NationStates Jolt Archive

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Cuba and Venezuela criticized the United States on Wednesday for failing to hand over or prosecute an alleged terrorist accused of masterminding the bombing of a Cuban jetliner in 1976. The United States insisted it is acting legally.

The case of Luis Posada Carriles — a Cuban-born Venezuelan citizen who has been a Venezuelan security officer, a soldier in the U.S. Army and a CIA operative — was raised during a U.N. Security Council meeting on U.N. efforts to combat terrorism.

Cuban Ambassador Rodrigo Malmierca Diaz called the 80-year-old Posada, a militant opponent of Fidel Castro's communist regime, "the most notorious terrorist of the Western hemisphere."

He said there is sufficient evidence linking Posada to "some of the most infamous crimes of the 20th century" including the bombing of the Cubana de Aviacion jet over Barbados that killed 73 people, the Iran-Contra scandal and the bombings of Havana hotels in 1997.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsMaps/idUSN1931619020080319?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

It's telling I think that Alpha 66, Posada and other Cuban exile terrorists continue to live openly in Florida while the US wages a war on 'terror'.

It's telling I think that Alpha 66, Posada and other Cuban exile terrorists continue to live openly in Florida while the US wages a war on 'terror'.

Gov. Co. is being Hypocritical, No really?! Shocking! :eek:

The Difference between terrorist and freedom fighter is realative my Marxist friend.

The Difference between terrorist and freedom fighter is realative my Marxist friend.

So you would say al Qaeda is a freedom fighting organization then?

So you would say al Qaeda is a freedom fighting organization then?

Of course. They fight for the freedom for men to hold their tryannical demands on women, the freedom to stone homosexuals to death, and the freedom to kill infidels.

Gov. Co. is being Hypocritical, No really?! Shocking! :eek:

Yep agreeed, nowt new there then.

They're not terrorists when they're your friends. They're freedom fighters. That's true no matter where you are on the political spectrum.

"He said there is sufficient evidence linking Posada to "some of the most infamous crimes of the 20th century" including the bombing of the Cubana de Aviacion jet over Barbados that killed 73 people, the Iran-Contra scandal and the bombings of Havana hotels in 1997."

Conveniently, Cuba does not have an "open" court system. Evidence hardly matters, if they wish to convict you, you are convicted.

If actual evidence justifying extradition existed it would be made available. Mere claims of evidence, from Cuba, mean nothing.

If actual evidence justifying extradition existed it would be made available. Mere claims of evidence, from Cuba, mean nothing.
Actually, the Justice Department did tell the court not to set him free, sighting that he was the admitted mastermind of (and I quote) "terrorist acts". And the reason American courts are refusing extradition isn't a lack of evidence, it's that they believe he'd face torture in Venezuela.

Both of which are great example of hypocrisy at work, or course.

The Difference between terrorist and freedom fighter is realative my Marxist friend.

While that is true, the methods that a freedom fighter and a terrorist use are quite different. A freedom fighter in my opinon only attacks and fights military or government forces. The terrorist will attack civilians to instill fear in the general populace.

I think the reason that the USA isn't handing him over is because he was in the CIA. Why would the USA be willing to hand him over? So he can be forced to give the Cubans information about the CIA and all of that stuff.

Actually, the Justice Department did tell the court not to set him free, sighting that he was the admitted mastermind of (and I quote) "terrorist acts". And the reason American courts are refusing extradition isn't a lack of evidence, it's that they believe he'd face torture in Venezuela.

Both of which are great example of hypocrisy at work, or course.

Maybe if Venezuela declared him to be an "enemy combatant"...

Maybe if Venezuela declared him to be an "enemy combatant"...

Then the US would make him a national hero! :p

empty gesture course this is all to do with the US policy of being silly when the rest of the world has stopped caring about the embargo

The Difference between terrorist and freedom fighter is realative my Marxist friend.

blowing up innocent civilians is usually a good point to make a distinction

Maybe if Venezuela declared him to be an "enemy combatant"...

or maybe had him handed over by local militia men in exchange for money with no proof needed

They're not terrorists when they're your friends. They're freedom fighters. That's true no matter where you are on the political spectrum.

Look at how Saddam Hussein went from valued ally against Islamic Fundamentalism to Evil, Brutal Dictator Who Tortures And Murders His Own People as an example. The United States goes through pet terrorists and pet dictators the way someone with diarrhea goes through rolls of toilet paper.

