The Sandinistas deserved to be taken out by any means necessary, but the Contras didn't reserve their brutality for the tyrants in government. Many women, children, old people, and members of the clergy died at the hands of both of those groups.
Agreed, but I think the circumstances made it necessary for decent opponents to make unpleasant alliances with the lessor of two evils in order for the Sandanistas to be taken out. The Contras were not a particularly cohesive guerilla movement.
How are we defining "terrorist", exactly? I thought it had to do with targeting civilians for political reasons. The contras dragged fucking NUNS into the street and shot them, mainly because they refused to take a side either way...they were too busy helping people, and they helped people the contras didn't like.
If that's not the definition, fine, we can move on...how are the insurgents in Iraq, who are CONSTANTLY referred to as terrorists, not exactly like the contras, with the sole exception of wanting a different government than we approve of? Is that really all it takes? Disagreeing with us? This sounds like a very slippery slope to me. You'd basically be saying "terrorism is fine, as long as it's for my side".
Also I believe I mentioned that the main difference between Liddy and Ayers was that Ayers was actually competent. To me, attempting or plotting to blow something up and getting caught before hand is exactly as condemning as being caught afterwards. The difference between them seems to be that Ayers was actually concerned about not killing anyone in the process, where that was Liddy's actual goal.
For the record I do not approve of either one, and wonder how either of them have gotten off so easily. But I'm curious how you can prop up one and denounce the other in one breath.
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo