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 22:26:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
243 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> 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.
Huh... I did not explain myself properly: I wanted to confirm they were in
Angola, not that what they were doing there was terrorism. It is true they
were there as "advisors", even though some contingents DID enter in combat
for the government. On the UNITA side, there were South African Armed Forces
personnel... so no side is better than the other.
On *some* cases one can argue about terrorist actions, but again I say there
was a war on.
> 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.)
I'd say terrorism ends when a war is openly declared. Terrorism is a small
part of warfare, like Guerrilla and Spec Ops. Of course, this is a rather
cold view of the issue, but that is the way of politics and war - so say
Machiavelli (sp?), Sun Tzu, ...
> 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.
I'd say there were *some* particular occasions where the purpose of actions
were not military, but psicological: to frighten the population alone.
Hence, terrorist. But yes, it has been a 40-year-old mess (and .pt has a
great deal of responsability in some of it).
> 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.
You should know it is. The word comes from the "Terror" of the French
Revolution, when the State decided to test the guillotine in large scale.
(nasty!)
And Nasser had a point: the Canal was built on Egyptian soil, so by the time
of independance GB + France ought to have given up control.
> 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!
Hear, hear! I fully agree.
> 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.
I have none. All I have is knowledge of past actions from Cuba, none of
which after the collapse of USSR. Personally, I think there isn't any
intention in Cuba to sponsor terrorism any more (despite what Castro said in
the 60's about it).
I think the American public has been told for so long there is an evil state
next door that they are not willing to concede it the benefit of doubt.
Pedro
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
14 Messages in This Thread:
  
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
