Ronald Reagan supported a group known as "the Contra's" that began in 1979.

According to Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras



Was Ronald Reagan a terrorist?

What is a terrorist?

It is difficult for me to believe that these questions and this thread are even the least bit sincere.



Was Ronald Reagan a terrorist?
Is the king of Saudi Arabia a terrorist? Was Saddam Hussein a terrorist? Is the President of Iran a terrorist?


What is a terrorist?
Did you know that Wikipedia has an answer to that question? Why did you look it up?

My apologies, I should have added the thread that they stemmed from :



http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...13399&st=20

Of course they are sincere. It a different thread several people call former president of Iran a terrorist for his government's support of Hezbollah - a terrorist organization. A parallel has been made to Ronald Reagan and his government's support of Contras - another terrorist organization. I expect people labelling Khatami a terrorist to answer "Yes" to the first question of this thread.

My answer, though, is "No". Reagan, like most other leaders, supported a group which represented American interests in Nicaragua - namely, fighting Sandinistas. The fact that they did it using terror didn't bother him, just like the actions of Pinochet's junta didn't bother Kissinger a decade before. Unfortunately, world leaders, including Reagan, often choose to close their eyes on actions of their proteges. Soviets did it, Americans did it, French did it, and Iranians did it. Common practice...

This debate is one big If/Then statement.

IF Someone like Khatemi is a terrorist because as a former leader of a nation, under his watch his nation provided money to an organisation, and this organisation had as one of its main principles the use of terrorist violence...

THEN by definition Reagan is a terrorist for doing exactly the same thing, in fact several times to different organisations. This point is not really debatable.

The only difference then is people's opinion on one being a 'good' terrorist' or a 'bad terrorist'.

It also follows that if the initial statement is NOT true; that Khatemi CANNOT automatically be considered a terrorist for the aforementioned actions, then the second is also not true, Reagan and others are equally not automatically considered terrorists when they took the same actions.

Otherwise, GOTO hypocrisy.


(ah, my junior-high interest in BASIC is coming back to me now...)

Was Ronald Reagan a terrorist?

You cite doesn't make that case. It barely even makes the case that the Contras themselves were terrorists, only that they were "widely believed" (whatever that's supposed to mean) to be terrorists. In order to make the case that Reagan was a terrorist, it would not only have to be shown that the Contras were terrorists, not only have to be shown that he knew about it, but that he actually approved of their terrorism as a means to accomplish his political goal (the removal of the Sandinista government).

This is a different question from whether he bears any moral responsibility at all for what the Contras did with U.S. funds. There can be no escaping that completely. But for him to actually be considered a terrorist, something a bit more exacting is required.

Why did Reagan fund them? Was it because he liked the name, or because he and the contras enjoyed a love of Jelly Beans? Or was it because they were violently opposed to a democratically elected government he did not approve of?

The fact that the Contras were violent, has committed unquestioned acts of terrorism and were partially funded by the drug trade could hardly have been unknown to the President of the Unites States. The DEA in 1985 reported that the Contras were funding their activities in part by selling drugs in the United States, and this was confirmed by a 1987 US senate committee. If that were not enough, one of the reasons that the Contras were implicated in several early 1980s terrorist attacks was that they CLAIMED RESPONSIBILITY for several of them.

Not to mention, if Reagan didn't expect them to use violence (or was somehow unaware of their terrorist activities) then why on earth did he send them GUNS?



The first two are easily done, and the third is in no way necessary to prove. The fact that he sent guns and ammunition to a terrorist group is condemnation enough.

Beasides, even if we ignore the Contras entirely, there is also the issue of the Mujahadin, another US backed terrorist group.



That goes back to my If/Then statement above. Reagan can ONLY be considered a terrorist if one also considers Khatemi a terrorist for the exact same actions.


In other words, does the action of funding (as leader of a nation) a group which has as one of its main principles the use of terrorist violence make the said leader a terrorist? Doesn't matter WHO the leader is, we are talking about the action here.

Of course not. The entire premise of this thread is idiotic.

By the same logic, EVERY US president could be labeled a "terrorist".

There is nothing to debate here.

What's education though is that the ultra left, even 20 years later STILL hasn't forgiven Reagan for refusing to allow Nicaragua to become Cuba II.

Oh well, I guess there is always Canada for the next incarnation of a "worker's paradise".

I expected that this question was going to be asked when I followed the debate about whether Khatami should be considered a 'terrorist' because during his presidency Hezbollah continued to receive fundings from Iran. I myself found the statement 'Khatami = 'terrorist'' inaccurate, unjustified and absurd. Although I have never been a fan of Reagan, in my opinion you cannot say he was a 'terrorist'. It is an inaccurate, unjustified and absurd statement, for the same reasons as to why Khatami cannot be labelled a 'terrorist'.

I agree with English Horns opinion completely...





This seems like a simple question, but to answer it is more difficult than one would expect.
Wikipedia shows clearly how much difficulties the U.S. government had in creating a clear definition:

A "democratically elected government he did not approve of" because of its massive human rights violations and alignment with the Soviet Bloc. In any event, this thread isn't about whether or not that was a worthy goal in itself.


Got a source for this?


I didn't say anything about whether his support of the Contras should be condemned. The debate question is about whether he should be considered a terrorist. It absolutely is necessary to establish the third point in order to say that he was.


In that case, buying oil from Saudi Arabia makes people terrorists. That's too broad. The question is one of intent.

I hate "Billy" with a passion. He doesn't believe in any of the things I do! He's a right-wing windbag, and he's mean to people. I've heard he might even beat his wife. I told this to my buddy "John." He said "hey man, I hate Billy too! That guy is an awful example of a human! He doesn't believe in any of the same stuff we do. You know, man, if I had a gun, I would take care of Billy." Hearing this, my ears perked up. Hmmm. I opened my closet and retrieved my 9mm handgun. "Here ya go, John. Oh, and here's 40 bucks for cab fare."

