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 22:43:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
252 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> > 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.
>
> That's fine... here's a question though: How many years have to go by before
> you're off the hook, if there has been no change in regime and no
> repudiation or reparation?
Do you mean a *formal repudiation*?
I would say it takes an effective change in attitude. You can wait forever
for a formal declaration... presentely, Cuba seems not to be sponsoring
terrorism - therefore, it is reasonable to take them "off the hook", and see
if they keep up the "nice guy" attitude.
> Where I am going with this is, suppose (hypothetically) it has been
> demonstrated to everyone's satisfaction that say, Libya was a terrorist
> state in 1990, whatever that means. Further let's say, hypothetically, of
> course, that they still have the same regime, there haven't been any major
> voluntary payments to victims or even a "gee we're sorry we used to be
> terrorists" emitted from the leader's mouth. Is 10 years long enough? If so,
> why? If not, why not?
Japan took 50 years to admit it had enslaved women in SE Asia. And they were
not considered terrorist all along. They have not yet apologised.
Sometimes it may be troubling for a nation to admit it has followed a wrong
path in the past. It may however be easier to simply change attitude without
further saying. Forgive and forget? I dunno, maybe.
> This question needs to be answered before people (I mean dubya, for
> instance) bandy things about that will cause the sort of confusion LFB
> alluded to.
>
> I think even Dan would agree that Arafat USED to be a terrorist at some
> point in the past and I think most people feel he isn't now (although I
> don't, the links to Hamas and Hezbollah are too tight, but I digress). Is he
> fine now? Does supporting Iraqi aggression count against him?
Arafat WAS a terrorist years ago. As for the present...
There has been something troubling me in the past few years: from the moment
Arafat became president of the PA, he apparentely has lost grip over the
Palestinian movements and people. Why? Did something change with him?
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
|
|
|
|