They're not terrorists when they're your friends. They're freedom fighters. That's true no matter where you are on the political spectrum.
No, that's not true. I despise Posada and al-Qaeda equally.

blowing up innocent civilians is usually a good point to make a distinction

Then the U.S. military is full of terrorists.
http://www.annefrankguide.com/en-GB/content/hiroshima-2f.jpg
http://www.notmytribe.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/iraq-amerli-bombing.jpg

States always endorse internal terrorism via political means (outlawing "extreme" beliefs). The same happens when states support external terrorism when they work in their interest. NATO works for the US interests so I do not find it weird to support them. NATO was, is and will be a terrorist organization.

States always endorse internal terrorism via political means (outlawing "extreme" beliefs). The same happens when states support external terrorism when they work in their interest. NATO works for the US interests so I do not find it weird to support them. NATO was, is and will be a terrorist organization.

WTF? How is NATo a terrorist organization?

Hey, Parkus, way to bring up irrelevant things. Hiroshima saved more lives than took. On both sides. The fanitical devotion they had to their emporer, and the bushito(spelling) code, which basicly said surrender bad, meaningless death as long as you take the enemy with you, good. An Invasion of Japan would have cost millions. The civilians that didn't fight would have committed sucide. Those that did would have fought to the death. Millions would have died on both sides. Japan would have ceased to exist as a nation.

Hey, Parkus, way to bring up irrelevant things. Hiroshima saved more lives than took. On both sides. The fanitical devotion they had to their emporer, and the bushito(spelling) code, which basicly said surrender bad, meaningless death as long as you take the enemy with you, good. An Invasion of Japan would have cost millions. The civilians that didn't fight would have committed sucide. Those that did would have fought to the death. Millions would have died on both sides. Japan would have ceased to exist as a nation.



Except Japan was willing to surrender. We dropped the bomb to show off to Stalin. But this debate will threadjack. I just wanted you to know youre wrong.


On topic, I am not at all suprised by the US and I even chuckled when they said they wouldnt release him because he might face torture.

Remember Andaras, its not wrong when the US does it.

Except Japan was willing to surrender.
Not unconditionally. They were only willing to surrender on four conditions:
1) No reparation payments (this we were willing to go along with, not wishing a repeat of the Versailles experience)
2) Retention of the "imperial system" (we allowed Hirohito to remain as figurehead, but no way were we going to allow the whole State Shinto machinery of divine worship to stay in place)
3) Return to the prewar boundaries (this meant leaving them with Taiwan, Korea, Manchuria, and Micronesia: absolutely out of the question)
4) No disarmament (Japanese troops were to give their weapons to their superior officers as they demobilized, not turn them over to foreigners; this was flatly absurd)

\
2) Retention of the "imperial system" (we allowed Hirohito to remain as figurehead, but no way were we going to allow the whole State Shinto machinery of divine worship to stay in place)

This is the only condition they ever asked that I heard. And it is important to note that we let them keep their Emperor anyway.

And the reason American courts are refusing extradition isn't a lack of evidence, it's that they believe he'd face torture in Venezuela.

.

That American style wussy crap or the real torture where you come out minus some body parts?

Or the New Age torture which just means "discomfort"?

The word has been rendered SOOO meaningless.

Hey, Parkus, way to bring up irrelevant things. Hiroshima saved more lives than took. On both sides.

Nonsense. Either way, we have no right to kill non-combatants to save combatants.

The fanitical devotion they had to their emporer,

They?

and the bushito(spelling) code, which basicly said surrender bad, meaningless death as long as you take the enemy with you, good.

I hope you know that samurai had been banned for eighty years at that point.

An Invasion of Japan would have cost millions.

I do not think so.

The civilians that didn't fight would have committed sucide.

:p

Those that did would have fought to the death. Millions would have died on both sides. Japan would have ceased to exist as a nation.

That is simply not true. Japan was already prepared to surrender, the U.S. just wanted better terms.

The Difference between terrorist and freedom fighter is realative my Marxist friend.

Freedom fighters attack government and military targets and terrorists bomb airliners.

Then the U.S. military is full of terrorists.


You're probably being sarcastic. I actualy agree with the statement.

WTF? How is NATo a terrorist organization?

Hey, Parkus, way to bring up irrelevant things. Hiroshima saved more lives than took. On both sides.

Irrelevant to the fact that it was a cowardly attack on defensless women and children.

