Fidel Castro Dead

FrzGT
Wrong. Ever see any internet access in North Korea? Ever see Cuban people actually worshipping their leaders like in North Korea? Hell, just see any of documentaries, even unbiased ones, and you can easily see whats wrong with the NK, far more than Cuba ever "dream" of.

Take account that Fidel approves ties back to US, which means atleast Cuba actually seeking progress, possibly realizes past regime wrongdoings. We'll later see if the inheritance government of Castro is retracted and back into, at least, Chinese-like communism. Not the best and far from actual democracy, but its a start for multiple steps.
Click to expand...

I see a lot of words, but I can't make anything of it. The part I do understand is that apparently time does blur out atrocities.
 
Touring Mars
I'd go a step further and say that 'trying' is not enough - if it is not civil and/or breaches the AUP, it will be removed.
Click to expand...
I referred to the comparison as insane, not the poster. His decision to take it as "insult" is his own, much like his decision to think, "Hey Castro wasn't that bad a guy".

I won't entertain the argument any further.
 
McLaren
I referred to the comparison as insane, not the poster. His decision to take it as "insult" is his own, much like his decision to think, "Hey Castro wasn't that bad a guy".

I won't entertain the argument any further.
Click to expand...
👍 Although I quoted something that was a reply to your comment, my comment about keeping this discussion civil was not specifically addressed to you, so apologies for any misunderstanding.
 
Touring Mars
👍 Although I quoted something that was a reply to your comment, my comment about keeping this discussion civil was not specifically addressed to you, so apologies for any misunderstanding.
Click to expand...
No worries. I was afraid my post may have come off as attacking you, so apologies on my end as well. :)
 
Touring Mars
I'd go a step further and say that 'trying' is not enough - if it is not civil and/or breaches the AUP, it will be removed.
Click to expand...

So you can be passive aggressive but you can't be called out on your BS emphatically.

The stupidity in here is a personal attack on the victims of Communism.
 
Omnis
you can't be called out on your BS emphatically.
Click to expand...
Of course you can - but just as with any post on these forums, it has to be within the bounds of the AUP. It is perfectly possible to be as emphatic as you want or need to be without resorting to the kind of language and/or behaviour that is explicitly prohibited by the AUP, and it is only fair that you and I abide by the same rules of conduct as is required by everyone else.
 
One of the plus points of democracy: People can get rid of their leaders without bloodshed or waiting until they die. There aren't many occasions throughout history when oppressive regimes were replaced by free governments: The Spanish Transition after Franco's death comes to mind... let's see what the future brings for Cuba.
 
Dennisch
@Imari

That bit was about you, and others, thinking that those who are (somewhat) happy that this dictator is dead are saying that because he was a commie, he successfully opposed the US, and what not, but all of them were talking about his crime record.

He was a ruthless dictator. I posted his killstreak a couple of pages back. And that seems to be a hard point to grasp for some.

And yes, you are right about the leaders of the "civilized" world. Pretty much all of them have blood of the innocents on their hands too. But that's not the topic of the thread. This is about Fidel.
Click to expand...

It seems to be a hard point to grasp for some that his kill streak is not particularly distinctive in a modern world. And yes, there are people in the last few pages that have gone pretty hard on the communist angle, and I would say it's highly likely that their perceptions are altered by a lot of the information that they've been presented about Castro and Cuba in the past being from US sources that have an obvious bias towards presenting the story in a certain way. He has a crime record, but when stripped of emotional language it's not actually that different from what goes on in many "normal" countries today.

Castro was a ruthless dictator. At the start of his reign, that was infinitely preferable to what came before him. Batista was a nightmare. If you asked Cubans what they'd prefer in 1959 I suspect a lot of them would say that they were far happier with Castro than with Batista.

As time went on, Castro needed to step down and let his country transition into a "normal" government, whatever the people wanted that to be. He didn't, and he hung on with military might. That was and is wrong, as it is in all the other countries that maintain their ruling power through force of arms, but I think that there's a reasonable argument to be made that Cuba would be even worse off today had it stayed under Batista and let him run it into the ground. But we'll never know for sure.

He was not a chosen leader, he was simply a man of action in the right place at the right time, and long term that's not the right person to lead a country. I understand that he did a lot of bad things, very bad things. But on balance with what seems to be deemed acceptable for world leaders, I don't find that to be as large of a negative as some and I think that his significant positive actions make him a figure at least not worthy of being reviled, even though he's certainly not worthy of being praised.

