Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 71

Thread: Castro's resignation and Cuba's future

  1. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vimothy View Post
    This thread reminded me of an old article by John Derbyshire. I found the article and it's pretty germane:

    ...With the centenary of Lenin’s revolution looming on the far horizon, and after all the horrors of our age—mountains of corpses, oceans of lies—these fools are still with us. Wherever there is a jackboot stomping on a human face there will be a well-heeled Western liberal to explain that the face does, after all, enjoy free health care and 100 percent literacy. Won’t they ever learn? No, their stupidity is impenetrable. They will never learn.
    Ha! Brilliantly put....

  2. #32
    droid Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vimothy View Post
    Of course there are. Britain is legendary for being a soft touch on mujahideen fleeing reprisals in their own countries. There have even been high profile jihadists calling on their fellows not to attack Britain because it is needed as a base for jihad. And we're not even just talking about not exporting them back to regimes with questionable human rights records (although that does play a part in it). The term "Londonistan" was created by French intelligence services because of the British government's unwillingness to extradite terrorists.

    But this is all ear-bleedingly obvious. Are you joking?
    Can you provide some names and some evidence please?

    Would you agree that there is a substantive difference between allowing alleged terrorists to reside in your country and encouraging, funding and supporting terror groups as they bomb and terrorize a sovereign nation over a 50 year period? ala Alpha 66 and the likes of Frank Castro, Orlando Bosch, Joaquín Chaffardet, Francisco "Paco" Pimentel, Salvador Romaní Orúe, Ricardo Koesling, Héctor Francisco Alfonso Ruiz, Carlos Muñiz Varela, Luis Posada Carriles, many of whom have openly boasted about their terrorist activities and continue to have strong ties with US intelligence agencies and Florida Republicans.

    There may be terrorists in London, but Id be surprised if they enjoy the support and sponsorship of the British Government...

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vimothy View Post
    Of course there are. Britain is legendary for being a soft touch on mujahideen fleeing reprisals in their own countries. There have even been high profile jihadists calling on their fellows not to attack Britain because it is needed as a base for jihad. And we're not even just talking about not exporting them back to regimes with questionable human rights records (although that does play a part in it). The term "Londonistan" was created by French intelligence services because of the British government's unwillingness to extradite terrorists.

    But this is all ear-bleedingly obvious. Are you joking?
    Londonistan was a term that originated in the mid-90s, if my memory serves me. From the Guardian 2005:

    "Londonistan" no longer rings true

  4. #34
    droid Guest

    Default

    Of course, anti-Cuban terrorists aren't the only ones living in Miami - theres also the historical Death Squad connections via Roberto D' Aubuisson:

    Major Roberto D'Aubuisson Arrieta (August 23, 1944 – February 20, 1992), a Salvadoran political figure known as Chele (light-skinned man) was a Salvadoran politician and military leader who founded the Nationalist Republican Alliance (ARENA), which he led from 1980 to 1985 and, according to his critics, the leader and main organizer of the infamous “Death Squads” of El Salvador, one of the most dreadful terrorist organizations in the recent history of Latin America, responsible for the torture and killing of thousands of civilians in El Salvador, previous to and during the civil war in that country (1980 - 1992). To his political opponents, D'Aubuisson was also known as "Blowtorch Bob," or simply "The Blowtorch," for his alleged preference in using a blowtorch to torture political prisoners.[1][2]...

    ...In December 1984 D'Aubuisson visited Washington to attend a dinner held in his honour by a group of US conservative organizations, and to receive an award recognising his "continuing efforts for freedom in the face of communist aggression which is an inspiration to freedom-loving people everywhere." [1]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_D'Aubuisson
    The Nationalist Republican Alliance, better known as ARENA, was
    "founded in 1981 by Roberto D' Aubuisson -- a former Army intelligence
    officer who was cashiered by the military following the 1979 coup."(6)
    According to a 1985 CIA intelligence assessment, "Behind ARENA's
    legitimate exterior lies a terrorist network led by D'Aubuisson henchmen
    and funded by wealthy Salvadoran expatriates residing in Guatemala and
    the United States."(7)
    U.S. documents demonstrate that at the time of
    its formation, ARENA was first and foremost a paramilitary organization.
    Even as it built itself into a modern political party, it never lost its
    paramilitary character, even though some of its members, including
    President Cristiani, sought to distance themselves from its more violent
    tendencies.

