The rest of part of the beginning of the story

From Big Swede, a man who apparently stops reading when he is a the point where he can clip and paste:

“Long live the Cuban Revolution. Long live comrade Fidel Castro… Cuban internationalists have done so much for African independence, freedom, and justice. We admire the sacrifices of the Cuban people in maintaining their independence and sovereignty in the face of a vicious imperialist campaign designed to destroy the advances of the Cuban revolution. We too want to control our destiny… There can be no surrender. It is a case of freedom or death. The Cuban revolution has been a source of inspiration to all freedom-loving people.”
— Nelson Mandela

He has no idea why Mandela praised the Cuban leadership. I do. Most of my readers do. That’s what separates us.

30 thoughts on “The rest of part of the beginning of the story”

    1. Close by Gitmo.

      “One of Fidel’s main installations was at Boniato, a stone’s throw from Guanatanamo at Santiago de Cuba. In fact, this prison was where Fidel tried out his latest and most heinous psychological torments on political prisoners. It was the place the Cuban state police tuned up their methods. Castro was a big fan of the East German state police, and he was always interested in trying out their sick innovations. Yet none of this is mentioned when commentators are showing how the so-called “gulag” at Guantanamo is nothing remotely like the Soviet gulag: only Russia is being mentioned.
      Fidel’s prison concentration camps had three main locations: Isla de Pinos, La Cabana in Havana, and the aforementioned Boniata near Santiago de Cuba. It absolutely was a gulag, and Castro’s prison system still treats political prisoners in ways that he never wants Amnesty International to get a close-hand look at.” -Bob Strauss

      Like

      Reply

      1. Bullshit. The key is that Castro was a “fan” of the. East German police state. That’s a contradiction. East Germany was a shithole because it was a colony of Russia, it’s resources drained, just as Cuba was a colony of the US, it’s resources drained. Ergo, Castro was not a fucking “fan.”

        The guy is just making shit up while you eat it up. Read, sometime. Try a whole book.

        Like

        Reply

        1. Didn’t have time to read the whole book. Googled this up tho.

          according to Cuban intelligence defector Juan Vives, who from hands-on experience reports that the Cuba Council of Churches is in fact an arm of Cuba’s ICAP (Instituto Cubano de Amistad con los Pueblos), itself an arm of Cuba’s DGI, Cuba’s secret police, founded and mentored by the KGB and East German STASI.

          Like

          Reply

          1. Here’s the deal, Swede: Castro was not a committed ideologue or a communist. Ideology plays very little role in world affairs. He lived in a place run by a dictator that had secret police, and where most of the banking business, importing, oil refining, sugar production and the best land was owned by American corporations. Battista was a criminal, thug, terrorist, fascist, and American tool.

            His revolution succeeded because of that – popular support to get rid of the American crony and all of the terror, indignity, poverty and slavery that went with it.. As soon as that happened, the Americans embargoed oil supplies to shut down the economy. The Soviets stepped in to save them by supplying oil, and for their own reasons. They were not saints.

            Castro’s biggest fear was an American invasion, and the Bay of Pigs, which was a trip wire designed to force JFK to send in planes and marines, failed, one of many reasons for his assassination by your patriots. But another invasion was as certain as the sunrise, so Castro turned to the Soviets for that reason too.

            The Soviets at that time had developed nuclear bomb technology, but their bombs were big and could not be carried far by existing rockets. In the meantime, the Americans had developed small tactical bombs that could be delivered by various means, including submarine es off Soviet shores, so that the Soviets were surrounded. They had no interest in an outpost like Cuba other than its strategic positioning. They wanted to place the US in the same situation as they were in. Castro was not even consulted during the missile crisis, and he was furious about that.

            Castro is no saint, but the American corporations and other mobsters that owned the banks, casinos, plantations, land and resources are ruthless bastards too, and wanted Castro dead. They wanted their colony back. They immediately set out to murder Castro, overthrow the new government, and to infiltrate the island, engaging in terrorism and subversion, trying to recruit agents in the military to form a coup, the usual US bullshit.

            In that situation, Castro survived by fighting fire with fire. If there are infiltrators and agents, they have to be found and arrested, even murdered. Plots have to be discovered and people arrested and imprisoned. That’s the only way someone who defies American terrorism survives – to be smart, crafty and ruthless.

            Because of the power of the American propaganda system, stupid people like you know only of Castro’s activities, nothing else. He is painted as a bad guy when he is only a survivor, someone smart enough to play the big guns agains one another, and to root out the infiltrators, terrorists and deport them, imprison them, string them up or garrot them in their sleep. Americans probably admire that about him – he can be as ruthless as our own people.