He is in no way on the same scale as Mao, who it would have been better for all concerned if he had been hit by a bus as a child.

Omnis
So you can be passive aggressive but you can't be called out on your BS emphatically.

The stupidity in here is a personal attack on the victims of Communism.
Click to expand...

Isn't it interesting that it's impossible to have a discussion about someone who is a Communist without the discussion becoming about Communism?

Any faults in here might be disrespectful to the victims of Castro, but they have nothing to do with Communism. And they're certainly not personal attacks, as much as you might like to paint them as such.

If I can find enough empathy not to vilify Castro in death, how can you think that I wouldn't feel even more strongly for people whose only crime was to be Cuban and care about their country? The two aren't mutually exclusive.
 
Omnis
@Touring Mars, can you un-delete the pertinent part of my post explaining the situation to this child? I don't know how else to post a reply without explaining why this kind of thinking deserves such a strong reaction. That's what I thought I did, anyway. Only if it were an audience of small children would I apologize for my "enthusiasm".
Click to expand...

Can we PLEASE have a civil discussion without referring to me as a child, or an idiot, or insane? It's getting old.

You can think of me what you like, but let's at least pretend that we're adults capable of having a polite conversation without resorting to name calling even though we might disagree.
 
Omnis
...civil?...your position is such a horrible affront to everyone that survived.
Click to expand...

You could surely say that about "survivors" of military, political or cultural interventions by many individuals or commanders.

As emotive as primary sources are that doesn't mean that no civil, sensible secondary discussion can be had on wider positions.
 
But this thread isn't about them. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been brought up a few times as a reference point for why Castro could be considered a small fish, but I think it (for example) is a fairly meaningless comparison because people for certain will be tap dancing on Bush's grave when he dies as well.


And, if I was to be frank, it would probably be a large portion of the "people" (used as a broad collective term) who are so outspoken in how maybe Castro wasn't such a bad guy after all. Like, if I went to a Huffington Post comment section I wouldn't be surprised; survivors or not.
 
Last edited:
Omnis
I cannot have a polite conversation...
Click to expand...
Then your part in this discussion is over.

I can't be much clearer than saying that posts that contravene the AUP will be removed. Name-calling and personal attacks contravene the AUP, therefore your posts have been removed.

As for editing your posts to make them AUP-friendly, sorry, but that is not anyone else's job but your own - either make your posts acceptable within the same rules as everyone else observes or don't post them.
 
Tornado
And, if I was to be frank, it would probably be a large portion of the "people" (used as a broad collective term) who are so outspoken in how maybe Castro wasn't such a bad guy after all.
Click to expand...

Honestly, my opinion on Bush at the moment is to also give him the benefit of the doubt that he thought that what he was doing was ultimately for the good of the US. It doesn't mean that it wasn't an atrocity, and he's fundamentally responsible for a lot of people on both sides of the war.

I think he's somewhere between a misguided, charismatic but not that bright president who does what he feels he needs to in order to protect his country, and an evil genius who played everyone for chumps with superb acting and full knowledge of the political war he was getting into with no regard for the consequences. But with evidence pointing both ways, I'm willing to grant him the benefit of the doubt.

His term was shorter, so he doesn't have the same hero to villian arc that Castro had, but there are certainly some similarities to be identified.
 
To add a layer, then another layer to the thought process, and possible self-interrogations - I think it would be fair to say that this thread included some celebratory and "spit on the grave of" vibes. "Another layer"? The way that the WBC celebrates the deaths of gay people and their "enablers", and military personnel.

As far as I know, Fred Phelps and the WBC never endorsed the doing of harm to others, but did rejoice when harm came to certain people. I think it's worth making a comparison between Castro, Phelps, and "gays and soldiers" in our minds to see if we have conflicting rationales. I did start to wonder if it could be said that I rejoice(d) in my father's death, but I'm quite sure that I merely rejoice in not having to deal with him any more. But for the occasional reminder of his former existence, he'd be completely disregarded. The irreverent manner in which I sometimes express myself, when faced with a reminder, threw me a bit.

So, did Fred Phelps actually breach anyone else's rights? Is hating his thoughts and advertising enough to put him in the category of having his death celebrated? I'd surmise that I'm in the "don't celebrate any death (or torture, for that matter)" camp. Fortunately that means that I don't have to draw a line at all anywhere between, or outside of, the Castro, Phelps, "hated by God" array. I'm interested to learn how others would validate a line that sits somewhere between the view I hold, and the view that any death can be celebrated, extremes.
 
