The United States government commits acts of terrorism

I just want to start this off again, by saying that you are seriously a very talented debater. I've never had any discussion on this topic that was even close. You are very good at painting a very complex picture and throwing various complexities into the scenario. That said, let's do this. Your definition has substantially changed and become meaningless. To begin, Bin Laden only hints at the purpose of his attacks, while we all consider the attack on the towers as terrorism. Bin Laden has not come out with a manifesto that states all the goals (which is how you're interpreting influence) of an attack, while threatening another attack if the demands are not met. Even if people think that there is a different standard for Bin Laden then the United States, I'm going to provide an example that I think you and I would agree in abstract constitutes terrorism, but as per your interpretation of your definition couldn't be classified as terrorism. I will then argue that Nicaragua constitues that example. To construct the example here goes. Saddam Hussein funds a branch of al-Qaeda (if this sounds familiar it was Cheney's "intelligence" concerning the link between Iraq and al-Qaeda) for a project. This is a branch of al-Qaeda that has previously carried out numerous attacks against civilians. Hussein does not tell this branch to change its MO and even in press conferences repeatedly refers to these folks as "freedom fighters." That's the end of the example. If you don't think that virtually everyone in the United States would consider that an act of terrorism then you're lying. I'll even add a caveat. While he's calling these folks "freedom fighters," he is disavowing his responsibility for the attack and his parliament is passing a law that he can no longer transfer money to the group. We should both agree that this is an act of terrorism, but your very very very narrow definition (which probably doesn't apply to any act of terrorism) excludes this act from classification as terrorism. There is also an issue with how you interpret my previous PLO counter-example. You say that "looking at the sum of actions and words among all elements of the group provides a clear picture" and "The sum of statements and actions by the United States is decidedly in opposition to the use of terror." Unfortunately you're arguing against my stronger thesis, which is not the substance of the debate. This is specifically a debate about whether the US commits terrorist actions, not whether on its whole it constitutes a terrorist state. This means that you are attempting to establish a burden of proof that exceeds the proposition that is at issue. This means unfortunately for you that the PLO example is a very legitimate argument from analogy. You unfortunately failed to articulate how your definition (of acts of terrorism not a terrorist organization) would encompass this scenario, which you clearly feel constitutes terrorism, while excluding the United States. I hold that it can't be done as per your interpretation. This coupled to the further complicated picture that I articulate above means that we have to go to actions and assume that if support continues after there is no question about the tactics used then it must be considered intentional and agreement with the tactics used. I'm giving up on El Salvador due to space limits, so I will now reargue Nicaragua under my framework. Your defense for Nicaragua hinges on "When civilians have been struck, it has been denounced, denied, maybe even ignored, but not championed and bragged about." I think you're forgetting that Reagan very infamously referred to the Contras as freedom fighters. Not only did he "ignore" the atrocities that they committed against civilians, but this comes about as close to outright support as I think is possible. So he clearly did it through words. Now we can look at the policy front. You are correct that the first batch of funding came through prior to Congressional knowledge and watchdog group citations, but that can't be said of the covert funding, which continued after Congress passed the law. If you seriously think that North was anything but a fall person, then I have a bridge in New York that I'd like to sell you. Almost all historians have at this point concluded that Reagan had full knowledge of Ollie's actions, and it strikes me as disingenuous to grant Reagan the benefit of the doubt but to not do the same for Arafat. Even in the event that Reagan didn't know, it's impossible for everyone in the executive branch to be clueless, and the executive branch (as you did not dispute) is the one that sets policy. Not challenging Ollie is equivalent to agreeing with Ollie, when we're talking about something like this. This means that the executive branch, which you conceded is responsible for foreign policy questions, under Reagan was responsible for terrorist actions. This means that the US government committed terrorist actions against the Nicaraguan government. I also find it interesting that you ignore that NO ONE has been held accountable for this. Ollie's got a TV show and Reagan is everything but a war hero to Republicans. Bush even got elected President right after it. If that's a government trying to distance itself from terrorism, then I'm shaking in my boots about a government that doesn't even try to "distance itself from terrorism." This really shouldn't be a shock to anyone. After all, the ICJ (world court) issued a ruling against the United States and told them to cease and desist their actions against the Sandinista regime. The World Court, which is usually quite reserved in its rhetoric, chose to use the phrase "terrorist actions" in reference to the US's mining of the harbors and continued support of the Contras. By the way, this is 1986, so I'm sure the voters can decide whether or not that constitutes continued support even after we knew about what the Contras were doing. And to even suggest that we didn't know what the Contras were doing is at best naivete and at worse an outright lie. The CIA is the most powerful intelligence agency in the world. We knew exactly what was going on in Nicaragua and who was doing it. And the support was likely more than that. I'll be nice and not bring up the School of the Americas due to you not having a chance to reply, but it's likely that the US had actually trained many of the folks that were in the Contras. It is further possible that the US was providing logistical support to the Contras, but to summarize... The US government funded the Contras (a paramilitary opposition organization) under Ronal Reagan. The Contras intentionally commited atrocities against civilians in an attempt to destabilize the Sandinista regime. The Reagan administration had full knowledge of the tactics of the Contras but continued financial support (at a minimum) of this terrorist organization. This went through the mainstream of the Executive Branch, which is responsible for Foreign policy under the US constitution. This means that the US government knowingly supported a terrorist organization, which means that the US government does commit terrorist acts. It has further implicated itself in these actions by not holding the members of government who did directly support these actions accountable. Sorry to substantially weaken my argument, but it is very difficult to articulate a stronger thesis given the space constraints.