John used my money to take a cab to Billy's house. Once he got there, he shot Billy and his family dead. I didn't think much more about it until a week later, when a couple of detectives showed up at my door.

"Mr. Quarkhead? Did you let John use your gun, knowing he was going to murder someone with it? Did you in fact provide him with money to fund his trip to Billy's house?"

"I sure did, Detective Hammer. I didn't think John was going to kill Billy's family, but he always did have a couple of screws loose. I mean, he's been a serial killer for years, after all."

"Mr. Quarkhead, you are under arrest."

"But why!?" I protested. "I didn't shoot Billy or his family!"

Now what do you suppose I was charged and convicted of?

Should the same standard not apply to me if I am the president of the U.S.?

Realpolitik would say that we can't do that to our presidents, because they would all be guilty and nothing would ever get done.

However, it seems to me that if we applied the same standards of criminal law to our elected leaders as we do to everyone else, they just might not do it anymore!!

How can we condemn supporting terrorists if we can't hold ourselves to the same standards? Holding our so-called leaders to recognized standards of culpability would change politics for the better.

The Sandanistas weren't paragons of goodness and light. But they overthrew a dictatorship and then established basic democratic institutions in Nicaragua. They were guilty of human rights violations.

The US is not a paragon of goodness and light. But we overthrew a monarchy and established basic democratic institutions in the US. We were guilty of human rights violations, and still are. I don't advocate, nor do I support, overthrowing a democratic government with violence, whether in Nicaragua or in Washington DC.

The Contras weren't on a mission to overthrow a dictatorship and create a democracy. They were on a mission to overthrow a democracy (albeit in its infancy) and reinstitute a dictatorship, in the name of Capitalism.

The assertion that the Sandenistas were going to 'align with the Soviet bloc' is much disputed to say the least, but as you say thats irrelevant. At that point the debate becomes about the difference between good terrorists and bad terrorists.



A book actually. The Contras claimed responsibility for mining the Corinto harbour and blowing up two bridges. Give me a couple hours, I will get the citation for you. Mind you, I have never heard anyone else show any doubt that the Contras were violent terrorists before today, I assumed it was a given.



Again, I disagree. If you give guns to a terrorist group, I think thats pretty good evidence that you approve of their military activities. Besides, that level of proof (not only funds, but approves of use of funds for terrorist activities) is not applied to anyone else, and that kind of 'specific approval' is near impossible to prove.



I disagree. People have lots of motives to buy oil, one of the main ones being to obtain oil. Giving money and weapons on the other hand is a very different affair. There is no obvious quid pro quo.

Let me put it another way, any nation that gives money and weapons to a terrorist group would not be held to that standard, their guilt would be instantly assumed. Pretending Reagan gave guns and money to an anti-democratic terrorist group while disapproving of their violence is hardly credible.

Now I imagine it would take sometime to actually verify all of this data, but I will provide some of it and the link.

1973
U.S.-supported military coup kills Allende and brings Augusto Pinochet Ugarte to power. Pinochet imprisons well over a hundred thousand Chileans (torture and rape are the usual methods of interrogation), terminates civil liberties, abolishes unions, extends the work week to 48 hours, and reverses Allende's land reforms.
1973
Military takes power in Uruguay, supported by U.S. The subsequent repression reportedly features the world's highest percentage of the population imprisoned for political reasons.
1974
Office of Public Safety is abolished when it is revealed that police are being taught torture techniques.
1976
Election of Jimmy Carter leads to a new emphasis on human rights in Central America. Carter cuts off aid to the Guatemalan military (or tries to; some slips through) and reduces aid to El Salvador.
1979
Ratification of the Panama Canal treaty which is to return the Canal to Panama by 1999.
"Once again, Uncle Sam put his tail between his legs and crept away rather than face trouble." --Ronald Reagan
1980
A right-wing junta takes over in El Salvador. U.S. begins massively supporting El Salvador, assisting the military in its fight against FMLN guerrillas. Death squads proliferate; Archbishop Romero is assassinated by right-wing terrorists; 35,000 civilians are killed in 1978-81. The rape and murder of four U.S. churchwomen results in the suspension of U.S. military aid for one month.
The U.S. demands that the junta undertake land reform. Within 3 years, however, the reform program is halted by the oligarchy.
"The Soviet Union underlies all the unrest that is going on." --Ronald Reagan
1980
U.S., seeking a stable base for its actions in El Salvador and Nicaragua, tells the Honduran military to clean up its act and hold elections. The U.S. starts pouring in $100 million of aid a year and basing the contras on Honduran territory.
Death squads are also active in Honduras, and the contras tend to act as a state within a state.
1981
The CIA steps in to organize the contras in Nicaragua, who started the previous year as a group of 60 ex-National Guardsmen; by 1985 there are about 12,000 of them. 46 of the 48 top military leaders are ex-Guardsmen. The U.S. also sets up an economic embargo of Nicaragua and pressures the IMF and the World Bank to limit or halt loans to Nicaragua.
1981
Gen. Torrijos of Panama is killed in a plane crash. There is a suspicion of CIA involvement, due to Torrijos' nationalism and friendly relations with Cuba.
1982
A coup brings Gen. Efraín Ríos Montt to power in Guatemala, and gives the Reagan administration the opportunity to increase military aid. Ríos Montt's evangelical beliefs do not prevent him from accelerating the counterinsurgency campaign.
1983
Another coup in Guatemala replaces Ríos Montt. The new President, Oscar Mejía Víctores, was trained by the U.S. and seems to have cleared his coup beforehand with U.S. authorities.
1983
U.S. troops take over tiny Granada. Rather oddly, it intervenes shortly after a coup has overthrown the previous, socialist leader. One of the justifications for the action is the building of a new airport with Cuban help, which Granada claimed was for tourism and Reagan argued was for Soviet use. Later the U.S. announces plans to finish the airport... to develop tourism.
1983
Boland Amendment prohibits CIA and Defense Dept. from spending money to overthrow the government of Nicaragua-- a law the Reagan administration cheerfully violates.
1984
CIA mines three Nicaraguan harbors. Nicaragua takes this action to the World Court, which brings an $18 billion judgment against the U.S. The U.S. refuses to recognize the Court's jurisdiction in the case.
1984
U.S. spends $10 million to orchestrate elections in El Salvador-- something of a farce, since left-wing parties are under heavy repression, and the military has already declared that it will not answer to the elected president.
1989
U.S. invades Panama to dislodge CIA boy gone wrong Manuel Noriega, an event which marks the evolution of the U.S.'s favorite excuse from Communism to drugs.
1996
The U.S. battles global Communism by extending most-favored-nation trading status for China, and tightening the trade embargo on Castro's Cuba.

