of what other countries should, should not, might, or might not be placed on the list, and focus solely on the issue of Cuba's inclusion. Pro then asserts that the definition is "loose," but offers no real reason why. Russia does, in fact, sponsor terrorism. One example would be Russia's support of the Assad regime, which uses coercion and violence against its citizens. Pro says that my definition is "loose" because it would put Russia on the list of states that sponsor terror--but if Russia actually deserves to be on the list, then my definition is not "loose," it's accurate. 2. Here again, Pro is assuming the argument. He says that the grounds for keeping Cuba on the list do "not exist to date. " This is something he must prove prior to assuming it. I would also dispute that those grounds are out-of-date, and if Cuba is still, or would still, sponsor terrorism, then it ought to be kept on the list. Notes 1 and 2: Pro says that his credibility argument somehow applies to my Notes--it doesn't. The credibility of our system does not directly refute my two points that (1) States can be terrorists, and (2) you don't have to be successful to be a terrorist because these two points are generic principles, not something confined within the U. S. system. Extend my two Notes. Pro then goes on to claim that Cuba is "neither failing or succeeding" because, as Pro would contend, Cuba is not sponsoring terrorism at all. Again, this assumes the argument, and, as I will show, Cuba does indeed sponsor terrorism. Finally, we must evaluate the round through the definitions I offer, because Pro offers no definitions of his own. Therefore, the only way to understand the round through framework presented in the round, is to default to the definitions I presented. DEFENDING THE CON C1: Pro states that he rebutted my argument by showing that the weapons were "obsolete. " I have two responses to this: (1) My argument was that even if the weapons were obsolete, it still counted as terrorism. Pro misconstrued my argument entirely. And, in fact, we can say that exchanges like these count as sponsoring terrorism, because they give material support to a known terrorist entity. Remember, Pro NEVER CONTESTED the fact that North Korea was a terrorist actor--Pro says that he did, but nowhere is this argument present in his R2 speech. Pro only mentions North Korea twice--once in response to my first contention, where Pro argues that the weapons were old, and again in his very last sentence, where he called it a "joke. " Neither of these actually addresses the notion that North Korea is a terrorist. Pro further claims that because North Korea was removed from this list, it cannot be a terrorist. This is absurd--you're not a terrorist because you included on some sort of official list, you're a terrorist because of what you do, and North Korea clearly uses coercion to attain concessions from the West. This fits the description of a terrorist. (2) My second counterargument here, is that the weapons were NOT OBSOLETE. Pro absolutely FAILS to address my argument that "it is highly unlikely that the materiel was being sent to North Korea for repair, as the weapons and aircraft were newly outfitted and in perfect working order when they were seized. [1] Even more critical, this sources notes that the weapons were NOT obsolete, and thus, were clearly supporting terrorism. " This one point alone defeats EVERY argument Pro has against my contention one. Pro himself stated, "my entire contention 1 argument is that the 'weapons' were obsolete. " But, if the weapons AREN'T obsolete, as I have shown, then Pro has no argument here. If the weapons were (a) not sent for repair, and (b) were not obsolete, then Cuba was essentially gifting North Korea useful weapons to use in their campaigns of coercion. This IS sponsoring terrorism. C2: Shakur is clearly not a political fugitive, and the Black Liberation Army is clearly a terrorist group. The BLA's stated goal was to "take up arms for the liberation and self-determination of black people in the United States. " [1] Having joined the BLA, Shakur engaged in a string of violent acts in support of the BLA's black power agenda. This is terrorism. Moreover, the BLA advocated socialist policies [1], which appealed to Cuba's communist government. So, is Shakur a political prisoner? No. She clearly committed unlawful acts, and was a member of a terrorist group. Cuba is only using "political" motivations as an excuse to shield her, because they sympathize with her. Pro does not deny that Cuba is also harboring ETA terrorists, many of whom have not yet been confirmed to be in Cuba. Regardless of Spain's attitudes, Cuba is still giving terrorists a safe heaven. C3: Pro challenges the idea that Cuba is not supporting the war on terror, but yet his only counter example is that Cuba condemned 9/11 and offered aid. This is all cosmetic--most countries condemned 9/11 and offered some token aid, but that does not mean much. Cuba may have signed documents condemning terrorism, but what has it done substantively? Has it done anything since 9/11? The answer is no--no tighter legislation on preventing terror, no attempts to track, block, or sieze terrorist assets, no counterterrorism efforts in international fora, and more (see my earlier source. ) Cuba's rhetoric is unsubstantiated by Cuba's actions. Pro also claims that, of the nations that remain on the list, none actively condemn terrorism. Yet, Pres. Assad of Syria, claims he is fighting a war on "terrorists. " If you listened to his narrative, he is very anti-terrorism. It's just that, what he calls terrorists, many would call freedom fighters. This just more evidence of how euphemisms mean very little, but actions speak volumes. Cuba's counterterrorism actions have been nonexistent. Finally, clearly Cuba doesn't respect UN law, because as my previous source showed, Cuba's trading arms with North Korea violated multiple UN resolutions. REBUTTING THE PRO Observation 1: Three quick points here: (1) Pro admits: "'sign but not abide' may be true. " This is further supported by Cuba's obvious lack of any action on the issue of counterterrorism--it's all just bluster on Cuba's part. It makes Cuba look good, without forcing Cuba to actually DO anything. (2) Cuba clearly doesn't respect the UN--it violates UN resolutions. (3) Pro says taking Cuba off the list will help us focus on other countries, but fails to warrant this claim. Cuba supports terrorism, and should stay on the list. Observation 2: Again, Pro never addresses that Cuba's close ties to North Korea are important factors in keeping it on the list. Observation 3: One example does not disprove Cuba's terrorist status. Pro also NEVER responds in his final speech to my point that Cuba would actively sponsor terrorism if we took it off the list and relaxed sanctions. Sources: We both used State Dept. evidence for our opposing sides, so it seems as if the SD is not itself biased because it presented both views. The CS Monitor I cited is renowned for its objectivity too. [2] So, I submit that my sources are better than Pro's. VOTING ISSUES: 1 - Cuba did not send obsolete weapons, it sent useful ones 2 - Cub harbors terrorists 3 - Cuba will sponsor terrorism more if removed from the list 4 - Cuba is not acting against terrorists SOURCES: 1 - . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2 - . http://en.wikipedia.org... Thanks--good debate!