            Now go google yourself. Or read a whole book. You’re so ignorant that you are both funny and infuriating.

            Like

            Reply

            1. Ya lost me at the “terror, indignity, poverty, and slavery”.

              Terror certainly hasn’t gone away with 1000’s of political prisoners, meaning of course there’s restrictions on speech.

              I can’t imagine more indignity than to be constantly monitored.

              Poverty and slavery go hand in hand with a $20 max monthly salary.

              But please Mark being ignorant I want to learn. Tell me about Cuba oppression in the 50’s compared to today.

              Like

              Reply

              1. And your first sentence is a lie. From Wiki.

                “Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz (born 13 August 1926) was the leader of Cuba from 1959, when, leading the 26th of July Movement, he helped overthrow the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista turning Cuba into the first socialist state in the Western Hemisphere until his resignation in February of 2008. He held the title of premier until 1976, when he became president of the Council of State and the Council of Ministers. He has been the First Secretary of the Communist Party of Cuba since its inception in 1965.”

                Like

                Reply

                1. You know, if Cuba had been left alone to develop after the revolution, it might have become a socialist state along the lines of France or Sweden, healthy and wealthy. But you’ve got this American propaganda from the 50’s-70’s that Russian communism and socialist are interchangeable, one the latter leading to the former.

                  Socialism works. It’s more an organizational structure than an ideology, allowing government to do what it does best and the private sector the same. But in 1959 Cuba was a corrupt resource colony run by a fascist. The US liked it that way, and attacked it when it tried to go its own way.

                  Why the fuck am I arguing with you?

                  Like

                  Reply

                  1. Because your so smart and I want so desperately to learn.

                    The “left alone” part. Didn’t we leave them alone after the Missile Crisis thingey?

                    Like

                    Reply

                    2. The “embargo” part.

                      You mean the socialist paradise of Cuba needed the help of the capitalistic US?

                      Like

                    3. Two one-word answers for you here:

                      1): Is the embargo legal or illegal under international law? __ __ __ __ __ __ __.

                      2): Is it enforced? __ __ __.

                      Bonus question of you’ve done any thinking beyond Conservopedia on this matter: Are perpetual treaties legal? In other words, for example, say a country is occupied by American troops, and then with a gun held to its head, forced to ratify a constitution written by the Americans. Can future regimes be bound by it? I am referring here, of course, to a certain torture facility on the island of Cuba, its name __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __.

                      Like

                    5. Was stealing from American companies against International Law? Was the murder of farmers and their children against IL? Sending 10,000 fighters to Angola? Hold and torturing political prisoners since the 60’s? Confining subjects to the confines of the island?

                      Give the F’ing money/property back and we’ll lift the embargo.

                      His stunning and sometimes brutal expropriation campaign seized homes, businesses, farms and factories from tens of thousands of Cubans and scores of U.S. corporations, assets whose combined worth was $9 billion in 1960 and perhaps more than $50 billion today. (It was, in fact, the single biggest grab of U.S.-owned property in history.) When Fidel offered little if any restitution, the U.S. retaliated with an economic embargo against Cuba in 1962, which remains in place today.

                      Read more: Cuba After Castro: Can Exiles Reclaim Their Stake? – TIME http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1223316,00.html#ixzz2n1FgJXOU

                      Like

                    6. Expropriation is indeed legal, with fair value required, offered by the Cubans, refused by the American companies, who wanted their island back.

                      Sending fighters to Angola was legal as well, since the actions against Angola by South Africa were illegal aggression.

                      You every comment is a new revelation of your ignorance.

                      Like

                  2. Please provide proof of “reasonable offer” and I’ll concede that point.

                    But you ignore the others. Was it right to kill dissents to the cause? Is it right to torture/hold indefinitely political prisoners? Is it right to deny access to the Red Cross and Amnesty International to visit prisons?

                    But the real question is about your beliefs. Does Castro have the right to kill subjects and steal from companies? Did his cause justify the means?

                    Like

                    Reply

                    1. You’ll have to look at the newest post above, which would not have happened without your link-farts. Your second paragraph perhaps the most un-self-aware thing I’ve ever encountered. Good grief! The US, as LBJ noted after taking office, was running “a damned Murder Inc. in the Caribbean.”

