This makes the death penalty terrorism.
> > ... It
> > doesn't imply anything about who does the terrorizing. Are the US-backed
> > Contras terrorists?
>
> I think you mean "were". Anyhow, my understanding is that goal of the
> Contras was to take over the levers of power. They were not trying to
> blackmail the government into doing as they wish, they were rather
> trying to become the government. That makes them rebels, not terrorists,
> no matter how dirty their methods were.
<snip>
> > ... In every case you have governments directing the action;
> > puportedly autonomous terrorist organizations are being used to further
> > government aims. The overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks are
> > government-sponsored.
>
> I'm sorry, you haven't proven that. Even ignoring my complaints above,
> you haven't addressed McVeigh, the FLQ, the Northern Irish, the Basques,
> .... There are probably dozens of other groups I haven't even heard of.
Most of those were trying to take over the levers of power and thus are rebels, not terrorists by your definition of terrorism. The IRA wants to end british control of North Ireland, the Basques want independance, etc. Most groups labelled terrorists, including most Islamists, are after state power and thus are not terrorists by your definition.
> > ... How about what happened to Nicaragua when it tried to
> > go its own way; wouldn't a lot of Nicaraguans be alive now if US power
had
> > kept its bloody fingers out of there?
>
> It is easy to drag up dirty stories from the cold war years. We should
> never forget the shit that happened back then but it is not
> representative of modern day American policy. Since the end of the cold
> war, the US has encouraged (or at least not stood in the way of) the
> emergence of electoral democracy in:
>
> * Indonesia
> * East Timor
> * Nigeria
> * Guatemala
> * Salvador
> * the Philippines
> * various Eastern European countries
> * ...
All of which did not elect people with policies contrary to US interests. That part of how the US empire works. When you elect people the US gov't likes then you can have a Republic. But if you don't follow orders then a dictatorship gets imposed. Countries where such groups would probably come to power if they had free elections, like Saudi Arabia, don't have free elections. Countries were pro-US groups can win elections have them. The supposed positive changes in US foreign policy after the cold war is most myth, what's really changed is the propaganda used to justify imperialism. It used to be "fighting communism" then it was "humanitarianism" and now it's "anti-terrorism."
> Lemme guess, the US is all-powerful when it comes to perpetrating evil
> but the good things that have happened since the end of the cold war
> have had nothing to do with the US. It is merely powerless to stop them.
In most cases it doesn't contradict US interests so it doesn't bother to stop them.
> After years of liberal agitating in favor of East Timorese independence,
> East Timor is independent. The US gets the blame for the years of
> domination but none of the credit for the independence.
When Joe Lockhardt was asked what the US position on East Timor independance was he said he wasn't aware he had a position. I see no reason to give them credit, they didn't bring the situation about.