5 ms·

And aggression against Cuba by the U.S. military and intelligence apparatus has been going on for six decades. Accompanying that has been numerous press release

And aggression against Cuba by the U.S. military and intelligence apparatus has been going on for six decades. Accompanying that has been numerous press releases, op-eds, and articles over the years attempting to sway public opinion towards U.S. intervention in Cuba. This fits right into that pattern. I'm not saying it DEFINITELY is that, hence the "grain of salt" phrase - I just view any CIA statement relating to Cuba with a huge degree of skepticism. That's all.

jonnybgood 5y ago
There is no sway and if so by who? I think you may be nitpicking. Don’t forget the Cuban thaw under Obama. Instead of following the media, follow actual policy. I have no doubt Biden will follow suit with Obama’s policy on Cuba.
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  I am not sure if we will see Biden follow suit. Biden's Homeland Security director said >Allow me to be clear: if you take to the sea, you will not come to the United States At a minimum they don't want the refugees from Cuba. It seems quite clear they won't relax the immigration rules for Cubans. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-homeland-security-secretary-cuba-haiti-boats-no-refuge https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-homeland-security-secretary-...
  - jonnybgood 5y ago
    I'm not aware this ever changed under Obama. Obama's policy had to do relations to the Cuban government and not the status of refugees.
    - _-david-_ 5y ago
      I am not sure if an official policy changed, but typically, in the past, if a Cuban refugee made it to the US they were granted amnesty.
- salt-thrower 5y ago
  I'm not sure I understand your comment. The Cuban thaw under Obama was largely reversed by Trump, and Biden has not done much of anything to relax the embargo again since his term began (but correct me if that's wrong). Any press release is a form of PR, and the CIA is no different. Government officials release press statements all the time in order to sway public opinion on a specific issue. In recent history, the buildup to the Iraq War is a perfect example, in the way that demonstrably false statements to the media and deliberate misdirection were used to gin up public support for the war. There are several great documentaries, books, and podcasts that go over it in great detail. I highly recommend looking into that period of time as an example of what I mean by "sway."
  - jonnybgood 5y ago
    > Accompanying that has been numerous press releases, op-eds, and articles over the years attempting to sway public opinion towards U.S. intervention in Cuba. My point is that your statement above is made incorrect by actual policy. > was largely reversed by Trump Again you are incorrect. Trump actually made very little changes.
    - salt-thrower 5y ago
      https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/06/trump-cuba-policy/530514/ https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/06/trump-cuba-... It still represents a reversal towards a more aggressive stance. Also, this is worth pointing out: https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/06/1094612 https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/06/1094612 EDIT: I'm still not sure what you mean by "incorrect when it comes to actual policy," in case that wasn't clear. The policy of the U.S. has been to prevent Cuba from engaging in international trade as a sovereign nation for decades. That is still the case. Even during the pandemic, Cuba was not allowed to receive vaccine supplies from the international community, and had to develop their own. What is that if not an act of aggression?
      - jonnybgood 5y ago
        The embargo can only be lifted by Congress. What Trump says and does are two different things. Follow the policy. He never actually reversed it. > EDIT: I'm still not sure what you mean by "incorrect when it comes to actual policy," in case that wasn't clear. The policy of the U.S. has been to prevent Cuba from engaging in international trade as a sovereign nation for decades. That is still the case. There cannot be a campaign to sway public opinion for US intervention when there has been a policy in effect for the warming of relations for the last 7 years. It's a contradiction in policy.
- ikerdanzel 5y ago
  Unlikely. His fate is a no 2 terms president based on astrology and some of the predictions. Surprisingly similar fate predictions with Kamala as well. So how this play out in reality gonna be interesting. He also isn't as persuasive as Obama plus a lot of people in the administrations are staff with Trump people. Just look at him unable to normalize relationship with China. Check his son investment relationship with China. It is in his best interest to do so. Yet can't.
anigbrowl 5y ago
Attacks targeting U.S. intelligence personnel were reported, beginning in late 2017, in locations around the world, including in Moscow, Russia; Poland; Tbilisi, Georgia; Taiwan and Australia;[82] other reports came from Colombia, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Austria, among other countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havana_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havana_syndrome Look, I don't agree with US policy towards Cuba but arguing that the whole thing is a PR campaign isn't very persuasive either. It might be a case of psychological contagion among a relatively small and insular community (ie the diplomatic corps) or it might have some factual basis. There's some evidence (detailed elsewhere in this thread) to suggest the latter. Skepticism is good, but I think your argument here is mere contrarianism.

jonnybgood 5y ago

There is no sway and if so by who? I think you may be nitpicking. Don’t forget the Cuban thaw under Obama. Instead of following the media, follow actual policy. I have no doubt Biden will follow suit with Obama’s policy on Cuba.