Here is the link, now I know the U.S practically supported a scorched earth policy in South America for a long time, but I do not know to exactly what extent.
link

Lord Helmet, this post is riddled with insults and generic labels, adding very little, if anything to the debate. I want to see if I can help you understand the question better. Broken down into the simplest form, all this thread is asking you is; "Do you apply the same standards to judge yourself as you do to judge others?" That is it in a nutshell. I wholeheartedly agree with, and recommend that you check out Vermillion's IF-THEN rationalization.

You may not like Cuba, that is fine, but it is not your responsibility nor the United States' responsibility to determine Cuba's politics and socio-economic culture. The same thing goes for Nicaragua. The Sandinistas were democratically-elected. The Sandinistas were there because the will of the people wanted them there. Just like the will of the American people wanted George W. Bush to be where he is.

I would like to respond to your "worker's paradise" comment. Unions in the United States and the U.S. military on the only two things in our culture that can be describe as Communist (Cuba) or Socialist (Canada). I do not understand your contempt for this style of economy. Based on this report by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, on average Union members make more money than non-Union members.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.t02.htm
FACT

If you were a member of the Union you would make more money. Are you opposed to making more money?

Quarkhead, I never liked Billy either. He was an SOB.

Was Ronald Reagan a terrorist? Yes I believe he overtly supported terrorism. But I do believe he was to intellectually ignorant to understand what it really is.

What is a terrorist? more often than not the ones who get to write the history books to their benefit. Face it terrorists win the wars. Was the boston tea party a terrorist act?


the following quote is by a terrorist among us McVeigh:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/forum/1378651.stm



Thus at some point in time we need to teach within our own society the difference; that living in a civil society one does not use terrorists ways. a civil society need not export terrorism as a matter of fact.

Was Ronald Reagan a terrorist?

I was in central America during "reagan's army"- and I was there doing things for Reagan's politics. I can say with 110% certainty, that Reagan was at least as much of a terrorist as Ghaddafi, Khatami, Saddam, Arafat, whomever you want to name that supported organizations that purposely used terror against civilian populations for political change. I was a doorgunner in 1982-1984 in that arena, alot. Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatamala, Panama and El Salvador I flew folks all over, all Americans doing very bad things. I was 17 years old the first time I went there. I was 19 when I saw the aftermath of a Reagan supported deathsquad. It changed me forever. These folks recieved direct monies from Reagan.

Reagan is a piece of human offal that deserved his ignomious ending, it is just sad that no one ever brought him to justice.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras

They were opposed by most Nicaraguans as well as foreign human rights organizations who viewed their tactics, which included the targeting of civilians, as brutal and indiscriminate.


What is a terrorist?


Tough one- I declare Reagan a terrorist by using the accepted US goverment definition of a state sponsor of terrorist- which, undoubtedly, by our definition, Reagan unleashed some of the worst abuses in central America during his riegn of terror there- but, really, I think "terrorist" is a "boogeyman propaganda" machine.

We use bombs to terrorize- but we feel sorry publically when we kill innocents- but we kill alot more innocents with our much larger, wholesale killer bombs.

The world sucks, war sucks, and terrorist is just a conveniant way to say your opponent sucks.

Thank you for making my exact point. It's all about motives. In the case of funding the Contras, the apparent motive was to support military actions against militarily legitimate Sandinista targets. If some of that money also got misused for terrorist attacks, does that mean the funders were terrorists themselves? If so, then apply your earlier "IF/THEN" formulation to people who buy oil from Saudi Arabia.

And I think that the idea that somebody freely (and secretly) gives money and guns to a terrorist organisation, and yet strongly disapproves of their terrorist activities is exceptionally far-fetched, or incredibly naive.

Furthermore, there is absolutely no way to know what Reagan's secret inner heart told him. All we can do is jusde him by his actions, which is to give weapons and money to a terrorist organisation, and then to CONTINUE to supply them with guns and money once it becomes clear that they use terror as their main tool, and use as their other main source of income the selling of drugs to the United States.

Besides, even if we were to accept this rather incredible idea, who is to say that secretly, in his heart of hearts, Khatami did not weep into his pillow over the way Hezbollah was using the money he sent them?

Judge people by their actions, not what you hope (without any obvious basis) their secret unspoken thoughts over their actions might be.

Only "far-fetched" to someone who likes to manipulate language to suit his opinions.

He gave money to an organization in exchange for military actions against military targets, you gave money to Saudi Arabia in exchange for oil. Both recipients (apparently) used the money for terrorism as well. What does that make the donors? Simple enough question.


Because Khatami had no other plausible reason for funding Hizballah than to support their terrorist activities.