LeMansAid
To add a layer, then another layer to the thought process, and possible self-interrogations - I think it would be fair to say that this thread included some celebratory and "spit on the grave of" vibes. "Another layer"? The way that the WBC celebrates the deaths of gay people and their "enablers", and military personnel.

As far as I know, Fred Phelps and the WBC never endorsed the doing of harm to others, but did rejoice when harm came to certain people. I think it's worth making a comparison between Castro, Phelps, and "gays and soldiers" in our minds to see if we have conflicting rationales. I did start to wonder if it could be said that I rejoice(d) in my father's death, but I'm quite sure that I merely rejoice in not having to deal with him any more. But for the occasional reminder of his former existence, he'd be completely disregarded. The irreverent manner in which I sometimes express myself, when faced with a reminder, threw me a bit.

So, did Fred Phelps actually breach anyone else's rights? Is hating his thoughts and advertising enough to put him in the category of having his death celebrated? I'd surmise that I'm in the "don't celebrate any death (or torture, for that matter)" camp. Fortunately that means that I don't have to draw a line at all anywhere between, or outside of, the Castro, Phelps, "hated by God" array. I'm interested to learn how others would validate a line that sits somewhere between the view I hold, and the view that any death can be celebrated, extremes.
Click to expand...
Excellent point. Castro kills thousands, almost starts a nuclear war, funds and gives aid to Commie rebels and terrorists around the globe killing hundreds and thousands of people, thousands die trying to get out of the country and yet many in the media, various special interest groups and here, can find a way to balance his legacy. WBC leader dies, who's never killed anyone, and he's virtually the devil in human form and everyone appears to enjoy piling on, except of a couple of lonely voices calling for us to rise above, not to balance out his legacy as with the murderous tyrant Castro, but because it makes us no better than him and we shouldn't stoop that low. The irony is incredible.
 
Johnnypenso
almost starts a nuclear war
Click to expand...
Excuse me, do you seriously think that Cuban Missile Crisis was Castro's fault?

When US deployed their nukes in Turkey, near the Soviet borders, the USSR did not start a sea blockade of Turkey. Did not threaten to invade Turkey. Did not try to assasinate the Turkish leader. Instead, the Soviets performed a symmetrical action - to do the same in their friendly country close to US. But when USSR did this, playing by the same rules, the land of freedom suddenly went nuts.

gives aid to Commie rebels and terrorists around the globe
Click to expand...
Remove "Commie" from here and you'll have exactly what the US are doing nowadays. I don't think it matters much whether it's commie, Islamic or else.

P.S. Like I already said, I'm not a communist, I just hate double standards.
 
Last edited:
Rage Racer
I just hate double standards.
Click to expand...
Ah, but we here in the USA actually like double standards (only a fool would play fair if he didn't have to)! Remember, we are exceptional, when we do it that makes it right, and our fecal matter has no odor. :rolleyes:
 
Is there any communist leader in the world that has ever been praised or respected by America and it's media outlets?

Where their crimes, many of which barely scratch the surfsce of some atrocities America has performed on its own, haven't been blown way out of proportion?

Where their accomplishments haven't been largely ignored in the interest of painting a picture where communism always equals pure evil?
 
Peter.
Is there any communist leader in the world that has ever been praised or respected by America and it's media outlets?

Where their crimes, many of which barely scratch the surfsce of some atrocities America has performed on its own, haven't been blown way out of proportion?

Where their accomplishments haven't been largely ignored in the interest of painting a picture where communism always equals pure evil?
Click to expand...
I was raised in the McCarthy era, when communism was universally despised and banned as a subject fit for polite conversation.

The only "good" commie, other than a dead one, was Gorbachev, IRRC. Well, there was also Boris Spassky, who was regarded as at least sane and urbane, as opposed to his American opponent, Bobby Fischer.
 
Liquid
Nelson Mandela.

It depends how you interpret his obvious communist sympathies.
Click to expand...
You could say that but it wasn't exactly common knowledge in the West that he had such a history and ideologies. Perhaps he wouldn't have received the support he did if that was well known or even considered an issue compared to the big bad Apartheid.

Even if it was known, the bigger issue was always Apartheid, and the media was always going to paint the picture of a hero standing against oppression, rather than a communist South African terrorist. Osama was a hero in the papers when he was a headache to the Soviets.
 

Latest Posts

Back