6 ms·

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 separatis

by lx 11y ago

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

bilbo0s 11y ago
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.
- pekk 11y ago
  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.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > 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.
  - lx 11y ago
    "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.
  - bilbo0s 11y ago
    "...But Cuba was never under an embargo because of Mandela and implying that is the purest propaganda..." ??? Are you serious ??? I can't really tell whether you meant that as sarcasm ??? or if you really believe that Mandela wasn't one of the many reasons Cuba is on the list ??? Firstly, we're discussing possible reasons that Cuba was on the terrorism list... not reasons that Cuba was under embargo. So I'm confused by your conflation of the two issues at the outset. Secondly, I should clarify that I wasn't saying all of the reasons are legitimate, quite the contrary actually. But to imply that ETA, Mandela, etc are not the reasons Cuba was on that list is plainly incorrect. Lastly, I apologize if your comment was meant as sarcasm. It's difficult to really tell whether people are serious or not on HN these days.
dragonwriter 11y ago
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 central American governments, and others) was why it was put on the list in 1982. (I won't argue against the position that the US was doing much the same thing on the other side of the same geopolitical conflict so that the "terrorist" label was always somewhat misrepresenting the purpose of the list -- and not just Cuba's inclusion on it -- or that the initial premise of the inclusion had long ceased to be relevant. I won't even argue against the position that some of the groups Cuba backed that justified its inclusion on the list were no worse -- and perhaps even less terroristic -- all things considered, than the often US-backed entities they opposed.)
- lx 11y ago
  I won't argue either... It seems I misunderstood your first comment. Sorry. Just for the sake of clarification, regarding ETA I'm aware there several versions of the story, but those 2010-ish US terrorism reports are not understandable when the very Spanish government was stating the contrary [+]. About the Colombian conflict, I've heard of the Cuban support to National Liberation Army (ELN) but never of any military support to Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). [+] (Spanish) http://www.lavozlibre.com/noticias/ampliar/1041341/moratinos-defiende-que-cuba-apoyo-a-espana-con-generosidad-en-la-lucha-contra-eta http://www.lavozlibre.com/noticias/ampliar/1041341/moratinos...
- netcan 11y ago
  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.

by lx 11y ago

bilbo0s 11y ago

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.

pekk 11y ago
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.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > 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.
- lx 11y ago
  "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.
- bilbo0s 11y ago
  "...But Cuba was never under an embargo because of Mandela and implying that is the purest propaganda..." ??? Are you serious ??? I can't really tell whether you meant that as sarcasm ??? or if you really believe that Mandela wasn't one of the many reasons Cuba is on the list ??? Firstly, we're discussing possible reasons that Cuba was on the terrorism list... not reasons that Cuba was under embargo. So I'm confused by your conflation of the two issues at the outset. Secondly, I should clarify that I wasn't saying all of the reasons are legitimate, quite the contrary actually. But to imply that ETA, Mandela, etc are not the reasons Cuba was on that list is plainly incorrect. Lastly, I apologize if your comment was meant as sarcasm. It's difficult to really tell whether people are serious or not on HN these days.

dragonwriter 11y ago

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 central American governments, and others) was why it was put on the list in 1982. (I won't argue against the position that the US was doing much the same thing on the other side of the same geopolitical conflict so that the "terrorist" label was always somewhat misrepresenting the purpose of the list -- and not just Cuba's inclusion on it -- or that the initial premise of the inclusion had long ceased to be relevant. I won't even argue against the position that some of the groups Cuba backed that justified its inclusion on the list were no worse -- and perhaps even less terroristic -- all things considered, than the often US-backed entities they opposed.)

lx 11y ago
I won't argue either... It seems I misunderstood your first comment. Sorry. Just for the sake of clarification, regarding ETA I'm aware there several versions of the story, but those 2010-ish US terrorism reports are not understandable when the very Spanish government was stating the contrary [+]. About the Colombian conflict, I've heard of the Cuban support to National Liberation Army (ELN) but never of any military support to Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). [+] (Spanish) http://www.lavozlibre.com/noticias/ampliar/1041341/moratinos-defiende-que-cuba-apoyo-a-espana-con-generosidad-en-la-lucha-contra-eta http://www.lavozlibre.com/noticias/ampliar/1041341/moratinos...
netcan 11y ago
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.