Terrorism is okay as long as they are on Our side

[catbirdseat]

Four Cuban terrorists were pardoned and released on orders of the outgoing Panamanian president and sent to Florida. These men were caught with 33 lbs of high explosive, planning to assassinate Fidel Castrol at a Latin American summit meeting in 2000. The Bush Administration denied that it pressured President Moscoso to make the pardon. These four men are all killers. One of them was involved in a car bombing on US soil that killed South American diplomate.

 

I guess it's okay to pardon these terrorists because they are against someone we don't like. They are OUR terrorists and therefore good terrorists. It should score points with the Cuban expatriates in Miami. Bush could sure use their support.

 

Yahoo News Story

Edited August 27, 2004 by catbirdseat

[Cpt.Caveman]

First of all - in case you didn't get it - Terrorism is equal to War. If people want war we should take sides and do that thing called oy yeah WIN.

 

Second - where's the info coming from? And where does the evidence say that the pres pardoned or asked for it. Smells like a bunch of NPR radio jive bullshit to me.

 

Fuck Castro anyway. It's about time.

[catbirdseat]

Let's not call it a "War on Terror" then, because it is hypocritical.

[Cpt.Caveman]

I never called it a "War on Terror" -> You brought that wording up and are the one criticizing it.

[catbirdseat]

I don't like Castro any more than you do. He is megalomaniacal killer. I would love to see him lying in a pine box with a bullet between his eyes.

 

But there are limits to how far we should go to kill him. I would draw the line at killing possibly dozens of other innocent people along with him, which is what these people would have done had they succeeded. That is the very definition of "terror" where one stops caring whether the ends justify the means.

[Cpt.Caveman]

Back to the point- Where is the evidence someone in our government is \ was pressuring another govt to commit such an action?

[catbirdseat]

I don't have any evidence. What would motivate the president of Panama to make such a move that would be locally so unpopular? If you smell a dead fish, do you have to actually see the dead fish to know that it is there?

[Cpt.Caveman]

Although I am pessimistic - I can't see any evidence in your dead fish theory because it is obviously flawed. I dont suppose you would make an honest juror for instance.

 

Anyway - it is an interesting story. And before I would bark up trees claiming our govt is at fault or behind such an action I would probably let the story bake for a while and see more info come out.

 

It really sounds like your panties are in a bunch and you just want to complain. Which is fine. But it's really just gibberish at this moment.

[catbirdseat]

Damn, Cavey, it's too bad we are the only ones awake this morning. Time for .

[Jason_Martin]

It's interesting when you travel abroad, a lot of non-american tourists are trying to visit Cuba BEFORE Castro dies. Why? The dude is seriously old and will probably go sometime in the next ten years. In addition to this, foriegn tourists believe that once Castro is gone, Cuba's going to turn into an alternate Hawaii for Americans... Which is probably true.

 

Maybe it's time to go down there and to buy cheap beachfront property before the U.S. takes the country over and turns it into a resort.

 

Jason

[astrov]

to those who believe the US doesn't sponsor terrorism, I suggest reading a history of South America before coming to that conclusion, and taking special note of the School of the Americas of Fort Benning, Georgia.

 

"Among the SOA's nearly 60,000 graduates are notorious dictators Manuel Noriega and Omar Torrijos of Panama, Leopoldo Galtieri and Roberto Viola of Argentina, Juan Velasco Alvarado of Peru, Guillermo Rodriguez of Ecuador, and Hugo Banzer Suarez of Bolivia. Lower-level SOA graduates have participated in human rights abuses that include the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero and the El Mozote Massacre of 900 civilians."

[ian]

better our fasicsts than their commies

[Cpt.Caveman]

Hello- I have been to this SOA in person. Have you?

 

Anyway - back AGAIN to the point - where is the proof in this situation - > It's not out yet. And while atrov is not direct but implies that above might be evidence - it really isnt.

[RobBob]

catbird, what's new about any of this? JFK had people all up in Cuba making trouble. If you look for it, you can find one of the original SEAL team 1 plankholders' firsthand account of assassinating a Cuban. The precedent was set by John Kennedy.

[Jim]

You're correct. The US has a long history of plotting coups, assainations, and general election muck-ups. In a word our approach is highly hypocritical. We SAY we value democracy, self-determination, and national soveignty, but at the same time we try to kill political leaders, have funded and organized coups of democratically elected officials, and generally attempted to destabalize countries that we don't like.

