• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cuba officially off U.S. terror blacklist

A bunch of ****. Obama won't ask Cuba to give up it's oppressive ways. He wants a deal....any deal so he can salvage his disasterous legacy.

Normalizing relations with Cuba will salvage his legacy, hmm. ;)
 
Lol. Well isn't that convenient. The U.S. Doesn't "recognize" any of its shortcomings, nor the authority of the ICC. Nor the authority of the UN if it conflicts with US policy. Why'd you quote websters definition of terror only to ignore it?

State terrorism refers to acts of terrorism conducted by a state against a foreign state or people, or against its own people.

State terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

it's not about only the US... State terrorism doesn't legally apply to any state on the planet.
not only do we(the US) not acknowledge out own actions as terrorism, we don't acknowledge any state actions as terrorism.

you posted the wiki link... now read the whole thing... it give a basic understanding.
 
it's not about only the US... State terrorism doesn't legally apply to any state on the planet.
not only do we(the US) not acknowledge out own actions as terrorism, we don't acknowledge any state actions as terrorism.

you posted the wiki link... now read the whole thing... it give a basic understanding.

I never said it was only about the U.S. And I'm saying that as a matter of convenience, not recognizing your own terrorism as terrorism is ridiculous. That doesn't mean it isn't. No wonder you wingers think the U.S. has never committed terrorism, just deny it and poof, it goes away.

The Encyclopædia Britannica Online defines terrorism generally as "the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective", and states that "terrorism is not legally defined in all jurisdictions." The encyclopedia adds that "[e]stablishment terrorism, often called state or state-sponsored terrorism, is employed by governments -- or more often by factions within governments -- against that government's citizens, against factions within the government, or against foreign governments or groups."[2]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_terrorism
 
Last edited:
Normalizing relations with Cuba will salvage his legacy, hmm. ;)

probably not, as he only normalizing diplomatic relations...

every other policy is still intact.. even the travel ban... and will likely remain intact for the foreseeable future.
there's only so much Obama can do on his own.. and he's pretty much exhausted that list.
 
I never said it was only about the U.S. And I'm saying that as a matter of convenience, not recognizing your own terrorism as terrorism is ridiculous. That doesn't mean it isn't. No wonder you wingers think the U.S. has never committed terrorism, just deny it and poof, it goes away.

The Encyclopædia Britannica Online defines terrorism generally as "the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective", and states that "terrorism is not legally defined in all jurisdictions." The encyclopedia adds that "[e]stablishment terrorism, often called state or state-sponsored terrorism, is employed by governments -- or more often by factions within governments -- against that government's citizens, against factions within the government, or against foreign governments or groups."[2]

State terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think it's cute you calling me a "winger"... as if your ignorance actually means anything.

I've said my piece on the subject... it's not my fault you have a problem with state terrorism not being recognized by any country or authority on the planet... that's just something you'll have to work through on your own time.
 
probably not, as he only normalizing diplomatic relations...

every other policy is still intact.. even the travel ban... and will likely remain intact for the foreseeable future.
there's only so much Obama can do on his own.. and he's pretty much exhausted that list.

So what's the big brew ha ha?
 
I think it's cute you calling me a "winger"... as if your ignorance actually means anything.

I've said my piece on the subject... it's not my fault you have a problem with state terrorism not being recognized by any country or authority on the planet... that's just something you'll have to work through on your own time.

Cute or not, it's something you'll have to bear. Ha, you haven't proven anything, I'm the one posting the citations, you....opinion, so yeah, you've had your say.
 
Cute or not, it's something you'll have to bear. Ha, you haven't proven anything, I'm the one posting the citations, you....opinion, so yeah, you've had your say.

why would i have to "bear" your false assertion?...your lies carry no burden for me to bear.

again, asking me to prove a negative is bad form.. I can't prove something doesn't exist....
it is simple fact that State Terrorism is not legally recognized domestically or internationally by anyone.... period.

this is a very easy concept to grasp...and you're not a dumb guy....you'll eventually understand.
 