And the pot meets the kettle, and calls it black. Your first sentence applies perfectly to your own post.

You've decided what Reagan's motives were for breaking US law to fund and arm the Contras, eh?

You can manipulate the language any way you like, but facts have a way of intruding... the goal of the Contras was to dispose of a government that, for all its faults, was composed of democratic structures, and replace it with a military dictatorship. Their methods were rarely 'military against military.'

Since Congress had expressly made aid to the Contras against the law, when their terrorist activities were known, then Reagan had no other plausible reason for continuing to arm and fund the Contras, than to fund their terrorist activities. I mean, just using your logic...

Reagan was the president closest to being a terrorist, but most others in the years since WWII would also be guilty.

quarkhead - Whether or not Reagan broke the law is irrelevant to this discussion, and whether or not you approve of their goal of removing the Sandinistas from power is irrelevant to this discussion. As for whether their actions were "rarely" military against military, do you have some kind of source for this? Something that tallies up their actions so we can see what percentage of their actions were against military targets?

That comment was not only hypocritical, but insulting and completely unwarranted in what had been, until that point, a civil debate.

Fine then, I put myself at your disposal. Please inform me of how you know what Reagan's secret unspoken intentions and feelings towards the Contras were. Please give me ANY single shred of evidence that when Reagan gave military equipment and money to a terrorist organisation, he secretly wanted it to be used only against specific 'acceptable' targets.

THEN, give me ANY evidence that the Contras has prior to this, attacked ONLY military targets.

THEN, explain to me why Reagan CONTINUED to supply guns and money to the Contras after they attacked non-military targets, engaged interrorist activities, and were confirmed by the DEA to be getting funding through importing and selling drugs to the USA.


I mean Come ON here Blackstone, your entire argument is based on your "knowledge" of Reagan's secret innermost feelings on a topic, a feeling YOU are ascribing to him based on nothing whatsoever, a feeling which completely contradicts his actions. Does that seem in any way resonable to you?


If thats the way we are going to debate, then here is what I assert. You may be disagreeing with me on this board, but I KNOW that deep in your heart, in your innermost feelings, you secretly completely agree with everything I am saying. Even when you deny this, you are secretly reaffirming how much you agree with my arguments. Thus, You completely agree with me (I assert based on my knowledge of your innermost feelings) and the debate is over.

How's that?




Well then, so does Khatemi. So does Saudi Arabia in fact. I will now assert that those people who fund Al Qaida are just doing it because they are softies and really like the guy's beard. The fact that Al qaida HAPPENS to use the money for terrorism, well thats not their fault, right?


Because I now assert that secretly, in their heart of hearts, these funders of Al qaida are quite unhappy about the whole 'terrorist' thing, and supplied the money to All Qaida because they hoped (in their heart, secretly, which I know) that the terrorist organisation would open a theatre in downtown Rhyad and open up "Al Qaida: the musical" starring Tony Bennet as Bin Laden. Sadly, the money was NOT used for a new musical ensemble, but in fact for terrorism. But hey, its not their fault, right?




He has a far more plausible reason than Reagan ever did. The Contras were an entirely political opposition and millitary action based group. Hezbollah however has a wing dedicated to humanitarian causes, education, food distribution and education. I could assert (because I somehow know Khatemi's secret heartfelt unspoken desires) that Khatemi just wanted to fund hospitals in Lebanon run by Hezbollah. And to quote you... "The recipient (apparently) used the money for terrorism as well". But thats not Iran's fault, right?


Basic logic 101. If you give weapons and money to a terrorist group, it is not unreasonable to assume that this group will use the weapons and money for terrorist activities.

Further, if (in the case of Reagan) the terrorist organisation DOES use the money and weapons for terrorist activities, and you even then CONTINUE to supply money and guns, pretending innocence afterwards is sheer lunacy.

Please show me where I ever made such a ridiculous claim. This is what I mean by manipulating language, in a way that's specifically designed to ridicule your opponent. And it is indeed hypocritical to then claim you're being "insulted" when I point this out.


As if Hizballah was Iran's only realistic choice of recipient for spending money on humanitarian goals? How about the Lebanese government itself, just for starters? What was it you were saying above about "incredibly naive"?

Here's and interesting link: Terrorism Debacles in the Reagan Administration





Another link:


More:


But your question is strange. Does the ratio matter? The Contras engaged in terrorism. Whether that comprised 20% or 90% of their activities doesn't matter. What ratio of Hezbollah's activities are terrorist in nature? Does it really matter?

Are you attempting to say that Reagan was in the clear if the Contras only practiced terrorism 20% of the time? 10%? 1%?



Well then, why didn't Reagan fund someone other than the Contras? Why not the Sandanista government itself?

You're also missing the fact that Hezbollah is a part of the Lebanese government. They have members elected to parliament.

Interesting we are talking about these two groups, since they connected back in the days of the Iran-Contra scandal. Reagan sold arms to Iran, to convince them to direct Hezbollah to release some hostages. Even when he wasn't busy supporting terrorists in the form of the Contras, Reagan thought it was OK to dicker with terrorists, particularly if doing so might help his directly supporting other terrorists.

When it comes to US policy, "terrorism" is just a word we use to describe the actions of brutal people we don't like. Brutal people we like get some other designation.

What I find here is that lesser nations tend to be the proxy or focus of large battles between more influential groups, which happens in America domestically and is getting as nasty as to really factionalize Americans as you can see in this thread.

The question hangs on the idea that a former Iranian president or a political figure for that matter can be labeled a terrorist by supporting terrorism. Now what I am sure that meant is Islamic extremism more then terrorism, simply because that’s how Islamic extremism to date really carries out attacks.

