News Can Obama and Castro turn the page for US and Cuba relations?

[WWGD]

Well, at the end of the day, the US supports and has supported oppressive regimes that have tortured, killed their own people. Start with Pinochet, etc. I am just trying to bring the debate to what I believe is a more realistic level, by not making it seem as we are the good and pure , fighting against evil. That may prevent conversations with Cuba from moving along in a healthy way.

And I can find many who would disagree with Buckley, on reasonable grounds. I mean, common, man, you are quoting someone from the hard right there; would you buy a quote from Chomsky?

 

[russ_watters]

1)What do you mean by "butchering a definition"? I am referring to the accusation that Cuba sponsors terrorists ; it is a highly subjective definition on many grounds.

No it isn't. The "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter" is an intentional butchering of the definition for the specific purpose of justifying terrorism or mis-applying the word to something that isn't terrorism. But it's your claim: why don't you look up and provide a source for an internationally recognized definition that allows your claim that the US supports terrrorists to be true or otherwise recognizes an extremely vague/loose definition, or a US legal/government definition that flips both ways or has been inconsistently applied.

And I can find many who would disagree with Buckley, on reasonable grounds. I mean, common, man, you are quoting someone from the hard right there; would you buy a quote from Chomsky?

Depends on what he says. The logic of the Buckley quote clearly applies here: you are not being even-handed in your descriptions/examples.

 

[WWGD]

I was referring to more loose definitions of terrorism and the fact that each side tends to whitewash their support for terrorists, because these are "their terrorists", fighting for a fair cause, so the ends justify the means.. Still, e.g.:

http://www.alternet.org/world/35-countries-where-us-has-supported-fascists-druglords-and-terrorists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state_terrorism

A quick search will give you plenty of hits. But, in all fairness, just-about every country that has the resources does the same thing, albeit maybe at different levels.

 

[russ_watters]

I was referring to more loose definitions of terrorism.

I know. That's my point: the definition isn't loose except when intentionally butchered.

Still, e.g.:

http://www.alternet.org/world/35-countries-where-us-has-supported-fascists-druglords-and-terrorists

A quick search will give you plenty of hits.

I said internationally recognized, not extremists who purposely butcher the definition the way you have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state_terrorism

And...? Can you apply or comment on anything you read there, in the context of your claim of the interchangeable definitions of "terrorism" and "freedom fighter"? For example, the link says:

Commenting on Chomsky's 9-11, former US Secretary of Education William Bennett said: "Chomsky says in the book that the United States is a leading terrorist state. That's a preposterous and ridiculous claim. ... What we have done is liberated Kuwait, helped in Bosnia and the Balkans. We have provided sanctuary for people of all faiths, including Islam, in the United States. We tried to help in Somalia. ... Do we have faults and imperfections? Of course. The notion that we're a leading terrorist state is preposterous."[28][unreliable source?]

Stephen Morris also criticized Chomsky's thesis:

There is only one regime which has received arms and aid from the United States, and which has a record of brutality that is even a noticeable fraction of the brutality of Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Mao, or the Hanoi Politburo. That is the Suharto government in Indonesia. But...the United States was not the principal foreign supplier of Indonesia when the generals seized power (nor is there any credible evidence of American involvement in the coup).

[edit] I should add that there is an inherrent unprovability to your claim: you can't simultaneously claim a word is undefined and then claim that it applies somewhere. If it isn't clearly defined, it can't be clearly applied.

 

[WWGD]

I know. That's my point: the definition isn't loose except when intentionally butchered.

I said internationally recognized, not extremists who purposely butcher the definition the way you have.

And...? Can you apply or comment on anything you read there, in the context of your claim of the interchangeable definitions of "terrorism" and "freedom fighter"? For example, the link says:

[edit] I should add that there is an inherrent unprovability to your claim: you can't simultaneously claim a word is undefined and then claim that it applies somewhere. If it isn't clearly defined, it can't be clearly applied.

Do you charge for your mind readings? Before accusing someone and guessing their intentions?

 

[WWGD]

Do you not consider support for the regimes of Chile, South Africa to be state terrorism? What is your definition of reasonable sources? And what were the Contras in Nicaragua? A social club? Maybe you purposefully define them circularly as those who agree with you. Wow, that is what a _mentor_ does here in PF, accuse someone of "purposefully making distortions". Is mind-reading a req for becoming a mentor?

Interesting too, that you do not _seem_ ( I do make allowances for misunderstandings, misinterpretations; maybe should give that a try sometime) to make much of an effort to disprove the statements supporting your hard-right claims, but you do seek to disproof every statement that is not in agreement with it.

 

[256bits]

Cuba for years provided material support to the like of FARC in Columbia

Cuba provides some medical care and political consultation. Explosives management training for the FARC by the IRA, and possibly by other foreign-based terrorists suspected by the Colombians, such as Cubans, Iranians, ETA (the Spanish Basque terrorist group), among others, has markedly improved the FARC's proficiency in urban terrorism

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/farc.htm

On November 19, 2012 Colombia's leftist FARC rebels announced a two-month unilateral cease-fire as the rebel group and Colombian government resumed peace talks in Havana. FARC said it would halt all military operations and acts of sabotage through January 20. In November 2012 Colombia, at war with the FARC since 1964, launched a controversial bid to negotiate peace with the rebels during talks in Havana, Cuba

Seems like Cuba is no different than any other country, and that includes most, that want to stick their nose in other countries' "business", either for the good or the bad.

 

[WWGD]

<Snip>
Seems like Cuba is no different than any other country, and that includes most, that want to stick their nose in other countries' "business", either for the good or the bad.

Bingo.

 

[russ_watters]

Do you charge for your mind readings? Before accusing someone and guessing their intentions?

There is no mind reading at work here. I know the definitions of the words and I have a lot of experience with the specific cliche' butchering of it that you are doing. It is a cliche', it is so common.

Moreover, I don't claim to know your actual intent here, but there really are only a couple of choices: willful ignorance or purposeful misrepresentation and neither are acceptable, particularly now that I've demanded sources and backup for your argument: so if you are ignorant, learn.

What is your definition of reasonable sources?

As a starting point, one that doesn't explicitly state in its name that it is a non-mainstream source. And more to the point, I asked for definitions, not a list of examples. The examples are useless until you establish the definition.

Wikipedia is fine for this. You really should actually do some reading on it. The controversy is well established as-is the fact that the international community generally manages to burn-through it to a useful and consistent definition:

Since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism:

Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them

More specifically:

By distinguishing terrorists from other types of criminals and terrorism from other forms of crime, we come to appreciate that terrorism is :

• ineluctably political in aims and motives
• violent – or, equally important, threatens violence
• designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target
• conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) and
• perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity.

A terrorist may be a freedom fighter and vice versa, but there is no actual link between the two terms and in general they are more different than similar, since a "freedom fighter" tends to be a citizen of a country fighting against an existing government, not foreigners attacking a civilian population. So, for example, we didn't generally call the people we were fighting in Iraq "terrorists" (we called them "insurgents") because they were fighting against the US military, not attacking US civilians (not that all of their tactics obeyed the laws of war...). Similarly, on 9/11, all the planes were civilian targets and thus terrorism, but an attack on the Pentagon would not otherwise have been considered terrorism because it is a military target. It also wouldn't have been "freedom fighting" since the perpetrators were not Americans.

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed temporarily for Moderation...