The United States government commits acts of terrorism

Governments_kill, you've premised El Salvador and Nicaragua as contingent sub-arguments for the debate, which is fine. I will address those as needed, but I will first get to the heart of the question on terrorism. You have claimed that my emphasis on words over actions would make the debate meaningless. Nothing could be further from the truth. For an act to be terrorism, it must be confidently claimed by the perpetrator, since the goal is to coerce the target by threats of continued action. When the perpetrator denounces or ignores the coercive element, intention is not clear and the potential to influence is greatly damaged. Just as an animal makes itself look larger and more threatening when cornered, a rational actor doesn't choose to influence someone in a meek, confusing way, but with an unmistakable clarity to best get the message out. Many groups do just this, which is why words, official policies, and statements are so important to defining terrorism. Without this crucial element, we cannot point out that terrorism in itself is morally reprehensible compared to legitimate applications of violence. Even if there is contradiction in a group's actions and words, there exists a preponderance of statements and policies that make it clear whether terrorism was intended. You have cited that one spokesman for the PLO might denounce terrorism, but looking at the sum of actions and words among all elements of the group provides a clear picture. Historically, the PLO and many other groups around the globe have in the weight of their words and actions proven themselves to be amenable to terrorism. The sum of statements and actions by the United States is decidedly in opposition to the use of terror. Regarding El Salvador, you have enumerated some points, but no one can tie them together under the umbrella of terrorism. The linchpin is still the primary intent to harm civilians, but your examples have not demonstrated this. The New York Times interview and the documentary don't talk about terrorism, they allege associations with training in torture, which in itself doesn't meet our definition of terrorism. These journalistic sources must also be viewed with some suspicion, since media professionals often view themselves as called to an adversarial role against government. Although they don't admit it, they like everyone hold an implicit bias. People can grab contradicting quotes and testimonies all day from witnesses of convenience. Short of clear consensus, these allegations must be weighed with these vulnerabilities in mind. Nonetheless, you have used these quotes to springboard to the conclusion that on the part of the U.S. there was "deliberate use of torture against a civilian population." I haven't seen evidence that the U.S. aspired to torture a civilian population en masse, with the express end of making them drop their support of a faction. Even if torture training were to be propagated as alleged, the techniques would probably be meant to be employed selectively, for military ends, that is not against civilians. It makes no sense for the U.S. to violently coerce civilians, when the real key to winning the conflict lay in directly taking on the armed opposition. As I laid out at the onset of this debate, war should not be conflated with terrorism. War is violence "intentional and with purpose" as you've stated. The potential pitfall in understanding is that it, like terrorism, is intended to influence the target authority or regime to an action, namely surrender. But war targets strategic assets and personnel based on military objectives, which in the course of Western history has come to preclude targeting of civilians for the express purpose of coercion. The United States abides by these precedents. When civilians have been struck, it has been denounced, denied, maybe even ignored, but not championed and bragged about. For Nicaragua, your point culminates in the president being accountable for the CIA, and the CIA knowing what they paid for. You haven't made clear what the U.S. knew prior to funding. Actions cited by watchdogs and Congress occurred after the fact of funding, and corrective action was indeed taken by the administration and Congress. Oliver North's funding actions were another aberration inconsistent with United States policy. I should reiterate that someone can be held responsible for an action, but large organizations will always have some people going against the grain, or unwittingly making a mistake. Once again the preponderance of preventive measures, corrective actions, and official statements make it clear that the United States aims to avoid committing terrorism. Someone who seeks to avoid terrorism cannot perpetrate it, because the very act itself requires a willingness to send a message, through the widely condemned method of intentionally attacking civilians. As long as the issue of intent is not faced head on, we will only be talking past each other. Like I said before, intent as revealed by the sum of words as well as action is essential because many groups do commit themselves to terrorism, in word and deed. Observers in the public have come to admire their acts and don't distinguish their actual desire to harm civilians from actions carried out lawfully or in morally acceptable frameworks. This is the reason why this debate is worth having. If one wants to hold nations up to impossible standards, then the discussion must be taken elsewhere. In a real world with complex problems, people can and must come to understand what terrorism is. The United States has taken a stand, and the vast majority of governments share its understanding. Unfortunately, many of those countries' publics have been confused on the topic. But now you see here just what terrorism is, and how the record shows that the United States by the weight of its words and actions demonstrates its intent is anything but to engage in terrorism. Consequently, the U.S. does not engage in terrorism.