Nonsense. Either way, we have no right to kill non-combatants to save combatants.



They?


I hope you know that samurai had been banned for eighty years at that point.



I do not think so.



:p



That is simply not true. Japan was already prepared to surrender, the U.S. just wanted better terms.

A large amount of civilians would have commited suicide. Not a laughing matter.

A large amount of civilians would have commited suicide. Not a laughing matter.

I think his reaction was because that claim is bull.


Unless you have a source or something.

Nonsense. Either way, we have no right to kill non-combatants to save combatants.



They?


I hope you know that samurai had been banned for eighty years at that point.



I do not think so.



:p



That is simply not true. Japan was already prepared to surrender, the U.S. just wanted better terms.

I'm sorry but is there supposed to be an argument in this post? All I am seeing is contradiction, the only thing approaching a point in this post was "I hope you know that samurai had been banned for eighty years at that point."

This is the only condition they ever asked that I heard.
Then I don't know what sources you've been reading. The "Four Conditions" memo (sent to the US through Swiss channels) was regarded as infamously arrogant under the circumstances, basically a demand that we give them a pause to rebuild their strength.
And it is important to note that we let them keep their Emperor anyway.
Not really. They expected to "keep" the Emperor as the deified figurehead whose worship kept the populace in a state of mindless obedience; they did not expect Hirohito to be turned into a British-style monarch. When MacArthur arrived he was sent a document by the court-protocol officials instructing him how he was to dress and behave for an audience with the Emperor: he immediately summonsed Hirohito to his presence (very rude to make the Emperor come to YOU), and circulated a photo of Hirohito staring up at him (MacArthur was much taller) in what looked like fear.
The American populace expected Hirohito to be hanged along with the Tojo cabinet and other war criminals. MacArthur fought to keep Hirohito in at least a figurehead position since he thought the population would be unpacifiable without Hirohito telling them to stay calm, but that was as far as he would go.

Irrelevant to the fact that it was a cowardly attack on defensless women and children.

In death-numbers that leave all the terrorist attacks of last decade combined in the dust.

Irrelevant to the fact that it was a cowardly attack on defensless women and children.

Except for the fact that they were training with bamboo spears to kill American Soldiers...

Except for the fact that they were training with bamboo spears to kill American Soldiers...

Really? The infants that could not yet walk were being trained to kill?

Except for the fact that they were training with bamboo spears to kill American Soldiers...

And the British civilians were trained with guns to kill German soldiers (in the case of an invasion). I suppose Germany dropping an A-bomb on Britain would be alright.

And the British civilians were trained with guns to kill German soldiers (in the case of an invasion). I suppose Germany dropping an A-bomb on Britain would be alright.

If it was to save countless lives on both sides of the war...numbers are everything in warfare.

Why are you arguing about the a-bomb in Japan anyway, it's totally irrelevant to whether the USA of today engages in terrorism, in fact bringing it up as an argument is totally lame and predictable.

Why are you arguing about the a-bomb in Japan anyway, it's totally irrelevant to whether the USA of today engages in terrorism, in fact bringing it up as an argument is totally lame and predictable.

At least it takes away from another pointless thread by AP.

Why are you arguing about the a-bomb in Japan anyway, it's totally irrelevant to whether the USA of today engages in terrorism, in fact bringing it up as an argument is totally lame and predictable.

If you're upset about the thread drift wouldn't making an on topic post have helped more than bitching about where the thread had drifted to?

If you're upset about the thread drift wouldn't making an on topic post have helped more than bitching about where the thread had drifted to?

Sometimes realising that you're crapping on a thread will prevent you from doing it in future.

Sometimes realising that you're crapping on a thread will prevent you from doing it in future.

*craps on thread*

Then I don't know what sources you've been reading. The "Four Conditions" memo (sent to the US through Swiss channels) was regarded as infamously arrogant under the circumstances, basically a demand that we give them a pause to rebuild their strength.

I wasnt calling you a liar. I was just stating thats the only condition Id seen, meaning you just taught me something;)

At least it takes away from another pointless thread by AP.

I dont think this thread is pointless. If America gets all hot and bothered over other countries harboring terrorists we better not be doing the same damn thing.

Also, the torture thing is just delightfully ironic.

I dont think this thread is pointless. If America gets all hot and bothered over other countries harboring terrorists we better not be doing the same damn thing.