    In May 1980, at a farmhouse in Santa Tecla, government troops arrested
    a group of twenty-four individuals, consisting of wealthy civilians and
    active and retired military officers, including Major D'Aubuisson, Major
    Roberto Mauricio Staben, Captain Alvaro Saravia, Lt. Rodolfo Lopez
    Sibrian, Antonio Cornejo, Ricardo Valdivieso, and others connected to
    the far right. According to U.S. documents,

    At the time of the arrest, documents were seized, apparently belonging
    to D' Aubuisson, which give clear indication of rightist coup plotting,
    including a proposal for a new junta...(8)

    Among the documents seized was the notebook of Alvaro Saravia, which
    included notations indicating the involvement of members of this group
    in the murder of Archbishop Oscar Arnulfo Romero and in other
    paramilitary activities. Yet despite the evidence against the coup plotters,
    they were released within days, and D'Aubuisson fled the country, where
    he proceeded to raise money and international support for his political
    party the Broad National Front, the predecessor to ARENA.

    During this time, D'Aubuisson received tactical and financial support
    from wealthy Salvadorans living in exile. According to a State
    Department cable from December 1980, one reliable source had indicated
    that "a group of four Salvadorans living in Guatemala provided support
    for much of the rightist terrorist activity that occurs here." The group
    consisted of Roberto D'Aubuisson, Col. Eduardo Iraheta Gonzalez
    Suvillaga, Col. Eulalio Santivanez, and Col. Eduardo Melendez.
    According to the source, D'Aubuisson "maintains direct contact with
    Minister of Defense Garcia," headed the "Maximiliano Hernandez
    Martinez Anti-Communist Brigade" and was "responsible for creating
    some of the country's leading death squads."(9)

    Miami also provided a critical link to death-squad activities. In January
    1981 a "highly respected Salvadoran lawyer" informed Ambassador Robert
    White and Deputy Chief of Mission Mark Dion "that a group of six
    Salvadoran millionaire emigres in Miami have directed and financed
    rightwing death squads here for nearly a year
    ," and that they were
    threatening other businesspeople who did not cooperate with their
    political plan. According to the source, this group of six "enormously
    wealthy former landowners who lost great estates in Phase I of the
    agrarian reform" had the following strategy:

    To rebuild the country on a new foundation it must first be destroyed
    totally, the economy must be wrecked, unemployment must be
    massive, the Junta must be ousted and a "good" military officer
    brought to power who will carry out a total "limpeza" [sic] (cleansing),
    killing three or four or five hundred thousand people, whatever it
    takes to get rid of all the communists and their allies.(10)

    D'Aubuisson also traveled to South America during this period to seek
    support for his activities. A memorandum from the U.S. embassy in
    Argentina from January 5, 1981 recounts a conversation with an
    Argentine intelligence agent who reported that D'Aubuisson had been in
    Buenos Aires, where he received "substantial financial support from
    rightist civilians in Argentina."(11)

    It was during this period that ARENA was born as a political party, some
    say with the support of U.S. advisers in Miami and the U.S. Congress.
    Wealthy civilians and members of the military realized that in the new
    political climate, marked by U.S. pressure for "free and fair elections," a
    party was needed to represent their interests at the political level.(12)

    D'Aubuisson returned to El Salvador and helped found ARENA in
    September 1981. The new party went on to win the 1982 election for
    the Constituent Assembly, to vie unsuccessfully for the presidency in
    1984, and finally, to win the presidency in 1989 after a change in
    image.(13)

    http://www.ciponline.org/dethsqud.txt

  5. #35

    Default

    One easy metric would be to look at the number of terrorists caught in the UK planning operations, or who have stayed in the UK prior to successful operations. Another would be to read one of the many books about Islamic extremism in the UK written in the wake of 7/7. I'm not going to list the different networks or the roll-call of (constantly changing) names and pseudonyms, because they are in the literature and on the front pages of newspapers. London's preeminent role in the transnational salafi networks is far from controversial, and has earned the city the by now familiar title "Londonistan".

    I spoke to Mohammed Sifaoui, a French Algerian journalist who, posing as a terrorist sympathiser, managed to infiltrate al-Qaeda cells in both France and the UK.... "The most sought-after terrorists in the world," he says, "have found shelter in the UK . . . They propagate their ideology there. They distribute booklets on their philosophy - giving them out freely outside mosques."

    Formerly the self-styled spokesman for al-Muhajiroun, an Islamic fundamentalist group, he split from the faction over the issue of the "covenant of security", which forbade Muslims living in Britain from engaging in military action within the country....

    Anyone who was involved in such attacks would be a "completely and utterly loose cannon", said Butt, who now lives in the Leeds suburb of Beeston. Such "military action" would be unwise because "a bomb in London would be strategically damaging to Muslims here. Immigration is lax in Britain. . . London has more radical Muslims than anywhere in the Muslim world. A bomb would jeopardise everyone's position. There has to be a place we can come."