So what's the big brew ha ha?

it's mostly blown out of proportion on both sides....so it's more of a brewha rather than a big brewhahaha.

any change of substance has to go through Congress.... which we both know won't happen anytime soon....(there are lots of Democrats who don't even want to give up our policies.)

so in all reality, this is more political symbolism than anything else.... unfortunately, the symbol we are giving is a pat on the back to the Castro regime.

as for my personal opinion... i'd 100% normalize relations and trader... but only with a guarantees of wide spread liberalizing of the entire country.
then again, i'm really not into validating or rewarding oppressive undemocratic corrupt regimes.

but i'm not a unreasonable guy... if I'm allowed to kill both Castro brothers, in the manner of my choosing, without fear of prosecution... i'd be much more accepting of any normalization terms.

compromise is where it's at.:cool:
 
Is China not?

That matters how? We are talking about Cuba. China is irrelevant.

Technically we "dont need anything from anyone". But I can think of a lot of benefits..

Again, irrelevant.

What have they dont in the past 20 years to the US? Other than say, "can we end the embargo now?".

Not sure what you mean, but it's irrelevant.

Liberalization of the economy, releasing prisoners, and offering assistance to us during several natural disasters and terrorist attacks
Who cares? Irrelevant.

Why? The impact of trade sounds pretty good. I thought you guys were all over "free markets" and such..
You seem to be saying that if you are for free trade, then you MUST have free trade with every nation. Is that your point, because it is ridiculous.

You must of missed the past 15+ years of reform in the country...

Oh, let's hear about it! Freedom of speech? Fair and open elections? No

We did strike. We blockade (act of war), and had CIA backed forces invade the country.

Oh, do you have any idea why?
 
That matters how? We are talking about Cuba. China is irrelevant.
No its not. Im using your reasoning and logic and applying to a country ran by a Communist Party who can also be said to have a police state. So whats the difference?


Again, irrelevant.
Again. No its not. Im using your reasoning and logic.

Not sure what you mean, but it's irrelevant.
You claimed they "are not friendly to us". So I'm simply saying, how are they not friendly? All they have done the past 20 years is sit there as a country and ask for the embargo to end.

Who cares? Irrelevant.
Well saying that the US has made this one of their primary demands, and that we usually see this as a market opening and we judge much of our trade and economic policies on liberalized and liberalizing economies.... One would cause that a change...

You seem to be saying that if you are for free trade, then you MUST have free trade with every nation. Is that your point, because it is ridiculous.
No. I am not for Free Trade. I'm simply giving reasons for openings.

Oh, let's hear about it! Freedom of speech? Fair and open elections? No
:lamo Again acting like the US gives a **** about these issues. Funny joke.

Oh, do you have any idea why?
Yea I told you literally in the post you just quoted. Re-read it.
 
why would i have to "bear" your false assertion?...your lies carry no burden for me to bear.

again, asking me to prove a negative is bad form.. I can't prove something doesn't exist....
it is simple fact that State Terrorism is not legally recognized domestically or internationally by anyone.... period.

this is a very easy concept to grasp...and you're not a dumb guy....you'll eventually understand.

I proved you wrong on that. You proved nothing.
 
No its not. Im using your reasoning and logic and applying to a country ran by a Communist Party who can also be said to have a police state. So whats the difference?

No, you are not. You are twisting it to fit your argument, and that does not work with logic. You are trying to claim that we must deal with Cuba in the same way that we deal with China. Tell me, where is that written?
But, it is a requirement to try and twist things and mislead in order to make an argument on the left.

No. I am not for Free Trade. I'm simply giving reasons for openings.

We choose how and who we trade with. I forgot, the word free does not mix well with socialism. Oppression, murder, dictatorship, that's where you are at with socialism.