If we are to say however that terrorism is really just actions against the populous/civilians in covert or even overt military strikes/actions then yes many political figures the world over not only in a historical sense but in modern times would be most likely terrorists if we are to succumb to that particular take on it.

To me though the worst part about all of this really is how nations get sucked into power struggles. Vietnam and Afghanistan are fine examples of such, and I guess really that is what went on in south America, with native peoples to those lands finding themselves victims overall, or taken advantage of then cast aside like a used condom.

The human experience being what it is, one could possibly bring up the question if its ethical for a super power nation to conduct itself like such, or for that matter bringing on an atmosphere or competition in those likes the world over, yet another reason I dislike the current administration being that’s what they seem to be all about, any era of cooperation globally is really non existent anymore.

Now we can see the same thing in Lebanon. Lebanon really was going to route of moderate Islam with being open to the west, it was a popular tourist spot. Hezbollah for some reason decided to act up, and what happens, Lebanon lays in rubble for the most part is really what happened, people there polarized by the conflict. Now most would say Iran is behind it, sounds like one of those proxy wars overall in which the populous is made the victim in a battle between other groups. This is what went on in south America, but on that note morally its easier to accept such because one of the groups was the home team, even if they were not at home.

Dude, seriously, help me out here. You have been arguing for about 5 posts now your personal knowledge of Reagan's intent. You have (despite my asking numerous times) failed to provide a shred of evidence for how you know his secret intent. You have failed to explain how he could 'feel' one way when his actions showed exactly the opposite. You have failed to do ANYTHING here except assert wildly your version of Reagan's 'intent' even though there is NO BASIS for it whatsoever, and in fact his actions seem to demonstrate the exact opposite.

So how EXACTLY am I 'twisting words' here? Please, be specific.

You have made a wild and counter-factual assertion, I have done three things: Firstly - ask that you give just the slightest bit of evidence at ALL to support this bizarre assertion, and Secondly - ask that you explain why if his intent was one thing, all his actions point in exactly the opposite direction. Thirdly, I have asked you to justify how his secret and unstated 'intent' in supplying arms and money to terrorists (even if it existed, which is highly unlikely) somehow exculpates the act, while the same potential 'secret motives' do not exculpate anyone else?

Your entire thesis makes no sense, and is supported by nothing, and All you have done when I point this out is be insulting, accuse me of 'twisting words' (without any specifics of course) and generally edit out and ignore the sections where I ask you to justify your position.



NOW who is twisting words? That is EXACTLY what you have just done here. I am not stating that humanitarianism WAS the reason Khatemi funded Hezbollah, I am destroying your argument that Khatemi had no other POSSIBLE motive. That was obvious, until you chose to do exactly what you just (falsely) accused me of. That Sir, is bad form.

I don't get it Blackstone, this was a civil debate until a couple posts ago when you suddenly started getting insulting. I hardly think it is unreasonable, if you make a wild assertion which goes directly against the available evidence, that I ask for some (any) evidence supporting your assertion: evidence I am still waiting for by the way...



Oh, and as an aside, your suddent false 'rightious indignation' is sorely misplaced:



OK.



In other words, (unless you can show he OPENLY stated this) your apparent knowledge of his unspoken secret motives.



In other words, (unless you can show he OPENLY stated this) your apparent knowledge of his unspoken secret motives.



In other words, (unless you can show he OPENLY stated this) your apparent knowledge of his unspoken secret motives.


Its bizarre that you would 'demand' I show this, as you have been making this point from day one. Unless he spoke openly about his motives and you can provide evidence of this, then what you have been doing all along is asserting that you know what Reagan's secret unspoken intentions and feelings towards the Contras were.

Well, it was you who brought up the subject when you said their activities were "rarely" military vs military. And I say it does matter, because if the vast majority of their actions were against civilians rather than military targets, then it would be harder to argue that it was plausible that Reagan's motive was to provide the Contras with a means to carry on a military campaign against military targets.


How exactly would that help remove the Sandinista government from power?


All the more reason why Iran could have simply funded the proper agencies of the Lebanese government, if Hizballah would have been able to use their humanitarian expertise to make sure the funds were used for maximum humanitarian effectiveness.

(a political party by itself, by the way, is not an agency of government) (just wanted to clear that up)



BZZT! Wrong. I said plausible, not possible (and you even repeated that word back to me in your reply). Hopefully now we can both agree that such a motive is not plausible at all.


Unspoken? His stated motive was to provide aid to an anti-Sandinista resistance movement that was the moral equivalent of our own Founders and of the French Resistance during WWII. Whether or not he succeeded in doing so is another matter, but not much mind-reading is necessary to see that that was his stated intention. So the only question that remains is whether it's plausible that he intended to support legitimate (as in, jus in bello) military operations, with the abuses of civilians being a tragic side effect, similar to the way a bombing of a military target can result in civilian deaths.

By the way, I just want to point out that that quote from me is the only one that even comes close to supporting your insistence that I claimed to know Reagan's "secret" motives.

(emphasis is my own)


In all honesty Blackstone (in regard to the bold section), couldn't it be that this could also be applied to Khatami/Iran in regard to funding Hezbollah (although in an Iranian/Muslim context)?

I've already stated that the Sandanistas weren't ideal. But if we're going to draw any comparisons to the 'founding fathers,' the Sandanistas would come to mind long before the Contras. Just look at the differences between the two groups. I've already given them, but I'll summarize them again.

The Sandanistas led a popular revolution against a military dictatorship. Several years after that, they set up democratic structures, structures that ended up voting them out of power by I believe 1990.

The Contras were led by former national guardsmen from Somoza's dictatorship. They were attempting to violently overthrow a government that was conducting itself as a democracy.

As you can see by the fact that the Sandanistas were eventually voted out, the system they began worked fairly well. Do you think it is better to fund terrorism that seeks to depose a democracy?



