You apparently did not read your own source.

"The CIA admits prior knowledge of the plot that overthrew Allende three years later but denies any direct involvement. The agency says in the report that it had no way of knowing Allende would refuse safe passage with his palace under bombardment and kill himself."

Which is what the gwu official sources also say. You aren't reading them though, so you continue to assert that somehow Pinochet got "arms" from the CIA. Why he would need such arms or support when he was Chief of Staff of the Army is beyond me, unless you think the entire Chilean army was unarmed before 1970.

As for your definition, you responded by truism without explaining. You just took terms, and arbitrarily said "this is not that, therefore that doesn't apply." Let's make it a concrete example: In germany, there are criminal penalties for speaking out in favor of the *****. Does that make germany a terrorist state, because it threatens punishment to enforce a political aim?

Also, "unlawful" in your website means "unlawful" by international law, which is developing. There is certainly no international legal work that would make Pinochet's reign "terrorism." War Crimes, Crimes against humanity, maybe...but "terrorism", no. So go ahead further can clarify how we judge what is "unlawful".

Edited to add:

Just so there's no doubt, here's what the declassified sources say, which is also what's in the cnn article:

"Awareness of Coup Plotting in 1973.* Although CIA did not instigate the coup that ended Allende’s government on 11*September 1973, it was aware of coup-plotting by the military, had ongoing intelligence collection relationships with some plotters, and—because CIA did not discourage the takeover and had sought to instigate a coup in 1970—probably appeared to condone it.* There was no way that anyone, including CIA, could have known that Allende would refuse the putchists’ offer of safe passage out of the country and that instead—with La*Moneda Palace under bombardment from tanks and airplanes and in flames—would take his own life."

 

pre-coup involvment:
http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol47no3/article03.html

"Coincident with the White House’s decision to put Viaux on hold, a Chilean officer approached the United States requesting funds for a similar “kidnap Schneider” plan. Although it initially seemed possible that he was “fronting” for Viaux, the CIA concluded that he was not and decided to provide the individual with some funds to purchase weapons."

Kinda sounds like they provided some money for weapons. Maybe I'm wrong though . I thought they had weapons already, why do they need our support? Maybe the weapons factory was broke down that day.

As for my definition, it answered your question. You are rephrasing and asking me to make comments about Germany. I never said Geramany didn't support terrorism. Does this fit the definition? Is that your question? We are talking about Chile, don't change the subject. The definition needs no further refinement. Furthermore I don't feel a need to discuss any exception the rule arguments, which you seem to love so much.

Also, the sources say:

Which is in direct contadiction of your previous post:

From July 1975
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB...B8/ch04-01.htm

"During the last year and a half we have doen what we could to supprt the Chilean govt." etc....

...as for military sales, we held off until July 1st"

Which also contradicts pretty much everything else you say about the topic.

Now that we have proven:

1) CIA/US gave money/arms to support a coup and depose a democartically elected leader

2) Sold arms and and funded Pinochet during his reign of political terror

3) That terrorism is indeed the use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.


All qoutes from the actual CIA files, so please, quibbling over the source.

I shall move on to another example of US helping terrorism.

Edit:
Please provide a source for the German law outlawing people speaking out in favor of the *****. We can discuss this in another thread. I don't want to dilute this one anymore.

 

Now you're being actively dishonest, because if you read through those sources you saw:

1. Schneider's assassination had nothing to do with Pinochet over-throwing Allende. I said already the CIA backed failed attempts, and was stumped because the failed programs tended to strengthen Allende's political position. Pinochet, head of the army, went on his own. As for your "machine guns" example...that was three submachine guns. If that counts as arming a military, then I can understand why you're having so much trouble defining terrorism. Words apparently have absolutely no limits to you.

Skipping down to three:

No, we did not prove that definition. The whole point of my arguing it is that you have a definition which is loose, and which ridiculously makes even things like Germany's outlawing **** propaganda technically "terrorism." That was the point of the germany example, and that's also why you ignored it. It makes it obvious that your use of the word "terrorism" is so diluted as to make almost anything fall within its set.

To define terrorism the way you did makes it a useless word, because it's just a perjorative for "violence of any kind even remotely related to political effects." If all war, and all crime, is terrorism, then there's no need to even have the word, and every political system ever is terrorist. That is why your definition is silly.

As for 2): You totally ignored the legal argument, and I know why: Because you have no clue what is "unlawful" in international law. You also don't have any idea what terrorism is, legally speaking. So, no, you haven't proven a "reign of terrorism"....whether people were afraid of pinochet or not.

Again, the 1975 support is a full two years after the military coup which, all your sources explicitly say, WAS NOT organized or supported by the CIA. Read the sources. The CIA did not fund Pinochet, nor was Pinochet working for the CIA. Pinochet led a military coup as army chief of staff....and that's why he had weapons. I'm curious as to how that point confuses you; do you think the chilean army would've been unarmed except for the CIA???

 

subaruguru so was Saddam a terrorist?

 

Yes, he was, but not because he outlawed all free speech and imposed the death penalty for it. He was a terrorist because he paid for suicide bombings in israel and openly supported all anti-western terrorist attacks.

 

So you think sucide bombers in Israel are terrorist but not Israel?