Fidel Castro dies
SharGuidesMyHand
Member Posts: 2,582
in Off-Topic
Whatever your thoughts on him, this marks the end of an era.
6
Comments
There goes one of the most dedicated speakers ever.
Many of the same people who spent the last few months hyping themselves into increasingly hysterical phantasms of Trump being a dictator, are now busy commemorating and romanticizing an actual, murderous, military dictator.
Thousands of people executed by firing squad, tortured, or starved to death in concentration camps, for criticizing the regime or being suspected of supporting its democratic opposition.
Thousands of homosexuals imprisoned for the crime of being "deviants".
Millions of people driven into exile (tens of thousands of them dying during their attempt to get out).
Forced labor, forced displacement, confiscation of property, strangling of the economy.
That's a socialist hero for you.
Good riddance.
Canadian PM Justin Trudeau's statement is particularly disgraceful...
"longest serving President" — The word you're looking for, is 'dictator'.
"Mr. Castro made significant improvements to the education and healthcare" — no he didn't (The Myth of Cuban Health Care).
"While a controversial figure, ..." — Glad to see that he's being mocked on twitter for that euphemism (#trudeaueulogies).
"On behalf of all Canadians [...] We join [...] in mourning the loss of this remarkable leader" — Glad I'm not Canadian, or else I'd have to throw up right about now.
President Obama's statement manages to be diplomatic without actually praising the late tyrant. I think it's reasonably appropriate for the occasion.
President-elect Trump's statement isn't diplomatic, but I think it's still appropriate, just a different approach than Obama.
Like father like son.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-castro-special-relationship-1.3845742
As I said there, perhaps we can now finish normalizing relations with Cuba, which was one of the things for which I praised Mr. Obama. Raul still needs to leave, as do any remaining loyalists to the Castro brothers, so that free elections may be held.
On a tangentially-related note, real estate speculators have been buying property in the Havana area in anticipation of the economy opening up and booming again.
Sure, its a special interest, but it is one completely in line with everything our country claims to stand for.
It's not him that's the problem as much as the people who supported him to give him his power.
Those people are still there.
It remains to be seen if we will even notice that he is dead.
There are some signs that things may be slowly changing for the better though, like small private businesses popping up.
But these days the obituary of many famous ppl makes me wonder what these days young ppl think about it and do they even know who the castro is. Maybe it is good time to read about him, before i complete forgot about him.
The bulk of them is completely infatuated with the dictator, and the occasional comment that goes against the stream and brings up the human rights abuses, is immediately pummeled with whataboutery and the same old litany of the alleged healthcare and education paradise (which, again, is a myth).
The articles themselves are not much better, just more professional at romanticizing and downplaying the regime's evils.
PS: Oh, and Amnesty International calls him a "progressive leader". But I guess that's to be expected from a once respectable human rights NGO that over the decades went completely off the (far-left) deep end now focuses on demonizing the US and Israel by any means, with such gems as calling Hamas terrorist who were personally involved in terror attacks and lawfully convicted for it, "political prisoners".
He also has a habit of praising controversial world leaders in public such as China.
If you want an idea of what somebody really thinks about Fidel Castro, you'd focus on their statements before he died, not directly after.
Think about Obama's comments on the late Antonin Scalia. Obama praised the guy after his death. Does that mean Obama's true opinion of Scalia was positive? No.
Think about people's comments on the late Fidel Castro. Some folks praised the guy after his death. Does that mean their true opinion of Castro was positive? No.
So here in the UK, many of those who are currently heaping opprobrium on those who are speaking positively about Castro and the Castro regime's record in Cuba were quick defend Margaret Thatcher when she spoke positively about Pinochet and his regime's record in Chile. Double standards!
And of course, while we in the UK condemn the alleged human rights abuses in some countries (that happen to be our political and diplomatic opponents), we conveniently overlook the alleged human rights abuses in other countries (that happen to be our political and diplomatic friends and allies).
And while we steadfastly pursue our national interest (and tells ourselves we are being moral in the process), we end up in a terrible pickle because of the contradictions this brings up.
So some of us condemn the Castro Regime, and the Castro regime previously aided the ANC and Mandela in their fight against apartheid, and we (in the UK) called the ANC and Mandela terrorists and didn't help them, and because Castro helped the ANC Mandela hailed him as a friend and spoke of his admiration for the Cuban regime, but now we fete Mandela as a global hero and statesman and conveniently forget we didn't help him and his people in their fight against apartheid, and we condemn Castro, who did.
I think we all have a political outlook (whether we recognise it as political or not), and I think all countries have a national interest they pursue, which often doesn't have very much to do with whats good and right.
America is number 50 out of 55 countries that were assessed
Cuba is number 37 out of 55 countries that were assessed
Trudeau and others went beyond, heaping praise on a person who murdered thousands. Even worse, media outlets like the New York Times don't have diplomatic obligations, yet still showed their true colors. People have been complaining about "fake news" being spread lately, but the New York Times wrote that "Fidel Castro was seen as a ruthless despot by some and hailed as a revolutionary hero by others." No... Castro was a ruthless despot, and hailed by some as a revolutionary leader. His despotism and ruthlessness are not opinions open for debate, but have been evidenced by his anti-democratic policies and the thousands of deaths he has ordered. Trust me, if Trump outlawed "acts of public destruction" (meaning criticism of the ruler's philosophy) I doubt the New York Times's description would be as hazy.
The reaction I find the most comical is Jill Stein's. She heaps praise on Castro as a symbol, but I wonder how many recounts she will demand for Cuban elections.