Again acting like the US gives a **** about these issues. Funny joke.

It doesn't matter if we give a crap or not. What matters is what we want from Cuba, specifically, and what is in the best interests of our nation. Doesn't matter what we want from China or any other country.
 
I proved you wrong on that. You proved nothing.
:lamo

you've proven nothing of the sort...you didn't even bother to read your own Wiki link on the matter.

it's really not my fault you have little or no understanding of the qualitative and legal differences between State and Non-State actors... it really isn't.
 
:lamo

you've proven nothing of the sort...you didn't even bother to read your own Wiki link on the matter.

it's really not my fault you have little or no understanding of the qualitative and legal differences between State and Non-State actors... it really isn't.
Post something other than your opinion. Post something from my link that contradicts my link.
 
Post something other than your opinion. Post something from my link that contradicts my link.

However, others, including governments, international organizations, private institutions and scholars, believe that the term is only applicable to the actions of violent non-state actors. Historically, the term terrorism was used to refer to actions taken by governments against their own citizens whereas now it is more often perceived as targeting of non-combatants as part of a strategy directed against governments.[10]

Historian Henry Commager wrote that "Even when definitions of terrorism allow for state terrorism, state actions in this area tend to be seen through the prism of war or national self-defense, not terror.”[11] While states may accuse other states of state-sponsored terrorism when they support insurgencies, individuals who accuse their governments of terrorism are seen as radicals, because actions by legitimate governments are not generally seen as illegitimate. Academic writing tends to follow the definitions accepted by states.[12] Most states use the term "terrorism" for non-state actors only.[13]

The Chairman of the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Committee has stated that the twelve previous international conventions on terrorism had never referred to state terrorism, which was not an international legal concept, and that when states abuse their powers they should be judged against international conventions dealing with war crimes, international human rights law, and international humanitarian law, rather than against international anti-terrorism statutes.[36] In a similar vein, Kofi Annan, at the time United Nations Secretary-General, stated that it is "time to set aside debates on so-called 'state terrorism'. The use of force by states is already regulated under international law".[37]

Dr. Bruce Hoffman has argued that failing to differentiate between state and non-state violence ignores the fact that there is a “fundamental qualitative difference between the two types of violence.” Hoffman argues that even in war, there are rules and accepted norms of behavior that prohibit certain types of weapons and tactics and outlaw attacks on specific categories of targets. For instance, rules codified in the Geneva and Hague Conventions on warfare prohibit taking civilians as hostages, outlaw reprisals against either civilians or POWs, recognize neutral territory, etc. Hoffman states that “even the most cursory review of terrorist tactics and targets over the past quarter century reveals that terrorists have violated all these rules.” Hoffman also states that when states transgress these rules of war “the term “war crime” is used to describe such acts.”[39]

Walter Laqueur has stated that those who argue that state terrorism should be included in studies of terrorism ignore the fact that “The very existence of a state is based on its monopoly of power. If it were different, states would not have the right, nor be in a position, to maintain that minimum of order on which all civilized life rests.”[40] Calling the concept a “red herring” he stated: “This argument has been used by the terrorists themselves, arguing that there is no difference between their activities and those by governments and states. It has also been employed by some sympathizers, and rests on the deliberate obfuscation between all kinds of violence...”[41]

no country on earth, nor any authoritative body (UN, ICC,NATO,etc) recognizes State Terrorism as a legal doctrine whatsoever.

when speaking on States in regards to terrorism, they are seen as sponsoring or supporting... no state is EVER seen as being a terrorist group or engaging in terrorism.

the only time you even hear the term is when some radical lefty trots it out to use it in reference to the US...it's an informal usage( at best) , and most often based in the anti-Americanism so prevalent in radical lefties.
 
no country on earth, nor any authoritative body (UN, ICC,NATO,etc) recognizes State Terrorism as a legal doctrine whatsoever.

when speaking on States in regards to terrorism, they are seen as sponsoring or supporting... no state is EVER seen as being a terrorist group or engaging in terrorism.

the only time you even hear the term is when some radical lefty trots it out to use it in reference to the US...it's an informal usage( at best) , and most often based in the anti-Americanism so prevalent in radical lefties.

