Does it mean Cubans can now install the Oracle Java runtime?
Maybe, two days ago:
https://twitter.com/MerchiseMeetup/status/603658720913010688
US removes Cuba from list of state sponsors of terror
31–40 of 41 posts
Re: US removes Cuba from list of state sponsors of terror
#32Does it mean Cubans can now install the Oracle Java runtime?
Every citizen of every nation of the earth is entitled to having crapware bundled with their software installers.
Re: US removes Cuba from list of state sponsors of terror
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Cutting through the bullshit, the real issue behind US embargos against Cuba was whether Cuba was involved in any kind of warfare conducted against the US. The Moncada Barracks was one thing, the missile crisis was another, the Mariel boatlift another, and FARC yet another - just to name a few. But Cuba was never under an embargo because of Mandela and implying that is the purest propaganda.
> But Cuba was never under an embargo because of Mandela
Cuban support to the ANC and its armed wing, which the US considered a terrorist organization while it was actively backing the apartheid regime as a bulwark against Communism in southern Africa, was among very many instances of Cuban support for "terrorist" groups cited by US governments as evidence of Cuba's role as a sponsor of international terrorism in the 1980s.
Of course, the embargo and the sanctions related to inclusion on the State Sponsor of Terrorism list are also two entirely separate things.
Re: US removes Cuba from list of state sponsors of terror
#34Earlier 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…
When everyone can be on the list, it becomes a lie to single out one party. It's like in the Soviet republics where 100% of the population was breaking laws all the time just to live. Police could then just go and arrest anyone arbitrarily, with 100% confidence they would make something stick.
Same here. There are lots of terrorist supporting states. The ones one the list are the ones that are US enemies. Cuba's place on the list is "political^" in that sense. Yes, they sponsored terrorism. Yes, that provides justification for inclusion according to the rules of the list. But no, sponsoring terrorism is not why they were included on the list. They were included for being enemies of the US and its allies.
^I wouldn't even call it political, unless you'd also call an invasion or declaration of war political in the same circumstances.
Re: US removes Cuba from list of state sponsors of terror
#35Words 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.
Calling something terrorism never implied favorably that the interest was legitimate, so it isn't a corruption to apply it to hated groups like ISIS, it's just a description. The phrase "freedom fighter" has never been usable in an objective way.
Re: US removes Cuba from list of state sponsors of terror
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Calling something terrorism never implied favorably that the interest was legitimate, so it isn't a corruption to apply it to hated groups like ISIS, it's just a description. The phrase "freedom fighter" has never been usable in an objective way.
[deleted]
Re: US removes Cuba from list of state sponsors of terror
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Cutting through the bullshit, the real issue behind US embargos against Cuba was whether Cuba was involved in any kind of warfare conducted against the US. The Moncada Barracks was one thing, the missile crisis was another, the Mariel boatlift another, and FARC yet another - just to name a few. But Cuba was never under an embargo because of Mandela and implying that is the purest propaganda.
"The Moncada Barracks"? Seriously? Back then (1953), US government support to the dictatorship in Cuba was quite evident, but I don't think they would dub "terrorists" those attempting to overthrow it.
Re: US removes Cuba from list of state sponsors of terror
#38Words 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…
> 'US removes Cuba from list of enemies' is what actually happened.
The US has lots of different things that amount to "lists of enemies", so its important to distinguish which list we are talking about. The individual terms in the names of the lists may not be meaningful in the usual sense of the words used, but the names of the lists still serve as (potentially opaque) unique identifiers for which list (and thus, which associated legal consequences) is being discussed.
Re: US removes Cuba from list of state sponsors of terror
#39Nobody deserves a point of view on this until they learn about Luis Posada Carriles living out his life comfortably in Miami after bombing a Cuban jetliner out of the sky with no survivors.
Re: US removes Cuba from list of state sponsors of terror
#40Words 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…
> 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.
The word "terrorism" may be overused and too broadly used in many political contexts, but in this particular context it is narrowly used. The official list that Cuba was removed from was "Cuba, Iran, Sudan, Syria". The list of enemies would be a larger list.