US removes Cuba from list of state sponsors of terror
bbc.com
bbc.com
Cuba being not removed may have been for that reason, but Cuba being placed on that reason was not for that reason. While one might argue that the terrorism involved was no different than what the US and US-allies backed on the other side of the same global conflict, when Cuba was placed on that list it was actively backing terrorists around the world as one of the most active nations, behind the USSR itself, globally promoting the Soviet-led Communist movement. (If you look at the list in general, the pattern of countries being added for real reasons, having those reasons largely go away but remaining on the list until some agreement not directly related to any supposed active involvement with terrorism between the US and that country is not unique to Cuba.)
disclaimer: I'm Cuban
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.
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.
???
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.
(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.)
[+] (Spanish) http://www.lavozlibre.com/noticias/ampliar/1041341/moratinos...
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.
If you support one side, those who support a different side are sponsoring terror. What conflict in the last few decades did not involve "terrorists?"
This is all very Orwellian. Terrorism is currently just a euphemism for "enemy." We should just go back to using that title. It's way more honest. 'US removes Cuba from list of enemies' is what actually happened.
Can you imagine a military conflict today without at least one side accusing the other of terrorism?
I'm not saying lets not apply moral judgement. Call them assholes, brutes, whatever.
By "it," I assume you mean terrorism, as a tactic.
> These days it has been corrupted to further illegitimate, religious interests. That's out of bounds.
Why? What's specifically out of bounds about religiously inspired terrorism, but acceptable about purely political and/or ideological terrorism? And where does the boundary get drawn - Northern Ireland, for example, has had no small amount of trouble with terrorism where the political and religious motives are inextricably linked.
> So let's make a rule to only use it in cases where it applies to illegitimate political and ideological interests. Otherwise, let's call them potential freedom fighters, depending on outcome.
Or perhaps your post was merely sarcasm.
The US has lots of different things that amount to "lists of enemies", so its important to distinguish which list we are talking about. The individual terms in the names of the lists may not be meaningful in the usual sense of the words used, but the names of the lists still serve as (potentially opaque) unique identifiers for which list (and thus, which associated legal consequences) is being discussed.
The word "terrorism" may be overused and too broadly used in many political contexts, but in this particular context it is narrowly used. The official list that Cuba was removed from was "Cuba, Iran, Sudan, Syria". The list of enemies would be a larger list.
True; "trying to overthrow a government" is a goal, "terrorism" is a means deployed to achieve a goal. You can do the former without the latter or the latter without the former, but the Cuban Project had the goal of overthrowing a government and used terrorism as a major one of its means.
But look at the bright side of this announcement! This is not about Cuba supporting terrorism or not. It's about the US government taking the Cuban government off its list labeled "governments supporting terrorism". Two governments are improving their communication.
With some luck, this will help diminish state (sponsored) violence against innocent people a little bit.