21–30 of 41 posts
This is all very Orwellian. Terrorism is currently just a euphemism for "enemy." We should just go back to using that title. It's way more honest. 'US removes Cuba from list of enemies' is what actually happened.
Can you imagine a military conflict today without at least one side accusing the other of terrorism?
Words like terrorism just can't be left in the hand of politicians. It's incredible how middle eastern dictators have picked it up as a name for their enemies. This is all very Orwellian. Terrorism is currently just a euphemism for "enemy." We should just go back to using that title. It's way more honest. 'US removes Cuba from list of enemies' is what actually happened. Can you imagine a military conflict today witho…
My friend whose uncle was murdered by FARC will be happy to know Cuba no longer supports terrorism.
But look at the bright side of this announcement! This is not about Cuba supporting terrorism or not. It's about the US government taking the Cuban government off its list labeled "governments supporting terrorism". Two governments are improving their communication.
With some luck, this will help diminish state (sponsored) violence against innocent people a little bit.
The existence Cuba on that list was purely political esp. to appease a section of Florida voters. It is a weird form of identity politics. It goes to show, that politicians willingness to use laws addressing Terrorism for something other than Terrorism.
> The existence Cuba on that list was purely political esp. to appease a section of Florida voters. It is a weird form of identity politics. It goes to show, that politicians willingness to use laws addressing Terrorism for something other than Terrorism. Cuba being not removed may have been for that reason, but Cuba being placed on that reason was not for that reason. While one might argue that the terrorism involve…
If you support one side, those who support a different side are sponsoring terror. What conflict in the last few decades did not involve "terrorists?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know what you mean by "backing terrorists"... actually I'm not sure of your definition of "terrorists", but if you meant members of the Basque separatist group ETA, you should be aware those ex-militants were sent from France through Panama to reside in Cuba after an agreement of the Spanish government (under Felipe González) with Cuba. disclaimer: I'm Cuban
Maybe he was talking about Mandela. One man's "Terrorist" is another man's "Freedom Fighter". The US viewed Mandela as a "Terrorist"... and Cuba viewed Mandela as a "Freedom Fighter". In the course of history... these things happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know what you mean by "backing terrorists"... actually I'm not sure of your definition of "terrorists", but if you meant members of the Basque separatist group ETA, you should be aware those ex-militants were sent from France through Panama to reside in Cuba after an agreement of the Spanish government (under Felipe González) with Cuba. disclaimer: I'm Cuban
The remaining ETA members in Cuba and their relation to the government were the one of the last things cited in recent (2010-ish) US terrorism reports on Cuba, along with incomplete evidence of having completely cut ties with FARC, but rather more substantial support to international armed revolutionary groups that the US described as terrorist (including ETA, FARC in Colombia, various groups opposed to US-friendly c…
[+] (Spanish) http://www.lavozlibre.com/noticias/ampliar/1041341/moratinos...
Words like terrorism just can't be left in the hand of politicians. It's incredible how middle eastern dictators have picked it up as a name for their enemies. This is all very Orwellian. Terrorism is currently just a euphemism for "enemy." We should just go back to using that title. It's way more honest. 'US removes Cuba from list of enemies' is what actually happened. Can you imagine a military conflict today witho…
It used to be a political tool for furthering potentially legitimate political or ideological interests. These days it has been corrupted to further illegitimate, religious interests. That's out of bounds. So let's make a rule to only use it in cases where it applies to illegitimate political and ideological interests. Otherwise, let's call them potential freedom fighters, depending on outcome.
I'm not saying lets not apply moral judgement. Call them assholes, brutes, whatever.
Words like terrorism just can't be left in the hand of politicians. It's incredible how middle eastern dictators have picked it up as a name for their enemies. This is all very Orwellian. Terrorism is currently just a euphemism for "enemy." We should just go back to using that title. It's way more honest. 'US removes Cuba from list of enemies' is what actually happened. Can you imagine a military conflict today witho…
It used to be a political tool for furthering potentially legitimate political or ideological interests. These days it has been corrupted to further illegitimate, religious interests. That's out of bounds. So let's make a rule to only use it in cases where it applies to illegitimate political and ideological interests. Otherwise, let's call them potential freedom fighters, depending on outcome.
By "it," I assume you mean terrorism, as a tactic.
> These days it has been corrupted to further illegitimate, religious interests. That's out of bounds.
Why? What's specifically out of bounds about religiously inspired terrorism, but acceptable about purely political and/or ideological terrorism? And where does the boundary get drawn - Northern Ireland, for example, has had no small amount of trouble with terrorism where the political and religious motives are inextricably linked.
> So let's make a rule to only use it in cases where it applies to illegitimate political and ideological interests. Otherwise, let's call them potential freedom fighters, depending on outcome.
Or perhaps your post was merely sarcasm.