                      Regarding nationalization and fair compensation, it’s never satisfactory to anyone, but the right to do so is there. Whether or not the American oligarchs got what they had coming (clever double-entente, no?), I frankly don’t give a fuck. Justice has to be a two way street, and sometimes looters don’t get to keep their loot.

                      Like

              2. Goddamned it’s so pointless with you being so impenetrable. Go back and read what I wrote, 7:30 AM, perhaps for the first time. And when dealing with you, it is always with a person who knows nothing and runs around Googling to fill in the immense void when presented with news or concepts that trouble you.

                Like

                Reply

    1. Nelson originally wanted to turn SA into a Cuba or a Russia like this author states or my linked picture portrays. Totalitarian control was the goal regardless of Angola.

      “There’s no excuse for arbitrarily targeting civilians – and no justification either. Mandela was a communist terrorist who would have turned South Africa into a totalitarian state similar to Cuba or the Soviet Union. He and the groups he founded killed innocent bystanders (blacks and whites) in their political endgame where “the end justifies means.” Real freedom fighters meet their enemies on a field of battle, not by cowardly rolling grenades into a crowded cafe where women and children are enjoying ice cream then justify their actions with cries of persecution.
      The idea that mandela could have committed genocide against whites after his release is laughable to anyone who understands the circumstances of mandela s release and South Africa. The SAS never lost a single battle to the ANC – had black leadership attempted to kill whites by “the hundreds or thousands” world opinion would have turned against mandela and the ANC – and world opinion was their most vital weapon against apartheid. Militarily, large swaths of the SAS would have put a quick end to any organized attempt by mandela or the ANC to commit genocide.
      In the end, mandela became a source for reconciliation and we should all be grateful for that – my cyclical side does wonder if that had been the case if his release had occurred in the mid-70s or 80s when the Soviets would have run cover – but his greatest accomplishment was his uncanny ability to play the cards he was dealt – he became a master politician manipulating circumstances and a changed world to whitewash his abhorrent past – but he’s certainly far from a great man deserving of all this sophomoric adulation.”

      Nelson was smart enough to realize that in the end incredimail socialism wins.

      Like

      Reply

  5. If there are infiltrators and agents, they have to be found and arrested, even murdered. Plots have to be discovered and people arrested and imprisoned. That’s the only way someone who defies American terrorism survives – to be smart, crafty and ruthless.

    So…permission to misbehave granted.

    Why doesn’t Cuba have some public trials, present evidence, and name all these conspirators and their handlers? Better to keep things vague. The narrative is more important than the truth.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Same reason the Americans don’t. Your American exceptionalism is showing again. You have it built into your subconscious that Americans don’t misbehave. Only enemies of America do. That is the barrier that prevents you from seeing even blatantly obvious American misconduct, such as 9/11.
      ____________
      PS: All very funny – in your mind, the US sending in terrorists, agents provcateur, agents and infiltrators, is apparently not “misbehaving.”

      You’re a piece of work!

      Like

      Reply

    2. Thank you for the compliment.

      You are telling us other countries are exceptional, and America is a piece of shit, so in service to the grand justice of it all I figured you and them would tell us the names of all the secret agent men who are bribing, threatening, and cajoling the third world into shit-hole status. But apparently these secret agent men are so good they can run around making third worlders turn into criminals and corrupt civil servants against the third worlders better nature, and no one can ever point them out.

      You are telling us that your favorite countries have invisible enemies that can’t be discovered.

      Like

      Reply

      1. That is your view form the viewpoint of the American exceptionalist – that it is black/white, that Americans are the good guys, everyone else bad. If I introduce evidence that Americans are bad guys too, in your mind I am saying that it means that everyone else is the good guy.

        That’s your internal framing, nothing more.

        Like

        Reply

      2. You tell us, over and over again, that other countries are superior to us: they have better elections; they have better news sources; they have better health care; they know more than us; etc., and that they would all be happy Scandinavian type socialist countries except for clandestine US interference.

        There is plenty to be critical about in the US, and I’ve agreed with many of your observations. That doesn’t mean other countries are better in those areas, or that their problems stem solely from US intervention.

        Like

        Reply

        1. This again is your mindset, your problem. You only deal in extremes. If the US is a malevolent force on the planet, then I must think all other countries are forces for good. I happen to live in the US. Our defects – defective constitution, lousy news media, lousy health care system, corrupt political system, hidden forces in government, are very serious problems. I write about those things. I do not write about the good things – the Interstate system, the postal service, the abundance of consumer products, great craft breweries, amazing choices of cheeses and breads, baseball … these are not problems.

          Like

          Reply

Leave a comment