We've already addressed why some people would have interest in not acknowledging the ability of a state to carry out terrorism. But they have and do, and pretending that they don't is convenient, but it's stupid, and doesn't change the fact that they have.

What ridiculous thought processes, and no wonder the fringe right opposes statehood for the Palestinians. :lamo
 
We've already addressed why some people would have interest in not acknowledging the ability of a state to carry out terrorism. But they have and do, and pretending that they don't is convenient, but it's stupid, and doesn't change the fact that they have.
it's not "some people" .. it's every single county on earth and ever authoritative body.... and no, it is false to assert "they have and do"... they absolutely do not and have not.

it is accepted legal fact that terrorism is a term used for non-state actors... period, end of story...far left radical anti-american rhetoric notwithstanding.


What ridiculous thought processes, and no wonder the fringe right opposes statehood for the Palestinians. :lamo
well, I can't help it if you believe it's a "ridiculous thought process".. but your beliefs mean nothing in relation to globally accepted legal fact.

explain the relevancy of the "fringe right" or Palestinians...if you are capable.
 
it's not "some people" .. it's every single county on earth and ever authoritative body.... and no, it is false to assert "they have and do"... they absolutely do not and have not.

it is accepted legal fact that terrorism is a term used for non-state actors... period, end of story...far left radical anti-american rhetoric notwithstanding.



well, I can't help it if you believe it's a "ridiculous thought process".. but your beliefs mean nothing in relation to globally accepted legal fact.

explain the relevancy of the "fringe right" or Palestinians...if you are capable.

You've been proven wrong on this repeatedly, why do you insist on further exposure? Btw, a state that sponsors terrorism, is a state committing terrorism.

spon·sor (spŏn′sər)
n.
1. One who assumes responsibility for another person or a group during a period of instruction, apprenticeship, or probation.
2. One who vouches for the suitability of a candidate for admission, as to an organization.
3. A legislator who proposes and urges adoption of a bill.
4. Christianity One who presents a candidate for baptism or confirmation; a godparent.
5. One that finances a project, event, or organization directed by another person or group, such as a business enterprise that pays for radio or television programming in return for advertising time.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sponsor
 
Last edited:
Only in the minds of the feeble is there no such thing as "state terrorism", I provided links to the definition thereof. And, showed you that a sponsor is RESPONSIBLE for the person or group supported.
 
No, you are not. You are twisting it to fit your argument, and that does not work with logic. You are trying to claim that we must deal with Cuba in the same way that we deal with China. Tell me, where is that written?
1.) No its exactly what I'm doing. You said the reasoning for Cuba on the list is because the are a "communist police state". So is China. Why isnt China? Why do we have diplomatic relations with them? If we are using the same reasoning for Cuba should it also not apply to another state that can be described as a "communist police state" as well?
2.) Who said anything about something being "written"?
But, it is a requirement to try and twist things and mislead in order to make an argument on the left.
What?

We choose how and who we trade with.
Well no ****. Thanks for telling me the blatantly obvious.
I forgot, the word free does not mix well with socialism.
This petty political statement and reasoning have nothing to do with anything of sound reasoning or relevance to this conversation
Oppression, murder, dictatorship, that's where you are at with socialism.
Again: This petty political statement and reasoning have nothing to do with anything of sound reasoning or relevance to this conversation
It doesn't matter if we give a crap or not. What matters is what we want from Cuba, specifically, and what is in the best interests of our nation. Doesn't matter what we want from China or any other country.
So essentially your reasoning and logic for not establishing relations with Cuba is, "BECAUSE I SAY SO!"
 
Back
Top Bottom