So, it would be ok for me to provide guns and money to "John," because he will be using them to kill criminals 83% of the time, while 17% of the time he uses them to rape women and shoot children? The activities of the Contras weren't unknown. AmericasWatch and other human rights groups were talking about it at the time.



Wow. Just, wow. So you view the founding fathers as men who tortured, raped and killed civilians in their quest to destroy a democratic goverment? What the Contras were doing to the peasants in Nicaragua wasn't a "side effect" and can't be compared to the civilian deaths from a bombing. It's not like they accidently raped and tortured some people when they tripped over a root on their way to the "we love democracy" meeting.

What specifically are you suggesting? The question in both instances (Reagan and Khatami) is whether it is plausible that they could have had a motive other than promoting terrorism. With Khatami, I just don't see how it's plausible. Hizballah certainly wasn't keeping Lebanon any safer from Israel - just the opposite, actually. And there's no way Iran could not have known this.

What would Iran's non-terrorist military objective be with regard to its funding of Hizballah, and is it at all plausible that it could believe its funding is advancing that objective?



By any chance, do you know the difference between "jus in bello" and "jus ad bellum"? This discussion is about the former.


Nothing like a loaded question to spice up a discussion.


Is the question for debate on this thread, Was it OK for Reagan to fund the Contras? Please stick to the topic of discussion.


The activities of the Contras weren't unknown. AmericasWatch and other human rights groups were talking about it at the time.


Is there something about the phrase "Whether or not he succeeded in doing so is another matter" that you have questions about? I'd be happy to clear it up further for you if you find it confusing.


Hel-lo? I was talking about civilian deaths from the perspective of Reagan's actions, not the Contras' actions. The question under examination is whether he plausibly did not intend to target civilians for death. So yes, in that regard it is comparable to civilian deaths from a bombing.

Unspoken? His stated motive was to provide aid to an anti-Sandinista resistance movement that was the moral equivalent of our own Founders and of the French Resistance during WWII. Whether or not he succeeded in doing so is another matter, but not much mind-reading is necessary to see that that was his stated intention. So the only question that remains is whether it's plausible that he intended to support legitimate (as in, jus in bello) military operations, with the abuses of civilians being a tragic side effect, similar to the way a bombing of a military target can result in civilian deaths.

Blackstone- that is one of the most ill-informed quotes I have ever heard in my life. It shows complete ignorance about what the contras were. They were very, very, very evil men, that enjoyed killing babies and raping women and young girls. I saw the after effect with my own eyes. If I would be allowed to hunt down and kill every single contra that served in that particular (reagan supported, financially,weapons and expertise for thier use- one of the three most powerful groups of contras). They didn't even bother to use a bullet or knife on thier victims, just taking the baby by the feet "roman style" and smashing thier heads against rocks.

Some founding fathers. I have more respect for Hamas and Hezbollah than those scumbags, pieces of human offal, cleverly disguised as humans but having no humanity in them. The contras offered nothing positive to the poeple of Niceruaga, when they were even from there (they were frequently from Honduras as well, with funding, weapons and expertise advise by US spooks) - and did just one thing, and one thing only- kill and terrorize. At least Hamas and Hezbollah build hospitals, schools and help support the families of thier poeple, even while using the has human shields.


Blackstone- I have no way to describe to you the evil that Reagan supported, and to think of them is anything but thugs for hire by the US goverment to sew terror and de-stabilize the Sandinista goverment.

Sandanista's, for all thier human rights abuses as well, were never as bad as the Contras, and, in fact, thier terrorist campaign led to most of the country rejecting them at some point. The contras never really had widespread support as an umbrella group, and Reagan tried to make them come all together, to present a United front, but the group WE supported the most was the worst, and most of the country couldn't stomach those scumbags.

To be fair, there were several groups of contras- but the first to get money from the US was the worst groups, made mostly of ex Somaza (sp) soliders and death squads.

heck, I believe we get the term "death squads" from those very contras-

so how do you come up with the moral equvilency of these animals disguised as humans and our founding fathers Blackstone? Were you there, did you meet one or two? I have- and I hate Reagan through my meeting of those kinds of poeple we were supporting.

Reagan is a perfect example of a "head of state supporting terrorism"- in fact, he is far worse than Khatami- or however you spell his name president from Iran- far, far far worse of a human being.
Do you think it is better to fund terrorism that seeks to depose a democracy?

And Blackstone- Do you think it is better to fund terrorism that seeks to depose a democracy?- good question- because, without a doubt- we were the terrorists, and we were the bad guys.

Ok Blackstone, so the U.S thinks for whatever reasons of national security that we needed to conduct ourselves in the fashion we did in South America. Now with that in mind I am to understand that with a heavy intelligence community on the ground, and of course sharing of other resources in order to obtain whatever goal we had that over that period of time, which was not brief, that any of the atrocities being committed by supported third party or proxy warfare groups was never known? I do truly find that one hard to believe.

Going on the note that terrorists, like Hezbollah happen to be terrorists because of they way they conduct themselves, and that someone like the form president of Iran, or some related political figure by extension or by guilt of association from some means is thus a terrorist, that implies a logical mechanism. The questing being put forward is what happens when you apply that mechanism of logic to other political figures, example being Regan’s involvement in South America.

Now with my above post, is it possibly to believe that none of the atrocities being committed by supported groups or by proxy never came about in regards to Regan knowing, and while knowing continuing to support? So in that regard, we would have a group, not a traditional military group, conducting warfare that includes but of course is not limited to human atrocities, such as simply targeting civilian for destruction with aims of using such to influence or control some other aspect of that culture.

