Cuba is one of the 6 nations which back terrorism

[dadachango69]

http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/12/news/inter....reut/index.htm (http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/12/news/international/pension_funds.reut/index.htm)

I don't know how accurate this stuff is. Comments?

[Valkyrie]

That's the US definition of terrorism, which would include any nation that supports or sponsers or actively participates in guerrilla warfare or efforts to overthrow US backed right-wing governments.

[h&s]

That has to be one of the biggest loads of bullshit I have ever heard! The CIA website defines terrorism as —The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
Guerilla war is war, not terrorism as soldiers are not 'non-combatant targets.' The U$ needs a bit of consistancy....

[percept¡on]

It's obviously on the list for political reasons. I think originally it was due to Cuba's sponsoring of guerilla movements in third world countries; now the charge has to do with Cuba selling biomedical technology to countries like Libya and Iran, so-called 'dual-use' technology that can supposedly be used for medical purposes or in developing biological weapons.

[fernando]

Uhm...doesnt the US support terrorism either? <_<

[wet blanket]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 02:28 PM
Uhm...doesnt the US support terrorism either? <_<
That&#39;s what makes all of this so funny.

[Guerrilla22]

Yes, Cuba has been on this list for a long time, like others have stated, the US supports guerrilla groups all the time, just so long as they support their intere

[Dio]

How America Determines Friends and Foes
Noam Chomsky
The Toronto Star, March 14, 2004
Every self-respecting president has a doctrine attached to his name. The core principle of the Bush II doctrine is that the United States must "rid the world of evil," as the president said right after 9/11.

A special responsibility is to wage war against terrorism, with the corollary that any state that harbours terrorists is a terrorist state and should be treated accordingly.

Let&#39;s ask a fair and simple question: What would the consequences be if we were to take the Bush doctrine seriously, and treat states that harbour terrorists as terrorist states, subject to bombardment and invasion?

The United States has long been a sanctuary to a rogues&#39; gallery of people whose actions qualify them as terrorists, and whose presence compromises and complicates U.S. proclaimed principles.

Consider the Cuban Five, Cuban nationals convicted in Miami in 2001 as part of a spy ring.

To understand the case, which has prompted international protests, we have to look at the sordid history of U.S.-Cuba relations (leaving aside here the issue of the crushing, decades-long U.S. embargo).

The United States has engaged in large- and small-scale terrorist attacks against Cuba since 1959, including the Bay of Pigs invasion and the bizarre plots to kill Castro. Direct U.S. participation in the attacks ended during the late &#39;70s — at least officially.

In 1989, the first president Bush granted a pardon to Orlando Bosch, one of the most notorious anti-Castro terrorists, accused of masterminding the bombing of a Cuban airliner in 1976. Bush overruled the Justice Department, which had refused an asylum request from Bosch, concluding: "The security of this nation is affected by its ability to urge credible other nations to refuse aid and shelter to terrorists, whose target we too often become."

Recognizing that the United States was going to harbour anti-Castro terrorists, Cuban agents infiltrated those networks. In 1998, high-level FBI officials were sent to Havana, where they were given thousands of pages of documentation and hundreds of hours of videotape about terrorist actions organized by cells in Florida.

The FBI reacted by arresting the people who provided the information, including a group now known as the Cuban Five.

The arrests were followed by what amounted to a show trial in Miami. The Five were sentenced, three to life sentences (for espionage; and the leader, Gerardo Hernandez, also for conspiracy to murder), after convictions that are now being appealed.

Meanwhile, people regarded by the FBI and Justice Department as dangerous terrorists live happily in the United States and continue to plot and implement crimes.

The list of terrorists-in-residence in the United States also includes Emmanuel Constant from Haiti, known as Toto, a former paramilitary leader from the Duvalier era. Constant is the founder of the FRAPH (Front for Advancement of Progress in Haiti), the paramilitary group that carried out most of the state terror in the early 1990s under the military junta that overthrew president Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

At last report, Constant was living in Queens, N.Y.

The United States has refused Haiti&#39;s request for extradition. The reason, it is generally assumed, is that Constant might reveal ties between Washington and the military junta that killed 4,000 to 5,000 Haitians, with Constant&#39;s paramilitary forces playing the leading role.

The gangsters leading the current coup in Haiti include FRAPH leaders.

For the United States, Cuba has long been the primary concern in the hemisphere. A declassified 1964 State Department document declares Fidel Castro to be an intolerable threat because he "represents a successful defiance of the United States, a negation of our whole hemispheric policy of almost a century and a half," since the Monroe Doctrine declared that no challenge to U.S. dominance would be tolerated in the hemisphere.

Venezuela now presents a similar problem. A recent lead article in the Wall Street Journal says, "Fidel Castro has found a key benefactor and heir apparent to the cause of derailing the U.S.&#39;s agenda in Latin America: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez."

As it happens, last month, Venezuela asked the United States to extradite two former military officers who are seeking asylum in the United States. The two had taken part in a military coup supported by the Bush administration, which backed down in the face of outrage throughout the hemisphere.

The Venezuelan government, remarkably, observed a ruling of the Venezuelan supreme court barring prosecution of the coup leaders. The two officers were later implicated in a terrorist bombing, and fled to Miami.

Outrage over defiance is deeply ingrained in U.S. history. Thomas Jefferson bitterly condemned France for its "attitude of defiance" in holding New Orleans, which he coveted. Jefferson warned that France&#39;s "character (is) placed in a point of eternal friction with our character, which though loving peace and the pursuit of wealth, is high-minded."

France&#39;s "defiance (requires us to) marry ourselves to the British fleet and nation," Jefferson advised, reversing his earlier attitudes, which reflected France&#39;s crucial contribution to the liberation of the colonies from British rule.

Thanks to Haiti&#39;s liberation struggle of 1804, unaided and almost universally opposed, France&#39;s defiance soon ended. But, then as now, the guiding principles of American outrage over defiance remain in place, determining friend and foe.

[fernando]

The US supports groups like Alpha 66 today...but yah lets just ignore that fact

Hey...the US has weapons of mass destruction, they support terrorist organisations, their democracy is very questionable, freedom of speech is questionable, the US invades countries and commits horrible war crimes...

Hey I have an idea...LETS LIBERATE THE US AND BOMB THE HELL OUT OF IT&#33; :lol:

[colombiano]

From what I understand Castro is a supporter of the FARC. I do not know this for a fact just what I have been told by my wife who was a journalist in her home country of Colombia. One cannot dispute that the FARC is definately a terrorist organization.

[fernando]

true, I think both sides support terrorist/guerilla groups, but since the US supports terrorism how could it go to war against the thing it supports? <_<

[h&s]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 10:50 AM
true, I think both sides support terrorist/guerilla groups, but since the US supports terrorism how could it go to war against the thing it supports? <_<
You are asking the question on the lips of the entire world. The truth is that the U&#036; is not at war with terror. It is using terror as an excuse to launch wars that they will benefit from. Remember the Bu&#036;h backed PNAC? It called for &#39;a sizeable US force in the Middle Eastern region...regardless of the regime of Saddam Hussein.&#39; (Not the exact words, but close.)
The war on Afghanistan just happened to have been planned before 11.9.01 which, coincidentally, just happened to coincide with the U&#036; and the Taleban falling out over the route of an oil pipeline....
The war in Iraq is promoting terror against the U&#036;, but I would say that this is probably what they want. They want to scare their people into supporting their imperialistic wars, and terrorism is just an excuse, just as communism used to be.

[colombiano]

I could not agree with you to guys anymore. The land of hypocrisy. :angry:

[fernando]

Originally posted by hammer&[email protected] 14 2004, 12:14 PM
You are asking the question on the lips of the entire world. The truth is that the U&#036; is not at war with terror. It is using terror as an excuse to launch wars that they will benefit from. Remember the Bu&#036;h backed PNAC? It called for &#39;a sizeable US force in the Middle Eastern region...regardless of the regime of Saddam Hussein.&#39; (Not the exact words, but close.)
The war on Afghanistan just happened to have been planned before 11.9.01 which, coincidentally, just happened to coincide with the U&#036; and the Taleban falling out over the route of an oil pipeline....
The war in Iraq is promoting terror against the U&#036;, but I would say that this is probably what they want. They want to scare their people into supporting their imperialistic wars, and terrorism is just an excuse, just as communism used to be.
The September 11 attacks were the best thing that could have happened to Bush, I mean he just "won" the election, the economy was going shitty, he did not have full support of the people, then these airplanes fly through some buildings, and everybody tries to form one front behind their president.

[h&s]

The September 11 attacks were the best thing that could have happened to Bush
Hmm, what a coincidence that the PNAC stated that a &#39;Pearl Harbour-like event&#39; would have been needed to launch the war........
And the fact that fighter jets had not been scrambled, even after the plane hit the pentagon on September 11th, despite the fact that they had been scrambled to 67 false alarms the previous year..