Subject:
|
Re: Cuba is a terrorist state (was Re: Any truth in this one - Cuba as a terrostist state.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 14 Oct 2001 00:58:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
285 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > > Any truth in this one - Cuba as a terrostist state.
> > >
> > > I'm comfortable with the designation of Cuba as a terrorist state, (1). That
> > > perception of mine is based mostly on my perception of their actions in the
> > > 1980s in Africa.
> >
> > Do you have a reference for this?
>
> I dunno about Larry's references, but I can confirm this. According to a
> cuban veteran I spoke to while in Cuba, he was in Angola in the early
> eighties. A number of people here who have had business there (Angola, not
> Cuba) by then reported Cuban presence along with government troops, fighting
> UNITA.
> As wether this can be called terrorism, well... tchnically, they were there
> on demand, not "invading" - and there was a war on.
> Other countries in Africa where cuban presence was reported include former
> Zaire, but I don't have any references about those.
Cuban advisors and troops were all over the place, but regardless
of how you slice it, it wasn't terrorism. For some reason people
are quick to denounce terrorism, and then they can't quite define
it--what's military action, and what's terrorism? Can you Monday-
morning quarterback and label certain states as "terrorist" for
their actions in the Cold War? (If that's the case, we'd better
make sure we've buried what's in our *own* backyard first.)
What happened in Angola (and Mozambique, though the Cubans there
were only observers) was civil war connected to the ugly collapse
of Portugal's colonial rule, not terrorism. Hell, even the mess
in Namibia doesn't have much in the way of "terroristic" elements.
That's not to say there wasn't terror there, but look at the
*context* and the differences are baldly apparent. That's like
calling Gamal abd al-Nasr (Nasser) a terrorist for what he dared
to do in the Suez in 1956. And...is it terrorism when the state
uses it to terrorize its own people? Hmmm.
The "war on terrorism" can't be used to set up a double standard
on aggression. It shouldn't. It mustn't. Double standards are the
reason we landed in this mess in the first place!
That said, I'd like to see any evidence that Cuba is *today* a
state that sponsors terrorism. If it's sustainable in a way that
such a charge wouldn't be sustainable against, say, us as well,
then there may be a basis. But I don't think there is any.
best
LFB
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
14 Messages in This Thread:
   
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