    "Londonistan" no longer rings true
    Well it's getting better, certainly. 7/7 was something of a kick up the arse for the government. A friend's girlfriend does forensic work for the government on Islamist terror networks. She won't talk about it in any detail, but has said that before she started working, she thought the whole thing was a load of guff, but now is a bit more sober about the whole thing.

    Would you agree that there is a substantive difference between allowing alleged terrorists to reside in your country and encouraging, funding and supporting terror groups as they bomb and terrorize a sovereign nation over a 50 year period?
    I'm not interested in defending the anti-Castro terrorists, just pointing out that lots of governments allow foreign terrorists to reside their country in safety, including democracies, for various reasons, one of which is some terrorists are more palatable to their constituents than others.
    Last edited by vimothy; 21-02-2008 at 02:58 PM.

  6. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droid View Post
    Of course, anti-Cuban terrorists aren't the only ones living in Miami - theres also the historical Death Squad connections via Roberto D' Aubuisson:
    What does this have to do with Castro's resignation and Cuba's future?

  7. #37
    droid Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vimothy View Post
    I'm not interested in defending the anti-Castro terrorists, just pointing out that lots of governments allow foreign terrorists to reside their country in safety, including democracies, for various reasons, one of which is some terrorists are more unpalatable to their constituents than others.
    You're avoiding the question.

    Is there a difference between allowing the likes of, '...Butt and Hamza, who have terrorist sympathies.' and 'A Muslim who helped recruit young men to fight for the Taliban...' to remain free in the UK, and funding, supporting and encouraging the acts of paramilitary groups who openly boast of their terrorist activities against a foreign nation?

    (Quotes are from your sources)

  8. #38
    droid Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vimothy View Post
    What does this have to do with Castro's resignation and Cuba's future?
    What does 'Londistan' have to do with it?

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    677

    Default

    Droid, it's good to have you back...

  10. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droid View Post
    An interesting fact about Cuba that is rarely mentioned is that is the worlds number one victim of international terrorism:
    I was quite interested in the figures and the language in the voltairenet report, so I went to their site. "Who is Voltaire Network? Voltaire Network International gathers 8 press agencies, 15 publications and professional journalist unions." Fine, though most seem to be in Latin America. I wonder if there's a Cuban network... oh yes, it's Agencia Cubana de Noticias, the official Cuban state news agency! I type voltaire.net into wikipedia:

    The Voltaire Network was especially vocal after the attacks on the World Trade Center of the 11th of September 2001, Meyssan [head of the network] denying the facts as given by the mass media and defending a theory that the whole affair was a plot by US secret services to manipulate the international public opinion to justify US interventions in foreign countries, notably Afghanistan.

    And,

    The Voltaire Network frequently publishes grave accusations regarding important events or personalities. Notable instances are:

    In a widely mediatised book, 9/11 The Big Lie, Thierry Meyssan, president of the network, claimed that the 11th of September 2001 was due to an internal plot within the US administration. The Network broadcast this declaration widely.

    In May 2002, the Network claimed that the coup d'état against president Hugo Chávez had been organised from the White House, citing names of personalities allegedly involved. These claims were used by general procuror of Venezuela Danilo Anderson, and were repeated by Chávez himself. The US Department of State formally denied any involvement.

    The Network claims that the "Islamic Army in Iraq", who had taken French journalists Christian Chesnot and Georges Malbrunot, had done so in complicity with the US Department.

    You're avoiding the question.
    No I'm not. I answered the question, and it was clearly yes, there is a difference, I'm not interested in defending the anti-Castro terrorists....

    What does 'Londistan' have to do with it?
    And I've already explained that, too. I was,

    pointing out that lots of governments allow foreign terrorists to reside their country in safety, including democracies, for various reasons, one of which is some terrorists are more palatable to their constituents than others.

    Which is to say, you seem to have arrived on this thead, not to criticise Castro, but to criticise the US for not trading with Castro (something I find quite amusing) and for terrorising Castro / Cuba (though none of the links attempt to draw such a distinction and I do not think can be trusted to do so anyway). Why? Once again,

    Originally Posted by vimothy
    What does this have to do with Castro's resignation and Cuba's future?

    What does 'Londistan' have to do with it?
    You're avoiding the question...

  11. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droid View Post
    You're avoiding the question.

    Is there a difference between allowing the likes of, '...Butt and Hamza, who have terrorist sympathies.' and 'A Muslim who helped recruit young men to fight for the Taliban...' to remain free in the UK, and funding, supporting and encouraging the acts of paramilitary groups who openly boast of their terrorist activities against a foreign nation?

    (Quotes are from your sources)
    And just one more thing, the comparison is a not quite correct, because we have been sheltering, not just people with "terrorist sympathies" (whatever the hell that means), but actual terrorists, because to send them back to Jordan or Egypt would probably result in their torture, and would certainly result in an unfair trial by our own standards. But whatevs...