 

Is there any wonder why the rest of the world sees us a threat equal to or greater than terrorists?

 

Richard Pearle's new book says it quite bluntly. We should throw off the pretense that we care about anything other than our "national interests" (good code words those) and just take what we want and the hell with what other countries think.

[Cpt.Caveman]

"We should throw off the pretense that we care about anything other than our "national interests" (good code words those) and just take what we want and the hell with what other countries think. "

 

The pretense is all fluff and buff. It always has been. I thought everybody knew that?

[cj001f]

Leopoldo Galtieri

 

Galtieri failed out of the School of the Americas

[Jim]

"We should throw off the pretense that we care about anything other than our "national interests" (good code words those) and just take what we want and the hell with what other countries think. "

 

It is obvious to those to choose to look. The press is generally oblivious and intimidated. The US is by far responsible for the deaths of more innocent people than any terrorist organization. Oh - I know, we had good intentions though so that doesn't cout.

 

We should be doing better things with our wealth.

 

The pretense is all fluff and buff. It always has been. I thought everybody knew that?

[Cpt.Caveman]

You seem upset Jim.

 

I think I can decide what I want to do with my wealth...

 

Anyway - is there a point to this that directly relates to the topic?

[Jim]

OK, I'll spoon fed you:

 

1) We say we love democracy but act differently around the globe.

 

2) We spend a lot of money doing #1

 

3) We could save money, stop harming innocents and meddling in foreign governments, and use our wealth for more productive purposes at home.

[Stonehead]

Declassified government documents released under FOIA and stored at George Washington University--CIA and Assassinations: The Guatemala 1954 Documents

 

Records include a document titled: 'A Study of Assassination'.

Excerpts: JUSTIFICATION

 

Murder is not morally justifiable. Self-defense may be argued if the victim has knowledge which may destroy the resistance organization if divulged. Assassination of persons responsible for atrocities or reprisals may be regarded as just punishment. Killing a political leader whose burgeoning career is a clear and present danger to the cause of freedom may be held necessary.

 

But assassination can seldom be employed with a clear conscience. Persons who are morally squeamish should not attempt it.

 

[Cpt.Caveman]

OK, I'll spoon fed you:

 

1) We say we love democracy but act differently around the globe.

 

2) We spend a lot of money doing #1

 

3) We could save money, stop harming innocents and meddling in foreign governments, and use our wealth for more productive purposes at home.

 

Hey watch that spelling!

[klenke]

Jim, I'm curious. Give me an example of #1 and don't make it sound like "#2." Thanks. I agree with you on #3 but 'tis easier said than done. #3 is basically isolationism, which is, as you know, a dead concept in today's global socio-economic world.

[Jim]

See - you're making me do it!!

[Jim]

Jim, I'm curious. Give me an example of #1 and don't make it sound like "#2." Thanks. I agree with you on #3 but 'tis easier said than done. #3 is basically isolationism, which is, as you know, a dead concept in today's global socio-economic world.

 

Older example -Chile. Salvador Allende was democratically elected. The US was worried about the Socialist wave spreading in South America and provided financing, funding, and intellegence for a coup. Allende was killed and Pinochet was put in place, we turned a blind eye to his death squads over the next 20 years. Similar situations in El Salvador and Guatemela.

 

Recent past: We backed Sadaam until he didn't listen to orders anymore. Did we sqawk when he was using poison gas against the Kurds or Iranians? No - because he was serving a purpose. He held together a fractionious country, was a counter point to Iran's fundamental government, and sold oil to us.

 

Current: Rather than put together a government in Afganastan that includes local coalitions, we choose a government that was put together by Wolfiwitz back in D.C., and contains folks that haven't lived there for 20 years. Harmet Karzi was picked for one reason, he was previously an employee of Unacal, which was pushing for the hugh gas pipeline that will go through Afganistan.

 

Or you could pick our annual $3 Billion that goes to Israel, including major military hardware, which they use to control the Palestians. You can researh thru Amnesty Internation for Israel's track record.

 

My bottom line is this - we'er a county of great folks (mostly) with quite a bit of weath. Can't we put that weath to use at home and abroad in ways that will benefit more people, and will be less intrusive than military spending. I think the answer is yes.

 

And I don't mean isolationism. I mean no imperialism. You can be engaged in the world without depending on military or violent solutions as the standard approach.