Talk:Fidel Castro

From Conservapedia

I’ve heard Castro called many things, but terrorist is not one of them, can someone explain why he is listed as a terrorist? Also could the information justifying that categorization be added to his page?--Reginod 14:33, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

4. We do not attempt to be neutral to all points of view. We are neutral to the facts. If a group is a terrorist group, then the label "terrorist" is used here but not on Wikipedia. (See Differences_with_Wikipedia)

see Terrorism for a description of a terroist. Castro certainly was one.

BillyBoy 14:41, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

It seems it depends on which of those definitions you are using as to whether or not Castro can be called a terrorist. If you are using the first definition, you can’t call him a terrorist (to the best of my knowledge) as the editorial policy here is (or seems to be) that we don’t say people (or possibly just living people) are guilty of doing something illegally (or, one assumes, unlawfully) unless they have been convicted of doing so. The second definition also probably doesn’t apply as Castro overpowered Batista with force not fear. The third definition (the one implicit in the discussion of Terrorism) may apply to Castro but I’d want to see evidence that he actually used “terror” to achieve his end—violence and intimidation clearly were used, but I’m less sure about terror (and if one part of a conjunction is false the whole of it is, so without some evidence that he used terror to achieve his end, you can’t call him a terrorist).--Reginod 15:19, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Castro couldn't have been convicted of being a terrorist because he terrorized the legal authority that could have convicted him out of existence.

BillyBoy 15:26, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

That does seem to be a problem with the editorial policy (though I would say he used violence rather than terror to end the previous Cuban government), but I don’t make the policy (I’ve even argued against it). I’m just telling you what I gather the policy is. --Reginod 15:29, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

"the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."

By that definition Batista was a terrorist with his coup in 1934, just as Castro is, or George Washington for that matter...

It's all about the word "unlawful", which generally doesn't have the same meaning in different times and countries.

Middle Man

DIctator/President

Interesting to note that Castro "has been the dictator of Cuba since 1959 and has called himself the President of Cuba since 1976," whereas Pervez Musharraf "became President of Pakistan, via a coup" (emphasis mine). What in essence is the difference? Humblpi 12:46, 19 February 2008 (EST)

For a dictator, he certainly relinquished power without much of a struggle. Rugxulo 18:53, 16 March 2008 (EDT)