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

I will address the framework, then I will defend my own case, and conclude by addressing Pro's case. DEFINITIONS Pro makes two points here: (1) that Russia should be included under my interpretation of the resolution. This is true--but at the same time Russia DOES sponsor terrorism, so, in theory, it deserves to be on the list. But, factoring in pragmatic concerns, it won't be added to it. Moreover, 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. (2) I disagree that the framework argument only makes sense in the context of the Cold War, as Pro claims. Yes, our world is ever-changing, but if a nation still sponsors terrorism, it still sponsor terrorism, irrespective of the era. Extend my "Notes;" Pro never rebuts these. The impact of these extensions is twofold: (1) States can be terrorists, and (2) You do not have to be successful to be engaged in terrorism. DEFENDING THE CON CASE C1: Pro never answers my argument that "a terrorist is a terrorist whether he is holding a revolver or a rocket launcher." Regardless of the quality of the weapons, the fact that ANY weapons are being exchanged is troubling, and still constitutes material support for terrorism. This goes back to my second Note under definitions--terrorism doesn't need to be effective to be terrorism, just as the supplies one provides the terrorists don't need to be effective. If I hand a terrorist a blunderbuss, and the terrorist attempts to coerce someone using it, but fails because the weapon is out of date, the terrorist still engaged in terrorism. This leads to a very crucial point: while Pro makes an argument that the weapons are obsolete, Pro NEVER challenges that the acts did, in fact, sponsor terror. Also key, Pro never contests the fact that North Korea is a terrorist. And, any transshipment of arms to Cuba violates myriad UN resolutions, and so does NOT respect international law (see my earlier source.) Lastly, 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 alone defeats Pro's counterargument. C2: Cuba is harboring terrorists. One perfect example is Assata Shakur, who was a member of the Black Liberation Army--a terrorist organization. She most definitely used coercion to attempt to achieve her goals, and therefore can be classified as a terrorist. [2] This example proves that Cuba does, indeed, harbor terrorists. Additionally, not all Basque rebels in Cuba have been approved by the Spanish authorities, and Cuba has refused to confirm all those rebels currently residing in Cuba. C3: Cuba, despite the origin of its inclusion on the list stemming from the Cold War, does still sponsor terrorists, from North Korea to Assata Shakur. This merits it's continuation on the list. And, though Cuba may distance itself from ETA members, it still grants them residency. Furthermore, Cuba has not been cooperative in the fight against terror. "Cuba actively continued to oppose the U.S.-led Coalition prosecuting the global war on terror and has publicly condemned various U.S. policies and actions. To U.S. knowledge, Cuba did not attempt to track, block, or seize terrorist assets, although the authority to do so is contained in Cuba's Law 93 Against Acts of Terrorism. No new counterterrorism laws were enacted, nor were any executive orders or regulations issued in this regard. To date, the Cuban Government has taken no action against al-Qaida or other terrorist groups. Cuba did not undertake any counterterrorism efforts in international and regional fora. Official government statements and the government-controlled press rarely speak out against al-Qaida or other designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations." [3] REBUTTING THE PRO Observation One: Again, simply because one signs something does not mean one will abide by it. Cuba doesn't support terrorism, it supports "revolutions." It's euphemistic. Either way, Cuba is supporting the exact same thing. For example, Russia denounces the U.S. for its interventionism, but when Russia intervenes, it's offering support to "legitimate" governments/groups, etc. It's all about perception. Clearly Cuba's incredibly close associations to Iran and North Korea make it a security threat. Cuba may be "in transition," but we should relax our vigilance with extreme caution, and I don't think it is time yet to remove it from the list. Observation Two: You are focusing a lot on the FARC; yet, in my rebuttal, I never brought it up. FARC is not central to my stance. Nonetheless, one potentially good deed does not somehow absolve Cuba or acquit it of suspicion. My attack, that due to Cuba and North Korea's intimate ties Cuba should remain sanctioned, was not directly addressed by Pro. Extend it. Observation Three: Pro is assuming the argument here. Pro states, "we are a nation that is committed to actively fight the War on Terror. It's non-existent in Cuba." But that is the issue we are debating, and so we cannot simply assume that Cuba no longer sponsors terrorism. The U.S. has made some questionable decisions, and I am not here to defend its record. I am only here to argue that Cuba should be included--not what other states may somehow be included too. But, I don't think the U.S. would designate itself a sponsor of terror, regardless. Anyway, under the definition, which Pro never really contests, harboring terrorists is sponsoring terrorism. Pro says Cuba's inclusion on the list thwarts our ability to counter terrorism elsewhere--but two things: (1) this assumes the argument (again), and (2) Pro gives us no impacts as to how much benefit would be derived from Cuba's non-inclusion. Moreover, if Cuba does or would support terrorism, as I suggest, then it is not counterproductive to keep it on the list. Pro says, "If Castro's government wanted to engage in acts of terrorism, nothing is stopping them right now." Yes, something is stopping them--our embargo. Cuba doesn't have the natural resources that larger nations like Iran do, and it cannot isolate itself as easily as North Korea. It really can't do too much. Remove those restrictions (the embargo) and what is revolutionary talk now, will become revolutionary action afterward. Pro's Sources: Pro didn't cite in-text, so I don't know what his sources are referencing, but I will make two quick notes about them. His first link is funded almost exclusively by liberals (including an organization founded by George Soros) as well as groups like the Ploughshares Fund whose goal is to promote negotiations with everyone, from Iran to Syria, and so on. These groups clearly have an agenda, and would be biased towards Pro. The Havana Times source is also going to put a pro-Cuba spin on things that would negatively impact its validity in this debate. SOURCES: 1 - http://www.csmonitor.com... 2 - http://en.wikipedia.org... 3 - http://www.state.gov... Thanks for a great debate so far. I'm looking forward to the final round!