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    963

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vimothy View Post
    This thread reminded me of an old article by John Derbyshire. I found the article and it's pretty germane:

    ...With the centenary of Lenin’s revolution looming on the far horizon, and after all the horrors of our age—mountains of corpses, oceans of lies—these fools are still with us. Wherever there is a jackboot stomping on a human face there will be a well-heeled Western liberal to explain that the face does, after all, enjoy free health care and 100 percent literacy. Won’t they ever learn? No, their stupidity is impenetrable. They will never learn.
    You post this hackneyed tripe from the National Review, then call other people out on their sources?

  13. #43
    droid Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vimothy View Post
    I was quite interested in the figures and the language in the voltairenet report, so I went to their site. "Who is Voltaire Network? Voltaire Network International gathers 8 press agencies, 15 publications and professional journalist unions." Fine, though most seem to be in Latin America. I wonder if there's a Cuban network...
    Lets ignore the fact that there is significant evidence that the US was involved in the Venezuelan coup attempt, and have a history of involvement in right wing coups in Latin America - I was simply pointing to a convenient online source, it does not mean I agree with everything anyone who is involved in Voltaire Network has ever said or done. If you have a problem with the assertion that Cuba has been the victim of more international terror attacks than any other nation, other than with the person who is making the assertion - then I'm all ears

    No I'm not. I answered the question, and it was clearly yes, there is a difference, I'm not interested in defending the anti-Castro terrorists....
    I don't think that did answer the question, and I'm glad you have clarified that you see the difference in this response, as in your last one you say:

    pointing out that lots of governments allow foreign terrorists to reside their country in safety, including democracies, for various reasons, one of which is some terrorists are more palatable to their constituents than others.
    I'm not talking about allowing terrorists to reside, I'm talking about supporting them and funding their activities - there is a massive qualitative difference between the two.

    Which is to say, you seem to have arrived on this thead, not to criticise Castro, but to criticise the US for not trading with Castro (something I find quite amusing) and for terrorising Castro / Cuba (though none of the links attempt to draw such a distinction and I do not think can be trusted to do so anyway). Why? Once again,
    So are you saying that only those who are here to 'criticise Castro' have validity? The title of this thread was ' Castro's resignation and Cuba's future'. I don't believe that discussion of the embargo, or some little publicised historical facts about the US's relationship with Cuba are really that off topic in that context.

    You're avoiding the question...
    It was obviously a response to your assertion that the situation regarding terrorists in Miami and London were comparable. If you had such a problem with this tangent to the discussion I assume you would have mentioned this before exacerbating it.

    And just one more thing, the comparison is a not quite correct, because we have been sheltering, not just people with "terrorist sympathies" (whatever the hell that means), but actual terrorists, because to send them back to Jordan or Egypt would probably result in their torture, and would certainly result in an unfair trial by our own standards. But whatevs.
    Im not sure what 'terrorist sympathies' means in that context either - it was from an article you linked to.

    Also, harbouring 'actual terrorists' because of fears they will be tortured if deported is still totally different to funding their terrorism isnt it?

  14. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gavin View Post
    You post this hackneyed tripe from the National Review, then call other people out on their sources?
    Two things:

    1. National Review, one of countless magazines run according to the desires of their publishers and / or editors in a democratic country with what's known as a free press, vs. a news network that seemingly publishes, not only falsehood, but implausable falsehood, and which incorporates the official state news agency of Cuba, a dictatorship with no free press, and the country / regime in question.

    2. John Derbyshire's piece is opinion, whereas the voltairenet article is presenting facts, so the two are not comparable. If you go and look at the website, you will see that there is not a single thing cited for the accusations quoted by droid, and only three footnotes in the whole article.
    Last edited by vimothy; 21-02-2008 at 03:54 PM.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    963

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vimothy View Post
    Two things:

    1. National Review, one of countless magazines run according to the desires of their publishers and / or editors in a democratic country with what's known as a free press, vs. a news network that seemingly publishes, not only falsehood, but implausable falsehood, and which incorporates the official state news agency of Cuba, a dictatorship with no free press, and the country / regime in question.

    2. John Derbyshire's piece is opinion, whereas the voltairenet article is presenting facts, so the two are not comparable. If you go and look at the website, you will see that there is not a single thing cited for the accusations quoted by droid, and only three footnotes in the whole article.
    One thing: how is calling "liberals" apologists for totalitarians (like this idiotic rightwing cliche hasn't been thrown around billion times before) "germane" to the topic? It's played-out shit-stirring from an avowedly right wing newspaper and from a hack columnist who admits being a racist, sexist, and a homophobe, and has cheered on the deaths of innocent people in the middle east. He's a troll, and you're trolling by throwing that in.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •