Monday, May 4, 2009

Quotable

“Now, we’re facing an almost united front against the United States regarding Cuba. Every country, even those with whom we are closest, is just saying you’ve got to change, you can’t keep doing what you’re doing. We would like to see some reciprocity from the Castros on political prisoners, human rights, and other matters.”

– Secretary of State Clinton, in a State Department town hall meeting, May 1, 2009. (This is part of her answer to the final question.)

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hey Hillary, why don't you let Silvio in to celebrate with aging brother Seger?

How utterly lame? USA can be the best and the most idiotic at once.

let silvio in!

http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=8123

Hope this is just Bush hangover in the interest section.

Anonymous said...

another example of the absurdity and mean-spirited policy the USA has consistently directed at Cuba.

but lets wait and see the gusanos et al spin this one. i'm sure they'll come up something clever along the lines of Vecino justifying terrorism against Cuba

anonimo

Anonymous said...

Anonimo,

I must correct you: I do not justify terrorism against Cuba. You are the one who excuses terrorist tactics by "liberation movements".

By the way what do you know about Morales Navarrete aka "el Mono"?

Vecino de NF

Anonymous said...

Anonimo et alles have bandied the words terrorist and terrorism quite freely as of late. I got the following definition from the web that I propose be the basis of further discussion.

terrorism, act of terrorism, terrorist act (the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear)

The source is http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=terrorism.

Vecino de NF

Anonymous said...

Also much has been said about Posada Carriles. I would refer you to someone who said it better than I could ever do in "A Man for All Seasons":

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

It has been taken from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060665/quotes

Vecino de NF

Anonymous said...

In the name of human rights and the tranquility of the Revolution, this Vecino son-of-a-gusano must be silenced! If word of his slanderous deviationism reaches the ears of our Leader in Havana, he just might have relapse. (El Coma Andante is very sensitive,you know.)

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 8:19AM,

To quote again from "A Man for All Seasons":

Sir Thomas More: You threaten like a dockside bully.

Cromwell: How should I threaten?

Sir Thomas More: Like a minister of state. With justice.

Cromwell: Oh, justice is what you're threatened with.

Sir Thomas More: Then I am not threatened.

(Taken from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060665/quotes)

BTW how do you know that I am not in the room next the CeJ? Also BTW is I am a son-of-a-gusano, does that make me a gusanito, and what kind of gusanito would I be? Gusano translates into worm, larva, or cartepillar in English. Condidering past posts I prefer to be a male Aedes Albopictus larva. (They just buzz not bite, and their role in the spread of dengue is limited to making the females pregnant and hungry!)

And to those aspiring to reprise Richard Rich's role, please for God's sake wait to be given at least Wales!

"Cry "Havoc" and let slip the dogs of war!"

Vecino de NF

Anonymous said...

Anonimo et alles,

In the interest of finding a common language can we agree on the following defintions from U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)? If not, can an alternative third party source be provided?

"(1) the term "international terrorism" means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;

(2) the term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;

(3) the term "terrorist group" means any group practicing, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism;"

Vecino de NF

leftside said...

Vecino, are you saying that the July 26th Movement were terrorists? Or that the Cubans trying to spread Revolution abroad were terrorists? I don't think you can make the case that any of those deliberately targeted civillians.

Anonymous said...

Leftside,

I am not saying either but you explained perfectly my reason for refusing to either accuse or excuse someone for terrorism. Terrorism requires the deliberate and premeditated use of violence against civilians for political motives. That's why there is general agreement that Al-Qaeda, and UBL are terrorists: They acknowledge publicly that their aim is to cow (the verb not the animal) Western countries into agreeing with their political aims by attacking their civilians. On the other hand hurting civilians in an undeliberate way in the course of a military operation is not terrorism. Either way civilians suffer but the latter is not terrorism by the above definition.

My point in responses to Anonimo's persistent questioning was that the tactics used by many of the Cuban exiles against the Cuban government were the same tactics that were used by M-26-J in its fight against Batista. Both governments were not constitutional, and therefore one could argue that they were illegitimate. The 1940 Cuban constitution allowed armed resistance against unconstitutional governments. (That was one of the justifications for the assault on the Moncada barracks) Characters on both sides of the fight grew up with the same ideological perspective on armed resistance, and once one is convinced that war is the only option then everything is fair in one's mind. I am not trying to justify it. I am just saying that's the way it is.

Then comes the issue of who is a civilian. It took an unconditional German surrender for the Allies to start thinking about German civilians, and to differentiate between who was a true Nazi, and who just joined the Party because everybody did it. Before that there were a lot of firebombing of cities, and indiscriminate killing and maiming of German non-combatants that just were in the way. That's the nature of totalitarian regimes. So now put yourself in the mind of a "freedom fighter" who is convinced that he is fighting a totalitarian regime. He picks up Radio Habana Cuba or the latest Castro speech and he hears or reads "Inside the Revolution everything, outside nothing", and then he sees an official Cuban delegation returing to Cuba after representing the Cuban Revolution with great ability and zeal. Do you think that he sees teenagers or young revolutionary soldiers? And also btw these young people have been very vocal supporting the Revolution in a very militant way saying things like I am a soldier for the Revolution, etc. And lastly they are officially listed as MINFAR or MININT employees. Are the members of this delegation civilians or legitimate military targets? BTW a similar scenario could be built about the mindset of a young M-26-J militant in 1957/1958 about taking action against some non-combatant that was seen as propping up the Batista government.

And lastly there is the question that nothing that the Cuban government says is without political motivation. There are enough allegations and counter-allegations to make anyone's head spin, but any observer of the Cuban government would agree that political motives trump everything else when it comes to its behavior. So I reserve judgment on whether someone is a terrorist or not until an independet judicial process passes judgment for I for one am not able to "stand upright in the winds that would blow" once the presumption of innocence and due process are gone.

In the meantime if you are able to provide another definition of terrorism, I'll be willing to entertain it.

Vecino de NF

Anonymous said...

vecino, mighty fancy words there. never have i met anyone who tried so hard to twist reality as you do in order to excuse the actions of terrorists. you go even against the State Dept et al

if an organization specifically targets civilians in order to try and achieve a political end that's terrorism. if those actions take place from another country, it's international terrorism.

boca de sama is defined exactly in those terms, there was no other reason to attack this small village except to bring terror to those people, to show the cuban govt could not protect its citizens, and try and convince the population to overthrow the govt. and the attack came from another country -- you know international terrorism.

Your justification for boca borders on the absurd. As long as there were govt officials or a policeman or guard involved in defending against the terrorist attack then it no longer becomes terrorism. The terrorist did not target any govt official or guard or anything -- they just shot up the whole village.


and again how would you describe cubana airlines bombing? there were govt officials on board, so does that mean it wasn't an act of terrorism. Posada say "there were no innocents on board," every Cuban aircraft was a military target, regardless if it was civilian or not. do you agree with that or not.

The American govt itself admitted the terrorist activities of OPeration Mongoose was designed for the cuban government to increase security systems, 'to squeeze the nuts' of the cuban people as it was indelicately put. WHY? so the people would overthrow the govt.

you can quote the whole fricking history of the english language if you want, if that makes you feel better about siding with terrorists.

but to try and discount these incidents, and so many more, as not being terrorism is a disgrace.

the American govt has long acknowledge, even put in writing, their policies intent is to cow (your word) the Cuban govt, and to end the regime. To try and achieve a political end, in part through violence. so your definition confirms the American actions are those of a terrorist organization.

You are dead wrong here. You have no intention of ever seeking 'common ground' you see the Cuban govt in purely evil terms, that's your opinion. but don't insult anyone's intelligence with your lame and disgusting justifications for terrorism. take it up with jeb bush.

if you conflate liberation movements with terrorism then there's nothing left to say.

ya


anonimo

Anonymous said...

Anonimo,

I think that there is very little intelligence to insult when responding to your rants.

If you agree with the definitions that I posted on terrorism say so, if not give another third party definition of terrorism that we all can agree on.

To accuse someone of terrorism because it advances one's arguments is known to happen but does not necessarily proves the point.

But after I let you go I got a couple of questions for you.

1) If Boca de Sama was such a stick in the mud village, why target it? Until the Cuban government decided to elevate it to the level it did, anything that happened there would have stayed there.

2) Wasn't the Boca de Sama incident followed by the takeover of some shipping by Cuban Navy that caused some tension with the US?