So what I cannot understand then, is what in regards is the honest way in which to use some logical mechanism to call someone a terrorist, either by support or more direct actions such as being a suicide bomber. If Regan is not a terrorist by this definition, how then does it still apply to Khatami, I mean we are only looking at actions here for definition right? I mean I in no way support Islamic extremism, what I am looking for is integrity and honestly in perception and worldview.

So I guess both you and quarkhead are having trouble digesting the phrase, "Whether or not he succeeded in doing so is another matter". I really wish you and others would actually read what I'm posting, instead of just shooting from the hip. It would make the discussion go a lot smoother.

By the way, your post is the first to say that the Contras were worse than the Sandinistas. Even the left-leaning New Republic said that "While [notorious Contra leader Adolfo] Calero's army may not have committed as many atrocities as the socialist regime, it wasn't contending for any humanitarian awards, either."

Funny thing about dead peasants blackstone- they don't get counted to well. We certainly didn't. Reagan not only didn't care- he funded the bad guys. I will say without equivocation that the Contras were worse than the Sandinistas. There were simply more Sandinistas.

Firstly: then all you have to do (as I have asked you to do at least 6 times) is cite some evidence of Reagan's PUBLIC motives in selling weapons to the Sandanistas. If he openly stated his motives, then please cite them for us.

Secondly: then you need to explain (which I have asked you to do at least 4 times) why he KEPT sending guns and money to a terrorist group after it became clear they were striking at civilian and military targets, that they were a clear terrorist organisation, and that according to the DEA they funded themselves partially with drug sales in the US.

Thirdly: you need to explain to me how EVEN IF he openly stated he wanted his guns and money to be used only against civilian targets, he is somehow exculpated of the act of giving guns and money to terrorists. Keep in mind that until that time the Contras had not struck only military targets, so deliberate naivete is not a defence. If Bob sells missiles to Al Qaida but openly states he hopes Al Qaida will use them for peaceful purposes, is he therefore not guilty of funding terrorists? Is there not a certain expectation of intelligence whereby if a group is a terrorist organisation, and they acted in the past like a terrorist organisation, if you give them guns it is lunacy to 'hope' they won't use those guns like a terrorist organisation?


Fourthly (and this one is hilariou) are you aware of how amusingly contradictory your argument is? Reagan giving weapons to the Contras does NOT make him a terrorist, while Khatemi funding Hezboollah DOES make him a terrorist. Fine, even if that blatant double standard WERE true, what about the OTHER part of the Iran-contra affair, the part where Reagan sold a thousand TOW missiles to Iran? I guess that makes Reagan a terrorist twice over!

I guess since people want to assert that Reagan was a terrorist for his actions, then what does that make Franklin Roosevelt for aiding Joseph Stalin during WWII? Seeing as Stalin killed 30 million of his own people this makes him one of the worst in terms of terrorism.

I just did. Do you want the actual quote? Look here. I'm not saying his characterization was accurate, but this should establish a stated motive.


Like you said, they were striking at military targets. That would be the apparent reason why he kept sending money.


Several mischaracterizations of what I said in there (not that that's anything new). First of all, as I've had to explain to quarkhead, this discussion isn't about whether his actions were "justifiable" in some way or another. It's about whether they actually made him a terrorist. And I've explained several times now, to establish that would involve establishing terroristic intent on his part.

Secondly, I didn't claim that he "hoped" that they wouldn't use the weapons for terrorism. He may well have understood that that was an unavoidable side effect of helping them to carry out actions against legitimate targets (again, I'm not saying it made his actions right or wrong).


No, it's about intent. This is only, what, the fifth time I've had to explain this?

Reluctantly, I am willing to give Reagan the benefit-of–the-doubt.

Yet I wonder. Will it ever end?

Someone starts a thread about a particular person. It seems the first line of defense for the person’s supporters is to point a finger at someone else and claim that he did worse. How many times have we seen Bush defended by someone pointing a finger at Clinton?

In this case it’s Franklin D. Roosevelt. In my opinion, continual use of this tactic is intellectually impotent.

No, you didn't. I want evidence of his motives, which you keep insisting are NOT secret, but public and open. Fine then give me ANY evience of this at all. ANY indication that his motives in giving weapons to the Contras only involved them hitting military targets.

This is the base of your entire case, and the centre of my objection to it. You claim to know what his motives were. At first I pointed out how silly it was that you could somehow know his secret, proivate motives. You then said that was a misinterpretation, and that Reagan's motives were public and open.

Fine, you have said that half a dozen times, and I have asked you for ANY evidence half a dozen times. Your citation (above) showed that he LIKED the Contras (and by the way the compairason he makes is revolting), but NO INDICATION at ALL what his motives were when he funded the Contras.

Since you have argued for many, many posts now about your knowledge of Reagan's motives, is it unreasonable to ask that before you do it again you PLEASE provide SOME evidence of how you are able to discern what his motives were?



Military AND Civilian, meaning they were striking at civilian targets. Thus funding them is funding terrorists right? You can no longer claim this phantom 'intent' because now he KNOWS they use weapons to strike at civilians, and keeps sending them weapons. And before you go on about striking civilian AND military targets, allow me to remind you that Al qaida has also struck at civilian AND military targets, but I don't think we would be having this debate about somebody sent guns and money to Al qaida.



You keep accusing me of mischarictarisations, yet when I repeatedly ask what exactly I mischaracterised, you never answer. So unless you are willing to be specific, please knock it off.

In terms of the substance of the issue, you COMPLETELY dodged my point. Intent is only Intent as long as it is credible. A man funding Al qaida whose 'intent' is for them to buy school books is deluding himself, and were he arrested his so called 'intent' would not serve him a day in court. Giving weapons to a terrorist group, which has in the past attacked civilians, and continues to attack civilians with the guns you sent it makes you a supporter of terrorism, regardless if your 'original intent' supposedly to have them use the guns for conversation peices. This phantom intent you claim to know (but not to evidence) and which seems to make all the difference in the world is irrelevant if it goes in direct contradiction to your actions AND if the use of the weapons alternately to your intent was predictable and in fact inevitable.

