6 ms·
US removes Cuba from list of state sponsors of terror
- chrisdevereux 11y agoIrony is beautiful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Project
- johndevor 11y agoWe've always been at war with eastasia.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- a_c_s 11y agoTrying to overthrow a government is not terrorism.
- jules 11y agoUnless it's the US government, right?
- sarciszewski 11y agoIt isn't?
- flipp3r 11y agoBut if someone tries to overthrow the US government it is, right?
- dragonwriter 11y ago> Trying to overthrow a government is not terrorism. True; "trying to overthrow a government" is a goal, "terrorism" is a means deployed to achieve a goal. You can do the former without the latter or the latter without the former, but the Cuban Project had the goal of overthrowing a government and used terrorism as a major one of its means.
- wnevets 11y agoits freedom fighting
- sremani 11y agoThe 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.
- dragonwriter 11y ago> 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 involved was no different than what the US and US-allies backed on the other side of the same global conflict, when Cuba was placed on that list it was actively backing terrorists around the world as one of the most active nations, behind the USSR itself, globally promoting the Soviet-led Communist movement. (If you look at the list in general, the pattern of countries being added for real reasons, having those reasons largely go away but remaining on the list until some agreement not directly related to any supposed active involvement with terrorism between the US and that country is not unique to Cuba.)
- lx 11y agoI 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
- bilbo0s 11y agoMaybe 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.
- smitherfield 11y agoMy friend whose uncle was murdered by FARC will be happy to know Cuba no longer supports terrorism.
- macintux 11y agohttp://www.cfr.org/cuba/state-sponsors-cuba/p9359#p1 http://www.cfr.org/cuba/state-sponsors-cuba/p9359#p1 has some context.
- markvdb 11y agoI'm sorry to hear about your friend's uncle's fate. 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.
- dopeboy 11y agoAbout time. I had an opportunity to visit[0] last summer and it's ridiculous they're still on their list. Human rights record is more spotty and deserves scrutiny but they're not actively out to kill Americans. [0] - http://dopeboy.github.io/cuba/ http://dopeboy.github.io/cuba/
- x5n1 11y agoEvery State supports freedom fighters sometimes, depending on political and ideological interests. But when you need to create a special list as justification for economic warfare, then that name, "freedom fighter", is rebranded something less appealing. But both of these use the same means to further political or ideological goals... and States are not exempt from using these means either.
- netcan 11y agoWords 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 without at least one side accusing the other of terrorism?
- x5n1 11y agoIt 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.
- netcan 11y agoLets not use it at all. Lets call them enemies. ISIS are an enemy, that's unambiguous. They would not dispute it. I'm not saying lets not apply moral judgement. Call them assholes, brutes, whatever.
- meepmorp 11y ago> It used to be a political tool for furthering potentially legitimate political or ideological interests. 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.
- pekk 11y ago
- 0x0 11y agoDoes it mean Cubans can now install the Oracle Java runtime?
- orthecreedence 11y agoMaybe at some point the US will be able to remove itself from that list as well.
- harrumph 11y agoNobody 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.