_-david-_ 5y ago
I am not sure if we will see Biden follow suit. Biden's Homeland Security director said >Allow me to be clear: if you take to the sea, you will not come to the United States At a minimum they don't want the refugees from Cuba. It seems quite clear they won't relax the immigration rules for Cubans. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-homeland-security-secretary-cuba-haiti-boats-no-refuge https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-homeland-security-secretary-...
- jonnybgood 5y ago
  I'm not aware this ever changed under Obama. Obama's policy had to do relations to the Cuban government and not the status of refugees.
  - _-david-_ 5y ago
    I am not sure if an official policy changed, but typically, in the past, if a Cuban refugee made it to the US they were granted amnesty.
salt-thrower 5y ago
I'm not sure I understand your comment. The Cuban thaw under Obama was largely reversed by Trump, and Biden has not done much of anything to relax the embargo again since his term began (but correct me if that's wrong). Any press release is a form of PR, and the CIA is no different. Government officials release press statements all the time in order to sway public opinion on a specific issue. In recent history, the buildup to the Iraq War is a perfect example, in the way that demonstrably false statements to the media and deliberate misdirection were used to gin up public support for the war. There are several great documentaries, books, and podcasts that go over it in great detail. I highly recommend looking into that period of time as an example of what I mean by "sway."
- jonnybgood 5y ago
  > Accompanying that has been numerous press releases, op-eds, and articles over the years attempting to sway public opinion towards U.S. intervention in Cuba. My point is that your statement above is made incorrect by actual policy. > was largely reversed by Trump Again you are incorrect. Trump actually made very little changes.
  - salt-thrower 5y ago
    https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/06/trump-cuba-policy/530514/ https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/06/trump-cuba-... It still represents a reversal towards a more aggressive stance. Also, this is worth pointing out: https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/06/1094612 https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/06/1094612 EDIT: I'm still not sure what you mean by "incorrect when it comes to actual policy," in case that wasn't clear. The policy of the U.S. has been to prevent Cuba from engaging in international trade as a sovereign nation for decades. That is still the case. Even during the pandemic, Cuba was not allowed to receive vaccine supplies from the international community, and had to develop their own. What is that if not an act of aggression?
    - jonnybgood 5y ago
      The embargo can only be lifted by Congress. What Trump says and does are two different things. Follow the policy. He never actually reversed it. > EDIT: I'm still not sure what you mean by "incorrect when it comes to actual policy," in case that wasn't clear. The policy of the U.S. has been to prevent Cuba from engaging in international trade as a sovereign nation for decades. That is still the case. There cannot be a campaign to sway public opinion for US intervention when there has been a policy in effect for the warming of relations for the last 7 years. It's a contradiction in policy.
ikerdanzel 5y ago
Unlikely. His fate is a no 2 terms president based on astrology and some of the predictions. Surprisingly similar fate predictions with Kamala as well. So how this play out in reality gonna be interesting. He also isn't as persuasive as Obama plus a lot of people in the administrations are staff with Trump people. Just look at him unable to normalize relationship with China. Check his son investment relationship with China. It is in his best interest to do so. Yet can't.

anigbrowl 5y ago

Attacks targeting U.S. intelligence personnel were reported, beginning in late 2017, in locations around the world, including in Moscow, Russia; Poland; Tbilisi, Georgia; Taiwan and Australia;[82] other reports came from Colombia, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Austria, among other countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havana_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havana_syndrome Look, I don't agree with US policy towards Cuba but arguing that the whole thing is a PR campaign isn't very persuasive either. It might be a case of psychological contagion among a relatively small and insular community (ie the diplomatic corps) or it might have some factual basis. There's some evidence (detailed elsewhere in this thread) to suggest the latter. Skepticism is good, but I think your argument here is mere contrarianism.