3) Weren't both incidents followed by Castro's tearful acknoweldgement that the 10 million ton sugar harvest was not to be and that there was no choice but to institutionalize the Revolution by joining the CAME? 1971 was not a good time for the administrative functions of the Revolution.

4) Do you believe everything that the Cuban government publishes, broadcasts, etc or do you agree with me that it has to be taken with a grain of salt because its political motivations trump everythig else?

As far as being an apologist for terrorism, you are the only that has signed a post refusing to denounce terrorist tactics used by "liberation movements". Not me, YOU!

Vecino de NF

Anonymous said...

Anonimo,

An another thing. It is very academic to discuss about who is the biggest terrorist in the planet but the reality is that while we divert ourselves here, the Cuban government has not been able to come up with a coherent response to the latest US entreaties. Zip, nothing, nada! If you are interested in normalization of Cuba/USA relations, you should be prodding Havana to move the ball forward rather than retelling 40 year old propaganda lines.

Vecino de NF

leftside said...

BTW, here is another remarkable quote from Hillary:

When we look around the world, actually, we see a number of countries and leaders – Ch├ívez is one of them but not the only one – who, over the last eight years, has become more and more negative and oppositional to the United States. ... The prior administration tried to isolate them, tried to support opposition to them, tried to ... turn them into international pariahs. It didn't work.There is an obvious reference to our Cuba policy there as well...

Anonymous said...

Leftside,

The will to normalize relations is there on the US side. The Cuban government is not convinced that the Obama administration can survive beyond the next election so they are not willing to make any changes that would be impossible to reverse if the US goes back on its raprochment. Cuba needs to make the next move. It doesn't have to be the one the US suggested but it has to be one that would require another US response in a constructive way.

Vecino de NF

Anonymous said...

if you equate liberation movements with terrorism then the american revolution was a terrorist war.
man you just dont get it. when someone brings up a point you dont agree with, or dont know anything about its always well the cuban governments lies blah blah blah. then you go off on whatever implausible tangent in a desperate effort to misdirect.

i dont believe any govt, i see and find things for myself. what is your point? you think the USA govt tell the truth?? or maybe you believe there were WMD's in iraq?


i know the boca de sama story. it was terrorism. and now you stick your finger in the air and try and connect it with the sugar harvest failure? please, send me whatever you are drinking.

boca was just such a stick in the mud village exactly for that reason, because the gusanos of Alpha 66 were the worst type of cowards and terrorists. they have admitted it themselves, they knew the village, it was defenseless and that's why it was targeted. your opinion of it is immaterial, but keep on spinning. if you want to ignore the facts that fine, but don't expect to just toss whatever s..t out there and hope it sticks.

only when something is in favor of the cuban govt do you say it lies -- or did it lie when it said the sugar harvest was a failure? you're Pavlovian responses are tiring.


next thing you know youll be accusing the cuban govt of torturing innocents. no wait, someone else does that.

boring.
anonimo

leftside said...

Vecino, you must be joking. There is absolutely no will on the US side to normalize relations with socialist Cuba. If there was, there would be no need for this back and forth charade. There is a will to change Cuba, same as ever. This is a new tactic in the same 50 year old game. Cuba does not have to make any move. They have made plenty of reforms to areas previously criticized by dissidents and exiles in the last 2 years, and they will likely continue to, where appropriate. But the US demands, if anything, are likely to slow this process, not speed them up. Cuba does not respond well to pressure from the Empire. If Cuba had any real Cuba advisors around him, they would have told him this. Cuba did not endure 50 years of privations in the name of dignity and honor, just to switch at the first carrot offered by Washington.

Anonymous said...

"50 years of privations in the name of dignity and honor"

just who are you referring to? The castro brothers and the regime elite? hah. they suffered no privations. It was/is the Cuban people who have been forced to endure privations "in the name of dignity of honor" -- as defined by fidel. That you can be so admiring of this from your comfortable capitalist existence is despicable leftside.

chingon

Joel said...

"next thing you know youll be accusing the cuban govt of torturing innocents. no wait, someone else does that."

They do torture innocents. Since when sending you to jail for distributing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a good thing?

Anonymous said...

Anonimo,

Is the chronology of events listed in http://emba.cubaminrex.cu/Default.aspx?tabid=17808 an accurate description of the Boca de Sama incident?

Leftside,

I guess we must agree to disagree.

Vecino de NF