Just the ame, Khatemi could have the best intentions in the world, he could fund Hezbollah ONLY with the intent of helping them build schools (which is more reasonable than the Reagan/Contras scenario you came up with, at least hezbollah DOES build schools). However his 'intent' becomes irelevant if it was utterly and predicyably unrealistic from day 1, and he continues when it has been demonstrated false.



Bingo.

If he knew that the weapons and funding would be used against terrorists, and accepted that as worthwhile if a few military installations were attacked, then he is NO different from Khatemi in this regard.

You just torpedoed your whole argument of intent; now he KNOWS the consequences of his actions in funding terrorists (terrorists will use his weapons to kill civilians) and intentionally disregards them.



OK, and what exactly was Reagan's intent when he sold a thousand TOW missiled to Iran? You don't need to keep telling me you are harping on intent, I know that. What you need to do is stop asserting and start demonstrating exactly how you seem to know what everyone's intent is.

That's your interpretation. I see it as evidence of intent. But regardless, I'm not claiming that he wasn't a terrorist, only that it has not been established that he was. To establish that means establishing his intent. That means showing that it's implausible that he could have had any other intent than to promote terrorism.


Um, the very paragraph of mine you just quoted answers your question.


Of course. To paraphrase what I said in regard to Khatami, there are plenty of organizations he could donate to that would buy schoolbooks. That's why such defenses of Khatami aren't credible either. But there weren't too many options available for Reagan to avail himself of if the objective was military action against the Sandinistas.

Uh... ok... you are going to have to explain to me how that comment has anything to do with the targets he wanted the Contras to attack with his weapons and money.



Well, I may be wrong, but I don't think thats IS what you were arguing at the beginning. Regardless, you are technically correct, given that it is (however unlikely) possible he was staggeringly naive and ignorant, and then continued to be ignorant when the Contras attacked civilians with his guns, yes we cannot absolutely establish his 'motives', and thus we cannot absolutely establish that he is a terrorist.

IF, of coyrse (and only IF) you accept that his motives MATTER for why one gives weapons to a terrorist organisation with a history of attacking civilian targets. Its as I said, if a man today gave money and guns to Al qaida, would it make the slightest difference WHAT his 'motives' for what he wanted the guns and money used for were? If not, then why should it be any different for Reagan?



Not as far as I can tell. You accuse me of deliberatly misinterpreting your words, yet I have not done so and see no specific examples of this from you...




Yes, and? There are a lot of agencies that he could have given money to, but he didn't, he (hypothetically) gave money to Hezbollah to build hospitals, and since we cannot know his motives, you cannot prove otherwise.

Its not a matter of 'probability'. If you need to 'prove intent' (to use your exact words) to demonstrate that giving guns and money to terrorists is 'terrorism' (a theory with which I disagree) you cannot 'prove intent' with nearly any person, certainly not with Khatemi. You cannot use the exuse in one case, and then disregard it in another by saying (yeah, but probably not). If 'proof' is your standard (and it is, you use the term all the time) then it applied to Khatemi as much as Reagan.

That's exactly what I was arguing. Just look at my first post on this thread.


Now I'm sure you're going to be upset with me for saying this, but you're once again misrepresenting what I said. I'll just quote myself here, and you've even quoted me saying this in a recent post of yours and directly answered it:


Now does that jibe with how you've characterized my position? I didn't think so.


Plausibility. Plausibility, dude. Not possibility or probability. These words are not synonymous. And this is the second time I've had to correct you on this.

It is not plausible that Iran's intent in giving money to Hizballah was merely for them to build hospitals and schools, because there were other choices available for those purposes. It's plenty plausible, however, that Reagan's intent in giving money to the Contras was to hit Sandinista military targets, because there weren't too many other options for that purpose.

You are correct, you did say that, and when you did I responded that if true, this destroys the entire thread of your case. Now we have a man who is firmly aware of the consequences of his actions, there is no longer any relevance of his original intent, he SEES that his guns and money is being used to kill civilians, and makes a CONCIOUS DECISION to IGNORE that fact and continue funding and arming terrorists because in his judgement, the deaths of civilians is worth the cost. No longer can you claim his intent was good, if you also claim he KNEW his guns would kill civilians, but CHOSE to continue sending guns and money.


Now does that jibe with how you've characterized my position? I didn't think so.



You aren't 'correcting' me, I'm aware of your position on 'plausibility', I just completely disagree. Firstly, your position is moving more and more into the utterly subjective. What is plausible? I know people on this board to whom it is plausible that the Iraq war is going very well and the President is one of the greatest the country has ever had. To an American it is always more 'plausible' that another American has great motives, while an Iranian does not. Just vas it would be 'plausible to an Iranian that another Iranian has great motives, while an American does not. Plausibility is not an absolute, it is a matter of gullibility and bias.

Frankly, I think it is UTTERLY IMPLAUSIBLE that Reagan gave money and guns to a terrorist organisation (knowing beforehand that this terrorist organisation hit civilian targets) with the intent of them using the weapons only on military targets.

You yourself agree with me, stating he KNEW civilian targets would be killed (as he must have) but decided they were a legitimate side effect of his primary goal. His intent is not irrelevant, if he knew and CHOSE to ignore the horrific consequences of his action on innocent civilians.


And all of this on top of the fact that we have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what his motives were. You are presuming implausibly benign motives when no evidence exists for this. You gace me a quote showing he liked the Contras, which is well and good, but estabilishes absolutely nothing about how he wanted his guns and money to be used.