Now we have to define what is a terrorist and what has been done with them. And yes...it is another pointless AP thread because he always spouts the same thing every few days. He then gets hit and he claims propaganda and then after a few back and forths, he leaves till he comes up with something "new" which has been already debunked. Its an old and tired game.

Now we have to define what is a terrorist and what has been done with them. And yes...it is another pointless AP thread because he always spouts the same thing every few days. He then gets hit and he claims propaganda and then after a few back and forths, he leaves till he comes up with something "new" which has been already debunked. Its an old and tired game.

Well, this guy blew up a Cuban airliner. How is that not terrorism?

Well, this guy blew up a Cuban airliner. How is that not terrorism?

Well yes that is indeed terrorism but now that it has already been covered by other posters...

Why are you arguing about the a-bomb in Japan anyway
Because it's more fun than arguing with Andaras, and less pointless? See, KoL says I told him something he hadn't heard before: does Andaras ever tell you anything you haven't already heard, or acknowledge that he's heard anything that you say either?

The Difference between terrorist and freedom fighter is realative my Marxist friend.

Exactly. One man's George Washington is another man's Osama Bin Laden.

Why are you arguing about the a-bomb in Japan anyway, it's totally irrelevant to whether the USA of today engages in terrorism, in fact bringing it up as an argument is totally lame and predictable.

Notice the second photo.

Notice the second photo.

Which merely prove that someone blew up a stone building in Iraq. Can you prove that it was full of civillians and not insurgents? Can you prove that any civillians in said building were not beinn held as "human shields"? Can you even prove the building wasn't blown up by the insurgents themselves?

Wars are messy and much more complex than your simplistic rhetoric.

P.S. Google "Operation Downfall" if you have any doubts that bombing Hiroshima and Nagaski wasn't the best of several lousy choices. While you're at it look into the Japanese behaviour in China during the war. The line between Japaense civillians and Japanese soliders was much blurrier than in most nations.

Which merely prove that someone blew up a stone building in Iraq. Can you prove that it was full of civillians and not insurgents? Can you prove that any civillians in said building were not beinn held as "human shields"? Can you even prove the building wasn't blown up by the insurgents themselves?
I can provide a link. However, there are some mildly gory photos involved. With your permission I shall telegram it to you.

I can provide a link. However, there are some mildly gory photos involved. With your permission I shall telegram it to you.

I'll take your word for it. I'm not attacking you, I'm merely poiting out that you have to consider context. A picture of a destroyed building doesn't necessarily prove anything.

I'll take your word for it. I'm not attacking you, I'm merely poiting out that you have to consider context. A picture of a destroyed building doesn't necessarily prove anything.

Of course. But most people are aware of the fact that the U.S. engages in bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan which result in many non-combatant deaths. Perhaps we should be aware of that when defining the term "terrorist".

Of course. But most people are aware of the fact that the U.S. engages in bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan which result in many non-combatant deaths. Perhaps we should be aware of that when defining the term "terrorist".

And maybe we should look at all facts before labeling something eh?

It's telling I think that Alpha 66, Posada and other Cuban exile terrorists continue to live openly in Florida while the US wages a war on 'terror'.

Why stop the hypocritical policy now?

Of course. But most people are aware of the fact that the U.S. engages in bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan which result in many non-combatant deaths. Perhaps we should be aware of that when defining the term "terrorist".

I'm well aware of that. It doesn't change my definition of the word terrorist. Large portions of our troops need to up on war crimes charges.

WTF? How is NATo a terrorist organization?


Vietnam War, Afghanistan War, Kosovo War, Iraq War. Do I need to continue?

Vietnam War, Afghanistan War, Kosovo War, Iraq War. Do I need to continue?


Afghanistan? We went in to over throw an oppressive regime harboring leaders and training facilities that organized and carried out a devastating attack on Civilians.

We went into to Kosovo to stop the Serbians from massacring Albainians. Who is that a terrorist action?

Iraq? Not terrorist, but still the wrong war. We should have sent them into Afghanistan.

North Vietnam attacked us atleast once.(1st Gulf of Tonkin Incident. Second, may not have happened, but Vietnam's Navy has its Anniversary Day on August 5th, one of our torpedo squadrons chased the U.S.S. Maddox from our coastal waters, our first victory over the U.S. Navy".[23] from wiki's page on on the incidents.

North Vietnam attacked us atleast once.(1st Gulf of Tonkin Incident. Second, may not have happened, but Vietnam's Navy has its Anniversary Day on August 5th, one of our torpedo squadrons chased the U.S.S. Maddox from our coastal waters, our first victory over the U.S. Navy".[23] from wiki's page on on the incidents.

The first Gulf of Tonkin incident is partially disputed as to who shot first.

The first Gulf of Tonkin incident is partially disputed as to who shot first.

I never said it was, or wasn't.

I never said it was, or wasn't.
Rather more importantly still, NATO had nothing to do with Vietnam.

I never said it was, or wasn't.

Ah, but you forget, typically when one applies the term "attack" usually the "attacker" is the aggressor, who typically attacks first. This minor distinction makes all the difference as to whom is the attacker no?

Ah, yes, bring up the nukes. Maybe this is SHOCKING for you, but somewhat today and ESPECIALLY back during WWII, the US Government and population cared more for THEIR OWN SOLDIERS (who were draftees) then the populations of Germany and Japan.

You're president, and you've got two options.

1.Drop the bombs and demand unconditional surrender, to prevent Japan from attacking anything again.

2. Start a land invasion of Japan and prepare to give a speech honoring the 1 million young men that will die taking the Japanese homeland (2-4 Million casualties were estimated by the planners of the invasion, assuming everything went to according plan). Not to mention you'd be sending over the men that just defeated Hitler, how much can ask of your troops?
http://home.kc.rr.com/casualties/

Be very careful when applying modern morality to a figure in history, for you do not share the culture or the life experience of that person. I think you'll find that, given an identical situation, most world leaders would've chosen the a-bombs without a second thought.

Ah, but you forget, typically when one applies the term "attack" usually the "attacker" is the aggressor, who typically attacks first. This minor distinction makes all the difference as to whom is the attacker no?

Well it depends, some sources say, that the NV boats fired first, and tohers say the USS Madox fired warning shots, and the NV patrol returned fire with torpedoes. Personally, I think the NV boats were making a torpedo run, but the Madox fired before they released their weapons.

Ah, yes, bring up the nukes. Maybe this is SHOCKING for you, but somewhat today and ESPECIALLY back during WWII, the US Government and population cared more for THEIR OWN SOLDIERS (who were draftees) then the populations of Germany and Japan.

You're president, and you've got two options.

1.Drop the bombs and demand unconditional surrender, to prevent Japan from attacking anything again.

2. Start a land invasion of Japan and prepare to give a speech honoring the 1 million young men that will die taking the Japanese homeland (2-4 Million casualties were estimated by the planners of the invasion, assuming everything went to according plan). Not to mention you'd be sending over the men that just defeated Hitler, how much can ask of your troops?
http://home.kc.rr.com/casualties/

Be very careful when applying modern morality to a figure in history, for you do not share the culture or the life experience of that person. I think you'll find that, given an identical situation, most world leaders would've chosen the a-bombs without a second thought.

WW2 wasn't that long ago dude. 69 years since it started, 63 since it ended. Hell my Grandpa fought in WW2 in the Gilbter Island raids as part of the 2nd Marine Raider Battalion. But thats a discussion for another thread.

Well it depends, some sources say, that the NV boats fired first, and tohers say the USS Madox fired warning shots, and the NV patrol returned fire with torpedoes. Personally, I think the NV boats were making a torpedo run, but the Madox fired before they released their weapons.

Mmmm, tricky, tricky. While standard ROE allows warning shots, I believe the US ROE prohibits shooting first to kill/destroy unless being shot at when not at war. This matter will probably not be resolved anytime soon, and is rather moot I suppose.

Mmmm, tricky, tricky. While standard ROE allows warning shots, I believe the US ROE prohibits shooting first to kill/destroy unless being shot at when not at war. This matter will probably not be resolved anytime soon, and is rather moot I suppose.

I mean as warning shots.

WW2 wasn't that long ago dude. 69 years since it started, 63 since it ended. Hell my Grandpa fought in WW2 in the Gilbter Island raids as part of the 2nd Marine Raider Battalion. But thats a discussion for another thread.

I know, my grandfather traveled Europe, from England to France to Germany from 1942-45 in three different Shermans (kept blowing up), and I heard it wasn't what they promised in the brochure.

I know, my grandfather traveled Europe, from England to France to Germany from 1942-45 in three different Shermans (kept blowing up), and I heard it wasn't what they promised in the brochure.

The Views on warfare haven't really changed much since is what i meant.